Is there a case for keeping animals in zoos?

            The concept of zoos has very much evolved with time – in the past, zoos were places for the royal family to house animals, where animals were used for human entertainment. Under Nero, a Roman Emperor, four hundred tigers fought with bulls and elephants while humans watched for their pleasure, and at the Colosseum of Rome, five thousand animals perished in a single day after being forced to fight each other. Today, the purpose of zoos and the way they operate is vastly different – in some zoos, the keepers are even required have a master’s degree. Despite these changes, it is indisputable that zoos today cannot sufficiently provide for animals. Going forward, although conditions will indeed improve for these animals, many will still suffer if they are housed in zoos.

Optimists would argue that animals enjoy better quality zoos because of the stricter requirements imposed for zoo employees. Some zoos even hire specific nutritionists and stud-book managers to cater to each of the animals’ specific needs. Despite this claim, even if the zoos of today have the ability to understand the needs of the animal, they are largely unable to provide for it. Animals have each of their own specific needs, from the basics of keeping instincts sharp by escaping from animals and finding prey, to more complicated needs, such as the way they locate mates for mating. Zoos often cannot provide for it, because each animal can only meet these needs in their own habitats, something that zoos cannot replicate. With the obvious lack of space in zoos – animals are inevitably deprived of sufficient space to meet its needs when placed in a zoo. For instance, the space an elephant is supposed to have is almost twenty times larger than what it is actually given, which means that it lacks sufficient space to exercise, which is necessary for it to keep healthy. From this alone, we can tell that the physical incapability of zoos show that zoos can never be sufficient at replicating the ideal habitat for animals. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the zoos of today are meant to showcase a whole range of animals that live in different conditions, from aquatic animals like seals to the king of the forest, the lion – zoos have to spread its already limited resources thin for all the animals its houses.  Furthermore, in spite of this problem, little is being done to improve the conditions the animals are in. On the contrary, it gives the veneer that the animals are comfortable and happy with their condition, generating little interest or will to continue improving their habitats. This is despite the fact that behavioural studies show the exact opposite.  The better alternative would be to place more resources into preserving the current natural habitats of the animals, for example the grassy savanna terrain. Preservation goes a longer way because it is something that is more permanent, and is not subject to various factors such as the lack of visitors, which can cause a zoo to close down completely.

Advocates of zoos assert that zoos are essential to repopulate animals into their natural habitats by breeding them in man-made enclosures that provide them with daily necessities and protection from natural predators. This allows animals to grow in numbers, and from there, communities of animals can be reintroduced into the wild. Despite this claim, the truth is that in the long run, keeping animals in zoos harms the animals more than it helps them. It may be true that zoos keep animals safe from predators, and provide meals which animals otherwise would not have gotten, but this may not be the best thing for the animals. In the long run, animals become habituated to an environment of comfort, because they are neither filled with fear of predators, nor with the pangs of hunger that push them to continue searching for prey. Content with their safety, the animals lose the sharpness in their instincts. When released back into the wild, these animals cannot cope with the harsh needs that their environments demand. This was etched in the attempt to repopulate orang-utans into the forests of Sumatra – the mammals died off because they could no longer climb trees efficaciously, after being closed in their small, insufficient enclosures. Even in the instance where efforts to repopulate animals work, the benefit of doing so is often misplaced. The key, primary purpose of zoos today is not to help the animals as much as possible, but rather to earn as much profit as possible. This is because the money gained from visitors is necessary for the zoo to pay for rent, food, maintenance costs, and also the salaries of the workers. This means that it is in the best interest of zoos to implement the course of action that earns itself the most profit, even in the instance where it is not in the best interest of animals in the zoo. Thus, zoos are more inclined to breeding animals that are more popular amongst visitors, although it may not be the animal that is in the most dire straits of becoming extinct. The safety bubble provided by zoos eventually harms the animals when they are repopulated – on top of that the nature of zoos being profit-motivated hinders its ability to protect and conserve the animals that needs the help the most.

In addition, the zoo’s supporters propound that animals can be a source of entertainment and education for its visitors. Youngsters who are interested in animals would visit the zoo, and from there, exhibits will be able to educate the public on the different types of animals in the zoo. This aims to raise awareness about the plight of endangered animals, such as the giant panda. However, on a first, level, using animals for our own enjoyment is inherently unjustified. Just because human civilisation is more powerful and has greater capabilities, does not mean that they should be allowed to enslave animals and put them on display. On the contrary, it means that humans should have a greater responsibility to take care of the natural habitats that these animals belong to – as declared in the Spiderman series, “with great power, comes great responsibility”. Just as how humans are given their right to movement and the right to bodily autonomy, animals should be no less deserving of these rights. Humans, after all, are just scientific extensions of other animals. Hence, it is not justified for people to limit the rights of animals just to use them as a means to our own entertainment and enjoyment. Furthermore, aiming to use the zoo as a means to educate the population about animals is largely ineffective. Young children that go to the zoo are not interested in finding out more about the history and numbers of these animals, but contrary to this, look out for exciting shows that animals trained to perform. This means that zoos tend to appeal to the emotional needs of the children, as Andy Baker, senior vice president for animal programs at Philadelphia Zoo, admitted. Not only are zoos disinterested in disseminating information about animals, children themselves are more likely to be interested by that ball trick performed by the seal in the tank as compared to the dry, boring signage describing its geological descent and its plummeting numbers in the sea. Evidently, keeping animals in their small enclosures is not only unjustified, it does not achieve its supposed end of educating the population about the dire situation faced by animals.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions – granted, the intentions of zoos today may be well and good, however it is incapable of providing the needs of the animals that consist it. Zoos today cannot provide the space, nor the environmental condition that most animals are used to, and even if they could, the over-comfort provided by zoos cause animals to lose their instincts in the long term, and they will be unable to adapt back to the harsh environment when repopulated. Rather than trying to protect them in zoos, it would be much more effective to protect the animals by preserving their natural habitats and prevent the poaching of these animals, which are a key reason for their condition

