Author: Jit Sharma

Seek simplicity. Is this sound advice?

Simplicity may very well be sound advice for some but it is often so otherwise. Due to Globalisation and the redevelopment of our country, we have undergone significant changes in our lives. The environment complicates life as it forces us to adapt to changes. Thus it no longer allows us to seek simplicity but instead, it demands creativity and deep analysis. Such advice would get us nowhere because economies have evolved into a knowledge-based, technological economy. We can no longer seek to be simple in our lifestyle and thinking. Thus in this essay, I would discuss whether it is sound advice in terms of seeking a simple lifestyle, be it in education, attaining in east-west perspective, agrarian-industrial-technological edge or in media.[P1] 

Globalisation, the interconnectedness of countries and the complication of networks have led to a more demanding and stressful lives. As  countries progresses with the world, it has resulted in more work, less of a social life and time for family and friends, putting a strain on modern lives. Due to more competition, the working life increasingly pushes for more brainstorming of creative ideas and innovation. Hence I would say, seeking simplicity is not achievable. In such an economy, being simple and carefree would put one to disadvantage as the people out there are putting in  extra effort to go all out as they climb up the ladder in their careers. As such, the economy looks for career minded-driven people to prosper the economy and would never make room those who are always just satisfied with life. The simple-minded who have less innovative ideas and drive would then lose their competitiveness in the workforce. Economics and business in particular, requires creative and critical thinking to maintain a competitive edge and more importantly to survive in an ever-changing economy. Since our environment has changed our lives and the mindset of individuals, it is no longer sound advice to settle for an easy way out of things.

However, it is still possible for some to seek simplicity even in such a competitive world. Certain people are more fun-orientated, they prefer to travel and enjoy life rather then working their hearts out for the job they are holding. They live a simplistic life, realizing their dreams and being easy satisfied with rewards or the happiness of one. Hence it would be sound advice not only for people who do not have to experience the stress in office-politics but also those who are currently too overly stressed up due to the demands of work. The stressful lifestyle we lead today should be accompanied with enjoyment and entertainment, therefore at certain breakdowns in our life we should learn to let go and just be simple where our mentality is concerned.[P2] 

Seeking simplicity is never encouraged in the teaching of our young, because it is strongly believed that great minds exercises critical thinking and possess qualities such as creativity, innovation, breaking barriers and the most commonly heard, asking questions. This is so, as questioning is a result of deep thinking and evaluating. Often so, the young are encouraged to be pro-active to challenge the norm instead of keeping mum about things that they are unsure of. Being too accepting would otherwise mean that we do not engage in thinking, evaluating whether the idea is effective, successful, accurate or even to consider in depth the consequences that may arise. In fact, research [P3] has proven that an average student who is pro-active, talkative would fair academically better than any other average student who is a passive learner. Hence an individual who takes on a simplistic mindset would be less capable in life as they are not showing their full potential. This is the worse situation we could be in, if our younger generations are all passive learners, it would be a matter of time when foreign talents would replace our workforce who is no longer productive and efficient. Our country would be at the brink of collapse because we would be vulnerable to external attacks as the leaders are not able to lead and bring our country to greater heights. Being too satisfied with a simple life would result in decisions made simply without much considerations and unintended consequence would certainly be harmful and disastrous to the masses.

Apart from that, it is important to note that seeking simplicity may be sound advice for certain particular countries such as the East but may not be applicable for the West. This is because in the east, people follow closely to the rules[P4] . Thus, being able to follow rules and tradition is their main concern in life. In this case they are just leading a simple life without much worries, as they are easily satisfied. With the happiness, they live life to the fullest and I would not object to that [P5] as seeking simplicity is exactly what they do to achieve their success in life. However, for the westerner who treasures freedom, liberty, promotes creativity, innovation and believe in risk-taking as one make their own decisions in life, they therefore seek not simplicity but the best in life[P6] . They believe that one should enjoy quality life, as life is short and ought to be well spent. This is especially so when you see the difference in their attitude towards even having a dinner. While the Chinese just want to be comfortable in the place they eat and of cause eating their favorite traditional food, the Westerners are more particular in the food that goes into their stomach. That is why they are willing to even travel all around the world to look for delicacies in different countries. Hence, whether it is a sound advice would depend on the different people’s demands and needs and the quality of life they seek to have

