In the past century, the image has rapidly evolved from mere vanity to being regarded as of great importance in the modern world, where technology is ubiquitous and the concept of the image can be portrayed everywhere. An image is not merely the vivid representation of an individual or an object, but also a powerful tool manipulated by us to impress and entertain people, for self or for profit. Image is an important factor in society nowadays as it draws a line between the prominent people and the society’s unfashionable mob. It also separates the normal everyday products from high-end gadgets. While a good image is an eminently valued asset in today’s context and can help attain success to a certain extent, there are other elements that are just as important if not more important than it, such as substance. In today’s world, the image may seem like everything, however, where are many other aspects which are just as substantial that can lead to a successful life.
Over the years, with the introduction of print and visual media like newspapers and televisions, the role of images in the representation of ideas has changed significantly. The media plays a strong role in the dissemination of information in today’s modern society, and everyone has the equal ability to tap into the effectiveness of media to accomplish each’s own agenda. As media is accessible to almost every individual, it has led to a society that is easily influenced by images that the media portrays, deceiving them to desire something that they do not necessarily require. These images are the most prominently shown through the usage of advertisements by corporations to promote their own goods or services. Commercials and advertisements are designed in a way that captures the attention of the viewer in the shortest time possible, thus altering the perception of the individual according to what he sees. One good example of print media is women’s magazines, where beauty and especially fashion is heavily emphasized. Page after page, those magazines exude attractive advertisements of branded accessories, handbags, clothes, make-up and slimming centres. The need of looking elegant and classy has become so deeply entrenched in the modern societal psyche that many people, both man and women alike, are willing to fork out thousands of dollars to lavish themselves on expensive designer clothing, beauty treatments and products. Where looking fashionable is concerned, money is no object.
Reinforcing the fact that an individual comes under the influence of images every day, the amount of influence exerted on individuals is colossal. And more often than not, individuals succumb to the effect of these images. The massive amount of mass media portraying an ideal beauty causes people to internalize the standard definition of beauty and they take measures to attain the propagated ideal. This explains the fascination or even obsession with image and fashion, especially of celebrities. The American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery reports that, among the most prominent trends in 2007, about two-thirds of its members reported seeing men and women who requested cosmetic surgery because they wanted to remain competitive in the workplace. One such example is of Hajnal Ban who claimed that she was not taken seriously for her chosen profession of politics because of her height. Thus she had her legs surgically lengthened by 3 inches. This goes to show the number of pain women endures just to attain that desired image of themselves. There are also more movies and television shows that emphasize on an individual’s outlook appearance, such as 200 Pounds Beauty and Extreme Makeover, where the characters underwent various cosmetic surgeries to transform themselves into the ‘modern beauty’. To them, looking beautiful brings them confidence, and is their key to success. To them, image matters. Hence the viewer’s opinion is swayed to think the same way.
In the case of political parties and governments, it is common to see governments creating impressions to project a representation of the state of the country. In context, in North Korea, Kim Jung Il led citizens to believe that their country was thriving and prospering, when they were actually faced with poverty and famine due to government spending on nuclear weapons. Governments also tend to portray a good image of themselves to the people, such as the Prime Minister of Australia, who made a formal apology for the past wrongs caused by successive governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population. The apology, beamed live around the country on TV, was met with cheers. But however good that image is, he should back it up with substance, by putting his words into actions, like enforcing policies that would be of benefit to the aborigines’ community, instead of just appearing admirable. The previous President of the United States, President George Bush also painted an image of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, which resulted in the Iraq war. Moreover, that image has yet to be proven reality.
However, though it may seem that the concept of the perfect image is the only aspect which we all want to acquire, besides beauty and brawn, we are also sought after for something more valuable, such as knowledge and a good disposition. This is eminently shown in Singapore’s education system, where the character and achievements of a student are the most important criteria to enter into a higher level of education. Within the education system, students are not judged for their looks, and that is the purpose of the school uniform, to make every student look equal, not striking. The best way to be outstanding in an education system like Singapore’s is to have excellent conduct grades, academic and co-curricular achievements and thus be named a bright student with character and values. The importance of fulfilling these criteria is due to the significance of one’s testimonial that could help a student enter an institution, such as to a junior college, or university. In Singapore, there are also a group of people who are the cream of the crop and are highly regarded by our government. They are the elite. The elite does not just possess a good image, but the ability and knowledge as well which are undeniably important characteristics as they are shaped to lead the future of Singapore. In this manner, there is only a need for the appropriate image and not the perfect one.
Selecting the best candidates, especially those of high calibre, will result in a good government. A good and just government is one that portrays the true image of the state or is able to mould the state into its desired image, like a prosperous nation. Thus it is crucial to pick the right leaders, endowed with the capacity to think critically, that is able to lead a nation, and not just for appearance. To the government, pragmatism is regarded over the image, and more often than not, it is a matter of, “Can you deliver?” that is the burning question. This meticulous method of selection for Singapore has been highly successful, and there is no doubt about which party would win the elections each time. One of the main reasons for Singapore’s success is attributed to our state of political stability, and that we have trust in our leaders to maintain good governance in Singapore, corruption-free.
