There are hardly any worthwhile role models for young people nowadays. Discuss.

Written using an unconventional structure.

The idea that there are fewer positive role models in our contemporary society is based on a fallacy. There are actually more positive role models today than ever before, and it is very easy to get to know them through the new media. We live in an age where people from opposite sides of the planet can easily communicate and share information in real time, and thus greatly influence each other.

This means that young people do not have to limit their popular culture needs to the place where they live. There are thousands of other places that they can find about on the internet, and they can access the internet anywhere, anytime, even on mobile devices. However, the same technologies that can help them in this regard is also the main roadblock in their path to finding positive role models, because the new media mainly promotes negative models, since positive ones have a smaller public impact, while negative attitudes sell better.

This is the reason why many people consider that there are fewer role models for young people nowadays: because they only look at what is promoted on popular TV stations, magazines and websites. However, there are still a great number of publications that focus their attention on educational aspects, which follow a strict deontological ethic and do not care only about their budgets.

Also, individuals can search for role models on their own, without the help of large publications. Of course, parents can also guide their children and teach them where and how to find useful and positive information, without forcing them to learn about things they do not care, but encouraging them to find good models on their own.   

Magnus Carlsen, aged 24, is a child prodigy and the world’s chess champion. Unlike other chess prodigies in the past (Bobby Fischer being the best example), he is a very optimistic, cheerful and charismatic person. He lives a healthy life, engaging in various other sport activities. He always smiles and loves what he is doing. Carlsen is the living proof that people can succeed if they work hard, love what they are doing, remain focus and have a healthy lifestyle. It is now easier than ever to follow Carlsen’s work and his personal life, through most of the popular social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and even on his Youtube channel.

Unlike in the past, there are no major media publications that mediate this relationship between Carlsen and his fans, which means that admirers can have direct and immediate access to Carlsen’s determination and words of wisdom. There are thousands of other positive role models who can be found in sports, music or films, although they are not as promoted as the negative ones are. Adolescents can easily reach them if they balance mainstream media with traditional and independent media sources. Just as always, it is just a matter of knowing where and how to search for good information and role models.  

             While it is true that the media has changed, and that this change brings about a bad influence to young people nowadays, it is also true that, with a little effort, young people can use the same media to their advantage. Although there are more negative than positive role models nowadays, there are still more than enough positive ones to choose from. The new media, the process of globalization and instant access to information worldwide makes it easier for adolescents to find people who have succeeded in domains that interest them. It also makes it easier for them to understand how and why these people have succeeded, and thus to learn from their successes. Most people are however blind to these immense opportunities and this blindness is a form of ignorance, the same ignorance that makes other people blame technology for their own failures. Violence, sexism and hate are a major theme of our contemporary world. It is however up to each and every one of us to choose our goals and ideals in life. Everyone will choose the thing that best fits their own character and desires. Neither schools nor parents can impose positive role models on young people. They can however guide adolescents and help them make the right decisions. This decision has to ultimately come natural to them.

Is the elimination of global poverty a realistic aim?

The elimination of global poverty is certainly not a realistic aim in view of the various problems that are still arising in these poverty-stricken states, and such problems are also often more likely to lead to a continuation rather than the elimination of global poverty. At the same time, while initiatives had been taken by authorities or international institutions to deal with the problems, the effectiveness of it is however often undermined.

One of the main problems that caused some of these states to suffer from poverty is the control of the country under the corrupt government. The government often plays an important role in helping its people meet their social needs and other welfare. Thus, if their leaders are corrupt and are only concern with achieving their self-interest rather than the nation’s, then the elimination of global poverty will definitely be impossible. The Oil-for-food programme by the United Nations implemented in Iraq is an example of how a corrupt government in power could prevent the people from receiving the humanitarian aid they were supposed to get. In this incident, the UN officials and the Iraqi government were accused of siphoning off profits from the Oil-for-food programme. Under this programme, a percentage of the profits gain from the sale of oil were actually to be used to provide basic needs to the people there, however, due to corrupt officials, these benefits were not trickled down to the people and hence the inability to tackle the problems of poverty there. From here, it is clear to us that albeit initiatives taken by international institutions to address the problem of poverty, as long as there is the existence of corrupt government all these solutions may just ultimately proved to be ineffective.

On top of that, the debt problems that some of these Third World Countries face till today have also crippled them to an extent that they are unable to make economic progress and thus bring themselves out of impoverishment. For instance, for the poorest countries, $550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades and yet there is still a $523 billion debt burden left for them. Although various aids had been put forward to help these countries, some of these aids still failed to help deal with these debt problems and sometimes even backfired. The Heavily In-debt Poor Countries initiative, for example, was set up to help reduce the external debt for the poorest countries. However, it was instead backfiring in some cases as unfair conditions are also associated with this initiative and some of these debt relief advocates were making it even before the scheme was launched too. Therefore, with these huge financial burdens, it would certainly be difficult for these countries’ economies to pick up and thus the achievement of the aim of eliminating poverty for these states will certainly not be in the near future too.

