Is the modern world too reliant on technology?

The extensive and rapid growth of the world has been largely attributed to the technology developed by engineers, scientists and architects. In the past, the Industrial Revolution in the UK had helped to develop it into a sprawling city with the newest technology, improving the quality of living of its citizens in the long run. Today, with the rise of globalisation, the frequency of technology booms has increased greatly. However, recent failures involving technology has raised the question of the modern world being too reliant on technology. Indeed, it seems as if the world has become overly dependent on technology, such that people become unable to complete certain tasks in the case of mechanical failure, or become overly addicted to the use of computers, phones and tablets. Further, there is the question of important tasks and ethical decisions being delegated to technological devices as substitutes. 

Some argue that there is no problem with tasks being done by machines and computer programs, because it relieves us of some degree of effort and helps to complete such tasks more efficaciously. This allows for people to use more time and effort on other tasks, or even to take a rest, improving their quality of living. However, such an analysis would hold only in an ideal world without mechanical failures and mistakes. Often, technology being marketed and used does serve its purposes, but when it malfunctions or fails due to a variety of reasons, it can often lead to catastrophic consequences. The problem underlying this is that people today have begun to assume that technology has help them to do their jobs, leading to a decreased focus on honing skills to do those jobs themselves. A key example is that of the aviation industry. As a result of complex algorithms and computer programming, most planes have in-built autopilot sequences that help to relieve a pilot from flying the plane by himself, save taking off and landing. However, this has led to an overwhelming assumption that this has meant pilots have reduced duties, so pilots practice less, are less alert on the flight, and reports have shown that this causes their skills to atrophy. This was exemplified in the high-profile Air France crash in 2009, in which the Airbus A330’s autopilot malfunctioned upon hitting a storm at a high altitude. The pilot, who had not been paying attention, failed to regain control of the plane, leading to the death of all 228 people on board. On board a flight, it is the key responsibility of the pilot to ensure the safety of his or her passengers. In this case, the pilot had delegated his job to the autopilot function, which could potential harm or kill others in a malfunction. In the same way, a misplaced dependency on technology could possibly constitute a harm to others — it is clear that people have indeed become overly reliant on technology.

Some go on to contest that technology could reduce errors in human judgement, helping to increase the accuracy of decision-making. This would purportedly result in fewer mistakes made, increasing efficiency and productivity. On the other hand, proponents of such a view fail to take into account that there are simply some tasks which must be made by humans alone, and should not be delegated to artificial intelligences. Such tasks often involve moral decisions to be made, in which the judgement of a human who possesses emotions and morality on top of just rationality is highly valued. For instance, the use of drones directed by artificial intelligence has raised huge questions of whether such computer programs which are cold and unfeeling should be allowed to make major decisions such as whether to take the life of another human. Often, situations that occur in reality are complex, with many competing interests and considerations. Computer programs and technology fail at taking into account these complexities, making decisions that may not seem moral to the average reasonable person. For example, in a terrorist hostage situation, a computer program might implement a utilitarian calculus, deciding that it is more rational to obliterate the site using missiles and bombs, at the cost of the innocent hostages. However, a general in the army may disagree, because he recognises the significance of saving those innocents, even though it might mean having to negotiate or make concessions. In such an instance, it is difficult, or even unjustified to allow technology to replace such decision-making. The current use of such means as ways to make decisions shows the world’s excessive reliance on technology. 

Beyond this, an obsession with the capabilities of technology can lead to detriments, because people begin to lose sight of the original intention of the technology. This goes counter to the ability of technology to relieve people of certain tasks and make them more efficient. Many individuals are constantly glued to their mobile phones and computers, spending countless hours whiling their time on surfing the internet, chatting to friends or playing games. For example, in the UK, consumers of digital media spend an average of nine hours a day on their digital products. This takes away time from their work, school life and other interests they may have. As a result, they become less efficient in making good use of their time, instead becoming unproductive. Such excessive use of technology turns out to be counterproductive to its original goal of encouraging efficiency. Hence, when this occurs, people can be said to be too reliant on technology. 