Prominent figures in the media are inevitably tasked with being a good role model to their viewers who are greatly influenced by their actions. After scrutinizing the appearance of a character or an actor, before the viewer subconsciously decides who to pick as his role model, the next thing he will look for in the media persona is for his character. It is unlikely for a child or a right-minded adult to choose an ill-mannered villain as his exemplar. However, though the actor could have started out as a presentable role model, with many others taking after him, once his character wanes, the others’ will follow suit. Such is shown by various Hollywood stars that have led many to degrade the importance of marriage by their multiple changes of partners. In another light, Jesse Jackson, an American civil rights activist and Baptist minister was an advisor for Bill Clinton, the then President of the United States. He was known to some as the most important black leader in politics at that time, and it is no doubt that many look up to him. Yet, in 2001, his affair with a staffer, Karin Stanford, was made public and that resulted in a blemish in his once clean profile, thus leading many to reconsider their perception of him. Others might even think that having extra-marital affairs is normal. If a Baptist minister could do it, why couldn’t they? Thus it is a huge responsibility to maintain the role of a good example, as the outlook is not all there is to it.
Media has changed the perception of the ideal body image to masculine men and immaculately groomed and slim women. Especially for women, where the mass media promotes unrealistic and unhealthy bodies of painfully thin women, encouraging many girls that it is the ideal way to look. Research indicates that exposure to images of thin, young, air-brushed female bodies is linked to depression, loss of self-esteem and the development of unhealthy eating habits in women and girls. The American research group Anorexia Nervosa & Related Eating Disorders, Inc. says that one out of every four college-aged women uses unhealthy methods of weight control – including fasting, skipping meals excessive exercise, laxative abuse and self-induced vomiting (Bulimia). There were several cases of models fainting, and in some cases dying, because of the extremity of their eating disorders, but it was only after such horrific events that fashion industries decided to do something about the situation. Italy and Spain have since banned super skinny models from the runway and requires the models to have a body mass index of at least 18.5. In 2004, Dove, a large company in the health product and beauty sector, released a series of print and television ads featuring happy-looking, lingerie-clad women with “everyday” looks, called the Dove Beauties. Dove’s campaign was striving to generate change from within the generally weight-conscious advertisement industry, showing that you are beautiful in your own way. Through these examples, it proves that a person might have good looks, but without health and contentment of the way one looks, it is difficult to live a self-fulfilling and happy life.
Through the years, the image has changed, especially after the emergence of the media, which has led many to misunderstand the concept of real beauty. The ideal image that the media portrayed has drastically changed the individual’s opinion. Leading to the countless effort spent on attaining that perfect image, deluding people from what is the main priority in life. Governments have also been known to paint the perfect image of their nation, coaxing their people into believing the untrue. However, in some cases, the substance is more sought after than beauty. This is evident in various institutions and the recruitment of future leaders where ability and personality are of the utmost importance. A bad image from the media can also lead to various followers, resulting in declining statistics significantly in the area of marriage. And lastly, the most essential thing to possess in life is health. A person might be the richest and most beautiful in the world, but without health, he is nothing. In conclusion, albeit it may seem that image is everything in today’s world, it is not so, particularly where the substance is concerned.
Category: Technology
“The book has no place in modern society”. Discuss.
As the world continues to progress and develop at an ever-increasing speed, so have mediums pertaining to information. Nowadays, due to the widespread use of the Internet and new technologies such as portable iPhones, many have gone so far as to claim that the traditional medium, books, has lost its intrinsic value in modern society. Nevertheless, although I feel that factors such as inconveniences, high financial and social costs involved and lack of interactivity with regards to the book have all led to the diminishing value of the book in recent times, it still retains some place in society due in part to its credibility and accessibility as major reasons.
Ever since the Internet was created by the United States Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in 1958 to regain a technological lead over the USSR, and later spread to the masses, it has increased exponentially in popularity and usage in recent times. According to a study conducted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the number of people connected to the internet worldwide has increased from 2 per 100 inhabitants in 1996 to 22 per 100 inhabitants in 2007. Plus, new technologies such as smartphones have been on the rise. On the other hand, revenue sale in the book industry have seen little rises in the previous years. Books had once been an integral part of mankind until a few decades ago, and its decline now has gained momentum over the years. Several factors have contributed substantially to this, in my opinion.
One is the convenience of the new mediums in contrast to books. Due to inconveniences associated with searching for information in books in the bookstore or library such as the time and effort involved, people are beginning to turn to faster and easier methods. The rise of Google, MSN and Microsoft’s bing.com have resulted in more effective and efficient online search engines, where any searches can come up with results pertaining to keywords in a matter of seconds. Just recently, Google released a revamped search engine, wanted to even 2 to 5 seconds of search time. Such continual optimizations have led to more people turning to online mediums to search for sources of information and entertainment rather than books. Furthermore, the development of portable digital devices like iPhones has allowed for easy searching of information or entertainment on the move, without worrying about the burden of lugging books around. One digital device, the size of a book but much slimmer, can contain more than 20 e-books, and only limited by its memory capacity. Therefore, as such, the book has lost its place in modern society, with other mediums
taking over, such as the Internet and new technologies due to the inconveniences that book pose.
