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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

‘Rules are meant to be broken.’ Is such a perspective justifiable?

People feel the presence of rules everywhere. Oppressive presence of rules, both written and unwritten are a norm in some societies. Rules are prescribed to dictate people’s every move and keep their behaviour in check. Many believe that rules are an affront to their freedom, and argue that they are there to be broken. However, rules are necessary for any society so that it can run smoothly and progress in a stable manner. Increasingly, many hold the view that rules are usually meant to be followed but, in some cases, when rules hinder progress and are unjust, then the rules can be broken.

Rules are the building blocks of a harmonious society. Rules in society are meant for the well-being of the individual and society as a whole. As such rules in society must be followed so that everyone can stay peacefully. In society, rules are in the form of laws that help society to progress. For example, many developed nations have rules and laws in place that make education compulsory for children. As good education is the sign of a progressive society, with responsible citizens. Similarly, there are laws or rules against crimes like murder, robbery, bribery and other so that people can be protected from practices that oppress them in any way. Even following the simplest rules in a society leads to harmony and smooth functioning of that society. For example, not smoking near schools, following the traffic signs, queueing in an orderly manner, not littering are all rules that are meant to prevent society from falling into anarchy. Therefore, rules must not be broken in society as they are there for protecting the well-being of the individuals and communities that stay within that society.

However, sometimes people need to break rules to achieve success and revolutionise people’s lives. Most influential people all had to break rules to initiate change and bring on multitudes of new ways to people’s lives. If people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had stuck to following the rules, then we may not have the technological advances like we do and thrive on today. Similarly, if Galileo did not propose Heliocentricity, people would have never established that Earth is not the centre of the universe. There is a need to strive for more especially when people are innovating. Rule-breaking in innovation helps to make a positive impact not only for an individual but also the lives of others in society. Therefore, to create something path-breaking rules need to be broken.

Societal and cultural norms need to be broken when they prove detrimental to the well-being of society. Unspoken rules are responsible for many of the atrocities that happen in society. Honour killing in countries like Pakistan and India is due to the rule in which the perpetrator believes that the victim has violated the principles of a community or a religion. Similarly, in China, the foot-binding practice was considered a status symbol as well as a mark of beauty. However, the cultural practice was painful and limited the mobility of women, resulting in lifelong disabilities for most of its victims. With many campaigns in China, the practice finally came to an end in the early 20th century. In many parts of the world, discriminatory practices are entrenched into the cultures.  Thus, breaking rules is necessary when it comes to discriminatory practices rooted in cultural and traditional norms.

Rules in most cases should be followed, however when it comes to discriminatory practices or creating something new rules need to be broken. Individuals and societies, face a continual battle over rules, however, what needs to be understood is that rules are meant for the benefit of the society. Only rules that hinder innovation and lead to discrimination should be condemned.

‘A university education is becoming increasingly irrelevant to success.’ Discuss.

Success in today’s world greatly hinges on how outstanding a person is in his career. A few decades ago, university graduates were almost guaranteed a good job with a good measure of success. However, that is becoming increasingly untrue for society today. While university students are armed with much knowledge which is supposed to empower them, the increasing speed at which the world is moving is making university education increasingly irrelevant to success. The reality is that university education is becoming too common, too limited and how information learnt is irrelevant.

Our society is creating more new knowledge and technology than it can be learnt, causing university education to be outdated, rendering it irrelevant. The intention of studying at a university for an individual is so that he can be equipped with specialized skills needed to be competitive in the industry, and thereby achieving success. However, the turnover of information and technology in universities is not able to keep up with the world. Take for example the biotechnology industry where new discoveries are being made on a weekly or even daily basis. It is impossible for university education to remain relevant to a student’s success through the education provided.

