Jit Sharma – Page 8

Technology has had a negative impact on people’s skills? Discuss.

Without a doubt, technology has majorly impacted skills of people in the world. While the progress of technology is important, people should be careful in not being overly-reliant on it.

Human beings have always discovered and invented devices and machines for their convenience. Today, technology has taken an important place in people’s life and has made their lives easier. However, with technology, there are also problems that have risen. Machines which were created for helping humans, have made humans lazy, unskilled and redundant. Today people are overly-reliant on technology. Though many skills have been replaced by technology, there are new skills which have gained prominence today. Hence, technology has a negative impact on people’s skills.

Automation has led people to lack many skills and has caused their role to minimise in many industries. In manufacturing, from making the dough for different cookies, to cutting them in different shapes and packing them, all tasks are now performed by machines and robots. In aviation, pilots use the auto-pilot function and use electronic interface to control the flight. The pilot’s role today is limited and skills required to become a pilot have reduced significantly. With so much being done by machines, it is a logical conclusion technology has a negative impact on people’s skills.

New and advanced technology has attracted people to games that involve virtual reality and advanced graphics. Unlike earlier times, where people, especially children took time to go out and play sports like cricket, badminton or swimming, children today are glued to their Playstation, X-box, computer screens and mobile games. In today’s times it is getting difficult to find young players who are genuinely interested in playing sports as opposed to just playing sports for fame and money. Technology has given rise to new forms of sports as e-sports but these sports are not considered as sports by many because, who play these sports do not have great skills and are of little value in the real world. While playing real sports like football and tennis may build character and give one confidence, electronic sports do not provide any such benefit. Therefore, technology has also had an impact in sports creating a negative impact on people’s skills.

Technology has also impacted people’s soft skills and communication skills. Smartphones have given people a platform to connect with people from across the world however, people have lost their ability to communicate with people with mindfully and articulately. This is evident from the chat language people use in their daily communication. For example, using just “gn” for good night, “tc” for take care and “gbu” for god bless you. Similarly, people’s friendships today are limited to the extent of liking and commenting on a picture. It can thus be said that the art of communication has been lost significantly in present times. Applications like Twitter, have given people a stage to put forth their view but it has also made them intolerant towards other people’s views. People today are quick in jumping to conclusions and make their judgements based on limited facts, which sometimes are even fake. It can be said that technology has made people lose their reasoning skills and degraded human relationships, in turn. Therefore, technology has also had a negative impact on people’s skills and the ability to communicate rationally.

Though supporters of technology often say that people have replaced older skills with newer skills. They argue that people today are more well-versed in technology-based applications. However, these skills are not as intricate and lack in finesse as well. In earlier times people used to create handicrafts and painting with hand but with technology all that has changed. Skills like stitching, embroidering, fact-checking and map reading are being forgotten in our technological driven world.

Without a doubt, technology has majorly impacted skills of people in the world. While the progress of technology is important, people should be careful in not being overly-reliant on it. Over-reliance on technology will only lead to deterioration of people’s skills be it in the field of labour, communication or social interaction. Technology has had a negative impact on the skills of people.

Does global warming pose a serious threat to ecological conservation?

This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright owner.

The connection between ecological conservation and the economy has been a subject of severe disputation for decades. Market analysts and policymaking committees of every vantage point seem to concur that a strong linkage prevails between environmental protection and the fiscal state; the controversy arises over the sign of the correlation coefficient. Conservationists contend that environmental protection facilitates economic growth and generate employment whereas detractors argue that environmental protection tends to be adverse towards economic development. In the latter case, environmental regulation stands accused of precipitating an extensive array of disadvantageous monetary consequences and resulting in a loss of global competitiveness. The conviction that ecological conservation gravely impairs the economy has become the centrepiece in the series of attempts of late to annul environmental legislation which aims to amend environmental quality. Concurrently, there is some significance in these animadversions of environmental policies. This essay intends to examine a diversity of claims concerning the economic costs as well as financial profits of ecological conservation. I champion for ecological conservation although it comes with several short-term sacrifices of economic returns. In the long run, the merits of ecological conservation should outweigh the fiscal loss.

