Populism in Politics

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Populism in politics as an upward trend  

Nowadays, worldwide populism in politics is experiencing an upward trend, regardless of its deleterious effects on the countries per se and their relationship with other countries. During the last few years, populism has been gaining ground over political parties. The most worrying thing is that it increases the chances of politicians gaining power, even in a coalition scheme, as voters are keener on listening to their attractive doctrines.

Populism is not a contemporary phenomenon, but historically, it has always existed, even in ancient times when the Romans fed the crowd with ‘bread and spectacle’ at the arena. Populism continued throughout the ages, with the most striking example of the national socialism of Hitler, who invested in the patriotism of the German people, flattering them with the idea of an Aryan race that was superior to the others. However, populism is a characteristic of far-right political parties and may involve any party irrespective of its position on the political spectrum. Thus, even right-wing parties may behave with populism.

Recently, populism emerged in the US after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that used derogatory rhetoric against other parties and sensitive groups, including women, to come to power. After Trump’s election, populism spread like a plague worldwide.

For instance, in the recent presidential elections in France in 2017, the far-right leader Marine Le Pen was on the verge of being elected, while the same year, the right-wing populist party of the AfD in Germany succeeded in entering the Parliament at the national elections. Other examples in 2017 include the populist governments in Poland that undermined the rights of the press, as well as the far-right party in Hungary that unacceptably treated migrants.   

Populism originates from the lack of a broad education of the masses, which are more prone to demagoguery. This knowledge is not achieved with an accumulation of degrees but begins from primary school, and it includes principles and virtues that render people resistant to the lure of populism. It is not a coincidence that the education system has focused on producing overspecialized scientists worldwide, losing its academic role.

Secondly, as mentioned above, populism appeals to the lower instincts of the masses that, for instance, may feel better when flattered by saying that they are the ‘chosen’ nation that is ‘indigenous’ and should play a primary role in the international game of chess.

Another method that populism uses is to remove personal responsibility for things and transfer it to groups such as the Jews or speculators such as George Soros, or bankers such as the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers, meaning that dark powers control everything and we cannot change things as we are all manipulated like puppets. But, still, the populists will supposedly come to save us from these dark powers. So, removing our responsibility and casting it elsewhere is a characteristic of populism.  

Populism is a trend that has disastrous effects on democracy. It makes people less responsible and keener to be ruled by dictators who – in the name of populism – may undermine democracy and its institutions.     Moreover, it poisons the relationship with other countries as these should be based on mutual trust and compromise rather than imposing their view.

Finally, populism is a drawback even for economies. For instance, in Greece, the populist leader of the socialist party who ruled the country during the 1980s hired many people as civil servants to earn votes to remain in power. He did this not minding that the nation would inevitably become bankrupt from this hydrocephalic public sector, which eventually occurred in 2010. The same has happened over the last decades in Venezuela, where populism led this nation to extreme poverty despite the oil reserves. 

Everything considered, populism as a trend has recently re-emerged and will persist. It involves the whole political spectrum, and its effects are catastrophic for the state and its relationship with other countries. Populism is based on the broader educational deficit and the lower instincts of the people who enjoy being flattered and have their personal responsibility for things removed. Thus, the most important way to fight populism is a broader education focusing on ideals and virtues to realize that populism is an idea that may be detrimental to democracy.

Thanks for reading!

Demographics in Developing Countries

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Is it beneficial that in developing countries, young adults outnumber the older?

In our day and age, in all Western countries, aging is a worrying trend as the majority of the population is middle-aged and elderly, while the younger population is shrinking. On the contrary, in developing countries, young adults outnumber the older. Some claim that when the demographic trend is toward a younger population, this is for the benefit of society. However, the opponents of this claim that some drawbacks should be considered.

The benefit of having a younger population is that enough working hands can support the means of production. That means that the working-age population is sufficient for the country’s development as there are plenty of laborers to cover industry and plants and the textile industry, infrastructure, trade, agriculture, fishery, and livestock. Thus, the economy's growth in countries with younger populations is boosted, creating even more available vacancies. That is crucial for the developing countries that recently have claimed most of the production from the western states.

