Historical figures that have caused the most harm are the most influential. How far do you agree?

The undeniable truth is that the most influential individuals in history are those who have done the most good, and not the most harm. Historical figures like Mandela, Che Guevera and Einstein have imparted ideas and values that still continue to inspire people. Their influence cannot be measured against vile and vicious leaders.

Historical figures are those people who have left a significant mark on people and have influenced society or the world in one way or another. Many historical figures are remembered because of their heroic deeds and their name is taken with love and respect. While others are known for their atrocities and tyranny and sheer thought of these people brings feelings of disgust and anger. It would be myopic to say that historical figures that have caused the most harm are most influential. Those that have worked tirelessly to make a difference in this world are far more many than the few that have caused the most harm.

People who are of the view that we remember historical figures of the harm they cause, may often cite examples of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. These people plundered and caused destruction of life and land. So cruel were their actions that millions of people faced atrocities like genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and arbitrary homicide. Their actions are still remembered by many people today and their name is spoken with utter disdain but it would be difficult to accept that they left a lasting influence of their ethos and pathos. 

However, there are people in history who have done great deeds and have left a legacy. Though people may feel sad and grieve about people who have lost lives during the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein or Muamar Ghaddhafi, people cannot forget the historical heroes who worked for the greater good of the society and left a legacy for people which is still followed. The teachings of Mahatma Gandhi of truth and non-violence resonate with people even today. Similarly, the teachings of The Dalai Lama about patience, tolerance and forgiveness has immense influence on people.  Thus, it can be said that historical figures that have done good leave a better and lasting influence on people than historical figures who have harmed the humanity.

Many historical figures like artists, philosophers and scientists have provided insights into the workings of the world. There are also those who have invented and discovered things that have impacted humans in great ways. For example, writers like Gabriel García Márquez has influenced writers and readers across the world. His influential works like One Hundred Years of Solitude and Love in the Time of Cholera has inspired modern writers like Salman Rushdie to adopt Marquez’s style of writing and has used it in many of his novels. Words of William Shakespeare too hold significant power today. No English literature class is complete without studying his works. Art of Frida Kahlo, portrayed the struggle for self-determination in the lives of women still connects with many women and men today. Thus, people who have influenced society in a positive way by portraying their society in real form and trying to bring change have had a greater influence than people who have harmed the humanity.

There are those who argue that those who have caused the most harm leave a lasting influence. It is true in some sense because it helps people in avoiding the mistakes the historical figures made. For instance, some may assert that the memory of the Holocaust under Hitler’s reign will prevent humanity from repeating such an atrocity. However, this is not true because evil acts are a part of society if historical atrocities are a reminder that we should not commit these crimes then why do racial prejudice, islamophobia and sentiments like anti-Semitism still exist? People like Hitler have simply been replaced by men like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who once declared his intention to wipe Israel “off the world map”. In fact, majority of the middle east harbours the harshest anti-Semitic sentiments.  The media channels in these countries also use provocative Nazi-like language that oppose Israel and the West. Therefore, it can be said that good historical figures leave a lasting impact on people and bring positive change, however, tyrannical historical figures do not leave any guidelines for people or do not inspire others to be less evil.

The undeniable truth is that the most influential individuals in history are those who have done the most good, and not the most harm. Historical figures like Mandela, Che Guevera and Einstein have imparted ideas and values that still continue to inspire people. Their influence cannot be measured against vile and vicious leaders.

Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith. Do you agree?

But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.

While there is no doubt that science is valuable and explains many concepts objectively, but we should not completely forget about religion. While human beliefs should be driven by scientific fact rather than religious facts, science should be only relied on when it provides definite answers and absolute solutions. Religious facts should be relied in the areas which are ambiguous.

