Author: Jit Sharma

People are slaves to technology. How true is this?

A reasonable first draft.

Everywhere we go today, it is a common sight to see people with heads bowed down, eyes etched to a screen and fingers furiously working tapping away. Technology is increasingly integrates integrated in our society, serving almost all functions from entertainment to business. It Technology is what allows us humans to keep up with the highly complex and fast-paced world that we have today. However, there has been increasing concerns with the wide usage of technology with regards to its potential to control us. While some wish to believe that technology today is still taking over humans, I  the more rational crowd believes that many people remain reigning as masters of technology. 

Many may  say that it is not uncommon to see people distracted by the many things that technology has to offer. Technology has caused a democratisation and easy access to information, and entertainment material. This causes has caused people to be highly engrossed with their electronic gadgets. Furthermore, with technology comes great power of the internet to be able to figure out the user’s likes, dislikes, allowing to come up with suitable recommendations. This fixates the user’s attention on technology even more and leads to the vicious cycle.  Humans, suggest the critics, have become subservient to technology. They have gone going on to various lengths at our disadvantage to attain it, but end up only to be distracted by it.

However, It is usually only the youth that are affected by this issue of slavery to technology, having been exposed to it all their lives. They have experienced technology in every minute of their lives. Furthermore, citing only internet technology as a form of human slavery to technology is very limited.  In many other cases, humans remain the masters of technology, using it as a tool to achieve success.

Technology is still used as a tool by many for communication and achievement of personal and professional goals. It is used by scientists in making discoveries, students to learn, teachers to teach, artists to gain fans, elderly to catch up on news, architects and workers for construction, etcetera. Technology is ubiquitous, playing a role in almost everything we use aiding in almost our every action. It makes our work easier or empowers us to do better. For example, scientists were able to able discovery the Higgs Boson with a very complex machine known as Large Hadron Collider. The LHC was used as a mere tool by the scientists to make discoveries.Another example is the use of online tools such as Khan Academy by students to enhance their learning process. Technology serves a wide audience and continues serving as a tool in today’s world.

Technology remains a mere tool and has not made humans slaves as it is still not able to achieve what a human can.  Many argue that the plaguing of technology, and taking over tasks taken by humans show that it is able to work better than humans, possibly making humans its slaves where technology  no longer work for humans but humans work for technology. However, in today’s society, technology is still unable to function the way a human is able to.  Though it is probably able to take on many jobs of humans, it is unable to behave like a human especially those which require decisions that involve consideration of political relationships, communication with fellow humans, etcetera. Technology has not rendered humans useless or slaves but has just changed the important skills that humans need to have.  Therefore, humans still remain the masters of technology.

While technology is evident in every single task in our lives, we remain in complete control today. Technology is used as an aid, not as a crutch. Though there is a possibility that the equation might change in the future with research projects such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink project to link human brains and computers, we are eons away from realizing such far fetched dreams. Humans are not slaves to technology today.  Therefore, I disagree that One would be hard pressed to accept that humans are slaves to technology.

A scientist is successful only if he has made a great impact on society. Do you agree?

This essay was not written in timed conditions.

Scientific development has constantly been redefined by paradigm shifts, from mystic worship of the stars, to Aristotelian study of natural science, to Newtonian physics of deterministic laws, to Quantum physics and relativity, and cutting edge biomedical technology. Inspired by such advances, mankind has gone on to create a variety of applications, from new materials for car windscreens, to sophisticated supercomputers, from tracking devices to satellites. Most people regard science as a tool which they can use to improve their lives. However, it is my belief that by doing so, and thereby creating the misconception that science is only useful when its findings have application, the score of scientific study becomes severely limited. Science, by definition is an explanation of natural phenomena, and a scientist by extension is one who attempts to explore and explain how the world works against us. The successful scientist therefore should not be defined as a person whose inventions improve our standard of living. Such a focus, while important for various reasons, should not be the be all and end all, and should include other aspects.

In order to provide a more nuanced view of the issue, one should first draw distinctions between types of scientists, mainly the theoretical scientist, who attempts to provide conceptual explanations to certain phenomena, the fundamental researcher, who does research to validate or invalidate work by theoretical scientists, and the applied researcher, who attempts to make use of such validated theories to create devices or techniques that can be used by others. Indeed, such a distinction quickly reveals the complexities of science, and a person who makes a claim that success in science is defined by one thing or another ignores the possibilities for varying levels and scales of success. However, one consistent determinant in measuring the success of a scientist is the degree to which he contributes to the field of knowledge from which he hails.

