Author: Jit Sharma

Morals cannot be taught. Do you agree?

The statement “morals cannot be taught” suggests an intrinsic knowledge in every person of the rights and wrongs of society. It is based on the idea of an instinctive leaning in everyone toward either good or bad and a complete absence of any change as a result of external influence.

Morals exist as a definition of society. Society has dictated the correctness, the desirability of honesty, integrity – good behaviour. It is, thus, difficult to imagine societal conventions as instinctive. The concept of right and wrong is a matter of learning, and acquisition of knowledge. Thus, morals can be taught, and have to be, to a child.

A human baby is absolutely helpless and altogether undeveloped: its brain will more than double in size in its first year of life. he complexity of human behaviour has to be taught to these impressionable infants.

Because humans exist in such a complicated society, necessary social skills are definitely not present in such young minds. Babies and young children rarely behave correctly: they do not compromise and insist on asserting individual rights. Embarrassed parents are often observed ushering misbehaving children out of public places – the adults know full well their child is engaging in undesirable behaviour, but the child is often completely unaware of this.

The effect of familial influence on the morals of offspring is a widely accepted fact – the morals are obviously taught. The neglected young with no positive influence develop into adults with no clear sense of morals – a scenario often presented and shockingly true. Crime rates are linked to poverty levels – struggling parents are too exhausted or too benumbed to care what their young do for money, and with no one to correct their wrong behaviour, these people continue to err.

The behaviour of one’s parents, or any person of guiding influence, dictates the behaviour of oneself. A dishonest person, who thinks nothing of keeping for himself property lost by others, breeds children with the same pattern of thought, simply because the child would receive no message that such an act is wrong. Other examples abound, of similar evidence: an overwhelming 92% of pre-school age children surveyed in London last year displayed patterns of thought almost exactly similar to that of their parents.

The traditions of one’s culture also dictate one’s morals. For example, bigamy is frowned upon by many societies, for being morally reprehensible and violating the rights of women. However, other societies permit this, for example, Muslim men can have up to four wives, and harems were common among Eastern kings in history. Clearly, the established “morals” of monogamy are not instinctive: Muslim men who practice polygamy certainly are not repulsed by the idea of their many wives; polygamous men brought up to believe in monogamy will suffer feelings of guilt at having done wrong.

That morals are taught can be examined in a more interesting fashion, by observing people brought up outside the human community. In the early 1970s, an Indian researcher rescued a girl of eight, who had been brought up by a pack of wolves. While she cowered in his presence, she once leapt at a sleeping baby and snapped at its neck. She was clearly displaying wolf-like behaviour, of healthy respect for bigger animals, but the ruthless killing of weaker ones for food. The killing of a baby is seen as being wrong only by people taught that it is wrong.

The laws of society, and punishment for the violation of these laws, again refute the idea that morals cannot be taught. By reinforcing the established conventions of society’s morals, and inflicting punishment if wrong is done, the system seeks to inculcate moral values in the people, first by detailing what is wrong, then by a clear message that such wrongdoing will be punished.

Indeed, if morals cannot be taught, then what of the numerous campaigns launched by the government? These work by reiterating values as correct, so constantly and repetitively they become accepted as morals. Again, these exist as a reinforcement to those established by society.

Perhaps certain mentally limited individuals cannot be taught morals; certainly insanity is a valid plea in courts of law, admitting that such criminals are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. However, in the majority of the population, morals can be taught. Indeed, morals exist only because they are taught – by the family, by religious texts, by society. Morals are established by the society, for we decide what to believe is right or wrong, and have to teach our young accordingly.

With the rise of the Internet, has conventional media become obsolete?

Despite the pervasive influence of the Internet, traditional media still has a growing role. Conventional media continues to stay very popular and important in the daily lives of citizens. Many individuals still listen to the radio while driving to work, read the newspapers on their commute and of course, watch TV while cooking or during dinner with their family. But, over the last 20 years, the Internet and its ecosystem have taken up an important part within our society. This is particularly prominent amongst Generation Y and Z consumers. It would be a stretch to say that conventional media is obsolete. It may be perhaps a tad underused.