Science provides objective solutions and evidence to many problems. Scientific facts explain many phenomena. For example, from the daily cycle of day and night, to the occurrence of earthquakes and tsunamis. Scientific facts have also provided us with cures for many diseases and life-threatening situations. On the other hand, religious facts have always tried to associate all phenomena with a supreme being. For example, it was considered that leprosy was a curse of god and signified impurity. Many people in the older times believed that curing diseases required penance and rituals to pacify the angry gods. However, scientific evidence has proved that diseases and illnesses are caused by bacteria, viruses and anti-bodies, which has caused many diseases to be cured scientifically. Champions of scientific fact suggest that human actions should be guided by scientific facts rather than human actions.

Science has provided people with weapons of mass destruction but only our morals guide us whether to use them or not. Though religion does not base its facts on empirical research, it does provide us solutions to moral dilemmas through dictating what is right and wrong. Though some religious practices today may be considered oppressive it cannot be denied that majority of religious teachings are positive as they teach people kindness, compassion and honesty. Though these tenets can be practiced without the need of faith, it can be said that religion provides an authoritative institute which makes sure that these principles are adhered to, It is also true that without religion it would be difficult to provide basis for moral actions. If more people considered only science as god then there is possibility that everyone can turn into doctor Frankenstein and would try to consider themselves as god. Therefore, humans should place their actions on religious faith rather than scientific facts when moral dilemmas arise.

Science also fails in providing substantial evidence of our existence of where did we come from and its meaning. The scientific evidence does not satisfy us on an emotional level as the answers provided by science are ambiguous. For example,  science fails to explain how creatures, be it human beings or even unicellular organisms have such complex and intricate structure. It then begs the question that is it just by chance or is it because some higher power has made them this way. Thus, science does not always provide evidence about such questions, and thus people often rely on religious fact.

Logically, it seem prudent that human actions should be based mostly on scientific fact. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should place our faith in religion. Individuals who believe in religion should not be derided as religion gives them hope instead of just objective facts. But the caveat is that it is important for those that tow religious doctrine to base their actions on moral outcomes instead of blind faith.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Do you agree?

Words have become the balm that has been used to soothe the masses, not violent intervention.

The pen is mightier than the sword is a metonymic adage that has been used for centuries. While many have advocated the power of the sword, it cannot be denied that the pen holds significant power as well. The written word has transformed socioeconomic and political landscapes. Thus, it remains true that the written word is more powerful than the strength of weapons. 

Forceful or armed intervention helps a totalitarian or dictatorial government to intimidate the masses into submission.  The use of force or intimidation does not require deep reasoning. According to supporters of violence, violence is better because it gives immediate results and destroys opponents. An example of this can be Jamal Khashoggi who was killed in a rogue operation because he criticised the policies of Saudi Crown Prince, Prince Mohammed, through his column in the Washington Post. Similarly, in Northwest China, libraries burnt books that did not align religiously and politically to the communist ideologies of the PRC party. These incidents show how people fear the power of the pen and use the “sword” mercilessly to silence them.

Though it might seem that the “sword” holds significant power, the profound impact of the pen should not be forgotten. For example, in China, Mao Zedong was deeply influenced by the writings of Karl Marx. The impact of Marx’s view led to the communist revolution in China. Similarly, many books and written words have provided us look into deeper ideas like colonialism and post-colonialism. For example, Edward Said’s book Orientalism evaluated and criticised western beliefs about oriental people and formed an important ground for post-colonial studies. Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical book, Mein Kampf, disseminated his ideologies to a large audience. Therefore, the pen has the power to influence human thought and behaviour inefficient ways without violence.

Supporters of violence often argue that words mean nothing if a nation cannot protect itself from external military forces. For example, literature did not help to stop violence against Black Americans. Thinking retrospectively, literature was of little use when the German military invaded Poland or when Malaysia was attacked by the Japanese forces.  One could surmise that when military power is strong, words are of little use. Military forces in this instance can destroy societies and culture and also replace the existing literature with something new.

The power of the pen has morphed into the power of social media. Governments have been formed and finished by the swift stroke of the keyboard. In modern times, the pen manifests itself as Twitter feeds, Instagram posts and some even suggest, Tik Tok videos. The power of the pen is seen in hashtags that give further boost to causes and challenges that societies want to surmount. The Arab Sping, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and the MeToo movement area all examples of how the pen has been able to show its mettle in the form of words, and actions. The world is less violent now and conflicts mostly regional.

