The Future of the Nuclear Deal

Follows is an article that I wrote as a 750-word response to this New York Times article for a take-home final exam. I am posting the article as is, and may consider translating it into Turkish. Note that some points may need more clarification as I had to stick to the word limit.

The domestic diversion theory appears problematic, as states like Turkey and Iran with far lesser military budgets than those of the mentioned great powers, can also engage in diversionary behavior intended to escalate or interfere in regional or international crises rather than target minorities within. Turkey’s recent operations in Syria and North Iraq and cooperation with the Libyan government, and Erdoğan’s strong emphasis on leaving the domestic issues behind and becoming an influential power, are clear evidence for Turkey’s active engagement in external military affairs. Russia’s Putin may also be evaluated in that context, with his aggressive policies aimed at expanding his sphere of influence through the Russian intervention in Syria, the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s engagement in the military conflict in Libya. While Raisi’s future policies are not totally foreseeable, Iran has also got involved in warfare in Syria and elsewhere, which is one of the main reasons for the recent protests due to economic instability that the military spending has brought about. These states primarily intend to become or remain regional powers rather than compete with the global superpowers, but they still do intervene in external issues, meaning not only the global powers take advantage of international crises. Iran’s nuclear policies should also be examined from this perspective. It would be highly unreasonable that a state resort to nuclear weapons against a domestic minority. Also, all three states have been under the rule of “oppressive” leaders harshly criticized by the opposing parties and widely accused of corruption and instability. They nevertheless seek and often cooperate to strengthen their position by carrying out operations outside their borders rather than avoid attacking them and providing them with an excuse to retaliate (Williams, 2019).

Kant’s overoptimistic and Eurocentric approach to IR may constitute a basis for the arguments for the attempts by the UN and other international actors to “contain” Iran. Both Iran’s vioilations, including the construction of hidden facilities, and Trump’s interest-oriented policies that did not align with Kant’s principle of duty at all, however, clearly prove that it is better to rely on facts rather than utopias. Facilitating cooperation among parties appears promising; but little can be done if even Trump’s commitment cannot be ensured. The US, as a “democratic” country, aids the international organizations the most; but Trump, as an elected president, could threaten the system with the US’ withdrawal from several international treaties, making it less important to debate whether “smart sanctions” on Iran are likely to work. Both sanctions and foreign aid are more of instruments to control target states and acquire allies than measures aimed at improving the conditions (Brownlee, 2010; Vreeland, 2006). The liberal understanding promoting concepts like collective will and social contract, therefore becomes mostly useless. Treating democracy as a measurable variable is already an essential problem. Moreover, the fact that nuclear missiles can be fired from long distances, invalidates Kant’s assumption that distance and the possibility of conflict is negatively correlated.

It should be asked why neither Biden nor Obama but Trump, a pro-Israeli republican, opposed/withdrew from the agreement, despite Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, as also stated in the NYT article. The US, being highly influenced by Israel, and most likely pro-Israeli business leaders, backed Israel against Iran and the Hezbollah in multiple occasions. Nuclear weapons possessed by Middle Eastern regimes are such a threat to the US due to Israel’s pressure. The Israeli influence on the media and press, including the NYT, is also notable. However, if we take into account that the public is more willing to sign international treaties and has less influence on foreign policy than business leaders, and that the corporations against the deal donated significantly more than those supporting it, we may conclude that Trump was particularly influenced by those corporations with ties to Israel that pushed him for the withdrawal. The above facts may point out two separate pro-Israeli groups working to shape the US’s policies according to their own agendas, one favoring the deal and the other opposing it.

As for Iran, foreign policy is largely dominated by the IRGC, which favors Raisi, based on safeguarding the Revolution, state interests, anti-Americanism and distrust in international organizations, anti-Zionism, and the Sunni-Shiite and Iran-Saudi Arabia conflict.

In conclusion, the US’ policies heavily depend on the Israel lobby and are unreliable. Biden seems willing to negotiate with Iran, but we may never know what the future president will do. Likewise, Raisi may agree, but Iran’s stance may change according to the US’ attitude.


