Technology – Page 2

The danger of modern science is that instead of teaching mankind humility, it has made us arrogant. Discuss.

Many have started to believe that scientific knowledge is turning people arrogant to the extent that people think that the gods themselves. Agreeing with this view, it can be said that modern science is making people arrogant as is evident from various experiments like the ability to control humans, genome editing and taking decisions that can affect all life on the earth.

Scientists have continuously strived to unravel the mysteries of the universe and explain various factors. For example, recently, NASA discovered that there is a constant humming sound heard underneath the surface of Mars. This Martian hum is just one in a slew of fresh mysteries and discoveries detected by scientists in recent years. The explanation regarding planetary collisions, asteroids destroying earth have all made humans realise that earth is just a speck of blue dust in the larger scheme of the universe. This scientific knowledge is enough to humble us and fear the multitude of the unknown phenomenon. Thus, it can be said that the sheer knowledge that our struggles are insignificant in the vast universe shows that science has the power to make us humble instead of arrogant.

However, in today’s world, man has started to ignore the basic tenets of science. Science it seems has made people so powerful that they have the power to save or destroy lives. This very fact has boosted the arrogance of people today.

Genetic engineering is another example where people display arrogance and try to play god. While in the earlier times, breaking rules were necessary to bring forth better theories concerning our existence, in recent times, scientists and doctors are taking science to the extreme and breaking rules in an unethical manner. A recent example of this can be the Chinese scientist He Jiankui who used gene-editing to provide HIV-resistance to twin babies. The act raised many ethical questions as any discrepancies in the genes will be passed on for generations. Moreover, with the benefits of CRISPR technology becoming apparent, many, bioethicists warned that the technology should not be used in healthy human embryos until doctors are sure about the consequences. Even after the warnings, the scientists have not stopped using the technology in some capacity. In the wise words of Jean Rostand, a French biologist and philosopher: “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being a man.” Thus, science has made people more arrogant than humble because it has given scientists immense power in hand.

Science has not only given humans the power to control human lives but has extended the power to control other species. This is evident from the fact that scientists use animals for medical testing in brutal ways. An example of this was seen in 2019, when a research laboratory in Hamburg, subjected monkeys to “barbaric” treatment and kept dogs in squalid conditions. Furthermore, pets today are cloned and is a booming industry. Pet cloning industries often tout this as a service that brings dead pets back to their owners. Scientists today are also experimenting with genes of animals. An example of this can be seen, in China where scientists claimed that gene editing was used to produce customized dogs with double muscles. Similarly, many animals have been injected with genes that allow them to glow in the dark, just for selfish reasons. It is evident that modern science is being used arrogantly by mankind without realising the fact that these interventions can affect the ecosystems. Therefore, modern science has made people more arrogant.

In conclusion, though science has made us aware of the limited knowledge about the universe, modern science poses serious threats to people’s humility. Today, people are becoming extremely arrogant and playing god in many instances. If the behaviour is not reigned in then the effects can be catastrophic and disastrous.

Are machines making humans obsolete?

In the future, it is expected that most of the jobs held by humans today will be replaced by automated technologies like robots and AI. However, this contention has been argued by those who believe that automation has a long way to go in replacing humans. This is because the automated machinery lacks human functions like cognition and critical thinking skills. While some areas of work in the future will completely be dominated by machines, humans that are not technologically savvy would be obsolete.

The belief that humans will be made obsolete by machines stems from the fact that today many jobs are being automated. This includes jobs in factories where humans have been replaced by automated machinery on assembly lines. Similarly, customer service and sales jobs today are increasingly being automated by the means of chatbots, automated emails and calls. Automated machinery can do these tasks better than humans and with little human errors. We have to acknowledge that only jobs that are repetitive and require a significant amount of data to make quick decisions would replace humans, but robots and automated systems would still require technicians and engineers to maintain these systems. Hence the aspect of obsolences is a selective one.