At the same time, while many of the developed countries have played their part in helping these states, ironically they are also the ones that are worsening the situation there too. The falling commodity prices presented by these developed nations brought in tough business competition for these poor countries and also, the vast agricultural subsidies in North America and Europe have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums too. Hence, while steps have been taken by these richer nations to help these impoverished countries, the effectiveness is eventually undermined when their own government policies fail to take into consideration the adverse effects they may have on these nations.

On the other hand, the UN has also put forward other initiatives that saw hope for the aim of eliminating poverty on a global scale and such an initiative is the ‘Millennium Development Goal ‘. The first initiative calls for halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015 and some of the many actions taken were such as the elimination of school fees, upgrading slums and providing land for public housing etc. Indeed, living standards have risen dramatically over the last decades and the proportion of the developing world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen from 28 per cent in 1990 to 21 per cent in 2001. Thus, this goes to show that the aim of eradicating global poverty may not after all be unrealistic.

Although recent research by the UN has shown that there are more people living in poverty in 8 Indian states than in 26 poorest African nations combined, patches of light are still showing, as a recent report has shown that improvements have been seen in these poor provinces too. No starvation deaths have been recorded in Chhattisgarh in recent memory and in Bihar, which was widely seen as India’s worse administered states, the crime rates have fallen and infrastructure is taking off too. Hence, despite the fact that poverty is still one of the major problems faced by India, the improvements that could take place even in one of their worst-hit states expresses to us that the aim of achieving the eradication of poverty on the global scale may not be that far off ultimately.

However, it is still important to note that the effectiveness of some of these initiatives is often limited due to the aforementioned problems that surface in many of these impoverished countries. Therefore, at this point in time, eliminating poverty at a global scale still remains uncertain and thus is an unrealistic goal.

Quality of life is more important than longevity. Discuss.

Good essay that scored very well for prelim but has an excessively long introduction and conclusion. If it wasn’t so well written, the author would have been penalised for writing more than 800 words.

Conjecture science empowers mankind to be immortal, what will one then do for infinity? The great yearning at present is to prevail to a hale and hearty mature age but such questions help place into standpoints just what is gratifying as regards to life. This scepticism furthermore brings to the fore that humans would not crave to reiterate homogeneous measures in production-line approach. An ilk of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative quizzes, “what does what we are doing achieve?” On assumption that we function as infinite beings notwithstanding forming slight and superficial merits, Man may wish to reassess the significance of permanence and construct an enhanced quality of life. It is commonplace to evaluate longevity against quality of life which refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies. The rapid pace of technological advancements in science and medicine in the 21st century suggests that mortals can look forward to living pleasantly in their extended senior era. However, with a societal fixation on length of life, it appears that quality of life is still less critical despite the latest developments. 

Every individual of the human race aspires to extend their lifespan and this hope is being met by scientific innovations in medicine. Latest developments in science and medicine includes a technique that radically ameliorates the efficiency of crafting stem cells from human adult tissue without the exploitation of embryonic cells hence forging momentous strides in addressing a major challenge in the progress of stem-cell-based medicine, production of vaccine for cervical cancer, and advanced findings about brain proteins imply a promising novel tactic against Alzheimer’s disease. Average length of life is increasing on a global scale which results in impending challenges. By the year 2050, a quarter of the universe’s population will be over 60 and it is to be expected that these people will be afflicted with chronic illnesses in relation to geezerhood that will necessitate relentless care. A rampant and relevant apprehension is that science and medicine offer short-term assuaging for sustained breath but may fail to result in a fitter life. Already, there are intense ethical disputes over euthanasia, whether patients in terminal stages of their ailments and in constant misery should be permissible to bring forth the conclusion to their life expectancy. Thus, irrespective of the latest developments in science and medicine, quality of life has more bearing as compared to a wearisome and distressful but drawn-out lifespan.

Given that the latest developments in science and medicine are projected to protract longevity, countries worldwide can envisage aging populations. An extended length of life hence may adversely impinge on quality of life, which comprises nine factors founded on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index to be exact, material interest, life expectancy at birth, political stability and security ratings, domestic life, community activity, climate and geography, job security or unemployment rate, political autonomy, as well as gender equality. An aging population however indicates that the economy has fewer productive human capital but faces rising expenditures such as social welfare and healthcare services. Therefore, a lengthened lifetime because of scientific betterment in medicine pales in review of a superior quality of life which is a more comprehensive evaluation of value of existence.