  • Tir, J., & Jasinski, M. (2008). Domestic-level diversionary theory of war: Targeting ethnic minorities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(5), 641-664.
  • Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (1999). The Kantian peace: The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992. World politics, 52(1), 1-37.
  • Jacobs, L. R., & Page, B. I. (2005). Who influences US foreign policy? American political science review, 107-123.
  • Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2006). The Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Middle East Policy, 13(3).
  • Sabet, F. and R. Safshekan. 2019. “The Revolutionary Guard in Iranian Domestic and Foreign Power Politics” in Shahram Akbarzadeh (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Relations in the Middle East, Routledge. 96-109.
  • Williams, P. A. 2019. “The Rise and Fall of Turkey in the Arab Spring” in Shahram Akbarzadeh (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Relations in the Middle East, Routledge.
  • Mabon, S. (2019). “Saudi Arabia and Iran: Islam and foreign policy in the Middle East” in Shahram Akbarzadeh (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Relations in the Middle East, Routledge.
  • Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – Wikipedia. (2021). Retrieved 24 June 2021, from
  • Drezner, D. W. (2011). Sanctions sometimes smart: targeted sanctions in theory and practice. International Studies Review, 13(1), 96-108.
  • Finucane, M., & Manion, J. (2019). Trump has pulled out of international agreements before. Here’s a list. Retrieved 25 June 2021, from
  • Apodaca, C. (2017). Foreign aid as foreign policy tool. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics.
  • Brownlee, Jason. (2012). Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the US-Egyptian Alliance (New York: Cambridge University Press), Introduction.
  • Vreeland, J. R. (2006). The International Monetary Fund (IMF): politics of conditional lending. Routledge. Chapter 2.
  • Cafiero, G. (2021). Joe Biden’s effect on Saudi Arabia’s MBS. Retrieved 25 June 2021, from


An E-Mail of Mine to an Instructor

Note: Adapted to be posted with certain omissions.

  • It may be problematic to refer to a religion or ideology with concepts that originated in or redefined by another one. Patriarchy to a liberal may mean that orthodox Islam, for example, is patriarchal; but an orthodox Muslim may really think that Islam is not patriarchal at all. And this is different from acknowledging that it is patriarchal but saying it is a necessity ordered by Allah/God and believing it nevertheless.
  • If all ideologies bring salvation if idealized, then what’s the point of having so many of them? There are problems and conflicts in practice, but advocates of different ideologies have disputes in theory as well. So how are we supposed to idealize all these ideologies? And if they all eventually lead to a single point where no problems exist, then do different ideologies diverge or converge? In other words, what would this single final ideology be like if we were to agree on it at some point? And on what basis are we supposed to idealize these ideologies? Should we idealize, say, Marxism, from a liberal perspective?

So what I mean is, salvation for an ideology is most likely disaster for another. And interestingly, almost all ideologies are deemed neutral and perfect, and placed in the exact center by its defenders. Liberalism to a liberal is not an ideology; it is the only right path. And all other ideologies and those that target liberalism in particular, are ideologies that must be eradicated immediately. Same for Marxism and all other isms. Another thing is, all ideologies tend to redefine such concepts as freedom and equality that sound nice as if they have been part of them ever since they first existed on earth. You know, you allegedly do your best to help everyone as much as possible and care about everyone, and you are so kind if you are using such concepts as freedom and equality. So the use of such concepts has become both a condition and a means if one intends to argue for anything and persuade others. But we have not even agreed on any of them.

Another interesting thing is that all ideologies promise worldwide validity and absolute truth. They couldn’t even have become ideologies otherwise. It is pretty much like saying it is definitely true that one ought to doubt everything. Then how come it be definitely true that we ought to doubt everything? And if we do have to doubt everything, then this inevitably includes the premise that it is absolutely true that we have to doubt everything. Likewise, if one talks about freedom, one does have to define it in a way that does not allow anyone to target their ideology and defend other ones. And if one argues for equality, one must still favor those who defend their ideology. Thus, I think I can say that no one is confident enough to grant everyone total freedom to target their views however they wish.

  • There are different interpretations of liberalism that range from the United Kingdom model where followers of different religions settle their disputes by referring to their own courts, and the French model where people even have difficulty worshiping or praying and liberalism protects one’s right to insult religious figures and leaders like prophets rather than practice religious duties. This you may consider in relation to points 1 and 2 above.