Interestingly, the number of hours spent watching television has gone up even in the age of the Internet. Cable TV has exploded with the number of programme offerings and reality TV shows that have captivated audiences for over 20 seasons. While it can be argued that Netflix and Amazon Prime have an increasing following, but these entertainment channels do not offer news, travel and other current affairs programmes. That said, most people prefer to watch Netflix on a large TV screen rather than a tablet or smartphone.

The Internet has changed direct mail quite significantly. Various service providers can provide targeted advertising online and payment only is made when a potential consumer clicks through. There are more avenues to track advertisements through built-in tools that track demographics, location and even the type of device through which the advertisement was seen. Brands are specifically targeting their ideal buyer rather selecting a broad market to bombard with their message. These brands are building relationships with these ideal buyers through increasingly powerful marketing strategies that foster trust in their product or service.

Blogs such as Daily Kos and The Huffington Post have gained credibility and large readerships over the past decade, forcing traditional journalists to blog and tweet in order to keep pace with the flow of the story. Traditional newspapers are also losing out to news aggregators such as Google News, which profit from providing links to journalists’ stories at major newspapers without offering financial compensation to either the journalists or the news organizations. Many newspapers have adapted to the Internet out of necessity, fighting falling circulation figures and slumping advertising sales by offering websites, blogs, and podcasts. The relative success of new media companies such as Vice, Buzzfeed, and Vox – and the fact that some of their largest backers are from the old guard.

The power and influence of conventional media is slowing waning. But a lot of work needs to be put in place to ensure that new media can eclipse old media and create a shining pathway for governments, businesses and consumers. One vital aspect is ensuring proper laws are in place to prevent fake news and to protect free speech. Secondly, censorship and regulation of content has to be more acceptable as a way of producing quality content that helps society grow.  While these issues may create some set-backs for new media, it is nevertheless increasing in popularity and accessibility by leaps and bounds.

‘The world is shrinking fast but not necessarily coming together.’ Discuss.

The world has been shrinking fast in part due to globalization. Other factors that may have made the world smaller is telecommunication, transport and cheap budget travel. However, there are still international disputes and arguments that continue to plague the globe. Some might argue that there have been instances where countries have established some forms of cooperative ties with each other, but the reality is that there are massive divisions in the world of today. Therefore, the world is not coming together.

Technological advancement in transportation and communication has led to increased international trade between countries. This has allowed countries to be more integrated economically which has contributed to more trade. Countries have established free trade agreements with each other and have also formed supra-national bodies to serve their economic interest leading to more economic integration. One such international organization would be the Organisation of Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD). The OECD improves trade and cooperation not just among its own members but with several dozen countries who are not members.

Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, also known as One Belt, One Road) by China aims to strengthen trade connectivity in the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties.  While this initiative is primarily designed to help China’s economy, the plan impacts 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. It would be myopic to say that the world is not coming together for mutual prosperity and benefit.

But surprisingly, there are many political leaders that embrace a noxious brew of nationalism and authoritarianism. The mix varies from place to place but typically entails the rejection of international institutions and rules. There is little new in the critique of an unjust global order. But if once that critique tended to be rooted in international solidarity, today it stems chiefly from an inward-looking populism that celebrates narrow social and political identity, vilifies minorities and migrants, assails the rule of law and independence of the press, and elevates national sovereignty above all else. Myanmar’s mass expulsion of 700,000 Rohingya, the Syrian regime’s brutal suppression of a popular uprising, the Cameroonian government’s apparent determination to crush an Anglophone insurgency rather than tackle the grievances fueling it, the Venezuelan government’s economic warfare against its own people, and the silencing of dissent in Turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere are but a few examples. It would be difficult to accept the view that the world is coming together.

If the above view is to be dismissed as idiosyncratic geopolitics, let us not forget the annexation of Crimea by Russia and how China obstructs the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens—including the international crisis workers. Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution.

