Author: VidS

The Media has exaggerated the importance of sport. Do you agree?

Sport was once considered to be the reflection of sportsmanship and team spirit. Sport was taken seriously by the athletes who used to practice and train themselves immensely. But today, sports have a completely new meaning; the seriousness regarding sports which athletes once had has diminished in the present times. Sports were once about making the country proud and representing the country in Olympics was a dream of every athlete but all that has changed in the present times. Sport today has become extremely commercialized and this can be attributed to the presence of media. Media gives too much attention to sports, to an extent that many issues of greater gravity are completely neglected. All the media attention towards sport has made sport distasteful in today’s world. Though it is not that sport does not deserve attention, it is true that media attention increases the self-esteem of the athletes and makes them perform better. However, the increasing commercialization of sport is harmful as it makes it over-hyped and the importance of sport exaggerated.

Sport has become a profitable field for many industries; many companies spend a lot of money on these sporting events. The commercialization of sport has also diverted the athletes from the sporting ideals and has made them extremely money-minded. Many athletes are used as a spokesperson for many brands and millions of dollars are spent on advertisements during these sporting events. An instance of the growing commercialization of the sport can be that during the Olympics where Coco-Cola and McDonalds had spent a considerable amount on advertising and were unhappy because not many spectators were allowed in the stadium. Many sports brands use athletes to promote their sports gear by wearing them during a tournament. The commercialization of sport has led to the deterioration of sporting ideals. The media has created a culture where athletes are considered to be heroes; media creates celebrity athletes so their news channels get more audience.

Sporting events have gained too much attention today, winning or losing has become more important today instead of the fun for playing the sport. Sport has always been looked at from a nationalist perspective, where winning is deemed to be a victory in combat. This is evident during the cricket matches between India and Pakistan or rugby matches between South Africa, Australia and Britain. The media often highlight these matches and overhype about them. One instance of this can be China winning more Gold medals than the United States during the Olympics. It was counter-argued by the US media that the US leads in overall medals in Olympics and Chinese athletes are under-aged and the medals should be snatched away from them. Therefore, the importance of sport is exaggerated.

Sports have also been portrayed exaggeratingly by the media because of the inclusion of politics in sports. There has been a relationship between sports and politics even before the initiation of media coverage but media has made sports and politics seem indivisible. A sporting event boycott of apartheid South Africa was given a boost by the media. The media also highlighted instances wherein athletes chose to play in the sporting event which led to anger among the people from their home countries. China too was challenged with the argument over the organizing Beijing Olympics and the Olympics committee was heavily criticised for giving a country like China was given the responsibility of holding such an important sporting event.

­­In conclusion, media has given too much importance to the sport and by doing this has reduced its importance. Today, media has made sport a highly commercialized sector and the athletes less interested in the sport. The media has turned sport into a money minting machine and the athletes as Gods.

‘In spite of more information, man is not more informed.’ comment.

In today’s world, information is everywhere. Be it in schools, online, on television, on social media and even on posters placed on subway stations and toilets. However, how many of this information serves the purpose of enriching us with the knowledge to nurture our emotional and psychological wellbeing? It is hard to believe that an advertisement placed inside a subway telling us that Marigold milk is the best and healthiest milk choice out there in the market or Burger King’s two dollars ninety-five cents nuggets are the best value meal you can get out of fast-food restaurants is going to be potentially informing us with useful and purposeful information. Some may argue that the vast amount of outlets currently available for man to seek and obtain information makes man more informed as they are presented with countless opportunities to garner useful information. However, I beg to differ as even though there are numerous amounts of ways and outlets for man to retrieve information, plenty of the information provided from these outlets are unreliable or too shallow to truly make man more informed. Hence, I believe that in spite of the plenty amount of information available, man is not more informed.

To start off, the absence of parameters to define media discourse has undermined the quality of information. Media companies are highly profit-driven and would thus play up and dwell on the sensational, tantalizing news that they know will sell. This can be on car accidents, murders, sexual assault or controversial scandals. Media companies only report on such sensational news simply because they are interesting, not because they are important. In the 20 months between September 2012 and March 2014, Fox News aired an astounding 1,098 evening and primetime segments dedicated to the Benghazi attacks. Despite there being no basis, Fox News and other outlets claimed that the Obama administration knew that the terrorists had planned the attacks 10 days in advance. CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell criticised Fox News and the media at large for habituating scandalising the Benghazi attacks with incomplete or unsupported claims. In fact, Fox News often used the Benghazi attacks as a shorthand, as a symbol of a lying corrupt, tyrannical and possibly murderous Obama white house. Hence the information that is fed to man today through the media may not even be based on solid facts and we run the risks of being influenced by false information provided from the media. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, 28,000 people who die daily can actually have their deaths prevented if basic care was provided to them. Yet we hardly see the media reporting on such pressing issues, on how little we give and how we are avoiding important issues happening around the world. When the media does report on such issues like foreign aid, they often tend to paint the image that we are giving substantially and in proportion to our means to people in need. Therefore, the media is actually providing us with an excess of information that deludes us and causes us to be actually more ignorant instead of more informed with the issues happening around us. Therefore, even though the media can give us so much information. man would still not be more informed.