Even today, the pen is mightier than the sword. Many problems of the world find a solution in the written word and do not require the display of might. In the end, might can only oppresses and can only lead to superficial success and sooner or later will find itself challenged by the written word.  Words have become the balm that has been used to soothe the masses, not violent intervention.

GP Essay Questions 1/100

GP essay questions collection past year. Here are all the GP Essay Questions from past year prelims.

  1. To what extent do young people in your society show an interest in their culture and traditions?
  2. ‘The key to eliminating poverty is education rather than aid.’ Do you agree?
  3. How important is play in your society?
  4. Should every country have the right to use nuclear technology?
  5. Is a world without conflict a realistic aim?
  6. Should countries solve global problems when their own problems are not dealt with?
  7. Consider the view that artists should be given absolute freedom.
  8. To what extent should our personal lives be the concern of the government?
  9. Is it justifiable for countries to rewrite history to suit their needs?
  10. ‘Businesses value profit more than the planet today.’ Comment
  11. How far should the progress of science be guided by ethics?
  12. Should the elderly in your country be fearful of the future?

Why should we be concerned with current affairs when most of them will soon be forgotten?

After all, ignorance is not always bliss. In the words of Dalai Lama, “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.”

People spend hours watching news and debates on CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera, in an effort to keep abreast of the current socioeconomic issues. Current news provides us with much needed information about the issues people are facing around the world. The news of today can also help us in understanding the incidents which may happen in the future. Thus, it is important that people follow the current affairs because if we do not pay attention about the decisions which are taken around the world it will have a negative impact on countries, economies and common people.

People who hold the view that people should not be concerned about current affairs often suggest that it is a waste of time. These news pieces are short-lived and may not influence the people on a global level. In a world of technology, we are bombarded with news that is transient and short-lived in nature. However, just because, a current event might not have relevance in the future it does not mean that it is not important today. Being aware of current affairs is necessary because some issues can affect us as well and can also pose a threat. For example, the coronavirus (COVID-19) threat is something one needs to be aware of. That is because only awareness can help in prevention of the disease. If people are not aware of the coronavirus news, then they might risk their lives as well as the lives of others. Current news can help us to take precautionary messages and can save hundreds of lives. An example of this can be the news about Ukrainian Airlines plane being accidentally shot down by Iran which prompted other airlines to avoid airspace near Iran and Iraq. Thus, current affairs news can be a life saviour for many and people should keep themselves updated about current affairs.

Current world news not only makes people aware about threats but also about opportunity. In a globalised world, current affairs can also open up avenues for people to understand current market trends. One example of this is companies profiting from selling masks and hand sanitisers at exorbitant prices because of the ongoing, coronavirus threat. Another example can be of Just Inc., a food and beverage company which makes plant-based egg products which received multiple inquiries and from Chinese food companies seeking animal-free protein sources amid the coronavirus outbreak. The impasse between Russia and Saudi Arabia over the price and production of oil or the ongoing spat between India and Malaysia regarding the palm oil  create opportunities for forex and commodity traders as well as businessmen. Thus, by keeping in touch with current news, people can profit and succeed in life.

Though most of the current events would be forgotten in the future, it does not mean all news will meet a similar fate. The events that affect people today can also have a lasting impact on people and the world. For example, Indian mission of Chandrayaan-2 of sending an orbiter, lander, and rover to Moon’s southern hemisphere will be remembered by many in the future. Similarly, Joseph Schooling winning Singapore’s first-ever Olympic gold would always be remembered even by the future generations. People who are sceptical of following current may argue that today’s current news does not have much significance. However, if people do not follow current news then they might remain unaware about significant events that occur around the world.

In conclusion, people should be interested and concerned about current affairs because these news pieces inform, alert and raise awareness among millions of people.  If people follow current news, then they can also exploit opportunities to gain profits and make informed choices.  One has to be aware about the surroundings around the world. After all, ignorance is not always bliss. In the words of Dalai Lama, “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.”