Each claims that environmental regulatory expenditure does significant economic detriment rest upon the hypothesis that the costs are substantial. After all, relatively minuscule environmental funding would not give rise to association with negative implications. However, there are numerous possible interpretations of the term “large regulatory budget”, determined by the context. One definition of the term is compliance figure that is disproportionately astronomical to lead to retrenchment, plant closures, and enervate international competitiveness. This clarification involves hefty regulatory funding approximate to the economic influence of firms. Critics chronically assert that conservation expenditure is overly substantial in a macroeconomic gist, deviating considerable state fiscal resources from productive pursuits into abiding by ecological policies. On the contrary, evaluation of states’ estimated ecological investments amount to negligible single-digit totals respectively. Allocating two to three percent of gross domestic product on ecological conservation is implausible to give rise to any major detrimental economic implications.

Bearing in mind the dire conditions of the ecology, environmental expenditures aggregate to a trivial amount relative to similar national priorities such as health care, education and military defence. Developed countries budget an average of 25 percent of respective gross domestic product to protect individual health and the security of states, therefore it is pathetically meagre to invest only two to three percent in the health of the ecosystems upon which the economy really depends. Considers surface since certain benefits such as enhanced quality of life derived from conservation efforts are non-quantifiable whereas there are perceptible tangible economic costs.

Nevertheless, despite sizeable environmental protection costs, these regulations collectively yield significant counterbalancing advantages to a society. In addition, characterizing these admittedly substantial funding in definite values as a drain on the economy, siphoning off capital which could be consumed prolifically elsewhere, is off the mark. It is more accurate to infer these expenditures as outcome of citizens’ demands for ecological quality ameliorations. Apportioning resources to meet the market for environmental regulations should not be surmised as economic inefficiency. Hence, given that ecological conservation produces considerable offsetting benefits and is publicly appealed for, the state should revise its disapproving standpoint.

As ecological conservation entails enduring efforts and financing, transitory drawbacks are to be expected in the short run. When governmental bodies embark on protection schemes in the early stages, implementation of laws and measures such as sound development and consumption of water resources, agricultural restructuring, biodiversity conservation, as well as urban forestation and landscape upgrading will lead to layoffs and plant closures. Firms, primarily pollutive and energy-intensive money guzzlers, will be displaced to countries with less binding guidelines. Furthermore, the high preliminary capital elemental to reform pollutive practices will inflate cost of manufacture of exports hence enervating the competitiveness of local sectors in the global marketplace. For example, logging restrictions in Pacific Northwest region in the United States has irrefutably retrenched the masses in the indigenous timber industry. However, it would be ill-advised to forgo introducing ecological conservation programmes due to several intermediate challenges. Thus, ecological conservation should be pursued despite the primary economic deficit.

Therefore, traditional economics shows that ecological conservation does not prompt irrevocable pervasive detrimental fiscal effects in contrary to conventional wisdom. Nonetheless, detractors of ecological conservation raise moderately factual polemics. Pinpointing and deciphering these problem areas would be a laudable objective in ecological conservation hereafter. Administrations should repetitively scrutinize the marginal costs and benefits of ecological conservation course of actions as means to increase their net merits. There is undeniably leeway for development in ecological conservation but it is mercifully not the economic Frankenstein some would have us believe.

Efforts to save the environment are no more than empty promises. To what extent is this true?

As climate change begins to rear its ugly head, the call for environmental conservation has grown louder. If everyone consumed as many resources as Americans did, we could need 4.1 Earths to sustain the population of seven billion. Thus,environmentalists have been relentlessly campaigning for companies and countries to switch to green technology to satiate their energy or financial needs. However, some pessimists still concur that these efforts are futile, but I remain optimistic that humanity has realized the implications of global warming and is taking small steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Hence, one can contend that efforts to save the environment are certainly not merely empty promises.

Prima facie, it may seem obvious that the sheer number of international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are empty promises – as evident in the major fiasco of the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord. However, while international cooperation may be hard, regional bodies have been taking steps to be environmentally friendly because regional cooperation is more effective due to the fewer number of countries involved in the treaty. This is best manifested in the European Union’s (EU’s) environmental policies. Having the world’s largest and wealthiest consumer base, the EU has rolled out regulations on efficiency of motor vehicles and their emissions. Carmakers seeking to enter the market must meet these regulations. Toyota and Ford are forced to develop new technology to meet these regulations. Additionally, these regulations are applied to vehicles from the same manufacturers sold in other countries for product consistency, thus reducing worldwide emissions. Hence, it is conclusive that although international cooperation may come off as an ’empty promise’, pragmatic regional bodies like the EU have found ways to seize their opportunity to salvage this planet.

