Public libraries have been cornerstones of communities for centuries, providing access to knowledge and culture to people of all backgrounds. The contention that digital technology has rendered them obsolete fundamentally misunderstands what libraries do and for whom they exist.

Proponents of this view point out that vast repositories of books, journals, and newspapers are now available online, often without charge, making the physical library appear redundant. Why travel to a building to borrow a book when the same text can be downloaded instantly? For those with fast internet connections, devices, and the digital literacy to navigate online resources, this argument has some validity.

However, it overlooks the reality that digital access is far from universal. Millions of people — the elderly, the homeless, those on very low incomes, and residents in areas with limited broadband — rely on public libraries precisely because they cannot access digital resources independently. Libraries provide computers, internet access, and the support of trained librarians who help patrons navigate information, fill out forms, and develop skills. These services become more rather than less important as society digitises.

I strongly disagree that libraries are becoming obsolete. They are evolving — offering digital lending, technology workshops, community programmes, and spaces for social connection — while continuing to serve essential functions for those whom the digital revolution has left behind. A society that closes its libraries in the name of digital progress abandons its most vulnerable members.

Education policy in developing countries involves difficult choices about how to allocate scarce resources to generate the greatest improvements in human welfare and economic growth. The tension between academic and vocational or industrial education reflects these genuine trade-offs.

Those who favour prioritising industrial and vocational skills argue that developing economies urgently need workers who can operate and maintain machinery, build infrastructure, and contribute to manufacturing — sectors that generate immediate employment and economic output. Academic education, they contend, often produces graduates whose skills are mismatched with available jobs, contributing to graduate unemployment while leaving technical vacancies unfilled.

The counter-argument is that academic education builds the analytical, critical thinking, and communication skills that underpin long-term economic development and democratic governance. Countries that have achieved sustained development — South Korea, Singapore — invested heavily in academic education alongside industrial capability. A technically skilled but critically undereducated workforce may be vulnerable to exploitation and ill-equipped to adapt as economies evolve.

The most effective approach recognises that the dichotomy is false. Developing nations benefit most from education systems that combine strong foundations in literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking with practical and vocational pathways suited to their economic contexts. Rather than choosing between academic and industrial education, policymakers should build systems flexible enough to deliver both, guided by labour market data and investment in teacher training at every level.

The globalisation of food culture — symbolised by the ubiquity of fast food chains, internationally traded ingredients, and cooking programmes broadcasting worldwide — has made diets across continents increasingly similar. Whether this convergence is positive or negative depends on which aspects of food culture one values most.

The globalisation of food has brought genuine benefits. International trade allows year-round access to nutritious foods regardless of season or local climate. Exposure to diverse culinary traditions has enriched the eating experiences available to millions and, at its best, fostered intercultural appreciation. The spread of nutritional knowledge has also enabled healthier dietary choices in countries where traditional diets were limited in variety.

The negative consequences, however, are substantial. Traditional and local food cultures — many of them nutritionally balanced, ecologically sustainable, and deeply embedded in community identity — are being displaced by ultra-processed, calorie-dense, nutritionally poor foods that have been linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease across the developing world. The erosion of food biodiversity, as a narrow range of commercially viable crops replaces thousands of locally adapted varieties, also threatens agricultural resilience.

On balance, I consider the convergence of global diets a negative development when it involves the displacement of diverse, nutritious traditional foods by industrially produced equivalents. The solution lies in preserving culinary heritage, supporting local food systems, and ensuring that the flow of global food culture is genuinely reciprocal rather than dominated by a few powerful commercial interests.

In many societies, economic pressures, long working hours, and the demands of digital life have reduced the time parents spend in meaningful interaction with their children. The consequences of this deficit are significant and multifaceted.

Research consistently shows that parental engagement — reading together, conversation, play, and shared meals — is among the strongest predictors of children’s cognitive, emotional, and social development. When parents have insufficient time to provide this engagement, children may show delayed language development, difficulties regulating emotions, and lower academic achievement. The quality of the parent-child relationship also affects children’s mental health and their ability to form secure attachments throughout life.

Multiple causes underlie this time shortage, and responses must address them. Governments can implement policies that support working parents: affordable, high-quality childcare reduces the anxiety of balancing work and family; paid parental leave allows parents to be present during critical early years; and flexible working arrangements enable parents to attend school events and be present at key moments in the day. Employers also have a responsibility to create workplace cultures that do not penalise employees for prioritising family.

At the individual level, parents can benefit from being intentional about the time they do have — choosing active, engaged interaction over parallel screen use. Even modest, consistent investments of focused time can provide the connection and security children need. The problem is real but not insurmountable, provided it is taken seriously at every level of society.

Zoos have been a feature of human civilisation for centuries, evolving from private collections of exotic animals into institutions that claim purposes in conservation, education, and research. Whether they remain justifiable in their modern form is a question that divides opinion sharply.

Critics argue that keeping wild animals in captivity is inherently cruel, depriving creatures of complex natural behaviours, social structures, and habitats to which they are evolutionarily adapted. Even in well-resourced zoos, large-ranging animals such as elephants and great apes exhibit signs of psychological distress. In the age of high-definition wildlife documentaries and virtual reality, the educational value of seeing animals in artificial enclosures is diminishing.

Defenders of modern zoos point to their role in conservation breeding programmes that have helped prevent extinction for species such as the Arabian oryx and California condor. Zoos fund scientific research, train conservation biologists, and contribute financially to in-situ conservation projects in wild habitats. For many urban children, a zoo visit provides a first meaningful encounter with wildlife that can ignite lasting interest in conservation.

I believe the strongest zoos — those that prioritise animal welfare, fund genuine conservation work, and provide naturalistic, enriching environments — can still justify their existence. However, institutions that fail to meet these standards should face stricter regulation and, where necessary, closure. The future of zoos lies in becoming true conservation centres rather than entertainment venues where animal welfare is secondary to visitor spectacle.