Has the increased interaction between countries amplified world problems?

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. One such means in which progress has taken place is that of increased interaction between countries. The tendency for such activity is merely due to the fact that countries have realised the importance of interdependence; such interconnectedness between countries is a consequence of globalisation. However, alongside the successes of the interconnectedness between countries, we have undoubtedly experienced downturns; the adverse effects of globalisation are simply ubiquitous. International challenges and difficulties faced in the past have grown into hardships that haunt leaders and many people on a daily basis. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that increased interaction between countries has also helped to diminish certain problems that plague an array of countries. Consequently, it is my stand that increased interaction between countries has amplified, yet diminished, certain world problems.

One of the foreseen and inevitable results of increased interaction between countries is that of the amplification of conflicts between nations. Although ironic, globalisation and the interconnectedness of countries have indeed resulted in increased division between nations and societies. One such conflict is that of power struggles. As countries tend to interact, they tend to form allies and enemies. In the late 19th century, the effects of the Industrial Revolution was omnipresent; it was clear that industrialisation of economies was necessary for the development of countries. However, such a noble act of improving the quality of life of citizens within countries started to become a competition. Countries attempted to outdo each other as they realised the strength and weaknesses of other countries via interaction. Tension built up and alliances were made. Tension was so high that the assassination of the Austria-Hungarian prince resulted in a devastating war that involved the majority of countries in Europe- World War 1. Every country wanted to be dominant and have a say in international politics. Their economy had to be the best. It was observed that such international competition and the alliance among a select group of people resulted in forms of elitism; such were the effects of increased interaction. Consequently, tension was amplified; war was created. The divisions in the world were amplified by increased interaction between countries.  

Still related to the topic of politics, the division between countries is amplified due to the spread of varied ideologies via increased interaction between countries. On the international stage, what nations care about is power. From North Korea’s missile trials to Beijing’s grand staging of the 2008 Olympics, there are a plethora of ways in which countries make their presence felt. The stiff nature of competition in the world and the complicated dynamics that play out in relationships between countries require countries to assert themselves and gain ascendancy in order to have power to bring out situations that are favourable to their interests. In the late 1900s, one such mode of assertion was via the spread of ideologies. Immediately after World War 2, there was an immense competition between the United States of America (USA) and former USSR to spread their ideologies of democracy alongside capitalism and communism respectively. Via the increased interaction between these two superpowers and other countries, several countries were influenced to take up the various ideologies. Most of Eastern Europe was communist; North Korea and North Vietnam favoured communism as well. Both Korea and Vietnam were split up such that two exclusive societies were created to oppose each other in every way possible. The Cold War was inevitable. Nuclear weapons were built; an arms race was initiated. Such increased tensions based on the reality of mutually assured destruction were merely due to conflicting ideologies and increased interaction between countries. Again, increased interaction between countries resulted in increased divisions in the world; the adverse relationship between countries were amplified.

Increased interaction between countries has also resulted in the strengthening of far-reaching effects of terrorism. Transnational terrorism prospers based on the interconnectedness of our international society. Acts of terrorism are carried out for the spread of messages to a large population, especially via the media. For instance, the main aim of terrorism by Al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist group, is to force US troops out of all Muslim States, with special reference towards Iraq and Afghanistan. Via the Bali and London bombing, they have incontrovertibly been successful in striking fear within the hearts of the general international populace and made the leaders of countries wary of groups from other countries. Such terrorism has consequently resulted in increased tensions as certain countries ally one another to stereotype other countries as the birthplace of terrorism; this was the main reason why America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. As such, it can be said that increased interaction allowed the flourishing of transnational terrorism that has resulted in tensions and enemies made between countries.

Such an action has had far-reaching effects. For instance, the authoritative, military regime in Iraq by US soldiers has been utterly counter-developmental and detrimental to the survival and progress of Iraq. This has consequently led to the exacerbation of the situation as people not only suffer from overt violence but from destitution and increasing crime rates as well. The mere ability of certain countries to dominate over other countries has resulted in further inequalities and counter-productivity. The world thus cannot progress as a whole.