How well are the demands of the economy and the environment balanced in Singapore?

Singapore has gained a reputation for itself on an international platform as a country that is strong both diplomatically and economically. Some quarters believe that the economic benefits have come about by compromising on the environment. Under the great leadership of the incumbent government, Singapore has over the last five decades ensured a balance between the environment and economy.

Singapore has gained a reputation for itself on an international platform as a country that is strong both diplomatically and economically. Some quarters believe that the economic benefits have come about by compromising on the environment. Under the great leadership of the incumbent government, Singapore has over the last five decades ensured a balance between the environment and economy.

To boost the country’s economy, Singapore has invested significantly in infrastructure required for global markets. Singapore does not produce crude oil, however, it is known as a major hub for oil refining and trading. Oil refining and processing has a direct and immediate effect on the environment. Southern islands have been cleared of native populations and combined to create large petrochemical refineries and storage facilities. High levels of carbon emissions are a natural consequence of this activity which ultimately leads to climate change.

While the above has impacted the economy, the petrochemical industry has created thousands of jobs not just in the field itself, but also in complimentry industries like construction. The government has balanced the pollution generated in building the economy by investing in greenery. Thousands of trees and bushes have been planted around the small island. Even today one can see exotic trees and flowering bushes across the country and justifies its name as the Garden City. With no natural resources, the economic plan of the government has allowed for economic groth despite costs to the environment. The government has tried to mend this issue by regular tree planting to off-set carbon emissions.

In recent times the government has taken conscious efforts to build policies that protect the environment. Singapore has created a well-connected public transport system ensures that people commute using these transportation systems travel in comfort and reduce carbon emissions. The government has created cycling paths for the convenience of cyclists. In building new homes, Singapore government insists on having plant life in the form of green roofs, vertical gardens or even walls made it lush green grass and plants. Thus, while the country has made significant economic progress, it has not forgotten the importance of environment and is trying to strike a balance. The economy and the environment is well balanced in Singapore.

Singapore is extremely resourceful in finding balance between environment and economic growth. Growing concerns about climate change and global warming has prompted Singapore to continuously drive in the right direction of protecting the environment. A notable example of this can be an important tourist attraction, Gardens by the Bay, which has an innovative design and is considered a masterpiece in eco-friendliness. Recently, there also have been developments that the gardens will adopt a technology which can convert garbage into energy which can enhance plant growth.  Similarly, many public parks in the country contribute significantly to the environmental health and also boost the economy. Unlike cities like Shanghai, Saigon and Santiago, Singapore is not plagued by the issue of air pollution. Singapore has good quality air and a high-quality life which make it clear that Singapore does have great balance between environment and economy.

Not only locally, Singapore has addressed the issues concerning environment on an international level as well. For example, during the forest fires in Indonesia, the National Environment Agency, helped to detect fire in 450 hotspots in three provinces in Indonesia. Singapore also offered fire-fighting assistance to Indonesia. This shows that Singapore as a country is not only addressing environmental issues on a national level but also on a global level. Apart from that, Singapore is also a signatory to the Paris document which asks for carbon and green house gas emission cuts. This again illustrates that Singapore, takes environment seriously and tries to strike a balance between economic needs and environmental needs.

There is no doubt that Singapore takes environmental concerns seriously. The country makes conscious efforts to mitigate the damage caused by economic endeavours. Though Singapore is not perfect in many aspects regarding environment, the country takes significant steps to become eco-friendly. This is evident from the fact that its carbon emissions are lesser than of the other developed nations.

Higher education is no longer necessary for success. Discuss.

For a majority of people, higher education undoubtedly remains key to achieving success. Not only are degrees badges of acquired skill, they are sometimes even status symbols. In addition, the experience of going through higher education often proves to be greatly important if one seeks a successful career. Higher education still plays a vital role in the pathway to success.

For a majority of people, higher education undoubtedly remains key to achieving success. Not only are degrees badges of acquired skill, they are sometimes even status symbols. In addition, the experience of going through higher education often proves to be greatly important if one seeks a successful career. Higher education still plays a vital role in the pathway to success.