Another factor is the financial and social cost of books as compared to the alternatives. Books require consumers to pay at the market price so that the firms operating in the book industry can maximise revenues and stay competitive. Thus, in some cases, books are much more expensive when contrasting with those online due to publishing costs, copyrights management, shipping, etc. In contrast, e-books have begun dominating the market at the turn of the century. Furthermore, they are cheaper substitutes, where studies conducted have shown that there are presently at least 2 million free e-books online. Although some online sources require nominal fees, citing reasons such as digital rights management, the overall costs are still lesser as compared to print materials. This is because searching, purchasing or shipping of the books require not only money but also time and effort whereas searching for online materials is much faster, possibly more efficient. Therefore, due to comparatively higher costs involved, other alternative mediums have gained more recognition and prominence, and books can thus be said to have lost its place in modern society.
In addition, the lack of interactivity of the book has also contributed to the declining book industry. Books are print materials which encompass only the author’s sole viewpoint or perspective pertaining to the issue at hand. More often than not, the comments in the book rarely look at other points of views or in different perspectives, thus causing many to feel a lack of immersion when reading a book as a source of information or entertainment. On the other hand, the expanding prominence of the Internet has given rise to new forms of communications like the development of discussion forums. These online platforms can then serve as effective places for the discussion of certain topics with different people so that everyone is able to understand viewpoints from across the world, say for example, what one Chinese feels about the policies in France. Such interactions can improve knowledge of global perspectives and also expand understanding regarding the issues, thereby allowing them to learn more from the online posts rather than from books. This is evident where discussion forums have come to become an integral part of countries such as Singapore with brightsparks and kiasuparent forums acting as widely popular platforms for discussing education issues within the community. Hence, the lack of interaction has resulted in the book losing its place in modern society.
But, the book still can be said to retain someplace in society today. This is because books are known for their credibility and accessibility. In most instances, books are written by credible writers and verified countless times by editors before being certified for publishing into the market. Such strict regulations with regards to the books show that books still form a significant part of society today by providing trusted information. However, online mediums do not have those regulations in place, instead, the internet is prided for being interactive and allowing anybody to change or modify content. One most notable example is Wikipedia.org, where anyone, regardless of who is capable of changing the information on any topic they desire. Therefore, the question of Wikipedia’s credibility has been raised by numerous sources, where Jorge Cauz, president of
Encyclopedia Britannica Inc commented on September 8, 2004, Washington Post article that Wikipedia’s information is rarely reliable. Therefore, books are able to retain some degree of place in society.
Plus books are also much more accessible as compared to online mediums. In most developing countries like some rural parts of China, India and Nepal, books are the only source of information. This is because those areas have not been connected to the World Wide Web and thus lack the online aspect. Thus, they are only capable of accessing books but not those that are on the Internet. Hence, books are still of much importance in many areas of society today.
Nevertheless, online mediums do not necessarily to suggest a lack of credibility. There is indeed a degree of unreliability, but such sources can be much more informative than that of books. This is mainly as these alternative forms of information are critiqued and modified frequently, sometimes by people who specialize in those fields. One significant example would be the Huffington Post, an American news website and content aggregating blog. In addition to columns by core contributors, The Huffington Post has over 9000 bloggers, ranging from politicians to celebrities to academics to policy experts, who contribute in real-time on a wide range of topics. Such learned and differing expert opinions on the issues at hand can prove to be an effective source of information and hence, also not necessarily very unreliable. Therefore, online mediums can also be
credible.
Furthermore, although many rural areas are subjected to the lack of connectivity to the Internet, extensive studies conducted have shown that many governments worldwide are taking steps to implement Internet services. In the developed countries alone, the number of connected people has risen from 0 per 100 inhabitants in 1997 to over 17 per 100 inhabitants in 2007. This is evidence that internet access has risen exponentially over the years, and thus books will not be the only accessible medium, and therefore, other alternatives are also able to hold someplace in modern society today.
In conclusion, the book has lost some ground in recent years not only due to its lack of interactivity but also the high costs and inconveniences associated with it. But although the book is still seen to be able to retain some place in society based on its credibility and accessibility, I feel that its hold on the people will continually be eroded by the increasing usage of the alternative mediums as sources of the information world.
To what extent should society embrace and encourage the widespread use of automation?
A new technological revolution is upon us, with ever-expanding research bringing us closer to the day where humans will be rendered obsolete in numerous workplaces that are currently run by humans, and in some sense has already accomplished that in certain areas. This new technology will bring forth what has been dubbed the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, where much like the textile industry in the nineteenth century, our manufacturing capabilities will skyrocket to unprecedented heights. This change is within the foreseeable future and has led many to question whether we as a species can handle such dramatic changes, or if the implications of such a revolution are worth the increase in productivity that we might have, thus approaching the situation with caution or outright baulking at the thought. While this revolution that is automation will not leave everyone happy, I believe that we as a society should embrace the use of automation with open arms and spread it as far and wide as possible, for we as a species have gotten to where we are now through advancing our technologies, and we too shall see a net benefit from pushing our efficiency beyond the capacity of what we have now.
