Humour or humor
is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and
provide amusement.
Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves.
People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are
able to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are
considered to have a "sense of humour."
The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient
Greeks, which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours (Greek:
χυμός,
chymos, literally juice or sap;
metaphorically, flavour)
controlled human health and emotion. (This theory has since been found to be
counterfactual.)[citation needed]
A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, although the
extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of
variables,
including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence,
and context.
For example, young children may possibly favour slapstick,
such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or cartoons (e.g., Tom and
Jerry). Satire
may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to
appeal to more mature audiences. Nonsatirical humour can be specifically termed
"recreational drollery."[1][2]
Evolution of humour
As with any form of art, the same goes for humour: acceptance depends on
social demographics and varies from person to person. Throughout history,
comedy has been used as a form of entertainment all over the world, whether in
the courts of the Western kings or the villages of the Far
East. Both a social etiquette and a certain intelligence can be
displayed through forms of wit and sarcasm. Eighteenth-century German author Georg
Lichtenberg said that "the more you know humour, the more you become
demanding in fineness."
Alastair Clarke explains: "The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive
explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it
explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises
it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the
humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter." The
theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human
evolution: "An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously
has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The
humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to
the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species."[4]
Definition of citizen: 'Citizenship', it is claimed, 'is as old as settled human community' with groups and tribes in specific territories developing rudimentary social contracts for mutual benefit (Barbalet, 1988, p.1). There is evidence to suggest that its origins are more closely linked to western civilisation, particularly the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. It has been asserted that 'the further east we go the fewer are the traces; the notion of citizens of the state is unknown to the world of Islam, and to India and China' (Weber, 1981, p. 316). The term citizen has an urban origin, derived from the Anglo-Norman word citezein. and French citoyen. This is based on the Latin civitas, meaning people united in a city or community. The expansion and development of citizenship has been closely linked to the growth of cities and the emergence of the nation state. As Derek Heater (1990, p. 2), an authority in the history of the subject has claimed, '[citizenship] requires the capacity for a certain abstraction and sophistication of thought'. The role of a citizen 'entails a status, a sense of loyalty, the discharge of duties and the enjoyment of rights not primarily in relation to another human being, but in relation to an abstract concept, the state'.
Athenian Citizenship: The idea and practice of citizenship was first thoroughly explored by the Greeks in the 'polis' or city-state. The 'polis' was local or municipal in character as well as national. It was 'not only a unit of government: it was also a club' (Barker, 1960, p. 21). Aristotle, who included influential chapters on citizenship in Politics, thought ideally citizens needed to 'know each other's character' to best exercise their duties. In the 'polis' Aristotle (1960, p. 109) considered that 'a citizen is a man who enjoys the right of sharing in deliberative or judicial office (for any period, fixed or unfixed)'. Aristotle characterised man as a zoon politikon, or political being, which has sometimes been interpreted to mean that man is a 'political animal'. Political activity was regarded as an essential part of human behaviour and that a man's full potential and personality can not be achieved without participation in the 'polis'. Citizenship offered tangible benefits such as freedom, the security to pursue 'well-being' and the opportunity to win honour by guiding and even defending the community. Citizens who neglected their civic duties in the 'polis' by not attending assemblies, voting, serving on juries and giving military service were labelled as idions, the term from which the modern word idiot is derived. Aristotle indicated that a good citizen 'must possess the knowledge and the capacity requisite for ruling as well as being ruled' (Aristotle, 1960, p. 105). The opportunity to participate in the 'polis' did not extend to all persons. Women, children, together with resident foreigners, some labourers and slaves were not citizens and were excluded from the 'privileges of rule'. In fact Aristotle was at pains to distinguish between true citizens and those who could not justly claim the title. Aristotle was even concerned that certain working men, such as mechanics, did not have the aptitude or leisure to display true excellence in citizenship qualities. Immaturity and infirmity were two further barriers to the status of citizenship. By law any citizen who failed to take sides in key decisions would lose his membership in the 'polis'. Citizenship was about responsibilities which had to be met rather than about rights which could be claimed.
Brain drain or human
capital flight is a large emigration of individuals with technical
skills or knowledge, normally due to conflict, lack of
opportunity, political instability, or health risks.