It can also be contended that instead of making humans obsolete, the machines can be instrumental in helping humans to do tasks easily and efficiently. Machines instead of replacing humans can work alongside them. An example of this can be drones being used for surveillance by the US Army or bomb disposal robots that can analyse suspicious areas or devices without endangering the lives of people. It can be said that machines can be very helpful in assisting humans in other areas like health care, transportation and agriculture. However, they cannot make humans obsolete because people are required to operate these machines.

Machines cannot replace humans in specialist jobs which require cognitive skills and empathy. Many companies today and even in the future would need specialists like engineers, doctors, teachers and nannies. Teachers and nurses would still be needed in education and healthcare systems because unlike machines they can better understand human emotions. Similarly, we might need human psychologists and therapists because they can empathise better with people than any emotional recognition system in the future. The point is that there are many nuances of human relationships that cannot be grasped by machines easily. Thus, machines need humans in the future, and cannot make them completely obsolete.

Lastly, Robots cannot absolutely replace humans in economic and political roles. In many cases where machines are seen replacing economic functions like accounting and financial assistants, they cannot completely take over these roles. Even in political scenarios, machines cannot take up political roles. For instance, though machines are being used in politics they cannot completely replace humans because governments need to work for the welfare of its citizens. It is also important to note that politicians are responsible for coming up with economic plans and policies and play a vital role in a country’s economy. Thus, machines cannot make humans obsolete in fields of politics or economics.

In conclusion, machines can work alongside humans but cannot make them completely obsolete. Though it is true that some technical aspects of the jobs can be taken over by robots, it cannot replace all job roles. As long as humans have their capacity to think and rationalise, they can never become obsolete.

What are the implications of continued research into cloning?

What would make a good introduction?

Although many scientists have pointed out that the actual substantial benefits of animal cloning lie mostly in the agricultural realm, this has been largely ignored by the media and the general public. The impending possibility of research into human cloning has cast a shadow over the solutions that cloning can offer to problems such as Third World famines and the conservation of biodiversity that were once considered as pressing. Why is this so?

It is simply because human cloning has overwhelming implications. Its mere possibility raises fundamental questions such as “What makes one human?” and “What is the right to be free?” that have been hotly debated by philosophers since the dawn of time. What is more important is that members of the public who would rather ignore these questions now find a need to answer them.

Continued research into cloning has the most implications in research into human cloning. Even before human cloning is possible, a question arises in the process of starting research in that area, that of experiments on humans. Society’s belief that human life is sacrosanct and that no one has a right to toy with another’s life is evidenced by public horror at tales of medical experiments on unsuspecting participants.

Research into cloning will inevitably meet with failures and setbacks, very likely involving the loss of human life in the form of cells and embryos. Once again we are faced with a question already hotly debated in the issue of abortion – at what point does a foetus become human? The loss of life through this research is a major implication that is posed to halt any research in this direction. But then, the possible benefits of such research forces us to consider what the value is of human life. Should we continue with such research if it were to save lives in the future?

Another important implication and possibly the most frightening while also welcomed, is that cloning may reveal what makes us human. Do we truly have an immaterial “self” that we so often say is in the mind? Cloning can offer the answer to these questions simply by altering the cloning process and observing when a human is created without self-identity. While this is a question that awakens an insatiable curiosity, the prospect itself is chilling in the extreme.

Before we can even contemplate this question fairly we need to see what actual human cloning might result in. Obviously, we would be able to obtain genetically identical individuals. This opens up a whole new world of possibilities. For once, the debate over how the environment affects human behaviour can be resolved. The use of twins in studies of how different environments affect thought and behaviour is not novel, but with human cloning, such studies could be carried out over a larger scale.

How would you frame the conclusion?

What enhancements are needed for the above essay?

Is technology the solution to the problem of global poverty?