In essence, the world has become too reliant on technology, evidenced by individuals’ reduced ability to perform tasks on their own under the aid of technology — when the technology fails, they become incompetent at solving the problems on their own. This is especially problematic, because it is difficult to tell when the technological device is likely to malfunction. Further, the reliance of technology has spread to areas of decision-making that should be limited to humans, reflecting a dangerous trust in technology to help us make important social decisions. These reflect the fact that technology has the potential to cause harm, especially when people become careless and too unassuming. However, this is not to say that we should stop using new technologies, because they do present a host of benefits, but that we should not completely relinquish the need for humans to be proficient at performing certain tasks on their own, even when technology could possibly be a complete substitute for their function. 

How far is it important for people to be aware of current events in countries other than their own?

The interaction between countries, in this day and age, is never static and unchanging — countries are constantly scurrying to build diplomatic, economic and military relations with one another. This is because governments recognise that events within one nation can inadvertently lead to other events elsewhere, so they have an interest in influencing events in other nations to their own benefit. Similarly, individuals can be influenced by events in other nations, and being aware of such events can be helpful. At the same time, it should be noted that not every event affects the individual, which would mean that knowledge about them is relatively unimportant. With this in mind, it is important for people to be aware of current events in countries other than their own, insofar as these events interests them, be it because it affects them, because they are able to influence and change such trends, or because information about that event brings them intellectual stimulation.

Some claim that events occurring outside the country in which one resides are not important to the individual, because he is not directly involved in the event. If the person was not directly involved, they claim, then there is no benefit in him knowing about the event because such knowledge does not impact him in any way. However, such a view is parochial and does not consider the fact that events in other countries can affect people directly. Recent cases of fruit contamination in the United States and melamine contamination of milk in China have caused an uproar, precisely because these products are exported to other nations for consumption. The question implicitly assumes that people living in a country should be aware of events occurring within the country they reside in. This is often the mindset that is adopted, because events within the country are more likely to affect us, in that such events hint to us potential gains and losses we may experience. For example, it is regarded as important for people to know about governmental policy in their own country, because such policies are directly tailored towards them and would necessarily affect them. However, as Thomas Friedman, American author, put it, the world has become “a global village”. It follows that it is indeed important for individuals to know of events outside just their geographical surroundings, because the increasingly interconnected world means that events in a single country can in fact affect those living elsewhere. Information about a lack of control over oil production by OPEC would warn Singaporeans of impending price hikes at petrol stations, simply because Singaporeans do not live in a bubble, disconnected from the rest of the world. In essence, many current events outside of the geographical boundaries of an individual can have an impact on his or her behaviour — it is thus important to hold a wealth of knowledge of such events.

Others may then argue that even if some events may affect one’s life, these are far and few between — the majority of events occurring abroad are completely unrelated to one’s life. Such claims disregard the fact that information can affect individuals’ actions, which in turn affect current events or set off new ones. People make decisions based on the knowledge they have, not just from the experiences they themselves have garnered, but also from the information they have about events they may not have experienced themselves. Thus, the knowledge of events elsewhere changes the way people respond to their everyday lives. This was exemplified in the aftermath of the collapse of Rana Plaza in Dhaka. As a result of this, the problem of poorly constructed garment factories and poor working conditions for workers came to light. As a result, many individuals boycotted brands which used employed such garment factories, leading to large-scale improvements in the enforcement of rules and regulations. With such cases, individuals need to know of the event before they can pledge support for a certain cause. This can be further extended to completely live-changing decisions being made. For example, during the Arab Spring, Tunisia’s citizens rose up in protests against their governments. Information about this event eventually reached the people in neighbouring countries such as Egypt and Libya, who were experiencing similar oppression from their dictatorial governments. As a result, the information about the initial uprising in Tunisia gave people in Egypt and Libya the inspiration to do the same, rising up to challenge their governments for greater liberties. In this instance, information is important to these individuals because it gave them hope, motivating them to make life-changing decisions they previously did not have the courage to undertake. The amalgamation of many people making similar decisions change current events or trends completely. Clearly, keeping up to date on information in another country can affect one’s life markedly, making such information important.