Like any academic field, the development of science is facilitated by the exchange of knowledge; it is then through intellectual discourse and discussion that news ideas are developed. The success of a scientist can therefore be measured by how significant his contribution is to the field. This is currently the case, where the number of citations, and frequency of reference to his ideas usually is a measure of the success of a scientist, rather than how much money is earned from his inventions. Einstein is regarded as an icon despite the fact that his theory is relativity has not had direct application to our lives. Rather his success has been defined by his vast contribution to the field of knowledge, and his ability to explain natural phenomena in the most elegant manner. Notwithstanding the current controversy if particles can actually travel faster than light, Einstein still continues to be a beacon for scientists. Hence should we define success as the sum total of the number of inventions a scientist produces and their resultant impact on humanity, and hold other scientists up to this standard, we change the way science progresses, or is seen to progress. While this might bring us economic and material benefits, it might also be detrimental for mankind in the long run.

Defining success as having a great impact on society also widens the scope of possibilities for future developments. Applied science provides immediate economic and social benefits, but it is fundamental studies that are instrumental in opening up new field for study and large scale development, usually without any intention to do so. Quantum physics for example, first started when scientists noticed properties of materials that did not square with conventional scientific knowledge of the 1900s. The theories and experiments were fascinating, and even shocking, in that they revealed a different set of laws, which seemed to operate on a small scale. And yet, this knowledge was not put into application until nearly fifty years later. If the reward system revolves around the visible impact the scientist has on society, and the scientist works towards that goal, then targeted fundamental studies will not be carried out on the same scale as before, and the rate of exploration of the realm of the unknown will definitely decrease. It is essential that we keep this in mind when discussing the role of a scientist.

It takes a long time to apply scientific theories to the world of consumers. As such, by attempting to measure and focus on the visible accomplishments of a scientist, we are blindsiding his actual contribution and ignoring the general scientific community that is extremely important to the field. Scientific research is a collective effort, and not a domain for stand-alone heroes. Noted that there are many Nobel laureates, but even they have a small team of researchers that aid and assist the greater discovery. Cell and molecular science wa simply a property of the human body until which time the collective efforts of doctors, engineers and scientists created new ways to approach medicine. Case in point is key hole surgery, a non-invasive surgical procedure that causes less trauma to the patient and facilitates in recovery. The multi-disciplinary nature of the field reminds us that it is difficult to pin success to specific individuals and by narrowing the definition of success, we are possibly discouraging co-operation across various fields.

Some might wonder why such a discussion is important in the first place. Does the definition of success smatter? In a capitalist society, the answer is yes. One must note that a main driver in the scientific field is funding, both from the public and private sector. The definition of success therefore affects which area receives more funding and which area languishes. By placing economic value on science, the scope for research has been greatly restrained and this trend may probably continue in the future.

The United Kingdom faces issues of cutting funding for their observatory programme. While astronomical observation does not have immediate economic returns, it is extremely essential for explaining phenomena of physics that cannot be replicated on earth. While some might argue that we should focus on areas that provide economic returns in hope of betterment of our lives, one must note that it is not the role of science to determine how technology should be applied. Its impact on society is facilitated by new technology and amazing discoveries, but is mainly determined by how such applications are used in society. In an ideal situation, therefore, we should attempt to maximise our research in a variety of areas and allow society to choose how these discoveries should be utilised.

Based on the synthesis of the above arguments, we can safely conclude that we need to re-examine the definition of a successful scientist. We cannot afford to choose a narrow definition that focuses exclusively on one area of study, and not the other, since such a move limits our ability to explore areas that have yet to be understood. In the same way, governments and funding institutions need to take into account his expanded definition of a scientist and not to simply individual fields that have monetary potential. It is only when we take a holistic perspective that we can fully appreciate the benefits of science, not simply as a tool to enhance living, but also to make use more enlightened and more aware of the world around us.

What should priorities of poorer nations be?

Poor countries have always had little say in international affairs due to them being viewed by developed countries as having inadequate economic prowess to be of any influence on the international stage.  Progress be it social or economic has been stifled by corruption, poor government funding, rampant diseases, racial tensions and low literacy level. The priorities of governments from poor countries should have a proper quality education, proper healthcare system, decent infrastructure and low crime rates. With the basic fundamentals stabilised, would it be able to progress and create new opportunities for sustained developments.

As it goes with any society, education is key to building a creative and intellect workforce that would have levels of productivity and improve the standard of living of one. They would possess relevant knowledge and skill to command a higher wage for their qualifications that would add comfort to one’s life.  Knowledge is said to be the only thing one cannot be robbed of.  If these poorer nations truly recognize the need of education for its multitude of benefits and not just know that education is vital, would they be on the right track.  Education that creates a talented workforce would be able to produce thinkers and inventors that can pull the country out of its current “brain drain” situation.  With a pool of talented and skillful individuals would they be able to attract foreign investors keen on tapping the undeveloped market that is complemented with a high productivity level.  The transfer of technology and management skills know-how would enable these countries to achieve sustained economic growth that would increase the national income and national employment rate of an economy.  Singapore was once a highly labour intensive country in the 1970s but the emphasis and constant revision of education led Singapore into a knowledge-based, innovative society that boasts high literacy levels of over 94 percent.  It is now a cosmopolitan city that is able to diverse production of various goods.  Education thus, should definitely be a priority for poor countries.