With that being said, I understand that not everyone will see automation in a positive light, for there are tradeoffs to efficiency. Take for example the argument that an increase in automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are able to manufacture products more efficiently and at a lower price are sure to displace their human counterparts. Companies care greatly about their bottom line and are willing to trim down the number of employees that they have in favour of machines that can do the same menial tasks, machines which never need rest, never have the need for a salary, and machines which do not have labour unions to fight for better working conditions for them at the expense of the company. Workers may then be retrenched and unable to find new occupations fitting their previous wages, especially when they do not have the qualifications that higher-paying jobs require, nor would they have the means to attain these qualifications easily. Take the coal industry in the United States of America, where despite the President’s claim that there is a war on coal with climate change regulations clamping down on jobs, coal production remained relatively stable in the past decade albeit decreasing slightly, even as the number of employees in the industry dwindles at a steep rate. This seemingly odd contradiction is due to automation allowing for coal to be extracted more easily by machine, and thus have been needed to retrieve the same amount of coal. These coal workers having a little qualification in other fields can then only sit around unemployed as they live on meagre welfare benefits, leaving them disgruntled and more open to making questionable choices in electing people to power. Hence, as automation can lead to a loss of jobs and in turn a lowering in quality of life for some, I cannot say that automation can come without fault.
Proponents of obstructing automation will also argue that expanding the use of automation can have harmful effects on those who cannot afford such machines. While automation is able to make manufacturing more efficient and cost-effective, such machines may carry with them hefty price tags, costs which a manufacturer can only recover their investment from if they produce massive quantities of goods with said machines. Small and medium enterprises which do not produce goods on a large scale would thus be unable to afford such automation, leaving only large corporations with the revenue to afford such machinery given their larger scale, thus giving them the competitive edge in manufacturing goods. By owning these machines, large corporations can produce and sell their goods at a price which small and medium enterprises cannot sustain, and may, in turn, use this power to force smaller companies out of the market by selling their goods at a far lower price, a term called ‘predatory pricing’, as smaller companies will lose out greatly on sales, eventually giving the large corporations a monopoly over their market and will give them the ability to exploit this as they please. As embracing automation may give an unfair advantage to certain corporations that can ultimately give them great power and leverage over their market, one would be justified in their scepticism of accepting automation.
Despite all the negatives that may be associated with automation, I believe that automation can bring about many positives that outweigh these, with one upside being that efficiency will be dramatically increased. Where it would have taken twenty people to man twenty counters at a grocery such as Fairprice in Singapore, you now only need five employees to man the same number of counters, which is all thanks to automation. This applies to many other industries as well, where manufacturing and assembly lines filled with people would now have machines and robots instead, inserting each piece of a good with extreme precision and clockwork timing. To implement automation would cut down costs drastically as goods and products can be made with the purpose of doing one role, much like a human would usually do, but with more consistency, as they never grow weary as they work. Such efficiency can lead to higher quality goods for consumers and at a lower cost, allowing us as a society to enjoy a better quality of life. As such, given that we have the chance to allow more people to have access to higher quality goods as they become cheaper and are more likely within the means of lower-income groups, we should embrace automation to give us such a future.
Moreover, with automation, no humans are involved in the work, or if they are, they are able to work on the sidelines. This can allow a workplace to be far safer, as it would be machines that are put at the front lines rather than the worker. Workers enjoy better safety as, in an automated environment, their interaction with the products is minimal and most people would play a role more in line of supervising the automation line, reducing the need to move heavy objects or move products to machinery which can seriously harm someone if they are not careful, and prevent exposure to dangerous substances. Workplace accidents are virtually nonexistent at Amazon warehouses, despite them being a shipping and cargo delivery company that would naturally involve moving heavy containers. Such a feat is achieved by their use of automated robots which can zip across the warehouse floor, moving crates exactly where they need to go, and operating like a well-oiled machine with other units to ensure that not a single collision will occur. Should an unexpected situation arise whereby a heavy object falls, only the poor robot will be crushed by the crate, as no human would directly work with the cargo. Such an environment for a workplace would be excellent, as no person should be exposed to the potential danger when it is avoidable, especially when their livelihoods depend on their health. Hence, I believe that society should push for the widespread use of automation in various workplaces, so as to make the working environment a safer place for all.
Finally, automation should be expanded in its use as it allows society to plan ahead for the future potential of technological developments or other needs rather than to stagnate with the same inefficient jobs where technology could do the same work in a better way. As manufacturing jobs are phased out and replaced by machines, demand for workers in such a sector would fall, indicating to the children of today and the workers of tomorrow that this industry is no longer viable and that they should look elsewhere and attain the qualifications for those jobs which have potential in the future. Much like how the electronic fridge rendered ice carvers obsolete, automation will more effectively produce our goods and render manufacturing line jobs obsolete. This can encourage people to look towards other industries with less attention that cannot be replaced by automation and develop them, such as computer sciences and healthcare services which require a human touch. By displacing future job openings in sectors which depend on mindless menial work, our youth may instead look to other opportunities and thus increase the number of people working in other sectors, so that we as a society can be more efficient in developing other aspects of discovery, so that we may expand at an even greater rate than before. Hence, with automation forcing youth to disperse to other industries to allow these industries to have more manpower and more minds at work, I believe that these industries may also grow as a result, even if they are not directly affected by automation. Therefore, we as a society should accept with open arms the future that automation may bring us, and do our best to spread its influence.
Humans do not simply stagnate, for it is in our nature to expand on what we already have. From the coal engine to the internet, to automation, it is only right that we advance ourselves further so that we may all live better lives. Hence, society should embrace automation to maximize its capabilities.
