Author: VidS

How far should artists be allowed to push boundaries?

One of the defining pieces of art of the 20th century is literally a toilet. Marcel Duchamp’s piece of “fountain” was simply a functioning toilet that he had bought from a store. The piece was displayed for just a day, before a cleaner threw it out, thinking it was trash. However, in it one day of existence, “fountain” managed to completely obliterate every single boundary governing the nature of art, instantaneously ignite a firestorm of controversy, and essentially spawn the entirety of the modern art movement, breathing new life into an art form many considered dead. Art is something that needs to evolve or die, and for art to evolve, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

Some, however, would argue that artists should not be allowed to push boundaries too far, as they will inevitably push it into the realm of bad taste. These people argue that boundaries in art serve a clear purpose: to delineate acceptable moralities. To these people, for artists to push boundaries too far would constitute an act of moral deviancy and public indecency, and thus denigrate the very nature of art, which they believe to inspire and reflect good values. These are the people who will protest against films such as “Hostel” for its perceived excessive violence, artists such as H.R Giger for his hyper sexually art pieces, or bands like Iron Maiden for their “Satanic Imagery”. To these people, art, above all else, needs to be moral. Without proper morality, the entire piece of art is invalidated to them.

While it might be true that some artists do not reflect very good morals, I also believe that that is entirely irrelevant. Art, above all else, must seek to reflect life honestly. To inaccurately represent life due to boundaries concerning morals and taste is, I believe, a far more grievous sin then not reflecting appropriate morality. Life is hard and scary, and people sometimes are filled with violence and cruelty. These are not things we like to think about, and yet it is precisely why artists need to incorporate them into their work. To forget about the harsher facts of life is not just a failure on the part of the artist, it also does a disservice to the consumer who is no longer challenged and brought out of their comfort zones. This is precisely why we require filmmakers such as Harmony Korrine and Nicholas winding Refn, whose films push various boundaries and are eminently controversial. Without the ability to push boundaries as far as possible, art loses a great portion of its verisimilitude, and hence also its power to engage us. Thus, for art to reflect life honestly, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

There is also another group that believes art should not push against political and religious boundaries. These people believe that political and religious beliefs are a private and personal thing, and thus art has no business attempting to influence the use and change our opinions. Art, while entertaining, should, in their eyes, remain apolitical as politics and religion are too controversial and messy to be discussed in such a manner. These are the people who decry filmmakers such as Oliver Stone, or Michael Moore, for making what they consider to be fundamentally biased and untruthful political films. To these people, politics is simply too dangerous a topic for art to tread upon, and thus they believe that artists should not push boundaries, but rather seek to entertain.

While it is true that politics and religion are deeply personal, I believe it is extremely important for art to discuss it, so as to start conversations about it. For us all to be better, more enlightened human beings, we need to be able to confront our biases and prejudices and learn to fully argue for our own personal beliefs. Art, in presenting its own views on politics and religion, creates conversation and forces us to examine our own ideas. This is present in films such as “Four Lions” which presents a harrowingly realistic depiction of how ordinary youths can be radicalized into terrorists, thus refuting the simple caricature many have of terrorists as evil religious fundamentalists. In this way, as we confront our own opinions, we can refine them and thus emerge as fuller people with more informed and cohesive thoughts. This visceral confrontation occurs also in games such as “This war of mine” which through placing the player in the role of a civilian in a warzone, invites one to think about the true cost of war. Art, by pushing boundaries, also causes people to start conversations about issues and thus move to fix them. This can be seen in how Kendrick Lamar’s 2015 album “To pimp a butterfly” intensified discussion of racism in America, and brought awareness to the issue. Thus, for art to challenge, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible.

Fundamentally, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible in order to evolve. What boundaries represent is a hard limit on what artists can think? To be able to consistently create new material and evolve, artists should and must push the boundaries and evolve their thinking. This has always been how art evolves, from the ’60s when the Beatles released their album Sergeant peppers and ushered in psychedelic rock, to James Joyce’s Ulysses which broke many taboos and define the modernist novel, to 1968’s Bonnie and Clyde, Which completely disregarded Hollywood’s codes of morality, and ushered in the modern filmmaking system. Art always requires pioneers to break the mould and push the boundaries. Only then will the rest follow and new things can be made. Artists thus should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible or art will simply stagnate and die.

The art throughout history has always held a unique ability to challenge, excite, and entertain us. It has always been changing, yet the only constant is the ability of artists to push the boundaries. As Frank Zappa once said: Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. Thus artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible, as that is how art stays relevant.

‘Artificial intelligence (AI) should be embraced, not feared.’ Do you agree?

Today, the idea that robots can take over the world one day as seen in dystopian movies does not seem too impossible. Can robots really take over the world? The advancements in technology have inevitably led to the rise of Artificial Intelligence, now commonly known as AI. Many are voicing concerns and fear that the development of AI may outpace the regulations that govern its implementation. AI also threatens job security all around the world. However, while these are understandable, Artificial Intelligence should not be feared but embraced.

Economies around the world today are restructuring. Many developed countries such as the United States, Japan, Singapore and many other large European economies are transitioning from labour-intensive to high-value added, knowledge-based industries. In fact, this transition has begun more than a decade ago. Not too long ago, automation has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs especially in low-skilled areas. Now with AI gradually easing its way not only into the manufacturing sector but also the services sector, the jobs of professionals, managers, executives and technicians are threatened as well. Hence, opponents of AI are frightened by the prospect that those with limited skills and education are going to be left behind.

There is no denying that being left behind in the future can become a reality for some. However, trade-offs have to be made for the progression of mankind. AI brings along undeniable benefits that can unquestionably boost economies, which will be discussed later. Returning to those threatened by AI, there is in fact a survival guide: Do not fight AI. Fight with it. Instead of protesting its inevitable integration into our lives, embrace it and understand it. By understanding it, we will no longer fear it. This is why governments are actively encouraging workers to upgrade their skill sets to stay relevant by equipping themselves with effective and useful skills and knowledge, and most importantly, to stay up to date. In Singapore, a country with an ambition to become the world’s first Smart Nation, a SkillsFuture Movement was launched less than a decade ago as a means through which citizens above the age of twenty-four can utilise incentives to sign up for courses. Some of these courses offered include computer classes that can help senior citizens to be technologically proficient. By upgrading ourselves, there is no doubt that automation and AI can help create new jobs that are higher-paying and of better quality, when AI takes over simpler ones. As such, there is certainly a case for fearing for our jobs when AI is slowly becoming prevalent. However, it is within our control to decide how AI will affect us. If we choose to remain relevant and fight alongside it instead of against it, we will be able to find better jobs and not be left behind.