However, whether high levels of education can be achieved is difficult to say.  Firstly, lack of domestic teachers due to low level of qualifications and the fact that an educator’s income is relatively underpaid, would deter one from the profession.  Governments of poorer nations would have to initially “import” educators should the priority be met.  More often than not, they would demand higher wages due to their more “advanced” skills and knowledge. Moreover, poorer countries tend to be demographically large with lots of spare land and with no proper infrastructure.  The ability for one keen on educating himself to get to school is usually a long and tedious journey due to lack of transports or supply of schools.  Schools in poor African nations like Congo, Mali and Chad are sparsely located with no proper facilities for proper education and other developmental enrichments as such drama or sports. This may discourage one to go to school.  Also parents of children from these countries tend to make their child to take after the cradle to grave employment of farming than go to school, as they see farming more beneficial. Government thus should emphasize and create understanding for the need of education. For education to materialize and attract investors proper infrastructure should be built.

Poor hygiene practices and lack of sanitation have allowed diseases to be rampant such as malaria and pneumonia that snatch lives away from thousands of children yearly due to their still feeble developing immune system.  If these children have a chronic date with the Grim Reaper, then there is little but no future for these poor nations.  Human resource is a valuable factor for any country’s progress.  The implementation of a proper health care system that can be made affordable and easily accessible to all must be a priority.  For it to be effective it has to be coupled with better development of rural nations such as ensuring adequate supply of clean water and proper garbage disposable centres that would diminish the possibility of illness.  An obstacle these countries face is the high cost of the provision of healthcare.  In US the healthcare is subsidized at US$2800 per capita and in Singapore it is US$400 per capita.  If only the wealthier counterparts are able to afford it would undermine the nations effort to build a decent healthcare system. For instance, in Sri Lanka, hospitals can be as little as five in a state.  The high demand is not met by adequate supply that sees many left untreated or wait as long as eight years  to be treated.  Subsidies should be implemented with the priority to healthcare in poor countries.

A common detriment to poor countries is the lack of social cohesion and relatively high levels of crime rates be it white or blue collared crimes require proper law enforcement to be a priority.  With social unrest present in a country, focus on where it should be (education cum healthcare) is diverted to violence that breeds inefficiency and casualties. Investors too would become pessimistic about the country’s political climate that would deter investment and also conjure up a negative image of the country’s reputation. They would lose trust from their richer counterparts and would not have the opportunity to host major world events such as the World Cup, IMF meetings and Olympics that can accelerate growth.  Governments should regulate and revise laws that could be harsher to negate crime rates.  Social tensions could be quelled by implementing civics classes for racial groups to appreciate one and other.  For instance, the former ethnic clashes between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda saw over 850,000 casualties.  In Brazil drug syndicates have political ties and are difficult to weed out that can result in high levels of violence and in Eastern Europe, high levels of drug trafficking.  In Thailand, Red versus Yellow have made the country deemed unsafe to travel that lowered tourist numbers. If corruption and social tensions impeded, it can allow progress to thrive.  Tightening of law and proper administration of police forces to inspect and regulate areas should be a priority.  With greater influx of tourists as the country is deemed safer can increase government revenue that can be directed to financing merit goods that are long term investments.

Poorer nations are not congested in just one continent.  They live in contact side by side with their rich neighbours.  Poorer nations have the resources to thrive and should be able to know that they have opportunities – immense opportunities to be economically and politically stable (for instance China). If other countries are rising up they should too.  Excuses for lack of funding and what rot is immature.  If priorities are identified and rightfully implemented they would finally be a belie all who doubted them but more importantly see that the welfare of their citizens have been enhanced, giving them an equal chance based on meritocracy and minimize outflow of migrants.  With higher development of infrastructure, education, healthcare and low crime levels would they be able to handle better world environment problems that trouble the world. With social and economic security, they would have their opinions heard rather than discarded.

Science and religion will always come into conflict. Discuss.

The reality is that no one can actually place such large amounts of quotes in an essay unless they use the quote regularly and for the same topic.

To quote Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, “Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both windows are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.” There are disparities between science and religion, such as nature of factualness and neutrality against subjectivity. To elucidate, religion is defined as a sea of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual and religious law. Contrary to widespread conviction, there are congruence between science and religion as well. Given that there are points of comparison, it is hence a misleading fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict on one hand. On the other hand, just as there are dual surfaces to a coin, it is almost positive that science and religion will arise to conflict. Science and religion may perchance suffice as supplements to each other then.

