Category: Uncategorized

The notion  of complete self-sufficiency was often seen  as a myth within the modern world as the contemporary developments of globalisation reveal  the  hyper-connected world we live in today, where  countries are succumbed to  the  interdependent  nature of the  global  economy. It  is not  surprising  to  see  that  countries across  the  world are increasingly dependent on one  another for their resources and  this is also regarded as the   norm   and   trait  of  today’s  world.  However,   issues   such  as  growing  demand and   potential  import disruptions  have  surfaced  recently,  with the  notable  COVID-19  pandemic threatening many  global  supply chains  and  affecting the  sufficiency and  sustainability of resources within nations. This raises  the  question if countries should  be pursuing complete self-sufficiency to minimise the threats from the external environment and to be able to maintain  itself without  outside aid or intervention. Even though some nations have pursued self-sufficiency to some degree and  have adopted incremental progress over the past  decade to provide for their own needs, in practice, self-sufficiency is arguably still viewed to be a relative concept along  a continuum that  is highly dependent on the global  climate.  This question raises the debate if complete self-sufficiency is even possible given the interdependent nature of our global  economy today. Is there any interests or benefits to aim for complete self-dependency in countries? What  are  the  factors  that  may influence, shape or limit such possibilities?

A pragmatist is one who observes the physical reality of the world around him, analysing, making judgements and attempting to formulate the most efficient and successful plan to cope with his circumstances or problems. An idealist is not a direct contrast to a pragmatist, but much of his ideas and methods stem from a frail thing called hope (that has proven excessively difficult to slaughter), and a concern for more than practical reality. If there is a quote that may sum up this comparison succinctly, it would be, “a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and value of nothing.” The cynic, who considers himself pre-eminently practical, is an accurate representation of what one might call a pragmatist to the core.

The contention that pragmatism is a more favoured stance to take than idealism is not totally incorrect in the fast-paced, material world that we live in, but it is flawed in that it does not address the complete nature of humans and of life, and therefore cannot be taken without a healthy pinch of salt.

For practical reasons, quite obviously, pragmatism should be favoured in order to successfully deal with real-life situations, but it is definitely better to still remain an idealist in principle, so that, in accomplishing one’s goals, one does not neglect to consider the value of the lives that may be lost, and the moral boundaries that may be shattered. An idealist with no pragmatic side to him will be in no position to accomplish his goals except by constantly going to protest marches and perhaps “blogging” about his concerns. This individual will only end up frustrated, and he will simply place himself above real-world concerns such as real economic crises or political barriers, and cast his ill-informed disdain upon those who are probably doing more than him to help the rest of the world.

For an idealist to achieve his goals, he must understand how to manipulate his circumstances favourably, to avoid being one of the dilettantes that pollute the Internet with poor ideas of being the world’s moral watchdog. Rather one should emulate individuals such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who have not only taken advantage of their circumstances to become the richest people in the world, but have also kept in their hearts the noble principles of charity. Of course, one may argue that pragmatism and idealism simply cannot go together; that the two values are irreconciliable but as earlier said, they can exist in two separate states – idealism in the mind, and pragmatism in practice – to be able to realise those ideals.

Oftentimes it is pragmatism that concerns itself with making the best of a situation, or in other words, to lose as little as possible, but it is idealism that consists of envisioning a better future and winning as much as possible, and as such is necessary for progress. A feminist hardliner would be likely to bite your head off if you told her to make the best of her situation some years back in the benighted times of female oppression. A nicer feminist would then inform you that it was their idealism, not their coping mechanisms, that helped raise the female individual in society to equal, and nowadays, greater status than men. One who is familiar

with the story of the boy (or girl) who ran down the beach at low tide to throw as many as he could of the stranded starfish back into the water would also know of the practical and grumpy man who asked the boy why he was doing an act that did not matter since he could only save a few of the starfish. The boy’s reply is astoundingly mature, and also representative of his respect for the value of all life. “It matters to this one”, he said, before throwing another starfish back in. A totally pragmatic person like the old man cannot see the point of taking part in what seems to be a futile activity but the young boy recognizes that though what he does seems inconsequential, it is a positive difference that he is making in the world. Like the old man, some may argue that it is more important to view one’s deeds in the light of the big picture, that one life is just one life, that a single hair is of no importance, if we are to be practical. But as the Taoist Lie Zi once said, enough hairs are as important as skin and flesh, enough skin and flesh are as important as one limb, enough limbs are as important as a life, and so on.