Next, many developed countries such as Japan and Singapore are grappling with an ageing population today. AI can, therefore, be part of the panacea to deal with a manpower shortage. For instance, Singapore, a country with a small population, has embraced AI as seen in its services and transport industries. The country is rolling out a pilot programme for autonomous buses and has recently employed AI robots in two of its food courts where the robots, guided by sensors, can move around as a tray return station for diners. Hence, the food court is not only able to cut costs by reducing manpower, but diners are also able to enjoy greater convenience. In Japan, some stores no longer need to employ cleaners due to the availability of robotic vacuum cleaners that can roam freely on the floor with the ability to avoid collisions. These are a few of the many possible scenarios where AI benefits an economy and help countries cope with their problems. As such, AI should be embraced and not feared.

Moving on, one can also expect individual safety and national security to be enhanced with AI. Tesla, a tech giant and car manufacturer, has recently launched its autopilot feature in its cars. Such a feature means that the car itself has its own ability to recognise danger, for example, an imminent collision, and thus warn the driver beforehand to prevent an accident. With drink driving and human error some of the top causes of accidents on the roads today, AI can help reduce accident numbers. Furthermore, when such technology is extended to aircrafts and aeroplanes, the improvement in safety can be enormous. In the future, AI is also able to handle and make use of big data and analytics technology to track, predict and potentially prevent terrorist attacks. With terrorism on the rise, the ability to carry out facial recognition and behavioural matches in large crowds can undeniably enhance national security and thwart terrorist plans. This also extends to the threat of hostile nations especially in times of tensions and wars when AI can aid in espionage missions and track the enemies’ movements. Thus, AI should not be feared but embraced.

Finally, with a growing middle class globally, many of us are able to afford AI-equipped devices to improve our standard of living. With the advent of voice assistants such as Google Assistant, we are close to having our very own Jarvis. To switch on the air conditioner, all we have to do is simply ask, literally. There is no longer a need to lift a finger for simple tasks when all our appliances and lights are connected to a central AI-controlled home system. “Google-ing” on smartphones may also quickly become obsolete when we can ask our smartphones a question and have them read the answers aloud to us. Presented with such convenience, our quality of life is therefore enhanced tremendously. Tasks that were previously troublesome to perform can now be easily completed with AI. While some may view this as laziness, I believe this gives us the opportunity to put our efforts to better use instead.

Perhaps, fear may stem from the belief that AI might become too intelligent in the future and use its data and knowledge against us. Certainly, this remains a possibility. However, we are the inventors of AI. With regulations to ensure that algorithms used to create AI allow for transparent robots to be invented, the future of AI lies in our hands. We are more likely to design AI such that it benefits us rather than harm us.

To conclude, while there is reasonable fear for our jobs, threatened by AI, we can always choose to do something by upgrading ourselves and progressing with it instead of resisting it. AI brings us greater safety, convenience and productivity and for these, we should embrace it. Perhaps we can overcome our fear of AI by understanding how it functions and always keeping up with its latest development. In this way, AI will no longer seem foreign and intimidating when we are familiar with it.

International cooperation is necessary in this globalised world. Do you agree?

With recent events such as Brexit and the rising resentment against free trade in the United States as shown by the fierce opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, we see that there is a rising trend of nationalism that is against the idea of international cooperation. While they might justify such a choice as an excuse to stay competitive, I disagree with the notion that international cooperation has no place in this competitive world, because such cooperation is still crucial in providing humanitarian aid, allows countries to tackle global issues, and lastly, is arguably necessary for a country to advance certain domestic interests in this competitive world.

Firstly, in times of disasters, international cooperation is still needed in order to provide temporary relief to those in need. In the event of an unfortunate natural disaster, chances are it is going to cause great damage to that area, and such damages often cost the countries millions, if not billions of dollars. For developing or less developed countries, they simply do not have that much money in order to repair their infrastructure, so it is the duty of the international community to come in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid. Even if the world is highly competitive, as human beings, there is still a moral imperative for us, the international community, to step in and provide them with the most basic of needs so that they would not be deprived of their most basic human rights that many regards as inalienable. This is why when the earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, countries all over the world stepped in to provide aid for that country thorough various means, even though the world at that time was just as competitive as it is today. With that, it is hard to justify why, even in this competitive world, should there be any reasons to denounce international cooperation in terms of giving aid.

That being said, nationalists would still argue that a country should prioritise their national interests first before anything else including international cooperation, especially since the world today is so competitive. They argue that in a world with such cut-throat competition, they have to think about how to benefit the country first and foremost, and to them, international cooperation would do more harm than good. Similarly, the concept of realpolitik would also mean to them that countries should do everything in the name of self-interest in such a way that they would get to benefit the most. Because of these two ideas, nationalists have often forgone international cooperation in order to further advance their own interests. That is why the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which could have been a crucial step in slowing down global warming. The Bush administration refused to ratify it because they did not want to lose out economically with countries that do not have to cut down on carbon emissions such as China. Their national interest in having an economic edge over countries like China had made them decide against ratifying that treaty. With national interests at stake and the competitive world we live in today, these nationalists would argue that international cooperation has no place in the world today. However, what these nationalists failed to realise is that international cooperation is still essential even if a country only did something in the name of protecting and advancing their own national interests.

For one, there are certain global issues that can only be solved with international cooperation, which means that in order to get it done, countries have to put aside their competition and work together in order to solve it. That would then benefit the cooperating countries themselves. When there is a pressing global issue such as global warming, the outbreak of infectious diseases or the rise of terrorism as we know it today, countries have to work together in order to solve that problem to protect their national interests. With the sheer scale of these problems, it just simply is not possible for any individual country, no matter how small or how big and mighty it is. To solve these issues, international cooperation is the one and only way, even if it means that certain aspects of a country’s national interests might be compromised. For example, countries around the world knew that the depletion of the ozone layer is bad not just for the world, but also their own country in particular because the radiation entering the Earth as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer can negatively affect the health of its people. Because of that, they are willing to come together in order to stop this with the Montreal Protocol. Almost all countries then went on to ratify the treaty, and as such, chlorofluorocarbon (the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer) in the atmosphere has fallen by over 90% since then, and the ozone layer is starting to ‘repair’ itself. This is just one of the many examples that show how international cooperation is still relevant in advancing national interests even in this competitive globalised world. Countries vying for global power like the USA, the (then) British Empire and the Soviets came together to fight off Nazi Germany because the very existence of their countries was at stake. Many countries all over the world today cooperate together despite the intense competition to ward off ISIS because their terrorist attacks can be extremely harmful to the countries themselves. The list goes on. Thus, because of how big certain problems are, international cooperation is still a necessity even in this competitive world, even if a country is guided by the principles of realpolitik.