A derivation of conflict between science and religion ensues from the contrasting traits of legitimacy. In science, validity is incessantly revised. It is such that the more one discerns of the universe, the more interpretations one constructs, thereby drawing nearer to actuality. In contrast, religious facts are consistent and absolute.  Gospel truth is printed in the Holy Texts, which hails from the mouth of the Almighty Himself. Therefore, science is based on empirical study of the material world whereas religion hinges upon individual or cultural assumptions, and divine revelations. The case in point includes conflict over cosmology, geology, astronomy. A mass of devotee within the conservative wing of Christianity claim that the earth is less than 10 000 years of age. They deduced that the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally accurate although 95% of scientists reject a literal analysis. These scientists consider the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion-year-old, that no global flood has befallen, as well as that humanity evolved. Given the discrepant nature of reality, it is a precondition that will result in conflict.

Science is more objective proportionate to religion which is more idiosyncratic. Maximum communicability is the hallmark of scientific truth. As a result, science consists in great part in the endeavour to convey by means of a bureaucratic apparatus or medium such as mathematics that is altogether vulnerable to the scrutiny of any mathematically educated person. On condition that an individual carries out a stringently classified experiment or manner of calculation which is non-comprehensible to anybody else, then it is questionable scientifically. However, religion is more intuitive, pertaining to one’s intimate soul of respective attitudes and emotions. It seeks to satisfy the desire for personal salvation. Therefore, the subject of impartiality will lead to conflict between science and religion.

In addition, both entities pose conflict over themes including human sexuality, medical issues. For example, conservative Christian communities teach that homosexual behaviour demeanour is perverted and can be corrected through prayer and counselling. Nonetheless, researchers into human sexuality by and large are convinced that homosexual orientation is normal for a modest percentage of the human race, is innate, is undesired, is influenced by one’s genes to some degree, and cannot be changed through worship and guidance. Take euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, for another instance. Some faith groups champion that only God bestow life and hence solely God should reclaim breath.

The opposing faction conjectures that when a terminally ill person is in intractable suffering and wishes to depart, physicians ought to be sanctioned to lend a hand in dying. Albert Einstein stated that, “For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by, each other… yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.” Thus, it is a fact of life that religion and science will always come into conflict over ethics.

Despite the numerous disparities between scientists and clerics, both are ambiguous contradiction of each other as there still remain similarities such as science and religion are ‘learned practices’ as well as both carry out significant purposes in Man’s life. No individual is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine, likewise as no one is born with a hard-wired knowledge of science. They have their specific set of books from whence all information is inferred from, mentors acknowledged as scientists and pastors, philosophies of entity, directions and jargon. Albert Einstein also cited, “All regions, arts & sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed towards ennobling Man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Therefore, it is fallacious to postulate science and religion will always come into conflict since there are grey fields of harmony.

Religion can exploit science as its tenet whereas science can facilitate religion with its findings. While religion can critique science for more clarifications, sources, or significance, science should mull over religion and human morals. Science and religion work together to form adequate explanations to figure out the genuine meaning of being thus prompt awareness of our insight of realism. Having the status of being complements, in a way, science and religion depend upon each other. They merely call for receptive minds to what both are assembling and explaining but without the other, their elucidation for gist remains superficial. Therefore it is not true that it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. As Pope John Paul II highlights, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish… We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.”

Young people today no longer appreciate the simple pleasures of life. Discuss.

The spread of modern technologies linked to the digital world has created a new type of environment for young people. Reality has become synonymous with virtual reality, and almost every action in the real world has its correspondent in the virtual one. It is easier than ever to become immersed in the digital media, and children are born and raised surrounded by these technologies and by parents who use these technologies.

            This scenario has created other types of desires and pleasures, the likes of which were not known to people in the past. Before the spread of modern technologies, young people were used to playing outdoors, engage in physical activities and reading books. There were no alternatives to spending their free time in a fun way. Today, almost all activities are done via a computer or mobile device, connected to the internet. Instead of playing football, young people download the latest FIFA video game and play it in multiplayer, with people they do not even know.

3D movies and video games do not stimulate young people’s imagination, the way in which playing outdoors, physical games with friends did in the past. These entertainment methods have slowly decreased the appetite for the simple pleasures in life, creating artificial desires and encouraging them for the simple purpose of mass consumerism. Every single toy nowadays has to be as shiny, interactive and costly as possible. Interactivity is a term that seems to gain more and more importance and value today. However, people forget that books and social games are also interactive entertainment activities – although they do require more imagination and role playing from their “users”.   

