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.

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

It is clearer today, more than ever, that Man’s short-sighted actions in the pursuit of material wealth are causing the destruction of the environment. There is a growing international consensus among scientists that human activity is a direct cause of global warming and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought this to the forefront of public consciousness. Meanwhile, huge swathes of rainforest in the Amazon are destroyed each day to be used as cattle grazing pastures. Given the undeniable fact that human activity is responsible for environmental destruction, it is then not surprising that the best answer to environmental destruction is not the development of new technology to patch up the problem, but instead a fundamental change in mindset and attitudes globally which would address the root of the problem.

It must be acknowledged that technology can indeed help to address the problem of environmental destruction. This is especially evident in situations where it is impractical to stop the human activity. For example, it would be impossible to stop all forms of transport as people would face severe restrictions in where they could go. Thus, in this case, technology could help tremendously, like through the introduction of hydrogen-fuelled cars which only produce water as a waste product and do not emit carbon dioxide. Also, better technology has helped refineries to refine crude oil while releasing less harmful byproducts into the environment. The development of unleaded petrol also reduced the number of pollutants emitted into the environment by cars. All of these examples go to show that technology can and indeed, already have, helped to reduce environmental destruction.

However, technology may not be the best answer to environmental destruction as there are situations in which it is useless. An example close to home is the proposed development of Chek Jawa, a section of coast on Pulau Ubin with rich marine biodiversity, by the Singapore government. Had the government decided to go ahead with its plans, no amount of technology could have saved the biodiversity in the area from the bulldozers and construction cranes. Thus, it is clear that technology cannot be the best answer as it is unable to negate the effects of habitat destruction. Instead, what is more, pertinent in this situation is the attitude towards conservation of such important habitats. In the Chek Jawa situation, the government demonstrated an applaudable mindset towards environmental conservation as it halted development plans and even gazette the area as a protected area. It is clear that human attitudes were what saved Chek Jawa from destruction, not technology.

Furthermore, technology is limited in its impact as it is only effective when used properly and regularly. For example, although electric cars that are less harmful to the environment than conventional cars have been developed, the usage rate of such cars is not high due to their relatively higher price. If for whatever reason, superior technology is not implemented, then it is effectively useless. In short, the effectiveness of technology is dependent on society’s attitude towards it, and technology that helps reduce environmental destruction will only be implemented if society feels the need for environmental conservation.

Another problem with using technology as the answer to environmental destruction is that, more often than not, cavalier attitudes towards environmental conservation as demonstrated by excessive consumption and extravagant wastage can negate any benefits brought about by technology. For example, proponents of the recently-developed biodegradable “plastic bag” hail it as the answer to the problem of non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastic bags. However, should people take the biodegradable nature of the new “plastic bag” as carte blanche to use and waste as many as they desire, they could be contributing to even more environmental destruction. This is mainly because more energy is required to produce these extra bags, thereby creating more carbon dioxide and waste through the production and incineration process as compared to the impact of conventional plastic bags. Through this, it is clear that the ultimate answer is not technology, but the changing of society’s attitudes.

Proponents of the superiority of technology may argue that with sufficiently advanced and large-scale technology, humans need not alter their attitudes at all. They may point to ongoing projects which attempt to find a way to dump Mankind’s waste into space or pump the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into huge underground caverns to reduce global warming. However, such initiatives tend to be large-scale and extravagantly expensive, taking up valuable scarce resources which could be used for the betterment of society or even to feed the hungry. Furthermore, according to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution to a problem is often the best one. It would be resource-wasting and foolish to pursue such grand initiatives to solve a problem which can be solved so simply – by a small change in behavioural attitudes.

Although cynics might argue that it is much harder to change human attitudes, current events point to the contrary. They show that people, once educated about the impact of their actions on the destruction of the environment, tend to act in a way to reduce that impact. For example, the number of couples who serve shark fin soup at their weddings here in Singapore has steadily declined over the years, due to increasing awareness that the shark fin trade is endangering the shark population. Also, statistics collected in conjunction with the “Bring Your Own Bag” campaign, which was recently launched in Singapore, has shown that more people are starting to eschew the one-time use of plastic bags in favour of reusable ones. This is attributed to increased awareness of the environmental destruction caused by plastic bags. Thus we can see that people do change their actions and attitudes when educated about the negative impacts of their actions.

