The only way to save journalism is to make readers direct participants in making, and paying for, the media.

Growing rates of global internet access have made countless sources of information readily available but with few checks and balances and widely varying levels of credibility. Unprecedented access to all kinds of media has not only increased competition among news providers, but it has also led to the extreme proliferation of low-quality yet plausible-looking sources of information—making it easier for political players to manipulate public opinion and to do so while denigrating established news brands. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality.

The world’s new, digital, and highly competitive media environment has created fundamental problems in the business models that journalism relies on. Print products are in terminal decline; television audiences are plummeting. Advertising around the news is no longer attractive when internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon offer far more effective ways to target consumers. These new financial realities have led many news organizations to adopt problematic techniques for survival: prioritizing quantity over quality and running so-called clickbait headlines. Each of these developments, combined with a lack of transparency within news organizations and the increased use of unfiltered social media platforms as news sources, contributes to a further drop in trust in the media.

The decline of news organizations may seem unstoppable. But while the internet has permanently disrupted traditional media, it also presents several ways to fix it. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality. Harnessing the reach of the internet can help neutralize bias in the news industry and fix problems relating to a lack of representation and diversity. Information providers can achieve these advances in a financially viable way—by making readers direct participants and stakeholders. To do all this, however, journalism must adapt to the era of connectivity and information.

Social media users can today access information with a few taps on a smartphone, but in many cases, they either lack the skills or the time to properly assess the reliability of that information.

Emerging platforms have enabled mere news enthusiasts—and propagandists—to compete with professional journalists on an equal footing. On these platforms, what makes a news report successful is its level of virality: The articles and videos that are most popular are the ones that attract the most immediate and radical emotional reactions, even if they contain factual errors. Current advertising-only business models rely on this fact for survival, prioritizing content that is addictive and shareable rather than reliable and important.

For all their flaws, however, social media platforms contain important solutions to declining levels of trust in the news industry. Emerging media have dramatically expanded the global audience of news consumers, and information providers should see that reach not as a problem but as an opportunity. The global online community, if properly harnessed, can increase accountability in news organizations by identifying biases and improving neutrality in reporting: Having the oversight of countless diverse online users can be beneficial.

Transparency is the bedrock of restoring public trust in the media; eliciting greater involvement among consumers will naturally lead to an increased demand for media transparency in sources of funding, the involvement of advertisers, and political pressure.

Beyond a supervisory role, an important step would be to regard the online community as an active participant in the process of producing news. Given the chance, internet users can carve out a crucial role in assembling and curating accurate information. The key is to view social media users as a huge community of fact-checkers and news producers, instead of passive recipients of unreliable news.

The theory of turning readers into active resources is not merely hypothetical—it is a concept found in WikiTribune as a news platform supported by professional journalists but controlled by an online community. Devoid of any traditional hierarchy, the organization encourages the highest levels of neutrality and transparency. WikiTribune’s volunteers and professional journalists will share the same editing rights: Each one of them can initiate or edit any article on the platform. Moderators emerge naturally from within the community. Making readers active participants in the production of news can also help organizations save money. Fact-checking and editing, for example, can be delegated to communities of volunteers using the vast database of the internet. Traditional news editors may find this notion difficult to accept, but the concept comes naturally to people who have grown up using the internet. Passive consumption is no longer the dominant feature in news; we are all creators of content, and we should all get a chance to participate in how information is disseminated.

The wiki model—defined as any website that allows collaborative editing—also provides an effective solution to bias in reporting. If everyone has equal power, no one can control a narrative. Bias often comes from hierarchical news models in which senior editors can mould the news to fit their views—or those of their publishers or financial backers. Collaborative editing platforms allow and encourage an open discussion on every article by a variety of participants from different backgrounds. Any disputes over opposing narratives are constructively resolved by the community, avoiding the problems in traditional journalism.

A community-driven news product does not have to be restricted to English. Most new internet users read Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, or Chinese; Wikipedia, for example, allows users of any language to document their news and events on its online encyclopedia, and it does so despite local government restrictions on journalism, leading a global battle against censorship.

Of course, collaborative models are not without their problems. It can be a struggle to create a thoughtful and varied community dedicated to the goal of producing high-quality news. Bad actors such as online trolls and politically motivated participants are threats requiring clear systems of identification, moderation, and removal. Constant efforts must be made to include as much variety of culture, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, geography, and political inclination to prevent biases. Creating standards and practices can take time, but the success of the worldwide Wikipedia community, which has faced similar challenges, proves that community models can provide an effective public good—with a high level of trust and engagement.

The first priority of any news outlet must be the quality and credibility of its journalistic work. Those that depend on advertising-only business models may find it hard to sustain this priority: Eventually, a push for more traffic, and therefore revenue, will conflict with the mission for high-quality and reliable journalism.

