Jit Sharma – Page 9

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.

Science and religion will always come into conflict. Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written using an unconventional structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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