Social Issues – Page 10

Technology has had a negative impact on people’s skills? Discuss.

Without a doubt, technology has majorly impacted skills of people in the world. While the progress of technology is important, people should be careful in not being overly-reliant on it.

Human beings have always discovered and invented devices and machines for their convenience. Today, technology has taken an important place in people’s life and has made their lives easier. However, with technology, there are also problems that have risen. Machines which were created for helping humans, have made humans lazy, unskilled and redundant. Today people are overly-reliant on technology. Though many skills have been replaced by technology, there are new skills which have gained prominence today. Hence, technology has a negative impact on people’s skills.

Automation has led people to lack many skills and has caused their role to minimise in many industries. In manufacturing, from making the dough for different cookies, to cutting them in different shapes and packing them, all tasks are now performed by machines and robots. In aviation, pilots use the auto-pilot function and use electronic interface to control the flight. The pilot’s role today is limited and skills required to become a pilot have reduced significantly. With so much being done by machines, it is a logical conclusion technology has a negative impact on people’s skills.

New and advanced technology has attracted people to games that involve virtual reality and advanced graphics. Unlike earlier times, where people, especially children took time to go out and play sports like cricket, badminton or swimming, children today are glued to their Playstation, X-box, computer screens and mobile games. In today’s times it is getting difficult to find young players who are genuinely interested in playing sports as opposed to just playing sports for fame and money. Technology has given rise to new forms of sports as e-sports but these sports are not considered as sports by many because, who play these sports do not have great skills and are of little value in the real world. While playing real sports like football and tennis may build character and give one confidence, electronic sports do not provide any such benefit. Therefore, technology has also had an impact in sports creating a negative impact on people’s skills.

Technology has also impacted people’s soft skills and communication skills. Smartphones have given people a platform to connect with people from across the world however, people have lost their ability to communicate with people with mindfully and articulately. This is evident from the chat language people use in their daily communication. For example, using just “gn” for good night, “tc” for take care and “gbu” for god bless you. Similarly, people’s friendships today are limited to the extent of liking and commenting on a picture. It can thus be said that the art of communication has been lost significantly in present times. Applications like Twitter, have given people a stage to put forth their view but it has also made them intolerant towards other people’s views. People today are quick in jumping to conclusions and make their judgements based on limited facts, which sometimes are even fake. It can be said that technology has made people lose their reasoning skills and degraded human relationships, in turn. Therefore, technology has also had a negative impact on people’s skills and the ability to communicate rationally.

Though supporters of technology often say that people have replaced older skills with newer skills. They argue that people today are more well-versed in technology-based applications. However, these skills are not as intricate and lack in finesse as well. In earlier times people used to create handicrafts and painting with hand but with technology all that has changed. Skills like stitching, embroidering, fact-checking and map reading are being forgotten in our technological driven world.

Without a doubt, technology has majorly impacted skills of people in the world. While the progress of technology is important, people should be careful in not being overly-reliant on it. Over-reliance on technology will only lead to deterioration of people’s skills be it in the field of labour, communication or social interaction. Technology has had a negative impact on the skills of people.

Assess the view that animals should have the same right to life as humans.

I have a friend who you might say is a poster-child for the animal rights movement; aggressively vegan and ceaselessly championing the cause of the ethical treatment of animals. She tirelessly argues that all life is precious, that causing suffering is cruel and immoral, and that, therefore, animals should be afforded essentially the same rights as humans. She is not alone of course; from public organisations like Greenpeace and PETA to the grassroots level of your average man-on-the-street, our society has evolved to embrace a greater level of compassion for non-human animals than we previously possessed. The public outrage over the recent illegal killing of Cecil the lion is only the most recent articulation of our apparent love for animals (counter-accusations of hypocrisy or misjudged priorities regarding humanitarian crises in places like Syria notwithstanding). It is perhaps understandable then that movements like veganism and the broader animal rights cause have swollen in popularity over recent years. A study by analysts Mintel in 2014 found that 1 in 8 UK adults now identifies as vegetarian, ditching meat and fish entirely. Many of these same people would also argue that the best way to protect our animal brethren is to afford them the same rights as humans enjoy. I don’t entirely disagree with the logic employed by such arguments, but I do not believe that animals should have the same right to life as humans, largely because I disagree with the essential premises and definitions that underpin these views.