Secondly, these countries have a working population that can find a job abroad worldwide. In fact, many people in developing nations, skilled or unskilled, have found an opportunity to work in a developed country regardless of their low salary. But it is still higher than the amount they used to be paid in their own country. Consequently, these people have a better chance of being hired from the indigenous population that is aged or reluctant to apply for a manual labor post.

Thirdly, the people over retirement age are increasing the government’s cost of subsidizing pensions and the Medicare system. That is an unreasonable burden for Western societies. However, this is not the case in developing countries with a higher ratio of younger adults compared to older. There, with their insurance, the government can pay the expenses of the senior citizens, meaning their health care and their pension.

Some argue that there are some drawbacks of the overpopulation of younger adults, including the difficulty of all these people finding a decent job, the meager wages for the plentiful employees, and the high expenditure of this population, including housing, insurance, and healthcare.

The advantages of having a younger population outweigh the disadvantages. It is not a coincidence that the recent refugee and migrant surges benefitted the Western countries, especially in Europe, which had the chance to hire employees, laborers, or technicians to cover all the necessary posts to support production.     

Everything considered, a country with a population with a higher ratio of younger adults compared to an older population has many advantages, as this working population not only suffices for the production means flourishing the national economy, but also with their insurance it covers the cost of the pensions and healthcare of the elderly. Furthermore, the young adult population has an increased opportunity to find a job worldwide and live the Western ‘dream.’

Thanks for reading!

Living in Multicultural Cities

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Can people live together harmoniously in modern multinational & multicultural cities?

Currently, most cities, such as London, Paris, and New York, are cosmopolitan and are inhabited by people from all over the world. However, many argue that multinational and multicultural cities have many drawbacks and should meet some special conditions for all these people to live harmoniously.

Undoubtedly, most large cities today are overcrowded with people from all over the world who have settled as migrants or immigrants, and their offspring remained there as a second or third generation. However, in contemporary cosmopolitan cities, the lack of integration of the foreign population has caused many problems. These originate from the isolation of people from diverse cultures in neighborhoods that are ghettos. Living ghettoized impedes their integration as they already face racism from the local population. Moreover, it makes matters worse by feeding the vicious circle of delinquency, unemployment, and poor socialization. 

The critical feature for avoiding the negative side of cosmopolitan cities is ‘integration,’ as it ensures that people from diverse cultures live harmoniously with the existing population. That is more important today, especially after the massive migration surges that worsened things. Many countries, including the ones in Southern Europe, were unready to welcome and provide the essential needs of the economic refugees.  

Consequently, some specific conditions should exist so that the inhabitants of different countries can be absorbed and not remain unassimilated. Primarily, the state should have special migrant services to take care of the accommodation and feed the vulnerable foreign population, including the financial refugees who cannot afford to pay this cost.

The state and public shelters can cover their accommodation with special vouchers. At the same time, the state should pay their daily expenses for basic needs, especially for families with children. Vouchers for this purpose can also be used, for instance, to buy supermarket goods.

Secondly, of crucial importance is the education of the foreign population regarding special schools that will teach them the local language and their incorporation into the education system where they will have equal rights with the indigenous students. Moreover, they should have free access to health care services, as this will prevent health issues such as epidemics. Of course, the state should cover the expenses for education and health care, at least for the migrants who cannot afford to pay the cost of these.

Thirdly, the foreign population needs to find work to avoid turning to illegal ways of earning money, such as drugs, smuggling, and prostitution. This is the most important, as the foreign population with a job can afford to spend money on accommodation and basic daily needs. For this reason, unemployment services should take care of finding them a job, and the government may fund some posts. Finally, special attention should be given to fighting racism, such as with publicly funded anti-racist spots in the media and with cross-cultural events, including art performances and games.

To sum up, most contemporary cities are cosmopolitan, and this may be a productive opportunity for people from distinct cultures to meet, exchange their ideas, and incorporate. However, the challenge here is to avoid the isolation of the foreign population in ghettos. For this purpose, the government should take care of their accommodation, basic needs, and employment and focus on fighting discrimination and racism.   

Thanks for reading!

Should Data be Shared Freely?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Should information be shared freely?

Information is accessible throughout the media, international magazines, and the internet. However, not all data is publicly available, as some information can be tracked down through online or printed editions only by paying subscription fees. Moreover, in many cases, data may not be available, as it may be considered too confidential to be shared. However, many allege that this should not be the case, but access to information should be free and available to all. Therefore, there is a controversy about whether data should be freely accessible.

