The discussion on renewable energy has been going on for at least a decade and people have relied on fossil fuels almost entirely for more than a century. However, the situation when fossil fuels were the most efficient and the cheapest source of energy has been left far in the past. Many countries such as Germany and Sweden have already made significant efforts to fix this situation, employing numerous power plants working on the renewable resources of energy. The most effective among these resources is geothermal energy.

Geothermal energy does not depend on the world’s economic and political situation as strongly as fossil fuels do. Besides, extracting fossil fuels adds to the price of energy produced from them. Therefore, geothermal energy is much cheaper than traditional energy, saving up to 80% of the costs over fossil fuels.

Being a renewable resource, geothermal energy produces less waste and pollution than traditional energy sources. In geothermal systems, carbon dioxide makes up about 10% of air produced. Overall, in order to produce the electricity that can be used for one hour, the geothermal systems produce 0.1 pound of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases. For a comparison, a power plant producing from gas produces up to 2 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and those power plants that work on coal produce an astonishing 3.6 pounds of greenhouse gases.

Low costs is another reason why using geothermal power plants should be the first choice for many countries. Geothermal heat systems require 25% to 50% less energy for work compared with the traditional systems for heating or cooling. Besides, geothermal equipment is less big：due to the very nature of geothermal energy, geothermal power plants have only a few moving parts, all of which can be easily sheltered inside a relatively small building. What’s more, the life span of geothermal equipment is rather long. All these make geothermal power stations easy to build and keep.

Upon reflection of the ideal social moral code, within one sentence, it would be: be constructive, not destructive. Though “be constructive, not destructive” sounds sensible, there are many nuances (slight differences). Sometimes it is difficult to determine if an act is exactly constructive or destructive.

We can decide if something is constructive or destructive based on degree, for instance. Say your preschool son is acting up and broke a glass vase, even after you told him to stop grabbing and playing with it several times. You get a thought in your mind to spank him to give a punishment for his naughty action. However, you start to feel confused about whether this would be constructive or destructive. It might show him that not listening to you and breaking things is not welcome, but on the other hand, spanking him is an act of aggression that will hurt him physically and perhaps teach him to use force in situations later in life. There is no exact wrong or right in these moments. However, through your own reasoning, you can decide to what degree it would be beneficial or harmful to him and the situation at hand. Personally, I would not spank my son, as I think it does more destruction than construction. But, that is just me.

Another nuance to consider is the definition we give to construction and destruction. For example, for some people, construction can never involve violence, while for others, it could even be an essential part. Take the example of going back in time and killing Hitler. Killing someone is definitely termed a destructive act. However, in light of the circumstances, I would assume that the majority of people would agree that killing Hitler at the height of his power if they had the chance would be seen as a constructive, thus positive act. Therefore, our definitions often determine our values and how we behave upon those principles.

Additionally, construction and destruction can be filtered through a sociopolitical lens. Construction can be seen as good to some, and bad to others. Take for instance creating new homes in a forested area. Yes, homes for humans are made, but also the habitat for countless animals is being destroyed, or at least altered to an extreme. Construction, if it is true, it should be beneficial to all parties included. That is a tall order, though. Every step we take kills bacteria and other microorganisms—and perhaps plants, insects, and who knows what else. Destruction can be seen as a part of each moment. Plus, what a majority might regard as a constructive might be seen as destructive to a minority. Is there a way to determine which side is correct? It is almost impossible. Being in the majority in terms of a moral outlook does not mean it is correct, or more appropriate. There have been many instances in history when acts were regarded as constructive, but were later seen as destructive with a modern lens.

Though I consider “Be constructive, not destructive” the most solid one-sentence social moral code, it is not without its nuances and problems. For instance, the degree to which we consider something constructive or destructive, definitions of being constructive and destructive, and construction and destruction seen through a sociopolitical lens are all nuances. These differences consist of the confusion that this ideal social moral code causes. However, I cannot imagine a better code than the one stated in this essay in terms of living one’s life in a social context.

In an effort to stop the pandemic's advance, we may be finding ourselves taking certain precautionary (预防的) measures and maintaining a reasonable degree of social distance. Our habits have had to change to accommodate the reality of coronavirus.     11    

People are advised against touching high-touch surfaces in public places, including elevator buttons, door handles, and especially other people's hands. Consequently, the traditional habit of handshake has been substituted for other gestures, like elbow bump (碰撞)and foot tap, which involve less bodily contact.     12     The foot tap and the elbow bump have a way of feeling vaguely ridiculous, and it's hard to take them entirely seriously, especially in business settings. Centuries of tradition has normalized handshake in our culture, and it may be too deeply rooted in our custom to be abandoned.

    13     In 1996, a sales manager developed an experiment to test the impact of the handshake on strangers. He found that more people told the truth when he introduced himself to them with a handshake before asking the question." A handshake, "he later told The New York Times, "creates a higher level of trust, a degree of familiarity, within a matter of seconds."

With more communication on screen, the handshake is an occasion to reach out and touch one another, to enjoy a tiny, fleeting connection.     14     And meeting someone face to face, whether a client or a colleague, always suggests a closer level of familiarity than merely touching base online.

As the coronavirus spreads and habits change, it may prove that you can't fist bump or foot tap a handshake either. There's something in human nature that responds to the handshake. It feels good to shake the hand of someone you respect or admire, to have that moment of bonding.     15     When COVID-19 is a distant memory, chances seem good that the handshake will prevail (流行)again.