On the other hand, while the existence of life may be observed objectively, its quality can only be weighed up intuitively. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index is primarily grounded in the western hedonistic tradition but there are no collectively agreed norms for quality of life, for each person confers disparate significance to the myriad aspects of life and even this metamorphosis with varying circumstances. The notion of averaging out people’s heterogeneous assessments to form a conglomerate metric of quality of life ignores its fundamentally contextual nature and its intrinsic subjectivity. Since quality of life is extremely capricious to employ in shaping clinical decisions, all we can reasonably do is to muse on the tangible and the measurable, to prolong the physiological homeostasis as long as we are able to with the latest development in science and medicine.

It is rational to desire to survive for a lengthy lifetime but not with the sacrifice of a fulfilling existence. There are people who have led fleeting satisfactory lives whereas others may clock up the years with the support of science and medicine yet experience meaningless continuance. Lord Byron was merely 36 when he breathed his final. Nonetheless his poems remain widely peruse and influential even in this generation, both in the English-speaking communities and afar. Similarly for Vincent van Gogh, who aged 37 when he died, his fame grew in the years after his demise. Nowadays, he is broadly respected as one of history’s finest painters and an imperative contributor to the tenets of contemporary art. Although their premature mortality could have been probable to avert with modern science and medicine, it comes across that they have experienced several periods in one which is what in actuality matters. Conceivably, Woody Allen summed it up most aptly concerning latter-day society’s unwholesome obsession with prolonged longevity in his quote, “I don’t want to live forever through my work; I want to live forever by not dying.” Quality is of greater magnitude than quantity therefore people should not pin disproportionate optimism on the latest developments in science and medicine. Instead, strive for an enriching experience and there are likelihoods of a fuller life beyond death in which there are prospects for the soul’s development. (901 words)

What is knowledge? Who owns it? How can it best be taught or transmitted?

From the very genesis of philosophy as a discipline, scholars have struggled with the concept of knowledge and, by extrapolation, the wide array of methods concerning the acquisition of knowledge. In pursuit of this aim are two noteworthy groups of philosophers apparently at odds with each other: the rationalists, who see logic and raison d’être as the source of all knowledge, and the empiricists, who believe that knowledge must be derived from one’s experience of the surroundings. Both schools of thought accept the idea of warranted true beliefs as a working definition of knowledge. It is about the steps required to satisfactorily prove a belief both true and justified, that rationalists like Rene Descartes conflict with empiricists like John Locke. Rationalism holds that all knowledge can and should be uncovered through the use of logic and reasoning, beginning with comprehensible and distinct ideas that need not be proven further and building up through layers of more complex reasoning a view of the world that is both true and logically justified.

Reasoning is an extremely powerful tool in the overall attainment of knowledge, offering philosophers a method of broadening yet deepening their knowledge of the world beyond their own experience. By comparison, empericism’s reliance on sensory perception and contact with the physical world appears somewhat limited and possesses the ability to cast doubts on the extent to which empirical knowledge can be conclusively proven factual or justified. Newton’s law of gravitation itself was incomplete by experiments; it was only after Newton came up with the equation that weight was the product of an object’s mass and the value of the gravitational field strength at that point in which we could fully appreciate the experiments that he carried out and extrapolated that knowledge to anticipate the outcomes of further experiments. This is less of a challenge in rationalism, where one need not depend on sensation to develop knowledge; instead, one can derive knowledge through a series of logical arguments, that is, through the supremacy of reasoning alone. In the case of Descartes, rationalism also transcends the challenges posed by scepticism to some degree by asserting that proof of a consciousness is a sufficient proof of existence. By adopting a structure that is apparently more objective that empiricism, reasoning offers us a chance to acquire theoretical knowledge even beyond our personal experience.

Thomas H. Huxley’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence”, Huxley implies that the mere obtainment of knowledge without any proper, well defined proof is as good as blatant ignorance. Huxley can thus be categorised into the school of thought of positivism, first theorized by Auguste Comte in the mid 19th century and developed into a modern philosophy favoured by scientists and technocrats; positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. This perception that science provides us a platform for absolute truth and unfalisifiable facts was, however, rebutted by classical compatibilist David Hume and was consequently deemed incredulous.

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. The appreciation and understanding of information via lifelong learning, from birth till death, and experience is incontrovertibly intricately interrelated to the development of nations. Eg? However, it does not serve as a purpose, means or implication to this progress; instead, it stands as a cornerstone in our unending journey towards the unreachable, undefinable success of a country. Knowledge develops man to achieve their potential in their ability to interact with his surroundings, both adversely and beneficially; such a gift does not necessarily affect the progress of a country directly. Nevertheless, it is vital for the long term growth of our international society that consists of both developed and less developed countries. Eg? Consequently, knowledge is not an object to be selfishly confined within a group; it is a valuable possession that is meant to be shared throughout our international platform regardless of the existing paradigm shift.