Secondly, even though a majority of man are able to obtain basic education that serves to enrich man with useful knowledge and skills, it does not necessarily mean that man is able to apply the knowledge learnt in a real-life context. Education serves as a tool that enables people to broaden their perspectives and understand things that are happening around them. However, the reality is that most schools today bombard students with bucket loads of content and knowledge, expecting them to ingest them and spew it out during examinations. What students pick up are answering techniques and skills required for them to ace their examinations. Therefore, they are learning how they can apply the tons of knowledge that they learnt to answer examination questions. However, does this guarantee that they will also be able to learn how to answer real-life problems when they occur? The answer is most probably no as the real skills that students actually pick up in their education is the ability to memorise knowledge and the ability to answer questions on paper. To further substantiate my point, according to the United States (US) Bureau of labour statistics, only 26.1% of young people aged 16-19 and 18.7% of those aged 20-24 have volunteered to do volunteer work. Students who have received basic education have more or less been exposed to the growing need to help the needy and they would know how much impact they can make on the lives of people if they choose to lend out a helping hand. However, this point has obviously not been ingested by these students according to the low percentage of young people willing to volunteer. This is a real-life problem that despite being more educated to know the answer to solve the problem on paper, is not solved in real life. Hence, even though man is receiving more and more information through the means of education, they are not able to fully utilise this information to apply to real-life situations, making man not more informed.

Critics may argue that man can be more informed through the means of social media due to its extensive reach. An example they would state is the viral ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s aim is to raise awareness about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Over 2 million people on YouTube were tagged in ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos on YouTube and the campaign was very successful in raising awareness among the public about ALS and it also raised a gargantuan sum of 220 million dollars for the ALS Associations. Thus, proving that the increase in social media platforms has provided more information for man that can make them more informed about previously uncommonly known diseases and issues existing around the world.

While it is true that new media can be a powerful tool to spread information to the general public about current affairs and issues around the world that require our attention, media can also enable individuals to abuse their rights and use social media as a tool to instigate hatred and sow discord among people, societies and nations by posting controversial comments and posts which only have the purpose of evoking tensions among people. For example, The Real Singapore (TRS) website was asked to shut down as it published content that was objectionable in the field of public interest, public order and national harmony. The Media Development Authority (MDA) also added that TRS had fabricated articles and inserted falsehoods into their articles that were either plagiarised or sent in from contributors in order to make the articles more inflammatory. This goes to show that despite the gargantuan amounts of information that new media provides us with, the information may either be fake or have no basis. Such information provided only make man grow hatred for each other and arouses tensions among people and serves no purpose in actually making us more informed and knowledgeable about the world around us. Man is not more enriched and is not able to better understand the world around them. Hence, despite the growing amount of information given to us, man is not more informed.

In conclusion, even though more information is made readily available to man, it is the quality of the information and the way we use the information that makes man more informed. The greater quantity of information provided does not necessarily make man more informed. It is high time we start refining the information we make available to the public in a way that allows the general public to be enriched and enlightened from the high-quality knowledge. This can enable man to be more informed and also potentially start making positive changes to the world with this newly found information.

Do you agree with the view that, eventually, technology will always solve the problems it creates?

A glimpse into human civilization a century ago will reveal a stark difference in the way we lived then and now. Technology – scientific technology, communication technology, transportation technology, media technology, nanotechnology etc, has permeated every aspect of our lives inevitably due to the rapid enhancement and modernization in the science. Technology has been widely claimed for the disastrous impacts on the public health, ethical issues, environment as well as social issues. The pivotal concern is whether technology can solve the problems it creates. In my opinion, at the present condition, technology can solve the problems but not all the time. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with the view that technology can eventually alleviate the problems it poses with the help of Man in centuries to come.

Technology poses an increasing threat to public health due to the development in scientific technology which allows Genetically Modified (GM) food to be produced in recent years. HM food which is also named ‘Frankenfood’ has caused the spread of antibiotic resistance in the body, according to a recent study in Newcastle University. The consumers of GM food are more prone to illnesses as their antibiotic resistance gets stronger with excessive consumption of such food. This can lead to increased health risks such as stomach and colon cancer, according to Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

However, with modern technology in medical science, cancer is no longer as fatal. The patients who are found to have cancerous cells in their body do have to face death. Take for instance; lung cancer which was previously incurable is now made curable with enhanced technological surgery or radiation therapy. Despite the arguable fact that GM food can cause cancer, cancer is increasingly less feared due to the high success of being healed from such a ‘deadly’ disease.

Besides the trouble in public health, technology has perverted the ethical code. Genetic Engineering technology produced Dolly, a female sheep that was created in 1996. Many religious groups like the Catholics and Muslims raised concerns that it was a wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. They assert that it was against the ethics and moral values as we are human being, thus we should not ‘play’ God by intercepting God in the process of life and death. This issue has been furiously debated as cloning was considered to corrupt our morals.

Yet, it was largely rebutted that it was a mere exaggeration of ethical issues. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? The religious groups assume that they know God existence and intention. Even today, there is not even a single scripture to that support anti-cloning. Therefore, the argument that technology has subverted ethical issues is not justified in the first place for it to say that technology has harmed our ethics.

Opponents of technology posit that it has created severe environmental degradation in recent years. The swift betterment in communication technology like the internet and transportation technology like faster planes has increased industrialization processes that cause increased pollution in the air, land as well as water. In places like China, this is a severe problem especially for the individual who stays near the industry. These pollutions have directly and indirectly affected the human race as well as the flora and fauna. Air pollution has caused respiratory problems and breathing difficulties that can cause lung cancer due to the excessive toxic gases releases from the industries. Land pollution causes the soil in the region to be poisonous that cause fruits and vegetables grown in the region to be hazardous for consumption. Water pollution that is very common in Third world countries like Nigeria and Somalia can cause birth defects and skin problems. As such, the environment has been sacrificed with the use of technology for economic progress.