Technology only serves to benefit humanity. How far do you agree with this statement?
There is no doubt that technology has become heavily integrated into our everyday lives. There is almost no escape to it and mankind often debate whether technology is good or bad to humanity. Many people believe that technology can only cause harm to their lives and society, while many others strongly defend that technologies have made their lives much more leisurely and enriching than it could have been several hundred years ago. In this 21 century, the advancement in technology has caused both significant negative and positive impacts on mankind. It would be simplistic to say that technology only serves to benefit man. Technology is a double-edged sword concur that technology brings comfort, make life more luxurious for us, however, there are detrimental impacts that have not benefitted mankind at all.
In the perspective of the working economy, the growing technology will lead to a high level of unemployment. In the business world, more and more machinery and computers are taking over man jobs. Since machinery is more efficient than human, machines will be more beneficial to the industry as the production level will increase. As such, this leads to unemployment as machines have replaced human’s work. Standing in the perspective of a manager, since most companies are profit-driven, they would hire more machine than man. The cost of production of producing one quantity of a commodity would decrease as less manpower is needed in the working force. This ultimately means that as technology grows, more and more jobs will be lost which will lead to unemployment. If the majority becomes unemployed due to technology, it may lead to inflation and riots within a country, which will affect the stability of a country. Hence, with the replacement and advancement of machinery, it is no doubt that in this aspect, technology did not help man.
Additionally, technology causes adverse health and psychological impacts. In the area of computers and advanced gadgets, people are spending more time playing computer games, using social networking sites for entertainment and knowledge, chatting and interacting with unknown people and making friends online. Once they are addicted, they do not think of going out and making real friends. These gadgets have attractive features that can cause an individual to be addicted, and plug into the virtual world all the time. This virtual world is known as the internet. As such, the time spent interacting with people physically reduces. At a later stage, this may lead them to loneliness, depression, frustration when betrayed by unknown people besides social isolation from friends and family members. When people of all age become overly addicted to games like Audition SEA or grand theft auto (GTA), these lead to negative impacts such as skipping meals, rejecting people away for entertainment reasons. This kind of addiction does not seem to benefit humanity.
Adding to that, advancement in gadgets technology causes the art of conversation to be diminished. We live in a world where we are constantly connected to our peers. Technology has provided us with ways to always be connected and interact with them at any time of the day. Nowadays, we are so dependent on technology, and since it is always at your fingertips, face to face communication has become less frequent. Instead of one on one communication, we opt for text, email, tweet, or Facebook in the name of convenience. Although technology’s efficiency is greatly appreciated, this causes the art of conversation to be lost. For example, text messages and email allow us to communicate in short, carefully-edited sentences that lack immediacy. It also completely removes the contextual information provided by the tone of voice and body language. As a result, people who connect with others primarily through technology might find it difficult to engage in normal conversation, since they may have issues understanding non-verbal cues due to lack of practice with face-to-face interaction that cannot be paused, edited or filtered. As such, in this aspect, it did not benefit mankind.
Also, in the area of food technology, the creation of genetically modified food give consumers harmful health impacts. Although the storage time for GM food is longer, the process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. For instance, fish genes are tweaked with a growth hormone that causes the fish to double in size far more quickly than it usually would, so fish farmers can increase their profits. Soybeans that have been genetically modified, for example, can survive applications of herbicides that would destroy an organic soybean plant. To date, GM food has no be certified 100% safe for consumption as there may be hidden harmful impacts when a consumer consumes GM food for a long period of time. No scientist can confidently say that GM food is absolutely safe for consumption. There are no labels on food to identify them as GM food, and this will cause distress to those who consume GM food by accident, or those who do not wish to consume the chemically modified substance. Hence in the area of technology, it can bring anxiety and distress to the people in terms of possible health impacts and unknown consumption of GM food. This shows that food technology in this aspect did not benefit humanity.
On the flip side of the coin, education has been greatly advanced by the technological advances of advanced gadgets, aiding students better than before. Where pen and notebooks formed the toolkit of previous generations, today’s learners come to class armed with laptops, smartphone and iPod. There is the use and promotion of several learning portals that allow a student to learn online even when they are unable to attend lessons. The current era of pervasive technology has substantial implication to education. Adding to that, students are able to learn on a global scale without ever leaving their classrooms. Classrooms are becoming more technologically involved than before. For example, the tablets not only offer students the chance to browse for information in quick fashions, but they also allow them to more easily collaborate on projects and become more engaged in their learning process. They have become exceptional tools that soon every classroom will strive to have in the aspect of mobile phones to be used in school. In addition to providing access to social media platforms which allow students to more freely interact, they also provide easy access to useful information and knowledge which betters a child’s overall learning experience. As compared to the past, one would need to flip the thick books in order to find the information they need. Now, students are able to attain information more efficiently. Also, access to education online has by far been the biggest advancement in education Like never before, students are able to access any type of information about any subject matter they choose. Asknlearn, YouTube, and numerous other forums have fuelled the learning experience and allowed student access to resources necessary to supplement their own education.