However, a challenge that arises alongside such an advantage of knowledge is the acceptance of knowledge. Sometimes, our reluctance for knowledge emerges due to our stubbornness and reluctance to understand our world although it is clearly beneficial; such a case is acrimoniously tragic as the laziness and glaring materialistic tendency of mankind result in ignorance which further exacerbates the situation in which we are suffering so devastatingly in. The reality that there has been an exponential increase in the consumption of fast food is great testament to the fact that we either ignore information concerning the adverse effects of such consumption, such as insulin resistance and obesity, or simply are ignorant to such knowledge. According to the film ‘Fast Food Nation’, (why quote this movie if all you want to cite are statistics?) in 1969, McDonald’s had 1,000 restaurants compared to McDonalds’ more than 30,000 today, with 2,000 new ones opening each year due to an increase in demand for fast food.  A  more poignant movie would be Sicko – that why despite the effects of fast-food, people still consume horrendous amounts. If you can give a simpler example, you can remove the above lines. How about…HIV/Aids?

However, the rejection of knowledge may also be due to our tendency to subscribe to solipsism which is the idea that one can only know that one’s self exists and that anything outside the mind, such as the external world, cannot be known to exist. Solipsists place emphasis on a subjective reality, and that what we perceive to be true for one person may not be true for another. In fact, many of our global leaders today lack sufficient current affairs knowledge to be compatible politicians attempting to assist mankind in its unending journey to an ambiguous better life. Sarah Palin herself thought that Africa was a country, not a continent and could not name all the countries involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Another example is that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who claimed vehemently that the holocaust did not take place.

With the ever-growing culture of globalisation, we, as global citizens have to be knowledgable about our rapidly-changing world. As developments occur, we have to keep updated. We have to keep track of developments in our globalised world. The lack of acquaintance about our surroundings has the potential to disadvantage us. Only with proper knowledge about our surroundings can we make informed decisions for our own selfish desires; only with various angles can we appreciate suffering and selflessly think about how advantaged we are. We live in a highly interconnected world; our very actions can have far reaching effects. The burning of forests in Indonesia adversely affects tourism air quality in Singapore and the region. Consequently, the development of other countries in Southeast Asia.Mere apathy of our surroundings can result in undesirable effects for others or even one’s self.

However, it is apparent that knowledge is both our friend and foe. Incontestably, we have improved our standards of living through technological developments and the spread of ideologies such as capitalism, mainly due to knowledge. At the same time, the overflowing knowledge of certain individuals may be highly aversive to society; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nuclear bomb was due to our confident knowledge of modern physics, the brainchild of Albert Einstein.

In today’s modern context, the most common mode of transmission of knowledge and information is via the mass media. The mass media is a powerful force that inevitably penetrates through our lives to the extent that it can influence our character, attitude and lifestyle; its ubiquitous nature has the power to make or break a person. New and conventional media have managed to integrate into our lifestyles such that we are non-existent without it. Dwelling in an exceedingly interconnected world, we cannot merely garner knowledge by word of mouth, just as the aborigines in Australian transmitted their knowledge over generations. We depend highly on the Internet and newspapers for knowledge concerning daily occurrences; journals keep a register of past discussions for us to learn new knowledge for application in future research. Internet usage itself is increased from 361 million users in 2000 to 1.8 billion by 2009.[i] Its effects in disseminating knowledge are far reaching – a new frontier at a cusp of innovation…Since September 2006, the brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has seen an exponentially increase in a few short years to a sum of 300 million subscribers today. Such a platform has been useful in the spreading of knowledge and as a discussion forum.

In our aim to teach one another knowledge that is freely accessible physically, yet extremely exclusive mentally, we have to undertake pedagogy that appreciates that we most efficiently learn via different learning styles. In our aim to teach knowledge through the best possible method, we should have the target to do so efficiently and within the least time possible. This can only be done if we can satisfy the learning style of the person being taught. This is where many educational institutions have failed. Merely organising lectures and tutorials are insufficient; they are only effective for auditory and visual learners. Holistic teaching that encompasses theory and application are essential to driving knowledge. Institutions should organise field trips and excursions so that kinaesthetic learners are not left out; they can benefit equally from the education system. Alternatively, practical sessions could be organised; instead of simply learning an economics concept or scientific theory, projects, experiments ad research can be facilitated as an approach to hands-on learning. Today, we should not emphasise rote learning is a distant past; independent thinkers  are the future.should be developed. This can only be done if institutions teach less, but students learn more. This will succeed if institutions inculcate into their students the importance of interdependent and independent learning.