In addition to this, some individuals feel a sense of intellectual stimulation from certain new events, which may or may not be within the country these people live in. For instance, many individuals in Singapore caught onto the killing of Michael Brown in Singapore, not because police brutality or trigger-happy policemen are problems in the country, but because these events trigger a sense of moral outrage in many. For such individuals, who constantly seek to question social structures and better understand the environment around us, knowledge of current events is never divided according to geographical distances, but according to specific issues and areas of interest. Such knowledge scratches an intellectual itch, by informing them of the developments in societies across the globe. Further, such information helps them better understand the world better, and to reconsider the positions they have on issues like economic policy and international relations. These non cost-benefit analyses are ends in themselves for some individuals. Therefore, insofar as certain events and issues in other nations help to stimulate individuals to rethink their stance on the world, it is important for people to be aware of these events.

Ironically, it is difficult to discern and differentiate events which are relevant from events which are not without first being aware of both. This is because there are events which may only lead to direct consequences to an individual later on, and so people can only decide that knowledge of a particular event was important to them in retrospect. For instance, knowledge of the disease Ebola is largely irrelevant to most individuals living in Singapore now, as the disease has not spread to the country. However, given that there may be possibilities of this happening in the future, one cannot objectively decide that knowledge of how the disease spreads and how to cure it is completely irrelevant and unimportant to Singaporeans. 

In essence, current events in other nations are important to know about only if they affect the person or interests him as a sentient and intellectual being. However, one must be careful not to claim that any particular news event as being important for everyone to know about, because relevance is subjective — every individual is different and are affected to different degrees by the same event. Hence, while it is important for people to know about only certain types of news events, it is best that each and every individual keeps abreast with current events in countries other than their own.

Commentary on "The Staid Young"

Link to article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21606795-todays-young-people-are-held-be-alienated-unhappy-violent-failures-they-are-proving

  The writer’s arguments are valid, and are largely applicable to Singapore’s society. Many countries have introduced, if they have not already in the past, tougher measures to police youth’s disruptive behaviour in order to curb such violent acts. At the same time, the standard of education for many youths have increased, inculcating important values and providing youths with information, while acting as a deterrent against dropping out from school. In addition, parents have increasingly become nurturing parties that help to bring up their children with better moral values and learning attitudes. All these phenomenon have been relevant and apparent in Singapore as well, making the passage very applicable to our society.

The author finds that the tougher policing in many societies, including Britain’s, has curbed many illegal acts that teenagers of the past had used to indulge in, such as the consumption of alcohol. Hefty fines and “ferocious policing” have helped to catch and punish such teenagers, along with the stores that abet their illegal acts. According to the author, such policies double up as deterrent measures as well, to prevent such crimes in the future. This argument is valid, because an increased policing is a measure that increases state resources dedicated to dealing with crime and illegal youthful indulgences. Naturally, this would lead to a reduction in the crime rate, because there is more manpower and effort directed towards solving the problem, giving law enforcements the necessary resources to identify such activities. In doing so, we direct citizens, especially youths in this case, away from immoral acts and encourage them to pick up better habits instead. This argument is relevant to Singapore as well, though the context may be different. Singapore has long had a reputation for tough crime-fighting policies, and so there has never been much destructive behaviour in the country. Its recent prosecution of “Sticker Lady” Samantha Ang for pasting stickers on traffic lights and lamp-posts only goes to show the continuation behind Singapore’s tough stance on crime. Effectively, Singapore enjoys low crime rate, even for juveniles, showing that there might possibly be a link between having tough policies and better behaviour in youths. This resounds with the claim of the author.

The author also explains that the increased standard of education, and subsequently its cost, has made youths more staid and strait-laced. On one hand, the education in and of itself has taught youths morals and information they require to excel in school and in life. On the other hand, the “new premium on education”, such as increasingly expensive university tuition fees, has given youths a stronger reason not to neglect their studies. This is a valid argument that is also very applicable to Singapore. For many, a good education represents an opportunity to succeed later in life. With the necessary skills and knowledge, students will be better equipped to deal with challenges, and have the necessary qualifications. This hope acts as a source of motivation for youths to study hard, and keep on track. This argument is especially relevant in Singapore, which mostly follows a meritocratic system — the standard of education one receives usually determines how successful one is later on in life. Hence, a huge majority of students are often serious about their work, and put in much effort into preparing for their exams, such as the GCSE O Level and A level examinations. Clearly, the rise in standard of education has encouraged more youths to be more hardworking and determined to succeed in school.