Some may argue that though universities are not able to keep up, universities conduct projects for students to know more about the latest information, and also that this fast turnover of information does not have much effect, not in the field of science. However, a point to note is that most students, in order to do well, gather information from past students and add on to it so slightly. Hence, can it be said that their information is up-to-date, considering their desire to do well exceeds their desire for learning? Also, with regards to students not in the field of science, these students, they learn mainly from experiences of what happens in the real world. As the world moves faster, more things happen as well, the world is changing fast, and university education cannot keep up with it. Hence, university education is fast becoming increasingly irrelevant due to the fast-changing tides of our world today. University education is no longer a passport to success because it is becoming increasingly common. In the past, university graduates could easily get a job because they were the cream of their crop in their society back then.

However, degree holders are widely available for employers to take a pick from in modern society. This can be seen from graduates who end up as hawkers in the food court, and the number of unemployed graduates out there. It can be argued that university education is still relevant to success even though it is common because as graduates become more common, so do jobs requiring their skills to become available to them compared to old times. However, when one speaks of success, it goes beyond having a job but being distinguished as an individual apart from other people. With university education being so common, our competitors will very well end up as another university graduate, which makes university education irrelevant since graduates do not stand out. Furthermore, university education does not prepare students adequately for the world out there enough for them to wield success in their hands.

The world is shrinking, our economy is no longer confined to our region but going global. University education is unable to equip people enough to deal with people of different cultures and perspectives in the world out there, which is imperative to success. This is not something that can be imparted and remain relevant to university education due to a lack of time. This is evident from how university students in order to adapt have to take up cultural classes in order to survive. Indeed, it is true that learning is a life – long process, it is just right that graduates should equip themselves better by learning more, and does not make university education irrelevant to success. However, if it is so, university education does not play a part in success anymore, because anyone and everyone can take up such classes so as to survive, even without a degree. Hence due to globalization, university education is becoming increasingly lacking in providing social skills with regard to different cultures for students to thrive, hence making university education irrelevant to success.

Also, our world is becoming a world where people thrive because of innovation and abilities apart from those acquired from academic discourse. University education imparts the best that they know how for graduates to survive. However, in today’s world, a degree is no longer a benchmark of capability. In our world today, capabilities need to be proven first before it can be recognized and used for success, and such capabilities do not require a university education. In today’s world, we are seeing an increasing number of people without a university degree being successful because of their innovations and talents. An example would be the proud owners of Creative technology, and Breadtalk, where they did not get much of an education but made it big. The case is clear that university education is irrelevant today.

“The elderly fulfil a vital and indispensable function in society.” Do you agree?

The role of an elderly has been of prime importance since ancient times. People have depended upon elders for advice and instructions. Changing family structure, scientific progress and demographic projections, have brought about a change in attitude towards the aged population of all countries. Unfortunately, the elderly population today is being treated as a burden by the younger generation. However, this attitude is fallacious as the elders can still play a prominent role in society. The role of the elderly in nations progress has great importance as their experience and wisdom pave the path for the younger generation to move efficiently towards their goals. Thus, it is true that the elderly fulfil a vital and indispensable function in society.

The young generation is supposed to be the wealth of any nation; and, the elderly add value to this wealth. Senior citizens accumulate a wealth of wisdom through their experiences. These experiences can be used to teach the young generation about the fine line between right and wrong. The elderly through their anecdotes can help the young people develop values and ideals that could prove beneficial for them. It is often seen that children who grow up in the company of their grandparents are more sympathetic, kind, generous and supportive. Sharing of thoughts develops a sense of togetherness and alienates gloom. The veterans in the family can kindle virtues and restrain vice through amicable guardianship.

Detractors would insist that in today’s world children are growing up surrounded by a different set of challenges. The philosophies of the elderly belong to a different time period and are outdated and irrelevant in the modern context. In the materialistic world of mechanical prevalence, youth would rather prefer to be speedy and smart than slow and steady.

However, truth is never outdated and technology cannot replace human influence. Despite the intervention of eLearning, the role of a teacher is still irreplaceable; so is the role of the elderly. As time is moving fast and the new generation is in a hurry to achieve the goals of life, it becomes all the more important that they be in contact with the elders who can prevent them from tumbling into erroneous pitfalls of modernity.

