"The Universe takes care of its most fragile creatures"
Already I am receiving comments from some of you explaining where you stand on the debate question.
Patrick overwhelmingly disagrees with the statement using the examples of homeless people and natural disasters to show that the universe is not taking care of everyone.
"Natural disasters, for example hurricanes, will have a massive impact on unlucky survivors as their homes may be destroyed".
Lilla provides a more balanced argument, giving reasons both to agree and disagree with the statement. Here are her reasons:
-There are viruses and diseases.
- Some people are homeless and don't have water, food and homes.
- It doesn't protect people from dying from guns, knives, viruses and diseases.
- Our planet is in the perfect position otherwise we could be too hot or too cold.
- Gravity keeps us safe from flying it to space.
- The moon goes perfectly around the earth so we have day and night.
- The earth circles around the sun at the right speed.
What do you think?
Do you agree or disagree with any of the reasons given so far?
Do you have reasons of your own to add?
Email them to me and I will add them below.
Don't forget that the nature of a debate is that you respond to each other. It is a bit trickier to do it via email with me as a middle-man but it is better than nothing!
Elsie is in agreement with Scarlett. She writes:
This argument is about this statement in Wonder: 'The Universe takes care of it's most fragile creatures.'. I think that the definition of 'Universe' here, is all the stars, planets, people, animals, black holes, asteroids in space (and the Earth too!!). I strongly disagree with this statement, because the smallest of things in space or on Earth, are meant to be caring for it's most fragile creatures, so a star millions upon millions of miles away has nothing to do with anyone's life. Therefore not all of the Universe is taking care of all its fragile creations.
People that are lucky like you and me are looked after, but people, for example, like kids in a war, are not lucky because they have to flee their homes to find a safe place (probably only to stay until they are kicked out). Not being looked after - right?
Things like natural disasters, like viruses, floods, storms and earthquakes, is the Universe's creation. That -I am pretty sure- is not how you take care for people! The Universe is creating these disasters, and then throwing them at the weak and vulnerable.
In conclusion, I think that this statement is wrong. I do not agree with the fact that the Universe does take care of its fragile creations. I have said many reasons on my side to disagree, but I do I understand that there are many ways of using the word 'Universe', especially in this situation. It could mean many different things, and that each definition changes their opinion. But, my view is that I strongly disagree.
Scarlett has some really interesting points to make:
"I agree with Patrick that the universe doesn't look after it's most fragile, but I also think it's not the universes job to make sure we have a home. That's down to us as humans. I also think a lot of natural disasters have been caused becuase of the way humans treat the universe. Not saying we deserve to be victims of floods or hurricanes, but if we looked after the universe better then it would look after us."
Continuing with the idea that humans have a big role to play in how things turn out (rather than it being down to the universe), Adi writes:
"I think the universe does take care of people. For example, Covid 19 was our fault. But the people who are sick are taken care of. Even people who have died since you can have funerals for, if you can't have a funeral, for some reason, you can pray. Last of all some people have recovered."
What do you think? Have you got a challenge to what Adi has written? Email it to me and I will add it to the debate page.