Independent learners can be developed through Socratic thinking and questioning. Socrates once said theorised that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To develop independent learners, we need to teach ourselves how to think. Through independent learning, we obtain knowledge by ourselves; we do not depend on others for such a valuable commodity. The job of institutions is to teach people to find knowledge, not teach them knowledge. The best way to do this is via thought-provoking questions. Through his relentless questioning, Socrates forced people to examine their own beliefs. Questions provide us a platform for a purpose-driven life. We think about our actions; we appreciate our environment. We do not merely accept knowledge; we question it. We do not simply consume knowledge; we apply it. The integration of such outcomes of a thinker causes us to become more than knowledgeable. We become wise. Examining Blooms Taxonomy, accepting knowledge passively is the lowest level of education-receiving. Institutions should aim to undertake an approach in which students value knowledge and allows it to influence his or her characteristic where useful such that that knowledge can be applied with wisdom.

Thomas Edison explained, “our greatest need is to teach people who think- not what, but how.” Through such judgment, we are not satisfied with simple knowledge. We are more interested in the process than the final result of knowledge per se. We are not as concerned about the facts; rather, we are engrossed with the derivation and controversies about such beliefs and falsifiable theories. When Einstein presented his theory of Quantum Physics, the world was appalled. How could electromagnetic waves have wave particles? Nevertheless, it was the process in which Einstein was enabled to justify, to an extent, such a theory that appeased the world; he performed experiments. Through judgment and the skill of analysis, we evolve from conformism into individualism. Only through individualism can future civilizations accept facts firmly and determine the suitability of such knowledge in that modern context. Conformism is the sustenance of knowledge; individualism is the birth of knowledge. Our understanding of the heliocentric solar system and quantum physics were due to the individualistic nature of brave, confident scientists who rejected the paradigm of their time and were consequently leaders of a paradigm shifts. Via Quantum Physics, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was invented for further investigation into the characteristics of subatomic particles which will consequently strengthen foundations concerning our knowledge on Quantum physics and build upon that understanding. Individualism allows for the growth of a plethora of schools of thought that enables us to appreciate knowledge based on stronger foundations.

Knowledge consists of both the priori and posterori knowledge; nonetheless, there is no superior form of knowledge. Knowledge should be a civil right; it should be non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The preference of type of knowledge and learning style will help us, as members of an interdependent international society focus on the development of one another, as independent, individualistic thinkers such that we are not merely bogged down by mere memorisation of knowledge; we rather decisively critique knowledge. Only then can we apply knowledge to improvements in quality of life so as to ensure the progress of future generations. Our forefathers have passed down to us invaluable knowledge; the Babylonians and Egyptians indisputably inspire us. It is time for us to take the lead and inspire future civilisation to press on and trudge on in the unending pursuit for knowledge. Ultimately, it is the wise who own knowledge. They know the importance of it and they apply it not to benefit themselves only, but to advantage the rest of mankind as well. Stephen Hawking, a reputable mathematician and physicist who continued the work of Einstein from various aspects such as relativity, once said, “we are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” Knowledge and its applications have made us superior. The option has been provided to man to accept knowledge and convert it into multifaceted wisdom.

The growth of tourism is a threat to the environment. Discuss.

Tourism is an activity with roots that can be traced as far as people visiting the Roman baths, becoming a fashion in Europe since the 17th century. Today, tourism represents more than an activity or a fashion, it is an industry which brings great contribution or even keeps alive certain economies. In the age of cultural diversity, any country can allow the world to become familiar with their roots, traditions or beliefs. Much alike the case of natural resources, tourism is regarded mainly from one perspective, that of financial income for the hosts. In a time when technological development marks every corner of the world, the wide-spread touristic activities are enclosing the natural habitat until it reaches the confines of a windowed room, for the leisure of innumerable individuals.

            Tourism determines the need to expand over natural environment. In the field of tourism, the most important aspect is to have impeccable services, which means that enough accommodation must be provided, as well as infrastructure for access to the area as well as recreation facilities. All of these are necessary in order to keep a constant income of visitors, while ensuring that a good deal of profit is being made. For instance, accommodation facilities and recreational areas in the case of ski resorts imply massive deforestation, severely altering the trophic chain of the surrounding forest. Furthermore, the extensive paving required by infrastructure access and travel related building such as airports amount up to an alarmingly high portion of the natural habitat. These inherent, compulsory factors brought about by the progress of the tourism industry eventually end up dominating the environment and turning it into a man-made, artificial one.

            The pressure exercised by the tourism industry does not, however, resume itself to limiting and confining nature. Another grave issue is represented through the enormous resource consumption, pollution and waste that result from the millions of visitors. For instance, in the case of Cyprus, in 2009 the government has approved the touristic development of 14 golf courses. Considering the amount of drinkable water that is already scarce in the region, the annual required volume to maintain the golf-courses sums up to more than a third of the population’s need of potable water over a year. What is more, any form of transportation employed by tourism is, unavoidably, air polluting, bringing a massive contribution to the process of global warming by the means of carbon dioxide emissions. All factors considered, being one of the fastest growing industries around the world, tourism poses one of the biggest threats for the environment and for the preservation of natural habitats, causing a tendency in people to put a price-tag on everything that can be considered exotic by someone else.