However, opponents of technology have failed to realize the aspect of green technology that is developed recently ad advocated strongly through the media. Green technology is the use of environmentally friendly technology that uses the minimum amount of energy, produced minimum waste and produce the same or even better products. These products such as hydrogen car and ‘green’ light bulbs have been increasingly evident in first world countries like Singapore. Moreover, some buildings are made green too like City Square Mall in Singapore. These efforts of green technology and government have pushed down the level of pollution significantly as it uses minimum fossil fuel. With the presence of this technology, it is thus able to tackle the problem that it causes.

Last but not the least, technology has been arguing to have brutalized the social aspects of the individual, especially in developed countries like the US and Singapore where they can access communication technology easily. Communication technology has insulted the word ‘society’ itself that comes from ‘socialisation’ – the idea of interaction and communication. With the advent of inventions such as the internet with Youtube, MSN Messenger, Facebook and Twitter, we are now communing with a lifeless collection of microchips, not each other.

However, proponents of such technology agree unequivocally that communication technology has in fact increased the ability and opportunity of people to communicate. In the past where there was the absence of these ‘lifeless’ microchips, people have to travel far and waste numerous precious time just to socialise with their friends. Yet, nowadays, people can even socialise with many friends on the net with few clicks away. This technology has allowed people to have a greater social boundary as well as saves time on travelling. Therefore, technology can solve the problems of socializing that many of the people in the past faced.

Upon closer scrutiny, technology has increasingly been able to solve the problems it creates in spite of challenges. Nevertheless, up to the ninth year of the third millennium, it has been pervasively claimed that technology fail to solve the problems it creates upon the religious matter. However, I strongly believe that it is the matter of time that technology coupled with Man brain to explain the conflicts between them as seen from the increasing trend that technology solves problems that was unsolvable in the past.

It is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. Is this true?

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

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

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

            In addition, science and religion pose conflict over themes including human sexuality, medical issues. For example, plenty of conservative Christian communities school in that homosexual behaviour demeanour is anomalous, is perverted, is preferred, is not genetically determined, and can be corrected through prayer and counselling. Nonetheless, researchers into human sexuality by and large are convinced that homosexual orientation is normal for a modest percentage of the human race is innate, is undesired, is influenced by one’s genes to some degree, and cannot be changed through worship and guidance. Take euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, for another instance. Some faith groups champion that only God bestow life and hence solely God should reclaim breath. The opposing factual faction conjectures that when a terminally ill person is in intractable suffering and wishes to depart, physicians ought to be sanctioned to lend a hand in dying. Albert Einstein stated that “For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by, each other… yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what it does not open the door directly to what should be.” Thus, it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict over ethics.

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

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

It is often said that youth is often wasted on the young. How far do you agree?

Youth has its own natural attributes- energised physique makes everything seem easy and accessible, cognitive intelligence paves the path. Hence, innovative ideas develop and find implementation. The enhanced standards of education and introduction of science and technology adds to their efficiency making them charismatic workers. However, the other side of the coin presents a different picture. The youth is the embodiment of rigid, inflexible stubbornness. They lack in patience and experience. As such the rare gifts and natural talents are recklessly wasted. The abundance of glamour and pleasures make time slip away unnoticed. The counselling of the venerable class goes unheeded. It would be well to understand that the young generation is immature and cannot decide which path to adopt and which to abandon. The role of parents, teachers and society together with the standard of education are the deciding factors that make the young people to utilize fruitfully or to waste heedlessly the wealth of youth.

Young people, as opposed to the senior citizens, possess the potentials to bring about positive transformation in societies, to write success stories and to add to the aesthetic world by creative intervention, provided that their natural instincts and strengths are directed and channelized properly. Young people bring an end to age old conservative thoughts, dogmas and social evils.
The greatest barrier in social progress is ignorance and age old conservative thoughts. It is the young group that can help to eradicate these.

In many of the lesser developed societies, we still find gender-based bias, early marriages, dowry deaths, and child labour as highly prevalent. Despite attempts made by national and international organizations active in this direction, these enigmatic features continue to shame humanity. The young generation can do a lot to clean the society of such evils. They have the insight to comprehend the problem, the ability to find a solution and also the strength to have them implemented. There are many examples that show the revolutionary attitude of the millennials to wage a war against social evils. History has evidence of major changes brought through youthful initiatives and influences. As the young freedom fighters could achieve Independence for their country, today’s youth can free the societies of its foes in the shape of evils. The millennials extend support to social well- being through modern thoughts and innovative functioning

Young people today are successful entrepreneurs and social activists. They can not only revolutionize the digital scene but can also help fight against pollution, conserve natural resources and eradicate poverty. The trend of entrepreneurship initiated by Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg has paved the way for new generation of kids. Kevin Systrom and Mike Kreiger co-founders of the digital company, Instagram, are under 30; Shrawan Kumaran and Sanjay Kumaran, India’s young digital developers are only 12 and 14 years old and have co- founded Go Dimensions; Dylan Mahalingam, only at the age of nine in 2006, founded LilMDG’s , an organization in collaboration with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals; Madison Robinson, the fifteen year old entrepreneur from Texas, is making good profit in her clothing industry Fish Flop; and, Malala Yousafzai, the social activist fighting for education for all and the winner of Nobel Peace Prize in 2013, was only seventeen that time. These success stories suggest the triumph and intense utilization of youthful character, not its waste. Recent passion for technology has triggered a number of young people working in the direction of digital development and the sense of responsibility towards social issues is increasing day by day.