Moreover, those nationalists also failed to realise that international cooperation might be the only way for them to advance their national interests that do not require international effort as well. Domestically, a country has several objectives they want to achieve, including security, social stability, and a healthy economy. Internationally, they would also want to improve their standing amongst other countries, especially in this competitive world where every country is vying for some form of influence, and in some cases, countries have to work together in order to fulfil these goals, and this means that even if a country is guided by realpolitik, it is only natural for them to work with other countries because doing them would benefit themselves too. The world is not a zero-sum game. When one party stands to benefit, the others do not have to suffer. There is a point for countries to cooperate. Doing so can bring about mutual benefits. When these nationalists argue that international cooperation has no place anymore, they are only saying so because they have a myopic view on global affairs and they assume that everything is a zero-sum game when it, in fact, is not. For instance, many countries including Singapore have signed free trade agreements with each other because they know that doing so is mutually beneficial. The economies in Western Europe grew significantly when they removed trade barriers between each other and started to trade freely between themselves. Today, those countries are amongst the richest in the world, and their free trade benefitted every country in that region. It does not stop there. These European countries do not trade freely with anyone and everyone, they just do so between themselves. This shows that they know that they could not fully cooperate internationally because it hurts their economic interests, but they still cooperated with themselves to ‘maximise’ their national interests. Many countries across the world have also contributed to the fight against Ebola so that it would be effectively contained within Africa itself and that it would not spread and cause a pandemic within their own countries. Countries like Russia and Iran are cooperating and supporting the Assad regime in Syria not because they are doing the government forces a favour on purely ‘humanitarian grounds’, but because they want to exert their influence on the global stage and force others in the national community to acknowledge them. These examples prove that in this competitive world, international cooperation does indeed have a place, and on top of that, is essential if they want to fulfil their national interests.

Hence, in conclusion, even though there are some reasons to believe why international cooperation have no place in this competitive world, the fact that some problems cannot be solved alone and the fact that cooperation is essential to improve one’s own standing suggests otherwise. Moreover, when it comes to relieving a disaster, it is our duty as part of the international community to help a country struck by a disaster. As such, even though the world today is highly competitive and when countries across the world do things in their self-interest in order to stay competitive, international cooperation still has a place for various moral and pragmatic reasons.

Is public funding in the arts ever worthwhile? Discuss the question with reference to your country.

“Art is the lie that enables us to realise the truth”, as quoted from Pablo Picasso, the world-renowned artist. This quote represents how art allows and provides us with a perspective to look at the world. Art is a body of the Arts, which is the creative and imaginative embodiment of the distinctive disciplines, be it artwork or architectural designs, brings about both pros and cons. In Singapore, being an economically driven country would rather spend a larger portion of its public funds towards businesses and enterprising which is deemed more profitable towards the economy due to its practicality. However, I agree that there should be public funding for arts as it can attract tourists to boost the economy, allow the freedom of subject choices to groom local talents and to allow Singaporeans to return to their roots.

Some may argue that the Arts is largely only for the rich and spending public money on events would only affect the rich. This is largely a waste of public resources as in Singapore, public funds are supposed to help and push for further growth in Singapore, alongside with those who are less well to do. For example, the Affordable Art Fair and Arts Place are government-funded events to allow local and foreign artists to sell their works. Even though it is named the Affordable Art Fair, the lowest price of an art piece sold is nearly $8000, which in no way is affordable to any commoner around. This means that money spent may not have any returns to the government and only the wealthier are able to participate in such events. This also means that in fact, the less fortunate people do not reap any benefits from the public fund for arts when those funds could have been dedicated towards healthcare subsidies which are necessities for the society. However, this may not be fully true as with such events held locally, Singapore has gained placing in the Arts industry, allowing for the generation of more government revenue to tackle bread and butter issues with greater abilities.

Public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would attract tourists, allowing for greater tourist expenditure and thus greater revenue. For example, with the recent Night Festival event, where different types of art installations and performances were staged, it has attracted crowds of tourists to visit and enjoy the vibrant festival. This means that due to such unique events held in Singapore, it would attract tourists from all around the globe to grab a glimpse of the events. This is even more so as it is free to the public. Singapore, being an economy which gross domestic product is largely dependent on tourism of nearly twenty per cent, would reap the benefits of greater tourist expenditure. This would mean to say with such returns, the public funds are not wasted in a sense that it would attract tourists to generate more funds to help the needy.

Next, public funds are not considered to be wasted in terms of expenditure on Arts education in Singapore. This means that with expenditure on Art education in Singapore, students are exposed to a totally different disciplinary in such a heavily scientific education in Singapore. For example, with government-funded art institutions like Lasalle and Nanyang Academy of the Fine Arts, students who are interested in the field of the Arts are given the opportunity to take up Art education if they are keen to. Additionally, with Arts play in place in Secondary School, compulsory subjects like Combined Humanities act as an introduction to students about a disciplinary in the field. This would allow the students to be groomed to have alternative thinking and allow students who are less scientifically inclined to succeed and prosper in this largely scientific educational system. This means that with the expenditure of such public funds, students’ potential in the arts are fully utilised and maximised, allowing students to dwell into their potential and achieve, allowing everyone to be stretched and groomed to their fullest potential. This could not have been possible without such avenues and such talents may go to waste in the long run. Thus, public funds should be utilised in the Arts to allow people to discover their potential and prosper to contribute to society.

Lastly, public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would allow us to return us to our roots. This means that the arts in every individual’s culture in Singapore would give descendants a better understanding of one’s race. For example, in Singapore, distinct places of cultural background like Chinatown and Little India, have funds allocated in presenting important and distinct characteristic like architectural designs and religious places of worship that bring individuals back to their roots. This is additionally important for Singaporeans as being the social quilt, where there is a large diversity of races and religions in Singapore, it is important for citizens to return to their roots to have and know their placing in life. Thus, the Arts expenditure in terms of presenting cultural evidence would be largely beneficial to allow citizens to return to their roots of origin in terms of value and faith.

All in all, even though public funds could have been directed towards necessities like healthcare or education, the Arts should be funded in the case of Singapore where most of our bread and butter issues have been settled and where the Arts industry would generate benefits too. Additionally, the investment in the arts may be a sine qua non to my society’s status, bringing my society towards greater heights.

‘Public money should not be wasted on supporting the Arts.’ Discuss this view in light of your society today.