Besides regional cooperation, small communities in countries have come together to make changes in their ways of living to protect the environment, rendering the phrase ’empty promises’ fallacious. Benjamin Franklin once said,’when the well is dry, we will know the worth of water’. This quote has resonated well with many rural communities in developing countries that rely on agriculture or fishing for a living. In Thailand, depleting fish stocks in the Mekong River have severely affected the livelihoods of numerous Thai fishermen, driving home Franklin’s point about scarcity, prompting them to stop taking the environment for granted. Together with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), 14 villagers in Northern Thailand participated in the Thai Boon programme by setting up conservation zones around Mekong. Fishermen of villages like Ban Muang Choom observed that fishes were able to spawn inside the conservation zone, aiding in the historic protection of the ecosystem, resulting in significantly increased fish yields for fishermen. The economic benefits were a great incentive for the fishermen in Thailand, hence delivering promising benefits to the environment. It would thus be highly skewed for one to assume that humanity is completely incapable of saving the environment because of how multi-faceted this issue is, because even small communities like those in Thailand are doing their part to protect and conserve the environment.

More importantly, it is imperative for us to understand that the quest for environmental conservation has become even more possible in the present epoch because of the rapid advancement of technology. This has allowed us to turn to other green methods of satisfying our energy needs. For instance, Norway is investing billions in developing carbon capture and storage technology. Southern cities in France like Bordeaux and Marseilles use nuclear energy to fuel 40% of their daily energy needs. In comparison, traditional fuel sources like oil and coal produce carbon dioxide when burnt, a greenhouse gas that would further exacerbate global warming. The concepts of geothermal and wind energy are also gaining traction globally. Thus, one can see the correlation between the rapid advancement of technology and its unprecedented positive impact on the environment. Hence, it would be ignorant of one to claim that all efforts to save the environment are just ideas with no concrete action because governments have been actively trying their best to exploit whatever resources at their disposal to ensure that at least some of these promises made translate into action and not just blame it on the complexity of this global issue.

On a less hopeful note, some detractors think otherwise. Playing the role of the devil’s advocate, they believe that while efforts to save the environment are not largely empty promises because of the aforementioned points, there are some instances in which we have to concede that these efforts are in fact empty promises. This is because governments have many trade-offs to make when pursuing environmental policies. These trade-offs often conflict with their economic policies, and hence regardless of the number of treaties that they sign, both the people and the government are innately profit-oriented and would disregard the environmental damages that they inflict. In March 2015, then US President Obama submitted an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the United Nations that would commit the US to reach a 26% to 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. This led to the US Environmental Protection Agency passing the Clean Air Act. However, would factories actually be willing to cut emissions, by increasing their cost of production by employing green technology, albeit at the expense of their profits? The answer is a resounding no, because of the inherently selfish desires of people. Thus, insofar as the people are not willing to work with their governments to save the environment, any form of intervention by the government would be merely an empty promise. Nonetheless, as I have elucidated earlier, it would be unfair to generalize all efforts to save the environment as purely ‘talk with no action’ because we must concede that in this interconnected world of today, countries are starting to get less self-centred, albeit obvious exceptions from emerging countries like China, and are trying their best to contribute to environmental efforts. Though it would indubitably take time for environmental promises to be translated into action, I believe that humanity is on her way to a green planet ion the distant future.

To sum it all up, the threat that humanity is posing to the environment is certainly a worrying one. We are constantly plagued with a myriad of humanitarian problems, so it would be harsh for one to assume that all our environmental efforts are just empty promises because we are tirelessly trying to deliver some of these promises, in small ways. International and regional cooperation is a sine quo non to addressing our environmental woes. As long as we can cooperate in small ways, like Thailand and Europe, I remain optimistic that efforts to save the environment are largely not empty promises.

The internet is a necessary part of our lives, but for some, it has become an addiction. Discuss.

The internet is a necessary part of our lives can be broken into Keywords as follows: ‘necessary’ and ‘lives’ and ‘addiction’ and ‘Discuss’.