The concept of ‘rights’ entails an appreciation of their moral value, something animals are incapable of doing. We have ideas of ‘rights’ and their application because we are moral beings, free to choose, with an awareness of right and wrong and the capacity to override our baser urges because of this. Animals are not moral beings, they are instinctual; they act on impulse and the desire for survival, comfort, and procreation. The human right to life is a manifestation and application of our moral belief in the value of life. To extend this same right to animals would be to devalue it, as animals are unable to engage with the concept in the same way. If we were to extend this right to animals, we would be forced to look at the males in Cecil’s newly leaderless pride who will kill his cubs in order to stand a better chance of mating with the lionesses with the same sense of moral abhorrence as we would a man who murders a woman’s children and then has sex with her, to say nothing of the woman who would willingly go to bed with such a man. It is understandable to view all life as precious and want to protect animals from harm, but there is simply no logical connection between that idea and extended a ‘right to life’ to animals. The popularity of such views perhaps exists due to our increasing awareness and sympathy for the plight of animals has become more ubiquitous, while true critical thought and logic have remained (unfortunately) the remit of a privileged few in their ivory towers. This shows us then, that there is no convincing logical connection between our desire to protect animals and the extension of a ‘right to life’ to them. This, coupled with the implications of such an idea if we do accept it regardless, is a primary reason why animals should not be afforded such a right.

The other side of this coin is the idea of moral responsibility, inevitably coupled with rights, which we equally cannot afford to extend to animals. It is a fact all too often forgotten in our modern, entitled society that our moral rights do not exist in isolation, but rather that we have our part to play in preserving the moral well-being of our society as well. To award animals, the same rights as humans in any way is to force upon them the same expectations of moral responsibility as we expect of fellow human beings. As previously mentioned, animals are not capable of critical thought; they have no concept of morality and are thus incapable of following moral laws. It would be unfair of us to expect animals to conform to the same standards as we do. We may say ‘bad dog’ when Fido bites the postman or defecates in the street, but we do not mean ‘bad’ in the same way as when we say ‘murder is bad’, because it would be ridiculous to equate the two. Considering the further implications of such an idea, we would be effectively condemning a vast number of species to extinction. To forbid the predator from hunting due to its prey’s ‘right to life’ is just as silly as it sounds. It is not hard to see how unfair, and when the consequences are considered, how ridiculous extending the right to life to animals would be.

Rights have to be taken, defended, and cannot be given and animals are incapable of doing this. To quote the late comedian George Carlin, ‘They aren’t rights if someone can take them away.’ I am inclined to agree. The concept of rights is one that has developed over a very long time, from the Israelites beginning to think that perhaps Egyptian slavery was not their destined lot in life, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our thinking continually evolves. As such, it makes little sense to include the animal kingdom in our view of the ‘right to life’.

These are some of the reasons – among many – for why I do not favour the idea of animals sharing the right to life. It would be unfair though not to consider what value treating animals as if they had this same right might have, and I do not discard the idea entirely.

We cannot discount the scale of environmental challenges we as a society face today, when faced with the extinction of so many species, perhaps treating animal life with the same respect we do human life is a viable strategy. In order to preserve biodiversity, which after all is in our best interests too, we must do more to protect endangered species. While we may be different from the rest of nature we are not entirely separate from it, our fate is as entwined with the rest of the biosphere as any other species, albeit not as fragile. It is important for us to preserve and protect animal species as much as we can, for our own sake, and this entails inherent respect for these lives. Quite simply, we need nature more than nature needs us. Our food, the materials of our homes, clothes, books, computers, medicine. In the future, we may need resources for things we don’t yet know drawn from species we are unaware of the existence of that we may already be unknowingly wiping out. Perhaps then there is value in treating the lives of some endangered species with the same respect we treat human lives, even if we do not go as far as an objective ‘right to life’.