As we progressed from Agricultural to Industrialisation to post-industrial age, which we are in today, it is increasingly getting tougher and tougher to live life simply. In the Agricultural age, farming and harvesting would be for the sake of the income in which farmers and their family rely greatly on for survival. The simple goal and purpose in life seldom give much trouble. Then came industrialization, where people put themselves up to the jobs in factories that manufacture clothes and products. Life for this group of people have become less simple as skills are required and necessary for a working employee. As the competition got tougher through the introduction of technology such as the computers and other machineries, there is a greater demand for skills. And this is when the economy starts to complicate things and people’s life, thus forcing us out of our comfort zone and therefore it does not allow us to seek simplicity as much as we could in those days of the past.

In short, the accuracy of the statement is greatly dependent on the people and environment we are living in today. I have shown that the statement is largely not a sound advice but seriously, the word “simplicity” is sometimes unclear as there is till now no proper definition of the word and there are different perspectives of people which determines whether they ought to follow the advice or not. Hence, there is nothing such as a absolutely no answer but I would tend towards the side that says- seeking simplicity is not a sound advice because although being simple would reduce troubles and allow for happiness, this is not the way to go about because people would lack certain drive that is critical in life.[P7] 

Not a bad attempt. Examples are sorely lacking, but you did bring up some contextual aspects towards the end.

Language 12/20

   Content 15/30

                27/50

 [P1]Your thesis statement is not properly formed. The use of east-west, AIT and media is not proper. You could say: I will discuss how seeking simplicity in this modern world which is highly influenced by the west and media is unachievable.

 [P2]Good  counter argument, but you should have listed an example here. You could have talked about GP Tutors J

 [P3]By whom? If you just say ‘research has proven…’ it will be taken against you. If you don’t know of an authorative figure or organization, then don’t use the word research.

 [P4]What rules. Are countries in the east playing games? Please be specific.

 [P5]Why will you not object? What has your acceptance got to do with ‘them’?

 [P6]You are making a sweeping statement here. You have anything to back-up your statement?

 [P7]Don’t be ambigious in your conclusion. Be FORCEFUL! Say what you need to say without being a ‘diplomat’. The examiner wants to see the critical side of you.

Tallest Buildings of the World

Tallest buildings are the dreams of engineers and countries seeking to showcase their affluence. But many of the tallest buildings can only last for 100 years due to the massive strain on the beams and base.