Another reason brought up by the author is that parents now positively influence their children. First, the fact that many young people still live with their parents means that they are more restrained. Second, youths are now brought up with more attention, care and strictness, as parents become increasingly determined to help their children succeed, by helping their children in any way they can, as compared to the arguably more laid-back style of parenting seen in the past. This leads to youths being more hardworking and strait-laced, having been encouraged to study hard by their parents, and inculcated with stronger moral values. This is a valid argument — parents are often a strong source of influence for their children, which means that more time spent with their children can be expected to lead to children that have better learning attitudes and a stronger moral compass. In Singapore, though many parents may be working in the day and do not take care of their children during that time, they often send their children to childcare centres during that time, and catch up with their children in the evenings to help them with schoolwork. Many Singaporean parents have also been credited with being “kiasu”, or being afraid that their child may lose out to others in school, or in life ten years down the road — this turns out with them being very strict with their child’s behaviour at home. All of this reflects the degree of care and concern they have for their children’s future education and occupation. This comes in stark contrast with parents of the past, who would often leave their children to their own devices, expecting them to pick up the necessary skills on their own. In essence, the increased parental influence in the lives of their children motivates the latter to work harder and strive to do better in the things they do, picking up better moral values along the way.

In conclusion, it is largely true today, especially in Singapore, that young people nowadays are hardworking, serious about their work, and have good moral values. The three main reasons for this, as the author states — namely tough laws and policies, increased standards of education and heightened parental influence — are indeed very valid explanations for this phenomenon, and they are very applicable to the Singaporean context. Ultimately, I agree with the author on his point of view on young people today. 

Can small countries have significant voice in world affairs?

It would be presumptuous, though perhaps intuitive, to claim that the size of a country determines its influence on the rest of the world in today’s hyperconnected, globalised world. In the past, geography and a country’s demographics were essential to it’s success, because labour intensive work like construction and agriculture depends on the quantity of resources a country possesses. However, today, taking into account modern trends such as globalisation, geographically small countries do indeed have the potential to become influential, and have a significant voice in world affairs. Not only can globalisation help to introduce small countries’ culture ot the rest of thew world,an increased global interdependence between countries has encouraged small countries to develop a comparative advantage to gain a significant voice on international platforms. In addition, small countries can form coalitions to get their voices heard.

Critics would argue that the size of a country determines its ability to get its voice heard, because big countries have larger labour forces that give it powerful militaries and stronger economies. By extension, this gives it bigger spheres of influence over its neighbours, so its voice becomes more significant. On the other hand, however, smaller countries have found a way out of this problem — by finding a niche, and developing it into a comparative advantage, they can become influential countries with significant voices as well. In a globalised world where trade is the way in which countries get cheaper and better quality goods, many, especially small ones, specialise in a particular field so as to create a niche in it. This gives them the ability to trade on the larger international market, even becoming a market leader for the product sometimes. For example, the Ivory Coast is the world’s largest exporter of cocoa beans, controlling about 40% of the world’s supply, making it the leader of the industry. This is in spite of its small geographical size and political insignificance in the world. When so many countries around the world, especially developed ones, depend on it for cocoa beans, they have a vested interest in listening to the Ivory Coast on issues regarding their beans, and helping them in every way possible to increase crop yields to satisfy their demands. Evidently, small countries that are able to capitalise on their strengths to become market leaders do have significant voices, at least within the field they specialise in. 

Some others also disagree with the significance of small countries’ voices, for the reason that they lack the military might to reinforce their decisions. According to these groups, having a powerful military is essential to backing up their plans and proposals, or others with do possess military capabilities will override these smaller nations. This is a questionable claim which does not stand true given modern contexts. First, small nations can have strong militaries — in an age empowered by technology, the strength of one’s military is determined not by quantity but by quality. Singapore is a good example — possessing many modern military technologies, such as Leopard Tanks and many fighter pilots, Singapore is more than capable of fighting off potential aggressors from the region. Further, the 21st Century has been marked more by its tendency towards diplomatic solutions, rather than fighting all out wars between nations. Countries like Costa Rica have even begun disbanding their armies. Hence, many small nations have decided to pool their resources together in order to force coalitions and alliances — doing this allows them to ensure their interests are heard, and acted upon. For instance, the formation of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has helped smaller countries some degree of mediation to deal with territorial disputes with larger nations like China. Such regional or sometimes international organisations help earn geographically small nations a significant say in international issues — UN’s rule of each country having one equal vote when deciding on resolutions aids small nations to become politically important and subsequently having a bigger say on international affairs. Essentially, forming blocs and coalitions can help smaller countries represent a general, shared interest that cannot be ignored by other larger nations when it comes to world issues.