Furthermore, the barrier between human and non-human life is becoming increasingly slim, and so less obvious how different animal life is to our own. The philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer (arguably the father of the modern animal rights movement) has spent much of his life working to erode the division between human and non-human life, and therefore, the division in value. Life is life, he argues, regardless of whether it is human or animal, and should be treated with the same degree of value. “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval,” says Singer, and indeed some modern neuroscience supports this notion (perhaps minus the idea of sanctity). In fact, I do feel an affinity for this argument. Many times I have met the gaze of a gorilla or other higher primate through the bars of a zoo (often such animals live in captivity because they are so endangered in the wild) and on seeing the all-too-human glint in their eyes something in me rails against the idea that these creatures, so close to us in so many ways, should live cage. I understand that this is an experience shared by many. The line of what defines ‘consciousness’ is yet to be drawn, but perhaps in the future, as our understanding of brain and mind develops, there may be a case for an animal right to life. To further quote Peter Singer, “What one generation finds ridiculous, the next accepts; the third shudders when it looks back on what the first did.”

This is undeniably a difficult and contentious issue. My great-grandchildren may judge me, but the question of rights is a hard enough one to apply only to humans, let alone animals. But if it is indeed ‘rights’ we are talking about, it seems my core philosophical understanding of what is involved in such a concept is what precludes me from believing a right to life can be extended to animals.

‘Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone’s opinion is of equal value.’ What is your view?

Some argue that everyone’s opinions are equally valuable because every human is equal and different. This is based on the ideal of the democratic process, where everyone’s opinions are given equal weight, and this collective wisdom is used to arrive at a reasonable decision or output. Such can be applied to a democratic voting process, where all citizens above a certain age are eligible to vote to decide a government, to the voting for a contestant in a talent competition, to the eyewitness identifications of a suspect, or even to simple, everyday affairs such as deciding on the place for lunch. Because every person is different and unique in their own way, and have different preferences and perspectives, they come from various viewpoints that may all be important for a certain matter at hand. For instance, a classic example that illustrates the effectiveness of collective intelligence is English statistician Sir Francis Galton’s 1907 observation of a contest in which villagers attempted to guess the weight of an ox. Although not one of the 787 estimates was correct, the average of the guessed weights was a mere one-pound short of the animal’s recorded heft. Since each person adds or contributes to the process in this own different/unique way, each opinion is of equal value and is equally considered for the enhanced, most comprehensive consensus/decision to be made.

However, in reality, while it is true that opinions are different, the accuracy of the opinion is also an important factor in deciding its value. Hence, not all opinions are equally valuable. Specifically, those given by people who are supposed to be more knowledgeable/professional, are generally considered to be more important, while those opinions by the layperson are less valued. Opinions are one’s subjective thoughts, not necessarily based on true facts or knowledge. But, if these are given by experts in a certain field, their opinions are inevitably given more weight, because they are more likely to be evidence-based, hence true and accurate. Compared to the layperson, who may not actually know much about the subject at hand, their opinion hence becomes less valuable because these may not be true or applicable to the situation. This is also one of the most common criticisms of the democratic process; when done on a large scale involving a nation or a state, should all really be considered equally to decide the government? It is only ideal if every citizen is well-informed and capable of searching and sieving for information that is accurate or true of their country, and such is made even more uncertain with the regulation and control of the media and other information sources that may only present bias views on a certain aspect. Untrue, biased, or irrelevant opinions may detrimentally affect the final decision made, so such opinions are considered less, or phased out, and hence not everybody’s opinion is of equal value.

Furthermore, in certain situations, differing opinions are, in reality, not desired. In fact, in a decision-making process, the different or conflicting views, especially if given by a minority population, may not matter as much. This is most true if the group is large, and many people are involved. Such is known as the phenomenon “groupthink”, wherein the group, participants will strive for consensus. Such will cause those with different or opposing opinions to cast away their ideas and adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Instead of voicing their opinions, they remain quiet to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity. This psychological response automatically means differing opinions are not even considered at all (as they are not said for consideration), and loses its real value in the decision-making process, even though it may have been a crucial factor. This psychological response has a physiology aspect to it as well. From the Emory University’s neuroscientist Gregory Berns, he found that when people take a stance different from the group’s, the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection, is activated. He calls this “the pain of independence.” Hence, if individuals instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own, their opinion, realistically, loses all its value, and as such, not all opinions are of equal value.