The elderly can contribute to nations development as zealously as the young and perhaps more. Growing in age does not hamper abilities, in fact it enhances them. Physical weakness and cognitive deterioration are possible but that does not categorize the old people as completely unproductive and useless. The judges in the judiciary, senior professors, scientists, and such people in all fields are working efficiently despite their age. The world has innumerable examples of the aged and even disabled aged individuals making their contributions to the world at large. The anti-Apartheid activist and former South African president Nelson Mandela announced the formation of an international group, The Elders when he was eighty-seven years old. This organisation works for solving the most challenging problems of the world like-HIV AIDS, poverty and climate change and has the support of Kofi Anan, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu and many more social activists and veterans. Famous writers, authors, artists, musicians have added to the aesthetic and artistic creations of the world even in the twilight years of their life. John Milton, after spending his youthful days as political pamphleteer created his masterpieces Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained in later years and after having impaired his vision.

Those that hold opposing views suggest that ageing is inevitably linked to senility. Advancement in science and medical facilities can protect the elderly from mortal chronic diseases, but most of the time they survive with some sort of impairment that makes long term care mandatory. As the dependency ratio, is showing an increased percentage in near future, the elders will only add to the social, financial and moral burden- the young will feel the guilt of not being able to take proper care of the elders- on the young. Lacking not merely in strength but also in standard education, old people cannot actively participate in progressive productivity. The brilliant spark of creativity is found only in a few, while the majority grope about in awful helplessness.

It would be myopic to disregard the fact that medical advancements and improvements in healthcare are keeping the elderly hale and hearty. Elderly today not only survive; they also remain fit and active by indulging in activities like exercise, dance and even swimming. Increased life expectancy and better health are resources that societies should utilize for enhancing productivity as well as strengthening the workforce. The elderly population today is ever ready to compromise and, in many companies, there are aged people who have much younger bosses. The need is to treat the senior citizens with regard and capitalize on their wisdom rather than seclude them as unproductive or a cumbersome load.

The future of the Earth is safe under the prudent care of the baby boomers and the generation X population. Thus, it can well be concluded that the greying lot of citizens fulfil a vital and indispensable function in society.

Is it true that our environmental problems are so incredibly huge and complex that it is impossible for an ordinary individual to make a difference?

In the pursuit of economic development, many people have begun to abandon their responsibilities as stewards of the environment, resorting to exploiting the environment for their own selfish purposes, resulting in alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and a relentless depletion of our natural resources which contribute to a major climate change – global warming. Indeed, global warming is an incredibly huge and complex matter. There is simply no single root cause of our environmental problems as they are, in fact, caused by an inexhaustible list of factors that makes it more difficult to handle the situation. Furthermore, it gives us countless problems, like increasing temperature, rising sea levels and extinction of our natural habitats and their habitats, in which the solutions to them are intertwined with political and economic issues as well. Hence, such a complicated environmental issue may cause ordinary people to have a lack of clear understanding or knowledge about the environmental issue, resulting in them resigning to the idea that they cannot make a difference in combating the environmental problems and relying on the government, non-governmental organizations and businesses in tackling the matter instead. However, it is never impossible for individuals to help reduce environmental problems as there are so many ways they can help mitigate the environmental degradation that they themselves have caused over the years. As children of our own environment, it is time for mankind to step up for the sake of their mother nature, their own selves and their future generation.

