Gp Lah! – Page 48 – Get moving lah!

To what extent can technology make our lives better?

Technology has never before played such a large role in our lives. So far, that role has mostly been positive — largely thanks to advances in technology, we have never been more prosperous, there have never been more of us, and we have never been more at peace. But the mistaken idea that technology can be relied on to solve all of our problems on its own has become more and more common thanks to these trends. The question is: will those trends continue to hold, or is it just a coincidence that technological advancement has correlated with our well-being?

The idea that technology might be more trouble than it is worth, or that it may have catastrophic consequences down the line, is nothing new. It is a widespread theme in post-apocalyptic and dystopian science fiction, genres which dominates sales both in the bookstore and at the box office. The Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Terminator and Divergent series are just a few examples from last year. It is also a favourite theme of fringe ideologies, from radical environmentalists to religious fundamentalists. But mainstream culture, despite being inundated with dystopian SciFi franchises, still sees tech as its starring protagonist. How people use their time and money shows this: they spend their limited resources on what they value most. Three of the top five most valuable companies on earth are tech companies. The majority of people spend almost their entire waking life with tech: data from last year showed that Americans use electronic media for more than 11 hours a day on average.

When almost everything you do on a daily basis involves tech, you are far more inclined to hero-worship than criticism. And since the most common sources of tech alarmism are either blockbuster franchises or paranoids toting protest signs, anxiety over tech’s role in our future can seem about as rational as worrying about aliens or magic. So the idea that tech might be doing more harm than good is easy to dismiss. Meanwhile, both because it is been advancing so quickly and because we get so much value from it in our daily lives, tech’s capacity to solve our problems can seem infinite.

“Given the difficulties, we should stop trying to save the environment.” What are your views?

Environment has been damaged by humans in a myriad of ways. Despite efforts to save the environment, it is believed the efforts are not enough to preserve the environment. This brings us to the question that if the environment can ever be saved by human efforts. The answer to the question is complex and requires an examination at multiple levels including local, national, and international efforts. Given the circumstances it seems like that saving the environment is a difficult task, however, people should not lose hope and give up on the efforts to save the environment because with collective effort environmental damage can be minimised if not completely reversed.

At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who have caused most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackle the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing the environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmental friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so.

Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems.Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines though efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices which countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example of this can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment by collaboration and joint efforts.

It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmental degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world”s first environment friendly election campaign which measured the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through change in mindset, implantation of environmental friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With combined efforts of various stakeholders the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.

At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who has caused the most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle, both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reducing carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackling the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmentally friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so.

Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems. Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines through efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices that countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly, countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment through collaboration and joint efforts.

It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmentally degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world’s first environment-friendly election campaign which measured the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through a change in mindset, implantation of environmentally friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With the combined efforts of various stakeholders, the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.

Studying literature is useless and cannot be transferred to everyday life. Discuss.

Studying literature develops critical analysis
Brings about empathy
Readers learn communication
Organisation of ideas becomes easier
Transferrable to employment (suggests intelligence, ability to organise/think deeply, skills to conduct presentations/seminars, skills to communicate)
Understand a variety of reactions, personalities, attitudes and situations in everyday life
To read and evaluate anything written
Skills can be specialised needing to understand and use technical terms (identify figures of speech, symbolism, poetic techniques, the nuances and ambiguities of language etc.)
Wider messages/value
Appreciation of historical context

Education does not develop individuality but conformity. Discuss.

The conception of an education system came with the aim of equipping students with the necessary skills to fill the jobs in the economy to make the country more productive. This form of education is most efficacious when there is a fixed set of rules for those that comprise it – it guarantees an entire batch of workers able to work efficiently on the assembly line. As society develops, so has the system of education, which aims to meet society’s needs. In a world where societies are becoming increasingly meritocratic, education has become less about knowledge and more about students’ achievements and grades, compelling people to avert from “the road less taken”. As a result, education restricts one’s choices and ends up developing multiple individuals who are good at abiding by rules but lack personal voices and interests.