It is easy to see why there has been increasing optimism of attaining success through means other than higher education. First, the rapid growth of online courses offered by Coursera and Phoenix University have led to the argument that the advent of the Internet has made it such that individuals no longer need higher education to obtain the skills they require for their jobs. Second, people often lament that despite obtaining degrees, they are unable to find work, and cannot pay off college debts they have accumulated. Third, mass media platforms have recently painted pictures of how individuals like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg reached the very peak of what it means to be “successful”, without ever needing the support of higher education. This leads to the claim that higher education has lost its ability to deliver some measures of success. These three arguments present the case that higher education is no longer necessary for success.

However, it is overly assertive to claim that the skills that people learn from university education are irrelevant, even with the aid of the Internet. Instead, it is more reasonable to believe that higher education provides greater opportunities for learning. Though it may be possible to obtain the same access to information, it is only at universities that individuals of similar interests are able to gather in a classroom, exchange thoughts and ideas with each other, and learn under the tutelage of professors at the forefronts of their fields. Comparatively, those who do not attend higher education do not have that same opportunity to ask peers or professors for help when they run into problems understanding the content taught. Especially for specialised fields like biotechnology and law, the skills and knowledge necessary for the future remain largely accessible only to those who have undergone higher education. From this, it is clear that university graduates have greater propensity to gain skills and knowledge than non-graduates.

In addition, the university degree itself is a badge of acquired skill, reassuring employers that these employees have learnt the content, and are able to handle the work assigned to them. This means that graduates are more likely to be hired than non-graduates, which often translates into higher salaries. Furthermore, the trust that employers have in graduates’ ability to perform better often translates into greater financial remuneration. Today, bachelor’s degree holders can expect median lifetime earnings of about US$2.3 million, as compared to US$1.3 million for workers with just a high school diploma. Ultimately, higher education does in fact bring about greater financial success for graduates.

It is also fallacious to argue that higher education has stopped being a necessary part to being successful just because there have been exceptions to it. Not only were Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates intellectual geniuses and visionaries who had foreseen and grasped business opportunities, they were born into circumstances which ultimately facilitated their success. Courses offered at universities could not offer advice to these entrepreneurs embarking as pioneers of a new field. On the other hand, an overwhelming proportion of individuals do not enjoy the same kind of privilege, be it financial or intellectual. Hence, for most, the likely route to success is higher education, which sets them apart from other job applicants.

In fact, for most occupations excluding degree-blind jobs such as entrepreneurship and advertising, higher education plays an integral role in assimilating graduates into their future workplaces. Upon entering the workplace, university graduates depend upon the ties they had developed to help them along, and this often stems from their higher education experience. For example, specialists often depend on the referrals of other doctors to obtain a base of patients. In such a situation, getting to know others who are in the field is incredibly important for one’s career advancement prospects. Thus, higher education is not just about the content and skills involved, but also the relationships graduates develop with each other. The social advantage that higher education offers hence allows graduates to get a leg up over non-graduate.

In essence, higher education remains necessary for success. This is not to say that all graduates are necessarily more successful than all non-graduates, because of the multitude of factors involved. However, university graduates do indeed benefit greatly from higher education, a crucial factor contributing to being successful.

Is regulation of the press desirable?

In the last two decades or so, the growing reach of the Internet and exponential growth in related mobile communications technology has brought seismic changes to the way in which information is disseminated and views exchanged. News generation has become decentralised – once newspapers, TV and radio stations fed the news to their consumers, but now anyone can be a journalist by writing or posting videos on his blog or social media account. Thus, in the current context, it is my view that the only meaningful definition of “the press” would be all forms of media old and new seen as a collective whole. Today social media often has greater influence over the public than traditional media, and so any discussion of the regulation of information cannot exclude social media. For this essay, desirability shall be defined in terms of both positive practical outcomes and ethical considerations. I hold the position that the regulation of the press by means of rules or restrictions is desirable only insofar as it provides a reasonable balance between conflicting human rights and aspects of the public interest, and only if regulation is carried out by truly independent entities.