               Some may argue that ordinary individuals may lack authority over their community and hence are unable to make any significant contribution to reducing global warming. Many believe that big authorities like the governments are the only ones who can effectively handle the environmental issue. Certainly, the individual work of the governments as well as the global collaboration among different governments has been quite effective in addressing the complex environmental issue. More and more local governments, especially those of developed countries, have begun to place environmental sustainability as one of their priorities, imposing certain rules and regulations to ensure that all the firms and residents meet up to a certain eco-friendly standard and taking up projects that are pro-environment. For instance, more countries have begun to take interest in building eco-cities. Recently, there has been a joint collaboration between Singapore and China to build an eco-friendly city in Tianjin while the Abu Dhabi government has also channelled huge amounts of funds into constructing a sustainable, zero-carbon and zero-waste Madar city. Such efforts to creating environmentally friendly cities ensure that the countries would maximize the usage of renewable sources of energy and minimize ecological footprint and pollution. Furthermore, as environmental conservation is of major global concern, world leaders from different governments have begun to launch initiatives to accelerate work on global warming. One such notable collaboration among governments is the signing of the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by reducing the production of substances that cause ozone depletion. It has currently been ratified by 196 states and has effectively implemented market-based, flexible and innovative approaches to ensure ozone layer protection, resulting in the emission of some ozone-depleting substances like the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in recent years. Moreover, the governments from developed countries have also agreed to give financial help to those from developing countries to meet international environmental standards. Hence, it seems that the scale of impact of the governments’ decisions and the amount of funding devoted to environmental conservation are extremely large and may therefore seem incomparable to that of ordinary individuals’ efforts.  Thus, it seems that ordinary individuals may not be able to make a significant difference in tackling the environmental issue and the governments may be more successful in doing so instead.

               However, it is important to note that the individuals can certainly make a considerable impact in moving towards environmental conservation as they are ultimately the ones who choose the government and influence the decisions of the governments. This is especially evident where many election parties place great emphasis on climate change as one of their methods of campaigning, which shows that the various parties stand on the climate issue does matter in the individuals’ decisions on which party they should elect. As such, individuals who are concerned about the environment would elect parties that hold similar views about the environmental issue, allowing individuals’ interests to be met by the parties they vote for. Furthermore, individuals cannot merely rely on the governments to handle the environmental issue as there is often a case where collaboration among organizations has failed to meet its desired ends. The 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit is well-known, not so much for what it achieved, but what it did not. Even though many countries have pledged to aid environmental conservation while the rich countries promised to aid poorer countries economically, a decade later, they still have not lived up to their promises. Recently in 2009, the Copenhagen Summit, which the world watched in anticipation, resulted in a loud thud of an anti-climax when it ended with frustrations and walk-outs by world leaders rather than decisions to effectively solve the environmental problems. Therefore, as seen by such environmental conferences which are often derided as “talk shops”, it seems that global collaboration among the governments may sometimes be unsuccessful and cannot be relied upon by individuals to tackle the environmental issue. Hence, sometimes, the individual effort may be more effective than collaboration times as there would be no conflict of interests or delay due to extensive red tape.

               Others may also argue that as industrial wastes contribute the most to environmental destruction, individual efforts to environmental conservation may have little impact as the main cause of environmental degradation is the actions of businesses and firms, in which ordinary individuals have little influence. For example, DuPont, a chemical industry, used to be criticized over the years for its environmental record due to the huge environmental damage done during its manufacturing processes. However, recently, DuPont has recognized that finding truly sustainable options for its production processes is important, and is therefore adopting eco-friendly initiatives to reduce the amount of energy, water and materials used when designing products or processes. In fact, they have put environmental concerns as one of its priorities other than safety and health, allowing the firm to gain a reputation for its social commitment to environmental conservation. Such efforts made by businesses are likely to have a more significant impact than individual efforts as they are more likely to successfully reduce emissions and wastages in the highly industrialized societies of today.

               However, there are some ways individuals can make a difference in the business sector. Businesses are consumer-driven, as products and services are created for the benefit of the consumers. Therefore, consumers’ interests and wants are likely to have a significant impact on the decisions of the firms. This can be seen by how there has been a growing emphasis on “green marketing” these days where firms are trying to gain a reputation for going green as they have realized that consumers are willing to support firms who are trying to conserve the environment by purchasing their products, even though it means that they have to pay a little higher price. Furthermore, individuals taking a stand on environmental issues may prevent businesses from adopting certain practices that harm the environment. For instance, for years, environmental organizations had tried to campaign for the fishing of tuna to be dolphin-friendly, meaning the nets used to catch tuna do not catch dolphins and kill them. However, it was only when individual consumers began to start making a conscious choice to buy dolphin-friendly tuna that the businesses started to practice dolphin-friendly fishing methods for economic reasons. Therefore, individuals can take advantage of consumer sovereignty that reigns in the market sector to take a stand on certain environmental causes, thereby making a significant impact on environmental conservation made by the business sector.