In conclusion, although technology brings enjoyment, convenience, and make life more luxurious for mankind, there are unfavourable impacts that did not benefit mankind at all. Such unfavourable impacts include people losing their jobs due to the work done by advanced machinery, people losing the experience and opportunities of having face to face conversation. In the area of food technology, although there are ways to prolong food, there are hidden health impacts which can be undesirable to mankind. Also, the addition of such an advanced gadget will cause psychological impacts to us unknowingly. Thus, I do not concur that technology only serves to benefit mankind since there are negative impacts that will not benefit man.
“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.
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Censorship is not a new process in the world. It has been around for centuries. Back in 398 BC, Plato was a leading advocate of censorship. The birth of new media and social media has brought the topic of censorship to greater heights. However, according to the United Nations, human rights include freedom of speech and expression. Thus, any form of censorship is deemed to be a flagrant infringement of human rights and cannot be tolerated. However, to say that censorship can never be justified is not a prudent statement because it comes with benefits as well as costs. Thus, I disagree to a large extent that censorship can never be justified.
Primarily, censorship is mostly used to protect a nation’s security. This is one of the reasons why censorship is still being practised. A nation’s progress cannot be totally transparent to the citizens, let alone reporting it to the whole world. This is for the fear that some information that carries sensitive material will hurt and jeopardize economic security or internal security and benefit potential aggressors. The censored material includes the state’s build-up of weapons and the government’s plan with regards to defence. Hence, in times of war, censorship is stricter than before because the state not only wants to prevent the enemy from getting information on military value, it also wants to sustain the morale of its people. Given that censorship is a way to protect people and countries well-being, censorship is justified.
While it is true that the public should make an informed choice where religion, race issues are concerned so as to make the right choice, in a society with people of varying viewpoints and backgrounds, it is highly myopic to assume that everyone is entirely sensible to make the right choices, uniformly. Racially insensitive material can create misgivings, misunderstandings and misinformation among the various ratio and religious group resulting in civil unrest and disorder. Firms of publications that slander or lampoon a particular race or religion should be censored. The Charlie Hebdo attack on 7 January 2015 in France has taken away at least 12 lives. The fatal incident occurred due to racist cover page of the magazine on the Muslim community. As the media portrayed the minority group in the negative light, it is extremely necessary to censor certain religious sensitive material to maintain the stability of a certain belief.
However, while it is true that censorship can largely be justified, one cannot dispute the fact that censorship violates humanity’s natural autonomy as it denies an individual an unbiased choice in formulating his or her beliefs. By not giving mass media the liberty and responsibility to function freely in order to provide free access to information and ideas to the public, the people are not well informed on current affairs and will not be mentally prepared for any major disturbances in the country. North Korea, the most censored country in the world (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) has no independent journalists and all radio and television receivers sold in the country are locked to government-specified frequencies. For many North Korean the lies that the government presents as truths are considered the truth because people have no alternative source of information to compare allegations of facts. The conservative mindset of governments has led to censorship often being abused by repressive regimes which effectively decides what the population processes by restricting information, leading to a society that is ignorant, thus, censorship is not justified.
Nevertheless, while audiences are more discerning and not likely to be corrupted by access to certain questionable materials, it is only moral to censor materials to prevent those from the unsuitable age group – children and teenagers from viewing it. The prevalence of such materials may erode the moral fabric of society as such material affects the basic moral values of people. For instance, pornography perverts the young, impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity and undermines the general morality of the public. As such the movies are often rated and regulated with movie classification parental guidance to NC 16, M18 and R21, to protect viewers from using dangerous material unsuitable for their age. Thus, censorship is justified as it is necessary to bar the young from being exposed to harmful materials.
In conclusion, censorship is justified in many cases. As William Westmorland said, “Without censorship, things can get confused in the public mind”. Since we citizens have entrusted our lives and countries to the government we voted for, we have also relinquished some of our freedom and the government has a duty to ensure the citizens’ well-being is not compromised at the expense of censorship.
A plethora of information is making people less wise. Comment.
In our world today, where we claim to be enjoying the fruits of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, many of us would be better off without it. We are indeed blessed with the ease of access to more information, with the developments and improvements in scientific research coupled with technology that makes it even more convenient for us. However, have we become critical thinkers? Do we really make wise decisions? The privilege to access the plethora of information out there has ironically undermined our capacity to be wise, to be critical and to be knowledgeable.
Optimists may argue that man is more informed compared to the past because we now have access to technology, such as smartphones, tablets and the internet. Indeed, in developed countries like Singapore and the United States, an average person owns at least one functioning smartphone, and households own at least one computer with access to the internet. With that, it is true that man has increased accessibility to information as compared to the past, where one had to go to places such as the library and endure the tedious process of doing research, gathering and synthesizing information from different books. Now, one is able to skip that laborious process, with just a few taps on the smartphone. Also, the quality of education has increased due to this ease of obtaining information. Time is saved by teachers and students and more learning is done, in terms of curriculum planning as well as ensuring that information given to students is correct. Students are also able to be engaged in fruitful discussions, with the hindrance of flipping through dozens of books removed, allowing more learning and application to take place. Therefore, one could argue that technology has cleared the way for us to be individuals that are more informed.