Piety, Conservatism and Anti-Pornography Feminists

I originally wrote this essay as my response to a question that we were assigned to answer. I am now posting it with a few additions and changes. We were asked how anti-pornography feminists and “religious conservatives” differed in their approach and objection to the issue. I also aimed to point out the distinction between piety and conservatism as I answered the question. I mainly referred to Islam when using the term “religion”, and likewise for its derivatives and any word with a similar connotation or implication.

I think I will first have to ask whether religious people are similar to conservatives, to which I would say no. It would be inconsistent to equate (certain interpretations of) a religion with conservatism on the one hand and argue that alternative interpretations (“reformist” views and movements) should coexist with orthodox ones on the other. So is religion conservative in its very essence, or does it become as “progressive” as it is cleansed of its “conservative” or “patriarchal” features? Does the concept of religion automatically come with “patriarchy”, or can a religion remain as a religion if it outright adopts the currently promoted discourse?

Conservatism is absolute loyalty to tradition, whether religious or not. Religion, on the other hand, is a certain set of values, whether they allow or contradict certain sociocultural norms and practices or not. So there’s a clear distinction here.

To a conservative, religion is part of tradition and should be preserved only as long as it does not contradict traditional practices; whereas to the religious, tradition may coexist with or become an interpretation of religion only as long as it does not violate its principles. A conservative may never be able to reach an agreement with a religious person on such matters as arranged marriage and women’s education.

Let us just attempt to assume that the religious and the conservative may be grouped together and proceed. They do have some common characteristics after all, including being strictly against pornography.

So anti-pornography feminists look at the issue from a “gender-based” perspective that positions “gender equality” in the center and interprets pornography and other practices, sociocultural and/or religious norms as “patriarchal”. The conservative intends to restrict social life and define morality in accordance with the so called Victorian ethics, oppressing women and sexuality. And the religious is a different story, but I will talk about the “patriarchal”. They put great emphasis on family and marriage while strongly condemning “illegitimate” intercourse and any kind of sexual act without marriage. They (must) not only allow but also encourage sexual intimacy between married partners (male and female spouses) based on bilateral consent as long as it remains “private”.

I have one final question that may be kinda off-topic: If it is women in many cases who consent to become pornstars and be filmed while having intercourse with heterosexuall men in a painful and submissive way in exchange for money, then it is them as well as the men and liberals whom we should criticize. And yes, it is problematic that pornography is legal and rape is not; but to sign an official contract and consent to the assigned role makes it more of filmed prostitution than rape. Also, the women who record themselves to be watched by men and are not paid, probably outnumber those who do get paid, meaning that it is, above all, their consent that makes them do what they do.

You may read the following essay by Catharine MacKinnon to get a better overview of the radical feminist perspective: “Pornography: On Morality and Politics”


The Pope’s Words and Their Aftermath

السلام عليكم, and hi,

Finally, after quite a busy couple of weeks, I’m able to write another post. An English one. I’m busy with courses and schedule, and may therefore be unable to post as often. By the way, an earthquake happened in the Aegean Sea last Friday, causing several buildings in İzmir to collapse and many lives to be lost under them. Still, we were so happy that two little kids were found in good health and rescued, one after 65 hours and the other 91. And yesterday, Turkey’s Medipol Başakşehir beat Man Utd. 2-1. I also proudly inform you that the first dose of vaccine candidates produced in Turkey has been tested on a volunteer today at Erciyes University.

So, Pope Francis’ words on the “LGBT+” issue is still debated. It’s clear that many Catholics are deeply unhappy about this; but my question is, have you ever looked at this issue from this side?

Note: I’m busy as a student studying at a university where those individuals are widely favored and this propaganda gains explicit support.



Today’s history textbooks often claim that everything began some six centuries ago, when some brave Europeans dared challenge at great costs the dogmas accepted by the Church. These textbooks never mention the East, but this is the subject of another long discussion.