The young minds and hands possess creativity. A number of young people are showing their talents in the field of art, music, dance, drama, film making and sports, making this world a place of great grandeur. Talents in the field of art and literature are continued even as the folk arts are inherited and carried forward by the youth. Young fingers are engaged in creating masterpieces and instruments vibrate magic. Zachary David Zach Sobiech was an American rock singer who was suffering from cancer in 2012; instead of being disheartened by his eminent mortality he wrote songs and gave performances for his near and dear ones and his greatest hit, Clouds, became a You Tube sensation; his music, after his passing away, continues to motivate people to live their life to the fullest. Missy Franklin won Six Gold medals in 2012 Olympics but turned down her financial endorsement to continue her college education. Such talents are no doubt rare, but they, never the less belong to the young.

The role of performance arts, fine arts, folk arts, writings enriches the aesthetic wealth of the globe, adding a soulful satisfaction to human existence. Such young people who are conscious, conscientious and creative, constitute a smaller percentage of the entire mass. The majority of the young generation waste their time and talent in a callous search for momentary pleasures.

More often than not they do not listen to their guardian’s advice and do as they will. Having no respect for the time they let opportunities slip by. Nomophobia is the most widespread ailment of modern youth who cannot survive without their cell phones. Late night parties, friend circles, movies and careless gallivanting are symptoms of the rich while the less affluent take resort to cheap wines, drugs, abuse and violence. They fail to realize their more responsible roles in social development as imposed on them by the demographic transition and dependency ratio. According to the most recent demographic projections, which suggests an increase in the percentage of aged people and a decline in the percentage of the young, the youth will be under greater social and moral pressure of the greybeards. It is ironical that by the time a sense of realization will dawn upon them they will be too senescent for any useful activity. Most of the young population either misuse their potentials or remain idle, undisciplined and violent.

There is a tremendous burden on the young generation and the factors of insecurity and unemployment add to their adversities. Lack of proper guidance and the exposure to technology- social media and easy communication modes of cell phones- deviate them from their path. If they lack the vision to recognise their potentials and appear to be wasting their youth, it is not entirely their fault. Their performances need to be appreciated, their problems require to be sorted out and their trust has to be won by the elders and the societies promoting their participation. Today young people need to be empowered. If these conditions are met, the young will make the best use of their youth.

The young people are equipped with abilities to function wonderfully. They are doing so in various fields. But, there are a number of young people, moving towards senile ageing, without noticing the important fact that time was slipping away silently, like sand through the gaps between fingers.
Problems of unemployment, insecure future, family burden and immense exposure to dazzling distractions of modernity are preventing the young from realizing their goals and prompting the wastage of youth.

The massive rate at which the world population is ageing will give rise to unimaginable problems. How far do you agree?

The world population is ageing very fast owing to the blessings of longevity and improved health facilities. In 2006 the world’s elders were estimated to be 500 million which is predicted to reach 1 billion by 2030. On a global level, the increase in octogenarians is projected to increase by 151% between 2005 and 2030; the increase in 65 and above population is projected to grow by 104% and an increase of 21% for the population under age 65. This increase in the ageing population coupled with a decrease in the number of young people is creating a kind of social imbalance. This demo graph is evolving problems which are predicted to grow severe with passing time. Nations and governments have started developing strategies to minimize the effects of this demographic transition, but how successful these strategies will be, and at what cost, is a serious point of contemplation. The excessive increase in the ageing population of the world will create severe problems for the government, for the young generation as well as for the seniors themselves.

Today the number of elderly is increasing at a vast rate and the governments are finding it difficult to provide financial security and health care to them for the extended years of their lives. The first major necessity of the elders is of health services and long term care. Second, is to extend financial support through pension plans and the next is to arrange for other facilities like transport, roads, recreation centres and community centres for them. All this requires strong economic growth which is not possible in the shrinking young population scenario.

 As the workforce in all nations has fallen low, the development programs are under stress, the revenue generation is inadequate. It is becoming tough for governments to mobilize and allocate resources in various schemes. In order to satisfy the essential requirements of the growing number of old people for a growing number of years, other development programs have to be compromised with. It may be quite possible that caring for the elderly will be like ignoring the children and investing in nursing homes will slash the budget meant for schools and teachers. A number of health workers and nursing staff will be migrating from low-income areas to high-income areas. The required revenue cannot be generated from the shrinking workforce and the governments have to cut down the pensions and increase the retirement age. Even then it is uncertain that the situation will be under control.

Today there is a fewer number of people in the workforce,  who on one hand, have to bear the burden of supporting the nation’s finance through revenue generation, and on the other hand, support the elderly in every way. Earlier there were a number of children, siblings and young members in a family and it was easier to take care of the few elders in it. But today such families have disappeared. Longevity has developed the trend of a four-generation family with a single young member or a couple at the most. These young people have to undertake dual responsibility in the family, of taking care of the children as well as of parents and grandparents; at the same time, they cannot ignore their professional workload and demands of society. These members of the younger generation also have to cut down expenses to invest in the security insurance plans. They also bear some liability towards other veterans in the community. Many times the young member can be compelled to move abroad or to another place for jobs and face moral pressure of leaving the elders uncared. This clearly implies that the ageing population is imposing every kind of -physical, mental, financial, social and moral -burden on the young.