Education does not develop individuality but conformity

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

It is claimed by some that the education system has diversified, allowing a vast array of choices for students – we can now choose what school to attend, and what courses to take. The choices individuals make, they argue, would be reflective of the differing qualities and characteristics of each person. Theoretically, this argument may hold true, but education today is not just as simple as they suggest. Granted, it may be true that there is now a larger variety of choices for a student, but the overwhelming need to conform to expectations overcomes it. On the most basic level, students need to conform to the most basic school rules or risk punishment. For instance, a large number of schools mandate a uniform appearance – all students of the same school have to wear the clothes of the same design, and there are rules about every single part of one’s appearance. Not only is this inherently an expectation to conform, it conditions young minds to think that their actions will represent that of the school, so anything that catches others’ attentions is deemed to be “bad”, and is frowned upon. This means that students are discouraged from taking up courses commonly associated with unsuccessful people. For example, Korean society expects its crème de la crème to study engineering or medicine in university, although that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. This is because they buy into the concept that people should practice what others before them had done, because that is thought to be the “safe” route to success which guarantees a stable income. As a result, those with good results are pressured into taking these courses even if they find greater interest elsewhere – a quarter of all Korean university graduates major in engineering. This overwhelming expectation quells any earlier consideration of taking up a course that one has an affinity or interest in, like the arts, which is vehemently discouraged because it is seen to be a job with an unstable income. As a corollary of this, heuristics are being taught in many societies, especially in Asia. For any question, there is a thought to be a predetermined method to derive the answer that would “guarantee” high marks. Students follow these “model answers” to meet the rigid requirements present in national examinations to gauge the ability of students. This means that they blindly apply formulas without understanding why these concepts and formulas apply to solving the problem at hand. This encourages rigidity in terms of thinking, and all that results from the system would be people who can only excel in repeating what they have done before. Evidently, students in the education system are not only overtly conforming to the school rules, but they covertly begin to conform to society’s beliefs and mindsets instead of developing their own, individual passions and qualities.

Opponents of the thesis argue that effective teachers can instill a sense of interest in learning in their students. As a result, students will have a life-long thirst for knowledge. Despite the claim, the truth remains that the system of education today creates obstacles for teachers, which limits their ability rather than help them teach effectively. Most education systems around the world today have national exams, because it is deemed as necessary in order to determine the standard of the students. In the face of these inevitable examinations, teachers rush to prepare students for the multitude of questions to be tested. In such a circumstance, even a teacher who believes in developing the interests of students has no choice but to focus the bulk of his or her lesson on the curriculum to be tested. This is because the education ministry gauges the ability of teachers based on how much improvement students make in terms of grades, and focuses less on students’ holistic, all-rounded development, something that cannot be measured accurately. In Singapore’s case, parents that traditionally adopt the “kiasu” mindset fret over finding tuition classes for their children sitting for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), GCSE “O” Levels or “A” Levels examinations, while teachers feel pressured to get as many “A”s in class as possible. Effectively, the requirements of education as set out by the country’s government limits the ability of teachers, even good ones. Furthermore, it would be idealistic to argue that all teachers are as effective as opponents claim them to be – in many cases teachers are more focused on getting students to do well in order to get a raise in pay, as compared to trying diligently to help develop each individual student based on his or her needs and interests. Anything outside the declared curriculum is seen to be “unnecessary” or “irrelevant”. In addition to the fact that teachers are limited by the requirements of the system, the school also has to be accountable to society. Parents send their children to school with the expectation that the latter group will gain knowledge and learn some morals, and this expectation falls on the teachers and the school. Schools tend to err on the side of caution because they are paid to take care of the needs of students, so they are unwilling to take risks. However, to create a system actively promoting individual development hinges on not just the curriculum and the school rules – it comes with a large amount of risk. Encouraging individuals to find out more about themselves necessarily means that teachers do not advice students on what they should do – teachers let children develop without interference. When a system is lax, it cannot identify children who are acting abnormally and help them. As a result, if a child grows up in a poor living environment, he is likely to be negatively influenced, and this is where a hands-off system fails. It is exactly this that many schools are afraid of, compelling them to hold a tighter leash on students and forces them to conform to the rules, thereby limiting students’ ability to explore and develop their interests.

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

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

America's Budget Deficit?

            America’s debt crisis of 16 trillion dollars may come from great spending in different areas, but these areas such as the military and healthcare are all important expenditures. The key to solving the nation’s problem would be to increase participation from the American public in solving our problems.

The problem with the system is that there are too many loopholes. There are too many people who receive what they do not require in the first place, or attempt to cheat the system. We have recently charged 1,500 medical personnel for falsely billing the Medicare system by 4.8 billion, majority of which actually comes from the taxpayers. These are the people who add to our deficit for selfish, independent reasons, and they do it at the expense of other citizens in the form of taxpayer’s money. While these amounts are meagre considering the size of the debt, the amount is enough to save many people from their situations, and these sums of money will gather with time. In other words, investing in the patching up of loopholes in the system will have a great positive impact.