Capitalism has evolved greatly in the past decades, and has lead to a decadent lifestyle, in which pleasure can only be derived from and is equal to the amount of money that is spent for it. A simple piece of wood can be used creatively by children in their games, but today, parents and children alike seem to have forgotten that. It is more convenient to buy expensive toys and digital devices for a child than it is to read him a bedtime story. And it is also more convenient for a child to play a complex role playing video game such as World of Warcraft than it is to actually go outside and create his or hers own story and role play.

            This situation only seems to aggravate in time, as yesterday’s children, who did not have all of the immersive technologies, have raised their children with these technologies from a very young age. The mass media encourages this behavior too, and there seems to be a tacit consensus regarding the negative impact these technologies can have on young people. The old Roman saying, “Mens sana in corpora sano”, seems to have been forgotten. It is no wonder that more than two in 3 adults are considered to be overweight or obese, since they are immersed in the digital world from their youth.  

            If this situation is to be changed in the future, parents need to pay extra attention to the activities of their children. They need to teach their children how to enjoy the simple things in life, how to play in the physical world and how to use their own imagination. This does not mean that modern technologies are bad in themselves; they can be useful, but only if they are balanced with traditional games and methods of entertainment. There has to be a balance between the time a young person spends online and offline, between the time they spend in the digital world and the time they spend in the physical world.

Also, young people have to learn, as soon as possible, that money value is just another type of value, and not at all the only type of value that exists. There are also spiritual values that a person has to take into account, if they want to enjoy the true pleasures in live. The simple pleasures are not just cheaper in terms of the required capital, but also necessary.

There are hardly any worthwhile role models for young people nowadays. Discuss.

Written using an unconventional structure.

The idea that there are fewer positive role models in our contemporary society is based on a fallacy. There are actually more positive role models today than ever before, and it is very easy to get to know them through the new media. We live in an age where people from opposite sides of the planet can easily communicate and share information in real time, and thus greatly influence each other.

This means that young people do not have to limit their popular culture needs to the place where they live. There are thousands of other places that they can find about on the internet, and they can access the internet anywhere, anytime, even on mobile devices. However, the same technologies that can help them in this regard is also the main roadblock in their path to finding positive role models, because the new media mainly promotes negative models, since positive ones have a smaller public impact, while negative attitudes sell better.

This is the reason why many people consider that there are fewer role models for young people nowadays: because they only look at what is promoted on popular TV stations, magazines and websites. However, there are still a great number of publications that focus their attention on educational aspects, which follow a strict deontological ethic and do not care only about their budgets.

Also, individuals can search for role models on their own, without the help of large publications. Of course, parents can also guide their children and teach them where and how to find useful and positive information, without forcing them to learn about things they do not care, but encouraging them to find good models on their own.   

Magnus Carlsen, aged 24, is a child prodigy and the world’s chess champion. Unlike other chess prodigies in the past (Bobby Fischer being the best example), he is a very optimistic, cheerful and charismatic person. He lives a healthy life, engaging in various other sport activities. He always smiles and loves what he is doing. Carlsen is the living proof that people can succeed if they work hard, love what they are doing, remain focus and have a healthy lifestyle. It is now easier than ever to follow Carlsen’s work and his personal life, through most of the popular social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and even on his Youtube channel.

Unlike in the past, there are no major media publications that mediate this relationship between Carlsen and his fans, which means that admirers can have direct and immediate access to Carlsen’s determination and words of wisdom. There are thousands of other positive role models who can be found in sports, music or films, although they are not as promoted as the negative ones are. Adolescents can easily reach them if they balance mainstream media with traditional and independent media sources. Just as always, it is just a matter of knowing where and how to search for good information and role models.  

             While it is true that the media has changed, and that this change brings about a bad influence to young people nowadays, it is also true that, with a little effort, young people can use the same media to their advantage. Although there are more negative than positive role models nowadays, there are still more than enough positive ones to choose from. The new media, the process of globalization and instant access to information worldwide makes it easier for adolescents to find people who have succeeded in domains that interest them. It also makes it easier for them to understand how and why these people have succeeded, and thus to learn from their successes. Most people are however blind to these immense opportunities and this blindness is a form of ignorance, the same ignorance that makes other people blame technology for their own failures. Violence, sexism and hate are a major theme of our contemporary world. It is however up to each and every one of us to choose our goals and ideals in life. Everyone will choose the thing that best fits their own character and desires. Neither schools nor parents can impose positive role models on young people. They can however guide adolescents and help them make the right decisions. This decision has to ultimately come natural to them.

Quality of life is more important than longevity. Discuss.

Good essay that scored very well for prelim but has an excessively long introduction and conclusion. If it wasn’t so well written, the author would have been penalised for writing more than 800 words.

