With globalization on the rise, societies may be increasingly preoccupied with bringing in the dollar bills and squandering it to raise their living and comfort levels. As such, would it be possible that the poor, homeless, and the destitute would be left displaced in society without any source of help? Personally, I do believe so. Despite the presence of charitable organizations and programmes to help raise funds for the less fortunate, it is even more evident that charity is given less priority in today’s world. As modernization and rising affluence begin to assume control in this world, many people in the Third World and those marginalized in developed societies would be at a greater disadvantage, as charity seems to be displaced from society.
Some may argue that with globalization and modernization, the charity has evolved into what is known as ‘modern philanthropy’, taking action rather than supporting charitable organizations with one-off donations. Previously, while acts of charity were usually associated with monetary donations and supporting donation drives, the charity has now evolved into action, with people travelling across countries and helping those in need. Locally, schools have made overseas Community Involvement Programme (CIP) an integral part of the school curriculum, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Not only do these programmes allow for well-rounded education, but they also provided opportunities for students and teachers alike to understand the plight of the less fortunate and to take action in building wells, schools and other facilities to help them meet some basic needs. On the global stage, the creation of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) could be seen as one of the leaders of modern philanthropy. From Africa to Asia, the foundation has impacted countries positively in line with their belief that ‘all lives have equal value’. They are concerned with educating the poor, eliminate poverty and have given out grants and donations in order to try to nip these problems in the bud. Henceforth, philanthropy in today’s context may not merely be about monetary donations. Rather, charity is still relevant today because of how man uses it as a tool to help better the lives of others.
Furthermore, charity is still existent today as it allows people to understand what compassion is truly all about. In a world where globalization seems to numb people, inhibiting their ability to feel for the destitute, charity still has a place to help them regain consciousness of the plight of fellow men in other parts of the world. For instance in Singapore, local celebrities Priscilla Chan and Alan Tern had been giving recognition for their charitable works overseas by Channelnews Asia. On the international level, an entirely new industry centred on giving has been created. Philanthropy workshops and coaches have emerged, helping people to narrow in on what they genuinely are concerned about, guiding them in managing their finances and taking the right action in contributing to charity. Philanthropic coaches go an extra mile in helping their clients create mission statements based on the type of change they envision and help them to plan their giving, both in mode and magnitude. As such, proponents of the claim that charity still has a place in the world today may be valid as charity takes on a different and more meaningful nature when people get their hands dirty and create change in the world.
On hindsight, however, rather than allowing the charity to gain some control over the world today, greed seems to be the new “virtue” that many subscribe to. With rising affluence in many parts of the world today, one cannot help but start to practice material hegemony, igniting a desire for material pleasure. Even with a greater amount of wealth, it would be surprising that man would donate a portion of it to charity purely out of goodwill rather than desiring to be recognized for such a major contribution. The recent Wall Street meltdown is an apt example of how a rich and developed country led to its own downfall and adversely affected the global economy. In the USA, citizens took mortgages from the banks without being able to pay them off due to their desire for their dream house without being fully informed of the risks involved, in a bid to increase their pool of wealth. Locally, there are also instances in which people bought Minibonds that were repackaged and sold through local banks, losing thousands of dollars overnight, showing how greed is perhaps innate and universal. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to claim that in today’s world, charity is becoming more displaced and greed has taken its toll on society?
Aside from Greed, the power that Pride yields seem to be usurping the throne that Charity once held, in the 21st Century. As people become more prideful about their wealth and status, the charity may have become more obsolete in their lives. America is a good example, again, of how a nation slowly and painfully learns the truth behind being humble. For the past few years, the USA has prided itself for being brilliant, her greatness in moral convictions, the superiority of its intelligence and the seemingly blameless nature of her actions and decisions. Involvement in war-torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled American into uncomfortable realizations of how far its pride has led it to squander global goodwill and cooperation and in the process, make a number of enemies worldwide. A poll conducted after the Wall Street meltdown was even more telling of how pride blinds people, causing them to be even more self-centred than before. The poll saw a half of Wall Street workers dissatisfied with their 2008 bonuses while the rest of the world suffered from the repercussions of the financial turmoil, with retrenchments and bills that could not be paid off. As people become increasingly preoccupied with meeting their level of happiness and comfort, the charity would seem to disappear from the list of ‘must-dos’, leaving the less fortunate with little hope for the future.