Although I recognise that there has been great scrutiny of Obamacare being unconstitutional, there still exists a need for the government to intervene in healthcare matters. All the rights of the people depend on their existence, and this is in turn supported by a dependable healthcare system. Since the government’s duty is to preserve the rights of the people, there is an impetus for them to invest in healthcare, which falls under the general health standard.

At the same time, I propose three solutions.

1) First, close all the loopholes in the system. There is no reason to provide the richer portions of society with subsidies that they are well able to pay for. The money that we save from this can be implemented into a more progressive subsidy, where poorer people get more subsidies from the government. In addition, we should reduce pre-emptive subsidy in general. There is no requirement for the government to provide so thick a safety net to insure people against events that may not happen in the first place. We will still provide the services such as checkups and vaccines, but it is not compulsory and we will implement an “opt in” system. At the same time, we need more monitoring on the system, so we can weed out illegal billing of it.

2) Second, I propose to raise the debt ceiling. The nation is going to burst the ceiling in the near future, which means that the country is unable considered unable to pay back its debt. We cannot integrate cuts too greatly at once, because that would cause small businesses to be unable to cut costs so quickly. This means that we should integrate cuts in spending on unimportant areas. At the same time, we should allow more loans to patch up our loopholes, so that we can lower deficit in general in the future.

3) I also propose to increase taxes for Americans. . If we need to stop the deficit once and for all, the people of the country are vital, and it is naïve to expect the government to solve everything while the country sits back to watch. Nearing the end of the Bush-era tax hikes means that both individuals and corporations alike will need to pay more for the government’s service to them. Recognise that the richer people have the ability of pay for these taxes, and the increased amount we tax them will not even be significant for them.

If all groups of society work together to recover lost money, use money more efficiently by redirecting funds to more vital areas, I believe that we will be on the right track to solving our budget deficit.

Natural Gas Fracturing

There is a common consensus amongst everyone that the US is going to face an energy crisis in the future. The world has increasingly sparse reserve of oil, prices going up. Therefore, America went to find new alternatives, one of which is natural gas.

Today, let us talk about its advantages and its problems. Natural gas would seem to be the best source of energy to rely on at the moment. It is much cheaper than the current sources such as oil and coal. Its reserves are also in much greater amounts than oil and coal, lasting until 2065.

However, the process of obtaining and refining the gas has its own share of problems. When trying to create wells for the extraction of natural gas, there has been the problematic usage of chemicals. Chemicals such as methane and radiation have the capability to harm the environment, and this harm does spread to the rest of the country.

Furthermore, we need to think in the long term, where the only real possibility is to depend on renewable energy sources as a source of power, and this possibility is best developed now, as we continually discover new technologies to be more efficient and effective. This would ensure a smoother transition over to renewable energies.

I propose two solutions. First, I propose to redirect some of our funding in areas of subsidies and incentives. The problem we face is that some 79% of our subsidiary spending is used on non-clean measures such as oil, coal and gas exploration, while it could have been better spent on investing in other forms of renewable energy. When there is so much spending on the oil and gas, then companies and corporations have lesser of an incentive to develop and place funding in the other renewable energies. Evidently, the conservative doctrine of “burn it if we’ve got it” is a roadblock for our future energy usage – we simply cannot afford to discard the energy crisis as relevant just because we have a supply of gas for the short term. In comparison, I still recognize that citizens still largely depend on current non-renewable sources as of now, so we should shift our funding from subsidies to tax incentives for them, such that those companies who do their job get rewarded. At the same time, we should slowly shift our energy focus to renewable sources by providing subsidies for the technological developments in these areas. This would encourage more corporations to start looking into the area of renewable energy because they are generally profit-oriented.

Second, America should close up the loopholes that are present, for instance the Halliburton loophole in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This means that we should clear up the definition that encompasses the idea of developing our natural gas systems. Despite this year’s change in the EPA, we need to recognize that things such as water bodies are not discussed. Granted, corporations cannot release their wastage into surface water sources such as lakes, oceans and rivers, but there is no mention of the aquifers and underground sources. There is a need to end the vagueness in the policies that we create that allow for exploitation. At the same time, we should not be wasting the gas that we are trying to get in the first place. Gas leakage at our extraction wells are costing us 15 million a year – by minimalizing this amount, we maximize the usage of our spending in the area because a short term expenditure on the system has a great long term effect on the amount of gas we obtain.

Data Analysis - Asian Universities?

- Taken from The Economist 

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.

Does the Book have a Future?

As Oscar Wilde, an Irish writer and poet put it, “It is what you read when you don’t have to that determines what you will be when you can’t help it”. The books today still have a strong impact on the makeup of its readers, even though it has undergone many changes in the last few centuries ago. Back then, the book was only available for the rich, educated priests – being literate was an important step towards being powerful. However, as time passed and technology improved, literacy rates have gone up and many more people now have access to the book. The book has evolved into a formal medium in which information is passed on from writers to readers. In spite of the rise of forums and social media, books will still be able to maintain its popularity, instead of being squeezed out of business by changing its form – from the printed text to e-books, electronic books for short, audio books and micro books.