News organisations interested to provide credible news can consider with a business model driven by voluntary subscriptions to avoid the need for advertising revenue and steer clear of shady corporate interests. Users who find its content meaningful and important are welcome to support the project with a one-time contribution or a monthly subscription. Such fundraising campaigns can reveal the public thirst for new models of journalism. Business models based on the direct financial support of the public represent the most sustainable strategy for global media.

Wikipedia, again, is fully supported by millions of users who appreciate the added value that the online encyclopedia brings to their lives every day. Public support comes in the form of not just money but also the time spent by volunteers contributing content and fixing errors.

Some traditional media are actively moving away from strategies dependent on online traffic and advertising. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Guardian has made a successful transition to a business model based on financial contributions from readers. In 2016, after suffering tens of millions of dollars in losses, the Guardian appealed directly to its readers for support: Instead of calling for transactional subscriptions, it asked for patronage and participation. This humble, transparent strategy encouraged readers to support the Guardian for the greater cause of sustaining high-quality journalism, rather than merely treating their monthly contributions as a detached move to purchase content. By May 2019, the Guardian reported an annual operating profit of more than $1 million. And its success will likely be sustainable since it now has more than 655,000 regular monthly supporters. The transition from a membership-driven business to one based on voluntary support echoes the Wikipedia model, where users choose to support a project not necessarily for the content that they personally use but for its greater benefit to the world.

The Dutch publication De Correspondent presents another successful example of journalism funded by readers. Launched in Amsterdam in 2013 after its founders raised $1.7 million from 19,000 supporters, De Correspondent sought to provide ethical journalism without relying on advertising, which appealed to people who wished to support a more transparent business model of news. Today, De Correspondent enjoys the support of more than 60,000 members—yet more evidence that there is, in fact, a public appetite to fund high-quality sources of information.

New funding models are critical in order to keep journalism strong, independent, and sustainable. Not all news organizations may be able or willing to adopt a patronage model. However, the more models that successfully coexist, the higher the chances that journalism will remain independent. Subscription models—as opposed to voluntary contributions—tend to be better suited to financial or other niche publications, such as the Wall Street Journal or the Information, because they offer a more transactional service with access to time-sensitive business news. Those somewhat customized services are made available only to those who are willing to pay premium fees for business advantage. General news services, however, are more widely available and as such do not lend themselves as clearly to transactional revenue models (unless they achieve the scale of a marquee newspaper like the New York Times).

Strong and independent journalism is at the heart of any healthy, functioning democracy. It is the gatekeeper against corruption and plays a vital role in communicating the facts that allow people to make informed decisions about their lives. Statements by politicians delegitimizing the media resonate with the public only if they are already in doubt of its validity. Quality journalism that involves the news community in the process of producing it creates a transparent operation that can gain the public’s trust. This kind of collaborative, responsive media has a greater likelihood of attracting the direct support of people who believe in the importance of sustaining it. To save itself, journalism now needs to go back to the people.

‘Practical ability is just as important as intellectual skills.’ How far is this true in your society?

Today’s competitive world places a lot of emphasis on academics. While intellectual skills are important, one should also place importance on a practical ability like teamwork, fixing and repairing things around the house. Practical ability can thus be described as essential life skills needed to survive in the world. It can be said that in today’s world practical ability is as important as intellectual skills.

Supporters of intellectual abilities state that good grades in school open doors to reputed universities. Getting good grades in these highly reputed universities boosts the resume of individuals and leads them to get jobs in good companies. For example, many parents emphasize that their children attend top universities like Oxford and Cambridge so that it raises their social status. It is also seen that many companies prefer hiring people who have studied at a reputed college rather than a local college. The preference for intellectual abilities is also seen in the job description of these companies where candidates from top-tier schools and universities are preferred. Scholarships around the world are granted to people who score good marks in their academics which furthers backs their claim that intellectual abilities are more important than any other thing. Thus, it can be said that bright job opportunities and improvement in one’s social status lead people to place more emphasis on intellectual skills rather than practical skills.

However, not all people who have sterling intellectual abilities good at performing jobs that require practical skills. In fact, more and more jobs today require the candidate to have practical skills rather than formal college degree or diploma. Notable examples of this include companies like Apple, IBM and Google who offer freshers jobs based on skills rather than academic credentials. Service-based industries like Starbucks and Amazon also do not place an emphasis on a college degree as practical skills are more important in these jobs. If an individual has the practical ability, they can even outshine people who just have intellectual abilities. A notable example of this can be the work of Doctor Hamilton Naki, a self-taught surgeon who made numerous contributions to the science of transplantation and also got a chance to assist Christiaan Barnard in a successful heart transplant surgery. This shows that practical skills are an important factor in success rather than just intellectual abilities. Therefore, practical competence is as important as intellectual skills.