Other than that, the increased interaction between countries has resulted in income inequality. The dominant players in the international world economy tend to overexploit the weaker participants. Even China has resorted to expanding their market to Africa; they intend to take advantage of the labour force and resources present. Indeed, Africa will benefit from trade with China; however, China will reap the lion’s share of benefits. At the same time, the USA exploits the labour market in China. The entire world realises that the cost of labour in China is extremely low. Undeniably, this has benefitted the entire world. Increased interaction between China and the rest of the world has benefitted all active participants in the macroeconomy at large. However, looking at the micro-level, we face a problem that has been greatly amplified by such increased interaction-income inequality. Most labourers in China earn less than US$300 a month. In Singapore, the Gross Domestic Product is as high as US$32,000 annually. Within countries themselves, there is the presence of inequality which can simply be measured by the Gini coefficient. Throughout the entire world, due to our complex and extensively interconnected economies, the rich 20 per cent of the world have possession of 80 per cent of the world’s resources. The poorest 50 per cent of our international population only has access to 1 per cent of the world’s resources. As interaction increases, such a pressing problem will continue to grow exponentially as the tune of capitalism is promoted.

Nevertheless, increased interaction has also helped to diminish world problems. Via increased interaction, there was the initiation of the League of Nations- the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson. However, it failed terribly to effectively address world issues; this problem ended off with World War 2. Nevertheless, such intense interaction between countries, especially during World War 2 allowed us to appreciate world problems better. Consequently, the United Nations (UN), as an international body to unite nations and allow constructive interaction, was proposed. The UN was much more effective than its predecessor mainly due to the efforts between countries to increase their interaction with one another. Consequently, the UN was a success and its activities have been a great testament to its progress. For instance, it sent down peacekeeping troops to countries affected by the 2004 tsunami so that the problem was not amplified and the situation could be improved quickly. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, coalition forces were sent to the Middle East as well. Such efforts by the UN has made our world today a better place for tomorrow’s world by promoting healthy interdependence between countries and reducing tensions and adverse relationships between societies.

Besides that, increased interaction between countries has also improved racial and religious harmony. As countries attempt to forge ties with one another, there is the interaction between the people of those countries. For instance, the Southeast Asian countries have come up with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a form of regional, multilateral diplomacy. One of its stated aims is to promote cultural awareness of the various ethnic groups and countries; this is often done through overseas educational trips organised by the Ministry of Education. International events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics also are a platform for increased interaction between countries; at the same time, there is religious and racial appreciation as well. Consequently, interactions between countries have assisted in the diminution of racism and other forms of dehumanisation which is detrimental to the very basic fabric of society.

In conclusion, increased interaction has amplified various problems. However, they have also successfully reduced and diminished certain problems as well. Whatever the case may be, we have to accept the fact that globalisation and its effects have contributed more towards the amplification rather than the diminution of problems. As members of the international society, it is our responsibility to reduce the amplification of world problems to ensure sustainable development and a better place for future generations to live in. We should aim to build a world in which the future of civilisation does not experience the aftermath of our selfish actions which consequently results in the exacerbation of world problems.

“The Road Less Travelled” (M. Scott Peck) Is being different overrated?

In the modern world, people believe that being unique is a gift. Since a very young age, people are encouraged to be different so that they can achieve greater things in life. On the other hand, there are people who believe that being different is overrated. They argue that society values sameness and being different leads person being excluded and teased by people. Disagreeing with this view it can be said that being different and celebrating people’s uniqueness is not overrated. This is because individuals need to be different so that they can bring unique skills and ideas that can lead to the development of a society. Therefore, being different is not overrated.