  1. Burj Khalifa (Dubai, UAE; completed 2009) As of 2019, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates is one of the tallest buildings in the world. The structure was named in honor of Sheikh Khalifa, the president of the UAE. The burj—Arabic for “tower”—is part of a complex in downtown Dubai that also includes the world’s second-largest mall by area and one of the world’s largest fountains.
  2. Empire State Building (New York City; completed 1931) The Empire State Building, which has a height of 1,250 feet surpassed the nearby Chrysler Building to become one of the tallest buildings in the world upon its 1931 completion, holding that title for four decades until the construction of the original World Trade Center. Following the 9/11 attacks, the building was once again the tallest in New York. The Empire State Building, like the Chrysler Building, is a classic example of Art Deco architecture, an early-20th-century style known for its streamlined, modern appearance.
  3. Abraj Al-Bait (Mecca, Saudi Arabia; completed 2011)The Saudi government funded construction of the Abraj Al-Bait complex, a set of seven massive hotels whose central tower reaches a height of 1,972 feet. The complex overlooks the Great Mosque of Mecca, which contains the Kaaba (the holiest place in Islam) and was built to offer modern accommodations to Muslims participating in the annual Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. The Abraj Al-Bait, whose name means “Tower of the House” in Arabic, contains the world’s largest clock face (over 140 feet in diameter) and as of 2019 is the world’s most expensive building, with construction costs exceeding $15 billion.
  4. Shanghai Tower (Shanghai, China; completed 2015) When it opened in 2015, the Shanghai Tower—with a height of 2,073 feet—was the second-tallest building in the world, a title it still holds as of 2019. The tower, which is located in Shanghai’s Pudong District, is adjacent to both the Jin Mao Tower and Shanghai World Financial Centre, two of the world’s other tallest buildings. By far, the tower’s most notable architectural feature is the fact that the building twists as it ascends—the top of the building is rotated approximately 120 degrees clockwise from the base.
  5. One World Trade Center (New York City; completed 2014) Construction began on One World Trade Center, alternatively known as 1 WTC and the Freedom Tower, in 2006, and was the main part of the project of rebuilding the World Trade Center following the 9/11 attacks. It occupies the former site of the original 6 WTC. The building reaches a symbolic height of 1,776 feet, and is adjacent to a pair of memorial reflecting pools marking the foundations of the original Twin Towers.
  6. Willis Tower (Chicago; completed 1973) When it opened in Chicago, Illinois in 1973, the Willis Tower was the tallest building in the world, with a height of 1,450 feet. The building was originally (and is still commonly) known as the Sears Tower, as it was built as a new headquarters for Sears, Roebuck & Co.; it was officially renamed after the insurance company Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., in 2009.
  7. The Shard (London, England; completed 2013) The Shard, originally known as London Bridge Tower, is the tallest building in the U.K, with a height of 1,016 feet. It gets its name from its appearance: the glass-enclosed, pyramid-like structure tapers as it rises to a set of points at the top, giving the impression of several shards of glass leaning against one another. Despite being in London, the tower is primarily owned by the state of Qatar and is a broadcast headquarters for the English branch of the Qatari media network Al Jazeera.
  8. Taipei 101 (Taipei, Taiwan; completed 2004) Taipei 101, named for its 101 floors, was the tallest building in the world when it opened in 2004, with a height of 1,674 feet; it lost the title to the Burj Khalifa in 2010. The building was originally known as the Taipei World Financial Center. The main part of the structure consists of eight stacked sections of eight floors each; those sections resemble both floors of a pagoda as well as ancient Chinese money boxes (which themselves inspired the design of modern Chinese take-out containers).
  9. Petronas Towers (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; completed 1998) The Petronas Towers are the world’s tallest twin towers, at 1,483 feet each. Upon their completion, they surpassed the (at the time) Sears Tower to become the tallest buildings in the world; they lost that overall title to Taipei 101 in 2004. The towers are named for Petronas, Malayasia’s government-owned petroleum and gas company, which is headquartered in the towers. The towers are connected by a skybridge on their 41st and 42nd floors, allowing visitors to move between them. In the coming years, the towers will be exceeded in height by two other Kuala Lumpur skyscrapers: the slightly taller Exchange 106 and the massive, 2,185-foot PNB 118.
  10. Vista Tower (Chicago; planned completion 2020)The Vista Tower, located near Chicago’s Navy Pier, will be the third-tallest building in Chicago (behind the Willis Tower and the Trump International Hotel and Tower) upon its completion in 2020.

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?

How can national identity be fostered in a society like Singapore?

The racial issue has always been one that arouses passion and often, animosity amongst rival races. Indeed, since time immemorial, conflicts have been waged by people of different racial backgrounds. The prospect of further racial confrontations was greatly enhanced after the Second World War, in which many multi-racial countries were hastily carved out of the ruins by the victors. The rifts between the peoples of different races often run deep and take centuries to heal. Hence, in a multi-ethnic society like Singapore, the importance of fostering a national identity cannot be overemphasised

What is national identity? How does it heal the deeply entrenched animosity between two ethnic cultures? The importance of national identity lies in its ability to help integrate peoples of various backgrounds by creating a mindset focussed on the national, rather than racial unity

By seeking to bridge the centuries old racial gap, individuals are encouraged to regard themselves as citizens of a nation instead of members of a race, and to gradually discard the suspicions of old

In most countries, the inculcation of a symbol of the nation’s uniqueness is a long, arduous process. The most basic, fundamental step is the creation of the pillars of the national constitution. This includes the national flag, anthem, language, pledge and constitution. The Singapore national anthem, Majulah Singapura and pledge, aptly represents the ideals of the Malay forefathers who had founded the nation. The daily enunciation of such ideals, though criticised as a subtle form of brainwashing is essential to the development of national pride and unity.

Try writing using the below points:

  1. Hosting the Youth Olympic games.
  2. National education in Singapore.
  3. Racial Harmony Day and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

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.