Individual efforts are crucial in tackling the environmental problems in other ways as well.  In fact, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are made up of like-minded individuals who work together to achieve a common goal. Individuals who used to have little influence over their community can come together to create such organizations to make a more significant impact on the society. One such NGOs is the World Wildlife Fund was created around 45 years ago to protect the future of the nature by preserving natural habitats and promoting sustainable approaches to environmental conservation. NGOs are effective in influencing the decisions of governments, businesses and individuals and raising awareness about the environmental issues to the global community. Other than forming organizations, individuals who are deeply concerned about the environment can also become environmentalists, writing articles and using other methods to campaign for environmental conservation. For instance, individuals like Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio are famous for their films, An Inconvenient Truth and The Eleventh Hour, which focus on how our human activities are harming the environment. Such use of media to create awareness about the environmental issue can effectively make the community less ignorant about what is happening to the world around us. Therefore, individuals can certainly make a difference in addressing the problem of environmental destruction.

Furthermore, individual effort is the fundamental basis of all environmental protection. One once said, “We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee.” Likewise, ordinary individuals can make a significant impact on environmental conservation over time if they make an effort to change their mindsets and their lifestyles appropriately. There are many ways that individuals can adopt eco-friendly lifestyles. For instance, individuals should try to avoid excessive materialistic lifestyles and purchase less so as to create less waste in the future. They can also adopt a Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs) method to dispose of their wastes and buy environmentally-friendly products like fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent light bulbs. Furthermore, individuals can also share with one another some tips on environmentally-friendly living and raise awareness, even if it is of a small scale, about environmental conservation to their friends and families. If everyone tries his or her best to save the environment, it would only be a matter of time before our environmental issue can be greatly reduced.

               In conclusion, it is possible for an ordinary individual to make a difference, be it small or big, to mitigate the impacts of our environmental problems. It is also to be noted that in fact, collaboration itself is the product of many individual efforts as in fact, non-governmental organizations, governments and businesses are made up of individuals who have a certain degree of influence on the decisions made by these groups. Hence, the individual effort is also vital to the success of these organizations in conserving the environment. Since environmental degradation threatens the survival of mankind, it is everyone’s social responsibility to step up and take a stand on the environmental issue so as to make our environmental problems easier to tackle and less complicated than they currently are right now. As one once said, “There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew.” Therefore, it is time we all play a part on saving our mother earth from further damage by our own activities.

‘Terrorists are nothing more than criminals’. Discuss.

Detractors of terrorism criticise it by labelling terrorists as nothing more than criminals as they resort to atrocious acts of violence and bloodshed to achieve their aims. Although this view undoubtedly holds a whit of fidelity, it would be too reductionist and simplistic to believe entirely in it. From a religious and even moral point of view, it must be remembered that all are equal, and even terrorists are ultimately part of the human race. Who are we to judge them and degrade them to nothing more than sinners if we do not understand the complicated situations and environments that they grow up in? Should we not practise what we preach and forgive them for their heinous crimes? It is more than valid to say that the atrocities of terrorists are so frightening that it breeds pure hatred towards them, but it would be myopic to jump the gun and label them as nothing more than criminals.

One of the arguments levelled against terrorists is that their outrageous acts of violence show an absence of compassion and humanity, rendering them as mere sinners who do not deserve to belong to the human race. However, those who argue so fail to realise that terrorists are only doing what they do because of their circumstances. It would be almost impossible for someone living in a well-developed and peaceful country to imagine the environment those growing up in the war-torn Middle-East have to face. The classic example of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that tells of severe oppression. The teenagers and young men, sometimes even women, of the Middle-East, only become terrorists after they have experienced the

The devastating loss of loved ones, witnessing them being blown up by those of another religion or ideology. Living in a society where you fear for your life every single day, with helicopter attacks and suicide bombings becoming just another feature of daily life, it would be difficult not to be influenced by the extremist beliefs of religious martyrs that resort to violence. Hence, we cannot hastily come to the conclusion that terrorists are any less human than us as it is their extreme circumstances that give them no other alternative but to resort to bloodshed.