However, this view that technology has made us more informed because of the ease of access to information, is one that is naïve and ignorant. We should inspect the reality of the situation, not just the ideal. It is precise because of the ease to access to information, that a culture of dependency and over-reliance is born. With the increase in ease of access to information, we have missed the joy of learning and understanding. It no longer takes us any effort to clarify information that we are unsure of, the fact that we no longer need to dig out relevant information from books and encyclopedias has made us lazy and uninterested. We no longer delve into information, merely believing what we read on the internet, without any real thought or consideration, hindering our capacity as humans to be critical thinkers. For a classic example, we can look no further than Singapore. International research of students across the globe has concluded that Singapore students, although great scorers in examinations lack the inclination to ask questions. Singapore has one of the world’s highest smartphone infiltration rates, it is no coincidence that our students are not critical thinkers and curious learners, as the natural response to a difficult question would be to “Google it”. Therefore, technology has undermined Man’s capacity to be informed.
Many may also argue that Man should be more informed, because of the improvements in science and research that allowed updating and correcting of information, which will result in a man being exposed to a wider range and more precise information. Indeed, social and physical sciences have evolved over the years, giving researchers the ability to make conclusions that are more accurate. Traditional myths and legends can be corrected through experiments that have more sophisticated equipment than before, improving the quality of information that man has access to. For example, in the study of global warming, many may assume that it is purely due to anthropogenic factors such as industrialization that led to climate change. But with the improvements in scientific technology, Geographers are able to deduce that the Earth is going through a natural phase of warming, and it is because of industrialization that worsened its effects. Therefore, man should be more informed indeed, with access to more accurate information.
However, what is the use of accurate information, if Man do not make use of it wisely? In today’s world, we live with a mindset where we let our feelings rule our decisions. We no longer give consideration to what is true and what is not, a phenomenon known as the “post-truth era”. With the access to more information, the effects of the “post-truth era” is exacerbated. We are baited by information that appeals to our emotions, regardless of its validity and legitimacy. This is evident in Singapore where the government has to set up a state-run website, “Factually”, to clarify falsehoods that have misled Singaporeans. A more classic example would be in Britain, where majority of citizens voted for Britain to be out of the European Union, known as “Brexit”. The ironic thing is however, that most citizens do not have a clue about the European Union, as “What is the European Union?” became among the top searches made on Google. Therefore, in an age where we let our emotions rule our heads, no amount of information can make us informed individuals.
Ignorance is a part of Man’s original state of mind, and it is in our nature that we are not informed. However, ironically, it is the increased convenience to access information, and the amount of information itself, that makes us less able to be informed. According to the professors at the University of Colorado, in the Leeds School of Business, they concluded that the sense of understanding is contagious. In the experiment they conducted, these professors fabricated a theory about a “glowing rock”, to two groups of people. They told the first group that scientists have yet to come to a concrete conclusion of the theory on these “glowing rocks”, and these people showed no understanding of the theory at all. However, they told the second group otherwise, that is theory has been tested and proven by scientists over many years, and their response indicated that they seemingly understood what the theory on these “glowing rocks” was about. Knowledge is built upon the understandings made from observations by many individuals, and by himself, one is not able to create knowledge alone. But with the wide range of information available today, Man is more likely to establish the false sense of understanding. Therefore, more information does not make Man more informed. In fact, it increases the chances for us to be misled.
In a nutshell, it is ideal that more information has made Man wiser, more critical and more knowledgeable, but in reality, things are not so simple. There are many out there who abuse this platform to spread false information, which makes it unreliable, and it is in human nature to be gullible. It is my hope that Man will be able to approach information more critically, and through that, truly enjoy the fruits of being more informed.
‘The media today has no interest in telling the truth.’ Do you agree?
The scores of fake news circulating the internet on various social media websites and forums such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit during the 2016 American presidential election are a sobering reminder to us that perhaps it is time to start questioning the veracity of the news that our venerated news outlets churn out each day. Headlines such as “Ted Cruz caught in yet another scandal” and “Sanders condemned of slander” were widely seen across the Internet; yet when one clicked on the link to view the “latest scoop”, the story turned out to be fabricated and sometimes utterly fictional. Before the advent of new media, the vast majority often believed that the press delivered the truth and nothing but the truth. And a few decades ago, most traditional news outlets were actually reputable and reliable. That is a far cry from what the media industry is today. The issue definitely begs the question of whether the media today is even the slightest it interested in delivering the truth anymore. Personally, I believe that amidst all the complaints of fake news and “alternative facts”, the media has no interest in telling the truth
To begin with, believe the media today is often deliberate in delivering the truth to the public because of the fear of being caught and condemned if it doe otherwise. The invention of the Internet in the 90s gave individuals who owned a technological device the opportunity to get their news from various sources, trawl through all the facts presented about an issue and gain access to a trove of information about current affairs. Since the early to mid-2000s, when the Internet was further developed and more information could be circulated on it, people began to perform fact checks on various traditional and new media news sources to ensure that whatever they reported was reliable and factual. Thus began the rise of the online vigilante, who lurks on the Internet and has the power to mobilise hundreds or even thousands of netizens to criticize a media platform for its poor and inaccurate reporting when need be. For instance, when the renowned news company the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) inaccurately reported on the Palestinian conflict, online vigilantes and other netizens were quick to notice the biased news headline and cause an uproar on social media websites such as Twitter and Reddit. The BBC swiftly took down the article and replaced it with one with a more neutral standpoint. This indubitable bruised the BBC’s reputation and credibility and shook the faith of many of the BBC’s loyal listeners. Many media corporations fear the same or a worse consequence the BBC suffered due to the inaccurate reporting, and thus it is this fear that makes them ever so deliberate in getting the truth out to the masses.