From then on, as the textbooks read, these “brave” Europeans relied more and more on experiments and observations, gradually abandoning and later on opposing the classical methods of education, namely superstitions and the belief in the mystical, replacing them with what they called “reason” and “rationality”. These brave venturers took their first step by following Luther’s lead and translating the Bible into their own vernaculars. Literacy rates rose and people began to read the Bible and various texts written by the leading thinkers of their time. Who could predict that this long path would eventually lead to what we now call “Enlightenment”, after which education would become a “fundamental and indispensable right” for all citizens and a duty for the newly-established nation states? Even in the eighteenth century, who could foresee that I, as a male commoner, would study at a “prestigious” university and discuss what only philosophers and politicians were “eligible” to discuss until roughly a couple of centuries ago? Who could even dream I would be able to use this machine to type this essay and share it with you on the Internet? The most important question to be asked, however, is, how did we end up where we are, and are we heading in the right direction?

Just when we felt relieved to have overcome the first shock after facing Positivism and Modernism, we first met the Radio and Television, then computers and “social media”, which were followed by smartphones. Today’s societies are educated more by the Internet than schools. Infants learn how to read and right before they begin their first grade, thanks to the smartphones given ignorantly to them by their parents. Everyone can blather about everything, and information has almost totally lost its significance. We’ve been asking whether AI will someday be able to read the human mind, but we never ask whether we will even need to use our brains in the future or whether our brains will still be able to hold enough memories to make all the efforts worth the achievement. Google is at our disposal to do all the research for us, and many of us never feel the need to actually learn anything as all they need is a few key presses or taps and swipes in order to recall the results of their previous search. Besides, we confidently believe that no more than a few tweets suffice to shape our political view and make us the most knowledgeable person on earth. We are proud to have earned equal access to many opportunities that only the elite had in the past, but we never acknowledge that we see ourselves not much differently than how the classical aristocrats saw themselves. The worst thing is, those arrogant aristocrats constituted only a small portion of their societies, but we are much greater both in numbers and in proportions. What we call “individualism” has taken the form of vast amounts of “self-improvement” garbage. We’re always subconsciously exposed to the belief that we can do everything. They constantly repeat these fancy words: “You have the capacity to do everything you wish. You just need to have dreams, inspiration and passion.”.

My opinion, in conclusion, is that only a small group should be educated; though this group should be made up of not the wealthiest, but those who really deserve to be educated. Also, everyone should learn what their job requires. Only so can we raise knowledge to its actual holy place.


On Democracy

Türkçe okumak için tıklayınız.

Democracy… The governance system currently accepted to be ideal by many. “The rule of people.” The magic wand to civilize (!) Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Syria and many other states and Turkey. A wand that the one hit by it cannot get up from where they collapse. A wand that is only in the hands of powerful illusionists, and they (the illusionists) rule the real world as we see ourselves in wonderland. As sensitive citizens vote and “determine their own destiny” and protest to “defend their rights” descends this magic wand upon the heads of the weak. Coups become legitimate and even necessary for the restoration and ensuring of democracy once elections do not result as some wish. I shall try to discuss, rather than how democracy is abused, why it is problematic and unreasonable in this essay.

First of all, democracy is a type of governance that works, or shown to us by the illusionists as if it does, based on the decisions of the whole of a people. Both the knowledgeable and the ignorant may, and according to democracy, should be able to express their opinions. I do not know how to distinguish the educated from the ignorant, nor those who are eligible to express their opinions from those who are not, but it is obvious that not everyone is qualified to decide on the matters that a people “determines their own destiny”. It must be either the June 7th or the November 1st elections. I remember what my mother told us about a woman who came up to her as she was voting: The woman approaches her with a ballot in her hand and shows the area belonging to a political party whose name is not needed, and asks, “Am I to vote for that?”. It is quite possible that she does not know how to read. My purpose is not to disdain the illiterate. What I would like to explain and emphasize is this lady’s having not decided of her own will. What does our being literate change anyway? The statements and campaigns around us that we hear and see prevent most of us from reasoning and acting right-mindedly. We were once controlled by TV channels and now we suppose we have saved and “liberated” ourselves from them, but neglect and deny the control of social media over us. Particularly, as a platform where everyone willing can blather as they wish, Twitter hampers our creating and bravely expressing our own ideas; because you are attacked whenever you attempt to act against the norms.