The ageing population will have innumerable challenging issues for themselves. They will suffer in many ways, in health, finance and social security. Senility and debility hold the elders by hand. Most of the elderly are found ailing with chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer and cardiac problems. The recent development of geriatrics offers cure from these but in most cases, the patient falls into some kind of disability making long term care essential. The cost of treatment and long term care is not within everybody’s reach and government-aided facilities will become insufficient in the coming times. Growing in age makes them lose their spouses and having fewer children or remaining childless leaves them devoid of family care. Even if some of them would be fortunate enough to have children, yet the children would stay near and care for them is doubtful. Most of the baby boomers are also found deficient in education and skills as demanded by modern technical professions. Hence it is unlikely that they will be able to continue in the labour force despite good health and fitness. They will have to bear the insult of working under younger bosses. Slashing of pensions as imposed by many governments will leave them in clutches of poverty. Senescent and lonely, the elderly will have to compromise with circumstances.

Ageing of the world is, after all, not a big problem, as the communities are growing conscious and supportive even as the governments are developing plans for comfortable ageing. The situation has come before all and everyone from individuals to communities and governments are moving in the direction to enhance the quality of life for the senior citizens.

That the families have fewer young members is a positive trait. These members are strong and dutiful and accept their liability towards their elders. Emotions and morals attach them to their parents and grandparents. The communities are making special spaces for elders; libraries, recreation centres, parks, fitness, physiotherapy and yoga centres are mushrooming in societies. Organisations like the World Bank and UNESCO; the programs of MDG’s and SDG’s will not let the veterans to starve or to die aidless. There are practical solutions to this over-emphasized problem of an ageing world. The elderly themselves are becoming more and more responsible day by day making self-esteemed and self-earned status for themselves. The elders themselves are beginning to take responsibilities, working for more years and making arrangements for their retirement. They are reducing the impact of compressed workforce and pressure on the government.

Despite the emotional and moral strengths, it will not be possible for the young members to look after the elderly. They have their own pressing priorities of jobs, personal health and social issues. However much the old people may want, they will not be able to remain productive and self-dependent. The government will also increase revenues, decrease pension amounts and increase the retirement age. Communicable and non-communicable diseases will show their impact and leave the elderly in the lap of loneliness and poor health. Migration and increasing fertility rates are solutions no doubt but do not appear practical

The ageing of the world is going to develop problematic issues for the nation, for the young and for the elderly. But an overall awareness and active participation of all in solving this crucial problem will soon bring about a positive change in the situation. But so far as strategies have not been implemented it has to be accepted that population ageing will develop unimaginable problems.  

Is the elimination of global poverty a realistic aim?

The elimination of global poverty is certainly not a realistic aim in view of the various problems that are still arising in these poverty-stricken states, and such problems are also often more likely to lead to a continuation rather than the elimination of global poverty. At the same time, while initiatives had been taken by authorities or international institutions to deal with the problems, the effectiveness of it is however often undermined.

One of the main problems that caused some of these states to suffer from poverty is the control of the country under the corrupt government. The government often plays an important role in helping its people meet their social needs and other welfare. Thus, if their leaders are corrupt and are only concern with achieving their self-interest rather than the nation’s, then the elimination of global poverty will definitely be impossible. The Oil-for-food programme by the United Nations implemented in Iraq is an example of how a corrupt government in power could prevent the people from receiving the humanitarian aid they were supposed to get. In this incident, the UN officials and the Iraqi government were accused of siphoning off profits from the Oil-for-food programme. Under this programme, a percentage of the profits gain from the sale of oil were actually to be used to provide basic needs to the people there, however, due to corrupt officials, these benefits were not trickled down to the people and hence the inability to tackle the problems of poverty there. From here, it is clear to us that albeit initiatives taken by international institutions to address the problem of poverty, as long as there is the existence of corrupt government all these solutions may just ultimately proved to be ineffective.

On top of that, the debt problems that some of these Third World Countries face till today have also crippled them to an extent that they are unable to make economic progress and thus bring themselves out of impoverishment. For instance, for the poorest countries, $550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades and yet there is still a $523 billion debt burden left for them. Although various aids had been put forward to help these countries, some of these aids still failed to help deal with these debt problems and sometimes even backfired. The Heavily In-debt Poor Countries initiative, for example, was set up to help reduce the external debt for the poorest countries. However, it was instead backfiring in some cases as unfair conditions are also associated with this initiative and some of these debt relief advocates were making it even before the scheme was launched too. Therefore, with these huge financial burdens, it would certainly be difficult for these countries’ economies to pick up and thus the achievement of the aim of eliminating poverty for these states will certainly not be in the near future too.

At the same time, while many of the developed countries have played their part in helping these states, ironically they are also the ones that are worsening the situation there too. The falling commodity prices presented by these developed nations brought in tough business competition for these poor countries and also, the vast agricultural subsidies in North America and Europe have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums too. Hence, while steps have been taken by these richer nations to help these impoverished countries, the effectiveness is eventually undermined when their own government policies fail to take into consideration the adverse effects they may have on these nations.

On the other hand, the UN has also put forward other initiatives that saw hope for the aim of eliminating poverty on a global scale and such an initiative is the ‘Millennium Development Goal ‘. The first initiative calls for halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015 and some of the many actions taken were such as the elimination of school fees, upgrading slums and providing land for public housing etc. Indeed, living standards have risen dramatically over the last decades and the proportion of the developing world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen from 28 per cent in 1990 to 21 per cent in 2001. Thus, this goes to show that the aim of eradicating global poverty may not after all be unrealistic.

