‘Our understanding of modern technology is enhanced by knowledge of mathematics’. Discuss.

Keywords: ‘modern technology’, ‘enhanced’, ‘mathematics’, ‘discuss’

• There needs to be a binary/digital understanding of mathematics
• Many Computer languages (Java and MATLAB) – are based on mathematics in formulaic/coded/encrypted sense
• More accessibility and understanding when technology fails
• Mathematics also enables an understanding of programming
• Extract patterns from data • Understand computer modelling to test theories
• As a part of science which requires a foundation in Mathematics
• Requires an understanding of instructions more than Mathematics
• Accessible to everyone
• Function and use are enhanced by other factors (ease of communication)
• Mathematics enhances if specialist knowledge is required (a career in computer programming)

Medicine has been revolutionised by advances in technology. Discuss.

  • we have a moral duty to use technology to help save lives/make lives more comfortable
  • medical technology may go wrong
  • we should not interfere with nature or ‘play God’
  • medical technology can be expensive and time-consuming
  • the treatment of self-inflicted illnesses using such technology presents a moral dilemma
  • such technology might improve the quality of life or prolong the life of some people
  • treatments may only prolong the inevitable and may cause more distress
  • a convincing response should show a keen awareness of the potential tensions inherent in the use of medical technology

‘No one should be prosecuted for helping the terminally ill to die with dignity.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

Keywords: ‘prosecuted’ and ‘helping’ and ‘terminally ill’ and ‘dignity’ and ‘how far’ and ‘agree’.

  • Personal choice/freedom to be respected
  • ‘Dignity’ is a human right
  • A measure of compassion and love (which should not be punished)
  • Forced to go to a legal country (e.g. Dignitas in Switzerland) – expensive/unfamiliar/suffering
  • Not a matter for the State
  • Precious time wasted (e.g. legal battles)
  • Legal protection from exploitation
  • Health professionals know best
  • Sanctity of life
  • Religious objections
  • Always a chance of a cure/new treatments

What is now regarded as alternative medicine has been used in some cultures for centuries. Evaluate its relevance in the modern world.

• Serious research into the effectiveness of ginseng in improving lung function
• Science and experimental evidence and the attack on chiropractic practices
• Nothing scientific about homoeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, acupuncture, reflexology etc.?
• The example of St John’s Wort in the treatment of mild to moderate depression – a herbal medicine but it has been shown over many years to work
• Both camps can complement one another
• Evidence from personal experience of alternatives cannot be simply dismissed
• The holistic approach – diet, lifestyle etc.
• Working with the intrinsic energy system of the body
• Clinical jealousies, the preservation of medical power
• Corporate power of big Pharma
• The scientific paradigm versus subjective narratives and growing understanding of the human body’s complex adaptive system
• Risks around safety, efficiency, and coordination of care
• The needs of an ageing population and the rise of chronic illnesses

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

This question requires the student to compare to the past.

  • There are many novels from which examples can be obtained.
  • Science fiction has always inspired entrepreneurs
  • We are only at the edge of knowledge
  • The imagination knows no limits
  • Science fiction might drive scientific research, for example the return of the mammoth
  • Science fiction may not focus on the practical needs of people
  • Robotics and fantasy projections only serve the rich
  • Companies will only focus on the science that makes them money

Read this other essay on science; the importance of scientific fact.

‘Increasing life expectancy is always a desirable goal.’ do you agree?

Medical advancements have led people to lead longer lives. Specific diets, medicines and procedures are leading people to live longer but are also reducing the quality of life. Countries like Japan and Singapore have the highest number of ageing population which can cause problems economically. It is often seen that people with longer lives die lonely, this has significantly been seen in countries like Japan, Sweden and the UK. Keeping all these points in mind it can be contended that increasing life expectancy is not always a desirable goal.

Economically, higher life expectancy is considered as a marker of Social welfare. In many countries people believe that higher life expectancy is the indicator of a better and well-equipped healthcare system. For example, in Singapore the healthcare system is efficient and there are policies to take care of the elderly. This is also evident from the fact that Singapore topped the world in life expectancy in 2017 with an expected lifespan at birth of 84.8 years. On the other hand poorer countries have lower life expectancy because of poorly managed Healthcare systems, lack of access to clean water, food and sanitisation. Thus, higher life expectancy is desirable and necessary because it is an important indicator of the economic strength of a nation.

However, higher life expectancy also means that the healthcare systems and infrastructure are burdened. Higher life expectancy means that there is a need for additional medical professionals, equipment and facilities to take care of the ageing population. This leads to burdening of human resources and finances which are allocated to take care of people with longer lives. In order to raise the funds for these services to be provided, the working citizens of the country have to bear the expenses in form of taxes. Apart from raising funds for better healthcare, governments also need to introduce policies and programmes for the overall wellbeing of the ageing population. This is seen in Singapore where the government introduced the Merdeka Generation Package aimed at citizens born in the 1950s, to provide them with better peace of mind over future healthcare. Government schemes and packages like these ease the financial burden of medical costs for the elderly but put significant strain on the working younger generations. Thus, increased life expectancy is undesirable to a certain extent because it puts strain on the healthcare systems and the financial budget of a country.