            On the other hand, there are also advantages determined by touristic development because of the world-wide advertising this industry can bring to a remote area or potential investors. Therefore, tourism is beneficial because it contributes to key-areas such as raising environmental awareness, the protection and preservation of certain ecosystems and endangered species within protected natural parks. For example, in Congo, the coverage provided by tourism has led to investments to protect the mountain gorillas, one of the most endangered great ape species in the world. One other positive example is the Grupo Punta Cana resort, located in the Dominican Republic. In this case, over 10,000 hectares of natural habitat have been set aside for the preservation of biodiversity and 11 fresh-water springs are maintained for the same purpose. The resort truly combines luxury with utility, also having created a biodiversity laboratory run by the Cornell University. These facts serve but to emphasize that with the proper responsibility, care and attention to the nature which protects humanity, the environmental issues can easily be solved by means of sustainable development.            

As it is the case with most rapidly growing industries, exercising control and regulatory standards is close to impossible on a global level. The lack of environmental awareness and education has brought humanity to the paradox of wanting to travel in order to visit and appreciate a unique place on earth, while destroying it. Awareness for the ecosystem in which people live, should be a part of the common consciousness. Ethical principles should be applied to man’s relationship with his habitat, so that the few positive examples are followed, turning a strictly financial business into a life-giving one, both for people and for the Earth.

Can green efforts be anything more than token gestures?

From green technology to the Kyoto protocol, one would deem environmental issues to be a solution to international relations, rather than a global problem. In the era in which many are well aware of the environmental problems which plague us, such as global warming and pollution, one can be rest assured that there has been a large demand for countries to seek more sustainable measures in the usage of finite resources. While many argue that green efforts have been meaningful as more countries realise the pressing environmental challenges which surround them; taking a realist view, this essay asserts that such green efforts are mere token gesture, as countries exploit them to enhance their stature and prestige.

It has been known that many politicians have used environmental issues to gain personal prestige or political clout rather than be concerned to solve them. In an era in which the world has a greater awareness of the environment, there is a larger pressure from environmental enthusiast for political action to occur in a bid to save the environment. Realising such a need, many politicians attempt to make empty promises in a bid to win voters during elections. As those who willingly deal with environmental issues through brave endeavours have been deemed to have taken the moral high ground, their actions tend to be more popular with the people, especially budding environmental enthusiasts. However, most of such promises are left broken and are nothing more than a manner in which politicians gain prestige. For instance, in the case of Barrack Obama, he was known to have advocated for green energy in the US, having encouraged the implementation of two thousand wind turbines to harness a sustainable form of energy. Such an action had gained the approval of many people, resulting in the massive lead he held during the 2008 presidential elections. However, such tree hugging intentions did not sustain long in the US, as it was known that Obama had instead taken a less environmentally friendly approach during his period in government, with the dropping of all environmental plans in 2011.

Still, one could argue that in spite of such politicians which make use of environmental issues to enhance their political clouts, there are politicians who do see the pressing need for green efforts.  Such is the case of the ex US vice president, Al Gore, who was known to have done the documentary, “An inconvenient truth’ which strongly advocates for the need to solve environmental problems. It is with politicians such as Al Gore in which one would realise that such environmental efforts are not just based only on personal gain, but instead on one’s true belief that change is necessary in order to save mother Earth.

However, such altruism seems aimless, as even Al Gore himself has not proposed an effective plan which could save the Earth from its impending doom. While many brag of the amount of environmental conservation they would do for their countries, the lack of a well planned scheme for the environment has been unsettling. Given the nature of most protocols being non-binding, there has not been any decisive action taken towards the environment, resulting in the abandonment of many green efforts, deeming efforts to be ineffective.

Similarly, green efforts can be dismissed as mere token gestures, as countries only deal with their environmental issues when they seek diplomatic ties or funding internationally. As countries are given certain incentives if they were to invest in green technologies, many countries have embarked on the green approach.  China, for instance, has spear headed the global green movement by investing two billion dollars into it’s green technology sector. While this may be a hefty sum in the short run, China stands to gain cheaper costs in harnessing energy through subsidies as well as deepening diplomatic ties with other like-minded nations. Therefore, as environmental concerns are only pursued with an ulterior motive, one could dismiss them as mere token gestures.

However, it is only through such incentives that some countries are able to gain greater environmental awareness amongst its population. With more countries embarking on such projects, their citizens would then become more aware of the environmental concerns as it now concerns their own lives. This in turn would mean the potential for greater pressure on their governments to further embark on other green efforts. Such can be said in the case of the US, which was pressured to sign the Kyoto protocol. Having signed the protocol, there was an increase the amount of people and lobbyists for the green movement, eventually leading to the strong demand for environmentally friendly governance. Through such a mechanism, one would realise that these green efforts are not merely token gestures but also ways to bring about education to the public on environmental issues.