Technology is often viewed as a solution to all of humanity’s problems. Afterall technology has opened up many avenues for mankind. From medicines that can cure diseases to software that can crunch and compute vital information, technology has provided endless solutions. It is no surprise then that many people believe that technology can provide solutions to the global problem of poverty. Technology has successfully alleviated poverty in multiple ways in the form of food production, microfinancing and education. However, global poverty is a complex issue and requires a multifaceted approach, that is why technology is only part of the solution to the problem of global poverty.

Technology can help and remove people from the cycle of poverty through access to genetically modified crops. According to the United Nations, around 1.4 billion people rely on agriculture for their daily subsistence. Technology can help these communities by introducing better farming techniques and growing higher yield crops. Most of the times extreme weather conditions destroy the crops for the poor, in such condition technology can prove as a helpful tool. For example, farmers throughout the Global South are turning to SMS-based services for technical support that allows them more easily to adopt new crops and growing techniques. Technology thus provides people with benefits for both natural resources and household income and nutrition. Technology is responsible for the development of ‘high-yielding’ crops like wheat and corn through advances in molecular genetics. However, technology also has a flip side, these technologies meant to help poor farmers often are expensive and end up helping richer businesses, which in turn drives farmers towards poverty. Moreover, even if the poor farmers have access to these technologies, they might lack the technological know-how, which might make such technologies of little use. Thus, while technology has the potential to aid the poor by increasing access to basic necessities, it is unfortunately hampered by several other factors, preventing its effects to be maximised.

Technology, in the form of new media, has contributed significantly to combating poverty. Social media is a prominent tool for spreading knowledge and awareness. It also has the power to influence people to take actions and measures to tackle the issue of poverty. social media, to educate and transform how people engage with reducing poverty. Social media can help in solving the issue of poverty by sharing information to raise public awareness and involvement. An example of this was seen recently, where The Junior League of Savannah participated in the Little Black Dress Initiative where women wore the same black dress for five days. Through the initiative, they tried to illustrate how poverty affects women. Through the initiative, they invited to dialogue about poverty. The influence of social media also encourages people to volunteer and donate to causes that can reduce poverty. An example of this is the Red Nose campaign which has successfully raised $200 million and positively impacted the lives of nearly 25 million children. Many Non-Governmental Organisations around the world employ social media for fundraising and awareness. Thus, technology in the form of social media helps in improving the conditions of the poor and also garner attention towards the issue of poverty.

However, technology cannot help in situations where governments are corrupt and lack governance skills. It is often seen that countries with poor leadership face a greater degree of poverty. Many times, governments fail to manage funds and the mismanagement aggravates the situations. Brazil, Venezuela, and even countries like India are often unable to use technology to better the lives of people, simply due to poor leadership and corruption. Therefore, technology cannot solve the problem of inefficient and corrupt governments.

In conclusion, technology has been an instrumental tool in tackling the issue of poverty to some extent. However, poverty is a complex issue which requires better approaches than just technology. Technology needs to be used in efficient ways with a combination of government efforts and international organisations. Therefore, a better approach is required to tackle the issue of global poverty.

With the rise of the Internet, has conventional media become obsolete?

Despite the pervasive influence of the Internet, traditional media still has a growing role. Conventional media continues to stay very popular and important in the daily lives of citizens. Many individuals still listen to the radio while driving to work, read the newspapers on their commute and of course, watch TV while cooking or during dinner with their family. But, over the last 20 years, the Internet and its ecosystem have taken up an important part within our society. This is particularly prominent amongst Generation Y and Z consumers. It would be a stretch to say that conventional media is obsolete. It may be perhaps a tad underused.

Interestingly, the number of hours spent watching television has gone up even in the age of the Internet. Cable TV has exploded with the number of programme offerings and reality TV shows that have captivated audiences for over 20 seasons. While it can be argued that Netflix and Amazon Prime have an increasing following, but these entertainment channels do not offer news, travel and other current affairs programmes. That said, most people prefer to watch Netflix on a large TV screen rather than a tablet or smartphone.

