A Not-So-Happy Medium

     In both "A Measure of Restraint" and "Okefenokee Swamp," extremes are discussed. Chet Raymo discusses how science is beneficial, but only to a point. When it goes too far, it can be detrimental or immoral. The author of "Okefenokee Swamp" implies different levels of analyzing-the first passage takes a more medium, descriptive stance while the second is a completely negative one. The only thing missing is the opposite end: a strong positive one. But is there really such thing as a happy-medium 100% of the time?
     The cure for cancer will never be found without extensive study. Scientists will need to go further and dig deeper than ever before. If they never take risks or do things that some disapprove of, they may never get anywhere. I'm not saying that there is no limit, but it should not be rigid. This leaves the problem of where to stop: where in the middle of not doing enough and doing too much?
     Also, when describing something, how should you describe it? If someone asks you what a local park is like, how much bias should you give? You want to give her an accurate representation of it, but if you think it's a waste of time, you don't want her to waste hers, too. Is the picnic area just a picnic area? Or is it infested with bugs, or a perfect area for family time? How much does this person want to know? Should she experience all of it it herself or trust you?
     Every single day people try to find the "happy-medium." It's the ultimate struggle between too much and not enough, so happy-mediums are perfect, but extremely, frustratingly difficult to find.