August 2017 — Gp Lah!

Technology only serves to benefit humanity. How far do you agree with this statement?

There is no doubt that technology has become heavily integrated into our everyday lives. There is almost no escape to it and mankind often debate whether technology is good or bad to humanity. Many people believe that technology can only cause harm to their lives and society, while many others strongly defend that technologies have made their lives much more leisurely and enriching than it could have been several hundred years ago. In this 21 century, the advancement in technology has caused both significant negative and positive impacts on mankind. It would be simplistic to say that technology only serves to benefit man. Technology is a double-edged sword concur that technology brings comfort, make life more luxurious for us, however, there are detrimental impacts that have not benefitted mankind at all.

In the perspective of the working economy, the growing technology will lead to a high level of unemployment. In the business world, more and more machinery and computers are taking over man jobs. Since machinery is more efficient than human, machines will be more beneficial to the industry as the production level will increase. As such, this leads to unemployment as machines have replaced human’s work. Standing in the perspective of a manager, since most companies are profit-driven, they would hire more machine than man. The cost of production of producing one quantity of a commodity would decrease as less manpower is needed in the working force. This ultimately means that as technology grows, more and more jobs will be lost which will lead to unemployment. If the majority becomes unemployed due to technology, it may lead to inflation and riots within a country, which will affect the stability of a country. Hence, with the replacement and advancement of machinery, it is no doubt that in this aspect, technology did not help man.

Additionally, technology causes adverse health and psychological impacts. In the area of computers and advanced gadgets, people are spending more time playing computer games, using social networking sites for entertainment and knowledge, chatting and interacting with unknown people and making friends online. Once they are addicted, they do not think of going out and making real friends. These gadgets have attractive features that can cause an individual to be addicted, and plug into the virtual world all the time. This virtual world is known as the internet. As such, the time spent interacting with people physically reduces. At a later stage, this may lead them to loneliness, depression, frustration when betrayed by unknown people besides social isolation from friends and family members. When people of all age become overly addicted to games like Audition SEA or grand theft auto (GTA), these lead to negative impacts such as skipping meals, rejecting people away for entertainment reasons. This kind of addiction does not seem to benefit humanity.

Adding to that, advancement in gadgets technology causes the art of conversation to be diminished. We live in a world where we are constantly connected to our peers. Technology has provided us with ways to always be connected and interact with them at any time of the day. Nowadays, we are so dependent on technology, and since it is always at your fingertips, face to face communication has become less frequent. Instead of one on one communication, we opt for text, email, tweet, or Facebook in the name of convenience. Although technology’s efficiency is greatly appreciated, this causes the art of conversation to be lost. For example, text messages and email allow us to communicate in short, carefully-edited sentences that lack immediacy. It also completely removes the contextual information provided by the tone of voice and body language. As a result, people who connect with others primarily through technology might find it difficult to engage in normal conversation, since they may have issues understanding non-verbal cues due to lack of practice with face-to-face interaction that cannot be paused, edited or filtered. As such, in this aspect, it did not benefit mankind.

Also, in the area of food technology, the creation of genetically modified food give consumers harmful health impacts. Although the storage time for GM food is longer, the process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. For instance, fish genes are tweaked with a growth hormone that causes the fish to double in size far more quickly than it usually would, so fish farmers can increase their profits. Soybeans that have been genetically modified, for example, can survive applications of herbicides that would destroy an organic soybean plant. To date, GM food has no be certified 100% safe for consumption as there may be hidden harmful impacts when a consumer consumes GM food for a long period of time. No scientist can confidently say that GM food is absolutely safe for consumption. There are no labels on food to identify them as GM food, and this will cause distress to those who consume GM food by accident, or those who do not wish to consume the chemically modified substance. Hence in the area of technology, it can bring anxiety and distress to the people in terms of possible health impacts and unknown consumption of GM food. This shows that food technology in this aspect did not benefit humanity.