Lastly, laziness seems to be getting the better of the world when it comes to charity. It is ironic how the world is in a constant buzz and yet Sloth stealthily kicks in to help people settle for what is most convenient. Be it struggling to complete one’s PhD, keeping the family together at the dinner table and loving one’s difficult relationship entails costs and sacrifice. Sloth, or rather, laziness propels individuals to choose the easy way out, thereby neglecting what is more pressing. It is no wonder that the larger affairs of the world such as poverty continue to remain unresolved despite the many years of international cooperation. Even with money flowing through the banks of charity, the hands of the people are not yet dirtied as they seem to believe that mere dollar bills would indeed make the world go round in happiness and hope. These people share the common belief that one-off donations would indeed make a difference, but they may not be clearly aware that their laziness in taking action to create changes in the world would ultimately, prevent the less fortunate from envisioning a better life in the coming years ahead. As such, I do believe that charity is becoming increasingly displaced as the world today would rather choose to settle for the most convenient things in life.
To sum up, charity, I believe begins with the heart. With people whose hearts are filled with greed, pride and laziness, how can the world be rid of the current problems that have to be tackled? Poverty would continue to exist in the future if people are unable to realize the increasing importance of charity in the world today. Without charity, there probably would not be any glimmer of hope for the poor and destitute. As the “virtues” of greed, pride and laziness pounce forward and assume control of the world, charity seems to be marked out of the list of priorities in the world today.
Month: September 2017
“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?
There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world.
Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices.
Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus, men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries.
Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men.
In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.
To what extent should society embrace and encourage the widespread use of automation?
A new technological revolution is upon us, with ever-expanding research bringing us closer to the day where humans will be rendered obsolete in numerous workplaces that are currently run by humans, and in some sense has already accomplished that in certain areas. This new technology will bring forth what has been dubbed the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, where much like the textile industry in the nineteenth century, our manufacturing capabilities will skyrocket to unprecedented heights. This change is within the foreseeable future and has led many to question whether we as a species can handle such dramatic changes, or if the implications of such a revolution are worth the increase in productivity that we might have, thus approaching the situation with caution or outright baulking at the thought. While this revolution that is automation will not leave everyone happy, I believe that we as a society should embrace the use of automation with open arms and spread it as far and wide as possible, for we as a species have gotten to where we are now through advancing our technologies, and we too shall see a net benefit from pushing our efficiency beyond the capacity of what we have now.
With that being said, I understand that not everyone will see automation in a positive light, for there are tradeoffs to efficiency. Take for example the argument that an increase in automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are able to manufacture products more efficiently and at a lower price are sure to displace their human counterparts. Companies care greatly about their bottom line and are willing to trim down the number of employees that they have in favour of machines that can do the same menial tasks, machines which never need rest, never have the need for a salary, and machines which do not have labour unions to fight for better working conditions for them at the expense of the company. Workers may then be retrenched and unable to find new occupations fitting their previous wages, especially when they do not have the qualifications that higher-paying jobs require, nor would they have the means to attain these qualifications easily. Take the coal industry in the United States of America, where despite the President’s claim that there is a war on coal with climate change regulations clamping down on jobs, coal production remained relatively stable in the past decade albeit decreasing slightly, even as the number of employees in the industry dwindles at a steep rate. This seemingly odd contradiction is due to automation allowing for coal to be extracted more easily by machine, and thus have been needed to retrieve the same amount of coal. These coal workers having a little qualification in other fields can then only sit around unemployed as they live on meagre welfare benefits, leaving them disgruntled and more open to making questionable choices in electing people to power. Hence, as automation can lead to a loss of jobs and in turn a lowering in quality of life for some, I cannot say that automation can come without fault.
