Author: VidS

Are entertainment celebrities worthy idols or bad Influence?

Entertainment celebrities have become an intricate part of our daily lives. We see them on television, hear them on radios and even read about them in newspapers and magazines. With media exerting considerable influence in our everyday lives, so have entertainment celebrities who utilise the media to gain popularity. Some people may argue that the influence has led to a positive effect on our everyday lives while others say they have detrimental consequences on our daily lives. In this essay, I will present both points of argument before finally explaining why in my opinion entertainment celebrities are more of a bad influence rather than worthy idols. 

Idols exert a bad influence on people as they instil wrong values into people’s mindsets such as having good looks are imperative. This is due to the popular portrayal of entertainment celebrities by the media as extremely appealing. The media also portrays beauty as being the norm. This has caused people to increasingly pursue good looks by means such as plastic surgery. Statistics have shown a rise in the cases of youth undergoing plastic surgery. Not only plastic surgery is highly unnatural it also causes potential risk with the possibility of adverse side effects. A greater emphasis has also been placed on outer instead of inner beauty. This has led to a vainer society which pursues beauty instead of higher moral standards. 

Entertainment celebrities have also been shown to display undesirable traits such as dabbling with drugs or promiscuity. One such example would be Lindsay Lohan who has been known to consume drugs and is frequently placed in rehabilitation centres. Another example would be of famous pop Idols such as Britney Spears or Lady Gaga who actively promote sexuality through their songs and music videos. We may well be subconsciously picking up these traits just by listening to our MP3 or through other portals of media. 

In addition, entertainment celebrities can lead to an unhealthy obsession of people towards their idols. For example, recently a Korean pop concert held in Singapore saw an unprecedented number of youth attending the event although it was close to the examination period. This shows how youth are willing to forgo their studies to watch their idols perform. This has also led to worship by fans and various cults put in place in reverence of these celebrities. We are simply forgetting that entertainment celebrities are not exceptional nor special, they are normal human beings just like you and me.

However, entertainment celebrities cannot be said to be totally bad influences as there are certain aspects to them that make them worthy idols. They add colour and zest into our otherwise boring and dull lives. For example, comedians help to relieve stress and make people happy. Entertainment celebrities have also helped to spread culture through popular media such as soap operas. For example, recently aired drama “The Little Nonya” helped to reignite popular interest in Nonya culture. This has led to an increased awareness in traditions and customs that might have been long forgotten. But conversely, entertainment celebrities have also caused erosion of culture. For example, popular television dramas from the US such as the Vampire Diaries have caused people to become more interested in foreign culture instead of local cultures due to better appeal. This may be dangerous as youths are increasingly forgetting their roots and cultural essence in favour of foreign culture. 

On the other hand, entertainment celebrities have also instilled important morals into people’s minds through popular dramas, for example, growing up, highlight important life lessons. Historical dramas inform people about important past events to remind people not to commit similar mistakes and also to edify people more on history and to spark an interest in learning history. However, due to the desire to grasp the attention of audiences, historical dramas may distort facts and are melodramatic leading to inaccuracies and imparting of false facts. 

In conclusion, I feel that entertainment celebrities are a bad influence as they impart the wrong values in people and cause an unhealthy obsession among fans. Their visual appeal only serves to boost people’s vanity in the pursuit of unattainable perfection in beauty. People should always remember that entertainment celebrities are only humans and certainly not the complete guiding light as to how we will lead our lives.

Is there still a place for charity in today’s world?

With globalization on the rise, societies may be increasingly preoccupied with bringing in the dollar bills and squandering it to raise their living and comfort levels. As such, would it be possible that the poor, homeless, and the destitute would be left displaced in society without any source of help? Personally, I do believe so. Despite the presence of charitable organizations and programmes to help raise funds for the less fortunate, it is even more evident that charity is given less priority in today’s world. As modernization and rising affluence begin to assume control in this world, many people in the Third World and those marginalized in developed societies would be at a greater disadvantage, as charity seems to be displaced from society.

Some may argue that with globalization and modernization, the charity has evolved into what is known as ‘modern philanthropy’, taking action rather than supporting charitable organizations with one-off donations. Previously, while acts of charity were usually associated with monetary donations and supporting donation drives, the charity has now evolved into action, with people travelling across countries and helping those in need. Locally, schools have made overseas Community Involvement Programme (CIP) an integral part of the school curriculum, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Not only do these programmes allow for well-rounded education, but they also provided opportunities for students and teachers alike to understand the plight of the less fortunate and to take action in building wells, schools and other facilities to help them meet some basic needs. On the global stage, the creation of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) could be seen as one of the leaders of modern philanthropy. From Africa to Asia, the foundation has impacted countries positively in line with their belief that ‘all lives have equal value’. They are concerned with educating the poor, eliminate poverty and have given out grants and donations in order to try to nip these problems in the bud. Henceforth, philanthropy in today’s context may not merely be about monetary donations. Rather, charity is still relevant today because of how man uses it as a tool to help better the lives of others.