Lastly, opinions are not of equal value, because in reality, every human is actually not equal. Society inherent discriminates against certain groups of people, causing their opinions to become repressed and unheard. On the other hand, if it comes from a person in power or status, such opinions may be given more weight. This factor sometimes even overrides the accuracy aspect of the opinion. This is especially true in rigid societal systems with the hierarchical or patriarchal organization. For instance, in a hierarchal system, the population is separated into classes by birth, and the lowest classes are inevitably discriminated against and ignored. In India, this is prominent with the presence of the deep-rooted caste system in their society, causing the existence of the class known as Dalits (untouchables). Even though the Dalits were also human like the rest of Indian society, they had the poorest standard of life, and were heavily discriminated against; for instance, they were not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, or drink from the same cups in tea stalls. Now, with certain societal progression and bans against discrimination, many Dalits have improved quality of lives, and broken professional barriers, but many more are still trapped in repulsed jobs, such as disposing of dead animals and cleaning sewers. In 2017, around 90 sewer-cleaners, all Dalits, were fished out dead from India’s drains, an activist group reports. Such shows that Dalits’ needs, opinions are still not entirely met for and heard, due to long-standing discrimination and repression. As such, not everybody’s opinions are of equal value; depending on who it comes from, values are assigned accordingly.

The pursuit of money results in an ungracious society. Discuss.

Where money is coveted, the pursuit of it necessarily involves evil deeds which tear families apart and destroy society, or so the quote ‘money is the root of all evil” suggests. This adage has been widely depicted on the silver screen. The depiction of moral degeneration that accompanies the pursuit of money in ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ which casts Leonardo DiCaprio as Belfort, the stockbroker, who became more immoral the richer he got is one example. These downright unkind acts have admittedly occurred in real life, but it is not necessarily inevitable that society is therefore devoid of kindness and consideration of others. To debunk that, several commonly held assumptions about the pursuit of money have to be evaluated.

To claim that the pursuit of money necessarily results in a society devoid of consideration for especially the less fortunate is to assume that such endeavours seek to benefit only the individual and disregard the impact on the rest of society. The pursuit of money is assumed to be a single-minded end pursued without regard for the means adopted. The Lehman Brothers Minibond saga is often cited to illustrate how in a desperate bid to sell these structured investment products, financial consultants chose to omit critical information about risk exposure to retail investors, many of whom were elderly and less educated. This example underscores the merciless and even underhanded corporate tactics employed in a bid to meet performance targets. To agree with this is to allow an over-generalisation to obliterate the corporate philanthropic endeavours in society. These philanthropic acts are not random sporadic feel-good efforts but coordinated and sustained corporate initiatives. Encouraging corporate social responsibility has in fact become an integral part of many companies’ culture and values. MasterCard runs financial literacy programmes to educate the public to promote financial inclusion and literacy so that the layperson could also benefit from financial services. The DBS (Development Bank of Singapore) has backed numerous community development initiatives. DBS nurtures social enterprises that creatively and effectively address social needs and provide jobs, goods and services to the disadvantaged and marginalised. With responsible corporate philosophy, the pursuit of money does not necessarily result in a cold-blooded pursuit of money. Graciousness is evident when corporations pursue money yet also give back to society in a win-win partnership.