Moreover, there need not be a drastic change in attitudes and actions to solve the problem of environmental destruction. Saving the environment need not require everyone to stop all air travel or stop all activities non-essential to survival. As is often seen, all that is required is a small change in behaviour, such as using turning up the temperature on the air-conditioner or printing documents double-sided. For example, if everyone switched off their computers when not in use instead of leaving them to idle, 45 million less metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted per year. Thus, even small individual actions can lead to a great impact is done collectively.

It is for this reason that a change in people’s attitudes towards conservation is a superior answer to environmental destruction compared to technology. It is far more likely to succeed and requires less of the Earth’s scarce resources.

“Discuss the impact of the mass media on society today.”

In this current age, the mass media has played an integral part in the lives of both the young and old. The mass media, which comes in the form of publications, television programmes, the Internet, music and others, has had both positive and negative impacts on the society today, influencing their mindsets and beliefs. In my opinion, mass media has resulted in more negative effects than positive.

The mass media influences the mindsets of the young and impressionable; leading to a blurring of the distinction between right and wrong. One has to be discerning in what he believes, which is presented by the mass media. Without the knowledge of being able to differentiate between good and evil, it is easy for one to be easily swayed by the messages conveyed by the media. Take, for instance, violent television programmes such as WWF wrestling, which advocates violence. The programme depicts scenes of wrestlers beating each other up to a bloody pulp and hurling verbal abuses at each other. Youths and children who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are eventually influenced into having the misconception that violence and verbal abuse is a solution to problems or disputes. This may lead to insidious effects over time, such as imitable behaviour. A significant example to note is that the teenage gunmen behind the Columbine High School massacre were avid fans of certain violent video games. Although there is no concrete evidence that playing such games led them to commit their heinous deed, there is the possibility that they were influenced into thinking that killing is a solution to rid them of people they disliked. Hence it is evident that the mass media has influenced the beliefs of the young, and has resulted in an inability to tell right from wrong.

The mass media knows no boundaries, and thus certain messages conveyed may be offensive or inappropriate. While mediums of mass media such as the television and publications may be restricted by censorship or bans, the Internet is one medium that cannot be controlled. Anyone can easily make information available and accessible on the Internet, through websites, blogs and the like. In some cases, racial slurs or discriminatory messages against certain religions may even make their way onto the World Wide Web. An example is the controversial, anti-Islamic video, “Fitna”.“Fitna”, a short film by Geert Wilders, made its debut online and was even posted on Youtube, a video sharing website open to the public. The film linked the religion to terrorism and resulted in an uproar in the Islamic world. Supporters and followers of Islam were furious, and there were even protests against the film. The furore over“Fitna” is evidence the mass media has no limits, as there is no control over what is on the Internet. In“Fitna”’s case, there is clearly discrimination against Islam, resulting in many Muslims feeling angry and offended. Despite calls to ban the video, it is still available on various websites for public viewing. Thus it is clear that there are no boundaries in the mass media, regardless of the content of the messages conveyed.

The mass media may lead to bias in the beliefs of society, as there might be control imposed on the information conveyed, thus preventing the people from seeing the big picture. In several countries, the mass media has become a powerful medium of conveying messages of propaganda. Only selected information is made available to the public, with bans imposed on information deemed as inappropriate. An example is China. The people are fed with pro-government information, as the government has banned Blogger, a blog hosting website, and any form of publication or websites that are anti-government. 50 journalists and bloggers were arrested early this year, for posting anti-political party comments online. By disallowing opinions against the government to be made accessible to the public, the citizens in China are not provided with the big picture of their government. While some of the people are aware of the propaganda presented to them via the mass media in their country, many others are not as discerning, and pro-government values are inculcated in them. Even in other countries, it is only natural for the governments to use the mass media to present themselves in a positive light, as they want the support of the people. However, imposing restrictions on the messages spread by the mass media leads to a one-sided view of matters, and people will be unable to see the other side of the coin. Therefore the mass media has resulted in influencing society into having narrow mindsets.