With changing times people are placing importance on practical abilities as well. This is evident from the fact that people today celebrate people with practical skills as much as they celebrate people with intellectual skills. For example, there are many self-taught chefs that have received accolades worldwide without any proven intellectual abilities or prestigious academic records. In Singapore, this is evident through the success of chef Chan Hon Meng and chef Lee Meng Li who have gained Michelin stars for their dishes based on their culinary skills. Similarly, sportsperson like swimmers, cricketers and footballers do not need academic skills but practical skills and techniques of the sport they play. It can be said that these people receive more appreciation than people with intellectual skills and no practical skills. Therefore, it can be said that practical skills are more important than intellectual skills.

The importance of practical skills can be seen in modern society. Even though people are today securing degrees and formal education they do lack employable skills. Even though people are graduates and even post-graduates they have failed to acquire jobs. This is evident from the high unemployment rates of graduates and even post-graduates. In today’s world if people have to succeed then they need to be more or equally good at practical skills. Thus, it is important that one must possess the aptitude to navigate an increasingly complex globalised world.

In conclusion, it can be said that practical skills are as important as intellectual and academic achievements. Though intellectual abilities may be required in some jobs, most jobs require people to have practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge.

Social media divides more than it unites. Do you agree?

Social media has enabled people to make friends from all over the world. Social media can take various form, from photo-sharing apps like Instagram and Tumblr to user-generated content platforms like Twitter and YouTube. Social media has become widespread and has a lot of influence on people today. Some quarters opine that social media divides. But it is more of a uniting force because it can go beyond boundaries, share different opinions that can lead to a healthy debate and has the power to highlight issues which have not come to light due to various reason. In these aspects, social media is more of a uniting force.

Detractors to the view suggest that social media enables people to make friends from various social classes and cultural backgrounds. People can connect with each other from across the world and also maintain a relationship with friends and families who have moved abroad. For example, through websites like Facebook, people can send a friend request to people with similar likes and interests. Furthermore, sites like Tumblr enable a person living in Singapore to become friends with a person living in Paris. When people form friendships with people from other cultures than they can become sensitive and understanding of other cultures. Additionally, video calling and live streaming services on apps like Instagram, Facebook and Skype can allow people to connect with people through video calls. This can allow them to witness events like New Years Eve fireworks, Weddings and Graduation ceremonies if one cannot be present physically. Thus, social media has indeed made the world a small place and has also reduced the gap between people.

Another positive view is that social media also allows healthy debates by ensuring that people can express their varying opinions. Many people have access to social media apps today. People can use these apps to offer their different views. Social media empowers people to put forth their opinions and views and comment on various social and political issues.  For example, many governments understanding the rising use of social media have started putting polls and asking for feedback on various issues. Singaporean government created a website called eGov2015 in a bid to ensure that feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life can be heard and to facilitate greater co-creation and collaboration between the government and the people. Thus, it can be said that social media acts as a unifying force in bringing people together by means of differing opinions.

Social media has helped in shedding light on issues that otherwise would not have come to the front. As social media is used globally, it can spread the news on a global level and make people aware of the situation around the world. For example, The Ice Bucket Challenge brought forth to the issue of ALS and successfully raised $100 million for the ALS association. Another example can be the Me-Too movement, which became a worldwide phenomenon. Started by actress Alyssa Milano, it became a simple yet powerful way to express solidarity with victims of sexual harassment and shed light on the power imbalance that exists between men and women within societies across the world. The more recent Trashtag challenge also brought to the front the issue of plastic pollution. People from across the world have participated in the challenge from children in Congo to adults and teenagers cleaning beaches in Mumbai. Thus, social media unites people and brings them together by striking a chord between them to work for the greater good of society.

Despite all the benefits, social media has created a bubble for the youth of today. Social media significantly influences their impressionable minds and help them find information that supports their political or social views. It also makes them blind to look at the issue objectively and make decisions based on facts and reasoning. Third-party cookies and algorithms of apps like Instagram and Facebook present only that information to people that they are interested in seeing.  For example, people are more likely to follow and like pages which align with their views and ideologies rather than pages that show facts. This trend of streamlining and showing information based on online behaviour may have a negative impact in the long run. This is because it may give rise to confirmation bias and may give people the false beliefs that their views are correct while the opposing views are wrong or skewed. Moreover, if they do come across counter-views they might become defensive of their own views and would not accept the truth. In this respect, social media divides.

In conclusion, social media is more of a uniting force rather than a dividing force. Though it might create rifts between the young and the old, the older generations are catching up to using social media. The social media also helps people to connect with friends and family and form new friendships with people from different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, social media holds great power in influencing people to take action on various issues and in this sense becomes a uniting force than a dividing force.

Do you agree that good parenting is increasingly challenging in your society today?

People always try to do what is best for their children. Good children are a result of good parenting, is what people often say. However, people have always struggled to raise children and have also tried hard to understand what makes a good parent. In Singapore, it is true that raising children has become increasingly difficult because of technology and also because more parents are working longer hours.

