I’ve watched Jump, a movie about a village girl who loves dancing and had travelled to the town to make her dreams come true. It’s a typical nobody-to-somebody Cinderella story with an “and they live happily ever after” ending with a modern day Prince Charming.

What left me thinking was when the employer told the village girl that she should be realistic. She’s got a job in the factory, and she should do her best in her job instead of trying to be a good dancer, which is not something that a normal village girl is expected to achieve. She should realize that pursuing unrealistic dreams cannot fill her tummy.

Of course, in the end the village girl did become somebody (what do you expect? This is a movie. It is supposed to be dramatically unreal). However, I find myself agreeing with what was said by the employer more. Perhaps two years ago when I was still immature, I would say that it is more important to pursue dreams but this is not how I think now.

The importance of being realistic leads us to a case: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.

In this case, the employee were exposed to a dangerous substance – asbestos dust during their course of employments with a few employers. The exposure to asbestos dust had led them to suffer from mesothelioma, a type of cancer. The problem here was that human science could not prove which employer caused the employee to suffer from mesothelioma, because the precise manner in which asbestos dust caused the cancer was unknown to medical science.

Ideally, the employee need to prove on balance of probabilities that the employer’s negligence had indeed caused him to suffer from cancer, but this is now impossible due to the limitation of medical science. Does it mean that the employer would not be held liable? Lord Hoffman and Lord Rodger said no. The limitation of medical science must be taken into account and therefore, the employee need to prove it on balance of probabilities. The standard required would be lowered because judges have to be real too. They cannot expect the employee to prove something that no one else at that time can prove. Judges do not require the employee to carry out a mission impossible.

Therefore, if I am the village girl in Jump, I think I will stick to my job in the factory, and I will only attempt to pursue my dreams when I have the ability to pursue my dreams. Maybe some will argue that this is the easy way out, but I think I’m merely being practical, and there’s nothing wrong about being practical. It could also be argued that by the time I have the money to learn to dance, I might be too old to do so, but have you guys saw the news about a bunch of old Taiwan ladies who were in their 60’s actually try to learn Ballet, and they actually danced reasonably well after learning for two years?

I’ll give priority to my tummy over my dreams, but speaking of dreams, I do hope to learn pole dancing someday in future. Heh.