Those who strongly oppose terrorism put forth the argument that the very actions of terrorists show a complete lack of love for humanity. This might hold true to a certain extent, but it would take a bigot to not realise why these terrorists are employing the use of violence. As an oppressed minority, it would not be feasible to wage a conventional war with the majority. If the Catholics in Northern Ireland did not fight for their causes with terrorist measures, they would have stood absolutely no chance against the Protestant government. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka exist today because they would never succeed fighting a direct

war against the Singhalese rulers. We should not condone or even come close to accepting terrorism, but we do have to recognise that what terrorists do is not for the mere sake of killing. It is more than a shout for attention so that the world sees what they are fighting for; it is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to secure their basic freedom and rights.

Many who feel strongly against terrorists dismiss them as nothing more than criminals, as their actions portray them as cold, heartless beings, but to do so would be to lack compassion themselves. It is important to remember the very basis that mankind sets out on; everyone is equal. Whether one adopts a religious view or a moral view, it is clear that all members of the human race, some going as far as including the animal kingdom, are born the same, and should be afforded the same love and respect. Just as we do not discriminate against the minorities, those of a different race, colour or religion, we should not be blinded by our anger against these terrorists, and we have to try to understand that despite their actions of violence and slaughter, they are as human as any one of us.

As the world continues to wage its war against terrorism, we have to face the reality that we will never obliterate it entirely from the face of the earth. There will always be majorities or those in power who impose a tyrannical rule on the minority, and this creates the perfect environment that is conducive for the breeding of terrorism. As voices of the oppressed are drowned out by all-powerful governments, the only war that they can wage is that of terrorism. With fear and insecurity as their weapon, they will continue to march behind their shields of extremist beliefs. We cannot simply judge terrorists to be nothing more than criminals as they are only driven by the extremity of their circumstances. Perhaps one day the world will move towards an integrated global society that respects the rights of the minorities, but until then, terrorism will still flourish, as those who do not receive their basic rights and respect will do that they deem necessary to secure them.

Essay Questions from Past Years

Essay Questions from past years. Have a look at these General Paper Essay Questions from past years.

  1. ‘History records male acts, written by males and holds little interest for females as a result.’ Is this a fair comment?
  2. Would it matter if all the performing arts venues in your society, such as concert halls and theatres were closed down?
  3. ‘The book has no place in modern society.’ Discuss.
  4. How far can an individual be held responsible for crimes against humanity?
  5. Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful tool in everyday life?
  6. ‘The person who dies rich dies disgraced.’ Discuss.
  7. How important is it for people in your society to retain a sense of tradition?
  8. ‘Taking risks is an essential part of life and should be encouraged.’ Discuss.
  9. Is there any value in preserving minority languages in the world?
  10. Is violence ever justified?
  11. The most influential individuals in history are those who have caused the most harm.’ How far would you accept this view?
  12. To what extent are the rights of animals protected in your society?

‘Efforts to protect our environment today are mere symbolic gestures.’ How far do you agree with this view?

To condemn environmental efforts as totally futile is the same as saying that all efforts taken to conserve the environment are in vain.  The efforts to conserve the environment are not totally futile as much has been done to protect the environment.

Countries have pledged to protect the environment by signing international treaties. 127 countries have adopted legislation to regulate plastic bags. 27 countries have instituted taxes on the production of plastic bags, and 63 countries have initiated mandates to manage single-use plastics. These efforts show that efforts taken by various governments are not mere token gestures. Many countries have implemented recycling rates of over 50 per cent. Germany and South Korea are model examples. Some countries are beginning to apply circular approaches to waste reduction and conversion of unavoidable waste into an asset through job creation—building the business case for resource-efficient approaches and providing livelihoods to vulnerable communities. One example is Jordan. Supported by the European Union and UN Environment through the EU SWITCH Med Programme, the Association for Energy, Water and Environment in Jordan worked with 15 hotels and 17 restaurants to carry out a waste audit and find ways to reduce their impact. Such initiatives have become blueprints for other countries to adopt and follow. Much is being done for the environment.