Proponents would argue that the rise of social media would lead to the decline of books, because social media is more convenient and accessible, and provides a platform for people to share their information, and this improves the quality of the final product. Books are just a single directional way of transferring knowledge and ideas, while new media like forum pages can facilitate discussion and collaboration amongst groups of people. However, as opponents point out, the benefits that these new media platforms bring are hinged upon the assumption that contributors are sufficiently knowledgeable, fair and objective in their posts, something that we cannot take for granted. However, books are more credible as authors need to be accountable for their words, forcing them to be more careful with the accuracy of what they say. In most cases, radical people with extreme beliefs are more outspoken on these new Web 2.0, discursive media platforms, and their words leans towards spurs of emotion. The moderate majority, however, is silent or less active most of the time because they do not seek to impose their own ideals upon others in discussions. This lack of proportionality creates warped perceptions that cloud readers of these online forums. For example, the Kiasu Parents Forum, a commonly visited site for Singaporean parents, is often flooded with feedback from parents clearly unhappy with the Singaporean education system – they form a majority of the posts on these forums, although the number of posts does not represent the general sentiment of the people. Instead of pooling together birds of the same feather, books which are typically written by professionals or experts in the field, are more credible – they are actual people who are accountable for what they write, as compared to that anonymous participant on the forum website, making them more believable and trustable in the eyes of a reader. This means that those who are really interested to understand the system better would still choose to read books, which provide concrete examples to support their claims. This can be seen through the heated debate over the quality of Wikipedia versus its competitor, the Britannica. Wikipedia is not seen as a credible source for obtaining information because it people are free to edit and add information according to their personal inclinations without having to take responsibility. As a result, many Wikipedia articles have inaccuracies that stem from an excess of “cooks” which “spoil the broth”. In comparison, readers trust the Britannica more, because the authors will be brought up to task in the case of misinformation. The accountability of books and their authors makes them a more accurate source to obtain information, a fact that many still recognize. This maintains the book’s popularity as a form of information transfer.

There are some critics who would argue that books will lose their prevalence in society because of the changing lifestyle and literacy habits that do not complement the nature of book reading. To be able to read, one needs to focus on the content of the book, which is difficult in this modern day and age where people lack the patience to read, and are always multi-tasking. A constant effort to focus to read a book and digest its information will build into a habit of learning, a skill that it important to everyone. The education system aims to encourage students to learn on their own, and develop their own passions the long run, which they will pursue even in the absence of mandatory homework. For example, the “Teach Less, Learn More” campaign organized by Singapore’s education system seeks to encourage students to take the initiative to independently learn more about specific topics that they have a passion in. In addition, in other parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom, the National Literacy Trust is heavily supported with nearly six million pounds in donations. Its initiative, the “Gift of Reading campaign”, encourages older students to read to the younger generation, which will hopefully build up a culture of reading. This will help to expose students to a variety of topics, spurring students to cut some time out from their busy schedules to sit back, relax, and immerse themselves in the words of the author. In response to the changes in the desires of the new technological generation, authors have changed their style of writing. This led to the conception of the e-book and self-publishing, where authors could appeal to a specific niche of readers without relying on traditional publishers. Therefore, by changing the form of the book, authors can now use audio and electronic content to broadcast their stories and ideas to the new generation. Surveys across the world have also noted that many that make up the new generation are extremely receptive towards e-books and audio books. This is because they can access the author’s words through their smartphones and tablets, which are be much lighter and less bulky than the original book. The concept of the book has thus shown to have changed and adapted to the different lifestyles of the youths of today.

Another reason why people would conceivably pick up a book to read is the fact that it is entertaining – it almost seems as if one is transported through space and time into the imagination of the author, giving people a sense of awe, and in some cases, happiness. Pessimists of the future of the book would exclaim that the book will soon become impertinent in the lives of the technologically savvy generation, because alternatives like movies and video games now provide a clear image of the world depicted in books – the fact that people can see the events of the book taking place right before their eyes makes the story more appealing and believable. Despite this claim, optimists point out that the problem with the high definition movies we watch is that they tend to flesh out every single detail, which invariably leaves little space for imagination. For fictional books, however, their magical effect comes from the space the reader has to derive their own takeawys from the words of the author. The beauty of language is that there can be certain nuances, plays on words, and strong descriptions of emotion which can be difficult, if not impossible to represent in a movie. Movies are developed by directors, whose one opinion or interpretation may differ vastly from that of other readers – the close bond between writers and their readers can best be experienced when a reader finds his or her own personal meaning to the events of a story, as compared to having it being told in the same way, with the same biases portrayed in a movie. Therefore, the entertainment value may not exist for some. Some want to have the experience of unraveling the intense story at their own pace, and have their own interpretations of the ideas being put across to them. This means that the book has its own unique ways of putting across ideas to its readers, something that cannot be replicated in a movie or game.

Although there has been great acceptance for the new social media platforms where people can interact and share ideas, books will still remain. Books still fulfill their aims and functions of providing new insights and ideas supported with credible examples, so they will still have a vast audience. However to meet the desires of society, the book will have to adapt as well, turning to alternatives such as the e-book and the audio book, just like how people adapted from using sticks to drawl words in the sand to writing using paper and pen. Thus, it is safe to say that the threats to the book will definitely not squeeze this form of information transfer out of existence, and the latter will be a part of our lives for a long time to come. 

Leonardo Da Vinci

The painter of the world renowned Mona Lisa, the Last Supper, and multiple other art pieces was also a mathematician, scientist, musician, architect who was incredibly handsome and fit. That man is Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci’s vast imagination and creative thinking is what formed the basis of many objects that we see today, some of which has become an integral part of life.