Furthermore, charity is still existent today as it allows people to understand what compassion is truly all about. In a world where globalization seems to numb people, inhibiting their ability to feel for the destitute, charity still has a place to help them regain consciousness of the plight of fellow men in other parts of the world. For instance in Singapore, local celebrities Priscilla Chan and Alan Tern had been giving recognition for their charitable works overseas by Channelnews Asia. On the international level, an entirely new industry centred on giving has been created. Philanthropy workshops and coaches have emerged, helping people to narrow in on what they genuinely are concerned about, guiding them in managing their finances and taking the right action in contributing to charity. Philanthropic coaches go an extra mile in helping their clients create mission statements based on the type of change they envision and help them to plan their giving, both in mode and magnitude. As such, proponents of the claim that charity still has a place in the world today may be valid as charity takes on a different and more meaningful nature when people get their hands dirty and create change in the world.

On hindsight, however, rather than allowing the charity to gain some control over the world today, greed seems to be the new “virtue” that many subscribe to. With rising affluence in many parts of the world today, one cannot help but start to practice material hegemony, igniting a desire for material pleasure. Even with a greater amount of wealth, it would be surprising that man would donate a portion of it to charity purely out of goodwill rather than desiring to be recognized for such a major contribution. The recent Wall Street meltdown is an apt example of how a rich and developed country led to its own downfall and adversely affected the global economy. In the USA, citizens took mortgages from the banks without being able to pay them off due to their desire for their dream house without being fully informed of the risks involved, in a bid to increase their pool of wealth. Locally, there are also instances in which people bought Minibonds that were repackaged and sold through local banks, losing thousands of dollars overnight, showing how greed is perhaps innate and universal. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to claim that in today’s world, charity is becoming more displaced and greed has taken its toll on society?

Aside from Greed, the power that Pride yields seem to be usurping the throne that Charity once held, in the 21st Century. As people become more prideful about their wealth and status, the charity may have become more obsolete in their lives. America is a good example, again, of how a nation slowly and painfully learns the truth behind being humble. For the past few years, the USA has prided itself for being brilliant, her greatness in moral convictions, the superiority of its intelligence and the seemingly blameless nature of her actions and decisions. Involvement in war-torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled American into uncomfortable realizations of how far its pride has led it to squander global goodwill and cooperation and in the process, make a number of enemies worldwide. A poll conducted after the Wall Street meltdown was even more telling of how pride blinds people, causing them to be even more self-centred than before. The poll saw a half of Wall Street workers dissatisfied with their 2008 bonuses while the rest of the world suffered from the repercussions of the financial turmoil, with retrenchments and bills that could not be paid off. As people become increasingly preoccupied with meeting their level of happiness and comfort, the charity would seem to disappear from the list of ‘must-dos’, leaving the less fortunate with little hope for the future.

Lastly, laziness seems to be getting the better of the world when it comes to charity. It is ironic how the world is in a constant buzz and yet Sloth stealthily kicks in to help people settle for what is most convenient. Be it struggling to complete one’s PhD, keeping the family together at the dinner table and loving one’s difficult relationship entails costs and sacrifice. Sloth, or rather, laziness propels individuals to choose the easy way out, thereby neglecting what is more pressing. It is no wonder that the larger affairs of the world such as poverty continue to remain unresolved despite the many years of international cooperation. Even with money flowing through the banks of charity, the hands of the people are not yet dirtied as they seem to believe that mere dollar bills would indeed make the world go round in happiness and hope. These people share the common belief that one-off donations would indeed make a difference, but they may not be clearly aware that their laziness in taking action to create changes in the world would ultimately, prevent the less fortunate from envisioning a better life in the coming years ahead. As such, I do believe that charity is becoming increasingly displaced as the world today would rather choose to settle for the most convenient things in life.

To sum up, charity, I believe begins with the heart. With people whose hearts are filled with greed, pride and laziness, how can the world be rid of the current problems that have to be tackled? Poverty would continue to exist in the future if people are unable to realize the increasing importance of charity in the world today. Without charity, there probably would not be any glimmer of hope for the poor and destitute. As the “virtues” of greed, pride and laziness pounce forward and assume control of the world, charity seems to be marked out of the list of priorities in the world today.

“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?

There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world. 

 Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices. 

 Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus,  men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries. 

Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men. 

 In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.

To what extent should society embrace and encourage the widespread use of automation?

A new technological revolution is upon us, with ever-expanding research bringing us closer to the day where humans will be rendered obsolete in numerous workplaces that are currently run by humans, and in some sense has already accomplished that in certain areas. This new technology will bring forth what has been dubbed the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, where much like the textile industry in the nineteenth century, our manufacturing capabilities will skyrocket to unprecedented heights. This change is within the foreseeable future and has led many to question whether we as a species can handle such dramatic changes, or if the implications of such a revolution are worth the increase in productivity that we might have, thus approaching the situation with caution or outright baulking at the thought. While this revolution that is automation will not leave everyone happy, I believe that we as a society should embrace the use of automation with open arms and spread it as far and wide as possible, for we as a species have gotten to where we are now through advancing our technologies, and we too shall see a net benefit from pushing our efficiency beyond the capacity of what we have now.