In conclusion, one would view that green efforts while noble, have mostly been reduced to that of token gestures amongst nations and politicians. One personally would think that to make such efforts effective, individual folks should not merely rely on the government but also actively play their part. By simply switching off the lights after leaving the room or using public transport, green efforts would not have to be relied upon the governments, which may view environmental causes to be secondary issues. Therefore, in order for green efforts to progress to be more than token gestures, each and every citizen of this planet would have to do his bid to save mother Earth.

Is science a master or servant?

Science has always served as a primary impetus that powers and accelerates human development. Living in this highly industrialised and commercialised world, the influence science exerts on us is so profound that it might be beyond our expectation or even control. Ranging from ubiquitous access to the internet to the development of controversial scientific fields such as nuclear power and genetic engineering, science seems more like a master who dominates our daily life as well as our future, rather than a faithful servant as we assume and expect.

“I think, therefore I live.” Man used to proudly regard the ability to think as the fundamental difference between human beings and other animals. Yet, we are deprived of such ability due to our overreliance on modern scientific inventions that we developed. With the instantaneous access to the Internet, people no longer need to sit in libraries all day long, looking through piles of books in order to get pieces of information. Such tedious selection process can now be easily performed by the computer at a click of button, which is indeed more convenient and efficient, yet the ability of analysis and critical thinking is less appreciated and valued. This can be evidenced by the increasingly frequent occurrence of plagiarism in both students’ essays and professionals’ research papers. Put the moral issue aside, the act of plagiary clearly shows that people are so indulged by the convenience of the Internet that we seem to be its slaves – it is doubtful how we are going to rely on our deteriorating thinking skills to distinguish right from wrong, the significant from the spurious.

Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki are by far the only two places that have experienced massive destruction due to nuclear weapons, the fresh and vivid memory of 9/11 and Iraq war only reminds of us how thousands of innocent lives can be easily taken away due to people’s avarice for power. While we concede that weapons play an integral part in national defence, this clearly does not provide us with a satisfying explanation to the gigantic amount of nuclear weapons stored in superpowers, which, if used at one time, can ruin the world for a hundred times. “We live in a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants”, General Omar Bradley once declared, implying the huge gap between man’s development of science and ethos. This is the reason why despite the existence of the numerous peace agreements between countries, many people are still fearful of the outbreak of the third world war.

Science might allow us to have a greater control over the environment, yet we cannot control our innate selfish streak. Genetically modified food promised us to create an abundant world where global hunger is eradicated permanently. However, the truth of the matter is that we presently already have more than enough food to feed the world twice over without the technology of genetic engineering. According to the Economist, world poverty can simply be ended by pooling together the resources of the world’s seven richest men and redistributing it. On the other hand, GM crops could cause long term disturbance to our biodiversity and ecosystem due to their cross-pollination with natural plants. We sacrifice the environmental sustainability of our future generations, yet fail to solve the problem effectively even though we have always had the solutions in our hands as mentioned earlier.

We are over-dependent on the Internet, horrified by the potential hazards of nuclear power, and threatened by the environmental implications of genetic engineering. It is poignant to witness how we have become slaves to things we developed. Governments are setting rigorous laws and regulations to prevent the rampant and volatile development of science. Still, at the end of the day, if we are not able to control our own laziness, avarice and selfishness, we can never claim to be the master of science.

Has man lost sight of the purpose of science?

This essay from 2012 is well written and articulate. But 2019 Cambridge marking scheme would have penalised the writer for an excessively long introduction,

The study of science in its disparate realms, such as medical, political, and agricultural, has indisputably percolated the history of Man. Science, in its exhaustive gist, refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practices which is adequate to structure a projection or calculable outcome. It is a sustained effort to ascertain and foster human knowledge and intellectual capacity through disciplined research as means to improve the human condition by forging a superior quality of life for more individuals. This mindset remains rampant these days since scientists globally press on with developments and findings to existing ubiquitous challenges including climate change and poverty. However, it is facile to be cognizant of why some folks may remonstrate that Man has steadily overlooked the intrinsic worth of Science. Instead, critics suggest the humankind has transgressed perimeters, exploiting Science to a degree where its significance is corrupted. This essay aims to communicate that Man has not been inordinately myopic. After all, the intention of Science has propagated till today. Science has also heralded in a 21st century which is radically superior relative to the prior eras, with sanguinity and the makings for substantial advancement.

Civilizations’ annals may appear to endorse Man’s appalling background of our application, or more accurately, the abuse of Science. For instance, the breakthrough in analyses of nuclear energy pledged plummeting dependence on gradually depleting fossil fuels and natural gases. On contrary, it precipitated the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of which its implications of the calamities on the Japanese society still spawn vulnerability in this day and age. The misuse of nuclear energy ushered in a time period of reciprocally assured ruination during the Cold War years as well as predominantly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thus, cynics asserted that the human race has lost sight of the rationale of Science long ago. They contend that Science was acutely exploited and wielded by those in clout for detrimental ends and egocentric pursuits as a substitute to its premeditated function in ameliorating quality of life. 