People who believe that raising children today is easier, often argue that parents today have a lot of assistance. It is especially true in Singapore, where the government has come up with various policies that help people in their journey of parenthood. Earlier, parents were supposed to take care of their children’s need by working extra hours or working on weekends. They did not get assistance for raising good children. However today, government policies assist parents the moment a child is born. These policies include cash bonuses¸ medical benefits in case the child or the mother gets sick and even benefits on library and basic transportation benefits. The Singapore Government offers all these grants and policies to ensure that parents raise good and healthy children.  Being assisted financially for children’s education or healthcare has helped parents significantly. Based on this factor, one can agree that parenting today is easier than earlier times, at least in terms of needs like education and healthcare.  

With the advent of technology parents, today get enough guidance through various websites, blogs and columns on multiple aspects of parenting. Parents today can discuss whatever bothers them with other parents on parental forums and Facebook pages. Parents often follow these websites to seek answers about their children’s well-being. In Singapore, these websites do not disappoint, either. For example, websites like smartparents.sg guides parents on aspects like the health of the child, their education, suggestions about schools and activities, and also on aspects like their diet and nutrition. Similarly, the Kiasu Parents website is like a social media platform for parents. On this website, parents can interact with other parents and get parental advice on educational and enrichment programmes. These websites include tips from experts in the field of child psychology and early childhood care. Parents can follow advice on these websites, blogs and forums to become a good enough parent for their child. Thus, technologically, people are more equipped to become a good parent than in the past, where parents relied on advice from their parents or friends.

Despite all these advantages, parents today increasingly face difficulties in raising their children. With economic development and growth, Singaporeans are working more than 45 hours a week.  Working long hours in Singapore has been a time-honoured tradition and the work obligation does not allow parents to spend enough time with their children. Even on weekends, parents are occupied with household chores and office work. So, while they may be physically present, they are mentally absent and technology can be blamed for this disconnect between parents and children. Parents also have a tendency to reply to work emails and go through work-related documents while at the dinner table. It is thus evident that the availability of smartphones and tablets have disrupted the work-life balance and have made life harder for parents and children. Thus, good parenting in Singapore is more challenging today than ever before parents are struggling with work and home.

Mass media is another reason, why parents are struggling to raise good children. The media today has penetrated every corner of our lives. Media today comes in forms of mobiles, laptops, television or newspapers. Parents today are using media to parent their children; this is evident from the fact that children from a very young age are given phones. By giving children access to phones and tablets at a very young age parents make an attempt to distract them and keep them busy. However, unbeknownst to them it has a severe impact on the parent-child relationship. Parents who allow children to use video streaming channels like Youtube, do not realise that the autoplay function may play related or unrelated videos which may have a negative effect on the children. For older kids, inappropriate content, violence and substance abuse are promoted repetitively in the mass media. Though these ideas might not be what the parents believe in they come at blame for allowing children to use these technologies. Therefore, good parenting today is more difficult due to media which threatens the well-being of children and exposes them to wrong ideas.

With changing times, the definition of good parents has changed significantly. While parents in the past had the liberty to take a more relaxed approach towards parenting. Parents today do not have that liberty. Today being a good parent means not only to be involved in academics but also take care of the activities they take up at school, hobbies they pursue and also their playtime. While parents today have access to various websites and blogs, which have assisted them. These same websites and blogs have also led to severe confusion in parents who get different views on various websites. In Singapore, this has led parents to become more competitive and has led them to enrol their children in various enrichment classes. Thus, with the bar set so high, parents are expected to wear multiple hats and raise their kids. Hence, it is evident that raising children is very difficult today in present times.

In conclusion, the concept of good parenting has completely been redefined in present times. With access to Mass media in various forms and Long working hours, parents today have lesser time to spend with their children. Though the government has assisted parents by providing them grants and bonuses for raising children. It cannot be denied that good parenting is still very difficult in Singapore.

Consider the view that formal education has done little to prepare students for today’s challenges.

Traditional forms of formal education do little in preparing students for today’s challenges.

Education has been considered as an important step towards success. However, with advancements in technology, the job market today has changed dramatically. Moreover, new job roles and designations are created every year. Considering the changing work scenario, it is important that there is a paradigm shift in which education is provided. In present-day society, formal education is still the same as many years ago where students’ intelligence is tested by the same standardised tests. The significance of formal education has declined in recent times. However, formal education has been instrumental in preparing students for today’s challenges as education systems are getting diversified.

Opponents of formal education often argue that it is theoretical in nature and fails to prepare students for contributing to the global economy. Most schools and colleges today teach students subjects and topics that are quite outdated and theoretical in nature. The lack of proper practical training in subjects leads students to lack real-life skills. This is especially true in the case of India where many aspiring engineers are left unemployed because of the course-work that is outdated and not job-centric. In fact, the lack of employability skills leaves many students to take up jobs in fields not related to engineering. Similarly, in Singapore, young graduates face higher unemployment levels compared to older peers. Education, therefore, has not equipped students with practical knowledge and the qualities they achieve through education are not indicative of students’ ability to reason and creative thinking. Thus, formal education has failed to prepare people to face the challenges of the global economy.