Although recent research by the UN has shown that there are more people living in poverty in 8 Indian states than in 26 poorest African nations combined, patches of light are still showing, as a recent report has shown that improvements have been seen in these poor provinces too. No starvation deaths have been recorded in Chhattisgarh in recent memory and in Bihar, which was widely seen as India’s worse administered states, the crime rates have fallen and infrastructure is taking off too. Hence, despite the fact that poverty is still one of the major problems faced by India, the improvements that could take place even in one of their worst-hit states expresses to us that the aim of achieving the eradication of poverty on the global scale may not be that far off ultimately.

However, it is still important to note that the effectiveness of some of these initiatives is often limited due to the aforementioned problems that surface in many of these impoverished countries. Therefore, at this point in time, eliminating poverty at a global scale still remains uncertain and thus is an unrealistic goal.

What is knowledge? Who owns it? How can it best be taught or transmitted?

From the very genesis of philosophy as a discipline, scholars have struggled with the concept of knowledge and, by extrapolation, the wide array of methods concerning the acquisition of knowledge. In pursuit of this aim are two noteworthy groups of philosophers apparently at odds with each other: the rationalists, who see logic and raison d’être as the source of all knowledge, and the empiricists, who believe that knowledge must be derived from one’s experience of the surroundings. Both schools of thought accept the idea of warranted true beliefs as a working definition of knowledge. It is about the steps required to satisfactorily prove a belief both true and justified, that rationalists like Rene Descartes conflict with empiricists like John Locke. Rationalism holds that all knowledge can and should be uncovered through the use of logic and reasoning, beginning with comprehensible and distinct ideas that need not be proven further and building up through layers of more complex reasoning a view of the world that is both true and logically justified.

Reasoning is an extremely powerful tool in the overall attainment of knowledge, offering philosophers a method of broadening yet deepening their knowledge of the world beyond their own experience. By comparison, empericism’s reliance on sensory perception and contact with the physical world appears somewhat limited and possesses the ability to cast doubts on the extent to which empirical knowledge can be conclusively proven factual or justified. Newton’s law of gravitation itself was incomplete by experiments; it was only after Newton came up with the equation that weight was the product of an object’s mass and the value of the gravitational field strength at that point in which we could fully appreciate the experiments that he carried out and extrapolated that knowledge to anticipate the outcomes of further experiments. This is less of a challenge in rationalism, where one need not depend on sensation to develop knowledge; instead, one can derive knowledge through a series of logical arguments, that is, through the supremacy of reasoning alone. In the case of Descartes, rationalism also transcends the challenges posed by scepticism to some degree by asserting that proof of a consciousness is a sufficient proof of existence. By adopting a structure that is apparently more objective that empiricism, reasoning offers us a chance to acquire theoretical knowledge even beyond our personal experience.

Thomas H. Huxley’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence”, Huxley implies that the mere obtainment of knowledge without any proper, well defined proof is as good as blatant ignorance. Huxley can thus be categorised into the school of thought of positivism, first theorized by Auguste Comte in the mid 19th century and developed into a modern philosophy favoured by scientists and technocrats; positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. This perception that science provides us a platform for absolute truth and unfalisifiable facts was, however, rebutted by classical compatibilist David Hume and was consequently deemed incredulous.

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. The appreciation and understanding of information via lifelong learning, from birth till death, and experience is incontrovertibly intricately interrelated to the development of nations. Eg? However, it does not serve as a purpose, means or implication to this progress; instead, it stands as a cornerstone in our unending journey towards the unreachable, undefinable success of a country. Knowledge develops man to achieve their potential in their ability to interact with his surroundings, both adversely and beneficially; such a gift does not necessarily affect the progress of a country directly. Nevertheless, it is vital for the long term growth of our international society that consists of both developed and less developed countries. Eg? Consequently, knowledge is not an object to be selfishly confined within a group; it is a valuable possession that is meant to be shared throughout our international platform regardless of the existing paradigm shift.

However, a challenge that arises alongside such an advantage of knowledge is the acceptance of knowledge. Sometimes, our reluctance for knowledge emerges due to our stubbornness and reluctance to understand our world although it is clearly beneficial; such a case is acrimoniously tragic as the laziness and glaring materialistic tendency of mankind result in ignorance which further exacerbates the situation in which we are suffering so devastatingly in. The reality that there has been an exponential increase in the consumption of fast food is great testament to the fact that we either ignore information concerning the adverse effects of such consumption, such as insulin resistance and obesity, or simply are ignorant to such knowledge. According to the film ‘Fast Food Nation’, (why quote this movie if all you want to cite are statistics?) in 1969, McDonald’s had 1,000 restaurants compared to McDonalds’ more than 30,000 today, with 2,000 new ones opening each year due to an increase in demand for fast food.  A  more poignant movie would be Sicko – that why despite the effects of fast-food, people still consume horrendous amounts. If you can give a simpler example, you can remove the above lines. How about…HIV/Aids?

However, the rejection of knowledge may also be due to our tendency to subscribe to solipsism which is the idea that one can only know that one’s self exists and that anything outside the mind, such as the external world, cannot be known to exist. Solipsists place emphasis on a subjective reality, and that what we perceive to be true for one person may not be true for another. In fact, many of our global leaders today lack sufficient current affairs knowledge to be compatible politicians attempting to assist mankind in its unending journey to an ambiguous better life. Sarah Palin herself thought that Africa was a country, not a continent and could not name all the countries involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Another example is that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who claimed vehemently that the holocaust did not take place.