Leonardo Da Vinci continually pondered over natural phenomena. He was extremely fascinated by natural world, using his drawing skills to reflect this. Da Vinci was given permission to dissect human corpses at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence, and from 1510 to 1511, he studied under the doctor Marcantonio della Torre.  Da Vinci removed the ligaments in the human limbs and replaced them with strings, to test for the specific function of each ligament. He then sketched out his conclusions on his notebooks, and these were the basic foundation for understanding the human body. Furthermore, he sketched the famous Vitruvian Man, which depicted the ideal proportions of a man, with meticulous drawings of each part of the body. Later on, he also studied the anatomy of others animals, most notably birds and he paid close attention to their ability to fly. His discoveries inspired future anatomists to find out more, and from his intellectual insights, found justifications for their findings. One such example is the Codex on the Flight of Birds, published by Da Vinci in 1505. The fact that he was willing to unravel the mysteries of the human body showed that Da Vinci was not only concerned with the physical appearance of these living things he researched on, but was also systematic and meticulous in deducing the functions and meaning of his discoveries. This reminds scientists today to apply their breakthroughs to solve the problems that remain rampant.

Da Vinci also had the amazing ability to interpret images that he saw. He put forth the theory that people find inspiration when they try to blend random images with what they saw. With his vast knowledge, he blended subjects and events that occurred with random images that he saw around him, and dreamt of new discoveries. He practiced this skill himself by throwing paint-filled sponges at the wall and created numerous inventions from whatever he saw in the images formed. These ideas were then written down in his notebooks for his future pondering, along with the inventions that he dreamed up, despite being unable to build them. Modern day tests have proven that many of these futuristic imaginations do actually work, and this goes to prove Da Vinci’s imaginative prowess – from his time, he was already capable of envisioning and designing machines that could only be built forty decades later.

Da Vinci’s life story reminds us that inventors must constantly have a flexible mind – even the simplest objects can give birth to great inventions. Only when we apply the past, understand the present, can we create a better future.

Models and Social Experiments

            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.

Lord of the Flies - Review

William Golding was born an Englishman on September 19, 1911, and grew up to become an Oxford graduate, a respectable university, but went on to serve his country by fighting World War II. This experience fighting the brutal war against the Axis powers gave Golding, a writer since young, a strong impression about the true nature of human beings. This led him to write his respected book “Lord of the Flies”.

Lord of the Flies discusses the theme of civility versus savagery. Golding believes that as time passes without proper laws and the enforcement of these laws, people revert to their usual savage selves, and felt this reared its head at the Second World War. Therefore, he wrote a story depicting the “adventure” of fifteen or so boys, twelve and below, who were wrecked on an island without an adult to look after them, and showed the horrors of men.

 I feel that there are three main parts of the story line – first, the arrival of the boys on the island; second, the loss of innocence of the boys; and third, the final outcome of the situation and the rescue of the boys. When the boys are first wrecked on the island, two boys, Ralph, the main protagonist, and Piggy first meet and they become friends soon after. Ralph and Piggy go on to find a conch shell. At this point, we already see that Piggy is the representation of intellect, because he knows about the anatomy of the shell, and teaches Ralph to blow it. From this point onwards, the conch shell is used to gather all the boys at a meeting spot. Furthermore, during their daily assemblies, only the person holding the conch gets to speak. The conch shell thus represents the law and order in this microcosm of society.

The boys have different personalities to start off with. Jack Merridew, the main antagonist, is more pessimistic. He believes that there is a little and insignificant chance of them being rescued, so they should think about how to survive on the island. On the other hand, Ralph believes in his father, who is an officer in the British Navy, so he pushes for them to build a signal fire, which can be used to call out to boats at sea to save them. Already, a conflict breeds here, like in our normal lives.

So how do we solve our conflicts? In our modern world, we turn to more diplomatic ways to solve issues, like talks and meetings, and eventually voting for the best option. That is exactly what the boys do. After some discussion, an election is held, and Ralph ends up winning, placing him as “Chief” of the boys. He then calls for the boys to build a signal fire, which they light up with the intellectual representation, Piggy’s glasses. Jack, of course, is unhappy.

From this point on, the story becomes more tensed, and we enter the second part of the book, where the boys lose their innocence. The “beast” is first discussed by the young children amongst the group, scaring them, and at once, everyone seems to have a common enemy. The “beast” is merely imaginary, but young children being unable to tell myths from truths, believe that it either comes from the forest or the sea. As the story develops, the beast begins to scare the group even more, to the extent that they sacrifice a sow’s head for it. The most good natured, seemingly the most innocent boys, Simon realises that the beast’s existence in all of the boys is the source of the fear of it, and it is actually the representation of the savagery innately built into the boys. The more the boys act like savages, the more the beast seems to materialise. This beast is what Golding tries to warn us of.

Jack leaves the tribe after his continued conflict with Ralph, and begins his own hunting tribe, bent on killing pigs for food and hunting the beast instead of keeping up the warning signal. He even caused them to lose a chance to return home when he let the signal fire go off when a ship passed nearby. During the feast he organises in the evening of this event, his members carry out their ritual dance. In the heat and chaos, they mistake Simon for the beast and kill him. This symbolises the first instance where the innocence of the boys is lost, and they cross the line of civility, when no one seems to care too much about killing Simon. This is vastly different from modern society, where we even punish murderers with the death sentence. The boys seem to have lost their moral compass.

Jack performs continuous raids on Ralph, stealing fire as well as Piggy’s glasses. At this point, it becomes evidently already that the group here has already lost all forms of civil intelligence. Jack’s group now wear paint on their faces, and are now no longer recognisable both physically and psychologically – they become true savages, preying on others. Once the boys are no longer within the jurisdiction of the law, they are no longer afraid or wary of the consequences of their actions, causing them to change in their thought process and mental calculus.