Undoubtedly, we live in the century of information, as data travels worldwide, and online access to it is immediate owing to the advent of the internet. Knowledge is essential in scientific research, business, and the academic world, as it fuels the progress of investigation. However, this is a matter of debate.

The exponents of free access to data support that information is mandatory for the progress of society. Consequently, they claim that everything should be shared publicly, and nothing should be kept secret. They also believe that access to data should be accessible to everyone, without subscription charges to online scientific magazines and publications.

The opponents of free access to everything argue that information is sometimes too valuable or even classified to be shared. They may refer to information classified for assorted reasons, including energy, telecommunications, and military research. For example, it may involve patented studies used by companies not keen to share their patents with other companies. Secondly, they claim that information based on studies should not be free of charge, as when it is chargeable, it funds research that is very costly to undertake.

It is crucial that all data should be available for everyone and should be shared freely. The main reason is that this is how the academic world works: by sharing information. That is particularly important to scientific research, built on previous studies' foundations. Free access to all data is also essential for businesses as their progress is based on information, especially innovative technology. The only exception someone may consider is classified military and national intelligence that should be kept secret for security reasons.          

Everything considered, there is a controversy about sharing all the available information and whether this should be free of charge. However, it is evident that data should be shared publicly and their access to be free, as this is mandatory for the development of the academic world, scientific research, business, and trade. It is essential for the growth and prosperity of society.


Thanks for reading!

Social Media & their Adverse Effects

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Have social media adverse effects?

A breakthrough that transformed contemporary life was the advent of the internet. It was a way of immediate access to information and changed how we communicate. Undoubtedly, today, most people communicate through their social media. However, using the web to socialize with other individuals is controversial, as some people claim that it is a positive development, while others argue that it has adverse effects.

On one side of the spectrum, the exponents allege that social media brings together people from different sides of the world. That was not feasible in the past, as the only long-distance communication was through a telephone call or by sending a letter. At the same time, today, access to the internet facilitates communication with people worldwide.

Consequently, our world now is like a ‘small village,’ as people can easily find friends from everywhere, bringing people from diverse cultures closer. It may also be an occasion to find a partner, as the internet has been proven a matchmaker to many. 

On the other side of the coin, opponents of using social media to communicate find this way of communication counterproductive, as they claim that people have no real friends to hang out and talk to face-to-face, but virtual friends that often are not aware of their real identity, as many social media profiles are in fact fake.

Things are made worse when someone seeks a partner via social media, as many profiles are actually ‘catfish,’ meaning they are fake. So, many problems may emerge if they meet, as a different person may appear. Moreover, people who endlessly stay online usually neglect socializing with real individuals, which may make them introverted and isolated.

Communicating through the internet is frittering our time away, as this communication is in front of a screen rather than directly. Moreover, a worrying trend is that the profiles are not personalized (individualized) but often are fake, referring to their real identity, meaning you need to know to whom you are speaking.

Many cases of people, including minors, have been lured on their social media by perverted people, and their meeting ended up even in rape. So, it may not be the safest thing to meet a date on the internet, as you are not aware of this person's real identity. In fact, a pedophile can efficiently use the internet to seek victims.

All things considered, it is widely recognized that the internet has changed things in communication, as it has made it feasible to chat with people from the four corners of the world, and it has even proven the best matchmaker. However, the negative aspect outweighs the positive. Many people aimlessly talk online via social media and lose the chance to hang out with real friends. Moreover, the fact that many profiles lie about their real identity questions the safety of communicating via the internet, which is crucial to minors.

Thanks for reading!

Is a ‘Fat Tax’ Necessary?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Should a ‘fat tax’ be implemented to tackle unhealthy eating?

Nowadays, an unhealthy diet is widespread in western countries and a worrying trend in developing countries. Undoubtedly, the health effects of unhealthy food are considerable for the individual per se, as well as society. Although some people suggest that governments should implement a ‘fat tax,’ whether we should use this kind of tax is controversial.

An unhealthy diet has deleterious effects on individuals, as it leads to obesity, which is a cause of myriads of infirmities. Consequently, some suggest that for this purpose, the state should implement a ‘fat tax,’ meaning it should levy a tax on high-fat foods.