In spite of an element of legitimacy in the detractors’ claims, they are but superficial and cursory evaluation. Beneath the exterior, there are plenty of world leaders and commoners alike who have stepped to the fore in rally critical of abuse of Science. This incited nuclear arms talks to preclude any additional demises from nuclear assaults between states. The signing of the primary internationally negotiated nuclear arms summit, the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, was ascribed to worldwide pressure and communities such as SANE. Therefore, whenever Science’s bona fide relevance seems to be undermined formerly, Man has arbitrated to suspend its misuse and circumvent further manipulation.

Moreover, a number of individuals may point to the example of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, vilified for his sham allegations that he had determined an innovation in stem cell examination. Instead of employing Science to factually develop and expand accessible details on the function of stem cells, Hwang belied information thereby contravening the exact tenet all scientists adhere to which is every hypothesis structured has to be validated by perceptible and tangible support. 

Regrettably to express, several scientists increasingly pervert results, arguing that “trivial” margin of error will not yield disparities. Hence, Man has lost track of the objective of Science in the rat race to emerge as pioneer, blinded to the system and regulations which lend scientific findings its cogency and ascendancy.

Science has been drawn upon for ethical and benign incentives, realizing its inherent merit and capacity. The case in point, Science in agriculture has considerably progressed in recent decades with the Green Revolution and new school practices of husbandry to meet the demands of the planet’s burgeoning population. The upsurge of automated farming by means of Science to discern precisely the pertinent environment sought for maximum crop growth has observed a contemporaneous rise in agrarian output in states as heterogeneous as Germany, Australia in addition to Africa. Therefore, Science has been channelled to increase the quality of life for Man in Third World and developed states similarly. The figure of campaigns against international food shortage and pro alleviating famine unmistakably attest we have not turned a blind eye to the indigent in industrializing states amidst growth.

Although Science has been manipulated and exploited by Man to serve cataclysmic mainspring sporadically, it remains a phenomenal reservoir of information for humanity. Man has harnessed Science to better understand the Earth as well as to improve our quality of life to an unparalleled height which was solely a vision of our forefathers. The movement for advancement and progress by means of Science is expected to continue unflaggingly in the foreseeable prospects thus Man is not sightless of the purpose of Science.

Movies and television can never replace books. Discuss.

An essay that needs A LOT of improvement.

Can books be replaced by movies and television? Books exist since the invention of writing systems and everyone owns one so the invention of books is much earlier than the invention of movies and television. Movies and television were invented after the invention of books. Movies and television give people variety of choices. Both provide sensory stimulation and excitement. However movies and television cannot replace books as books give readers a very personal experience and allow people’s imagination to go wild. Books keep the brains active hence it is my opinion to say that movies and TV can never replace books.

Cinema and television provide people with a variety of choices. There are millions of movies and television programmes that exist in the world now. People can choose on their own from the variety of choices. Instead of reading a book, people can watch a movie. However not only movies and television provide people with a variety of choices, books give people a variety of choices too. In fact, most of the movies and TV are based on books. For example, the famous book series, Harry Potter, the movies of Harry Potter are originated from books written by J.K Rowling. If movies and television provide people with a variety of choices, books do provide too as movies and television are originated from books.

Films and television give people sensory stimulation and excitement. These two have sound and visual effects to attract people. With the sound effects or background music, mov ies and television create tension that catches people’s attention. With fanciful images, catchy music and emotional acting, people have more appeal to moving images. However books give people a very personal experience while holding a book. When one is reading a book, the interaction is between the person and the book. This gives people a personal space while reading a book. Books allow people’s imagination to flow freely. Unlike movies and television which guide the viewers, books allow the readers to escape into their own world while reading. Books restrict the readers’ mind and ways of thinking. Therefore movies cannot replace books.

A lot of books are made into movies nowadays. People usually prefer to watch a movie before reading the book. Movies are shorter and can save time. An average length of a movie is about one and a half hours long. For example, comparing the people who have watched the movie, Twilight, and people who have read the book series, more people have watched the movie series than reading the book series. This is evident that people prefer books to movies. However without books, there would be no films. People get ideas from books to produce film. As books are invented before the invention of television, books are more original and can deliver the message of the authors more clearly.

In conclusion, books can never be replaced by moving images and fancy effects. Firstly books provide readers a more personal experience than films. Secondly books can provide people with a variety of choices. Thirdly books allow readers’ imagination to flow unlike programmes which control the viewers’ mind. Therefore movies and television can never replace books.

Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.