Are machines making humans obsolete?

In the future, it is expected that most of the jobs held by humans today will be replaced by automated technologies like robots and AI. However, this contention has been argued by those who believe that automation has a long way to go in replacing humans. This is because the automated machinery lacks human functions like cognition and critical thinking skills. While some areas of work in the future will completely be dominated by machines, humans that are not technologically savvy would be obsolete. 

The belief that humans will be made obsolete by machines stems from the fact that today many jobs are being automated. This includes jobs in factories where humans have been replaced by automated machinery on assembly lines. Similarly, customer service and sales jobs today are increasingly being automated by the means of chatbots, automated emails and calls. Automated machinery can do these tasks better than humans and with little human errors. We have to acknowledge that only jobs that are repetitive and require a significant amount of data to make quick decisions would replace humans, but robots and automated systems would still require technicians and engineers to maintain these systems. Hence the aspect of obsolences is a selective one. 

It can also be contended that instead of making humans obsolete, the machines can be instrumental in helping humans to do tasks easily and efficiently. Machines instead of replacing humans can work alongside them. An example of this can be drones being used for surveillance by the US Army or bomb disposal robots that can analyse suspicious areas or devices without endangering the lives of people. It can be said that machines can be very helpful in assisting humans in other areas like health care, transportation and agriculture. However, they cannot make humans obsolete because people are required to operate these machines. 

Machines cannot replace humans in specialist jobs which require cognitive skills and empathy. Many companies today and even in the future would need specialists like engineers, doctors, teachers and nannies. Teachers and nurses would still be needed in education and healthcare systems because unlike machines they can better understand human emotions. Similarly, we might need human psychologists and therapists because they can empathise better with people than any emotional recognition system in the future. The point is that there are many nuances of human relationships that cannot be grasped by machines easily. Thus, machines need humans in the future, and cannot make them completely obsolete. 

Lastly, Robots cannot absolutely replace humans in economic and political roles. In many cases where machines are seen replacing economic functions like accounting and financial assistants, they cannot completely take over these roles. Even in political scenarios, machines cannot take up political roles. For instance, though machines are being used in politics they cannot completely replace humans because governments need to work for the welfare of its citizens. It is also important to note that politicians are responsible for coming up with economic plans and policies and play a vital role in a country’s economy. Thus, machines cannot make humans obsolete in fields of politics or economics. 

In conclusion, machines can work alongside humans but cannot make them completely obsolete. Though it is true that some technical aspects of the jobs can be taken over by robots, it cannot replace all job roles. As long as humans have their capacity to think and rationalise, they can never become obsolete.

The movement of people from the countryside to cities cannot be sustained. Discuss.

• assess the scale of the movement of people to urban environments
• consider the extent to which movement of people from the countryside to cities can be sustained
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward
• the need for people to live in the countryside for resources and work
• the negative impact of excessive numbers of people moving from the countryside into the town
the danger of overcrowding in urban environments and the negative impacts of this on people
• how urban life quickly adapts to the increasing number of people
• the provision of a wide range of facilities for large groups of people
• urban infrastructure may develop to meet the needs of a growing population
• the benefits to work/life balance of living in largely populated urban environments
• how it may be necessary and whether it is possible to reverse this process.

‘While environmental sustainability is desirable, it is an unachievable goal.’ Discuss.

While there is increased awareness and  education surrounding one’s  ecological footprint and  its impact  on the environment, conservation efforts through environmental sustainability have been questioned for its true effectiveness in mitigating the  impact  of our current  environmental degradation.   This begs the  question of whether true environmental sustainability is indeed possible to achieve or if it will only remain  as a mere  goal  that  is impossible to carry out, let alone, impactful.

The assumption in the question in that sustainability has intrinsic value. It has positive  benefits or impacts on our environment. Environmental sustainability is unachievable and  any efforts  will not  be  able  to mitigate the  existing problems and  impacts of our current  environment.

Discuss the desirability  of environmental sustainability and evaluate whether the goal or the  efforts  at  achieving  this goal  are  achievable  or not.  A thoughtful  response also  reflects  the perspective of “Ideal versus Reality”; reasons and factors that may hinder  the goal from arriving at its idealistic  outcomes are discussed, resulting in a key treatment of the contention “desirable, but unrealistic  goal”.