The arts allow people to express, to learn, and to live. It broadens perspectives and fosters understanding among different and diverse groups of people, which is especially essential in today’s society. Government-funded programmes and initiatives provide the youth in Singapore with a more holistic education, creating more opportunities. Additionally, to allow for easier and more affordable appreciation of the Arts, subsidies have been implemented to increase cultural awareness in this modern society. Furthermore, not only is the funding to support the Arts, not a waste, it may also be an investment for the country. Therefore, to improve this society we live in, the use of public money for supporting the Arts should be encouraged.

Some sceptics may argue that the Arts industry is very competitive, and only a handful of particularly talented individuals would have the ability to succeed in the Arts, hence many would not support the money being invested in a field whereby only a minority would benefit. For example, there are few local singers who have managed to break into the global market, such as The Sam Willows and Gentle Bones, out of the many who have been in the industry. The small percentage of those who are successful reinforces the stereotype that the Arts is not practical and only talented individuals should have an interest in the Arts. Hence public money should probably be invested in the facilities that benefit the larger majority, such as transport which has been so often complained about. However, in today’s modern society, to ensure that students are all-round and provided with ample opportunities to find their interests, the Government has introduced programmes to create a more holistic education, as opposed to a very rigid curriculum. For example, in publicly funded schools, there is the Arts and Music Elective Programme, which would allow students to have more options in the subjects they can take. In addition, there is the Singapore Youth Festival, organised every two years to take part and compete in. Since these are initiated from a young age, and it is compulsory for all children to attend Primary and Secondary school, approximately 10 years of formal education, creativity is encouraged by young and instilled. These programmes create a more holistic education and encourage youths to dare to pursue their interests, creating a larger talent pool for the Arts. In addition, recently, Nathan Hartono has achieved success in entering Sing! China, a singing competition held in China. He is one of the many local singers going global to pursue their dreams, proving that given the right support, it is possible for Singaporeans to break into the international market. Therefore, public money should continue to be used in supporting the Arts, to allow Singaporeans a chance to realise their aspirations.

In addition, the Arts can be used to increase cultural awareness, foster understanding in today’s society. For example, to allow Singaporeans easier access to the Arts, the government has subsided visits to the National Gallery of Singapore, where Singaporeans are able to enter for free. This would encourage more Singaporeans of all ages to try to appreciate and understand the Arts. There is emphasis placed on the importance of cultural awareness as the Arts helps to broaden perspectives and foster understanding. A single work of art can evoke different emotions and alternative viewpoints, and the Arts is a viable platform for people to interact and understand differences. In today’s world, it is even more essential to rid the tunnel-vision many of us possess, especially with all the controversial issues happening around the world. To ensure that the racial harmony and social cohesion in Singapore is not compromised, but strengthened instead when such controversial issues on discrimination and equality are brought up, the government has very rightfully used money to support the Arts as in the long-run, Singapore would be a more compassionate and graceful society with people who encompass empathy, which is key in the strengthening of a county which has so many different cultures and religions.

Furthermore, today, Singapore is a fast advancing society and with the influx of foreigners, the Arts industry is a viable job sector. Though in the past, when there was a lack of support for the Arts industry, many believed that a job in the Arts scene would not be practical nor sustainable. However, now, with increased competition, the Arts industry can be a considerable option with increased public funding, and the skills picked up in learning the Arts in schools, such as being detailed and precise, freedom of expression and so on, can be applied to many job sectors. For example, doing mass communication and design. Many forget that the Arts can come in many forms, such as photograph, literature, theatre, singing and the list goes on. With public money invested to support the Arts, many Singaporeans are given the opportunity to find their passion and have a sustainable job. With more people being able to find a job, there is less burden on the government to provide financial aid for the unemployed. Hence, though at the beginning, using public money to find the supporting of the Arts may seem to be a waste, in the long-run, the benefits of having a stronger economy and less people having to depend on the government, and hence money originally meant for aid, can be used in other sectors such as healthcare, therefore the government should support the Arts to see the potential benefits the Arts can bring for the people, and the economy. In addition, the government encourages the elderly in society to stay relevant when they take part in free activities such as arts and craft, and Zumba at community centres nationwide.

To conclude, in today’s society, mindsets are changing, and the Arts creates a bridge between the people and the Government’s ideals, such as fostering social harmony. In this competitive we live in, there is still a need to learn new skills to remain relevant, and the Arts functions to do that. Therefore, not only should public money be used to support the Arts, it should be continued, and even more could be put in for a brighter future.

‘International cooperation has no place in this competitive world.’ Discuss.

His name is Omar. A picture of a toddler caked-on with debris and dirt with blood dripping down his head sitting in an ambulance had taken the Internet by storm earlier this month. This gave an alarm and wake-up call to the world to stop the many wars and fights occurring in conflict-ridden countries such as Syria. Similarly, the effect of a single picture on the global community was seen when a picture of a toddler washed up on a beach was taken and posted on the internet depicting the thousands of lives lost at sea as a result of the Syrian Refugee crisis. These pictures had no doubt created an increased sense of urgency and pressure on agents of international cooperation to intervene and collectively put an end to the many events occurring in the world. However, the real question is, how effective is international cooperation in the world today? The questioning of its effectiveness has then led to the debacle whether international cooperation is still relevant in today’s’ increasingly competitive world, which may cause countries to prioritize their national interests over that of global interests. However, this essay argues that some issues are unable to be solved single-handedly and require a collective effort to overcome. Furthermore, the world has become increasingly interlinked as a result of globalization and hence certain internal issues may, in turn, affect other countries. The increased competitiveness has also instead, made international cooperation more relevant as it can bring about economic benefits to be parties involved. Therefore, there is no doubt that international cooperation still has a place in today’s competitive world.

The characteristic of today’s’ world, which is that of an increase in connectivity, has made international cooperation extremely useful as issues affecting a country can, in turn, affect another. Globalization has no doubt brought about greater mobility of goods and services, labour, technological know-how and capital. As a result of this phenomenon, countries and the global community are more interlinked causing issues that may seem to only affect the internal stability of a country to affect other countries as well. For example, the annual haze that has been occurring as a result of the illegal deforestation in Indonesia has greatly affected its regional neighbours such as Singapore. As a result of the haze that has reached unhealthy and dangerous levels, the non-material standard of living of many in the region has decreased as they suffer from health problems such as breathing difficulties. Furthermore, the bad air quality has resulted in a loss of tourism earnings for many countries such as Singapore whose attractions and skylines were drowned by the haze. International cooperation has played a part in helping Indonesia to alleviate the problem, where regional countries had offered aid and assistance in taming the fires. For example, Singapore has offered assistance in the form of cloud seeding and dispatched many relief helicopters. Furthermore, as a result of the international pressures and attention on this issue, the Indonesian government had recently been able to obtain a sum of money by the company responsible to pay for the damage done. Therefore, as a result of the link between countries, issues that affect one country may, in turn, affect others. Another example would be that of epidemics and diseases such as Ebola that stemmed from Sierra Leone. With greater mobility through great inventions such as the aeroplane and boats, these viral and transmissible diseases could cause a global pandemic and have the ability to wipe out billions of people at once. Thus, with international cooperation playing a part, aid and assistance would be rendered to affected countries to treat and find antidotes to the disease. Therefore, although the world is increasingly competitive, the increased interconnectivity has made international cooperation to be of importance.