However, it cannot be denied that longer life expectancy provides people with an opportunity to fulfil their life long dreams and spend time with loved ones. Today people are preoccupied with earning money and half their lives are spent in this pursuit. A longer life gives people the chance to experience whatever they have missed in their early years. Today many elderly can pursue additional skills like playing the piano or a guitar. Similarly, they can enrol themselves in online courses to learn skills that are required in a technologically advanced world. Thus, longer life expectancy gives us a chance to experience life in unique and diverse ways.

Longer life expectancy however does not mean that people have a better quality of life. Many elderly who have a longer life live a life that is of poor quality. Elderly people who live longer do not necessarily live meaningful lives as most of the time they are extremely sick and spend their end days either bed ridden or in a hospital. In such circumstances, the elderly are also considered a burden by society. This can be evidently seen in countries like India where many children abandon their parents or send them to old age homes. The separation of the elderly from their families leads them to live sad and lonely lives. Thus, increasing life expectancy can lead to painful and sorrowful lives which are spent in isolation and abandonment.

Longer life expectancy also makes people take life for granted. If people have shorter lives they may value it more and rush to complete tasks that are meaningful. A longer life expectancy can also lead to boredom and cynicism. The knowledge that our lives are limited gives us the motivation to pursue better things in life like creativity and nobility. Thus, increasing life expectancy is undesirable because it gives our life little purpose.

In conclusion, though longer life expectancy might be desirable in economic terms, it is overall undesirable to have a longer life expectancy because it leads the elderly to live lives that are spent in isolation, abandonment, and poor circumstances. Instead, life even if short, should be meaningful and provide purpose to people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith’. How far do you agree with this statement?

Religion has always had an undeniable arm in the world. “God might not be dead, but God sure leaves a lot of people dead” This was one social science professor’s response to Nietzsche’s famous proclamation that “God is dead”. Evidently, he is trying to point out the influence of religion upon our views and decisions in society. Religion affects every society on a personal level because it also affects every aspect of our lives. At the same time, today’s society is also influenced heavily by advanced science and technology. Human actions, if based on either science or religion, may result in grave consequences. However, scientific fact is definitely more trustworthy and reliable than religion for it can explain and manipulate the physical world.

Scientific fact ensures that the decisions we make are rational and always to our best interests after taking into account the cost and benefits of the decisions we are making. Today, we see apps and software with the ability to provide us with the most advantageous or the profitable choice we can make, be it for business level or personal level decisions. Furthermore, we can see the emergence of apps that enables us to make decisions based on our heart. “Choice compass”, an application, use our smartphone’s camera to analyse changes in our heart rhythm while we consider each of two choices: such as ‘buy’ or ‘don’t buy’. It then tells us which of the choices returned heart dynamic associated with positive rather than negative decisions, allegedly tapping into our innate ‘body wisdom’, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘follow your heart’. Another app, “Best Decision” claims to take the emotional agony out of making a decision by helping us arrive at the best conclusion objectively, grading potential outcomes under various criteria. With technology being advanced enough to read our minds and provide us with the most practical solution that will only benefit us, there is no need to base or actions on religion which in today’s context is becoming an out-dated concept.

On the other hand, science cannot explain everything in the universe and it certainly cannot be perceived to be precise when it comes to deciding what the heart wants. Science does not claim to offer a full or complete understanding of the universe but merely hopes to move closer to the truth. Science cannot prove certain things like moral and experiential truth. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgements for their own lives like euthanasia. Science helps us describe how the world is but it cannot make any judgements about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good or bad.

This does not necessarily mean that we can act based on our religious faith because history has shown us the consequences can be very grave such as genocide. By its very nature, religion can make different groups of people disagree and the quintessence of religion is faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven, cannot be debunked as well. Holocaust and crusades exemplify how desensitizing feelings of hatred can hypnotise individuals and blind them to common sense. In absence of common sense, a Hobbesian nightmare of ‘war of all against all’ does not seem far away if we were to act based on our religious faith. Science, on the other hand, is able to provide us with common sense and the ability to make logical decisions, unlike ones that are heavily influenced by the blind faith of religions.

Religion, however, provides a group of individuals common mortality and decisions made as a form of community-based on religion will not lead to any form of harm as all religions encourage love and kindness. Buddha’s words, “All beings long for happiness. Therefore, the extent thy compassion to all. He, who wishes his own happiness, let him cultivate goodwill towards all the world”. While the Bible reads “Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. For if you love only those that love you, what reward have ye?” Furthermore, mot believers across the globe belong to one of a few major religions and most of these religions, although practised in various forms preach the same kind of moral values.

‘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.