With that being said, I understand that not everyone will see automation in a positive light, for there are tradeoffs to efficiency. Take for example the argument that an increase in automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are able to manufacture products more efficiently and at a lower price are sure to displace their human counterparts. Companies care greatly about their bottom line and are willing to trim down the number of employees that they have in favour of machines that can do the same menial tasks, machines which never need rest, never have the need for a salary, and machines which do not have labour unions to fight for better working conditions for them at the expense of the company. Workers may then be retrenched and unable to find new occupations fitting their previous wages, especially when they do not have the qualifications that higher-paying jobs require, nor would they have the means to attain these qualifications easily. Take the coal industry in the United States of America, where despite the President’s claim that there is a war on coal with climate change regulations clamping down on jobs, coal production remained relatively stable in the past decade albeit decreasing slightly, even as the number of employees in the industry dwindles at a steep rate. This seemingly odd contradiction is due to automation allowing for coal to be extracted more easily by machine, and thus have been needed to retrieve the same amount of coal. These coal workers having a little qualification in other fields can then only sit around unemployed as they live on meagre welfare benefits, leaving them disgruntled and more open to making questionable choices in electing people to power. Hence, as automation can lead to a loss of jobs and in turn a lowering in quality of life for some, I cannot say that automation can come without fault.

Proponents of obstructing automation will also argue that expanding the use of automation can have harmful effects on those who cannot afford such machines. While automation is able to make manufacturing more efficient and cost-effective, such machines may carry with them hefty price tags, costs which a manufacturer can only recover their investment from if they produce massive quantities of goods with said machines. Small and medium enterprises which do not produce goods on a large scale would thus be unable to afford such automation, leaving only large corporations with the revenue to afford such machinery given their larger scale, thus giving them the competitive edge in manufacturing goods. By owning these machines, large corporations can produce and sell their goods at a price which small and medium enterprises cannot sustain, and may, in turn, use this power to force smaller companies out of the market by selling their goods at a far lower price, a term called ‘predatory pricing’, as smaller companies will lose out greatly on sales, eventually giving the large corporations a monopoly over their market and will give them the ability to exploit this as they please. As embracing automation may give an unfair advantage to certain corporations that can ultimately give them great power and leverage over their market, one would be justified in their scepticism of accepting automation.

Despite all the negatives that may be associated with automation, I believe that automation can bring about many positives that outweigh these, with one upside being that efficiency will be dramatically increased. Where it would have taken twenty people to man twenty counters at a grocery such as Fairprice in Singapore, you now only need five employees to man the same number of counters, which is all thanks to automation. This applies to many other industries as well, where manufacturing and assembly lines filled with people would now have machines and robots instead, inserting each piece of a good with extreme precision and clockwork timing. To implement automation would cut down costs drastically as goods and products can be made with the purpose of doing one role, much like a human would usually do, but with more consistency, as they never grow weary as they work. Such efficiency can lead to higher quality goods for consumers and at a lower cost, allowing us as a society to enjoy a better quality of life. As such, given that we have the chance to allow more people to have access to higher quality goods as they become cheaper and are more likely within the means of lower-income groups, we should embrace automation to give us such a future.

Moreover, with automation, no humans are involved in the work, or if they are, they are able to work on the sidelines. This can allow a workplace to be far safer, as it would be machines that are put at the front lines rather than the worker. Workers enjoy better safety as, in an automated environment, their interaction with the products is minimal and most people would play a role more in line of supervising the automation line, reducing the need to move heavy objects or move products to machinery which can seriously harm someone if they are not careful, and prevent exposure to dangerous substances. Workplace accidents are virtually nonexistent at Amazon warehouses, despite them being a shipping and cargo delivery company that would naturally involve moving heavy containers. Such a feat is achieved by their use of automated robots which can zip across the warehouse floor, moving crates exactly where they need to go, and operating like a well-oiled machine with other units to ensure that not a single collision will occur. Should an unexpected situation arise whereby a heavy object falls, only the poor robot will be crushed by the crate, as no human would directly work with the cargo. Such an environment for a workplace would be excellent, as no person should be exposed to the potential danger when it is avoidable, especially when their livelihoods depend on their health. Hence, I believe that society should push for the widespread use of automation in various workplaces, so as to make the working environment a safer place for all.