On the flip side of the coin, education has been greatly advanced by the technological advances of advanced gadgets, aiding students better than before. Where pen and notebooks formed the toolkit of previous generations, today’s learners come to class armed with laptops, smartphone and iPod. There is the use and promotion of several learning portals that allow a student to learn online even when they are unable to attend lessons. The current era of pervasive technology has substantial implication to education. Adding to that, students are able to learn on a global scale without ever leaving their classrooms. Classrooms are becoming more technologically involved than before. For example, the tablets not only offer students the chance to browse for information in quick fashions, but they also allow them to more easily collaborate on projects and become more engaged in their learning process. They have become exceptional tools that soon every classroom will strive to have in the aspect of mobile phones to be used in school. In addition to providing access to social media platforms which allow students to more freely interact, they also provide easy access to useful information and knowledge which betters a child’s overall learning experience. As compared to the past, one would need to flip the thick books in order to find the information they need. Now, students are able to attain information more efficiently. Also, access to education online has by far been the biggest advancement in education Like never before, students are able to access any type of information about any subject matter they choose. Asknlearn, YouTube, and numerous other forums have fuelled the learning experience and allowed student access to resources necessary to supplement their own education.

In conclusion, although technology brings enjoyment, convenience, and make life more luxurious for mankind, there are unfavourable impacts that did not benefit mankind at all. Such unfavourable impacts include people losing their jobs due to the work done by advanced machinery, people losing the experience and opportunities of having face to face conversation. In the area of food technology, although there are ways to prolong food, there are hidden health impacts which can be undesirable to mankind. Also, the addition of such an advanced gadget will cause psychological impacts to us unknowingly. Thus, I do not concur that technology only serves to benefit mankind since there are negative impacts that will not benefit man.

‘If people become ill it is largely their own fault.’ How far do you agree?

In this era, personal responsibility is very important in helping oneself stay healthy and not fall sick. It is often being said that you are what you eat. This is certainly true when one’s lifestyle can be responsible for his or her health. However, blaming an individual solely or to a great extent for becoming ill is deluding because the responsibility in keeping an individual healthy is split among the individual, government, society and private sector. The government is responsible for intervening to encourage people to lead a healthy lifestyle whereas society needs to be socially responsible in preventing the spread of contagious disease. The private sector, on the other hand, should always put consumers’ health first before profit. However, in a totally different scenario where illnesses are passed on from one generation to another, no one is to be blamed if an individual inherits the disease. So the statement, If people become ill it is largely their own fault, is not true.

Firstly, we must acknowledge that getting ill can be an individuals’ fault because today, more than ever, personal health responsibility or taking charge of one’s own health is a vital phase in disease prevention as well as protocols for recovery and healing from disease. Personal health responsibility encompasses active participation in one’s own health, keeping fit with regular exercises and watching a healthy diet. Therefore, a person who does not lead a healthy lifestyle can be at fault if he or she falls sick. Moreover, lifestyle plays a huge part in most of the illnesses in developed countries. Six of the ten major factors responsible for the global burden of illnesses are linked to lifestyles. These lifestyles include smoking and high consumption of tobacco-related products, consumption of alcohol, indulging in unsafe copulation and having a high intake of cholesterol. Thus, if individuals lead these lifestyles and then fall sick, they can be at fault.

Nonetheless, individuals do not hold full responsibility for their health because the government plays a crucial role and holds the responsibility in preventing their people from getting sick. In countries like the United States of America where huge commercialisation of fast-food has caused a great problem of obesity among its citizens, the state has a responsibility to step in and enforce a healthier diet and restrict excessive marketing campaigns by fast-food companies. Methods such as educating can be utilised by the government to educate people about the negative impacts of consuming too much unhealthy food. Although having a healthy diet lies in the hands of an individual, the state plays an important role in this because the government is the one who sets laws and determines prices for the food products. It is in the power of the state to regulate the prices of various healthy food products. The government can provide incentives or subsidies to farmers and other food producers to lower the prices of healthy food products so that it is very affordable and comes to the reach of every individual. Thus, this shows that the government can prevent its citizens and its people from getting ill by leading a healthy lifestyle. So, if the government does not play its role, then if people become ill it can be partly the governments’ fault.