To stem air pollution, many countries are taking large strides to ensure that people can breathe clean air. The Philippines and Sri Lanka, supported by UN Environment, have begun to tax electric and hybrid vehicles lower than conventional vehicles. The impact has been clear. The number of electric and hybrid cars in Sri Lanka’s active fleet grew 10 times between 2013 to mid-2018, with 150,000 such vehicles now on the streets. This growth saw the percentage of cleaner vehicles in the active fleet rise from 4 per cent in 2013 to 23 per cent by mid-2018. In the capital Colombo, where past research showed heavy traffic accounts for over 50 per cent of air pollution, this has made a real difference to human health. These are not singular examples. Environmental scientists opine that replacing the current fleet of buses and taxis in 22 Latin American cities could save 36,500 lives by 2030. The UN Environment body, through its MOVE platform and with the support of Euroclima+, is assisting Argentina, Colombia and Panama with national electric mobility strategies, and is helping Chile and Costa Rica to expand the use of electric buses. Although the efforts are not evident, much has been done to save the environment.

Much more is happening across the globe. Breathe Life, a campaign by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the World Health Organization and UN Environment, is running initiatives that cover 52 cities, regions and countries, and reach over 153 million citizens. For example, campaign partners energized the public through a sporting challenge that saw 55,000 people pledge to commute by bicycle or on foot. There are now more than a million electric cars in Europe. The rise of renewable energy will help, with investment in new renewable sources outstripping fossil fuel investments each year. All of this work is having an impact.

There are some instances of greenwashing by companies like Volkswagen or Starbucks, but largely efforts are being taken in the right direction. There is still pervasive use of single-use plastics, but education and awareness efforts are paying-off to convince people to change. While critics may laugh at turning off lights for 1 hour on Earth Day, we are making progressive steps at changing attitudes and our environment.

How far do you agree that having children is just another lifestyle choice?

The world today is facing an appreciable drop in global population due to declining birth rates. This growing phenomenon is here to stay as long as mankind continues to exist and remain indifferent towards having children. Increasingly, not having children has become a lifestyle choice for those in the first world.

Decades ago, traditional couples believed that having children is necessary so as to continue the family line. Others also saw the need to have children as they believed that they would be well taken care of in their old age. This mentality has led many families, especially those in rural areas or developing countries, to ensure that they have many children. The situation is different now. With financial independence, many couples believe that they can achieve their bucket-list faster if they remained a pair and avoided a 20-year commitment to raise children, or the prospect of doctor visits or paying for an education loan.  Many see being childless as a worry-free life.

Women who do not have kids, tend to understand motherhood as all-encompassing and overwhelming responsibility—one that might interfere with their next promotion. The choice to be childfree gave women the freedom to work and men freedom from work. Research has shown that childless women end up just as satisfied with their lives in the end. The challenges of today’s world is far different from the past. As such, many prospective parents feel that they may not have the skills and ability to raise children. There is a general fear of not being mentally or emotionally equipped for parenthood.

People who have grown up in a confused or very liberal environment are also choosing not to have children. These groups opine that the best thing about being childfree is not having to think about anyone else in terms of choices that are made. Ultimately, the freedom to choose, one way or the other, is something we should celebrate. But just how free that choice actually is, when much of society still expects women to choose to be mothers, is something worth considering.

A growing contingent of young people are refusing to have kids — or are considering having fewer kids — because of climate change.  The growing antinatalist movement is another factor that correlates with lifestyle choice. This philosophical movement based around the tenet that it is cruel to bring sentient lives, doomed to suffer into the world that is already suffering. They feel that people who have children by celebrating childbearing without acknowledging the consequences for themselves and the planet are doing injustice towards their progeny.

In conclusion, while some couples embrace having children, others view it as part of enhancing their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Reasons for having children have undoubtedly changed over the years, as people now do not only have children for the sake of completing their family portrait.