The Internet has changed direct mail quite significantly. Various service providers can provide targeted advertising online and payment only is made when a potential consumer clicks through. There are more avenues to track advertisements through built-in tools that track demographics, location and even the type of device through which the advertisement was seen. Brands are specifically targeting their ideal buyer rather selecting a broad market to bombard with their message. These brands are building relationships with these ideal buyers through increasingly powerful marketing strategies that foster trust in their product or service.

Blogs such as Daily Kos and The Huffington Post have gained credibility and large readerships over the past decade, forcing traditional journalists to blog and tweet in order to keep pace with the flow of the story. Traditional newspapers are also losing out to news aggregators such as Google News, which profit from providing links to journalists’ stories at major newspapers without offering financial compensation to either the journalists or the news organizations. Many newspapers have adapted to the Internet out of necessity, fighting falling circulation figures and slumping advertising sales by offering websites, blogs, and podcasts. The relative success of new media companies such as Vice, Buzzfeed, and Vox – and the fact that some of their largest backers are from the old guard.

The power and influence of conventional media is slowing waning. But a lot of work needs to be put in place to ensure that new media can eclipse old media and create a shining pathway for governments, businesses and consumers. One vital aspect is ensuring proper laws are in place to prevent fake news and to protect free speech. Secondly, censorship and regulation of content has to be more acceptable as a way of producing quality content that helps society grow. While these issues may create some set-backs for new media, it is nevertheless increasing in popularity and accessibility by leaps and bounds.

To what extent does social media pose a challenge for the government?

Social media is being used in unprecedented ways today. While it has helped people to communicate from across the world. It is also an important tool in influencing thoughts and ideas of people. People today can use social media to share all sorts of information to a larger and wider audience. While that is beneficial in some instances, from a governmental perspective, it can pose a challenge. This is because social media can spread misinformation that can lead to social discord. Thus, it can be said that social media poses serious challenges for governments because the government has little control over social media platforms.

Social media is an unregulated platform with widespread reach which is a serious challenge for the governments. Today, billions of people use the internet and have access to social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. All these platforms display information that can influence people to a large extent. Currently, there are no laws that are meant to regulate these platforms. Governments believe these platforms are very popular and have a massive outreach which directly influences people. For example, during the Arab Spring social media played an instrumental role in spreading awareness. Recently, a US teenager’s TikTok video went viral about the Muslims being put under concentration camps, the video raised awareness about the treatment of Uighur Muslims. Though social media in these instances has often exposed the role of authoritarian governments. There is no denying that governments of these countries have faced immense challenges in controlling these platforms. This is evident from the fact that even after placing bans on Facebook and Instagram in countries like China, people have found workarounds and use Virtual Private Networks (VPN) to access these platforms. Thus, social media poses a serious challenge for governments who want to establish dominance over its people.

Social media use does not lead to mass revolt, but it could still pose a challenge as an arena in which dangerous ideas circulate. Social media has been used by various terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-E-Taiba in the past. In recent times, ISIS is fighting an online cyberwar, with the use of violent videos, online messages of hate and aim to radicalise and create a new generation of cyber jihadists. Similarly, the Christchurch shootings were orchestrated for the media and spread the message of fear among the masses. Apart from terrorist activities, social media poses a challenge in the form of international governments who try to intervene on internal matters of a country. An example of this is China, which used platforms like LinkedIn to recruit spies in the US. Similarly, Pakistan is known to use social media against India in multiple instances. Leading media houses uncovered propaganda run by Pakistan on social media against PM Modi hours before his crucial meeting with Chinese premier Xi Jinping. All these examples illustrate how social media can be misused to spread misinformation and messages of violence. Therefore, unregulated social media poses a huge challenge for governments as dangerous information circulates widely.