Provides  an accurate and  complete understanding of the  key terms  in the  question; the  concept of ‘environmental  sustainability,  as  well  as  the  contention of  ‘desirability’  and  ‘achievability’  of  this concept is explained  and  evaluated  against  each  other   consistently  and  extensively.  Explain  environmental  sustainability  in  terms   of  the  efforts  taken   by  various stakeholders (Individuals, Society, Government, NGO, etc.) in ensuring the longevity  of resources and ensuring that  environmental degradation is kept  to a minimum.  The ‘desirability’ of sustainability is explicitly discussed in terms  of its inherent worth, value, significance, or benefits. The ‘achievability’ of a goal  is also  discussed through analysing  the  outcomes of the  goal/objective, or the  process of carrying  out  the  objective.

‘It is better to be a pragmatist than an idealist.’ Discuss.

A pragmatist is one who observes the physical reality of the world around him, analysing, making judgements and attempting to formulate the most efficient and successful plan to cope with his circumstances or problems. An idealist is not a direct contrast to a pragmatist, but much of his ideas and methods stem from a frail thing called hope (that has proven excessively difficult to slaughter), and a concern for more than practical reality. If there is a quote that may sum up this comparison succinctly, it would be, “a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and value of nothing.” The cynic, who considers himself pre-eminently practical, is an accurate representation of what one might call a pragmatist to the core.

The contention that pragmatism is a more favoured stance to take than idealism is not totally incorrect in the fast-paced, material world that we live in, but it is flawed in that it does not address the complete nature of humans and of life, and therefore cannot be taken without a healthy pinch of salt.

For practical reasons, quite obviously, pragmatism should be favoured in order to successfully deal with real-life situations, but it is definitely better to still remain an idealist in principle, so that, in accomplishing one’s goals, one does not neglect to consider the value of the lives that may be lost, and the moral boundaries that may be shattered. An idealist with no pragmatic side to him will be in no position to accomplish his goals except by constantly going to protest marches and perhaps “blogging” about his concerns. This individual will only end up frustrated, and he will simply place himself above real-world concerns such as real economic crises or political barriers, and cast his ill-informed disdain upon those who are probably doing more than him to help the rest of the world.

For an idealist to achieve his goals, he must understand how to manipulate his circumstances favourably, to avoid being one of the dilettantes that pollute the Internet with poor ideas of being the world’s moral watchdog. Rather one should emulate individuals such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who have not only taken advantage of their circumstances to become the richest people in the world, but have also kept in their hearts the noble principles of charity. Of course, one may argue that pragmatism and idealism simply cannot go together; that the two values are irreconciliable but as earlier said, they can exist in two separate states – idealism in the mind, and pragmatism in practice – to be able to realise those ideals.

Oftentimes it is pragmatism that concerns itself with making the best of a situation, or in other words, to lose as little as possible, but it is idealism that consists of envisioning a better future and winning as much as possible, and as such is necessary for progress. A feminist hardliner would be likely to bite your head off if you told her to make the best of her situation some years back in the benighted times of female oppression. A nicer feminist would then inform you that it was their idealism, not their coping mechanisms, that helped raise the female individual in society to equal, and nowadays, greater status than men. One who is familiar

with the story of the boy (or girl) who ran down the beach at low tide to throw as many as he could of the stranded starfish back into the water would also know of the practical and grumpy man who asked the boy why he was doing an act that did not matter since he could only save a few of the starfish. The boy’s reply is astoundingly mature, and also representative of his respect for the value of all life. “It matters to this one”, he said, before throwing another starfish back in. A totally pragmatic person like the old man cannot see the point of taking part in what seems to be a futile activity but the young boy recognizes that though what he does seems inconsequential, it is a positive difference that he is making in the world. Like the old man, some may argue that it is more important to view one’s deeds in the light of the big picture, that one life is just one life, that a single hair is of no importance, if we are to be practical. But as the Taoist Lie Zi once said, enough hairs are as important as skin and flesh, enough skin and flesh are as important as one limb, enough limbs are as important as a life, and so on.