It is claimed by some that the education system has diversified, allowing a vast array of choices for students – we can now choose what school to attend, and what courses to take. The choices individuals make, they argue, would be reflective of the differing qualities and characteristics of each person. Theoretically, this argument may hold true, but education today is not just as simple as they suggest. Granted, it may be true that there is now a larger variety of choices for a student, but the overwhelming need to conform to expectations overcomes it. On the most basic level, students need to conform to the most basic school rules or risk punishment. For instance, a large number of schools mandate a uniform appearance – all students of the same school have to wear the clothes of the same design, and there are rules about every single part of one’s appearance. Not only is this inherently an expectation to conform, but it also conditions young minds to think that their actions will represent that of the school, so anything that catches others’ attention is deemed to be “bad”, and is frowned upon. This means that students are discouraged from taking up courses commonly associated with unsuccessful people. For example, Korean society expects its crème de la crème to study engineering or medicine in university, although that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. This is because they buy into the concept that people should practice what others before them had done because that is thought to be the “safe” route to success which guarantees a stable income.

Opponents of the thesis argue that effective teachers can instil a sense of interest in learning in their students. As a result, students will have a life-long thirst for knowledge. Despite the claim, the truth remains that the system of education today creates obstacles for teachers, which limits their ability rather than help them teach effectively. Most education systems around the world today have national exams because it is deemed necessary in order to determine the standard of the students. In the face of these inevitable examinations, teachers rush to prepare students for the multitude of questions to be tested. In such a circumstance, even a teacher who believes in developing the interests of students has no choice but to focus the bulk of his or her lesson on the curriculum to be tested. This is because the education ministry gauges the ability of teachers based on how much improvement students make in terms of grades, and focuses less on students’ holistic, all-rounded development, something that cannot be measured accurately. In Singapore’s case, parents that traditionally adopt the “kiasu” mindset fret over finding tuition classes for their children sitting for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), GCSE “O” Levels or “A” Levels examinations, while teachers feel pressured to get as many “A”s in class as possible.

Effectively, the requirements of education as set out by the country’s government limits the ability of teachers, even good ones. Furthermore, it would be idealistic to argue that all teachers are as effective as opponents claim them to be – in many cases teachers are more focused on getting students to do well in order to get a raise in pay, as compared to trying diligently to help develop each individual student based on his or her needs and interests. Anything outside the declared curriculum is seen to be “unnecessary” or “irrelevant”. In addition to the fact that teachers are limited by the requirements of the system, the school also has to be accountable to society. Parents send their children to school with the expectation that the latter group will gain knowledge and learn some morals, and this expectation falls on the teachers and the school. Schools tend to err on the side of caution because they are paid to take care of the needs of students, so they are unwilling to take risks. However, creating a system actively promoting individual development hinges on not just the curriculum and the school rules – it comes with a large amount of risk. Encouraging individuals to find out more about themselves necessarily means that teachers do not advise students on what they should do – teachers let children develop without interference. When a system is lax, it cannot identify children who are acting abnormally and help them. As a result, if a child grows up in a poor living environment, he is likely to be negatively influenced, and this is where a hands-off system fails. It is exactly this that many schools are afraid of, compelling them to hold a tighter leash on students and forces them to conform to the rules, thereby limiting students’ ability to explore and develop their interests.