The exponents of a ‘fat tax’ claim that it would discourage people from adopting an unhealthy diet, which will have further benefits, including preventing diseases related to this food. Furthermore, it would decrease the public budget for treating these disorders, relieving the health care system. The extra money from this can be spent more productively on education, healthcare, and public investments.

The opponents of this idea argue that it is against human rights to implement a ‘fat tax,’ as people are responsible for their diet and should not be accountable to the state for this. They also allege that a ‘fat tax’ will not prevent people from having unhealthy diet habits, as ‘junk food junkies’ will keep eating a high-calorie diet, regardless of this tax. Some people may act even in the opposite way, as they may react with stubbornness, eating even more unhealthily.

I believe a ‘fat tax’ should exist and be implemented in goods that are not only high in fats but also in calories, salt, sugar, and preservatives. In general, unhealthy processed food should be taxed, as this may prevent people from eating junk food, as they will think of paying an additional tax for their unhealthy dietary habits. Of course, the benefit for the state will be substantial, as the public money spent on treating illnesses related to the diet can be spent on other sections.

Everything taken into account, an unhealthy diet has adverse consequences for individuals and society. A ‘fat tax’ has been proposed. Although it is a matter of debate and controversy, the benefits of this tax outweigh the claims that it is unfair and unnecessary. It will prevent many treatable diseases, sparing extra public money that can be spent elsewhere.

Thanks for reading!

Is it Better to Work Fewer Hours?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Would it be beneficial if employees worked 3–4 days weekly?

A 48-hour weekly working time limit was a significant turning point in human history during the early decades of the last century. It was achieved not easily but followed years of violently suppressed protests. However, there has recently been a tendency towards working flexible hours, notably fewer than the usual forty-eight weekly hours. Employees often work fewer hours weekly or alternate between average and shorter working hours. The schedule that tends to prevail now is working three or four times weekly.

The exponents of working less time claim that this will benefit the employees as they will have more spare time to engage in leisure activities. So, they will feel less stressed when they do not have to go to work every day. On the other hand, the opponents of working less time argue that there is a violation of the right to work 48 hours weekly, as this was instituted to counteract the exhausting working time in the past, especially that of the post-industrial revolution era. However, it has lately reached the other side of the spectrum of minimum time. Opponents claim that reducing time at work means that employees will see their wages decrease and their health insurance payments dwindle. Accordingly, even though they will have more time to engage in recreational activities, they will feel unhappy. They will have to live with a lower salary, preventing them from spending money.

To put this into perspective, I incline to the opponents' view that cutting working hours is to the advantage of the employer, not the employee per se, who will now work for a lower wage, which will cause him or her frustration. Even if the spare time increases, the employee will be reluctant to spend money rather than save it.

Moreover, another aspect is the abundance of cheap labor from the developing world who are keen on being hired for menial jobs. Thus, this may create two-speed workers: cheap labor for the arduous work and the remaining employees who will work part-time or less than the 48-weekly pattern.

On the whole, although I appreciate the problem, I wholeheartedly disagree with the view that it would be beneficial if employees worked 3 or 4 days per week rather than 5 or 6 days as this will be only to the advantage of the employers and the financial Trusts, rather than the benefit of the employees. The former will earn more money, but the latter, although they will work less and have much more free time, will feel disappointed as they see their wages being cut.

Thanks for reading!

Is the Internet Harmful?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Is the internet harmful?

It is widely recognized that the advent of the internet has changed modern life in a way that may be considered detrimental to everyone, especially the young. Recently, there has been a great deal of controversy about surfing aimlessly on the internet due to the amount and the type of data that people can access.

Undeniably, the internet is not per se harmful, but the way we use it may have deleterious effects. Primarily, the internet is not personalized, meaning that the real identity of an individual is not confirmed. Thus, it may be fictitious. Indeed, myriads of fake profiles over the web make chatting with cyber friends unsafe, especially on social media.

There are many cases of minors who were lured by pedophiles or women who were sexually assaulted by an unknown person to whom they had been chatting online and whom they later met. These perverted people aim to snare innocent victims. An effortless way to find a fake profile is with a ''reverse image search'' of the profile's photos. In fact, every time I have tried this, I came across pictures that were tracked down on the internet that belonged to a different person, for instance, a celebrity. Noteworthy, we should all wonder if it is possible that most social media profiles have photos or avatars of young, good-looking people with flawless complexion, as if all people were that attractive in real life.