On the other hand, the mass media has had beneficial impacts on the society in this age, as it is an efficient medium of spreading information. Forms of the mass media, such as the Internet, have made information easily accessible by the public. With a few clicks of the computer mouse, the public is exposed to a wide range of current affairs in the world. For instance, when cyclone Nargis in Myanmar occurred, blogs, websites and forums were flooded with news about it. Another form of the mass media, publications such as newspapers, also informed the public of the news. Regardless of country, it was only a short while before nearly everyone knew about the natural disaster. The governments of countries did not need to formally inform the whole country of the news, as the various forms of mass media had already done that. Hence it is evident that the mass media has impacted society positively, as it is a convenient and effective means of relaying information.

While the mass media has its benefits in society, its negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The mass media is able to influence the mindsets of the young, is without boundaries and plays a huge role in shaping the beliefs of a country’s citizens. Thus, I conclude that the mass media has had a negative impact on the society of today.

To what extent is formal education effective?

A really really terrible essay.

Education can exist in many different forms and variation. A parent communicating to a child and be considered as an informal education where life skills and values are being instilled in the child. Education in Singapore, as we know it, is mainly formal education whereby it is a classroom-based style of teaching provided by trained teachers in various institutions.

Formal education is effective because it is caters to the large majority of the population. Formal education allows for the easy implementation of new educational materials to the student body by the government and various institutions because of the coherence of materials taught in schools to these students. Rather than coming up with different measures and other forms of informal education to fit different groups of students in a different education system, the government and educational bodies can save on the administrative costs which can then be channeled into other government needs and concerns. There is no denying that informal education can be beneficial also but formal education provides a systematic way of organizing education materials to a large majority of the population hence allowing educational institutions to address the education needs of the population as a whole rather than individually which may be time consuming. In Singapore, the ministry of education (MOE), has used formal education such as the compulsory primary school education to the population at large to ensure that each student can

In a highly competitive world in which there is a stark difference between the rich and the poor, education can be said to be a great ‘leveller’ in the world. Formal education can be effective because it is cheap and cost efficient allowing for even low income earners to allow their children to study. Formal education in schools is normally implemented through a state-owned company instead of a private enterprise. Hence, the cost of education would be comparatively cheaper than those given by private firms or educational institutions. This would give a greater opportunity for the whole community of students to be educated rather than specialized forms of education tailored only for the rich. In the long run, there is a higher probability that formal education, because of the inclusiveness of even low-income family students, can improve the lives of these low-income families as well as remain cheap and competitive. In Singapore, education is heavily subsidized because it is seen as an important tool to build a knowledge base economy in the future. It is also compulsory to attend primary school for all students so that they have at least a certain level of education.

Furthermore, formal education is mostly standardized. This brings about benefits to not only students but also the economy as a whole. The system of formal education can be geared towards skills required by economy. In the past, focus on calculus and arithmetic in Singapore was important because capital intensive style of the economy which required engineers. In this modern day, science and math are placed of importance as our economy enters into a technological advanced world so as to allow progress to take place. Formal education provides a platform for governments to implement the education system across the country, making it fast, efficient and fair to the society. As such, formal education can be effective because it is standardized which allows easy implementation of policies to deal the economic progress of the country.

Formal education certainly provides a systematic platform for the governments to education the vast majority of the population. However formal education may have its limitations hence it may not be as effective in certain aspects. For one, formal education limits creativity in students. The standardization of the education system to fit the majority of the population may restrict students who are not used to the specific type of learning formal education brings. Learning can take place in different forms. These include audio, visual, kinestatic and tactile learning. More often than not, formal education tends to neglect some of these aspects that may hinder some students in their learning which may be a downside in the near future. In addition, formal education tends not to focus on the arts as much as math and science. Students who are artistically inclined in dance and music may not be able to cope well with the formal education system. They may not excel in school as a result because of the lack of opportunities in other areas that formal education brings. Although Singapore has opened up new colleges such as SOTA (school of the arts) and laselle college of the arts,  every other school focuses on formal education which comprises of mainly math and science to educate students so that they can work to allow the economy to progress. Hence when dealing with creativity of this form of education, formal education may not be as effective.