With the ever-growing culture of globalisation, we, as global citizens have to be knowledgable about our rapidly-changing world. As developments occur, we have to keep updated. We have to keep track of developments in our globalised world. The lack of acquaintance about our surroundings has the potential to disadvantage us. Only with proper knowledge about our surroundings can we make informed decisions for our own selfish desires; only with various angles can we appreciate suffering and selflessly think about how advantaged we are. We live in a highly interconnected world; our very actions can have far reaching effects. The burning of forests in Indonesia adversely affects tourism air quality in Singapore and the region. Consequently, the development of other countries in Southeast Asia.Mere apathy of our surroundings can result in undesirable effects for others or even one’s self.

However, it is apparent that knowledge is both our friend and foe. Incontestably, we have improved our standards of living through technological developments and the spread of ideologies such as capitalism, mainly due to knowledge. At the same time, the overflowing knowledge of certain individuals may be highly aversive to society; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nuclear bomb was due to our confident knowledge of modern physics, the brainchild of Albert Einstein.

In today’s modern context, the most common mode of transmission of knowledge and information is via the mass media. The mass media is a powerful force that inevitably penetrates through our lives to the extent that it can influence our character, attitude and lifestyle; its ubiquitous nature has the power to make or break a person. New and conventional media have managed to integrate into our lifestyles such that we are non-existent without it. Dwelling in an exceedingly interconnected world, we cannot merely garner knowledge by word of mouth, just as the aborigines in Australian transmitted their knowledge over generations. We depend highly on the Internet and newspapers for knowledge concerning daily occurrences; journals keep a register of past discussions for us to learn new knowledge for application in future research. Internet usage itself is increased from 361 million users in 2000 to 1.8 billion by 2009.[i] Its effects in disseminating knowledge are far reaching – a new frontier at a cusp of innovation…Since September 2006, the brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has seen an exponentially increase in a few short years to a sum of 300 million subscribers today. Such a platform has been useful in the spreading of knowledge and as a discussion forum.

In our aim to teach one another knowledge that is freely accessible physically, yet extremely exclusive mentally, we have to undertake pedagogy that appreciates that we most efficiently learn via different learning styles. In our aim to teach knowledge through the best possible method, we should have the target to do so efficiently and within the least time possible. This can only be done if we can satisfy the learning style of the person being taught. This is where many educational institutions have failed. Merely organising lectures and tutorials are insufficient; they are only effective for auditory and visual learners. Holistic teaching that encompasses theory and application are essential to driving knowledge. Institutions should organise field trips and excursions so that kinaesthetic learners are not left out; they can benefit equally from the education system. Alternatively, practical sessions could be organised; instead of simply learning an economics concept or scientific theory, projects, experiments ad research can be facilitated as an approach to hands-on learning. Today, we should not emphasise rote learning is a distant past; independent thinkers  are the future.should be developed. This can only be done if institutions teach less, but students learn more. This will succeed if institutions inculcate into their students the importance of interdependent and independent learning.

Independent learners can be developed through Socratic thinking and questioning. Socrates once said theorised that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To develop independent learners, we need to teach ourselves how to think. Through independent learning, we obtain knowledge by ourselves; we do not depend on others for such a valuable commodity. The job of institutions is to teach people to find knowledge, not teach them knowledge. The best way to do this is via thought-provoking questions. Through his relentless questioning, Socrates forced people to examine their own beliefs. Questions provide us a platform for a purpose-driven life. We think about our actions; we appreciate our environment. We do not merely accept knowledge; we question it. We do not simply consume knowledge; we apply it. The integration of such outcomes of a thinker causes us to become more than knowledgeable. We become wise. Examining Blooms Taxonomy, accepting knowledge passively is the lowest level of education-receiving. Institutions should aim to undertake an approach in which students value knowledge and allows it to influence his or her characteristic where useful such that that knowledge can be applied with wisdom.

Thomas Edison explained, “our greatest need is to teach people who think- not what, but how.” Through such judgment, we are not satisfied with simple knowledge. We are more interested in the process than the final result of knowledge per se. We are not as concerned about the facts; rather, we are engrossed with the derivation and controversies about such beliefs and falsifiable theories. When Einstein presented his theory of Quantum Physics, the world was appalled. How could electromagnetic waves have wave particles? Nevertheless, it was the process in which Einstein was enabled to justify, to an extent, such a theory that appeased the world; he performed experiments. Through judgment and the skill of analysis, we evolve from conformism into individualism. Only through individualism can future civilizations accept facts firmly and determine the suitability of such knowledge in that modern context. Conformism is the sustenance of knowledge; individualism is the birth of knowledge. Our understanding of the heliocentric solar system and quantum physics were due to the individualistic nature of brave, confident scientists who rejected the paradigm of their time and were consequently leaders of a paradigm shifts. Via Quantum Physics, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was invented for further investigation into the characteristics of subatomic particles which will consequently strengthen foundations concerning our knowledge on Quantum physics and build upon that understanding. Individualism allows for the growth of a plethora of schools of thought that enables us to appreciate knowledge based on stronger foundations.