In addition, some would also argue that small nations cannot have significant voices because they lack soft power that developed nations possess. They argue that due to the sheer size of larger nations’ cultures, the rate of these cultures spreading is much greater than that of small nations. Without presenting their unique cultures to the rest of the world, they say that smaller nations will never possess significant voices. Despite this claim, the rise of social media and the effect of globalisation has aided the cross-border spread of cultures, even that of smaller nations. With the Internet, unique cultures can showcase themselves to the rest of the world through video channels like Youtube, through songs that they compose and through articles shared with others all around the world. This helps them spread their culture quickly, and individuals who are piqued by such unique cultures help to spread them further through word of mouth within their own communities. For instance, the Korean culture has of recent managed to obtain a worldwide audience that listens to and appreciates their music, films and art. This is in spite of their small size, relative to superpowers like the United States, China or Russia. Clearly, the process of globalisation has aided cultures’ spread around the world, allowing them to be increasingly on par in terms of demand with larger, supposedly more powerful nations. 

Ultimately, in the modern world full of new trends like globalisations and the shift towards diplomacy away from war and conflict, it has become increasingly possible for small nations to have a significant voice. They now have a variety of options to do so — be it on the political, economic or cultural field, small nations can now find larger audiences to which they can appeal to, to ensure that their interests are heard by larger nations, instead of being bullied as they were in times past. Therefore, small nations can indeed have a significant voice in world affairs. 

Thoughts on data presented in "Asian Universities" Economist April 23rd 2013

This bar graph aims to show that Asia’s universities are “gaining ground on their Western counterparts”, by plotting out the number of universities in each Asian country that are in the Top 100 in Asia. The representation here is clear, with Japan having 22 universities in the top 100, while Malaysia only takes up one slot in the list. However, the graph does not adequately prove what the article tries to say. First, there is no comparison with the universities in the Western world. Even though Japan may have 22 universities out of the top 100 in Asia, it does not necessarily mean that Japan fares well on the international level. Without the comparison to the universities in Western countries, readers cannot decide whether the statements in the article are true or not. Second, there is no trend line of the changes in numbers. If the article tries to prove that Asia’s universities are “gaining ground”, then the graph needs to show a continuously increasing number of Asian universities in the top international lists.

However, some information presented on the bar graph can be interesting to address. First, the visual can show a comparison between the population size or land area and the number of top universities a country has, and study if there is a correlation between having a larger population and having a greater number of top universities. If there is no correlation there, then what should countries try to do in order to get better educational institutes? Second, there can also be an exploration of the correlation between the number of top universities in the country and the enrolment rates in these universities. Although the graph does present the gross enrolment rate in each of these countries, is there any link between this and the number of top universities that a country has? Or is it that the population figure affects enrolment rates? These are the questions that can be asked by readers, and the graph should answer them.

In general, given that education is such a complex system, and there can be multiple factors that affect its proficiency, more facts need to be given for the reader to understand what allows Japan to have such a great number of top universities, and how proficient the Asian universities are in comparison to their Western counterparts. This means that the simplistic bar graph will not be sufficient in proving the point of the article, and the information can be represented in other ways to allow readers to understand the issue better.

Are socio-economic models useful in predicting societal actions?

The world that we live in is complex, hence, models are developed to help us comprehend and predict human behavior. These models are important, not only for individuals to make decisions, for businesses to make changes to their business methods, and even for policy makers to develop their social policies.

     Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Framework for Human Development is a model which predicts how the five environmental systems with which an individual interacts will influence the character and behavior of a child. Parents can then decide how they should teach their child and impart the correct values in them. The education system can also be tailored to be more effective according to this model. In addition, from the economic theories and models that we derive, we learn that businesses operate in order to maximize their profits, and individual customers make buying decisions to optimize their utilities, like happiness and satisfaction. Hence, the price of a product is determined by demand and supply. At the same time, demand for the product reduces if prices go up. For example, if I wanted to buy a new iPhone, but when I find out that its price is increased significantly, I may change my mind and purchase a Samsung SIII instead. Understanding of such a model allows manufacturers to better predict consumer behavior, and thus business decisions to be made.