However, in rare instances, social media can also be beneficial to governments which minimise the challenges posed. Social media can be used by governments to interact with people directly during a crisis. An example of this can be the recent outbreak of coronavirus, where governments have tried to use social media to try and reduce panic and mitigate misinformation. Effective use of social media was seen by Singapore, where anxiety and panic of citizens were reduced by updating citizens regularly via social media. When the disease level was raised to orange and citizens began hoarding groceries, the government was quick in trying to reassure and calm citizens. However, despite the attempts, people have not stopped panicking or believing rumours. This is evident from the fact that citizens have used social media to express veiled criticism of government mismanagement and lack of government accountability. Social media now acts as a check and balance against the government. With the use of social media even honest and genuine efforts by the governments can be undermined. Therefore, social media ultimately poses a challenge and is largely a necessary evil that has to be managed.

In conclusion, social media is largely a challenge to the government because it cannot be easily regulated. While laws and policies exist to manage social media, enforcement is often impossible due to anonymity as well as how quickly messages are spread. Though the benefits of social media cannot be denied, from a governmental perspective social media poses serious challenges and is a threat to the government bodies.

Consider the view that cities of the future will need to be designed very differently from the ones we know today.

Cities of today are constructed in a way that makes people wonder how much progress we have made as a society. In fact, it is expected that people living in cities will multiply ten-fold in the next 4o years. The cities of the future will need to build using a holistic and sustainable approach. The cities of the future will need to be designed ensuring that it can accommodate a larger number of people and the quality of life is not compromised.

Many environmentalists predict that cities of the future will have to incorporate urban farming technologies. The urban farming technologies like vertical farming and hydroponics will be the future of the cities in the next few years. This will not only enable people to solve issues of food but also nourish the local economies. Another advantage of these vertical farms would be that they will add greenery to the concrete jungles of the future. It will also help people in eating food which is homegrown and will lead to healthier lifestyles. Initiatives in Shanghai, China and in Gotham, New York have sprung up to grow fruits and vegetables on roop tops and cleverly planned vertical farms. Thus, cities of the future need to be designed differently keeping in mind the agricultural practices and issues like water shortages.

The cities will have to be better designed in terms of transportation as well. Some of these technologies have already emerged in the present times. These include transportation in the form of electric cars and autonomous vehicles. The cities of the future will need to implement radical changes to other aspects of transportation like electric roads akin to the ones already seen in Frankfurt and Mannheim. The cities of the future may also need to change the mass transit system, to be faster and efficient. Elon Musk’s hyperloop concept, for example, could very much turn into a reality in the future. This is especially true in the case of India and Estonia where Virgin Hyperloop One is already planning routes for the transport. It could also be common to see drones delivering pizzas and robots cleaning homes in the future. Thus, current innovative ideas will have to be incorporated in the future cities to make them more fast, comfortable and efficient.
Future cities would also need to be more inclusive of the ageing population.

The buildings of the future would need to incorporate minor changes like ramps and lifts to allow wheelchair-bound elderly to move around the house. Cities of the future may also need to keep in mind the needs of the disabled. This can be done by creating doors that are slightly translucent for the deaf or street signs that are in braille. It might also need to include advancements in current designs like lift doors that remain open for longer, handrails for people, wider gates and barrier-free roads. There can be the incorporation of elderly care with childcare which can prove beneficial in improving the mental health of the senior citizens. Thus, city developers of the future must keep in mind the needs of the elderly by creating diverse designs.

While these concepts could be easily implemented in developed countries, developing countries could have a problem in designing for the future. Expertise, finance and most importantly having an infrastructure that suits the economic climate could be a crucial factor determining the progress of Nairobi, Johannesburg or Lagos. The future does not need to be technologically advanced. It can be adaptive to nature and sustainable. The changes can be drastic in some areas but in other areas, there are only minor adjustments to be made to the existent designs. The cities of the future need to be different in terms of environment, transportation systems and will require to be more inclusive. In the future, the cities will not just be cities but smart cities.

‘The world is shrinking fast but not necessarily coming together.’ Discuss.