Formal education may not be as effective because in the long run, students may not appreciate what they have learnt in schools. Formal education, in a way, conforms students to adapt to the idea of learning which is chosen not by them but by the government. This may not allow the students to fully appreciate the subjects which are taught to them and in future, there might be a possibility of forgetting the knowledge causing formal education not to be as effective. Also, talent, which could have been nurtured, may as a result be undeveloped in formal education where the child does not have the exposure to further his talent. As  result, formal education can be limited and not as effective as it could be.

In conclusion, formal education is effective in many different aspects even outside the scope of this essay however we have to recognize that formal education can be limited in certain areas such as creativity as well as the appreciation of studying in general.

Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful too in everyday life?

Mathematics has always been used as a tool in our routine life, in its most basic applications of monetary exchange and transactions, estimating the travel time required to get to our workplaces so as to avoid being late, to its more complex deployment in the value-analysis involved in stock exchange in the global business market. Yet, the intrinsic value of mathematics is found not only in its concrete uses – being used as a mere tool – but more predominantly in its power to empower people and the world we live in. By taking a deeper and closer look into the power of mathematics, mathematics can effectively be seen as a language – a medium for interaction and communication. It can also be seen as a rich source of enhancement for the human mind, taking mental activity and capabilities to new heights. Most of all, mathematics should not be seen as a mere mash of numbers, questions and results, because by looking beyond that, we would see the large amount of information those “mere numbers” can tell us, where mathematics itself, can be seen as an entity, the engine that drives how we live and how we will live in the distant future.

By looking at the application of mathematics in our everyday lives, it is obvious that is used in extreme magnitudes in almost every aspect of our daily life. Because of this, mathematics is gradually seen as a form of language, with its basis of operation being the analysis and observation of sequential patterns, and the whole simple yet potent idea of counting. Studies over the years have shown us that the frequency of a cricket’s chirp over specific time frames is relative to the temperature of the surroundings at that point in time. Counting and identifying the sequence and patterns of clicks and beats have also given birth to the “MORSE code”. The whole concept of code-deciphering in various artifacts and transcripts is also based on pattern observation, a key component in mathematics. Taking into consideration that English, Chinese, French and Russian are languages that can only be used to communication by people who know them, since mathematics is something that lives among us in our everyday lives all over  the world, there comes a possibility that mathematics could be the universal language of the future. Even during our daily conversations, there are instances where mathematically based observation is applied to allow us to arrive at certain conclusions. For example, too long a pause in between dialogue between friends can indicate either awkwardness, boredom or confusion. In the same light, panic or excitement can be observed when the pauses in between dialogue is abruptly cut off or too short, allowing us to conclude a certain level of anxiety and panic in the other party’s speech.  All of such observations are again, also based on the mathematically-based concept of counting and speech-pattern analysis. Modern lie detectors in crime investigation sectors not only use heart rate and blood pressure as a gauge, but also the complex analysis of such speech patterns. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that mathematics is not just a mere numerical tool, but a form of language that holds within it messages that we can uncover and allow us to arrive at various conclusions from a more careful observation of a simple string of patterns and numbers.

Moreover, mathematics is also seen as a source of enrichment to one’s mind. Because of the sometimes thought-stimulating aspects of math, the human mind is made to work more actively and process information at higher levels, thus familiarizing the brain with such demanding levels of mental activity and allowing individuals to attain a so-called “more intelligent mind”. The whole idea behind mathematics taking its place as a subject in educational institutes is not because of the direct usefulness of the various mathematical concepts taught. How often do we actually apply the mathematical concepts of the binomial theorem and Maclaurin’s series in our daily lives? With the modern day calculator at hand, none of those mathematical concepts are needed, and none of them would even prove to be useful in any way at all. Then why are students forced to learn such concepts of calculus if they are seemingly useless in today’s world? The reason is simple, and it is plainly because such concepts are supposedly difficult to grasp and questions pertaining to such concepts often difficult to answer, requiring deep thought and analysis in working towards the right answer. Based solely on this aspect, such mathematical concepts thus encourage the mental activity of the students, forcing them to think at higher levels and enabling them to grow more accustomed to high levels of thinking and the vital ability to think “out of the box”. With this accomplished, students would then grow into individuals with a higher mental capability, more prepared to tackle the many challenging problems and issues that they would most likely face especially in the working world, along their road to future success. Thus, mathematics is more than just a tool we make use of in the process of our daily lives but a form of “vitamin” that spurs us on to attain higher mental capabilities and a deeper understanding of how to go about solving problems and finding solutions whatever they may be, whereby such intellect is crucial to one’s success in the ever-changing world.