However, critics may argue that as a result of a more competitive global environment, cooperation between countries is often hindered by the fact that they may prioritize their national interests over global interests. As we move to a more competitive environment, where the common mindset is that of the ‘survival of the fittest’, countries are often finding ways to outshine other countries and to better upgrade their comparative advantage. This is to prevent other countries from eroding their competitiveness and thus, ensuring their relevance in today’s’ fast-paced world. Due to this mindset, efforts to tackle global problems are often rendered to be ineffective and useless, as many tend to prioritize their own interests even though a greater good could be achieved. For example, in the fight for environmental conservation by reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, international cooperation has been proven thus far to be ineffective. In the Kyoto Protocol established in 2002, this idea of prioritization of national interests can be seen as many big countries such as China and Russia had pulled out upon the very beginning of discussions. Furthermore, the USA has yet to ratify the protocol, stating that doing so would only result in great economic loss to the American economy. The ratification by these larger countries is important as these economic powerhouses are the ones that churn out the immerse amount of greenhouse gases but yet, are not willing to sacrifice economic growth for environmental conservation to be achieved. Furthermore, countries play the blame game by pushing responsibility to other countries. For example, developed nations blame developing nations as their current industrialization are the ones greatly increasing the production of these gases while developing nations are blaming the developed nations for their past industrialization. This ‘game’ that they play puts across the idea of unwillingness to accept responsibility, and thus, limit the place and effectiveness of the role of international cooperation in today’s world where countries fight for their economic prosperity and power. Hence, due to this, international cooperation can be said to not have a place in our competitive world.

On the contrary, international cooperation can be said to be even more important amidst a more competitive environment as it can, in turn, result in mutually beneficial results that ensure their relevance in the world. Small economies and countries such as that of Singapore can be said to be a country that can greatly benefit from international cooperation economically. For small countries, the increase in competitiveness of many countries can threaten its long-term survival as larger economic powerhouses have the ability to develop and thus, replace and erode the comparative advantages of these small economies. Since these small economies largely gain their economic prosperity through trade and seek external sources of growth, their economic survival and relevance could be easily wiped out. However, with the role of international cooperation, the setting up of economic groups such as Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation (APEC) could essentially bring about lots of economic benefits. For example, through ASEAN, Singapore has gained access to many free-trade agreements and treaties that enable her to expand her industries and obtain growth. Another example of the role of international cooperation in the setting of a competitive world would be the South China Sea dispute. The role of international cooperation is extremely crucial for small countries as amidst larger economies, they may be bullied and ignored. With the discovery of the importance of reefs and sea-coasts as they contain hidden reserves of oil, many countries such as the Philippines, China and Vietnam claimed territories in the South China Sea. However, small countries often face the wrath of bigger economies such as China, which often treads onto their claimed territories. For example, in 2014, China had crossed into Vietnam’s claimed territories with an offshore oilrig, resulting in great protests in Vietnam. However, with international cooperation, these small countries that are part of ASEAN, are able to garner strength and support to stand up against China. Subsequently, the Philippines and many other countries have reported China to international organizations such as the International Court of Justice. As a result of this, recently, China historical claims on the South China Sea due to its nine-dash line has been rejected, as it’s claimed territories were not within 12 nautical miles of its mother-land. Therefore, with the help of international cooperation, the fight to obtain natural resources to gain an advantage in the competitive world can be utilized against larger economies that seek to bully smaller ones.

Furthermore, some issues are unable to be solved solely by one nation and thus, causing international cooperation to play a role in today’s’ competitive world. The sheer extent of some issues are too large for a nation to solve and although the world experiences greater competitiveness, it is often in their moral obligation to help another country. For example, in the situation of natural disasters that may occur, such as that of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in 2011, Haiti Earthquake in 2010 and the typhoon Haiyan in 2014, international cooperation is said to be extremely crucial. Although America is currently facing debt in the global economy, it has provided humanitarian aids in many disaster-stricken countries and has aided them in their recovery. For example, it is one of the largest donator of aid and assistance in the Haiti earthquake as well as during the typhoon Haiyan, contributing billions of dollars to alleviate the aftermath of these events. Another example would be that Venezuela had helped in the Haiti earthquake by cancelling some of the debt generated by Haiti’s import expenditure. This shows that moral obligation does take form in our increasingly competitive world as many countries had given up economic prosperity to assist many countries that face mass destruction due to disasters. Furthermore, some issues such as terrorism are of such a large scale that international cooperation is often needed to overcome and tackle it. Terrorism as a result of the Syrian Crisis is of such a large scale that international cooperation is needed, as the government itself is unable to control and place an end to it. With the role of cooperation amongst the former Cold-War rivals, America and Russia, they have recently agreed in a proposed plan to counter the terrorist threats such as the Islamic State in Syria. By placing an end to the Syrian crisis, the refugee crisis would then be alleviated and the 2,500 lives lost in the sea by May 2016 would be reduced. Therefore, even though the increasingly competitive world may cause countries to think about their own problems and benefits first, issues that require humanitarian aid and assistance still requires the role of international cooperation to play a part in alleviating unnecessary human suffering.

All in all, even though the world is increasingly competitive and countries tend to prioritize their economic priorities, international cooperation still has a place in the world. The world would be a better place with collective effort and cooperation.

To what extent is poor governance responsible for the increasing insecurity in many countries today?

Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, once said, “Leadership is key,” and this was one of the four guiding principles in which he believed would lead to good governance. It is true; governments require people with great intellect and leadership to run a country effectively. That said, the reverse is also very true as well: a poorly run country is due to poor governance that stems from poor leadership. Poor governance also leads to a whole host of problems that will threaten the security of not just that one country, but also every single country in the world. This security refers to not just one’s safety from wars and gunfight, but also secure in terms of sustaining one’s life, being able to roam about knowing you have a job and a stable flow of income, as well as knowing that you would not have someone crazy shouting “Allahu Akbar!” then blowing himself up. As such, I would feel strongly for poor governance being largely responsible for the increasing insecurities in many countries today.