Apart from the government, society is also responsible for preventing people from becoming ill. In this period of a global H1N1 flu pandemic, employers have the responsibility in providing a clean working environment for its employees. Employers always have to be ready and prepared with the necessary solutions for cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation. For example, a diluted household can be used for disinfecting and cleaning common areas like counter surfaces, telephones, computer keyboards and doorknobs on a regular basis. Moreover, when people are infected with the contagious diseases like the H1N1 flu or develop its symptoms, they should call the non-emergency ambulance and not take public transport or get close to anyone to prevent the spread of the disease. Infected people should also control their mobility and stay home from work. These are part of social responsibility which if neglected can be responsible if people become ill.

Often overlooked, the private sector also holds responsibility in preventing people from falling sick. Private sectors involve in producing food products should not sacrifice consumers’ health in profit-making. This is seen in the recent Chinese milk scandal where a chemical appeared to have been added to milk in order to cause it to appear to have higher protein content. As a result, it has caused deaths of six infants and hospitalising another eight hundred and sixty babies. Thus, for this reason, the private sector is at fault when consumers become ill.

It is undeniable that many figures are responsible for a person’s health. However, in a few cases where people become ill, nobody is to be blamed. If people are infected with hereditary diseases, nobody is at fault because this is linked to the fate which cannot be controlled. Most hereditary diseases such as diabetes, cancer and hypertension are passed on within families from one generation to the next generation. Thus, just as children can inherit facial features like thick eyebrows or blue eyes from their parents, they can also acquire certain disorders and hereditary diseases. So, are they to be blamed for having these hereditary illnesses when they cannot prevent themselves from inheriting it?

In conclusion, to say that it is largely an individual’s fault when he or she becomes ill is fallacious. This is because health responsibility not only lies on the shoulders of the individual but the responsibility is also split among the state, society and private sector. Moreover in cases like a hereditary disease, as discussed earlier, we can only blame fate.

Should the poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met?

Tourism in many developing countries is one of the most reliable and sustainable economic development options and in some countries the main source of foreign exchange earnings. Part of this income trickles down to different groups of society and it is easy for this revenue to leak away from the poor benefitting the more educated and well-off segments of society. However, if tourism is managed with a strong focus on poverty alleviation it can directly benefit the underprivileged, empowering them with the ability to take care of their basic needs such as access to clean water, food, proper sanitation. With this in mind, it is my thesis that poorer countries should develop their tourist industry with poverty alleviation and sustainability as the central aims that are built into strategies and action plans.

Developing the tourist industry will generate a tremendous amount of revenue which can be used to elevate the standard of living of the people. Hence it would be sensible for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry. Constituting the second most important source of foreign exchange revenues, the growth of the tourism industry can result in a significant change in the economy of a developing nation. On top of that since the industry is conventionally made up of microenterprises and many of the jobs demand little skills and investment, developing the tourist industry can potentially be the most valuable and sustainable way for economic development. At the same time, tourism is largely based on the rich cultural heritage, unique landscape and biodiversities of the country which do not require heavy funding for infrastructure and yet creates high turnover. For example in the case of Nepal tourists often embark on mountaineering and trekking expeditions, and religious pilgrimages contributing to 4.6 % of Nepal’s GDP. Moreover, in the process of developing the tourism industry, infrastructure for basic necessities such as clean water, proper sanitation and power supply will be developed. One such example is the millennium villages project, Mayang, Rwanda, like most developing countries, experiences high infant mortality rate, limited health care, no electricity and no paved roads. However, after developing the tourism industry Mayang’s plight has been steadily improving – there is abundant food, booming businesses, increased number of schools and a decline and mortality rate. This reasserts that promoting tourism development can, in turn, benefit the locals through the provision of capital which can be used in meeting the basic needs of the poverty-stricken.