All in all, mathematics is not just a mere tool in our daily lives, but in actual fact the basis of all science and perhaps, all life. To provide a more absolute understanding of the value of mathematics, everything we live on has to do with mathematics, and everything around us functions by mathematical platforms, even us, as illustrated earlier. The houses we live in and every patch of man-made surface we set foot on, even the lights and air-conditioners we so conveniently turn on, are all constructed based on architectural analysis and measurements, as well as mechanical and electrical engineering which revolve around concepts found in mathematics. The computers and televisions we tend to seek daily entertainment from, even the electronic games we play and the computer applications we use to do work in the office, are all results of advanced and complex programming, another high level mathematical concept. In addition, processes crucial to the state of every country such as economic evaluation of market value and exchange rates, as well as statistical studies conducted to obtain relevant information from the population are also mathematical in nature. With so many things around us brought about by mathematics, and with so many crucial and important aspects functioning based on mathematical ideas, it would be foolish and naïve to still view mathematics as a mere tool, instead of something that empowers us with the many vital must-haves in life.  With the sheer extent of benefits and promises brought to birth by mathematics, it can possibly be said to be the engine of our universe.

Mathematics shows us how to find logical paths to truth, how to unambiguously describe those paths to others, and how to recognize descriptions of faulty paths that lead in the wrong direction or in circles. With it in our arsenal, we are endowed with the ability to think critically, avoid error and derive solutions to any brain-racking issue. Mathematics enables us to communicate,  to enhance our minds, and to develop the many things we find almost impossible to live without in our lives. Mathematics is not just a mere tool in everyday life, but an entity that brings about infinite possibilities.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ Do You Agree

T/S: Those who say that a being modern politician is the same as being a political figure in the past argue that the key factor of being a leader is an eternal constant; politicians portray themselves as compassionate yet powerful figures, capable of leading their nations to greater heights.

EG: Stalin and Putin of Russia both portrayed themselves as compassionate yet awe-inducing father-figures. Stalin often took photos of himself holding up young children with a wide smile, while Putin takes photos of himself spending time with animals like baby tigers or riding horses. Additionally, Putin often releases stories of himself accomplishing amazing feats such as discovering ancient Greek pottery during a recreational dive or successfully hunting down a large bear. Trump, a political outsider, blustered his way into the White House thanks to his effort in portraying himself as a strongman leader who could fight for “fair deals” with the Chinese “bullies”. Bernie Sanders was lambasted for being the oldest candidate and thus the most likely to die in the office should he be elected.

L/B: The main factor that decides the success of a politician is the portrayal of themselves as capable father-figures who are able to convince citizens that they can commandeer their motherlands and drive them to success.

T/S: However, the dynamic modern world with its interconnected global issues means that politicians must grapple with a new set of challenges while still satisfying the demands of local constituents that make their job more difficult than it was in the past.

EG: The British Exit (Brexit) from the EU was a very surprising and shocking event of which its impacts rippled across the globe. The British voted to leave in order to gain better control of their borders while the EU lamented the loss of the large British market. Ex-Prime Minister Teresa May and her successor Boris Johnson both got their positions mostly due to their claims that they would be able to reconcile the differing goals. However, May has failed, resigning in disgrace while Johnson seems to be treading down the same path. To be fair, they are facing a monumental task, the scale of which rivals the challenge Churchill faced during World War II.

 L/B: The complex relations that come with an interconnected world make it difficult for politicians to deal with both internal and external problems simultaneously, especially when those goals are in direct opposition of each other.

T/S: Additionally, the genesis of new media has led to the rise of various movements that challenge the decisions of politicians, making it harder to enact such decisions.