A second assumption is that competition for limited funds is exclusive and it necessarily aims to drive out competition. Graciousness stands in the way of unfriendly and even hostile tactics to drive out competition. Classic examples of ungracious behaviour towards those that society deems to be a threat can be seen in hostility towards unwelcomed immigrants, often regarded as competitors for scarce jobs and whose appeal lies in their willingness to settle for lower pay. This is evident in the hardening of attitudes towards immigrants among the British. Those surveyed indicated that the resentment towards immigrants arose from the belief that they came to claim welfare benefit for which the British have to fund. This assumption fails to recognise the real cause of the hostility and reluctance to be inclusive. It is not the pursuit of money that drives such ungracious behaviour towards immigrants; it is the insecurity borne out of fear that the privilege and rights that come with citizenship are compromised by the presence of a large population of immigrants. These ungracious acts should be addressed, not by regarding it as an inevitable consequence of the pursuit of money, but as a reflection of a need for clearer policy communication of how immigrants benefit the British economy. According to a report released this year on London’s economic future commissioned by its mayor, the pressure to reduce immigration is threatening London’s status as one of the world’s leading cities. It is understandable for ungracious acts to manifest due to growing insecurity in the face of competition that threatens bread-and-butter issues. However, to attribute it to the inevitability of pursuit of money is to disregard the deeper underlying cause of the insecurity which, when addressed, could temper emotions and reduce the incidence of ungracious behaviours.

It is also assumed that because the pursuit of money seeks to maximise profit and stretch every single dollar, all eyes are trained on the bottom line and exploitative acts are ignored or even deemed justified. This mentality is said to manifest in a less empathetic society and in extreme situations, have a dehumanising effect on how labour is regarded: labourers as money-making tools. Regarded as such, workers’ exploitation is evident. Sweatshop exploitation of workers and abuse of live-in domestic workers are not unheard of depictions of an ungracious society’s treatment of menial labour. The tragedy of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh drew the international spotlight on an industry where workers are not just subjected to harassment, violence and abuse, but whose basic guarantees of safety have also been thrown to the wind, to the extent that a building can collapse on top of thousands of workers. Closer to home, news reports of unkind treatment of domestic helpers are not unheard of. Yet, for a very long time, Singapore society fails to recognise such ungracious acts practised in theirs and their neighbours’ homes. Are these acts an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of money? Could the lives lost at this garment factory not have been prevented? Has society been so bent on making every dollar paid to the domestic helper count that it would not even allow her a day off a week? Thankfully not. What is witnessed is a twin trend of ground-up initiatives to check such behaviour and both national and international efforts to institute safeguards. Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) in Singapore is one non-profit organisation that seeks to improve social attitudes towards transient workers and advocate the protection of migrant workers. Increasingly, we also see society being more forthcoming in showing appreciation to construction workers in the form of lunch treats on special occasions. Even as the Singapore society strives to develop her economy and pursue money, there are visible efforts by pockets of people in the society to counter acts of ungraciousness and drive the development of a gracious society. Laws are also important to ensure inclusivity and check exploitative acts in the absence of natural graciousness in society. A combination of civil group advocacy and legislation will act to counter the development of an ungracious society even as society pursues money, however obsessively.

It assumes that the pursuit of money and graciousness are mutually exclusive notions. The two endeavours are deemed to be at odds because while one seeks to accumulate wealth, the other seeks to share the wealth, thereby reducing rather than increasing one’s possession of it. In fact, they can be complementary and the pursuit of money, in turn, encourages acts of graciousness. The pursuit of money is perhaps necessary to engender a gracious society as it places more individuals in positions to exercise grace to uplift society. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates that when the physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, individuals seek to fulfil higher-order needs of love and belonging, esteem and self-actualisation, with the highest level being self-transcendence when the self only finds its actualisation in giving itself to some higher goals, in altruism and spirituality. Love and belonging, esteem and self-transcendence are concomitants of acts of graciousness when the individual looks beyond the self to enrich the lives of others. The public outpouring of support in words or in-kind whenever disasters strike, as seen in the regional aid for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or Nepal’s earthquake; and the generous donation garnered at the last minute to make it possible for the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum to purchase the three dinosaur fossils to contribute to the education of natural history heritage are all evidence of how wealth amassed is used to display care and consideration for others.

While there are seemingly persuasive grounds to suspect that the pursuit of money must mean giving little consideration to others, they are premised on debatable assumptions that the pursuit is singular, the tactics employed are cut-throat and the pursuit is an end in itself. This pursuit does not necessarily breed evil because of the existence of social and legal mechanisms to counter any such evil and to cultivate desired graciousness. We should also not doubt the human capacity to both seek to enrich the self and others at the same time.

Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights. The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible. The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.