Instant communication/retrieval of information
Democratised mass communication
Revolutionised the way we organise our social life (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace)
Changed the shape of entertainment (e.g. YouTube and iPlayer)
Financial transactions (e.g. banking/business/bill paying/shopping)
Distant family communication (e.g. email/Skype)
Always accessible communication (e.g. smartphones/iPhone/Blackberry)
Important to daily routines (e.g. school/leisure/need to check emails)
Spend too much time – damage and disruption to our daily life
On-line games and gambling/shopping/pornography
Social networking – only existing in a virtual world
Isolation and psychological damage; at the expense of other activities

One suggested topic sentence for Internet is a necessary part of our lives can be as follows: The Internet is playing an important role in human and social development.

If you are unable to come up with 3 other topic sentences (1 SV and 2 OV) despite the points listed above, then it is clear that you may need to read at least 2-3 articles before you can form a cogent thought on how the essay can come together.

The pursuit of money results in an ungracious society. Discuss.

Where money is coveted, the pursuit of it necessarily involves evil deeds which tear families apart and destroy society, or so the quote ‘money is the root of all evil” suggests. This adage has been widely depicted on the silver screen. The depiction of moral degeneration that accompanies the pursuit of money in ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ which casts Leonardo DiCaprio as Belfort, the stockbroker, who became more immoral the richer he got is one example. These downright unkind acts have admittedly occurred in real life, but it is not necessarily inevitable that society is therefore devoid of kindness and consideration of others. To debunk that, several commonly held assumptions about the pursuit of money have to be evaluated.

To claim that the pursuit of money necessarily results in a society devoid of consideration for especially the less fortunate is to assume that such endeavours seek to benefit only the individual and disregard the impact on the rest of society. The pursuit of money is assumed to be a single-minded end pursued without regard for the means adopted. The Lehman Brothers Minibond saga is often cited to illustrate how in a desperate bid to sell these structured investment products, financial consultants chose to omit critical information about risk exposure to retail investors, many of whom were elderly and less educated. This example underscores the merciless and even underhanded corporate tactics employed in a bid to meet performance targets. To agree with this is to allow an over-generalisation to obliterate the corporate philanthropic endeavours in society. These philanthropic acts are not random sporadic feel-good efforts but coordinated and sustained corporate initiatives. Encouraging corporate social responsibility has in fact become an integral part of many companies’ culture and values. MasterCard runs financial literacy programmes to educate the public to promote financial inclusion and literacy so that the layperson could also benefit from financial services. The DBS (Development Bank of Singapore) has backed numerous community development initiatives. DBS nurtures social enterprises that creatively and effectively address social needs and provide jobs, goods and services to the disadvantaged and marginalised. With responsible corporate philosophy, the pursuit of money does not necessarily result in a cold-blooded pursuit of money. Graciousness is evident when corporations pursue money yet also give back to society in a win-win partnership.

A second assumption is that competition for limited funds is exclusive and it necessarily aims to drive out competition. Graciousness stands in the way of unfriendly and even hostile tactics to drive out competition. Classic examples of ungracious behaviour towards those that society deems to be a threat can be seen in hostility towards unwelcomed immigrants, often regarded as competitors for scarce jobs and whose appeal lies in their willingness to settle for lower pay. This is evident in the hardening of attitudes towards immigrants among the British. Those surveyed indicated that the resentment towards immigrants arose from the belief that they came to claim welfare benefit for which the British have to fund. This assumption fails to recognise the real cause of the hostility and reluctance to be inclusive. It is not the pursuit of money that drives such ungracious behaviour towards immigrants; it is the insecurity borne out of fear that the privilege and rights that come with citizenship are compromised by the presence of a large population of immigrants. These ungracious acts should be addressed, not by regarding it as an inevitable consequence of the pursuit of money, but as a reflection of a need for clearer policy communication of how immigrants benefit the British economy. According to a report released this year on London’s economic future commissioned by its mayor, the pressure to reduce immigration is threatening London’s status as one of the world’s leading cities. It is understandable for ungracious acts to manifest due to growing insecurity in the face of competition that threatens bread-and-butter issues. However, to attribute it to the inevitability of pursuit of money is to disregard the deeper underlying cause of the insecurity which, when addressed, could temper emotions and reduce the incidence of ungracious behaviours.