The world may have come together to defeat a common enemy like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but let us not forget who supplied them with weapons in the first place. The world may have come together to solve the environment problem, but let us not forget that little has been done to set large polluters like USA and China straight. To boot, Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.  While the world has come together to solve the Covid19 problem, there is a lot of finger-pointing. The world is shrinking as communication and transport systems bridge the chasm, but the truth is that geopolitics has prevented real lasting close relationships.

‘Efforts to protect our environment today are mere symbolic gestures.’ How far do you agree with this view?

To condemn environmental efforts as totally futile is the same as saying that all efforts taken to conserve the environment are in vain.  The efforts to conserve the environment are not totally futile as much has been done to protect the environment.

Countries have pledged to protect the environment by signing international treaties. 127 countries have adopted legislation to regulate plastic bags. 27 countries have instituted taxes on the production of plastic bags, and 63 countries have initiated mandates to manage single-use plastics. These efforts show that efforts taken by various governments are not mere token gestures. Many countries have implemented recycling rates of over 50 per cent. Germany and South Korea are model examples. Some countries are beginning to apply circular approaches to waste reduction and conversion of unavoidable waste into an asset through job creation—building the business case for resource-efficient approaches and providing livelihoods to vulnerable communities. One example is Jordan. Supported by the European Union and UN Environment through the EU SWITCH Med Programme, the Association for Energy, Water and Environment in Jordan worked with 15 hotels and 17 restaurants to carry out a waste audit and find ways to reduce their impact. Such initiatives have become blueprints for other countries to adopt and follow. Much is being done for the environment.

To stem air pollution, many countries are taking large strides to ensure that people can breathe clean air. The Philippines and Sri Lanka, supported by UN Environment, have begun to tax electric and hybrid vehicles lower than conventional vehicles. The impact has been clear. The number of electric and hybrid cars in Sri Lanka’s active fleet grew 10 times between 2013 to mid-2018, with 150,000 such vehicles now on the streets. This growth saw the percentage of cleaner vehicles in the active fleet rise from 4 per cent in 2013 to 23 per cent by mid-2018. In the capital Colombo, where past research showed heavy traffic accounts for over 50 per cent of air pollution, this has made a real difference to human health. These are not singular examples. Environmental scientists opine that replacing the current fleet of buses and taxis in 22 Latin American cities could save 36,500 lives by 2030. The UN Environment body, through its MOVE platform and with the support of Euroclima+, is assisting Argentina, Colombia and Panama with national electric mobility strategies, and is helping Chile and Costa Rica to expand the use of electric buses. Although the efforts are not evident, much has been done to save the environment.

Much more is happening across the globe. Breathe Life, a campaign by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the World Health Organization and UN Environment, is running initiatives that cover 52 cities, regions and countries, and reach over 153 million citizens. For example, campaign partners energized the public through a sporting challenge that saw 55,000 people pledge to commute by bicycle or on foot. There are now more than a million electric cars in Europe. The rise of renewable energy will help, with investment in new renewable sources outstripping fossil fuel investments each year. All of this work is having an impact.

There are some instances of greenwashing by companies like Volkswagen or Starbucks, but largely efforts are being taken in the right direction. There is still pervasive use of single-use plastics, but education and awareness efforts are paying-off to convince people to change. While critics may laugh at turning off lights for 1 hour on Earth Day, we are making progressive steps at changing attitudes and our environment.

“The Road Less Travelled” (M. Scott Peck) Is being different overrated?

In the modern world, people believe that being unique is a gift. Since a very young age, people are encouraged to be different so that they can achieve greater things in life. On the other hand, there are people who believe that being different is overrated. They argue that society values sameness and being different leads person being excluded and teased by people. Disagreeing with this view it can be said that being different and celebrating people’s uniqueness is not overrated. This is because individuals need to be different so that they can bring unique skills and ideas that can lead to the development of a society. Therefore, being different is not overrated.