From another aspect, democracy asks not only the uneducated but also the uninterested. Those who do not vote also indirectly influence the outcome by taking away one of the potential votes for a party. Your opportunity to say, “I am not involved in these affairs, and I do not vote.” is taken from your hands; since the vote that you do not cast also determines who is to rule over you, and this is a heavy responsibility.

Another matter is democracy’s working based on the 50%+1 principle. The election system resembles a camera taking momentary shots. You decide under the control of the things that I mentioned above, and this decision remains in effect until the next voting. The Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the events that have followed it, are an outstanding example to this case. By the way, speaking of photography, it is also useful that I remind that one possibility for sure is the photo’s having been montaged (the votes’ having been altered or stolen).

Democracy’s self-imposing characteristic is yet another issue. The only legitimate form of governance in democratic governments is democracy. Although it is claimed that we have freedom of expression, we may not target democracy. Just like religions and philosophical doctrines that promise absolute righteousness… In that case, democracy calls for being worshipped so as to prevail.

* I should clearly state that I am against neither asking for the opinions of others nor taking decisions together. Rather, it will gladden me so much that you share your valuable opinions in your comments. In al-istishara (consultation) exists al-baraka (blessing).

As I end my essay, I congratulate the entire Islamic world on the new hijri year.

Regards and best wishes…


See Also:

الليبيرالية: دين القرن الواحد والعشرين – محمد حجاب

Last updated on: 14 Safar 1442/1 Oct 2020

An Essay on Tourism (written on December 6th, 2017, and proofread on August 27th, 2019)

Tourism is an important activity and income source, especially for developed and developing countries. As money and economy are becoming more and more influential day by day, so is tourism. This proves that it is one of the best ways for a country to develop. However, does tourism or developed countries, in other words, always bring about advantages?

As mentioned before, tourism is a good preference for a country to develop, earn more income and become more popular. It provides many with the opportunity to be employed, and improves the overall economic situation. It should, however, be kept in mind that the employment is mostly seasonal and the place loses most of its potential for income during the off-season period. It is also very instable, and if the economy mainly depends on tourism, is most likely to be negatively affected in case of political conflicts with other countries. It can also be used as a tool to resolve such conflicts between countries, because it may be profitable for both sides. Due to the profit it brings and its other benefits, governments and private corporations work on various projects, improve the infrastructure and other services such as healthcare, transportation and telecommunication. Many hotels are built in order to accommodate tourists, while other facilities such as shopping malls and entertainment centers are perfect choices to attract the attention of tourists and earn more cash whilst introducing the local culture by selling goods and items specific to that place, unfortunately at high prices especially for natives. Governments build airports and better roads to provide easier access to these places. These, in addition to developing the touristic place, cause the natural environment to be devastated. They are also the main reasons for traffic. Despite all the attempts to find a solution to this problem by the government, Istanbul would be a good example as a metropolis with a population over 15 million, lots of historical places and entertainment centers, plenty of traffic, and the lack of forests.

Tourism is an opportunity for people and countries to introduce their cultures to others and learn about other cultures. Before or during a visit to a foreign place, many learn at least some basic words to be able to communicate in the language spoken in the region they travel to. Likewise, the native people also learn many things belonging to various cultures, either because they want to communicate with tourists better or as a result of the contact and communication. It is unfortunately true that both tourists and natives need or want to learn English and/or other universally spoken languages because of the need to find a way to communicate with as many as possible, and this inevitably causes them to abandon their own cultures and therefore leads to assimilation. Another reason for this is that people often feel ashamed when acting according to their traditions.

The touristic potential in a region forces governments to protect natural beauties, and particularly endemic plants and animal species. In addition, it urges them to build museums and restore historical places. As stated before, it also causes the environment and forests to be devastated because of the construction of the facilities ordered above, and the large amount of litter dropped by many people. The large number of people also leads to the construction of many houses, and this, in addition to harming the nature, increases the rents and house prices.

Playgiarism (completed on September 18th, 2018)

Like all other branches of fine arts, music has also been largely affected by the recent technological revolution and rapidly increasing use of art-ificial intelligence for the creation and publishing of songs. We can stream and download millions of songs from probably tens or hundreds of thousands of platforms; whereas, in the near past, people used to go and buy albums and listen to them, meaning that singers, being considered to have been influenced by technological developments most adversely, were able to get what they deserved in exchange for their work and production. The significant change in the situation has brought about a question: Is this acceptable? In other words, should we be able to obtain songs in such a so called illegal manner?