When a country chooses to be different than others then it can reap economic benefits. With a changing environment, it is important to be different. Singapore is an example of this. Singapore initially had an entrepot economy but when other countries like Hongkong were adopting the same policy, the country realised the need to be different. Singapore encouraged a diverse economy and free trade, which helped Singapore attract a free flow of foreign investment and multinational giants. ​Today, the economic development of Singapore is considered to be one of the greatest success stories in history. Furthermore, Singapore has become the only Asian country to achieve a higher per capita gross domestic product than the United States because of its emphasis on diversification and innovation. If the country did not adopt a different economic policy then it would have not achieved the success that it enjoys today. Therefore, being different is not as overrated as in terms of a country it can help it to benefit economically.

Being different also leads to innovation and unique business ideas. Most businessmen who are successful have always been different in their idiosyncrasies. They have strived to create something that is unique and valuable. For example, if Steve Jobs did not have a different business plan and an innovative product to offer it would have not been as successful as it is today. Steve Jobs emphasis on innovation, expanded the company into new areas, including the music industry and redefined the world of mobile phones. Similarly, being unique allows people to come up with innovative solutions. For example, Colonel Sanders adopted the usage of pressure fryer instead of an iron skillet to create a fried chicken recipe that the world enjoys today. If he had not come up with a different approach and idea to change a simple recipe it would not have allowed him to become successful at the age of 74. Thus, being different is necessary is it leads to innovative and creative ideas that can benefit the world.

Being different allows to keep the artistic culture alive in a country. In many rich countries, people are encouraged to take up science and maths as they are considered profitable in the long-term. However, people who are different and follow their passion in the field of arts can benefit society in a unique way. People who work in the arts sector like design, painting, fashion and photography help to keep the culture of a country alive and vibrant. Furthermore, if everyone took up science and maths there would not be enough diversity in the workforce. Moreover, if everyone was a scientist and a mathematician the job market would be saturated which would drive up unemployment. Thus, it is necessary to be different even while selecting careers and take the road that is less travelled as it helps people to succeed.

Some might argue that being different is not always as good as society values sameness. This is true to a certain extent because people are often bullied or treated differently because of their uniqueness. An example of this can be seen across societies where people from different cultures, religions, genders, ethnicities and nationalities are treated differently. There are multiple incidents in schools where children are bullied and teased for being different. Critics argue that being different is overrated because it leads to exclusion and bullying.

However, these differences and discrimination can be a driving force for some to do something different. People who choose to be different in the face of adversity can inspire others to be different. For example, Malala Yousafzai chose to stand for the right of girls to gain an education after the Taliban had banned them from attending school. She was shot in the head but survived the attack and is doing pioneering work for girl’s education. Similarly, Nelson Mandela led the fight against South Africa’s apartheid regime – a system of racial segregation which oppressed the black majority. However, his methods inspired others to go from racism to pluralism without stopping for revenge. Therefore, being different allows people to offer new perspectives, and actions that are instrumental in positively impacting the world.

In conclusion, being different is not overrated to a large extent. Being different is necessary so that the individual can contribute to society in unique ways. Furthermore, if countries are different in their policies then it can lead to the economic and social development of countries. It is true that being different can come with its unique set of challenges however what is needed is to adapt and face the challenges and continue to inspire others.

Essay Questions for General Paper [A-Levels]

A-Level General Paper Essay Questions. Have a look at these A-Level General Paper Essay Questions from past papers.

  1. Consider the arguments for and against the use of the death penalty in modern society.
  2. ‘In today’s world, power is determined by economic success, not military might.’ Discuss.
  3. To what extent is a stable family vital for a successful society?
  4. Should human beings look forward to the next century more with optimism than pessimism?
  5. Examine some forms of prejudice in the world and consider the ways in which they might be tackled.
  6. ‘Where business and industry are concerned, the profit motive must always be the main priority.’ Is this attitude acceptable?
  7. Discuss the view that children always suffer when both parents work.
  8. ‘The only future for the car is its elimination.’ Discuss.
  9. ‘To ensure peace, it is vital to prepare for war.’ To what extent is such a viewpoint justifiable?
  10. ‘Being in fashion makes a person popular; being different makes a person special.’ Discuss.
  11. Do arguments ever settle anything?
  12. ‘The secret of a happy life is moderation in all things.’ Discuss
  13. ‘A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective form of government.’ How far do you agree?
  14. ‘Pets need us more than we need them.’ What do you think?
  15. ‘I am a Millionaire. That is my religion.’ To what extent has the pursuit of wealth become the modern goal?