When a country chooses to be different than others then it can reap economic benefits. With a changing environment, it is important to be different. Singapore is an example of this. Singapore initially had an entrepot economy but when other countries like Hongkong were adopting the same policy, the country realised the need to be different. Singapore encouraged a diverse economy and free trade, which helped Singapore attract a free flow of foreign investment and multinational giants. ​Today, the economic development of Singapore is considered to be one of the greatest success stories in history. Furthermore, Singapore has become the only Asian country to achieve a higher per capita gross domestic product than the United States because of its emphasis on diversification and innovation. If the country did not adopt a different economic policy then it would have not achieved the success that it enjoys today. Therefore, being different is not as overrated as in terms of a country it can help it to benefit economically.

Being different also leads to innovation and unique business ideas. Most businessmen who are successful have always been different in their idiosyncrasies. They have strived to create something that is unique and valuable. For example, if Steve Jobs did not have a different business plan and an innovative product to offer it would have not been as successful as it is today. Steve Jobs emphasis on innovation, expanded the company into new areas, including the music industry and redefined the world of mobile phones. Similarly, being unique allows people to come up with innovative solutions. For example, Colonel Sanders adopted the usage of pressure fryer instead of an iron skillet to create a fried chicken recipe that the world enjoys today. If he had not come up with a different approach and idea to change a simple recipe it would not have allowed him to become successful at the age of 74. Thus, being different is necessary is it leads to innovative and creative ideas that can benefit the world.

Being different allows to keep the artistic culture alive in a country. In many rich countries, people are encouraged to take up science and maths as they are considered profitable in the long-term. However, people who are different and follow their passion in the field of arts can benefit society in a unique way. People who work in the arts sector like design, painting, fashion and photography help to keep the culture of a country alive and vibrant. Furthermore, if everyone took up science and maths there would not be enough diversity in the workforce. Moreover, if everyone was a scientist and a mathematician the job market would be saturated which would drive up unemployment. Thus, it is necessary to be different even while selecting careers and take the road that is less travelled as it helps people to succeed.

Some might argue that being different is not always as good as society values sameness. This is true to a certain extent because people are often bullied or treated differently because of their uniqueness. An example of this can be seen across societies where people from different cultures, religions, genders, ethnicities and nationalities are treated differently. There are multiple incidents in schools where children are bullied and teased for being different. Critics argue that being different is overrated because it leads to exclusion and bullying.

However, these differences and discrimination can be a driving force for some to do something different. People who choose to be different in the face of adversity can inspire others to be different. For example, Malala Yousafzai chose to stand for the right of girls to gain an education after the Taliban had banned them from attending school. She was shot in the head but survived the attack and is doing pioneering work for girl’s education. Similarly, Nelson Mandela led the fight against South Africa’s apartheid regime – a system of racial segregation which oppressed the black majority. However, his methods inspired others to go from racism to pluralism without stopping for revenge. Therefore, being different allows people to offer new perspectives, and actions that are instrumental in positively impacting the world.

In conclusion, being different is not overrated to a large extent. Being different is necessary so that the individual can contribute to society in unique ways. Furthermore, if countries are different in their policies then it can lead to the economic and social development of countries. It is true that being different can come with its unique set of challenges however what is needed is to adapt and face the challenges and continue to inspire others.

Technology has worsened conflict in society. Do you agree?

Is it fair to say that technology has only  worsened conflict In society?

Modern day Luddities have decried the overgrowth of technology in our lives, claiming that it has worsened our lives. These same neo-technophobes use handphones to communicate, use social media to gain attention and even take comfort in doctors giving them the all clear. These fatalists constantly misread technology and believe that sociopolitical tensions emanate from technology. Nothing can be further than the truth. Technology has not worsened conflict in society.

Anyone that claims that technology has exacerbated the potential for war really does not understand global politics. They cite Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D) as Cold-War relic that still has significance today.  Or these doomsday proponents will raise Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (S.D.I) as an additional example to bolster their weak M.A.D argument. Little do they realize that technology has infact reduced the need for destructive weapons. With military powers gaining technological advances, they have been able to map and track every pontial trouble and threat with satellites, sophisticated eavesdropping devices and surveillance. Now everyone knows what everyone else is doing. The recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan proved that technology could reduce conflict and collateral damage.