Idealism, as was earlier mentioned, has to deal with a frail thing called hope, and when things seem always to run counter to one’s wishes, it is hope that gives one the strength and courage to press on and truly succeed, rather than pragmatism that screams in one’s face of the futility of a struggle against what may seem to be forces that far outstrip one’s own power. A pragmatist’s attitude will not help a country or person in reduced circumstances, but hope for a better life for oneself and the generations after oneself is the primary ingredient of nation-building and of rising above the forces that hold one down. The Special Olympics is a very clear example of how disadvantaged athletes may still fulfil their dreams and bring glory to the countries they represent. The hundred metres dash in the Special Olympics, in a cynic’s eyes, cannot hold a candle to the performances of athletes like Maurice Green, but it certainly holds the blazing torch of hope for those who believe their lives to hopeless. It was Qin Shi Huang who remained stoic and strong, and who battled all odds to unify China and give it the potential to become what it is now, one of the greatest nations of the world. Such an ambitious plan no doubt originated from a mind that still maintained the big picture and all its problems, but also possessed the true hope and spirit of idealism. Great developments only take place

when an idealist or a group of them initiates them. Obviously, it may be argued that the opposite is true, and that consequently more disastrous mistakes may occur, such as the Great Leap Forward, which was more like a great leap backward. However, if we were to give up on the possibility of surging forward together as one human race and all the risks involved, it will be likely that even given several millennia, we would not have moved forward. Idealism, therefore, cannot be compromised for the sake of pragmatist ideas, but must remain at the root of our principles.

Pragmatists also like to say that they concern themselves with the “greater good”, but they usually have a cold, harsh way of looking at present facts, and often ignore or dismiss the true value of persons and other things involved. A pragmatic nurse would be likely to give a dying patient a pat on the head and a pull on the plug of the life-support system (well, perhaps not the pat on the head). But one of the greatest idealists of all time devoted herself to the care of the dying in Calcutta. She devoted all resources she had, along with her fellow nuns, to making them comfortable and giving them a death that was as dignified as possible given the situation. The old man in the starfish story would have scratched his head and asked her the same question. Mother Teresa would then have replied with her quote that has become one of my own personal principles, “No one can do great things, only small things, with great love.” One may argue, even upon hearing this heartwarming profession of compassion, that the resources she used to care for the dying would be better employed on other lives, but we must also recognize that while the dying are still alive, they deserve as much, if not more, respect and reverence as any other human beings.

A pragmatist would not realise this, and if the world were a wholly pragmatic one, many people would die uncared for and many more terminally-ill children would be abandoned on the streets. Pragmatism, therefore, is not a wicked principle, but it is heartless and valueless if not married with the appropriate idealistic values of hope and the inherent sacredness of life. Therefore, if we are to achieve our idealistic goals, it is important that we employ pragmatic practices while bearing in mind the end result of a better future for all men. Only by doing this may we constantly push against the constraints of circumstance and create break-throughs that humanity needs in order to rise to greatness.

To what extent has space exploration benefitted humankind?

• examine how exploring space has benefitted humankind
• consider whether space exploration has had any negative impacts on humankind
• make a judgment, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward
• the benefits of ongoing programmes to explore the moon for water and life
• the development of the international space station and the implications for global cooperation
• new inventions and technological advancements enhancing various aspects of life on Earth
• the learning achieved from studying various planets and phenomena in the Solar System
• the search for alien life and the benefits to humankind of what we have discovered so far
• there being no need to look into space, as humans have their religions and philosophy to aid understanding
• money used for space exploration could be better spent improving humankind in other ways
• space exploration being of no benefit to life on the planet as it is merely to fulfill intellectual curiosity.

What are the implications of continued research into cloning?

What would make a good introduction?

Although many scientists have pointed out that the actual substantial benefits of animal cloning lie mostly in the agricultural realm, this has been largely ignored by the media and the general public. The impending possibility of research into human cloning has cast a shadow over the solutions that cloning can offer to problems such as Third World famines and the conservation of biodiversity that were once considered as pressing. Why is this so?

It is simply because human cloning has overwhelming implications. Its mere possibility raises fundamental questions such as “What makes one human?” and “What is the right to be free?” that have been hotly debated by philosophers since the dawn of time. What is more important is that members of the public who would rather ignore these questions now find a need to answer them.

Continued research into cloning has the most implications in research into human cloning. Even before human cloning is possible, a question arises in the process of starting research in that area, that of experiments on humans. Society’s belief that human life is sacrosanct and that no one has a right to toy with another’s life is evidenced by public horror at tales of medical experiments on unsuspecting participants.