Finally, automation should be expanded in its use as it allows society to plan ahead for the future potential of technological developments or other needs rather than to stagnate with the same inefficient jobs where technology could do the same work in a better way. As manufacturing jobs are phased out and replaced by machines, demand for workers in such a sector would fall, indicating to the children of today and the workers of tomorrow that this industry is no longer viable and that they should look elsewhere and attain the qualifications for those jobs which have potential in the future. Much like how the electronic fridge rendered ice carvers obsolete, automation will more effectively produce our goods and render manufacturing line jobs obsolete. This can encourage people to look towards other industries with less attention that cannot be replaced by automation and develop them, such as computer sciences and healthcare services which require a human touch. By displacing future job openings in sectors which depend on mindless menial work, our youth may instead look to other opportunities and thus increase the number of people working in other sectors, so that we as a society can be more efficient in developing other aspects of discovery, so that we may expand at an even greater rate than before. Hence, with automation forcing youth to disperse to other industries to allow these industries to have more manpower and more minds at work, I believe that these industries may also grow as a result, even if they are not directly affected by automation. Therefore, we as a society should accept with open arms the future that automation may bring us, and do our best to spread its influence.

Humans do not simply stagnate, for it is in our nature to expand on what we already have. From the coal engine to the internet, to automation, it is only right that we advance ourselves further so that we may all live better lives. Hence, society should embrace automation to maximize its capabilities.

Technology only serves to benefit humanity. How far do you agree with this statement?

There is no doubt that technology has become heavily integrated into our everyday lives. There is almost no escape to it and mankind often debate whether technology is good or bad to humanity. Many people believe that technology can only cause harm to their lives and society, while many others strongly defend that technologies have made their lives much more leisurely and enriching than it could have been several hundred years ago. In this 21 century, the advancement in technology has caused both significant negative and positive impacts on mankind. It would be simplistic to say that technology only serves to benefit man. Technology is a double-edged sword concur that technology brings comfort, make life more luxurious for us, however, there are detrimental impacts that have not benefitted mankind at all.

In the perspective of the working economy, the growing technology will lead to a high level of unemployment. In the business world, more and more machinery and computers are taking over man jobs. Since machinery is more efficient than human, machines will be more beneficial to the industry as the production level will increase. As such, this leads to unemployment as machines have replaced human’s work. Standing in the perspective of a manager, since most companies are profit-driven, they would hire more machine than man. The cost of production of producing one quantity of a commodity would decrease as less manpower is needed in the working force. This ultimately means that as technology grows, more and more jobs will be lost which will lead to unemployment. If the majority becomes unemployed due to technology, it may lead to inflation and riots within a country, which will affect the stability of a country. Hence, with the replacement and advancement of machinery, it is no doubt that in this aspect, technology did not help man.

Additionally, technology causes adverse health and psychological impacts. In the area of computers and advanced gadgets, people are spending more time playing computer games, using social networking sites for entertainment and knowledge, chatting and interacting with unknown people and making friends online. Once they are addicted, they do not think of going out and making real friends. These gadgets have attractive features that can cause an individual to be addicted, and plug into the virtual world all the time. This virtual world is known as the internet. As such, the time spent interacting with people physically reduces. At a later stage, this may lead them to loneliness, depression, frustration when betrayed by unknown people besides social isolation from friends and family members. When people of all age become overly addicted to games like Audition SEA or grand theft auto (GTA), these lead to negative impacts such as skipping meals, rejecting people away for entertainment reasons. This kind of addiction does not seem to benefit humanity.

Adding to that, advancement in gadgets technology causes the art of conversation to be diminished. We live in a world where we are constantly connected to our peers. Technology has provided us with ways to always be connected and interact with them at any time of the day. Nowadays, we are so dependent on technology, and since it is always at your fingertips, face to face communication has become less frequent. Instead of one on one communication, we opt for text, email, tweet, or Facebook in the name of convenience. Although technology’s efficiency is greatly appreciated, this causes the art of conversation to be lost. For example, text messages and email allow us to communicate in short, carefully-edited sentences that lack immediacy. It also completely removes the contextual information provided by the tone of voice and body language. As a result, people who connect with others primarily through technology might find it difficult to engage in normal conversation, since they may have issues understanding non-verbal cues due to lack of practice with face-to-face interaction that cannot be paused, edited or filtered. As such, in this aspect, it did not benefit mankind.

Also, in the area of food technology, the creation of genetically modified food give consumers harmful health impacts. Although the storage time for GM food is longer, the process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. For instance, fish genes are tweaked with a growth hormone that causes the fish to double in size far more quickly than it usually would, so fish farmers can increase their profits. Soybeans that have been genetically modified, for example, can survive applications of herbicides that would destroy an organic soybean plant. To date, GM food has no be certified 100% safe for consumption as there may be hidden harmful impacts when a consumer consumes GM food for a long period of time. No scientist can confidently say that GM food is absolutely safe for consumption. There are no labels on food to identify them as GM food, and this will cause distress to those who consume GM food by accident, or those who do not wish to consume the chemically modified substance. Hence in the area of technology, it can bring anxiety and distress to the people in terms of possible health impacts and unknown consumption of GM food. This shows that food technology in this aspect did not benefit humanity.