Proponents of obstructing automation will also argue that expanding the use of automation can have harmful effects on those who cannot afford such machines. While automation is able to make manufacturing more efficient and cost-effective, such machines may carry with them hefty price tags, costs which a manufacturer can only recover their investment from if they produce massive quantities of goods with said machines. Small and medium enterprises which do not produce goods on a large scale would thus be unable to afford such automation, leaving only large corporations with the revenue to afford such machinery given their larger scale, thus giving them the competitive edge in manufacturing goods. By owning these machines, large corporations can produce and sell their goods at a price which small and medium enterprises cannot sustain, and may, in turn, use this power to force smaller companies out of the market by selling their goods at a far lower price, a term called ‘predatory pricing’, as smaller companies will lose out greatly on sales, eventually giving the large corporations a monopoly over their market and will give them the ability to exploit this as they please. As embracing automation may give an unfair advantage to certain corporations that can ultimately give them great power and leverage over their market, one would be justified in their scepticism of accepting automation.
Despite all the negatives that may be associated with automation, I believe that automation can bring about many positives that outweigh these, with one upside being that efficiency will be dramatically increased. Where it would have taken twenty people to man twenty counters at a grocery such as Fairprice in Singapore, you now only need five employees to man the same number of counters, which is all thanks to automation. This applies to many other industries as well, where manufacturing and assembly lines filled with people would now have machines and robots instead, inserting each piece of a good with extreme precision and clockwork timing. To implement automation would cut down costs drastically as goods and products can be made with the purpose of doing one role, much like a human would usually do, but with more consistency, as they never grow weary as they work. Such efficiency can lead to higher quality goods for consumers and at a lower cost, allowing us as a society to enjoy a better quality of life. As such, given that we have the chance to allow more people to have access to higher quality goods as they become cheaper and are more likely within the means of lower-income groups, we should embrace automation to give us such a future.
Moreover, with automation, no humans are involved in the work, or if they are, they are able to work on the sidelines. This can allow a workplace to be far safer, as it would be machines that are put at the front lines rather than the worker. Workers enjoy better safety as, in an automated environment, their interaction with the products is minimal and most people would play a role more in line of supervising the automation line, reducing the need to move heavy objects or move products to machinery which can seriously harm someone if they are not careful, and prevent exposure to dangerous substances. Workplace accidents are virtually nonexistent at Amazon warehouses, despite them being a shipping and cargo delivery company that would naturally involve moving heavy containers. Such a feat is achieved by their use of automated robots which can zip across the warehouse floor, moving crates exactly where they need to go, and operating like a well-oiled machine with other units to ensure that not a single collision will occur. Should an unexpected situation arise whereby a heavy object falls, only the poor robot will be crushed by the crate, as no human would directly work with the cargo. Such an environment for a workplace would be excellent, as no person should be exposed to the potential danger when it is avoidable, especially when their livelihoods depend on their health. Hence, I believe that society should push for the widespread use of automation in various workplaces, so as to make the working environment a safer place for all.
Finally, automation should be expanded in its use as it allows society to plan ahead for the future potential of technological developments or other needs rather than to stagnate with the same inefficient jobs where technology could do the same work in a better way. As manufacturing jobs are phased out and replaced by machines, demand for workers in such a sector would fall, indicating to the children of today and the workers of tomorrow that this industry is no longer viable and that they should look elsewhere and attain the qualifications for those jobs which have potential in the future. Much like how the electronic fridge rendered ice carvers obsolete, automation will more effectively produce our goods and render manufacturing line jobs obsolete. This can encourage people to look towards other industries with less attention that cannot be replaced by automation and develop them, such as computer sciences and healthcare services which require a human touch. By displacing future job openings in sectors which depend on mindless menial work, our youth may instead look to other opportunities and thus increase the number of people working in other sectors, so that we as a society can be more efficient in developing other aspects of discovery, so that we may expand at an even greater rate than before. Hence, with automation forcing youth to disperse to other industries to allow these industries to have more manpower and more minds at work, I believe that these industries may also grow as a result, even if they are not directly affected by automation. Therefore, we as a society should accept with open arms the future that automation may bring us, and do our best to spread its influence.
Humans do not simply stagnate, for it is in our nature to expand on what we already have. From the coal engine to the internet, to automation, it is only right that we advance ourselves further so that we may all live better lives. Hence, society should embrace automation to maximize its capabilities.