So much time has passed since cars were first made. They have continued to be remade and improved. Although, cars aren’t the only things that have changed. Technology and standards have also made changes with the passage of time.

With time, people have become more aware of consequences that can potentially arise from their actions, and will most likely get worse if left attended. This is most likely where the stricter standards come in place, and while they don’t directly help increase gas mileage, they help push for it. For if the standards had remained as lax as they were decades ago, cars today would probably be so much different.

As it is, they are what they are today, and continue on more positive path. Technology has helped shape the cars further along that direction. Things such as batteries and complex engines are more readily available. They help to lessen the amount of gas used.

Technology isn’t the only thing to help lessen the need for fuel. Car design and weight also come into play as well. A more aerodynamic design produces less drag, allowing the car to go to higher speeds without consuming more fuel. Weight also creates it’s own drag, and less weight equates to less consumption. Of course there are big and small cars, with small cars being the big choice to go with when considering gas mileage, as they will obviously weigh less than big cars. This can easily be managed by using lighter materials to make the cars, which really help both big and small cars.

Overall, everything is evolving all at once, some faster than others. Although what really matters is the future. These changes create a sort of safeguard, where the will be less pollution, and a lesser need for fuel.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/cars-in-the-u-s-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-ever-heres-how-it-happened/

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/auto-industry-makes-strides-toward-improving-fuel-economy/article_2d050408-95db-561b-97fc-b84c708829d4.html

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/auto-industry-makes-strides-toward-improving-fuel-economy/article_2d050408-95db-561b-97fc-b84c708829d4.html

The topic concerning health seems to be coming up a lot lately, of course, everyone has worries about health. Sickness and disease are the main enemies against health, not including death, which is just an end. People can’t do anything against the end, but they can at least do something about sickness and disease.

There are many ways to try to prevent oneself from getting an illness, and vaccines are just the direct way of doing so. Although vaccines are not a definite guarantee, they help to increase the odds in people’s favor. Despite that, some people decide not to take those vaccines due to various things, ranging from religious beliefs to personal beliefs.

Most choices in life come with pros and cons, some weigh heavily to one side. This also contributes to why people decide not to the vaccinations. The people who are against vaccinations believe the cons outweigh the pros. They hear that vaccinations increase the chance of autism, and that even if you are vaccinated, you can still get the sickness. So in their minds, they avoid something risky, and nothing changes about the situation.

Unfortunately, they don’t consider the consequences of what should happen if they get the sickness. Measles can lead to brain damage, or other sicknesses, which can ultimately lead to death.  From this, the considerations should be changed from “chance to get autism vs chance not to get sickness,” to “chance of death vs chance of not getting sick.”

While autism in itself is not much of a good thing, when weighed against death, it’s the lesser of two evils, but that assuming that vaccinations do lead to autism. At present, there isn’t much to support the claim. All that needs to be considered is what vaccinations entail.

Yes they do have some side effects depending on the people, no they don’t guarantee protection, but the when weighing the sides again, those small side effects don’t compare to the consequences. There is also the matter of probability to think about. A person’s chances of being protected is in the high ninety percent, while the chance of getting it is less than five percent.

For example, there are balls in a jar labeled 1-100. 1-5 are the losing numbers, and the rest are winning numbers. The chance to get the losing numbers is there, but you’re more likely to get the winning numbers. The vaccines are what give people these chances, and to not take them simply leaves you with worse chances.

To summarize, vaccines entail higher protection chance, uncertain chance for increased autism, and small side effects. While measles presents no real benefits, brain damage, death, and other possible negative things.

There is not much to lose from taking vaccinations.

Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/measles-outbreak-swells-121-cases-year-cdc/story?id=28830089

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/02/11/measles-outbreak-in-dollars-and-cents-it-costs-taxpayers-bigtime/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/02/09/measles-outbreak-spreads-to-three-more-states-121-people-now-affected/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/measles-outbreak-vaccine-questions_n_6648086.html

As the saying goes, any help is better than no help, but it seems it’s not the action of helping that really matters, rather it’s how much that help really contributes to the situation.  One question that is easily answered, is that yes, the aid that the US sent is doing something.

With the US aid, there is more money for supplies, more people to help, and the potential for countless more people to join up. No one can say that all of this aid is not helping, because without it, well there would be no gain in the situation. The people that would benefit from the aid, would have found themselves in worse situations had the aid not existed in the first place. The same would go for the supplies, there would be even less to go around with the extra funding.

Then there are the amount of people. With Ebola being  contagious, the people helping can find themselves in need of help, thus cutting the amount of people helping in the effort. This aid of 3000 people, along with the intent to train more people leads to more people helping the cause against Ebola.

Despite all of this, there are some that don’t see all the progress that’s been made. Instead some doubt it all, or simply argue that it’s not enough. There’s just so much wrong with those statements that it seems perpetual cynicism is in place. They don’t seem to see any good in what’s been done, and it makes them seem somewhat impatient.

As stated, change will not happen immediately. A plant will not grow immediately after the seeds have been sown.  While it’s true that there are many people suffering from Ebola, but no amount of money or troops will instantly make things better.

Taking a step back, considering the situation, and waiting, one will see that US aid is making a difference, and that’s good enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/world/africa/obama-to-announce-expanded-effort-against-ebola.html

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-ebola-us-africa-20141117-story.html#page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-military-to-lead-ebola-fight/2014/09/15/69db3da0-3d32-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html