However, education has diversified its ways to impart knowledge to students. Formal education is adapting to keep up with the changes of today. Northern European countries like Norway, Finland and Denmark lead the way in providing formal education along with vocational training which ensures that the students remain employable. Similarly, in countries like Germany and Singapore, there are a myriad of vocational courses that people can undertake. Moreover, in Singapore people can enrol themselves in polytechnics instead of universities to get a more hands-on experience within a dynamic environment. In developing countries like India, vocational education and training are steadily gaining momentum. Indians today are not only getting educated in conventional fields like medicine and engineering.  Today, they are also gaining education to become trained electricians, plumbers and fashion designers. When students are trained vocationally, they can be beneficial to the economy as they can earn higher wages and contribute to economic growth. This is the reason why many countries have recognised the importance of skill-based learning and are investing in vocational training. Therefore, formal education helps students become ready for today’s economic challenges, as education systems are diversifying and adapting to global changes.

Formal education is also instrumental in minimising the divide between different races and religions. Many countries today are facing challenges in forms of racial and religious divides. Formal education systems are important in diminishing these divides as most educational systems emphasise on the holistic development of students. This is evident through the various activities and programmes that are available to students at school and university level. An example of this can be seen in the US where students are enrolled in the Child Development Project (CDP) in multiple states. The programme helps to foster children’s ethical, social and intellectual development. Furthermore, in-school educational systems enrolling in extra-curricular activities like dance, drama, music, art and debate helps children to collaborate with a diverse range of peers. This helps in building skills like teamwork and resilience which are very much necessary in today’s volatile job market. Extracurricular activities also help in promoting lasting friendships among students from diverse backgrounds and fosters social integration which helps the children to become a responsible citizen in the future. Thus, formal education plays an important role in the overall development of the children in the form of extracurricular activities and prepares people to face the challenges of today.

In conclusion, traditional forms of formal education do little in preparing students for today’s challenges. However, education systems across the world are adapting to the changes in present times. Formal education today is emphasising on development of children not only to prepare them for the job world but also to face social challenges. Therefore, formal education cannot be easily dismissed as irrelevant to students today. 

‘Diversity brought about by globalisation should be celebrated, not feared.’ Discuss.

Increasing globalisation has made the world more diverse and more connected. People today learn about different languages, cultures and traditions transcending geographical boundaries. While diversity has led to positive effects on the world by fostering strong relationships among countries. There are those who believe that globalisation has led to the neglect of local populations. Despite this, it cannot be denied that the diversity globalisation brings along should be celebrated and not feared because it brings economic and social benefits.

Communication technologies around the world have connected people transcending geographical boundaries. The increased communications have helped people gaining a sense of various cultures and traditions. Moreover, increased connectivity among people has also led to greater cooperation among international communities. People today can connect to various political leaders and communicate with them in a smooth manner. This is evident from the fact that English is being spoken across the world today and is being learnt even in non-English speaking countries like China and India. Easier communication through the medium of English has helped in developing business as well as political relationships. The acceptance of linguistic diversity has allowed various languages to spread across the world, and even for movies and music to accepted by people in other countries. Therefore, diversity should not be feared as it allows people to share better relationships with people from across the world and enriches them as individuals.

Diversity has also had positive effects on the wellness and healthcare industry. Globalisation has led to diversity in the way diseases are treated and how people take care of themselves. From Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese medicine alternative treatments are increasing across the world due to globalisation. Doctors today are discovering new forms of diseases which were previously limited to specific countries. Examples of this can be diseases like Ebola, Monkey Fever and the latest Coronavirus, where doctors learn about these viruses and try to come up with treatments that can benefit people globally. Furthermore, people today are more likely to follow diets and consume organic food products that are eaten globally. For example the current popularity of exotic superfoods, from chia seeds, acai berry to quinoa. Globalisation has also led to greater awareness of health issues like obesity which in turn has helped people to alter their diets and live a healthy lifestyle. Thus, globalisation and the resulting diversity should not be feared as it has led to unprecedented advancement in healthcare systems and healthy practices that have improved the lifestyle of people.  

Despite its benefit to the global economy, greater diversity can undermine the wellbeing of individuals within countries. Due to excessive globalisation, the local population suffer as countries continue to hire foreign talent. This can be seen in countries like Singapore where foreign talent is preferred more than local talent this is especially true in the food, construction and retail industries. This trend might cause panic among the local populations as they need to be more competitive to get these jobs. Another peril of globalisation is that with diverse alternative medicines it has also brought a diverse range of ailments and infections. For example, globalisation increased the risk of a pandemic outbreak like SARS and ongoing Coronavirus which has infected several hundred-thousand people. The other dark side of globalisation is how western fast foods have caused severe health issues in the developing world. Thus, the benefits associated with a more diverse workforce or alternative medicines should not be taken at face value because with greater diversity comes greater problems like social instability and the threat of fatal diseases.