Idealism, as was earlier mentioned, has to deal with a frail thing called hope, and when things seem always to run counter to one’s wishes, it is hope that gives one the strength and courage to press on and truly succeed, rather than pragmatism that screams in one’s face of the futility of a struggle against what may seem to be forces that far outstrip one’s own power. A pragmatist’s attitude will not help a country or person in reduced circumstances, but hope for a better life for oneself and the generations after oneself is the primary ingredient of nation-building and of rising above the forces that hold one down. The Special Olympics is a very clear example of how disadvantaged athletes may still fulfil their dreams and bring glory to the countries they represent. The hundred metres dash in the Special Olympics, in a cynic’s eyes, cannot hold a candle to the performances of athletes like Maurice Green, but it certainly holds the blazing torch of hope for those who believe their lives to hopeless. It was Qin Shi Huang who remained stoic and strong, and who battled all odds to unify China and give it the potential to become what it is now, one of the greatest nations of the world. Such an ambitious plan no doubt originated from a mind that still maintained the big picture and all its problems, but also possessed the true hope and spirit of idealism. Great developments only take place

when an idealist or a group of them initiates them. Obviously, it may be argued that the opposite is true, and that consequently more disastrous mistakes may occur, such as the Great Leap Forward, which was more like a great leap backward. However, if we were to give up on the possibility of surging forward together as one human race and all the risks involved, it will be likely that even given several millennia, we would not have moved forward. Idealism, therefore, cannot be compromised for the sake of pragmatist ideas, but must remain at the root of our principles.

Pragmatists also like to say that they concern themselves with the “greater good”, but they usually have a cold, harsh way of looking at present facts, and often ignore or dismiss the true value of persons and other things involved. A pragmatic nurse would be likely to give a dying patient a pat on the head and a pull on the plug of the life-support system (well, perhaps not the pat on the head). But one of the greatest idealists of all time devoted herself to the care of the dying in Calcutta. She devoted all resources she had, along with her fellow nuns, to making them comfortable and giving them a death that was as dignified as possible given the situation. The old man in the starfish story would have scratched his head and asked her the same question. Mother Teresa would then have replied with her quote that has become one of my own personal principles, “No one can do great things, only small things, with great love.” One may argue, even upon hearing this heartwarming profession of compassion, that the resources she used to care for the dying would be better employed on other lives, but we must also recognize that while the dying are still alive, they deserve as much, if not more, respect and reverence as any other human beings.

A pragmatist would not realise this, and if the world were a wholly pragmatic one, many people would die uncared for and many more terminally-ill children would be abandoned on the streets. Pragmatism, therefore, is not a wicked principle, but it is heartless and valueless if not married with the appropriate idealistic values of hope and the inherent sacredness of life. Therefore, if we are to achieve our idealistic goals, it is important that we employ pragmatic practices while bearing in mind the end result of a better future for all men. Only by doing this may we constantly push against the constraints of circumstance and create break-throughs that humanity needs in order to rise to greatness.

• examine how exploring space has benefitted humankind
• consider whether space exploration has had any negative impacts on humankind
• make a judgment, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward
• the benefits of ongoing programmes to explore the moon for water and life
• the development of the international space station and the implications for global cooperation
• new inventions and technological advancements enhancing various aspects of life on Earth
• the learning achieved from studying various planets and phenomena in the Solar System
• the search for alien life and the benefits to humankind of what we have discovered so far
• there being no need to look into space, as humans have their religions and philosophy to aid understanding
• money used for space exploration could be better spent improving humankind in other ways
• space exploration being of no benefit to life on the planet as it is merely to fulfill intellectual curiosity.