On the flip side of the coin, education has been greatly advanced by the technological advances of advanced gadgets, aiding students better than before. Where pen and notebooks formed the toolkit of previous generations, today’s learners come to class armed with laptops, smartphone and iPod. There is the use and promotion of several learning portals that allow a student to learn online even when they are unable to attend lessons. The current era of pervasive technology has substantial implication to education. Adding to that, students are able to learn on a global scale without ever leaving their classrooms. Classrooms are becoming more technologically involved than before. For example, the tablets not only offer students the chance to browse for information in quick fashions, but they also allow them to more easily collaborate on projects and become more engaged in their learning process. They have become exceptional tools that soon every classroom will strive to have in the aspect of mobile phones to be used in school. In addition to providing access to social media platforms which allow students to more freely interact, they also provide easy access to useful information and knowledge which betters a child’s overall learning experience. As compared to the past, one would need to flip the thick books in order to find the information they need. Now, students are able to attain information more efficiently. Also, access to education online has by far been the biggest advancement in education Like never before, students are able to access any type of information about any subject matter they choose. Asknlearn, YouTube, and numerous other forums have fuelled the learning experience and allowed student access to resources necessary to supplement their own education.

In conclusion, although technology brings enjoyment, convenience, and make life more luxurious for mankind, there are unfavourable impacts that did not benefit mankind at all. Such unfavourable impacts include people losing their jobs due to the work done by advanced machinery, people losing the experience and opportunities of having face to face conversation. In the area of food technology, although there are ways to prolong food, there are hidden health impacts which can be undesirable to mankind. Also, the addition of such an advanced gadget will cause psychological impacts to us unknowingly. Thus, I do not concur that technology only serves to benefit mankind since there are negative impacts that will not benefit man.

‘If people become ill it is largely their own fault.’ How far do you agree?

In this era, personal responsibility is very important in helping oneself stay healthy and not fall sick. It is often being said that you are what you eat. This is certainly true when one’s lifestyle can be responsible for his or her health. However, blaming an individual solely or to a great extent for becoming ill is deluding because the responsibility in keeping an individual healthy is split among the individual, government, society and private sector. The government is responsible for intervening to encourage people to lead a healthy lifestyle whereas society needs to be socially responsible in preventing the spread of contagious disease. The private sector, on the other hand, should always put consumers’ health first before profit. However, in a totally different scenario where illnesses are passed on from one generation to another, no one is to be blamed if an individual inherits the disease. So the statement, If people become ill it is largely their own fault, is not true.

Firstly, we must acknowledge that getting ill can be an individuals’ fault because today, more than ever, personal health responsibility or taking charge of one’s own health is a vital phase in disease prevention as well as protocols for recovery and healing from disease. Personal health responsibility encompasses active participation in one’s own health, keeping fit with regular exercises and watching a healthy diet. Therefore, a person who does not lead a healthy lifestyle can be at fault if he or she falls sick. Moreover, lifestyle plays a huge part in most of the illnesses in developed countries. Six of the ten major factors responsible for the global burden of illnesses are linked to lifestyles. These lifestyles include smoking and high consumption of tobacco-related products, consumption of alcohol, indulging in unsafe copulation and having a high intake of cholesterol. Thus, if individuals lead these lifestyles and then fall sick, they can be at fault.

Nonetheless, individuals do not hold full responsibility for their health because the government plays a crucial role and holds the responsibility in preventing their people from getting sick. In countries like the United States of America where huge commercialisation of fast-food has caused a great problem of obesity among its citizens, the state has a responsibility to step in and enforce a healthier diet and restrict excessive marketing campaigns by fast-food companies. Methods such as educating can be utilised by the government to educate people about the negative impacts of consuming too much unhealthy food. Although having a healthy diet lies in the hands of an individual, the state plays an important role in this because the government is the one who sets laws and determines prices for the food products. It is in the power of the state to regulate the prices of various healthy food products. The government can provide incentives or subsidies to farmers and other food producers to lower the prices of healthy food products so that it is very affordable and comes to the reach of every individual. Thus, this shows that the government can prevent its citizens and its people from getting ill by leading a healthy lifestyle. So, if the government does not play its role, then if people become ill it can be partly the governments’ fault.

Apart from the government, society is also responsible for preventing people from becoming ill. In this period of a global H1N1 flu pandemic, employers have the responsibility in providing a clean working environment for its employees. Employers always have to be ready and prepared with the necessary solutions for cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation. For example, a diluted household can be used for disinfecting and cleaning common areas like counter surfaces, telephones, computer keyboards and doorknobs on a regular basis. Moreover, when people are infected with the contagious diseases like the H1N1 flu or develop its symptoms, they should call the non-emergency ambulance and not take public transport or get close to anyone to prevent the spread of the disease. Infected people should also control their mobility and stay home from work. These are part of social responsibility which if neglected can be responsible if people become ill.