EG: The Hong Kong riots originated when Carrie Lam’s government implemented an extradition bill that would allow people in Hong Kong to be deported to China and be judged by Chinese law. While born out of good intentions when a murderer could not be judged while on Hong Kong soil, the prevalent fear was of China abusing this power to deport dissenters and judge them for speaking out against the Chinese government, causing massive riots to break out across the country. While police were deployed to stop them, protesters organized themselves using encrypted chat services such as Whatsapp and Telegram to plan where to strike as well as the locations to avoid. Additionally, the protests have gained the support of the Western world. Social media sites, like Twitter, have posters incessantly voice their support for the protests, garnering international attention and putting more pressure on Lam’s government. She eventually relented and dropped the bill, but the protests have yet to end, with the demands of the protestors yet to be fully fulfilled.

L/B: The rise of the 5th Estate that has almost no barriers to entry has allowed for the rise of the public consciousness that has the ability to refute government decisions, making it more difficult for politicians to do their jobs.

T/S: Voters are changing and are looking for a different set of values in their politicians, causing established figures to be unable to keep up and not be elected.

EG: In recent years, the low skilled have felt the strain of globalization with cheaper foreign labour taking their jobs, creating a disgruntled citizenry that desires nationalistic leaders who can protect their interests. Additionally, the rise of successful terrorist attacks close to home has entrenched Islamophobia in their society. This has led to the wave of nationalism that has swept the Western world. Donald Trump, Marie Le Penn, Jair Bolsonaro are just some of the examples of the innumerable nationalist leaders in the world.

L/B: The rise of nationalism has caused political extremists to be chosen in major elections and make the lives of established politicians more difficult.

Is a world dominated by science a dream or a nightmare for future generations?

Bleak, dystopian views of a world dominated by science have been around for quite some time. Literature and popular culture have successfully embedded in our collective psyche such nightmarish worlds as Orwell’s “1984”, Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or more recently, the Wachowski brothers’ “The Matrix” – all of which are worlds in which science and technology have a powerful influence. However, one might argue that if we continue to use science in a way that is guided by sound morals and a desire for the greater good of humanity, then a world dominated by science need not necessarily be a nightmare for future generations. Science may not be a perfect dream in which one has nothing to fear, but it certainly does not have to be a nightmare that strikes terror in our hearts.

Some may argue that a world full of surveillance technology is reminiscent of a nightmarish world where Big Brother is always watching. Privacy would become a thing of the past and there would be no guarantee that the surveillance information gathered will not be abused. While it may be true that surveillance technology in the wrong hands may violate one’s right to privacy, one must remember that in most democratic countries today, there exist checks and balances on the powers of governments to prevent or at least minimize this sort of violation. The answer to Juvenal’s famous question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (ie. Who guards the guards?) is a range of checks and balances like legislation, the media, and lobby groups.

Others may say that a world where biotechnology plays a dominant role cannot be anything but a nightmare – one characterized by Frankenstein food, armies of clones or a highly stratified society where being born an Epsilon Minus condemns one to a life of drudgery. Biotechnology may indeed have its dangers, but so does just about any other tool wielded by mankind. We do not refuse to use fire just because fire can pose a great danger if it goes out of control. In the same way, we should not refuse to use biotechnology just because there are risks associated with it. The fact is that biotechnology if used with prudence and caution, could do a great deal of good for humanity. Laws have been put in place to ban the practice of human reproductive cloning; research is being done to find viable alternatives to the sacrifice of embryos upon the extraction of stem cells; etc.

Yet others may say that the spread of nuclear power technology around the world ensures that our world will meet a nightmarish, apocalyptic end in the near future. Already, intransigent states like North Korea and Iran, as well as terrorist cells the world over, are suspected of being in possession of nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time, they argue before these are unleashed upon the world. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” is an insufficient deterrent to some of these groups as they may have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives besides those of others.

The fear that groups in possession of nuclear weapons may use them to destroy others and themselves is indeed very real. That is why the international community continues to engage with North Korea and Iran today, to try to broker agreements for disarmament. There has been some success lately, with North Korea pledging to disable its nuclear facilities and declare its nuclear programmes in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. At the same time, there is greater global cooperation today in dealing with terrorist networks and there have been some successes in foiling terrorist attacks. Etc.

Thus, science is to some extent a nightmare rather than a dream because it has the potential to threaten people’s privacy. It also poses dangers in the field of biotechnology. The fact is science can be a dream if used with prudence and caution. It has the potential to do a great deal of good for humanity.