At times journalists and media outlets, in their zeal to obtain information and gain an edge over their competitors, carry out actions that are illegal, unethical or both. This can lead to the violation of the rights of individuals and lower the moral character of a society. A prominent example is a phone-hacking scandal that brought down British tabloid The News of the World in 2011. Reporters from the paper were found to have hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians and members of the British royal family. What shocked the country and world, even more, was the revelation that the newspaper had even intruded into the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and victims of the 7 July 2005 terror attacks on the London Underground train network. The freedom of the press cannot be allowed to extend so far that it eviscerates the fundamental right of individuals to privacy, which is also integral to a person’s dignity. For a society to enjoy dignity and happiness, a reasonable balance needs to be struck between rights and freedoms that conflict with one another. Furthermore, the total lack of respect shown by the journalists for the deceased was also appalling and, if left unchecked, would cause the moral degradation of society. Thus regulations to bar the press from carrying out such aggressive and unethical information-gathering activities are not only necessary but desirable as well.

Another human right that can be encroached upon by excessive press freedom would be the right to safety. Media outlets that choose to incite violence can bring about large-scale violence and harm to life and limb. For this reason, many countries have restrictions on such content. For instance, the United States prohibits speech that is designed to incite immediate violence or unlawful activity. In a court decision, an American judge likened such speech to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, creating a clear and present danger. In another case, the Court ruled that such speech has no social value and can thus be curtailed. I concur with the reasoning of the American courts and argue that the right of the press to express itself cannot override the right of the individual to safety, and therefore regulation of the media in this regard is to be welcomed. Having said that, one should note that just as no right is absolute, the circumscription of any right may also not hold water under some circumstances. For instance, if a newspaper incites violence to overthrow an egregiously unjust, tyrannical and murderous regime, it may be justifiable for the greater good of the country and of humanity. In prosecuting such a case, it is hoped that an impartial court would take the context and unique moral and legal calculus into due consideration.

Constraints on press freedom can also be warranted by national security considerations, an important facet of the public interest. It is reasonable to sacrifice a limited amount of press freedom in order to ensure national security, which is vital to the very survival of the state – without which no human rights or happiness is even possible. While the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, the Supreme Court has also recognised that in certain situations, the government is allowed to limit the liberty of the press. One of these is when a confidential source violates federal law in leaking information to the press. In such a case, the reporter can be subpoenaed and be required to name her source. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail for contempt of court when she refused to disclose the source who leaked the identity of undercover Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, for instance, if it was crucial to violate federal secrecy laws to protect the survival of the state or to correct a gross injustice against the people, journalists cannot be allowed to undermine national security in the name of press freedom. In recent times, a particularly notable example of the media undermining (or being used to undermine) national security is the alleged Russian manipulation of the US presidential election in 2016 by spreading fake news on Facebook using highly sophisticated programs such as “bots” or autonomous programs designed to behave like humans online. Such disinformation campaigns, if not regulated, can undermine not only national security but even the sovereignty of a state itself.

Certainly however, legitimate concerns are raised by opponents of press regulation that it can be misused by governments to stifle criticism, dissent and even political opposition. Differing views exist as to what the role of the media should be. In western nations, the media is widely recognised as the fourth estate or fourth power, the latter term referring to an unofficial fourth branch of government in addition to the executive, legislative and judiciary. In this paradigm the media act as a public check on the official branches of government. In other countries, however, the role of the media is defined very differently. For instance in Singapore, the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delineated the media’s function as providing “nation-building journalism”: assisting the government in implementing policies and the general governance of the country. In this school of thought, the press should faithfully inform the masses about the work of the government. I subscribe to the former conception of the media as the fourth power, as it is crucial to have alternative sources of information, in particular by professional journalists or truth-seekers, in order for the people to make wise choices in the exercise of their political choices. For this reason, I am sympathetic to the view that press regulation can be used as a tool of oppression or partisan political interests by governments. It is conceivable, for instance, that a government-controlled regulator could fabricate charges and allegations against a newspaper or blog that is critical of it, just to silence it. However, the need for press regulation as outlined earlier is so compelling that it overrides concerns of governmental abuse, the problem of which can be resolved or at least mitigated by having strongly independent regulatory bodies which are not allied to the government or any political party.