• discuss what education should be about or concerned with
• explore whether or not education encourage creativity
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward that education does not encourage creativity.
• traditional education curricula emphasising basic skills of literacy and numeracy
• most countries expecting education to produce ‘useful’ citizens who will contribute to the economy
• creativity in schools contributing to an appearance of apparent disorder
• academic education usually being considered as the prime target of schooling
• most children demonstrating innate creativity that ought to be nurtured and channelled
• the modern world requiring more creative ‘solutions’ rather than just a production line
• creativity often involving collaborative effort that lies at the heart of the modern workplace
• nurturing creativity helping to develop the originality and dynamism that drives all human endeavour.

The statement “morals cannot be taught” suggests an intrinsic knowledge in every person of the rights and wrongs of society. It is based on the idea of an instinctive leaning in everyone toward either good or bad and a complete absence of any change as a result of external influence.

Morals exist as a definition of society. Society has dictated the correctness, the desirability of honesty, integrity – good behaviour. It is, thus, difficult to imagine societal conventions as instinctive. The concept of right and wrong is a matter of learning, and acquisition of knowledge. Thus, morals can be taught, and have to be, to a child.

A human baby is absolutely helpless and altogether undeveloped: its brain will more than double in size in its first year of life. he complexity of human behaviour has to be taught to these impressionable infants.

Because humans exist in such a complicated society, necessary social skills are definitely not present in such young minds. Babies and young children rarely behave correctly: they do not compromise and insist on asserting individual rights. Embarrassed parents are often observed ushering misbehaving children out of public places – the adults know full well their child is engaging in undesirable behaviour, but the child is often completely unaware of this.

The effect of familial influence on the morals of offspring is a widely accepted fact – the morals are obviously taught. The neglected young with no positive influence develop into adults with no clear sense of morals – a scenario often presented and shockingly true. Crime rates are linked to poverty levels – struggling parents are too exhausted or too benumbed to care what their young do for money, and with no one to correct their wrong behaviour, these people continue to err.

The behaviour of one’s parents, or any person of guiding influence, dictates the behaviour of oneself. A dishonest person, who thinks nothing of keeping for himself property lost by others, breeds children with the same pattern of thought, simply because the child would receive no message that such an act is wrong. Other examples abound, of similar evidence: an overwhelming 92% of pre-school age children surveyed in London last year displayed patterns of thought almost exactly similar to that of their parents.

The traditions of one’s culture also dictate one’s morals. For example, bigamy is frowned upon by many societies, for being morally reprehensible and violating the rights of women. However, other societies permit this, for example, Muslim men can have up to four wives, and harems were common among Eastern kings in history. Clearly, the established “morals” of monogamy are not instinctive: Muslim men who practice polygamy certainly are not repulsed by the idea of their many wives; polygamous men brought up to believe in monogamy will suffer feelings of guilt at having done wrong.

That morals are taught can be examined in a more interesting fashion, by observing people brought up outside the human community. In the early 1970s, an Indian researcher rescued a girl of eight, who had been brought up by a pack of wolves. While she cowered in his presence, she once leapt at a sleeping baby and snapped at its neck. She was clearly displaying wolf-like behaviour, of healthy respect for bigger animals, but the ruthless killing of weaker ones for food. The killing of a baby is seen as being wrong only by people taught that it is wrong.

The laws of society, and punishment for the violation of these laws, again refute the idea that morals cannot be taught. By reinforcing the established conventions of society’s morals, and inflicting punishment if wrong is done, the system seeks to inculcate moral values in the people, first by detailing what is wrong, then by a clear message that such wrongdoing will be punished.

Indeed, if morals cannot be taught, then what of the numerous campaigns launched by the government? These work by reiterating values as correct, so constantly and repetitively they become accepted as morals. Again, these exist as a reinforcement to those established by society.

Perhaps certain mentally limited individuals cannot be taught morals; certainly insanity is a valid plea in courts of law, admitting that such criminals are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. However, in the majority of the population, morals can be taught. Indeed, morals exist only because they are taught – by the family, by religious texts, by society. Morals are established by the society, for we decide what to believe is right or wrong, and have to teach our young accordingly.