It is argued that what we do is not legal at all, and this thesis may not be totally wrong, at least according to the laws. However, we also encounter and often engage in numerous arguments about the functionality of the laws as not all of them are necessarily necessary. Since this is the topic of a separate discussion, let us get back to our topic.

Despite all the difficulties celebrities claim to be faced with, many people still want and are delighted to be singers. We should also acknowledge the fact that they often release songs, and this is enough to prove that they have large amounts of money to spend. In addition, a great number of their songs have senseless lyrics, and this has led to the more valuable songs with more meaningful lyrics to lose their importance. All most of us care about is the melody, and all some singers care about is money. Another important point which is often missed out by those who propose the idea that songs should be sold, is that something sold is no longer an artistic work but rather a commodity only the buyer owns. Arts, in general, (should) aim at creating the most beautiful and unique, for everyone. Therefore, I think that some of them may not deserve all this money they earn. Even if they do, concerts seem to be perfect choices for them to get plenty of cash and waste it for more meaningless songs, by which I mean that they never have to sell the things they produce. Concerts and the TV programs they attend are much more than enough for them to earn money. If they had sold their songs, they would most likely not have become that popular, and profited that much. The current situation allows us to access almost all songs and know more celebrities, making them much more popular and increasing the attendance to their concerts greatly.

Another reason is that their talents and capabilities have also lost their importance as it is now even possible to generate completely computer-made singing software. Today, most singers are not remarkable, and they refer to a great variety of technological devices and effects to improve their voice. This unfortunately causes the actually more talented ones to be unable to show their abilities. What makes these singers celebrities is their previous wealth, and if the wealth they previously own is already enough for them to become known worldwide, it should not be necessary to wish to become wealthier.

It is claimed that, when downloading songs free-of-charge, we do not pay tribute to the effort the singers make. While this may be right to some extent, it may be difficult to prevent everyone from using illegal methods to download them. Also, it would be necessary to ask whether all radio stations are illegal due to their enabling us to listen to the songs for free. Without needing to download it from the Internet, a person can record the song whilst it is playing on the Radio, provided that he / she has an enhanced recorder. This gives the person the opportunity to get the song for free without having to either purchase or download it.

Another aspect of this issue which will be dealt with in this essay is that people, in the past, were able to purchase a copy of an album only once and then, even if they could not copy the files and distribute them to anyone who wanted for free, they could directly give them the CD. This made it sufficient for a group of people to access all the songs in an album only by having to purchase it once.

To conclude, it is claimed that we should not be able to download songs for free, but, when we take into account some points, it does not cause an ethical problem because of some reasons such as the loss of the value and meaning of lyrics, the lack of talented singers, and the technological devices they use to hide their flaws. We should also keep in mind that arts should never be turned into a tool for commercial purposes.

My Essay on Overpopulation (completed on March 18th, 2018)

Humans are the most sophisticated creatures on earth, and they are the only ones to control and exploit the nature, and natural resources. In other words, we are the only creatures to make intentional, tremendous and irreversible changes in the world, aiming to own more. This desire has led to the thing which we now call ‘civilization’. In the stone age, the conditions were much more challenging compared to the current ones. It was very likely for babies and mothers to lose their lives during and after birth, so parents were producing many children. People had started growing crops, and this was the reason for the first rapid increase in population. There was now a new opportunity to obtain food: agriculture. Then, after thousands of years, the wish to have more pushed these intelligence beings to start something called ‘the industrial revolution’. The facilities and life standards were much better, but people were still producing many children for two reasons: customs are hard to change, and it was still vitally vital to have more young family members to earn money as manpower had not yet lost its importance at all. Today, due to the lack of industrial methods, the population is still increasing at a fast rate. People are therefore suffering from starvation and poverty. Looking at the other side of the coin, we can see the most developed countries will most probably suffer from depopulation soon. The question to be asked here is ‘What is wrong, and what to do?’.