Secondly, regarding the information that travels almost at the rate of light speed through the internet, it should be argued that the quality and not the quantity matters. In other words, much of the available information is often false or at least unreliable. Recently, fake news has been a matter of discussion, and many question the credibility of the information uploaded from unconfirmed sources. Indeed, many sites even manipulate news for their propaganda as well as for libelous accusations.

Regarding news, we should only trust information from reliable sources such as international news agencies. However, many people are keen to accept any information they meet without confirming it from reliable sources. Consequently, this may enhance biases, stereotypes, and generalizations, as data is ingested unprocessed without being analyzed and criticized for its reliability. I have personally met myriads of prejudices and stereotypes on the web, more often on internet chats and comments, and I find it worrying these to be uttered not by trolls but by ordinary people and – more disappointingly – by the young.

To sum up, the menace of the internet has serious repercussions, especially for the young, if used unwisely. The data that people are bombarded with when they get online can be questioned about the reliability and credibility of the sources. Surfing aimlessly on the internet is not always safe, as many social media profiles are, in fact, fake. So, people may be lured by perverted people, including pedophiles, and this is more dangerous, especially for minors.

Thanks for reading!

Preventing Environmental Degradation

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

How can we tackle the degradation of our environment?

Since the Industrial Revolution, our planet has suffered pollution. The menace of air pollution, water shortage, desertification, and accumulation of non-recyclable materials, including plastic, and climate change are all worrying issues. There are concerns that the environmental catastrophe may be irreversible unless specific measures are taken to tackle its causes. The pre-existing accords are hampered by the reluctance to be ratified and implemented by all countries, especially the ones that contribute the most to industrial pollution, including China, India, and the US. 

To tackle the destruction of our environment, we should consider the causes. Industrial growth is based on carbon. Consequently, the emission of toxic fumes is responsible for the greenhouse effect that has deteriorated sharply because of the ozone reduction in the atmosphere.

Apparently, developing countries where global production has moved, such as China and India, as well as developed industrialized countries, such as the US, significantly contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. So, it is of crucial importance to replace coal energy with environmentally friendly alternatives, including renewable energy such as wind, solar, biomass, wave, and tidal power.

Thus, there should be a global agreement to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources, and this accord needs to be implemented. Undoubtedly, the existing way of compensating for carbon dioxide emissions is not enough, as it seems that neither the great polluters pay for their contribution to pollution nor will this measure solve the problem as the emission of toxic fumes continues to exist.    

Another factor that we need to deal with is the use of recyclable items, as the overuse of plastic as a material has deleterious effects on the environment. We should keep in mind that not only can it not be recycled, but also it is a byproduct of oil that we need to get rid of, as it is a fossil fuel. We obviously need to focus on recyclable materials and make recycling the existing items mandatory.

This should also be a matter of global agreement. Many countries, especially in central and Northern Europe, use energy from composted trash. However, it can be argued that this is not a green energy source to use, as it is based on combustion, creating carbon dioxide again. On the other hand, it is a way of gaining energy and using waste material, so if air pollution by using special filters is avoided, then it may be used for exploiting human waste.

Everything taken into consideration, it is necessary for all countries to agree on specific measures to tackle global warming and environmental pollution. An accord should be rectified and implemented by all to guarantee that we should put an end to the destruction of the environment. Otherwise, things will become irreversible, and regardless of whether we care about the effects, the destruction of our planet will include humans as we are an inseparable part of the environment we inhabit.   

Thanks for reading!

Smartphones Have Changed Communication

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Smartphones have changed the way we communicate

Undoubtedly, the advent of mobile phones has changed the way people communicate. To most people, their smartphone is not merely a phone but something more: a gadget where they can use numerous apps. Notwithstanding, there are people who cannot adapt to the smartphone vogue and prefer using the less sophisticated mobile phones of previous generations. They use their phone to communicate rather than for various other purposes.

Nowadays, smartphones mean something more than the voice communication of telephones in the past. A smartphone may offer myriads of applications that can be used for various purposes, from reading the latest news to having a virtual personal trainer, a translator, or a weather forecast. It also involves video calls and calls through ‘Skype,’ ‘Viber,’ internet surfing to ‘google’ and ‘YouTube’ videos, photo and video shooting and editing, endless text messages and MMS, and numerous other facilities. Most people today are familiar with smartphone technology and consider it a mandatory gadget, and they cannot live without their smartphone.