Knowledge consists of both the priori and posterori knowledge; nonetheless, there is no superior form of knowledge. Knowledge should be a civil right; it should be non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The preference of type of knowledge and learning style will help us, as members of an interdependent international society focus on the development of one another, as independent, individualistic thinkers such that we are not merely bogged down by mere memorisation of knowledge; we rather decisively critique knowledge. Only then can we apply knowledge to improvements in quality of life so as to ensure the progress of future generations. Our forefathers have passed down to us invaluable knowledge; the Babylonians and Egyptians indisputably inspire us. It is time for us to take the lead and inspire future civilisation to press on and trudge on in the unending pursuit for knowledge. Ultimately, it is the wise who own knowledge. They know the importance of it and they apply it not to benefit themselves only, but to advantage the rest of mankind as well. Stephen Hawking, a reputable mathematician and physicist who continued the work of Einstein from various aspects such as relativity, once said, “we are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” Knowledge and its applications have made us superior. The option has been provided to man to accept knowledge and convert it into multifaceted wisdom.

Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

It is clearer today, more than ever, that Man’s short-sighted actions in the pursuit of material wealth are causing the destruction of the environment. There is a growing international consensus among scientists that human activity is a direct cause of global warming and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought this to the forefront of public consciousness. Meanwhile, huge swathes of rainforest in the Amazon are destroyed each day to be used as cattle grazing pastures. Given the undeniable fact that human activity is responsible for environmental destruction, it is then not surprising that the best answer to environmental destruction is not the development of new technology to patch up the problem, but instead a fundamental change in mindset and attitudes globally which would address the root of the problem.

It must be acknowledged that technology can indeed help to address the problem of environmental destruction. This is especially evident in situations where it is impractical to stop the human activity. For example, it would be impossible to stop all forms of transport as people would face severe restrictions in where they could go. Thus, in this case, technology could help tremendously, like through the introduction of hydrogen-fuelled cars which only produce water as a waste product and do not emit carbon dioxide. Also, better technology has helped refineries to refine crude oil while releasing less harmful byproducts into the environment. The development of unleaded petrol also reduced the number of pollutants emitted into the environment by cars. All of these examples go to show that technology can and indeed, already have, helped to reduce environmental destruction.

However, technology may not be the best answer to environmental destruction as there are situations in which it is useless. An example close to home is the proposed development of Chek Jawa, a section of coast on Pulau Ubin with rich marine biodiversity, by the Singapore government. Had the government decided to go ahead with its plans, no amount of technology could have saved the biodiversity in the area from the bulldozers and construction cranes. Thus, it is clear that technology cannot be the best answer as it is unable to negate the effects of habitat destruction. Instead, what is more, pertinent in this situation is the attitude towards conservation of such important habitats. In the Chek Jawa situation, the government demonstrated an applaudable mindset towards environmental conservation as it halted development plans and even gazette the area as a protected area. It is clear that human attitudes were what saved Chek Jawa from destruction, not technology.

Furthermore, technology is limited in its impact as it is only effective when used properly and regularly. For example, although electric cars that are less harmful to the environment than conventional cars have been developed, the usage rate of such cars is not high due to their relatively higher price. If for whatever reason, superior technology is not implemented, then it is effectively useless. In short, the effectiveness of technology is dependent on society’s attitude towards it, and technology that helps reduce environmental destruction will only be implemented if society feels the need for environmental conservation.

Another problem with using technology as the answer to environmental destruction is that, more often than not, cavalier attitudes towards environmental conservation as demonstrated by excessive consumption and extravagant wastage can negate any benefits brought about by technology. For example, proponents of the recently-developed biodegradable “plastic bag” hail it as the answer to the problem of non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastic bags. However, should people take the biodegradable nature of the new “plastic bag” as carte blanche to use and waste as many as they desire, they could be contributing to even more environmental destruction. This is mainly because more energy is required to produce these extra bags, thereby creating more carbon dioxide and waste through the production and incineration process as compared to the impact of conventional plastic bags. Through this, it is clear that the ultimate answer is not technology, but the changing of society’s attitudes.

Proponents of the superiority of technology may argue that with sufficiently advanced and large-scale technology, humans need not alter their attitudes at all. They may point to ongoing projects which attempt to find a way to dump Mankind’s waste into space or pump the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into huge underground caverns to reduce global warming. However, such initiatives tend to be large-scale and extravagantly expensive, taking up valuable scarce resources which could be used for the betterment of society or even to feed the hungry. Furthermore, according to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution to a problem is often the best one. It would be resource-wasting and foolish to pursue such grand initiatives to solve a problem which can be solved so simply – by a small change in behavioural attitudes.

Although cynics might argue that it is much harder to change human attitudes, current events point to the contrary. They show that people, once educated about the impact of their actions on the destruction of the environment, tend to act in a way to reduce that impact. For example, the number of couples who serve shark fin soup at their weddings here in Singapore has steadily declined over the years, due to increasing awareness that the shark fin trade is endangering the shark population. Also, statistics collected in conjunction with the “Bring Your Own Bag” campaign, which was recently launched in Singapore, has shown that more people are starting to eschew the one-time use of plastic bags in favour of reusable ones. This is attributed to increased awareness of the environmental destruction caused by plastic bags. Thus we can see that people do change their actions and attitudes when educated about the negative impacts of their actions.

Moreover, there need not be a drastic change in attitudes and actions to solve the problem of environmental destruction. Saving the environment need not require everyone to stop all air travel or stop all activities non-essential to survival. As is often seen, all that is required is a small change in behaviour, such as using turning up the temperature on the air-conditioner or printing documents double-sided. For example, if everyone switched off their computers when not in use instead of leaving them to idle, 45 million less metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted per year. Thus, even small individual actions can lead to a great impact is done collectively.

It is for this reason that a change in people’s attitudes towards conservation is a superior answer to environmental destruction compared to technology. It is far more likely to succeed and requires less of the Earth’s scarce resources.