Ralph and Piggy try to remind the boys of their final goal – to go home, and tries to exert his authority as chief, but to no avail. When Ralph’s group go to confront Jack, Piggy is killed, and the other two of Ralph’s members are forced to change their allegiances. In process of the heated argument between the two sides, the conch shell Piggy was holding is shattered. Similarly, chaos overrides order, and everyone begins to accept themselves and others around them as savages.

Finally, Jack orders a hunt against Ralph, bringing his men and setting fire to the entire forest covering majority of the island. Here, we see that the result disagreement has slowly shifted from a state of democratic ruling to savage, brutal means. Not only this, but they seem to have no logical thought – the forest is the source of food and shelter, their source of survival, but Jack and his tribe are willing to sacrifice all this for the sake of the killing of Ralph. Fortunately, a Navy boat spots this crisis and rescues Ralph just as he is about to be killed.

“Lord of the Flies” tells us that mankind is not as civilised as we perceive ourselves to be. As we develop as a species, we simply have a diminished reason to bring out that savagery in ourselves, but it still remains. Once we lack the enforcement of law and order, we will ultimately transition into Man’s natural state of brutality.

We sometimes question the presence of the law – there seems to be little reason to steal, rob or kill another. But what it truly represents is a set of moral guidelines that help us to act in a more civilised manner. It reminds us to look out for our own moral actions, and to continually rein ourselves in if we get out of line. In this sense, the law not only protects us from others, but also from ourselves.

The beauty of the book is in its underlying meaning. On a superficial level, it seems to be a dramatic representation of society – how can we be expected to think of such a scenario? Yet, it really tells us the importance of law and order, and of preserving rational thought over brutal means of solving our problems.

Disasters Bring out the Best in People. Do you Agree?

Disasters are commonly accepted to be terrible things, destroying tangible objects like infrastructure and killing people, and also causing intangible harm, like causing people to feel traumatised. Such harm is perpetuated by various forms of disasters, be they natural like tornados or man-made like oil spills, or social disasters such as terrorist attacks. Yet, it is worth noting that it is exactly these disasters that motivate people to live through the terrible times, and bring out the best in them. In response to disasters, people seem to become more courageous and civic minded, with many of them becoming leaders as well. These are all admirable traits in man.

In the fore, it may seem as though natural disasters create opportunities for people to commit crimes. In the wake of a natural disaster, there is bound to be some form of chaos that presents itself as an opportunity for people to steal and rob the community. Many people think about their needs before that of others and this selfish attitude is more likely to show itself after a disaster strikes than in normal circumstances. However, more often than not, people tend to exhibit more positive behavior in the face of calamity. One pertinent example would be the case of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Miki Endo proved herself to be a hero of her community when she sacrificed her own life to make continued announcements from a building for people to evacuate to higher ground, eventually saving over a thousand others. This form of heroism is particularly admirable because it is extremely difficult for a twenty-four year old to sacrifice her life for the sake of the community, in which she may not particularly have known everyone. Such heroism is indisputedly one of the best traits of mankind, something which would hardly surface in everyday living. Another widely observed phenomenon was the civic-mindedness of the survivors. After the calamity, despite the grief and terribly cold weather, the Japanese remained thoughtful, giving up their places in the ration queue to the elderly folks among them without hesitation. This form of help goes to show that disaster does make people more civic minded, as they not only consider their own suffering, but also that of others.

Of course, cynics may assert that in times of social conflict, there would be many casualties, which have multiple implications on different groups of people. People may become discouraged and feel let down if they end up losing their family members in disasters, and lack the motivation to carry on with their lives. Survivors are also harmed when they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, or survivor’s guilt. Despite this, there are many instances in which people have continued to live on, and have even developed greater resilience after a while. For instance, Victor Guzman was a survivor of the 9/11 attacks, suffering from both of the abovementioned illnesses. However, after the incident, he was able to pick himself up from the ordeal; he learned to treasure his family more, and started to prioritise his family over his work. Such disasters make people ponder what they consider to be most valuable to them, spurring them to treasure these things. In this sense, disasters make people value what they love most, as the experience of nearly having lost these things drives home the ephemerality of life. This is in contrast to modern society, in which many people blindly follow others in the pursuit of material gain, but do not question the underlying reason for it. Disasters make their lives seem more unique in a way, allowing them to develop their own understanding of their particular priorities and circumstances. Therefore, disasters do bring out the best attitudes in survivors.

Pessimists would also claim that it is easy for people or even corporations to shirk their responsibilities in an effort to cover up man-made disasters. People who are more concerned with their image are unwilling to admit their contributions to the problem, and may be more likely to hide from the problem. However, most people are more likely to develop more possibilities to solve the problem. The BP spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico proved this. It took eighty-seven days for the engineers that came at the behest of both BP and the USA to find a solution to the problem, but they still did it in the end, achieving the supposed “impossible”. The effort encouraged more governments and corporations to understand the importance of our environment, such that we can protect and preserve it. This is in contrast to the normal attitude of taking the exploitation of the environment as a right of mankind. The motivation to stay responsible for one’s actions in spite of the consequences is extremely admirable, yet only it often surfaces only in the wake of a disaster. In fact, we owe the existence of the Pacific Tsunami Warning System to a tsunami that swept Hawaii in 1946. When disasters take away something that is usually taken for granted, then people will realise its importance and begin to preserve it. It is thus safe to conclude that disasters bring out the best efforts and intents that differ from the norm, for the benefit of both the present and the future.