Research into cloning will inevitably meet with failures and setbacks, very likely involving the loss of human life in the form of cells and embryos. Once again we are faced with a question already hotly debated in the issue of abortion – at what point does a foetus become human? The loss of life through this research is a major implication that is posed to halt any research in this direction. But then, the possible benefits of such research forces us to consider what the value is of human life. Should we continue with such research if it were to save lives in the future?

Another important implication and possibly the most frightening while also welcomed, is that cloning may reveal what makes us human. Do we truly have an immaterial “self” that we so often say is in the mind? Cloning can offer the answer to these questions simply by altering the cloning process and observing when a human is created without self-identity. While this is a question that awakens an insatiable curiosity, the prospect itself is chilling in the extreme.

Before we can even contemplate this question fairly we need to see what actual human cloning might result in. Obviously, we would be able to obtain genetically identical individuals. This opens up a whole new world of possibilities. For once, the debate over how the environment affects human behaviour can be resolved. The use of twins in studies of how different environments affect thought and behaviour is not novel, but with human cloning, such studies could be carried out over a larger scale.

How would you frame the conclusion?

What enhancements are needed for the above essay?

Evaluate the view that education does not encourage creativity.

• discuss what education should be about or concerned with
• explore whether or not education encourage creativity
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward that education does not encourage creativity.
• traditional education curricula emphasising basic skills of literacy and numeracy
• most countries expecting education to produce ‘useful’ citizens who will contribute to the economy
creativity in schools contributing to an appearance of apparent disorder
• academic education usually being considered as the prime target of schooling
• most children demonstrating innate creativity that ought to be nurtured and channelled
• the modern world requiring more creative ‘solutions’ rather than just a production line
• creativity often involving collaborative effort that lies at the heart of the modern workplace
• nurturing creativity helping to develop the originality and dynamism that drives all human endeavour.

‘Too much pressure is placed on government leaders to solve the problems of their people.’ How far do you agree?

Social Contract Theory suggests that governments across  the various systems in the world have the social obligation to care for its people, as well as to be responsible not just for the provision  of public goods in the country,  but  also  the  problems  faced  by  its people.  Understanding that, it is important to  question  how  much  government intervention  is adequate or  how  much  is considered  ‘too  much’  when  it comes to  authorities’  role  and obligation in solving some of the problems of its people. Are there differences in the types  of problems faced by citizens that can be categorised as government’s responsibility or the responsibility of individuals  or other stakeholders? What is considered too much pressure on government leaders and how does one measure it?

Establish the  understanding of the  issue  of the  question regarding the  government’s obligation to its people when it comes to solving their problems. Such responses also further present an  acute, accurate, and  complete  understanding  of whether too  much  pressure is placed  on  the authorities to solve the problems of its people and  whether such pressure on the government’s intervention to solve the problems of citizens is justified.

Ensure that you can show engagement with the contention of “excess” of the question – evaluating and  justifying the  extent of government’s  intervention  and  its sufficiency.  Clear  yardsticks  or  measurements are used to determine the extent of the government’s intervention in solving problems of individuals and to justify his or her stand.

Make sure you focus on the  contention of excess (“too  much”) or superficial  treatment of the excess with mere  assertions such as agreeing or disagreeing with the stand without  giving adequate attention in addressing the contention of excess in the question. In such responses, usually, there are no  or unclear  criteria  or yardsticks  to  determine the  adequacy of the  government’s intervention in solving the problems of individuals.

Is the modern world becoming a more charitable place to live in?

The question suggests that the  earlier  days  of the  modern world  were  ones  where  there was  a lack of charity,  necessitating greater calls for and  concrete action  to make  the world a more  charitable place. The increase in charity must address some modern world problems societies are grappling with.

A coherent judgement of whether the modern world of today  is indeed a more  charitable place  to survive or thrive in as compared to before. The response would need to draw from a range of examples across the world given the global  scope of discussion and  the examples must be contemporary ones. These  illustrations  must drive  arguments  that   are  comparative  to  furnish  the   assessment  of  ‘more’  or  ‘not  more’.  The conceptual understanding of ‘charity’ must also be  sound.

It is expected that this essay will present a complete and comprehensive understanding of ‘charity’ and  what it comprises and show shifts in the  modern world that  have  helped/blocked the growth  of charitable attitudes and  behaviours. IT is important to explain the underlying factors  that could account for the emergence of more  or less charity in the world today. It is also important to focus on the key word ‘ to live in’ and  the reasons accounting for this trend. Don’t confuse ‘charity’ and  being ‘charitable’.