In conclusion, it is my conviction that it is sensible and wise to have a rules-based system to govern the press, but only to the extent that a judicious balance is struck between competing rights and conflicting aspects of the public interest, and only if the regulation is carried out by a body that is nonpartisan and independent of the government. As with most other issues of society, a delicate balance needs to be struck through a thorough engagement between all stakeholders – taking into account the constant changes in the landscape of media, technology, politics, culture and society. While a vibrant, robust press is vital to a healthy democracy and good governance, we must also hold the fourth estate to account and ensure that it remains a responsible and constructive actor in society.

In an age of rapid technological advancement, is a single career for life realistic?

In many countries, people are facing the issue of unemployment. Governments of various countries have blamed immigrants or other factors for this issue. However, technological advancements like Artificial Intelligence and Robots are responsible for replacing humans. Many traditional jobs like packing, sorting and administrative work today is being replaced by technology. Rapid technological advancements make it necessary that humans upgrade and learn new skills throughout their lives. A single career, however, is realistic even in today’s society if the professionals learn to adapt and learn new skills with the advancement in technology.

It is believed that technological innovations will replace humans in most professions either fully or partially. Many studies and researchers conducted say that AI will replace most jobs by 2040. This can already be seen in blue-collar jobs like machine operation and food delivery. However, it is also estimated that more than 500 million jobs will be replaced by AI. While it seems that humans will be replaced completely in the job sector, which is not the case. This is because, while AI and robots will replace traditional job functions, it will also create new jobs. The creation of new jobs makes it important that individuals today learn new skills and perform different job tasks. For example, people might need to build upon their computer knowledge and technical skills. With AI and robotics coming to the forefront people might need to learn skills like problem-solving, creativity and communication. Therefore, if a person wants to remain in a single career for life it is necessary to work within these fields otherwise their jobs might be destroyed by technology.

Though AI might automate most of the jobs, there are jobs that will remain in demand and cannot be replaced by AI and robotics. Though AI and robotics might work well in many fields there are fields where AI still needs humans to succeed. An example of this can be Google Translate, which translates simple phrases extremely well but if creative phrases or idioms are fed into google translate it results in inaccurate results. Another example can be of customer service, while virtual assistants are trained to greet and understand questions, the dataset is extremely limited which results in repetitive responses and options. If the customer has a complex question it is almost never understood by the chatbot and may lead to frustrating and negative customer experience. Thus, it can be seen that AI cannot replace human skills like empathy or deal with conflict resolution and negotiations. Hence, single career options are possible especially in job sectors like psychology, education, health care and communication where the focus is on complex cognitive skills.

Though it is to be understood that professionals even in these job sectors might have to upgrade their skills and adapt to new changes. For instance, teachers may need to learn new apps to grade papers, teachers who think out of the box, are creative and with the help of AI can better plan, personalise and facilitate the learning process. People with knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) will be an important part of the workforce in the AI-driven industry. Therefore, people choosing to stay within a single career and progress in their profession are in luck, if they choose to learn the above-mentioned skills.

There is also a growing trend of outsourcing jobs which makes it difficult to keep a single career. The outsourcing has also given rise to new kind of jobs where people are combining two or more skills. People who constantly change and upgrade skills will remain in the job market and maintain their jobs. For example, management consultants can continue in a single job and provide people with insights into organising their companies.  In a society where change is the norm, a single career is possible for those who continuously change.

Thus, it may seem that technological advances may not allow people to have a single career. A single career choice is possible even in a technologically changing society. This is especially true for professionals working in the field of education, technology, education and communication. Technology still needs to compete with the complexity of the human mind and its varied responses. It can be said that technology has a long way to go in replacing humans completely in certain fields because of their multi-faceted skills.