However, a paradox is that the rise in tourism can also be detrimental to the poor. Hence it may not be advisable for underprivileged countries to develop the tourist industry. The concentration of resources to the tourism industry may possibly result in the negligence of tourism’s welfare. As a consequence, people’s needs will be compromised. Brazil, for instance, had vital services such as transportation, education and health care that were inefficiently run and woefully underfunded. Yet it spent a ridiculously huge sum of 11 billion dollars on hosting the world cup alone. Should the interest of its very own citizens not remain the top priority? It is utterly unacceptable for a country to channel its already limited funds to accommodate the foreigners when the basic needs of its people are still not well taken care of. Having been bogged down by cost overruns, delays in the infrastructure projects and deadly accidents the world cup had also innovatively resulted in an inflation spike in Brazil. The influx of tourists increases the demand for basic services and goods causing prices to accelerate which negatively affect the local residents whose income does not increase proportionately. This impoverishes the poor to an even greater extent, depriving them of their essential needs all the more. Furthermore, in reality, most of the profit generated from tourism goes to the richer strata of society resulting in leakage. Take Thailand for instance, it is estimated that 70% of all the money spent by tourists ended up leaving Thailand via foreign-owned tour operators, airlines and hotels. Evidently, tourism gives the largest piece of the pie to large foreign companies and little earnings remain within the country. Moreover, the running of tourist facilities such as resorts and Recreation parks require a tremendous amount of water and energy. In developing countries, these resources are often scarce and used at the expense of the local population robbing the locals of their meagre essentials. Hence, the suggestion that tourism will alleviate poverty in developing countries may be a misguided one. It may be unwise for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry.

Nonetheless, tourism development should be actuated as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion. This will guarantee that the depletion of resources is minimised and the interests of the locals are not jeopardized. It is imperative that sustainability is taken into account as failing to do so will result in tourism being destructive to the economy which exacerbates the people’s inability to sustain themselves. In order to do so, these poorer countries need to develop their tourism industry whilst having poverty alleviation as the main principle. Part of the revenue needs to be directed towards the building of infrastructure for basic necessities and the government will have to ensure connectivity and accessibility of the industry to the poor. With this in place, more of the poor will be able to earn at least a living wage and thus be able to pay for their basic necessities. Developing nations should model the development of the tourism industry after South Africa’s so as to ensure this economic pursuit will not undermine the ability of the poor to meet their basic needs. In South Africa, ecotourism accounts for a large portion of employment in rural areas, the places where poverty is most rampant. The World Wide Fund also estimates that more than 80% of their revenue is invested in building water filtration facilities in villages. Such a sustainable approach to the development of tourism industry ensures that people are able to take care of the basic needs and also end their poverty cycle.

Tourism being susceptible to political unrest, natural disasters and shift in international demand is a very volatile industry. As such, it would be prudent for poorer countries to develop the tourist industry sustainably and with caution. Its development should also be done with people’s welfare as the main principle. Feeling to do so may result in tourism being a destructive industry, intensifying the people’s suffering and minimising their ability to meet their basic needs.

“With great power comes great responsibility”. Discuss with reference to scientific development.

“With great power comes great responsibility”, a sensible quote made famous by the Spider-Man franchise. In this era, mankind wields more power than ever with the help of scientific knowledge, discoveries, innovations and modern technology. We are able to greatly improve the lives of mankind, increase longevity, reduce the burden of menial work and much more but science does not stop there. In recent times, scientific discoveries have been groundbreaking. Whole new realms of science are being researched into, pushing limits, reaching beyond boundaries. These include subjects like genetic science and nuclear technology that promises benefits to mankind that we could never have imagined. Yet in science, there are always flaws and risks that make such issues controversial. Should science be responsible for its discoveries and research? Should the power of science be subjected to humanitarian responsibility? I believe so because it is only moral and ethical to do so, however, such cases are not always plausible.