Brain drain is usually regarded as an economic
cost, since emigrants usually take with them the fraction of value of their training
sponsored by the government. It is a parallel of capital
flight which refers to the same movement of financial
capital. The term was coined by the Royal
Society to describe the emigration of "scientists
and technologists" to North America from post-war
Europe.[1]
The converse phenomenon is brain gain, which occurs when there is a
large-scale immigration of technically qualified persons. Brain drain
can be stopped by providing individuals who have expertise with career
opportunities and giving them opportunities to prove their capabilities.[citation needed]
Brain drains are common amongst developing nations, such as the former
colonies of Africa,[2]
the island
nations of the Caribbean,[3]
and particularly in centralized economies such as former East
Germany and the Soviet Union, where marketable skills were not
financially rewarded.
Brain Drain of Workers from Poor to Rich Countries
“Brain drain” is the phenomena whereby nations lose skilled labor
because there are better paid jobs elsewhere. In recent years, this has
affected poorer countries more so, as some rich countries tempt workers away,
and workers look to escape bleak situations in their poor home countries.
Poor Countries Providing Rich With Educated Workforce
According to Dictionary.com, the term “Brain drain”
originated in the 1960s, “when many British scientists and intellectuals
emigrated to the United
States for a better working climate.” In
recent years, however, the problem of “brain drain” has been acute for poorer
countries that lose workers to wealthier countries. Almost ironically, England is now
a country where many such workers end up.
Brain Drain of Healthcare workers
The problem has been noted in healthcare in particular because the loss
of healthcare professionals in poorer countries leaves already struggling
healthcare systems in an even more desperate state.
For its World Health Report
2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that there is
a global shortage of 4.3 million doctors, midwives, nurses, and support
workers. Furthermore, “these [shortfalls] often coexist in a country with large
numbers of unemployed health professionals. Poverty, imperfect private labor
markets, lack of public funds, bureaucratic red tape and political interference
produce this paradox of shortages in the midst of underutilized talent.” In
addition, “Unplanned or excessive exits may cause significant losses of workers
and compromise the system’s knowledge, memory and culture.”
advances in science and
technology
I think
progress in technology and science being made at present is improving our everyday
life. But I have to add that it has both advantages and disadvantages.
Definitely a very big advantage is progress being made at medicine. Doctors work very hard and take care about our health. Every year new medicines and vaccines are found. We can clone organs for the transplantation. I embolden to say that our life depends on the science progress. Also important are advances in technology. Thanks to them we have a much better communication and transport. We can talk with somebody many miles away, and means of transport like for example cars are becoming faster and more comfortable. Another point of my consideration is that nowadays people have much more easier life. We can use things like dishwashers and computers.
On the other side there are disadvantages which includes that people might become lazy when machines are doing almost everything for them. We don’t have to even do exercise because a electrical stimulation can do it for us, but I don’t think that this is very healthy. On the contradiction of benefits of cloning organs there is something that frightens me – cloning whole people. Technology progress might also bring harm like atomic threat.
In conclusion although this advances might bring some perils I’m a follower, because I think they are improving our everyday life very successfully, but sometimes I’m afraid of that technology might veil human feelings.
Definitely a very big advantage is progress being made at medicine. Doctors work very hard and take care about our health. Every year new medicines and vaccines are found. We can clone organs for the transplantation. I embolden to say that our life depends on the science progress. Also important are advances in technology. Thanks to them we have a much better communication and transport. We can talk with somebody many miles away, and means of transport like for example cars are becoming faster and more comfortable. Another point of my consideration is that nowadays people have much more easier life. We can use things like dishwashers and computers.
On the other side there are disadvantages which includes that people might become lazy when machines are doing almost everything for them. We don’t have to even do exercise because a electrical stimulation can do it for us, but I don’t think that this is very healthy. On the contradiction of benefits of cloning organs there is something that frightens me – cloning whole people. Technology progress might also bring harm like atomic threat.
In conclusion although this advances might bring some perils I’m a follower, because I think they are improving our everyday life very successfully, but sometimes I’m afraid of that technology might veil human feelings.