Conjecture science empowers mankind to be immortal, what will one then do for infinity? The great yearning at present is to prevail to a hale and hearty mature age but such questions help place into standpoints just what is gratifying as regards to life. This scepticism furthermore brings to the fore that humans would not crave to reiterate homogeneous measures in production-line approach. An ilk of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative quizzes, “what does what we are doing achieve?” On assumption that we function as infinite beings notwithstanding forming slight and superficial merits, Man may wish to reassess the significance of permanence and construct an enhanced quality of life. It is commonplace to evaluate longevity against quality of life which refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies. The rapid pace of technological advancements in science and medicine in the 21st century suggests that mortals can look forward to living pleasantly in their extended senior era. However, with a societal fixation on length of life, it appears that quality of life is still less critical despite the latest developments. 

Every individual of the human race aspires to extend their lifespan and this hope is being met by scientific innovations in medicine. Latest developments in science and medicine includes a technique that radically ameliorates the efficiency of crafting stem cells from human adult tissue without the exploitation of embryonic cells hence forging momentous strides in addressing a major challenge in the progress of stem-cell-based medicine, production of vaccine for cervical cancer, and advanced findings about brain proteins imply a promising novel tactic against Alzheimer’s disease. Average length of life is increasing on a global scale which results in impending challenges. By the year 2050, a quarter of the universe’s population will be over 60 and it is to be expected that these people will be afflicted with chronic illnesses in relation to geezerhood that will necessitate relentless care. A rampant and relevant apprehension is that science and medicine offer short-term assuaging for sustained breath but may fail to result in a fitter life. Already, there are intense ethical disputes over euthanasia, whether patients in terminal stages of their ailments and in constant misery should be permissible to bring forth the conclusion to their life expectancy. Thus, irrespective of the latest developments in science and medicine, quality of life has more bearing as compared to a wearisome and distressful but drawn-out lifespan.

Given that the latest developments in science and medicine are projected to protract longevity, countries worldwide can envisage aging populations. An extended length of life hence may adversely impinge on quality of life, which comprises nine factors founded on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index to be exact, material interest, life expectancy at birth, political stability and security ratings, domestic life, community activity, climate and geography, job security or unemployment rate, political autonomy, as well as gender equality. An aging population however indicates that the economy has fewer productive human capital but faces rising expenditures such as social welfare and healthcare services. Therefore, a lengthened lifetime because of scientific betterment in medicine pales in review of a superior quality of life which is a more comprehensive evaluation of value of existence.

On the other hand, while the existence of life may be observed objectively, its quality can only be weighed up intuitively. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index is primarily grounded in the western hedonistic tradition but there are no collectively agreed norms for quality of life, for each person confers disparate significance to the myriad aspects of life and even this metamorphosis with varying circumstances. The notion of averaging out people’s heterogeneous assessments to form a conglomerate metric of quality of life ignores its fundamentally contextual nature and its intrinsic subjectivity. Since quality of life is extremely capricious to employ in shaping clinical decisions, all we can reasonably do is to muse on the tangible and the measurable, to prolong the physiological homeostasis as long as we are able to with the latest development in science and medicine.

It is rational to desire to survive for a lengthy lifetime but not with the sacrifice of a fulfilling existence. There are people who have led fleeting satisfactory lives whereas others may clock up the years with the support of science and medicine yet experience meaningless continuance. Lord Byron was merely 36 when he breathed his final. Nonetheless his poems remain widely peruse and influential even in this generation, both in the English-speaking communities and afar. Similarly for Vincent van Gogh, who aged 37 when he died, his fame grew in the years after his demise. Nowadays, he is broadly respected as one of history’s finest painters and an imperative contributor to the tenets of contemporary art. Although their premature mortality could have been probable to avert with modern science and medicine, it comes across that they have experienced several periods in one which is what in actuality matters. Conceivably, Woody Allen summed it up most aptly concerning latter-day society’s unwholesome obsession with prolonged longevity in his quote, “I don’t want to live forever through my work; I want to live forever by not dying.” Quality is of greater magnitude than quantity therefore people should not pin disproportionate optimism on the latest developments in science and medicine. Instead, strive for an enriching experience and there are likelihoods of a fuller life beyond death in which there are prospects for the soul’s development. (901 words)

The growth of tourism is a threat to the environment. Discuss.

Tourism is an activity with roots that can be traced as far as people visiting the Roman baths, becoming a fashion in Europe since the 17th century. Today, tourism represents more than an activity or a fashion, it is an industry which brings great contribution or even keeps alive certain economies. In the age of cultural diversity, any country can allow the world to become familiar with their roots, traditions or beliefs. Much alike the case of natural resources, tourism is regarded mainly from one perspective, that of financial income for the hosts. In a time when technological development marks every corner of the world, the wide-spread touristic activities are enclosing the natural habitat until it reaches the confines of a windowed room, for the leisure of innumerable individuals.