The first and apparently most logical suggestion may be to encourage people in un(der)developed countries to refer to birth control methods, but the people living in these countries are uneducated. We need to start by educating people, and for this, we should develop the country first in order to bring better education facilities to the country. The main problem here is that we cannot let the people focus on the development of their country without satisfying their essential needs. However, if we satisfy their needs, they will make even more children.

Another way could be to demand those who live in developed countries to consume less. This way we can share the resources more equally to a great extent, but not completely. This leaves us with a question and few choices: ‘What to do if we cannot enable everyone to have an equal amount of resources?’ As Hardin (1974) discussed, what if our boat has enough room only for ten people beside the fifty inside, and there are some one hundred waiting to be rescued? I personally think we can make the capacity of the boat sufficient for about a hundred if we can really convince the wealthy to consume and waste less. Nevertheless, as stated above, if those living in undeveloped countries become wealthier, they will most probably prefer having more children.

We can also let some of those living in undeveloped countries to migrate to more developed ones so that they can live a better life. Before doing that, we must allow them only if they agree to have a maximum of three children. The migration should last for a few decades/generations, and be kept under control. This may also help us balance the density of population around the world. The immigrants must be educated so that they can educate their children as well. This is compulsory for their integration to the community.

To conclude, my personal solution would be to start by persuading the wealthy to consume less and share their wealth with some people living in undeveloped countries, enabling them to migrate to more developed ones. This reduces the population of the undeveloped countries, prevents the population from decreasing in developed countries, balances the global density of population, makes the poor people wealthier and more educated, and creates a much more peaceful world.

An Essay on Global Warming (completed on December 18th, 2017)

The term ‘global warming’ is a world-wide known and commonly mentioned phenomenon, especially in the recent years, to describe the general changes in climates and the increase in average temperatures caused by the excessive use of fossil fuels and the carbon release arising from this. It, according to most scientists, is a great danger for the nature and us, and threatens our future. Plenty of prophecies and rumors have been circulating among people, and many of them were chosen as topics for books and movies. Whereas, indeed, it is currently possible to observe the problems and take precautions before, and to prevent, the realization of such prophecies. This essay mainly focuses on the problems caused by global warming, and offers some solutions to them.

As stated above, global warming can be defined as the significant increase in average temperatures. This inevitably threatens various species, and has already led a large number of them to become extinct. Putting the balance of the nature in risk, this is a serious danger for our future. It is a generally agreed fact that every living being, most probably excluding humans, is a corner stone for the matter cycles, and therefore each of them is at least as essential as the others. Hence, we should put an end to this by providing some effective solutions such as implementing laws which protect forests and punish those who damage them, including governments and major companies. In addition, zoos must be abolished as they do not serve any other purpose else than providing their owners with income. They are threats to the wild life, because, after living a life with perfect protection and care, animals often have great difficulty in adapting to their natural habitat. Moreover, we do not create the conditions for them to be safely left in their natural environment and be able to survive there, so zoos are not good solutions to this problem due to the incompatibility between their purpose and current function. Zoos were designed to keep animals safe until the circumstances were ready for them to be returned to their habitats.

Another problem caused by global warming, as its name says, is global warming. Average temperatures and the frequency of so called natural disasters have been increasing at an incredibly fast rate, and even scientists cannot make precise predictions on what will happen in the future. It is claimed that it will be possible to read 70 on thermometers in 2050, and this, if true, is more than enough for most of the living beings to become non-living beings. To slow this down, if not to stop it, we, as individuals, can longer the lives of our grandchildren by taking some simple steps such as not preferring to travel by our private vehicles or airplanes unless compulsory. To reduce traffic and fuel waste, in addition to different and sustainable fuels, new underground roads should be built for vehicles. Taking into account the fact that our excessive consumption is the main reason for global warming, it would also be effective to restrict and monitor factories in a more systematic way so as to reduce the effects of global warming, but its possibility is debatable. We should already focus on another issue as our highest priority: our consumption madness. If we do not consume, that is, if we do not buy, companies will not produce.

To conclude, we must bring some solutions to the problems caused by global warming as soon as possible. These include the restriction of factories, education of people about consumption, reduction of the usage of private vehicles and airplanes, and elimination of the necessity of zoos. It is up to us either to turn our only world into a planet with the remains of old human civilizations or a planet with the remains of old factories as a lesson. We must do something before it is too late.