On the other side of the spectrum, there is a minority that, for assorted reasons, cannot adjust to smartphone technology. First and foremost, this population includes the old guard, the generation that is less familiar with technology and has difficulty even using a computer. Especially the elderly and, to a lesser extent, the middle-aged are less keen on technology. On the contrary, they are apt to use older technology that, for younger individuals, may seem obsolete, for instance, an older generation mobile phone with buttons instead of a touchscreen. 

Speaking for myself, I have met many times met many people, especially people over retirement age, who prefer using an older model of a mobile phone, as a smartphone would be too complicated to use effectively. Additionally, not all young people own a smartphone, as some prefer older conventional mobile phones, and this comprises a substantial number, but are admittedly fewer than people of older age who are unaccustomed to smartphone technology and their endless applications.  
Today, many people chat on the internet, so smartphones are a way of keeping them ‘247’ online, giving them the opportunity to seek and chat with friends and even flirt, as the internet is a contemporary matchmaker to many. However, people unwilling to use smartphone technology are deemed to be ‘outsiders,’ which may cause them frustration.

However, not adapting to smartphone technology has more significant implications for a young person as contemporary life is built around this technology, and people who are not used to the latest apps may be considered technologically ignorant, having a form of high-tech ‘illiteracy.’ That is especially important to their relationship with others, as today, socializing is based on social media and various other applications, including ‘Instagram,’ that are easily accessible via a laptop and smartphone. For those people who do not use the numerous facilities that a smartphone offers because they are introverted or are reluctant to indulge in the applications, things are complicated regarding finding friends or even a partner. 

Overall, smartphones have changed how contemporary people communicate, especially the young, who have assimilated smartphone technology. On the other hand, people who are not familiar with smartphones, including people over retirement age and, to a lesser extent, younger generations, may feel frustrated. That is because they are deprived of a technology that is considered essential not just to communicate but also to interact with other individuals, to socialize via their social media, and to use various applications that may facilitate their lives.

Thanks for reading!

Is Consumerism an end in itself?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Is consumerism an end in itself?

Nowadays, consumerism affects modern humans, making some call our species ‘Homo consumus’ instead of ‘Homo sapiens,’ replacing wisdom with consumption. The question of whether the ardent desire to possess things makes people less aware of essential personal qualities is a controversial one. However, I am inclined to the opinion that materialism makes people less keen to adopt moral values, including empathy and courtesy.

Undoubtedly, consumerism monopolizes people's lives who struggle and even work overtime to buy and possess material goods. Many of these goods are gadgets such as cell phones, laptops, flat smart televisions, and others that supposedly make people who own them happy. Although they may be considered cheap, some of these gadgets, such as the latest iPhone, may be costly. 

This race of materialism continues throughout life, and it is frustrating that it may become even an obsession. In any case, it usually occurs at the expense of moral values, especially the ones related to our relationship with others. These include sympathy, empathy, politeness, subtleness, and concern for others. The last has been replaced by utilitarianism, which belongs to the spectrum of individualism. Instead of being concerned about others, we often feel them as rivals of our everlasting race of materialism. 

Furthermore, materialism deprives them of virtues that are of crucial importance to society, and this inhuman behavior is against our nature as Aristotle used to say that a human is a social animal. Speaking for myself, in my life, I had met plenty of people whose only concern was to just get something from me or offer only when this was mutual, rather than providing me something regardless of my counteroffer. 

Consumerism is a chimera, a monster that destroys human relationships as everyone strives for the American dream: to work enough to possess a car, a cozy house, and a dog. But it is not certain that these will make us feel pleased, as consumerism deleteriously affects our relationship with others. Simply put, competition for obtaining material goods makes people less keen to socialize with others, as their secularism prevents them from engaging in close relationships. 

To sum up, consumerism has severe repercussions on human relations, and their rivalry can explain this for possessing tangible rather than moral values. In other words, materialism deprives us of virtues, including showing concern and empathy to others, which are significant for creating bonds with our neighbors, as our only concern is to endlessly obtain new goods that will supposedly make us jovial individuals.

Thanks for reading!