Nuclear technology is one of the greatest developments in recent times. Through nuclear technology, man has been able to harness great power in military weapons and also in energy production. The advantages of using nuclear energy are phenomenal because the energy that can be harnessed surpasses energy production through the burning of fossil fuels. Presently, the earth is relying only on the remaining 50 years worth of fossil fuels to generate electrical energy. Nuclear energy is hence touted by many scientists and governments to be the solution to depleting fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is also clean and environmentally friendly as it is non-pollutive. Many countries have begun to invest in research and development of nuclear plants to generate energy for their country’s needs. One such example is Japan however the recent earthquake has proven that such technology is risky and dangerous. In March 2011, earthquakes that struck Japan caused nuclear power plants in Fukushima prefecture to break down. This caused high levels of radiation in the city which was dangerous for humans. The nuclear power plant meltdown has shown that world scientists have to be responsible for innovations when dealing with such high-risk technologies. They have a moral obligation to ensure that their technology and equipment is stable so as to protect the safety of individuals who might be disadvantaged, should accidents occur. Nuclear Technology has also been used in military science to create Weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction can release vast quantities of energy from small amounts of matter and are extremely destructive. The research in the creation of such weapons has caused an arms race all over the world and the consequences of nuclear warfare would be terrifying. Indeed, great power calls for great responsibility because with great power, more is at stake and it is crucial that someone should take responsibility to ensure that the power is only put to good and efficient use.

Genetics is another area that has been heavily researched. One very common example is genetically modified food (GM Food). Genetically Modified food has brought breakthroughs in the agriculture industry. Crops can now be pest resistant and are more durable, and they can also be modified to be enriched with nutrients. Scientists and companies that produce such seeds are ultimately profit-driven which leads to methods like terminator technology that enables GM seeds to only be able to be used once. This coupled with patents, allow companies to demand high prices for the seeds, eventually displacing poor farmers out of the agricultural business. Scientists should be responsible for preventing the abuse of the disadvantaged. Also because science has the potential to bring great benefits to mankind, it should fulfil its humanitarian obligations to help the disadvantaged. This has been done in the Philippines where Golden rice, a type of grain enriched with beta carotene has been planted and given to poor children. This enables them to get more vitamin A and has saved children from death and blindness. Genetics also dabbles with other controversial issues that require responsibility when undertaking research. Genetics may lead to great medical breakthroughs like gene therapy and stem cell research, however, many people demand regulations and guidelines to protect the sanctity of life that they feel is being tampered with. Scientists have to be responsible in their ethical conduct when doing research so as not to abuse their experiments and the sanctity of life. Therefore responsibility is important to ensure that science does not cross over the line of what is unethical and immoral.

While science should seek to be involved in humanitarian work due to its ability and potential to help and better the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, it is not always possible to do so. It is difficult for certain areas of science to be linked with altruistic goals. Some areas of Science and Technology are profit-driven, with goals only to create innovations that would satisfy consumers and this is essential to drive our economy. Research and development have resulted in products like touch screen phones and mini portable music players that really do not mean anything to the poor and disadvantaged, yet we cannot do without them. These brilliant innovations have benefited the wealthy and in turn, generates wealth. It is difficult to include any form of altruistic responsibility, however, we cannot agree that such technology is redundant. Therefore, it is not always true that technological power should always be connected to responsibility.

Science is ever-evolving and changing. New discoveries are made every day and it takes failures for man to recognise the current flaws which would then lead to improvement. There is always some form of risk that remains and scientists cannot bear all the responsibility and blame when accidents related to their scientific discovery and innovation occurs. If the Japanese earthquake did not happen, then the power plants and equipment would always have been susceptible to shocks and damages. damages. However, after one failure, improvements and more research will be made. This is then the scientist’s responsibility to recover and improve. Therefore it is not responsible when possessing power but responsibility to strengthen that power.

The summative assessment of the arguments above leads me to conclude that it is impossible for science to just create and discover but shrug its hands off the consequences of its creations. That is because so much is at stake. (E.g: lives of people, safety) and also science has the potential to help the needy and so should be harnessed to fulfil this moral obligation. However, science cannot always be used just to serve and help others. Other aspects of science that have to do with profit-maximizing are just as crucial to our lives.