Some cynics will disagree with my stand and argue that the media today lacks any interest in telling the truth because the media has been known for delivering sensationalistic news instead of the cold hard facts. These critics will assert that the rise of the internet has resulted in new media outlets, namely social media platforms, profiting more than traditional media outlets due to greater accessibility and social media being a cheaper alternative. The decrease in revenue of traditional news sources over the years has caused many of them to resort to, as some call it, the most disgusting and low-grade news reporting: sensationalistic news reporting. Sensationalistic media outlets such as Vice and the Sun have the same ethos: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it roars, it scores”. These media outlets rarely deliver the truth, rather, they exploit real news by exaggerating stories, adding extra juicy information and most often highlighting only the violent, raunchy and eye-popping bits. For example, the Breitbart News, one of the most biased and sensationalistic media corporations, cooked up a story of thousands of Muslims burning a church and chanting “Allahu Akbar” on the streets on New Year’s day in Dortmund, Germany. They gravely exaggerate the news and delivered only what their viewers wanted to read, instead of delivering the truth of the matter. Hence, some cynics will argue that the media today has no interest in telling the truth.
Although I concede that many media outlets have adopted sensationalistic reporting to boost viewership, I believe that the vast majority of media outlets still believe in delivering the truth because ultimately, the truth is what will make them reputable and recognized globally. Everybody wants to know the truth behind an issue, some say the facts of a matter are a valuable commodity. And I believe that there is truth in this saying. A multitude of media corporations such as the BBC and The New York Times still engage in investigating journalism and shun sensationalistic reporting because everyone, even those who partake in sensationalistic news, still wants a place where they can find the facts of a matter and the truth of an event that has occurred. This desire to differentiate fact from fiction keeps many media corporations up and running. Furthermore, delivering the truth will propel media companies onto the global stage and garner them recognition and respect instead of infamy like sensationalistic media corporations.
In conclusion, I believe that the media today still holds an interest in telling the truth. Ultimately, we all have to be discerning and be cautious of what we read.
‘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.
People are slaves to technology. How true is this?
A reasonable first draft.
Everywhere we go today, it is a common sight to see people with heads bowed down, eyes etched to a screen and fingers furiously working tapping away. Technology is increasingly integrates integrated in our society, serving almost all functions from entertainment to business. It Technology is what allows us humans to keep up with the highly complex and fast-paced world that we have today. However, there has been increasing concerns with the wide usage of technology with regards to its potential to control us. While some wish to believe that technology today is still taking over humans, I the more rational crowd believes that many people remain reigning as masters of technology.
Many may say that it is not uncommon to see people distracted by the many things that technology has to offer. Technology has caused a democratisation and easy access to information, and entertainment material. This causes has caused people to be highly engrossed with their electronic gadgets. Furthermore, with technology comes great power of the internet to be able to figure out the user’s likes, dislikes, allowing to come up with suitable recommendations. This fixates the user’s attention on technology even more and leads to the vicious cycle. Humans, suggest the critics, have become subservient to technology. They have gone going on to various lengths at our disadvantage to attain it, but end up only to be distracted by it.
However, It is usually only the youth that are affected by this issue of slavery to technology, having been exposed to it all their lives. They have experienced technology in every minute of their lives. Furthermore, citing only internet technology as a form of human slavery to technology is very limited. In many other cases, humans remain the masters of technology, using it as a tool to achieve success.
Technology is still used as a tool by many for communication and achievement of personal and professional goals. It is used by scientists in making discoveries, students to learn, teachers to teach, artists to gain fans, elderly to catch up on news, architects and workers for construction, etcetera. Technology is ubiquitous, playing a role in almost everything we use aiding in almost our every action. It makes our work easier or empowers us to do better. For example, scientists were able to able discovery the Higgs Boson with a very complex machine known as Large Hadron Collider. The LHC was used as a mere tool by the scientists to make discoveries.Another example is the use of online tools such as Khan Academy by students to enhance their learning process. Technology serves a wide audience and continues serving as a tool in today’s world.
Technology remains a mere tool and has not made humans slaves as it is still not able to achieve what a human can. Many argue that the plaguing of technology, and taking over tasks taken by humans show that it is able to work better than humans, possibly making humans its slaves where technology no longer work for humans but humans work for technology. However, in today’s society, technology is still unable to function the way a human is able to. Though it is probably able to take on many jobs of humans, it is unable to behave like a human especially those which require decisions that involve consideration of political relationships, communication with fellow humans, etcetera. Technology has not rendered humans useless or slaves but has just changed the important skills that humans need to have. Therefore, humans still remain the masters of technology.
While technology is evident in every single task in our lives, we
remain in complete control today. Technology
is used as an aid, not as a crutch. Though
there is a possibility that the equation might change in the future with
research projects such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink project to link human brains
and computers, we are eons away from
realizing such far fetched dreams. Humans
are not slaves to technology today. Therefore, I disagree that One would be hard pressed to accept that humans are slaves to technology.