It is also assumed that because the pursuit of money seeks to maximise profit and stretch every single dollar, all eyes are trained on the bottom line and exploitative acts are ignored or even deemed justified. This mentality is said to manifest in a less empathetic society and in extreme situations, have a dehumanising effect on how labour is regarded: labourers as money-making tools. Regarded as such, workers’ exploitation is evident. Sweatshop exploitation of workers and abuse of live-in domestic workers are not unheard of depictions of an ungracious society’s treatment of menial labour. The tragedy of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh drew the international spotlight on an industry where workers are not just subjected to harassment, violence and abuse, but whose basic guarantees of safety have also been thrown to the wind, to the extent that a building can collapse on top of thousands of workers. Closer to home, news reports of unkind treatment of domestic helpers are not unheard of. Yet, for a very long time, Singapore society fails to recognise such ungracious acts practised in theirs and their neighbours’ homes. Are these acts an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of money? Could the lives lost at this garment factory not have been prevented? Has society been so bent on making every dollar paid to the domestic helper count that it would not even allow her a day off a week? Thankfully not. What is witnessed is a twin trend of ground-up initiatives to check such behaviour and both national and international efforts to institute safeguards. Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) in Singapore is one non-profit organisation that seeks to improve social attitudes towards transient workers and advocate the protection of migrant workers. Increasingly, we also see society being more forthcoming in showing appreciation to construction workers in the form of lunch treats on special occasions. Even as the Singapore society strives to develop her economy and pursue money, there are visible efforts by pockets of people in the society to counter acts of ungraciousness and drive the development of a gracious society. Laws are also important to ensure inclusivity and check exploitative acts in the absence of natural graciousness in society. A combination of civil group advocacy and legislation will act to counter the development of an ungracious society even as society pursues money, however obsessively.

It assumes that the pursuit of money and graciousness are mutually exclusive notions. The two endeavours are deemed to be at odds because while one seeks to accumulate wealth, the other seeks to share the wealth, thereby reducing rather than increasing one’s possession of it. In fact, they can be complementary and the pursuit of money, in turn, encourages acts of graciousness. The pursuit of money is perhaps necessary to engender a gracious society as it places more individuals in positions to exercise grace to uplift society. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates that when the physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, individuals seek to fulfil higher-order needs of love and belonging, esteem and self-actualisation, with the highest level being self-transcendence when the self only finds its actualisation in giving itself to some higher goals, in altruism and spirituality. Love and belonging, esteem and self-transcendence are concomitants of acts of graciousness when the individual looks beyond the self to enrich the lives of others. The public outpouring of support in words or in-kind whenever disasters strike, as seen in the regional aid for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or Nepal’s earthquake; and the generous donation garnered at the last minute to make it possible for the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum to purchase the three dinosaur fossils to contribute to the education of natural history heritage are all evidence of how wealth amassed is used to display care and consideration for others.

While there are seemingly persuasive grounds to suspect that the pursuit of money must mean giving little consideration to others, they are premised on debatable assumptions that the pursuit is singular, the tactics employed are cut-throat and the pursuit is an end in itself. This pursuit does not necessarily breed evil because of the existence of social and legal mechanisms to counter any such evil and to cultivate desired graciousness. We should also not doubt the human capacity to both seek to enrich the self and others at the same time.

Democracy is not the most effective form of government. Do you agree?

This is a student researched paper.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”[1] These fine words by Winston Churchill came in parliament as he attempted to defend democracy while acknowledging its shortcomings. Democracy is the most popular form of government because it is representative, it protects people against oppression and it guarantees the basic rights that people must have. But democracy also has many inadequacies. It is inefficient by design, leading to wasteful practices. Despite the demerits, democracy is the form of government that most countries in the world have chosen to install, in many cases after hard struggles.

Democracy is effective because it is representative of people. Each constituency, depending on the size of its population, can elect a fixed number of representatives to the assembly. The UK, for example, has 650 constituencies.[2] Each constituency is represented fairly, regardless of wealth and status. However, an elected representative does not always represent every community within the constituency. By design, the representative is more likely to belong to a majority group. Moreover, large nations can only practice direct democracy at regional levels. Switzerland is the largest nation in terms of population that still practices pure democracy. With 8.3 million citizens as of 2016 estimates, Switzerland is ranked 99^th in terms of population by the UN. On the national level where the majority of legislative activity takes place, nations with larger populations practice a very indirect form of democracy that tends to resemble a republic.[3] USA, India, Finland and Mexico are some examples.(a) Sometimes a conventional government may not have majority support, such as in case of coalitions.[4] Italy, France, Germany and several other nations have had coalition governments in the past. Coalition and representative governments also represent people, which is the reason for their preference over non-democratic regimes.