In conclusion, the disasters that we face today may indeed be problematic, doing great harm, but they do encourage mankind to move forward, to continually improve, and adopt selfless attitudes. Differing actions arise while chaos erupts, but the cumulative response tends to be more positive than negative. Therefore, man has the ability to become better, whether temporary or for good, as a result of disasters. 

Any reasonably hardworking person can earn a degree, but only a truly educated man can be of value to society.

In the traditional context, people are considered to be successful the moment they get a good job, which is directly linked to the degree they obtain. However, the question here is how they can actually help society. Do they need any form of characteristics before they are considered to be “valuable” people? We then have to understand what “value” means in this case. The value refers to the building of society, and this can be relatively broad, as it can refer to the physical help it renders, for instance the tangible building that is built by the person, yet it can also refer to the intangible help he renders, for instance in the form of cultural development. A person that is truly educated, in this case, would be a person who really learns from his education, not just the content, but also other skills that come along with the process of education. After much analysis, it seems that after all, it really takes a truly educated man to be of significant value to society.

Proponents of the plan that every person should have his significant value towards society, even if he was just a plain member of society that follows the laws set in the country. Why should he be seen as a person of lower “value” if he tries his best? Although this may seem like a good concept to be following, there are various things to consider at the same time. In most societies in the world today, what really matters are the real merits of the person. Without any of their extra achievements, then companies would not hire them. In today’s largely educated world, many more people are obtaining degrees, and it is simply not enough to define “value” as a piece of paper, but has evolved into the matter of whether any true results have shown to be made. In addition, the overall value of the person is also outweighed by the fact that the government still has to care for him. The citizen still has the different benefits that have been accorded to him by the government such as healthcare, and if the person does not have any significant contribution, then there is a net loss on the side of the government. Therefore, such a person who does not contribute significantly due to the fact that he is merely an inactive member of society is not valuable to society.

Critics of this thesis also claim that as long as the person has an education, then he has the potential to help the country. The degree is proof of the fact that he is capable of doing the job well enough. However, the contrast here is that a truly educated person has also picked up other skills such as leadership and teamwork. In today’s globalized world where communication is key, it is important for people to have these skills. Nowadays, not only the knowledge contributes to the person’s value, but also the person’s character and “heart”. When a person knows how to sympathise, work together, and help each other, that is when they can fully show their contribution to society, and increase their own value to society. For example, a teacher may have a vast resource of knowledge, but he or she has a lack of social etiquette. This weakness will then end up dragging the person down. As time passes, there is a need for the teacher to review her skills and teaching methods, and that is how she makes her students improve faster. However, if she does not know how to communicate with her students or colleagues to get their opinions and suggestions, then she is bound to become irrelevant in the future. Therefore, the potential of the person has shown to lie in the way the person behaves, not only in the content of understanding today.

Some also assert that the fact that the person is hardworking means that the person is able to pick up new knowledge to remain relevant, and that is what is truly needed. On the other hand, however, to be truly educated also means that the person totally absorbs the knowledge that he knows, and not just regurgitate the information that he is given to learn. Getting a degree or pursuing higher education requires one to really understand the context of the information, and to truly understand a certain job or subject means that the new knowledge gained must be able to be put to good use. Therefore, this is an important part of learning. Many students nowadays are spending majority of their time memorizing the facts, treating each sentence and fact as an object to be gained, rather than a building block towards understanding something new. They fail to put it into context and understand its relevance to them. Without the proper questioning of one’s knowledge, then a person is no more than a robot that quickly is being cast aside because of his lack of ability to adapt to new problems and situations to solve them efficiently. For example, the Xing Wei college in China is a liberal arts college which has been newly set up in the country. This new learning institution has provided the chance for Chinese students to learn a new type of skill – to think more broadly, and gaining the opportunity to express their opinion about sensitive issues in their country. Here, they can make good use of their newly gained knowledge in order to improve themselves, and to bring new light to other citizens in their country. Hence, people like these, who help themselves, other citizens and the country are considered to be significantly valuable to society.

Although we have to recognize that each person has a value to society, the question is the degree of this value. To be significantly valuable, it takes a truly educated person who is able to understand what he is learning, and use the skills and information gained to solve new problems. That is the key to the new generation. 

Any comments on the topic?

Does homeschooling prepare one for life better?

As the world becomes more academically competitive, with one’s knowledge level becoming key for one’s future job, and ultimately, one’s future. However, is school the only way through which people can learn? Relatively recently, there has come about the option of homeschooling, where people learn by themselves at home. Is this a viable alternative to the traditional schooling methods? This essay will prove how the benefits of attending school are exclusive to the school grounds, and homeschooling cannot provide these advantages.

Proponents of homeschooling argue that the education system is a one-size fit all policy. In most cases, the students with some learning difficulties are mixed together with the more “gifted” children into one class. This largely disrupts their learning process. In comparison, when they are at home, they have the opportunity to draft out their own curriculum to cater to their education needs. This presumes that schools cannot provide such specialised education. The truth is that the school curriculum nowadays are across a wide spectrum – some of them provide planned and guided education for children with learning difficulties, while others provided a more advanced scheme of education. For example, in Singapore, there is the Singapore Sports School which caters towards students who want to hone their athletic skills, while placing their academics at a lower priority. Premier learning institutions like Hwa Chong Institution have the Centre of Scholastic Excellence, which allows better students to take up subjects at a greater depth so as to facilitate their learning in their areas of interest and expertise. Schools also provide a continuous monitoring so that none are left behind. The constant tests and examinations is key for parents, schools and students themselves to understand how well they are assimilating the new knowledge that they have gained in schools. It is important to keep track of our own progress such that we can change the parts that we need to for our own benefit. By contrast, this cannot happen at home if parents are irresponsible, and students do not have a focused task at hand. With a lack of a proper goal, he may falter in his studies, not knowing what and when to improve. From here, we can already deduce that learning can happen on a scale beyond what learning at home can bring.