            Tourism determines the need to expand over natural environment. In the field of tourism, the most important aspect is to have impeccable services, which means that enough accommodation must be provided, as well as infrastructure for access to the area as well as recreation facilities. All of these are necessary in order to keep a constant income of visitors, while ensuring that a good deal of profit is being made. For instance, accommodation facilities and recreational areas in the case of ski resorts imply massive deforestation, severely altering the trophic chain of the surrounding forest. Furthermore, the extensive paving required by infrastructure access and travel related building such as airports amount up to an alarmingly high portion of the natural habitat. These inherent, compulsory factors brought about by the progress of the tourism industry eventually end up dominating the environment and turning it into a man-made, artificial one.

            The pressure exercised by the tourism industry does not, however, resume itself to limiting and confining nature. Another grave issue is represented through the enormous resource consumption, pollution and waste that result from the millions of visitors. For instance, in the case of Cyprus, in 2009 the government has approved the touristic development of 14 golf courses. Considering the amount of drinkable water that is already scarce in the region, the annual required volume to maintain the golf-courses sums up to more than a third of the population’s need of potable water over a year. What is more, any form of transportation employed by tourism is, unavoidably, air polluting, bringing a massive contribution to the process of global warming by the means of carbon dioxide emissions. All factors considered, being one of the fastest growing industries around the world, tourism poses one of the biggest threats for the environment and for the preservation of natural habitats, causing a tendency in people to put a price-tag on everything that can be considered exotic by someone else.

            On the other hand, there are also advantages determined by touristic development because of the world-wide advertising this industry can bring to a remote area or potential investors. Therefore, tourism is beneficial because it contributes to key-areas such as raising environmental awareness, the protection and preservation of certain ecosystems and endangered species within protected natural parks. For example, in Congo, the coverage provided by tourism has led to investments to protect the mountain gorillas, one of the most endangered great ape species in the world. One other positive example is the Grupo Punta Cana resort, located in the Dominican Republic. In this case, over 10,000 hectares of natural habitat have been set aside for the preservation of biodiversity and 11 fresh-water springs are maintained for the same purpose. The resort truly combines luxury with utility, also having created a biodiversity laboratory run by the Cornell University. These facts serve but to emphasize that with the proper responsibility, care and attention to the nature which protects humanity, the environmental issues can easily be solved by means of sustainable development.            

As it is the case with most rapidly growing industries, exercising control and regulatory standards is close to impossible on a global level. The lack of environmental awareness and education has brought humanity to the paradox of wanting to travel in order to visit and appreciate a unique place on earth, while destroying it. Awareness for the ecosystem in which people live, should be a part of the common consciousness. Ethical principles should be applied to man’s relationship with his habitat, so that the few positive examples are followed, turning a strictly financial business into a life-giving one, both for people and for the Earth.

Can green efforts be anything more than token gestures?

From green technology to the Kyoto protocol, one would deem environmental issues to be a solution to international relations, rather than a global problem. In the era in which many are well aware of the environmental problems which plague us, such as global warming and pollution, one can be rest assured that there has been a large demand for countries to seek more sustainable measures in the usage of finite resources. While many argue that green efforts have been meaningful as more countries realise the pressing environmental challenges which surround them; taking a realist view, this essay asserts that such green efforts are mere token gesture, as countries exploit them to enhance their stature and prestige.

It has been known that many politicians have used environmental issues to gain personal prestige or political clout rather than be concerned to solve them. In an era in which the world has a greater awareness of the environment, there is a larger pressure from environmental enthusiast for political action to occur in a bid to save the environment. Realising such a need, many politicians attempt to make empty promises in a bid to win voters during elections. As those who willingly deal with environmental issues through brave endeavours have been deemed to have taken the moral high ground, their actions tend to be more popular with the people, especially budding environmental enthusiasts. However, most of such promises are left broken and are nothing more than a manner in which politicians gain prestige. For instance, in the case of Barrack Obama, he was known to have advocated for green energy in the US, having encouraged the implementation of two thousand wind turbines to harness a sustainable form of energy. Such an action had gained the approval of many people, resulting in the massive lead he held during the 2008 presidential elections. However, such tree hugging intentions did not sustain long in the US, as it was known that Obama had instead taken a less environmentally friendly approach during his period in government, with the dropping of all environmental plans in 2011.

Still, one could argue that in spite of such politicians which make use of environmental issues to enhance their political clouts, there are politicians who do see the pressing need for green efforts.  Such is the case of the ex US vice president, Al Gore, who was known to have done the documentary, “An inconvenient truth’ which strongly advocates for the need to solve environmental problems. It is with politicians such as Al Gore in which one would realise that such environmental efforts are not just based only on personal gain, but instead on one’s true belief that change is necessary in order to save mother Earth.