Democracies succeed despite imperfections because they create the impression, true or false, of being protective of the people. This is not true of other forms of government such as monarchic, aristocratic or totalitarian regimes. Democracy protects human rights and encourages civil liberty. Democracy is participative and gives voice to each citizen. Democratic nations with universal adult suffrage offer more freedom of speech than other types of regimes. A notable historic example is India and all the other colonies of the British Empire. Post independence, these nations allow a range of civil liberties that the British Raj did not.(d) There is also more accountability for decisions, since a democratic government is liable to be replaced during elections if their policies are unpopular. One political party may not necessarily be better than another. However, the purpose of democracy is that people must have the power of choice. With the reasoning for government decisions made public by the media, democracies tend to be more transparent. Certain historic examples prove that all the positive effects of democracy can be achieved within a non-democratic system. Hong Kong under British administration is one good example.[5] Pre 1997 Hong Kong, Even though it was not a democratic setup, was lauded for low taxes, low corruption, full freedom of speech, rule of law and a free market economy.(b) However, instances of autocratic regimes that abuse human rights and restrict civil liberties also abound. Democracies are effective and desirable because they enjoy the support of people by protecting the rights of citizens and by being accountable.

Naysayers opine that democratic regimes suffer from much inherent inefficiency. Election campaigns are expensive and wasteful. In 2016 one of the US Presidential candidates spent billions of dollars on campaign advertising.[6] Influencing voters with paid advertisements should be considered opposed to the ideals of democracy, because it allows only the wealthy and influential to participate in politics.(c) Excessive campaign spending also goes to show that reelection depends more on good advertising than good deeds while in office. Some countries allow political candidates to campaign for months and even years.[7] Voters need to put-up with mass media saturated with political messages. To avoid media overuse and due to consideration for voters, Campaigns in countries such as Canada and Mexico last no more than 90 days.(a) Post election, new governments often have markedly different views on various issues, from the previous ones. This leads to changes in policy, creating an environment of instability. One example is the Affordable Care Act, better known as ‘Obamacare’.[8] 75 years in the making, the act was signed into law by president Obama in 2010 and already faces an uncertain future after the 2016 election. In democracy, accountability resets with every election cycle. Moreover, due to multiple levels of decision-making it takes longer to implement bigger projects, creating delays, more waste and inefficiency.(a) By comparison military juntas can be very efficient. Libya under Gaddafi, a military dictatorship, was the most prosperous African nation of the time. Citizens had access to free electricity, education and healthcare. Gaddafi’s Libya implemented the world’s largest irrigation project of the time.[9] Some forms of monarchies also work efficiently. The Saudi King exercises complete political authority. In addition to being among the top quartile of countries ranked by HDI, Saudi has implemented several engineering mega projects.(d) Due to the structure of democracy, inefficiency is one of the system’s innate attributes.

Democratic regimes are effective because people are willing to support them. Democratic governments protect civil rights and provide the various freedoms that people need. At the same time democracy is rife with inadequacies and inefficiencies. Compared to autocratic systems, democracies take longer to make and implement decisions. Election campaigns can be unreasonably long and wasteful. The interests of democratically elected representatives do not align with long term national interests as well as those of autocrats or dictators, who are destined to rule for life. In an 1881 letter, Lord Action stated, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”^[10] It implies that governance is a job beyond any person’s capacity. Democracy remains more acceptable than any other form of government by virtue of being the lesser evil.

[1] Richard M. Langworth. (2016). “Democracy is the worst form of Government…” – Richard M. Langworth. [online] Available at: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[2] UK Parliament. (2016). Parliamentary constituencies.

Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/constituencies/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[3] Volokh, E. (2016). Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[4] Mason, R. (2016). Coalition governments: what are they and how are they formed?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/coalition-governments-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-formed [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[5] http://www.washingtontimes.com, T. (2016). Liberty vs. democracy. [online] The Washington Times. Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[6] NPR.org. (2016). 2016 Campaigns Will Spend $4.4 Billion On TV Ads, But Why?. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/19/432759311/2016-campaign-tv-ad-spending [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[7] NPR.org. (2016). Canada Reminds Us That American Elections Are Much Longer. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[8] Affordablehealthca.com. (2016). A short history of the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare drama. [online] Available at: http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].

