Hey!What's up?
What are you gonna do in/on/at/during*Easter holidays?
*
I've a small problem with prepositions as you can see..
When you refer to a period of time that is longer than the event it is centred around or to one that is not a standard time unit, you should use during.
What I am going to do? Well, study (for school), study (for me), surf the web, maybe go to see granma and for a walk. Nothing special, really. I' d like to go to Heraklion one of these days (I dunno, I feel like shopping, I have already ordered some stuff from Plaisio
), but I have to... look after my little sister... Never mind... It would be difficult to find someone to go with anyway
.
i'm studying dead!!!and it's bad!!!people avoid the damn class like the plague!!!it's soul-destroying,useless+noone should never go through it!
i hate eggs!so blue -since it's the most kitsch-or green is perfect!it's just makes them justice!
GMs is so discussed a topic that the arguments are pretty much the same.for instance:"GMs r bad , 'coz' it's against the law of nature" or "GMs are fine,they r the answer to famine problems"
so i put this topic forward:
do u believe that the lifestyle we r leading 2day will eventually lead us 2 destruction.more specifically d u think that all the food we consume and all the radiation we r exposed 2,will finally take their toll on us?do u think that our genes r growing stronger or weaker?discuss!
Er... Aren' t
U being a bit
222222222222222 casual?
I mean, that "no one should never go through it" doesn' t sound nice
.
Never mind, enough with my nagging
. I can' t get myself in your shoes -as far as the ordeal of the 3rd class of Lyceum is concerned-, but I wish the best of luck. Be patient, there' s only one and a half (maybe less, I never did well with the sense of time
) months left!
Ah... Our lifestyle... I guess you refer to the lives that people in the industrialised world lead.
First of all, we have to make clear that food supply is enough for everyone in the world. More than enough. So there is absolutely no sense in talking about a danger of famine. People are not starving due to global food deficiency, but due to the selfsame lifestyle we are talking about -the economical exploitation of Third World countries is what allows us (mistake, not us, but food merchants) to buy food at low prices-. Almost all households in the West throw food away, because they buy -and cook- more than they need. OK, I don' t say that we should eat food with mold
. We could, though, make more careful projections of our nutritional needs. Not to mention that quite a lot of people often consume extreme quantities of food -let' s say, kilos of meat or lots of hamburgers/gyros pies, according, always, which country we are talking about-.
Secondly, no radiation from everyday appliances or GM food is able to exterminate the human species. Many people might have health problems, mutations could take place, but that does not mean that all those things can be a direct threat for humanity.
If we are going to be under threat by someone, that is going to be ourselves. Food companies, electronic companies... There are huge financial interests involved in the subject of our lifestyle, interests that may cause political turmoil, intense international relationships and even war -though manipulation is always preferred, owing to its relatively bloodless character-. The recent series of wars involving the USA (the Gulf War, the war against Tito, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq) are clear examples of how those interests work. If wars continue to occur, they might even lead to a nuclear disaster. Most western countries have forgotten the pain and might of war, whilst peace has given them no reason to be happy, for it is international, not sociopolitical. It wouldn' t be a surprise for many series of wars to break up. (We should destroy weapons before it is too late.)
So here comes an obvious threat that we have to deal with. And, as I am too tired to develop that huge part of this conversation, I will leave it for later, or up to you!
Oh, and as far as genes are concerned, there is no point in talking about "strong genes" or "weak genes". Whether a gene is strong or weak is dependent on the conditions around the corresponding organism. A gene for a long neck -actually, there might be or there might not be a gene for a long neck, but we are refering to such a gene in favour of simplicity- is strong in a habitat where food is only available on tall trees, it is weak, though, in one that it is also available on the ground, as a long neck makes the species that posess it an easier target for predators, relatively to other species.
