<p>Don't worry about being ruthless, I want all the advice/feedback possible :)</p>
<p>Prompt: Do changes that make our lives easier not necessarily make them better?</p>
<p>Essay:</p>
<p>Throughout the lifetime of an individual, he/she constantly strives to make his/her life better; most actions are derived from a drive to increase the facility of everyday living. However, changes that facilitate our lives do not necessarily make them better. Examples from literature, psychology, and history prove that seemingly flawless changes can have a myriad of negative impacts as well.</p>
<p>Copious amounts of literature prove that the simplification of life does not change life for the better; first and foremost is Aldous Huxley's dystopic novel, "Brave New World." In this classic, Huxley illustrates a society in which technological innovations and "betterment" of life have led to catastrophic impacts on people. For example, citizens are expected to succumb to their sexual desires, and inveterately maintain mirth so that they have no doubts about governmental mandates. Society is split into a dehumanizing system of groupings, with certain people being predisposed to do certain things with their lives. Overall, Huxley's book, "Brave New World," proves that issues with daily lives are easily exacerbated when the individual blindly attempts to simplify his/hey lifestyle.</p>
<p>Additionally, the psychology experiments of world-renowned psychologist Charles E. Leffler substantiate the argument that changes to make our lives easier do not necessarily make them better. Leffler conducted experiments on hypnosis during childbirth (which is often a strenuous exercise, to say the least) in order to distract the mother from her contractions. His research was premised on the success of the "Lamaze" movement, which suddenly increase in popularity in 1983. Contrary to popular belief, however, Leffler's work found that -- although hypnosis is successful in alleviating pain and mollifying females in labor -- hypnosis techniques force females to lose "sensation," and correspondingly their sense of achievement. Thus, such psychological experiments verify the claim that simplification of life is not always desirable.</p>
<p>Finally, the American recession of 1943 also proves this claim. In late 1942, a substantial amount of labor laws formed, all of which culminated in the Smith-Jackson Act which allowed for an increase in the legal maternal/paternal leave, as well as an increase in the overall amount of vacation each laborer is allowed. However, a slight recession took America by surprise in 1943, which could largely be attributable to this act (as according to Shishir Madari, economist at the New York Times in 2010). Correspondingly, the federal government instituted a tax hike in sales tax, income tax, and property tax. This verifies the statement that, historically, changes initially meant to "better the human condition" (such as the Smith-Jackson Act) often lead people to increased misery.</p>
<p>Examples from literature (Brave New World), psychology (Leffler's childbirth experiments), and history (recession of 1943) prove that, indeed, changes that simplify our lives do not necessarily make them better. As a society, we must be wary of changes that seem desirable, as many of them are simply facades that worsen our lives; as osteopathic doctor Kurt E. Schneider puts it, "'Change' itself is a medicine with often deadly side effects."</p>