In conclusion, diversity brought about by globalisation has both positive and negative effects on the world as a whole. However, it is undeniable that with diversity, more people have jobs, friends, opinions, fashion and food.  Greater connectivity through trade has increased living standards and given us more choices.

Does global aid really improve the lives of those who need it the most?

It is believed that generosity is a virtue that needs to be enriched. However, when it comes to global aid developed countries do not provide aid just for altruistic reasons. Aid provided by donor countries is not driven by generosity but by strategic economic and political motives. As a result, global aid does not help in improving the lives of the needy but makes the situation worse for them.

Global aid provided by nations is often viewed as being done on humanitarian ground. But global aid provided by one country might be guised as assistance but it only assists the donor country economically and politically. For example, in 2018, the UK prime minister Theresa May provided aid to Nairobi in the form of aid packages but the real intention was expanding to the African markets and securing investment opportunities for UK companies. Similarly, Donald Trump also in one of his speeches mentioned that countries that receive foreign aid from the US will be examined for having “our interests at heart”. All these instances prove that global aid is not provided due to selfless reasons but is tied to economic and political benefits for the donor country.

The idea of providing global aid might be selfish but aid can be effective and beneficial for people. In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation issued a call to the world’s largest economy to redouble its financial commitment to needy countries. In 2019, the foundation mentioned that if the US wanted to help itself it should provide foreign aid and improve global health. Examining the recent coronavirus outbreak, we see countries providing aid on humanitarian grounds in an attempt to strengthen global healthcare systems. Moreover, countries today are trying to reduce the migrant crisis by providing aid to improve educational systems in developing and underdeveloped countries. It can be said that gradually there is a shift in how aid is provided which addresses the issues at the root instead of being superficial. Therefore, by changing the way in which aid is provided people’s life can be improved and changed for the better.

However, the path to provide aid is filled with hurdles in the form of governments who receive this aid. Many times, the governments who receive the aid are corrupt and never let the aid reach the people who really need it. There have been cases where foreign aid has been used by corrupt officials like in the case of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma. Such corruption has also bee seen in countries like Nepal and Liberia. Foreign aid thus fails in improving lives of people in the countries where corruption is widespread. In fact, in corrupt countries, foreign strengthen corruption in these countries which and adds to the woes of the people.

Moreover, providing foreign aid can lead to dependence and make countries unstable. While short term foreign aid can help countries to solve their problems like in the case of South Korea and Taiwan. However, on the other hand, providing too much aid can lead countries to become dependent and develop a crutch mentality. The foreign aid if provided continuously can prove counter-productive and lead to social and political instability. This can be seen in the case of Liberia, where, foreign aid gave people the sense of stability but when foreign aid was pulled away the country was pushed into economic doldrums and instability which led to protests and demonstrations. Similarly, Afghanistan is heavily reliant on foreign aid and has led to corruption in the country. International economists have warned about providing excessive aid to countries as it leads to the deterioration of the country. In cases, like these, it is important that foreign aid should not be excessive and should be only to an extent where the country can wean itself off from foreign aid. As the Chinese proverb says, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Thus, excessive foreign aid does not improve lives but only gives false hopes to people and negatively affect the country politically and economically.

In conclusion, global aid does not do much to improve the lives of people who need it the most. However, with a shift in the way aid is provided it can result in better outcomes. In some cases, foreign aid can definitely help to alleviate the issues plaguing people, however, there is a need for foreign aid to be truly selfless.

Should we place limits on scientific or technological developments when they have solved many of our problems?

The world is currently in a golden age of science. Science and technology have been progressing at a pace never before seen in the history of humanity and many researchers are increasingly being respected and revered as the general public becomes aware of the beneficial impacts their discoveries have brought them. However, many have questioned if science is moving too fast for humanity’s own good, that the cons these “advancements” bring outweigh its pros, and that limits how and what scientists can research should be implemented and enforced. While scientific progress has indeed encountered many a hiccup along its journey, its robustness of information generation and the iniquitousness and commonality of its implementation are far more reliable and should not be hindered by artificial balls and chains.

               Firstly, the reliability and robustness if the scientific method to generate knowledge if the surrounding world means that limitations would only hamper the pursuit of truth. In short, the scientific method works by making an assumption, testing the assumption, and consequently drawing a conclusion from the experiment. This repeated process of trial and error means that the knowledge of today can only be improved further and never move backwards. Let us take a look at the development of the theory of gravity. Plato initially said that heavy objects like stone wanted to go back the Earth and thus accelerated downwards. Galileo performed his famous experiment at the Leaning Tower of Pisa when he demonstrated items of different masses accelerated at the same speed a millennia later. Newton then came up with the idea that this attraction affected even celestial bodies and came up with equations to describe their motion, the refinement of which is taught in schools today.  The advancement of universal truths is possible thanks to the near infallibility of the scientific method which ensures that empirical science speaks on the truth for the sole benefit of humanity and thus needs no restriction.