Often overlooked, the private sector also holds responsibility in preventing people from falling sick. Private sectors involve in producing food products should not sacrifice consumers’ health in profit-making. This is seen in the recent Chinese milk scandal where a chemical appeared to have been added to milk in order to cause it to appear to have higher protein content. As a result, it has caused deaths of six infants and hospitalising another eight hundred and sixty babies. Thus, for this reason, the private sector is at fault when consumers become ill.

It is undeniable that many figures are responsible for a person’s health. However, in a few cases where people become ill, nobody is to be blamed. If people are infected with hereditary diseases, nobody is at fault because this is linked to the fate which cannot be controlled. Most hereditary diseases such as diabetes, cancer and hypertension are passed on within families from one generation to the next generation. Thus, just as children can inherit facial features like thick eyebrows or blue eyes from their parents, they can also acquire certain disorders and hereditary diseases. So, are they to be blamed for having these hereditary illnesses when they cannot prevent themselves from inheriting it?

In conclusion, to say that it is largely an individual’s fault when he or she becomes ill is fallacious. This is because health responsibility not only lies on the shoulders of the individual but the responsibility is also split among the state, society and private sector. Moreover in cases like a hereditary disease, as discussed earlier, we can only blame fate.

Should the poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met?

Tourism in many developing countries is one of the most reliable and sustainable economic development options and in some countries the main source of foreign exchange earnings. Part of this income trickles down to different groups of society and it is easy for this revenue to leak away from the poor benefitting the more educated and well-off segments of society. However, if tourism is managed with a strong focus on poverty alleviation it can directly benefit the underprivileged, empowering them with the ability to take care of their basic needs such as access to clean water, food, proper sanitation. With this in mind, it is my thesis that poorer countries should develop their tourist industry with poverty alleviation and sustainability as the central aims that are built into strategies and action plans. 

Developing the tourist industry will generate a tremendous amount of revenue which can be used to elevate the standard of living of the people. Hence it would be sensible for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry. Constituting the second most important source of foreign exchange revenues, the growth of the tourism industry can result in a significant change in the economy of a developing nation. On top of that since the industry is conventionally made up of microenterprises and many of the jobs demand little skills and investment, developing the tourist industry can potentially be the most valuable and sustainable way for economic development. At the same time, tourism is largely based on the rich cultural heritage, unique landscape and biodiversities of the country which do not require heavy funding for infrastructure and yet creates high turnover. For example in the case of Nepal tourists often embark on mountaineering and trekking expeditions, and religious pilgrimages contributing to 4.6 % of Nepal’s GDP. Moreover, in the process of developing the tourism industry, infrastructure for basic necessities such as clean water, proper sanitation and power supply will be developed. One such example is the millennium villages project, Mayang, Rwanda,  like most developing countries, experiences high infant mortality rate, limited health care, no electricity and no paved roads. However, after developing the tourism industry Mayang’s plight has been steadily improving – there is abundant food, booming businesses, increased number of schools and a decline and mortality rate. This reasserts that promoting tourism development can, in turn, benefit the locals through the provision of capital which can be used in meeting the basic needs of the poverty-stricken. 

However, a paradox is that the rise in tourism can also be detrimental to the poor. Hence it may not be advisable for underprivileged countries to develop the tourist industry. The concentration of resources to the tourism industry may possibly result in the negligence of tourism’s welfare. As a consequence, people’s needs will be compromised. Brazil, for instance, had vital services such as transportation, education and health care that were inefficiently run and woefully underfunded. Yet it spent a ridiculously huge sum of 11 billion dollars on hosting the world cup alone. Should the interest of its very own citizens not remain the top priority? It is utterly unacceptable for a country to channel its already limited funds to accommodate the foreigners when the basic needs of its people are still not well taken care of. Having been bogged down by cost overruns, delays in the infrastructure projects and deadly accidents the world cup had also innovatively resulted in an inflation spike in Brazil. The influx of tourists increases the demand for basic services and goods causing prices to accelerate which negatively affect the local residents whose income does not increase proportionately. This impoverishes the poor to an even greater extent, depriving them of their essential needs all the more. Furthermore, in reality, most of the profit generated from tourism goes to the richer strata of society resulting in leakage. Take Thailand for instance, it is estimated that 70% of all the money spent by tourists ended up leaving Thailand via foreign-owned tour operators, airlines and hotels. Evidently, tourism gives the largest piece of the pie to large foreign companies and little earnings remain within the country. Moreover, the running of tourist facilities such as resorts and Recreation parks require a tremendous amount of water and energy. In developing countries, these resources are often scarce and used at the expense of the local population robbing the locals of their meagre essentials. Hence, the suggestion that tourism will alleviate poverty in developing countries may be a misguided one. It may be unwise for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry.