Ignorant science fiction readers constantly get their kickers in a knot when artificial intelligence (AI) is mentioned. Instead of being happy at the progress of technology, they highlight how Boston Dynamics has produced a series of robots that will bring the end of mankind. Such people understand little about economics and productivity. One would go so far as to say that the reruns of Terminator have corrupted their mind to the extent that no logic can work on them. AI’s use is most effective in crunching large data and producing meta-analysis that can be useful. The use of AI in smart decision making, managing repetitive tasks, solving complex problems and enhancing medical science is set-aside and disregarded over science fiction that makes no economic sense.

Technology has provided underprivileged communities with tools needed to  combat systemic  inequalities. One  might  further  argue that  while minorities have historically, always, and inevitably  been underprivileged groups susceptible to  the  prejudices and  discrimination, with today’s technology many groups have become more empowered. These represent an entirely  new set of tools  with which underprivileged groups can finally effectively  contest their  marginalisation.  Social  media,  online learning, and online activism have enabled minority groups to bring attention to their plight, although it might not be significant in bringing immediate change. To say that technology has brought conflict is unfounded. Technology only worsens conflict  because it is unbridled and unregulated, without a strict ethical code  of application and laws  to  prevent its  misuse.  So  long  as  technology and  innovation are coupled with an  effective,  extensive and  comprehensive set  of laws and regulations, its negative impact  can be minimised while the  myriad  of positives it brings  are fully explored and  enjoyed.

There is no doubt that technological development has been  almost  single-handedly  responsible  for  the   astonishing improvement in global  standards of living as witnessed in the  past  three centuries. In itself,  this  has  reduced the  potential for  conflict,  because outright war is disincentivised in a time of material comfort that  risks ruination were  conflict  and  disruption to  arise.  Technology has not worsened conflict.

Why is it that world peace remains unattainable?

World peace remains unattainable  because lies, cover-ups, deceit and corruption stand in the way. International peace remains unattainable  because international organisations are weak and do not have strong leaders. While naysayers will highlight the fight against terrorism, and deposing authoritarian leaders as successes, these same myopic sheep forget about the 30 civil war conflicts that plague the world. They forget about the

Champions of peace suggest that the fall in the number of terrorist activities is attributed to international cooperation among various nations. The defeat of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is cited as a victory.  But the reality is that organisations such as ISIS have mutated into different organisations. Where ISIS was previously only focused on Iraq and Syria, it has branched into Sudan, Nigeria and even parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Taking back Iraqi and Syrian towns and cities from ISIS was a major achievement, but the “physical” destruction involved did not cripple ISIS. It instead involved the destruction of the homes and businesses of ordinary people. If anything, the Iraqi government’s poor performance in restoring those homes and business has created a serious new cause of instability that aids the potential recovery of ISIS – as does the creation of new refugee and displaced populations in Syria. Crises still linger in Yemen, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Ethiopia and the Southern Philippines where in-fighting continues between different factions.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the creation of the U.N. and the European project were the most imaginative attempts to banish war without trying for the utopia—or perhaps dystopia—of world government: They aimed at reconciling the welcome diversity of states with the need for a robust transnational system of laws that regulates their relations. Today, both are in crisis: The U.N. has proven incapable of reforming its security council, and the European project, whose example and appeal helped stabilise western Europe, is unable to transform its environment and deal effectively with issues including a Middle East in turmoil and a nationalist Russia. Today there are around 100,000 personnel from over 100 countries serving in 18 UN peace operations around the world, at an annual cost of five billion dollars.

With aggressive posturing in South China Sea by China, clashes between India and China on their mountainous borders, is it any wonder that peace is illusive? Russia’s dominance in the artic, as well as it political meddling in Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia, has created tensions in another political theatre.  With the remaining members of the U.N. security council monkeying around to flex their own political whims, the chaos that needs to be quelled is engineered and instigated by the same countries that are tasked to protect the rest of the world. For international peace to be attained, archaic systems must change. Is it any wonder that world peace is unattainable?