Critics would argue that individuals can spend time on their own outside of the school gates in order to develop their own passions because they are still able to choose what extracurricular activities to take up and what activities they should pick up in their free time. However, this is increasingly untrue in a world where the burden of students keeps increasing. Students of today recognise that their future choices hinge upon their grades – even with an outstanding co-curricular portfolio, it all comes to nought if they cannot manage their academic grades. This is because educational achievements are the determining factor of the nature of one’s future – when hiring employees, many corporations today look at the school the applicant attended his grades, the scholarships he received and so on. Hence, the students of today go to school not to gain new knowledge about topics they are interested in, but rather in a mad paper-chase to build up their portfolios. This generates an interest to focus more on academics, equating to a heavier workload. This results in individuals unwilling to spend time nurturing their own passions and interests – the time spent on learning a musical instrument is thought to be better spent on revising more past-year physics papers. Even if students pick up an activity that they are interested in, for example, a sport, it would take a backseat in students’ lists of priorities. When push comes to shove, most students would rather drop their sport when the national examinations approach, because the sport is unlikely to define their future lives, unlike good grades achieved in exams. Hence, even outside the school gates, students are compelled to conform to society’s expectations of them, instead of developing their own personal passions.

The idea of rules is central to all forms of education – people need rules to teach them the limits of what they can and cannot do. For instance, a person cannot be allowed to search up the steps needed to make a pipe bomb because the information can cause great harm if misused. However, as are most things in society, rules are double-edged swords. While it protects people from others, it also limits the areas of interest because people avert from testing boundaries, making them conform to what the government or society deems as “safe”. Ultimately, while some can still have that personal space to develop themselves, and indulge in their interests, education systems largely warn individuals against challenging social norms and force them to make decisions that may not be the best for every individual in society.

The value of water is more important than the value of oil. Discuss.

The value of water cannot be pegged to a price.
Huge palm oil plantations are increasing water toxicity
Water supplies could be dramatically reduced if ‘fracking’ becomes more common
The water needs of industry are growing all the time.
Water shortages show the need for ensuring a clean water supply
Treatment of wastewater for irrigation and the recycling of sewage water for personal consumption
The threat of water wars is very so prominent.
Oil can be replaced but not water and the former may not be a necessity in the future
Oil may soon be neutralised by alternatives being found
Large swathes of the world are facing decreased rainfall, a severe drought so the management of water is of urgent strategic importance.
Desalination can be employed to solve the value of water.
Freshwater is essential for life. Rationing will not work.

Should everyone have access to free medical care?

Key words: ‘should everyone’, ‘access’, ‘free medical care’

• A basic human right
• Medicines/vaccines should be stock-piled in developing countries (depending on the need)
• Efforts should be made to check everyone’s health
• Role of the WHO
• Free immunisation programmes (Ebola)
• Cheaper generic medicines are delayed through pharmaceutical patents
• Wealthier nations should fund
• The pharmaceutical industry requires a return on their investment to fund further research
• Problems of logistics/corruption/recruiting qualified professionals to administer
• Responsibility of individual governments to provide some funding and organised programmes
• Should not: to avoid people abusing the system; having a carefree life; creating dependency and not leading a healthy lifestyle

‘Our understanding of modern technology is enhanced by knowledge of mathematics’. Discuss.

Keywords: ‘modern technology’, ‘enhanced’, ‘mathematics’, ‘discuss’

• There needs to be a binary/digital understanding of mathematics
• Many Computer languages (Java and MATLAB) – are based on mathematics in formulaic/coded/encrypted sense
• More accessibility and understanding when technology fails
• Mathematics also enables an understanding of programming
• Extract patterns from data • Understand computer modelling to test theories
• As a part of science which requires a foundation in Mathematics
• Requires an understanding of instructions more than Mathematics
• Accessible to everyone
• Function and use are enhanced by other factors (ease of communication)
• Mathematics enhances if specialist knowledge is required (a career in computer programming)

How far can the arts change the world?

the arts range from high art to popular culture
the arts offer a personal experience for everyone
the arts push the boundaries of acceptability over time (eg Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain)
for many, the arts hold little interest or influence
the arts might encourage people to view society from different perspectives (eg Damien Hirst’s winning “Mother and Child (Divided),” a cow and a calf bisected and emerged in formaldehyde, was a tabloid sensation.)
the arts could be seen as a reflection of society and its values at the time
Contemporary works like Bansky can highlight issues that need to be solved
arts can be elitist (Read Article)
arts can be sexist (eg Les demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Pablo Picasso _