A sign of poor governance is clearly seen from a failing economy, in which comes from ineffective leadership and is completely responsible for the increasing uncertainty of one’s job prospect. A person’s employment status is mainly due to the health of the economy, in which the more flourishing the economy is, the more jobs citizens would have; vice versa, there can also be massive unemployment when the economy fails, as evidently shown in the Great Depression back in the 1930s, as well as the 2008 US Subprime Crisis that occurred not too long ago. A country’s citizens would lose their jobs if a country were to experience a recession, in which the government would then need to attempt rectify it, by spending its government reserves in attempts to start the recovery process. It might sound like the government is doing something to help the people, but it is not the case when the government does not have a thorough understanding of the economy, whether certain options are appropriate or not. The government would have completely failed their job if the country’s economy is unable to recover after so many years; just look at Greece! Their economy has stagnated for such a long time and they owe such huge debts, and even after being bailed out several times, the situation remains as such. This is clearly the government’s ineffectiveness in helping the country recover, and the one’s suffering the most is the people as they would have to live with the rising insecurities of not having a job or fear of losing their jobs if they have one. Hence, the government is very responsible for their own insecurities.

Also, governments are also clearly the ones who are responsible when it comes to the extreme suffering of its people, when their people are uncertain their own lives and fate. People, who are experiencing poverty, do not have access to a constant supply of food and water with some not even a shelter over their heads. A person is considered to be in absolute poverty if he or she lives on under US$1.90 a day, and it is a really miserable amount compared to most of us in affluent societies. It is undeniable that these countries experiencing poverty are receiving help, it is clearly seen that these countries are experiencing poverty even with international help. This would then raise questions about whether the aid received is actually delivered to the citizens, and who is the prime suspect? Without a doubt, it is the government. The government is the first to receive help, as they are expected to distribute it to its people so that their lives can be improved. However, this expectation is not a reality in many cases; for example, Ethiopia receives so much support that almost 90% of their government spending is funded by international aid, but a vast majority of their population is still experiencing poverty. This would be obviously due to corruption going on in the government, as the government is free to usurp as much as it wants. Who is there to check and stop the government? As such, the government is clearly to be blamed, and they are the ones mainly responsible for the suffering of its people due to poverty, due to corruption that leads to poor governance.

However, sometimes an unstable situation in a country may not be completely due to the government itself, as they might not be able to control what is happening hence some might posit that the government is not responsible for the ever growing threat of attacks. When it comes to security in terms of one’s physical safety, a government is obviously a main protector. However, a government can only control what occurs within the country, and not what comes in from other countries. The increasingly globalized world today gives terrorism an easier passport to create chaos in many countries. Terror groups are usually developed and grown under the radar of the government, as evidently seen by the spew of terror groups that have appeared over the last few decades. Governments are unable to deal with them as these groups are just so elusive. The terror groups then carry out their attacks not just in their own country, but also in foreign countries as well. In the case of the Paris attacks in November 2015, the French government is obviously not at fault, as they are neither belligerent nor incapable. The group responsible for the attacks was the Islamic State or more commonly known as ISIS; they came from Iraq and Syria, in which they were able to develop and was also due to poor governance, but rather foreign intervention. In Syria, ISIS was able to rise due to the falling significance and power of their president Bashar al-Assad, which was due to the United States oppressing him. As such, it was not due to poor governance that led to these terror groups rising, but rather it was due to uncoordinated intervention efforts by other countries. Therefore, poor governance is said to be not responsible.

Even though it can be said that foreign intervention led to these rising insecurities, and not poor governance, the very fact that foreign intervention was needed shows that the government was somewhat incapable, hence poor governance is responsible for the rising insecurities. The requirement of countries coming in to help in terms of military aid would already show that the government is ineffective in terms of managing internal conflicts. This would be even more so when foreign military involvement is for the purpose of going against the incumbent government, supporting the people that have been unhappy with government. One responsibility of the government is to take care of the well-being of its citizens and to keep them happy and prosperous. This may not occur in some countries, in which the ineffective government, laden with only thoughts of fulfilling their own personal desires, does not care for its people at all. These governments turn to authoritarian governance, which seeks to completely rule its people. However, try as they might, there is always a possibility of an uprising, that would lead to a civil war. This would be prominently shown in what happened in South Sudan, where the authoritarian government was taken down after fighting against its people during the Arab Spring. What comes after that was even worse, where an attempted democracy for its government did not work out well, and resulted in more civil wars. These fightings claim the lives of not just those directly involved, but also innocent ones, due to the indiscriminate bombings and shootings. These innocent people would live in constant fear as they do not know when a hail of bullets would come raining down on them. These insecurities came from the very fact that it all started with poor governance, which caused unhappiness and led to this whole chain of disastrous man-made events. It is not just South Sudan alone that face such an insecurity, but also countries like Somalia and Iraq that it all began with poor governance. Therefore, incapable governments are to be held responsible for the insecurity in countries around the world today.

Governments are expected to, at the very least, ensure that their people are safe. The security of knowing one can stay alive would be the most crucial and assuring one, as one would know that there is still a tomorrow that can be worked on. If an incapable government cannot even ensure this, then the government can be considered useless and ineffective. Yet sadly, these horrendous governments tend to stay in power for a long time, due to corruption and who knows what other reasons. Therefore, I feel that poor governance is to be held responsible, as they are the ones who have the ability to make a significant change, but they just simply refuse to, due to their own personal agenda, incapability and corruption as well.

Efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results. Do you agree?

There is a quote that goes “The world is your oyster.” Indeed, in today’s globalised world, we are free to travel and explore almost any part of the world. As we savour and immerse ourselves in the beauty of our environment, have we ever stopped to consider that given Man’s current pace of urbanisation and actions, this beautiful environment we have now will soon be gone? Environmentalists may argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment because they believe in the hope that when Mankind mends its ways, saving the environment would be possible. However, I am of the view that efforts to save the environment will not yield positive results due to the nature of our world at large today.