The world has been shrinking fast in part due to globalization. Other factors that may have made the world smaller is telecommunication, transport and cheap budget travel. However, there are still international disputes and arguments that continue to plague the globe. Some might argue that there have been instances where countries have established some forms of cooperative ties with each other, but the reality is that there are massive divisions in the world of today. Therefore, the world is not coming together.

Technological advancement in transportation and communication has led to increased international trade between countries. This has allowed countries to be more integrated economically which has contributed to more trade. Countries have established free trade agreements with each other and have also formed supra-national bodies to serve their economic interest leading to more economic integration. One such international organization would be the Organisation of Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD). The OECD improves trade and cooperation not just among its own members but with several dozen countries who are not members.

Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, also known as One Belt, One Road) by China aims to strengthen trade connectivity in the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties. While this initiative is primarily designed to help China’s economy, the plan impacts 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. It would be myopic to say that the world is not coming together for mutual prosperity and benefit.

But surprisingly, there are many political leaders that embrace a noxious brew of nationalism and authoritarianism. The mix varies from place to place but typically entails the rejection of international institutions and rules. There is little new in the critique of an unjust global order. But if once that critique tended to be rooted in international solidarity, today it stems chiefly from an inward-looking populism that celebrates narrow social and political identity, vilifies minorities and migrants, assails the rule of law and independence of the press, and elevates national sovereignty above all else. Myanmar’s mass expulsion of 700,000 Rohingya, the Syrian regime’s brutal suppression of a popular uprising, the Cameroonian government’s apparent determination to crush an Anglophone insurgency rather than tackle the grievances fueling it, the Venezuelan government’s economic warfare against its own people, and the silencing of dissent in Turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere are but a few examples. It would be difficult to accept the view that the world is coming together.

If the above view is to be dismissed as idiosyncratic geopolitics, let us not forget the annexation of Crimea by Russia and how China obstructs the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens—including the international crisis workers. Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution.

The world may have come together to defeat a common enemy like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but let us not forget who supplied them with weapons in the first place. The world may have come together to solve the environment problem, but let us not forget that little has been done to set large polluters like USA and China straight. To boot, Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. While the world has come together to solve the Covid19 problem, there is a lot of finger-pointing. The world is shrinking as communication and transport systems bridge the chasm, but the truth is that geopolitics has prevented real lasting close relationships.

‘Music is meant primarily for the individual’s private enjoyment.’ Discuss.

Music, though evolved with the aid of technology, still significantly retains its trait of bringing people together as people groove to the music, not alone but together. Music is a public expression of one’s feelings and emotions that are made so that others can feel what that one person feeling. Thus, It is not true that music is meant for private enjoyment. Music is mainly for group enjoyment.

Music, an expression of one or a few emotions and thoughts. It is therefore not created solely for the enjoyment of one in their own private time but created that the masses can be in sync with the people that produce or post the music. Music also has religious purposes. Such music gives the congregation a special feeling and fellowship. Buddhism uses music to further emphasize their values to their followers. Values of patience and compassion are being inculcated into various songs so that Buddhists can be constantly reminded of the need to practice such virtues.

Similarly, Christians and Catholics have hymns and songs of praises to praise the Lord and to remind them of the goodness and kindness of the Lord in their everyday life. Although Christian music has evolved from hymn to rock or any other modern genres, the purpose of their music is still the same, to bring people together and live the values espoused in the music collectively. Thus it would be silly to say that music is meant only for an individual’s own enjoyment when there is such a significant purpose of music that spreads across every major religion around the world.

Additionally, music is used to integrate people on so many levels; to throw music to the other end of the spectrum would be a gross generalisation. Music brings the world together. Karaoke is best enjoyed in a group. Music concerts become more entertaining when the group participates. Song contests and reality shows like American Idol, The Voice and Eurovision are all testament that music is a form of energy best heard loud and in a group.