However, while models may be useful in predicting the human behavior, they are not always accurate. Some researchers conduct social experiments to verify or challenge the predictions made in models. The Milgram experiment exposed that people are willing to obey a figure of authority, even if the latter’s instructions conflicted with their personal conscience. The Asch Experiment was another famous social experiment designed to test how peer pressure to conform would influence a person’s judgment and ultimately his decisions. Back to the example of hand phones, if most of my friends have iPhones and it is perceived in society that iPhones are better, I may choose to buy the iPhone even if it costs much more than the Samsung. In this case, the economic model cannot accurately predict my final decision. It is reported that although the prices of luxury goods such as Louis Vutton handbags increased, its sales increased unexpectedly. This went against the demand and supply model which would have predicted sales to have decreased instead.  

Just because models cannot be applied to every single case does not change the fact that they are relevant to our daily lives. They allow government policy makers and business decision makers to understand and predict behaviors of a large population, since these models are largely accurate at predicting behaviors at a macro level. Models are useful because it is the only practical way of predicting the way a large population acts. On the other hand, as some social experiments show that predictions using models may not be accurate at all times, it is essential to understand the limitations of models. We can in fact modify these models to make them more encompassing of exceptions, and make them more accurate in predicting people’s actions.

Effects of Haze in the region

While it is true that haze has not killed many directly, an atmosphere obscured by the suspension of these fine particles can have many other direct and indirect socio-economic consequences on society.

Most obviously, a society will face problems with physical mobility. Due to the haze, visibility drops, and the air quality drops, giving it a singing smell. This discourages people from leaving their homes. This is especially so if the haze comes swiftly and unexpectedly like the one Singapore experienced during the 2013 June holidays. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Environment related issues may seem like an inherent harm, but these issues can bring about greater ills in society as well. 

Most tangibly, health problems arise. Especially when those with breathing problems like asthma and chronic bronchitis leave their homes without the proper precaution like the N95 masks, the perils of the haze are exacerbated. In worse cases like the haze in the South-East Asian region of 1997, a plane collided into a mountainside of Medan, killing all 256 passengers – this was attributed to poor visibility that is coupled with the haze.

This then leads to hospital bed crunches. In the case of Singapore, in the short span of a week or so, the National University Hospital (NUH) has seen a 10% increase in patients, and this caused a lack of beds considering the dengue spike prior to the haze episode. Certainly, experiencing these illnesses affects society’s quality of living in general.

Down the line, government expenditure on healthcare rises consequentially for the public is unsatisfied with the lack of beds due to the spike in health-related cases. Recognising that budget is limited and that we cannot “have the cake and eat it”, this health expenditure comes at an opportunity cost – it would mean less spending on other areas like housing or transport. These are all the indirect consequences of the haze that one cannot physically experience.

Besides health, social interaction is compromised as well – most directly people cannot attend go outdoors to meet friends or engage in personal activities like exercise. This may seem very much minor, but these small things add up to alter the way of life of the community for the worse. It is also worth noting that the extension of the haze is proportional to the limits placed on the choices of the people.

That’s not all there is to the haze – on top of health-related issues, there are economic consequences as well. Most obviously, tourism drops. Hotel rooms, travel groups and flights are cancelled, bringing tangible economic losses that, once again, are proportional to the duration of the haze. However, more insidiously is the impact on economic work in and of itself. People are less willing to go outdoors to work, more likely to call in sick, and more likely to give excuses, legitimate or not. This is pernicious not because of the pure number of hours lost, but that coupled with the fact that it is a sudden occurrence – the 30 hours lost, for instance, is not spread evenly over the entire year, but rather is concentrated in that one week. This deals great blows to businesses not only in terms of unexpected drops in revenue, but also to their reputation – people see them as less reliable. As a corollary of this, Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) lose out because they depend very much on a solid, constant customer support, rather than pure quality-based attraction of customers.

Certainly, the haze problem, usually existence in SEA, has and will continue to cause the above social and economic problems, direct and indirectly, in the short term and long term.