               Secondly, limitations hamper the growth of scientific knowledge and delays the potential beneficial technologies science can provide. No one can refute the claim that humanity has only risen up to this point thanks to human innovation and scientific progress. The 3 Industrial Revolutions of Steam, Green and Cyber were only possible thanks to the unrelenting and unyielding locomotive of research and these revolutions have brought many tangible results to the table of humanity. Large assembly lines allow for the cheap and easy provision of goods; fertilizer allows for massive quantities of food to be grown and the internet has accelerated learning and the exchange of information to the realm of light speed.  When restrictions are placed on science, it only serves to delay the inevitable and push any possible solution to society’s woes further and further away.  When Galileo first proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Church vehemently refuted his idea due to the established belief that at the time of the contrary.  The Church even threatened to execute Galileo as a heretic if he did not take back his ‘claims’. Galileo had no choice but to agree, making one final punch for science when he muttered, “yet it moves…” as he was removed from the trial. The knowledge and its supporting evidence were kept a secret until his death a decade later and caused a surge in astronomy when it was published by his nephew. Today the field of astronomy has brought us many conveniences and creature comforts with GPS, infrared technology and streaming. So it is clear that limitations only serve as a temporary barrier to progress and would be a waste for humanity.

                Lastly, the development of new technologies has lessened the impact of numerous social problems and around the world. Many of the world’s nations are grappling with endemic social and political issues such as disease, food security and potable water and these are precisely the kinds of problems science has the ability to defeat being a silver bullet. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has released the Water Book, a book whose pages are made of filtration paper in order to create more drinkable water. Additionally, there is a recent development of a water filtration packet, a packet filled with powder that has the ability to separate dirt and potable water that its produces is now distributing for free. The issues brought about by poverty that many less-developed nations are dealing with can be combated and potentially eradicated by the provision of technology.

               However, while technology can battle against the effects of social issues like poverty, it does not strike at the root cause and in fact may exacerbate it instead. The wealth gap is brought about by many factors but one of the main reasons is technology. Those who have unrestricted access to technology are usually the ones who have the capital to exploit it, allowing them to develop it for their own benefit and personal gain. If the technology is then commodified, the company can even charge exorbitant prices for it., causing the entrepreneurs to become richer and its consumers to become poorer, driving out the middle class and strengthening the stranglehold of the 1% has on the economy. Amazon, whose CEO Jeff Bezos was once the world’s richest man, utilises technology to exploit and replace its workers. In its warehouses, hundreds of workers are competing with automated robots for efficiency, an uphill battle. Both are tasked with moving packages across football fields worth of space, organising them and subsequently loading them onto trucks. This competition and the fear of losing their jobs have forced employees to take no toilet breaks, some even urinating in bottles, in order to remain on par with these robots. When they eventually fall behind, human employees are then fired while Amazon looks onward to its own economic growth. So, technology cannot solve the main causes of many social issues and instead perpetuate them, thus requiring strict controls in order to allow all strata of society to benefit from technology instead of just the very top.

               Secondly, in the publish or perish culture of today’s academia, the truthfulness of the scientist himself has come into question. Academia in the modern world is cut-throat and competitive, with limited funding grants and many projects that need to be funded. Many universities then use the resume of the scientist participating in research to determine its level of funding, consequently leading to some dishonest scientists falsifying results to publish papers, gain funding and earn international recognition. A Japanese scientist falsified her data on stem cells research to show positive results, making her name well known within the scientific community. However, after similar independent peer testing found it impossible to replicate her results, the veracity of her information was called into question. Her falsification came to light and she was subsequently stripped of her credentials. With the scientific community prizing publication above all else, it incentives such unethical behaviour and causes many to believe that strict regulation and better peer testing should be enforced.

               Thirdly, scientific progress leads to ethical quandaries, dividing the community and thus needs controls to prevent civil unrest. Now advancements in technology bring what was once considered fiction into the realm of reality, causing many to grapple with the realization that others have different moral views than them. Recent developments in chemicals have allowed for the discovery and creation of euthanasia drugs, ones that can put a person to rest without any suffering. While many governments restrict its usage and only one, Sweden allowing foreigners to undergo it, the general population is still torn by this choice. Should the weak and frail be hooked up to machines and cooped up in hospitals to survive, or should they be granted the sweet release of death? Everyone has their own answer which can lead to protests if governments do not enforce strict regulation of it.