Nonetheless, tourism development should be actuated as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion. This will guarantee that the depletion of resources is minimised and the interests of the locals are not jeopardized. It is imperative that sustainability is taken into account as failing to do so will result in tourism being destructive to the economy which exacerbates the people’s inability to sustain themselves. In order to do so, these poorer countries need to develop their tourism industry whilst having poverty alleviation as the main principle. Part of the revenue needs to be directed towards the building of infrastructure for basic necessities and the government will have to ensure connectivity and accessibility of the industry to the poor. With this in place, more of the poor will be able to earn at least a living wage and thus be able to pay for their basic necessities. Developing nations should model the development of the tourism industry after South Africa’s so as to ensure this economic pursuit will not undermine the ability of the poor to meet their basic needs.  In South Africa, ecotourism accounts for a large portion of employment in rural areas, the places where poverty is most rampant. The World Wide Fund also estimates that more than 80% of their revenue is invested in building water filtration facilities in villages. Such a sustainable approach to the development of tourism industry ensures that people are able to take care of the basic needs and also end their poverty cycle. 

Tourism being susceptible to political unrest, natural disasters and shift in international demand is a very volatile industry. As such, it would be prudent for poorer countries to develop the tourist industry sustainably and with caution. Its development should also be done with people’s welfare as the main principle. Feeling to do so may result in tourism being a destructive industry, intensifying the people’s suffering and minimising their ability to meet their basic needs.

“With great power comes great responsibility”. Discuss with reference to scientific development.

“With great power comes great responsibility”, a sensible quote made famous by the Spider-Man franchise. In this era, mankind wields more power than ever with the help of scientific knowledge, discoveries, innovations and modern technology. We are able to greatly improve the lives of mankind, increase longevity, reduce the burden of menial work and much more but science does not stop there. In recent times, scientific discoveries have been groundbreaking. Whole new realms of science are being researched into, pushing limits, reaching beyond boundaries. These include subjects like genetic science and nuclear technology that promises benefits to mankind that we could never have imagined. Yet in science, there are always flaws and risks that make such issues controversial. Should science be responsible for its discoveries and research? Should the power of science be subjected to humanitarian responsibility? I believe so because it is only moral and ethical to do so, however, such cases are not always plausible. 

Nuclear technology is one of the greatest developments in recent times. Through nuclear technology, man has been able to harness great power in military weapons and also in energy production. The advantages of using nuclear energy are phenomenal because the energy that can be harnessed surpasses energy production through the burning of fossil fuels. Presently, the earth is relying only on the remaining 50 years worth of fossil fuels to generate electrical energy. Nuclear energy is hence touted by many scientists and governments to be the solution to depleting fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is also clean and environmentally friendly as it is non-pollutive. Many countries have begun to invest in research and development of nuclear plants to generate energy for their country’s needs. One such example is Japan however the recent earthquake has proven that such technology is risky and dangerous. In March 2011, earthquakes that struck Japan caused nuclear power plants in Fukushima prefecture to break down. This caused high levels of radiation in the city which was dangerous for humans. The nuclear power plant meltdown has shown that world scientists have to be responsible for innovations when dealing with such high-risk technologies. They have a moral obligation to ensure that their technology and equipment is stable so as to protect the safety of individuals who might be disadvantaged, should accidents occur. Nuclear Technology has also been used in military science to create Weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction can release vast quantities of energy from small amounts of matter and are extremely destructive. The research in the creation of such weapons has caused an arms race all over the world and the consequences of nuclear warfare would be terrifying. Indeed, great power calls for great responsibility because with great power, more is at stake and it is crucial that someone should take responsibility to ensure that the power is only put to good and efficient use.

Genetics is another area that has been heavily researched. One very common example is genetically modified food (GM Food). Genetically Modified food has brought breakthroughs in the agriculture industry. Crops can now be pest resistant and are more durable, and they can also be modified to be enriched with nutrients. Scientists and companies that produce such seeds are ultimately profit-driven which leads to methods like terminator technology that enables GM seeds to only be able to be used once. This coupled with patents, allow companies to demand high prices for the seeds, eventually displacing poor farmers out of the agricultural business. Scientists should be responsible for preventing the abuse of the disadvantaged.   Also because science has the potential to bring great benefits to mankind, it should fulfil its humanitarian obligations to help the disadvantaged. This has been done in the Philippines where Golden rice, a type of grain enriched with beta carotene has been planted and given to poor children. This enables them to get more vitamin A and has saved children from death and blindness. Genetics also dabbles with other controversial issues that require responsibility when undertaking research. Genetics may lead to great medical breakthroughs like gene therapy and stem cell research, however, many people demand regulations and guidelines to protect the sanctity of life that they feel is being tampered with. Scientists have to be responsible in their ethical conduct when doing research so as not to abuse their experiments and the sanctity of life. Therefore responsibility is important to ensure that science does not cross over the line of what is unethical and immoral. 