Pop-punk listeners are generally a vibrant bunch. Country and Indie music listeners usually have a more emotional and kinder side to them. Music allows a peek into the listener’s personality. But the reality is that people find other music enthusiasts to connect and be friends. Thus even on an individual level, music is not primarily used for one’s private enjoyment only. Sure, headphones and in-ear devices have been made for private enjoyment, but primarily, it is the collective synchronicity that makes music worthwhile.

Some people use music to distress or relax. Classical music can soothe the mind. One can argue that such music is adhered to individual needs and provides the outlet through which one can address and satisfy one’s needs. Gym enthusiasts have their own playlists to help enhance their workout, and heartbroken lovers can seek a special song to soothe their soul. Music in all its capabilities and connotations does provide for the avenue to address one’s emotions and even change them, but the truth is that music is constructed for the masses and not an individual.

While opportunities exist for music to be privately enjoyed, the reason for its existence is a collective one. Music is a glue that binds generations and even religious groups. While we individually may hear a bird chirp, it in reality chirps for the whole world. The same is with music. Music is meant for collective enjoyment, not private.

“The individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy.” How far would you agree with this statement?

The general belief today is that our right to privacy is an illusion – something seemingly sacred, but in reality, non-existent. Individuals living in today’s world are powerless in protecting their right to privacy. It is widely known and possibly accepted, that in order to coexist in a safe and efficient society, we have to give up information about ourselves and our lives for reasons such as convenience. Sometimes, people even share their private lives willingly for the pleasure or benefit of others. However, it may be argued that by becoming more aware of how systems operate in society around them, individuals can indeed try to protect their right to privacy, albeit to a small extent.

One of the most commonly cited reasons for an invasion of privacy is that it is a sacrifice made in the pursuit of a larger goal, that is, national security. In the name of national security, government agents or other parties involved justify their acts of digging into our most private lives – telephone conversations and emails. In certain institutions, security cameras watch our every move and breathe. More commonly around the world, security officials in airports are permitted to rummage through passengers’ bags and personal belongings. Since such acts of invasion of privacy are

often state-warranted and hence legal, it can be argued that the individual is powerless to protect himself against them. From another point of view, these security measures may not be seen as a threat to an individual’s right to privacy since the information that governments aim to gather – political inclinations, terrorist connections, plans for acts of violence or rebellion – is not the typical information an average individual would be seeking to keep private. From this perspective, there would be no clash of interests between the government and citizens where privacy is concerned.

Often times in today’s world, an individual gives up his right to privacy without even being aware of doing so. For example, filling out a form asking for our personal particulars inadvertently leads to information about ourselves that can be used or abused. When this happens, it can be said that the individual is powerless in protecting his right to privacy because if he does not know something is happening, how can he fight it? In the fast-paced world where information can be transferred in the blink of an eye, corporations are cashing in on opportunities to trade information for money or even for more information. For example, it is common for banks to exchange credit card client information. This results in the barrage of targeted advertising that may even seem impressive. The solution is simple: people should educate themselves about how information that they give up about themselves can and will be used by organizations. Then, they can think twice before signing-up for freebies or participating in a contest. The reality is that private information has become a bargaining chip, a negotiation tool that is exchanged for the worldly conveniences that we so desire such as access to games, news and even movies.

While examining how powerless an individual is in protecting his right to privacy, it would be prudent to also examine how much an individual today wants that power. Does the majority of the world today really seek to protect their privacy? The general consensus is, no. If an individual is not seeking to protect his privacy in the first place, it is no wonder that he finds himself powerless and justifiably so.

In order to conform and to exist as a good citizen in a civilized society, an individual has to surrender some of his right to privacy to the government. Assuming the government is benevolent, information gathered would be justly used for the greater good. Any further divulgence of information to other sources is done at the choice of an informed individual. Therefore, while one can concede that the individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy, it is also prudent also acknowledge that he is not entirely powerless in making the decision to give up some of that power.