               Lastly, whist science seeks to discover the truth of the world, certain aspects are not yet complete causing some to implement hasty technologies that may negatively impact them in the long run, thus requiring legislation to reduce the impact. The scientific method is the gradual improvement of humanity’s knowledge, so at times certain parts are not fully understood. When technologies using such knowledge are implemented, it is a gable to see if the total pros outweigh the cons. An example of where humanity lost this gamble is the adoption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). When they were discovered, CFCs had many useful properties, being inert and good insulators of heat, and were used everywhere from spray cans to fridges. However, it was later discovered that CFCs damaged the ozone layer and that there was already a large hole above Antarctica letting UV light through. In response, the UN immediately signed the Montreal Protocol where CFCs were banned and companies producing them like DuPont and Imperial Chemicals were forced by legislation to develop other alternatives. The hasty implementation of unknown technology should be a controlled gamble and science should be reined in to limit and prevent permanent damage to humanity.

               In conclusion, whilst science and tech seem to bring about many social and environmental problems when hastily and brazenly implemented, the robustness of its knowledge generation system and the reliance of modern society on its continuous development means that growth of science should not be constrained.

Women will never enjoy the same rights as men. Do you agree?

The issue of women’s rights is a contentious one. While there are people who believe that women will attain equal rights. There are others who believe that women enjoying the same rights as men is not possible. Agreeing with the latter view, it can be said, that women really cannot enjoy the same rights as men because of stereotypes, inequality at various levels and the role of religion.

It is believed that men and women enjoy equal rights at least in progressive societies. In these societies, it is generally perceived that everyone should be treated with fairness. In fact, inequality is considered as an injustice. Today, gender roles are increasingly being switched where men are taking up the house responsibilities and women are the breadwinners. This is especially the case in developed countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany. Despite these achievements, feminists believe that women are far away from enjoying the same rights as men. They believe that the reason for this is society’s deeply rooted biases.

Men are still considered valuable for the progress of society. This is evident from the fact that equal pay is a distant dream in most countries. The problem of the gender pay gap is not only faced by countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, but extends to other countries like Korea, Estonia, Japan, Latvia, and Chile. According to OECD data, women face a 10-15 per cent wage reduction during motherhood. On the other hand, men are likely to be paid more after becoming a father. This is because employers view children as an added responsibility for the father and not the mother. Furthermore, women who are mothers are less likely to be hired for jobs and less valuable to society. Though there have been many campaigns, protests and laws to remedy the inequality, the gender pay gap exists in the majority of the countries. Women will never enjoy the same rights as men.

However, gender equality remains an attainable goal to a certain extent. Several decades ago, it was unimaginable for women to work in male-dominated professions like finance, engineering and aviation. Women today are increasingly working in these fields. Similarly, decades ago women were not given equal rights by many countries. However, today at least six countries are considered as gender-equal. A recent report by the World Bank showed that six countries today have laws that protect men and women equally: Belgium, Denmark, France, Latvia, Luxembourg and Sweden. This gives hope that many other countries can follow their lead and implement laws that help in creating a close to equal society. Therefore, it can be said that men and women may never enjoy the same rights but women can reach closer to equality.

The role of religion plays an important role in why women and men cannot enjoy the same rights. Many religious texts like the Bible, Quran and Torah have sexist writings which are used to subjugate women. In countries that follow these religious texts as law, the rights for women are bound to suffer. For example, women in Middle-Eastern countries face acute gender inequalities. Religious leaders and theologians in these countries are all male and provide a conservative interpretation of religious texts.  These interpretations most of the times cause women utmost distress and puts women in submissive roles in the family, the society, and the state. The denial of equal rights is also evident from the fact that the representation of women in politics lags behind in middle eastern countries. Moreover, organised religions propagate the idea of male superiority and depict women as physically, mentally and emotionally inferior to men. The idea of religion is deeply ingrained in both men and women to the extent that women justify the discrimination they face. Therefore, as religion cannot be separated from mankind and it will continue to paint women as second-class citizens, there is little hope that men and women will ever enjoy the same rights.

In conclusion, though conditions of women have improved significantly in today’s world, there is still a long way to go as men are still favoured over women socially, economically and religiously. This makes it difficult for men and women to enjoy the same rights even in the future as there is a need to fight inequality at multiple levels. It is not likely that women will enjoy the same rights as men in the foreseeable future.

To what extent should scientific research be free from political and commercial involvement?

Possible arguments for and against scientific research being free from political and commercial involvement

  • Freedom to make informed academic choices
  • Free from conflict of interest
  • Make research papers accessible to all – complete transparency
  • Freedom to choose research projects
  • Funding has to come from somewhere
  • Research councils (government bodies) regulate and ensure projects are in the country’s interest
  • Research often takes place in universities (as an academic environment)
  • What about charitable organisations which fund research?
  • Most private sponsors have their own research facilities (pharmaceutical)
  • What about testing on animals, weapons research, regulating clinical trials of new drugs?
  • Accountability to the government.