<p>Prompt: Do changes that make our lives easier not necessarily make them better? </p>
<p>Ironically, change in our lives is sometimes the only thing that stays constant. Constantly are we exposed to new experiences; constantly are we taken into new lights, and constantly are we undergoing subtle but important changes. Much of our lives are spent trying to control these changes in order to benefit ourselves by making our lives easier. For example, we might change living quarters to feel more comfortable and secure. But in many cases, it is apparent that easier does not necessarily imply better. </p>
<p>Take Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, for example. The citizens of the New World are addicted to soma, which is, in laymans terms, the "happiness drug". The citizens live in a society in which desires are instantly gratified and sorrows are instantly mended, as if they never existed. Many would agree that life would be easier if their love of their life would have sexual intercourse with them without batting an eye (a common sight in Brave New World) but Huxley goes on and shows this does not make life better at all. </p>
<p>When John, a "savage" from an Old World Reservation (somewhat like a modern day Indian reservation, ant it doesn't have instant gratification and soma), is brought to the New World, he is bewildered by the abundance of technology and happiness. He even falls in love with Lenina, a beautiful woman. But when he expresses his feelings towards Lenina, Lenina makes inappropriate sexual advances, under the influence of her New World mentality. John realizes that, this while extremely convenient, takes all the meaning out of love. He learned about love and compassion from reading Shakespeare back in the Old World, and is disgusted at Lenina, who exemplifies the complete opposite of the ideals written by Shakespeare and takes all the love out of... well, love.</p>
<p>Not only does John from Brave New World show us that easier does not necessarily mean better; athletes prove this point to us every day. Roger Federer, one of the greatest male tennis players of all time, at one point went without competition. In 2006, he was thrashing each and every player he faced; the dream run had to end. The next year, Rafael Nadal, Roger's famous archival, showed that Federer had become somewhat soft after a comfortable season the year before. In a 6-2, 6-2 beatdown at the French Open, Roger and the rest of the world realized that such easy opponents made garnering prize money easier, but did not at all make Roger a better player.</p>