Do you agree that with the emergence of New Media, there will be a greater need for censorship?

The 20th century perceived radical metamorphosis in practically every field of human activity. The period observed astonishing technological innovations which resulted in the development of New Media, coined to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the late 20th century. With the materialization of New Media, the exposure to sordid and appalling details is a growing concern within society. On one hand, one method to attenuate the accessibility to such information is through the sense of censorship. Censorship refers to a policy of suppression of public expression or deletion of communicative material which may have the capacity to undermine the governing authority. On the other hand, censorship acts as a double-edged sword since it does lead to several drawbacks. Therefore, I do agree that with the emergence of New Media, there will be a greater need for censorship. Nevertheless, it is foolhardy to impose excessive censorship. It should also be complemented by other programmes such as educational campaigns in order to be more effective.

            Censorship curtails insidious influence of objectionable ethics which could be picked up by the public, deliberately or subconsciously through the New Media. The ubiquity of certain dubious materials in the New Media would likely erode the moral fabric of the community as these materials distress the fundamental values of people. Take, for instance, pornography which is easily available in the New Media. It brutalises and insults society, perverts young impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity, as well as undermines the general principles of the public. Censorship hence protects society’s values and is requisite to stave off negative influences given that the community may disintegrate under erroneous ethics. However, according to some cynics, awareness of violent examples in the New Media does not bring about greater aggression. These examples merely reflect humankind’s innate inborn hostile impulses. While there is an element of truth in their assertion, I think their conclusion is too sweepingly pessimistic. Brutal illustrations in the New Media heighten the likelihood of a rise in the number of murder cases, rapes and assaults owning to imitation. Due to the rampancy of inaccurate and controversial information in the New Media, I consider there to be a greater need for censorship.

            With the emergence of New Media, there will be circulation of sensitive materials on themes including religion. There is a greater need for censorship to ensure internal security and perpetuate stability. A lack of censorship may result in the promulgation of certain information which will be to the advantage of the enemies such as a country amassing of weaponry and a government’s military strategies. It is also mandatory to censor certain religion-sensitive material to maintain national stability as well as to thwart the distortion of orthodox religious beliefs. Racially-tactless material or incendiary remarks about religions can bring about misgivings, misconceptions and disharmony among the various racial and religious communities, therefore, giving rise to civil unrest and disorder.  Information in the New Media that disparages or derides a specific ethnic group, suggests racial pre-eminence, disseminates bigoted standpoints, or incites preferential acts is justified to be censored. Thus, with the emergence of New Media, there will be a greater need for censorship, extremely so for a multi-religious multi-ethnical society such as Singapore.

However, a greater extent of censorship threatens individuality and stifles creativity thus it might indirectly curb a state’s progress. Public taste should not be dictated and an individual has the responsibility to practice self-censorship by ignoring unwholesome materials. In addition, censorship in a modern and developed society such as Singapore may be futile due to the readiness of travel as well as global communication channels. Furthermore, censorship may encumber consumers from forming informed assessments. The New Media should be given the autonomy and onus to function without restraint in order to supply free access to information and ideas to the public. Hence in spite of the emergence of New Media, censorship should not be imposed disproportionately and hastily since its disadvantages might outweigh the merits.

As nations do not have jurisdiction of content available in the New Media beyond their borders, censorship is an efficient and primary tool employed to straighten people’s access to explicit content. The quintessential solution would be an international convention prescribing dictums for the New Media on a worldwide scale. Lamentably, due to cultural and constitutional divergence especially with reference to obscenity and freedom of expression, the very issues that induce the highest degree of regulation, it would be a tedious task to garner agreement from all countries. Hence, I envisage a near future of implementation of censorship in the New Media.