[9] http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289

[10] Acton, L., 1877. The history of freedom in antiquity. Selected Writings of Lord Acton, 1, pp.5-28.

How important is charisma?

This is a researched essay.

The importance of charisma as a quality for today’s leaders is indicated by the fact that the definitions of charisma and leadership overlap. Charis ma automatically comes with a leadership position. However, charisma is not the most important trait of a leader. Charismatic individuals in leadership positions can bring discredit upon themselves if they lack more important qualities. If all other leadership qualities are given, charisma can be an advantage.

Etymologically charisma comes from a Greek word that translates to grace. The dictionary employs several words to define grace. These include elegance, politeness of manner and goodwill. Charis ma is defined as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.^[1] Leadership is defined as the ability to channel the actions of a group of people. This can be done through formal authority, logic, or through interpersonal qualities as embodied in charisma. By this interpretation, it can be considered a subset of leadership. However, it is not an inseparable part since leadership can be accomplished by other means. Vladimir Putin is a leader with whom both poise and authority can be associated. In 2014, Putin did not achieve the reintegration of Crimea with Russia through his charms. His actions in Ukraine proved that authority alone can be sufficient for effective leadership. Therefore, while charisma can be a part of leadership, it is not necessary.

Charisma is attributed to all great leaders by default. A prime example is Gandhi. He was a simple and soft-spoken man who wore merely a loincloth around his waist. Gandhi is remembered today as a charismatic leader merely because he was honored as a leader. Stalin did not invade Poland with any compelling attractiveness of character. Hitler did not create the holocaust using personal charm. Unlike Churchill and Mandela, Stalin and Hitler were effective simply by the skilful use of their power. Yet, they are considered charismatic leaders. It is difficult to find examples of great leaders that did not possess any aura because followers automatically attribute it to a person of leadership. This shows that the significance of a charming personality can sometimes be more sentimental than practical.

Charis ma is the not the most important quality of a leader. It is possible to fail as a leader, while possessing charisma, for want of other characteristics. Integrity and vision are far more vital. Dick Fuld, the persuasive and charismatic CEO of Lehman Brothers led one of the largest financial services companies in the world to bankruptcy.[2],[3] On the other hand Microsoft is an excellent example of how charisma can help speed-up the success of a strongly authoritarian leader such as Bill Gates. The two contrasting examples show that charisma may be likened to efficiency. It can help a good leader become great or get a poor leader to ruin faster. Clearly, charisma is not the all-important component of being a leader.

Charisma can help all kinds of leaders. Every leadership position requires persuading, influencing and eliciting obedience. Charisma can help a leader achieve these ends through enthusiasm, goodwill and positive emotions, rather than relying purely on logic.[4] Charisma is ethos and pathos. Charismatic leaders are eloquent communicators and skilled orators. They engage with their audience not only with arguments but also with emotions, values and passion. Charisma persuades followers to buy into a leader’s vision. The workplace has evolved with technological development and globalization. Employees have greater choice and access. Employers need to be more flexible and transparent. Diversity is a fact. Employees need to share the leadership vision in order to have a sense of fulfillment. In today’s world personal magnetism is more important for industry leaders than ever. All other qualities being equal, a charismatic leader can be more effective than one who lacks this quality.

Charis ma can help a leader succeed, but is not a substitute for leadership qualities. Leadership is influence. Charisma is one way to achieve influence, but certainly not the only way. People who are not in leadership positions can also have charis ma; even children can. There are ample examples of leaders who had charisma and failed due to other shortcomings. There are also examples where leaders succeeded without charis ma. To influence people, bold speeches are unnecessary. Followers can be inspired by a leader’s credibility, moral conviction, strength of character and focus on goals. These are valued qualities of leaders such as Richard Branson and Elon Musk. Charis ma is not essential for leaders and it certainly cannot stand on its own. However, charisma is great to have.

[1] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2016). charis ma – definition of charisma in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[2] Huffington Post India. (2016). Dick Fuld, Disgraced Former CEO Of Lehman Brothers, Makes Public Comeback. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/dick-fuld-lehman_n_7462196 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[3] Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). The collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

[4] Antonakis, J. (2016). Using the power of charis ma for better leadership. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/learning-charisma-sustainability-leaders [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].

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.