Naturally, in the 21st century, where the majority of the countries are developed and globalised, people will look towards short-term goals to satisfy their needs. As consumers aiming to maximise utility and welfare, we accomplish tasks and do things which we feel will benefit us in one way or another. Some corporations which desire to profit-maximise may also see the futility of trying to save the environment. Though outwardly, consumers, households and corporations alike may claim to try and save the environment, more often than not, many forgo the environment in order to pursue their own interests and motives. For example, the Kyoto Protocol is a case in point that highlights even though countries may have agreed to a particular standardisation of what they will do for the environment, such as reducing carbon emissions and decreasing their carbon footprint, some countries, have broken their word and have continued with their rapid pace of industrialisation to further increase output. Thus, it is clear that Man, in order to meet and satisfy each others’ needs, will likely give up whatever they have promised to do to help the environment, making it futile to try and save the environment.

Moreover, it is futile to try and save the environment because, in reality, our actions have resulted in our environment’s tipping point. This means that we have reached a point of no return and no actions or efforts no matter how redeemable can save the environment, thus rendering these efforts futile. For instance, NASA has already ventured into the Moon to discover and find out more about its environment and deduce the likelihood of its inhabitation by Man. Reports on the Moon’s surface having droplets of water, an essential to life, sparked hope in people globally that there is a chance for us to inhabit the Moon. This mindset comes about because the majority of us acknowledges the dire straits our environment is currently in – that is reality. Hence, given that the probability to save the environment is slim and the outlook and prospects of redeeming the environment that is dim, it can be said that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment.

However, environmentalists argue that it is not futile to try and save the environment. These advocates of our environment consistently emphasise that the effort of every individual count towards saving the environment. In Singapore, the BioGaia organisation advocates for its cause through various channels like social media. Music videos based on the theme of “Save My World” featuring citizens doing their part for the environment can be seen in the video. Other organisations like the World Wildlife Fund also advocate for the saving of our environment through the reduction of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. Truly, to these pro-environment groups and organisations, saving the environment might not be such a dim prospect after all.

However, though this view holds true for some groups of people, it is not true for everyone. Though the efforts of these individuals are important and are valued, it is vital to note that the effort from everyone outweighs individual efforts. Some people like environmentalists do their best to try and save the environment as they see the value of it. On the contrary, many of us do not wish to inconvenience ourselves to recycle our drink bottles simply by dropping them into recycling bins. These seemingly small acts to us are the complete opposite of what we perceive them to be. On a larger whole, if everyone recycles, then our recycling rates will surely increase drastically. Singapore’s landfill island, Pulau Semakau, will be completely filled up by 2025, in eight years’ time. This is largely due to low recycles rates in Singapore. Hence, it is evident that everyone’s efforts to save the environment counts towards saving the environment more. This is provided we, as individuals, put in our effort and play our part to save our environment.

In conclusion, there is still some hope that things may change, people may change and become more environmentally-friendly.  However, mindsets take a long while to change, actions take time to cultivate and habits require time to instil. Given the fast-paced nature of our world today, saving the environment is a second priority to many. Thus, given our current state, I feel that it is indeed futile to try and save the environment to a large extent.

We worship the young and scorn the old. What is your opinion?

In today’s world media plays an important role in shaping one’s thoughts and perception. The media today constantly focuses on the young and it is often seen that due to this the older generation is disdained and completely disregarded. Though this is true that this is the case in many scenarios, a closer analysis reveals that this trend is prevalent in the industries where profit-making is the only goal. These industries worship the young so that they can maximize their profits from them.

It is evident that society is fixated with the young; young people are idolized and are seen in many spheres of our lives. The media is filled with young people; they are seen in advertisements, television and are also rule the music industry. The dominance of young people in these areas results from our admiration for the young to the extent that the older generation is completely side-lined. The media is filled with advertisements featuring the young and Apple iPod advertisements are an example of that wherein youth are seen grooving to today’s music. The fashion industry is crammed with models that are barely in their 20s. These examples are a reflection of today’s society which shows that we worship the young

On the contrary, when the question is of the older generation, there are preconceived notions about them in our minds. Old people are often considered to be mentally less acute and are deemed to be unfit in the work sphere. They are often perceived as crabby and difficult people and these perceptions sketch a negative picture of the older generation. These ideas about the old have taken roots in our mindset and therefore, In Singapore, many older people are not offered jobs because people think they are less alert and productive. It’s true that the older generation is not as adept in using technology as the younger generation and technology is an important part of today’s work sphere. One might argue that it is due to the skills that the older people are being denied jobs. However, it is also true that along with our notions about the old, people also believe that the old do not contribute towards society at all. This is also evident from the fact that many elderly are sent to old age homes as they are considered an inconvenience in their own families. Hence, the aforementioned examples reflect our contempt for the older generation in society.

It would be completely wrong to believe that we worship the young over because of their youth and our attitudes towards them are unjustifiable. For example, in the sports field athletes’ youth is desirable because it is the peak point in their careers. It is completely unfair to believe that we worship the youth because there are many instances where the young are subjected to harsh treatments from society. As we celebrate their youth we also criticize their naivety and immature behaviour. For instance, the ‘Yob’ culture in Britain is condemned because of their disruptive acts and is disapproved by people all over the world. When young celebrities indulge in wrong activities they are not worshipped but are harshly disparaged by the media and society. Therefore, Believing that we only worship the young is a flawed statement because when the youth commit any mistakes they are also ruthlessly reproached by us.

Similarly, it is an intense exaggeration when we say that we disregard the older generation. A major part of society understands and considers the fact that someday we will pass through the same ageing stage in life. Many cultures value the significance of the older generation and the importance of respecting them. In Singapore, respecting the elderly is central to its values and was even encouraged by our minister Lee Kuan Yew. The older generation is vital to society because they have experience and years of accumulated wisdom. In the Film industry names like Maggie Smith and Judi Dench are still taken because of their strong acting skills. Many advertisements today have started featuring the old and this has helped in sending across the message that the old are as important as the young of the society.

In conclusion, it is a rushed assumption to believe that only the youth is worshipped in the society while the old neglected. These are extreme views that do not hold true in today’s society where age is just a number. There are some aspects of the young that are celebrated and there are other characteristics of the old which are celebrated. Both the generations’ importance cannot be denied in society.

‘Modern transportation has brought the world closer together.’ How far is this beneficial?

In 1962, when the U.S President John F. Kennedy spoke to the American people and the rest of the world on the American Space Project which aimed to put Americans on the moon and begin a new form of travel, he helped to revive the sense of unbridled opportunity and hope in a tumultuous world arena plagued by Cold War politics. He famously said, “We (the USA) choose to go to the moon and do all the things we do, not because they are easy but because they are hard.” It was indeed amazing to see that something as simple as a new means of transportation being generated by the space race could rally a nation like America, and usher in a revolution upon the already existing modern transportation methods and infrastructure, connecting people, businesses, governments and more, together in ways people never thought was possible just a few centuries ago. Arguably, the latest advent of modern transportation has been drawn into one of the greatest conflicts of modern human history: transnational terrorism, which has in many cases brought the world to its feet. Thankfully, that pessimistic outlook is overshadowed by transportation developments in defense. Also, we should not forget that modern transportation has developed trade, tourism and even systems for commerce, through the effect of bringing the world closer together than ever before. It may very likely be the case that modern transportation is largely beneficial, although we must first dig deeper in order to come to a conclusion.