However, such altruism seems aimless, as even Al Gore himself has not proposed an effective plan which could save the Earth from its impending doom. While many brag of the amount of environmental conservation they would do for their countries, the lack of a well planned scheme for the environment has been unsettling. Given the nature of most protocols being non-binding, there has not been any decisive action taken towards the environment, resulting in the abandonment of many green efforts, deeming efforts to be ineffective.

Similarly, green efforts can be dismissed as mere token gestures, as countries only deal with their environmental issues when they seek diplomatic ties or funding internationally. As countries are given certain incentives if they were to invest in green technologies, many countries have embarked on the green approach.  China, for instance, has spear headed the global green movement by investing two billion dollars into it’s green technology sector. While this may be a hefty sum in the short run, China stands to gain cheaper costs in harnessing energy through subsidies as well as deepening diplomatic ties with other like-minded nations. Therefore, as environmental concerns are only pursued with an ulterior motive, one could dismiss them as mere token gestures.

However, it is only through such incentives that some countries are able to gain greater environmental awareness amongst its population. With more countries embarking on such projects, their citizens would then become more aware of the environmental concerns as it now concerns their own lives. This in turn would mean the potential for greater pressure on their governments to further embark on other green efforts. Such can be said in the case of the US, which was pressured to sign the Kyoto protocol. Having signed the protocol, there was an increase the amount of people and lobbyists for the green movement, eventually leading to the strong demand for environmentally friendly governance. Through such a mechanism, one would realise that these green efforts are not merely token gestures but also ways to bring about education to the public on environmental issues.

In conclusion, one would view that green efforts while noble, have mostly been reduced to that of token gestures amongst nations and politicians. One personally would think that to make such efforts effective, individual folks should not merely rely on the government but also actively play their part. By simply switching off the lights after leaving the room or using public transport, green efforts would not have to be relied upon the governments, which may view environmental causes to be secondary issues. Therefore, in order for green efforts to progress to be more than token gestures, each and every citizen of this planet would have to do his bid to save mother Earth.

Is science a master or servant?

Science has always served as a primary impetus that powers and accelerates human development. Living in this highly industrialised and commercialised world, the influence science exerts on us is so profound that it might be beyond our expectation or even control. Ranging from ubiquitous access to the internet to the development of controversial scientific fields such as nuclear power and genetic engineering, science seems more like a master who dominates our daily life as well as our future, rather than a faithful servant as we assume and expect.

“I think, therefore I live.” Man used to proudly regard the ability to think as the fundamental difference between human beings and other animals. Yet, we are deprived of such ability due to our overreliance on modern scientific inventions that we developed. With the instantaneous access to the Internet, people no longer need to sit in libraries all day long, looking through piles of books in order to get pieces of information. Such tedious selection process can now be easily performed by the computer at a click of button, which is indeed more convenient and efficient, yet the ability of analysis and critical thinking is less appreciated and valued. This can be evidenced by the increasingly frequent occurrence of plagiarism in both students’ essays and professionals’ research papers. Put the moral issue aside, the act of plagiary clearly shows that people are so indulged by the convenience of the Internet that we seem to be its slaves – it is doubtful how we are going to rely on our deteriorating thinking skills to distinguish right from wrong, the significant from the spurious.

Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki are by far the only two places that have experienced massive destruction due to nuclear weapons, the fresh and vivid memory of 9/11 and Iraq war only reminds of us how thousands of innocent lives can be easily taken away due to people’s avarice for power. While we concede that weapons play an integral part in national defence, this clearly does not provide us with a satisfying explanation to the gigantic amount of nuclear weapons stored in superpowers, which, if used at one time, can ruin the world for a hundred times. “We live in a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants”, General Omar Bradley once declared, implying the huge gap between man’s development of science and ethos. This is the reason why despite the existence of the numerous peace agreements between countries, many people are still fearful of the outbreak of the third world war.

Science might allow us to have a greater control over the environment, yet we cannot control our innate selfish streak. Genetically modified food promised us to create an abundant world where global hunger is eradicated permanently. However, the truth of the matter is that we presently already have more than enough food to feed the world twice over without the technology of genetic engineering. According to the Economist, world poverty can simply be ended by pooling together the resources of the world’s seven richest men and redistributing it. On the other hand, GM crops could cause long term disturbance to our biodiversity and ecosystem due to their cross-pollination with natural plants. We sacrifice the environmental sustainability of our future generations, yet fail to solve the problem effectively even though we have always had the solutions in our hands as mentioned earlier.

We are over-dependent on the Internet, horrified by the potential hazards of nuclear power, and threatened by the environmental implications of genetic engineering. It is poignant to witness how we have become slaves to things we developed. Governments are setting rigorous laws and regulations to prevent the rampant and volatile development of science. Still, at the end of the day, if we are not able to control our own laziness, avarice and selfishness, we can never claim to be the master of science.