While science should seek to be involved in humanitarian work due to its ability and potential to help and better the lives of the poor and disadvantaged,  it is not always possible to do so. It is difficult for certain areas of science to be linked with altruistic goals. Some areas of Science and Technology are profit-driven, with goals only to create innovations that would satisfy consumers and this is essential to drive our economy. Research and development have resulted in products like touch screen phones and mini portable music players that really do not mean anything to the poor and disadvantaged, yet we cannot do without them.  These brilliant innovations have benefited the wealthy and in turn, generates wealth. It is difficult to include any form of altruistic responsibility, however, we cannot agree that such technology is redundant. Therefore, it is not always true that technological power should always be connected to responsibility. 

Science is ever-evolving and changing. New discoveries are made every day and it takes failures for man to recognise the current flaws which would then lead to improvement. There is always some form of risk that remains and scientists cannot bear all the responsibility and blame when accidents related to their scientific discovery and innovation occurs. If the Japanese earthquake did not happen, then the power plants and equipment would always have been susceptible to shocks and damages. damages. However, after one failure, improvements and more research will be made. This is then the scientist’s responsibility to recover and improve. Therefore it is not responsible when possessing power but responsibility to strengthen that power. 

 The summative assessment of the arguments above leads me to conclude that it is impossible for science to just create and discover but shrug its hands off the consequences of its creations. That is because so much is at stake. (E.g: lives of people, safety) and also science has the potential to help the needy and so should be harnessed to fulfil this moral obligation. However, science cannot always be used just to serve and help others.  Other aspects of science that have to do with profit-maximizing are just as crucial to our lives.

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

Censorship is not a new process in the world. It has been around for centuries. Back in 398 BC, Plato was a leading advocate of censorship. The birth of new media and social media has brought the topic of censorship to greater heights. However, according to the United Nations, human rights include freedom of speech and expression. Thus, any form of censorship is deemed to be a flagrant infringement of human rights and cannot be tolerated. However, to say that censorship can never be justified is not a prudent statement because it comes with benefits as well as costs. Thus, I disagree to a large extent that censorship can never be justified.

Primarily, censorship is mostly used to protect a nation’s security. This is one of the reasons why censorship is still being practised. A nation’s progress cannot be totally transparent to the citizens, let alone reporting it to the whole world. This is for the fear that some information that carries sensitive material will hurt and jeopardize economic security or internal security and benefit potential aggressors. The censored material includes the state’s build-up of weapons and the government’s plan with regards to defence. Hence, in times of war, censorship is stricter than before because the state not only wants to prevent the enemy from getting information on military value, it also wants to sustain the morale of its people. Given that censorship is a way to protect people and countries well-being, censorship is justified.

While it is true that the public should make an informed choice where religion, race issues are concerned so as to make the right choice, in a society with people of varying viewpoints and backgrounds, it is highly myopic to assume that everyone is entirely sensible to make the right choices, uniformly. Racially insensitive material can create misgivings, misunderstandings and misinformation among the various ratio and religious group resulting in civil unrest and disorder. Firms of publications that slander or lampoon a particular race or religion should be censored. The Charlie Hebdo attack on 7 January 2015 in France has taken away at least 12 lives. The fatal incident occurred due to racist cover page of the magazine on the Muslim community. As the media portrayed the minority group in the negative light, it is extremely necessary to censor certain religious sensitive material to maintain the stability of a certain belief.

However, while it is true that censorship can largely be justified, one cannot dispute the fact that censorship violates humanity’s natural autonomy as it denies an individual an unbiased choice in formulating his or her beliefs.  By not giving mass media the liberty and responsibility to function freely in order to provide free access to information and ideas to the public, the people are not well informed on current affairs and will not be mentally prepared for any major disturbances in the country. North Korea, the most censored country in the world (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) has no independent journalists and all radio and television receivers sold in the country are locked to government-specified frequencies. For many North Korean the lies that the government presents as truths are considered the truth because people have no alternative source of information to compare allegations of facts. The conservative mindset of governments has led to censorship often being abused by repressive regimes which effectively decides what the population processes by restricting information, leading to a society that is ignorant, thus, censorship is not justified.

Nevertheless, while audiences are more discerning and not likely to be corrupted by access to certain questionable materials, it is only moral to censor materials to prevent those from the unsuitable age group – children and teenagers from viewing it. The prevalence of such materials may erode the moral fabric of society as such material affects the basic moral values of people. For instance, pornography perverts the young, impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity and undermines the general morality of the public. As such the movies are often rated and regulated with movie classification parental guidance to NC 16, M18 and R21, to protect viewers from using dangerous material unsuitable for their age. Thus, censorship is justified as it is necessary to bar the young from being exposed to harmful materials.

In conclusion, censorship is justified in many cases. As William Westmorland said, “Without censorship, things can get confused in the public mind”. Since we citizens have entrusted our lives and countries to the government we voted for, we have also relinquished some of our freedom and the government has a duty to ensure the citizens’ well-being is not compromised at the expense of censorship.