Undoubtedly, modern transportation has made the world so close, such that transportation itself has become both a target for terrorism, and a vehicle for it. Terrorism is certainly one of the greatest worldwide concerns at present, regardless of whether current approaches are effective or not. Modern methods of transportation such as mass transit through trains for instance, have proven to be alluring targets for terrorists. In an enclosed, moving space, people are put at their most vulnerable. The first thing that one may think of when getting on a train or plane, is not whether terrorists will mount an attack within the vehicle, but rather about simply getting from point A to point B. Too many times, have radical extremists taken advantage of this, as seen for example, in the 1995 gassing of the Tokyo Subway by a cult group known as Aum Shinrykyo, killing 12 and injuring thousands. Modern transportation has actually made the idea of mass transit scarier than ever before. After all, practically everyone will recall the events of 9/11 whenever they pass through airport security today. 9/11 was the most deadly set of attacks on U.S soil thus far. Al Qaeda agents hijacked United Airlines and US Airways planes and deliberately crashed then into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington DC and into a rural field in Pennsylvania. Certainly, modern transportation methods have brought terrorists closer to us. Despite this, the above effects have motivated governments to step up security throughout transport networks, such as that of stringent security checks at ports of entry and exit. Indeed, while one incident is one too many, transportation in itself has helped to guard against such attacks by creating increased vigilance, and arguably has also contributed to a rise in new methods of warfare against terrorism.

New methods of transportation have helped greatly in the war on terror, providing a safer and more collaborative method of warfare. Many of such transportation methodologies have existed prior to the outbreak of international terrorism, while other are more recent developments. Take drones, unmanned artillery vehicles as an example. By being able to transport weapons and use them remotely has arguably saved a lot of the costs incurred by flying F-35 jets into war zones, although the latter is still being used frequently. It reduces the potential for casualties by targeting specific areas or people that should be eliminated. B-52 bomber planes have also returned to the Middle East zone of conflict in a bid to sustain the war efforts. Unlike commercial jets, these military jets not just transports military personnel, they can also hold great amounts of ammunition, weapons, bombs and other military equipment. Couple this with the international resolve to defeat terrorism by countries like Britain and France, and even to some extent, Russia, militaries have been able to execute their missions more effectively than having boots on the ground. This resolve shows the hope of all countries to finally putting a stop to terrorism can be put into efficient action. In that light, international terrorism has become less of a problem when we know that there are also good stewards of modern methods of transportation.

Moving on to the economy, modern methods of transportation has most certainly helped to forge new business ties between countries, and even between countries and firms themselves. This can ultimately be linked back to the globalization of economic activity, where transportation technologies have increased global connectivity and are still slated to continue improving. We see this manifesting thorough the growth of international trade and flow of Foreign Direct Investment. The European Union for example, allowed the free movement within the 27 countries that it is made up of. The elimination of border checkpoints allows a smoother commute either via air or train, allowing businesses to move their staff ever more easily from country to country to maximize productivity. Modern transport methods have essentially made the possibility of various countries becoming cores of economic activity a reality. Singapore itself is a transportation hub with the world’s best airport, as rated by Skytrax, and one of the busiest maritime ports in the region and the world. Even methods of transporting commodities, such as undersea oil pipelines or oil tankers have given rise to the oil refining industry in Singapore, which generates a huge part of our GDP. All these methods of transportation bring long-run benefits, as business will continue to develop wherever it is conducive and physically connectable to do so. Hence, we are seeing that modern methods of transportation are indeed beneficial to a large extent.

Modern transportation has likewise created or improved new commerce systems that create a more personal connection between customers and firms, thereby bringing about greater consumer experiences that fuel the growth of the retail industry, particularly online. The rise of e-commerce is perhaps, another phenomenon of this increasingly close world. With methods like airfreight and containerized shipping, transactions have become more efficient, cheap and fast. Take Amazon.com, the world’s largest airline retailer for example. As a result of business deals with air freight carriers like UPS and DHL, Amazon is able to get their products into the hands of their international customers in as little as 2 days. This inevitably creates greater efficiency and productivity for the firm. Recently, Amazon even introduced its own brand of air freighters known as “Prime Air”. Such a development was meant to improve shipping reliability for its “Prime” customers, just one of the many modes of transport that they are taking advantage of in order to provide a better and more competitive customer experience. As modern methods of transportation further connect the world, ecommerce is likely to keep booming, and that has a profoundly positive impact on the world economy.

Finally, modern transportation has transformed the tourism industry, bringing people across the world to learn and experience the different faces of the world, thereby leading to both economic and social benefits. The development of tourism not just has to do with improved aircraft, but also maritime vessels, which serve as means for holiday cruises. Now, people can get up close with the glaciers of Alaska, or the majestic coasts of South Australia, places which are generally harder to get to on foot or via automobile. With ports of call at many locations, it increases the accessibility of many more locations. Moving on to commercial jet aircraft, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most fuel-efficient planes in the world at present, and has grown to be to backbone of many airline carriers’ long-haul operations. Greater fuel efficiency and customer-centric amenities have not only made unconventional air routes more profitable, but also enabled the connection of culture. In 2016 alone, U.S-based United Airlines has launched a plethora of new routes from their hub in San Francisco, California, to places like Xi’an, China, Singapore and Auckland, New Zealand. This is enabled the phasing out of stopovers, transforming the way people travel long haul. We could still argue that tourism “broadens one’s mind”, but ultimately, the onus of that is on the tourist, not the method of transportation. Certainly, tourism may not always be beneficial for all. Take African Savannah vacations and their effects on natives as an example. Nonetheless, new transportation methods have still managed to make that trip more sustainable, from increased consumer experience, to lower carbon emissions. Hence, it could very well be the case that modern methods of transportation bring the world closer than ever before is indeed beneficial.

In conclusion, modern methods of transportation have greatly affected all of our lives, in one way or another, and the world has never been brought closer together than before. From a pessimists’ point of view, this would open the door to threats unimaginable. Still, as history and reality have also proven to an even stronger extent, the effects of new methods of transportation have brought tremendous economic and social benefit, and from the way, transport is still developing now, a new sustainable future of transport awaits on the horizon.