Without a rigid system, they have more flexibility to plan their time, critics argue. Why should students be forced to wake up so early in the morning? Education should either be about learning the content, or it should be to be fun, and expecting a child to follow a certain format would kill their interest to learn. Furthermore, it would be harmful for the student if they do not go through the proper courses of education. Sooner or later, these children have to integrate back into the system for their tertiary education, so it is vital for them to have the necessary academic requirements that are exclusive to the education system. The rigour of education needs to be put into place during their schooling so that a stronger foundation is built since young. This is essentially what tertiary institutions and employers are seeking for in today’s knowledge based world. Therefore, students of the current education system do benefit in increasing degrees as compared to their peers studying at home.

Opponents of the traditional schooling system argue that they should are able to focus better on the important subjects, instead of continually being affected negatively by other classmates. This distracts their intellectual learning. On the other hand, they do not recognise that nowadays, many platforms have been set up to ensure that children have the chance to report cases of negative influence from their peers. Furthermore, there is even an increasing chance of positive influence. When we look towards those who do better than ourselves and make them our role model, we also begin to learn from their studying methods to improve ourselves. This can help a child to develop intellectually by combining his strengths with others’. By contrast, a student who studies by himself lacks this positive external influence which is necessary for continual development. Schools nowadays can provide the teaching expertise as many education institutions set higher education standards for teachers. These teachers can then guide the students to rub others off positively. On top of that, there are great amounts of resources to help the child, and this can exist in tangible forms such as science lab apparatus and also intangible forms such as learning plans and studying programmes. This proves that holistic development has become a must in the education system, and traditional schooling methods better provides for this.

In the end, it is still clear that for a large majority of students, the way to go is still to undergo the traditional schooling process. What is to be expected are not the old-fashioned methods that parents would recall, but are improvised ways of teaching to suit the student as the system evolves. 

Any comments on the topic?

Citizen Journalism and its Impacts

Documenting the present, studying the past and foreseeing the new has always been the one area that Man has developed. From olden methods of carving incidents on cave walls to the current day Internet technology, things have progressed extremely quickly in the world of journalism. Today, as people gain more opportunities to take advantage of the vast technologies present, they start to use it to describe certain interesting incidents that occurred throughout their day, or even use it to express their opinions about the events in their country or the world. The revelation that nowadays, anywhere, anytime, people can post anything is catching fire, and this has created much craze about citizen journalists.

Before plunging directly into the impacts of this new trend, let us first examine the work of a citizen journalist. He is not trained officially in the art, but is instead part of the general population of people that have interest in a certain topic and have decided to air their views. He also writes on informal platforms, for instance through their blogs, where many people usually look towards. Although journalism is definitely not new, the process of citizen journalism is different. It usually depicts the certain event much more simply, and its research may not be as greatly done.

Then what are the different impacts of this novel idea? Pessimists argue that such websites allow for the propagation of certain opinions that are not well substantiated. This may erupt into assertion wars, with both sides merely asserting to the other that they are correct in every sense. What is so inherently harmful about this kind of discussion is that it breeds unhappiness, and given the fact that the Internet is less restrained than face-to-face interaction, fiercer arguments are formed. One good example would be STOMP in Singapore. It is dedicated to certain submissions of uncivil or discourteous behavior, which means that it gives way for multiple criticisms. On the other hand, this argument is hinged on the assumption that many people will accept such criticisms badly, or will follow through with such discussions. Many people in society are becoming much more civilized, with a majority able to tell what is reasonable and what is not. This means two things. First, more people will restrain themselves, and will not post such assertive comments because they know that they will be criticized for it. Second, people that see such insensitive and hurtful comments are willing to rise up against it. For instance, in the incident where the Permanent Resident student from NUS commented that “Singapore has more dogs than humans”, people immediately showed their disapproval towards him. This shows that society has the ability to discard and reject such harmful comments. Citizen journalism, in fact gives way for people to open others eyes to certain trends that are worth taking note of. If they are true, then people will definitely accept such comments, and this breeds more constructive comments.

Opponents of citizen journalism also comment that citizen journalism destroys the value of traditional journalism because its speed becomes the only reason why the latter is viewed more. They claim that therefore, people only see one side of things that people have chosen to talk about, and they do not see the well-vetted, researched topic that traditional media brings about. On the contrary, the entire reason for citizen journalism to become more speedy and far-reaching is that it can give a summary of events to more people, and a faster rate. In order to attract people to see their article, citizen journalists are obviously going to choose to comment on the more prevalent areas of the news and its main points, and this is sufficient. Once it piques the interest of readers, then the readers will have a greater incentive to look at the traditional journalist’s article, to understand the topic better. Its great speed and reach also allows for the expression of better values in society. For example, news of a catastrophe reaches people faster, and this means that help can be delivered faster. In the 2008 Mumbai bombings, it was a means through which people gathered information to create a more organized scene. In addition, since the general younger population is turning to such simpler ways of reading the news, it is much easier and effective if corporations and governments reach out to this new section of people through citizen journalism platforms. For example, back at home in Singapore, during the General Elections, the government used Facebook and Twitter to update voters of their newest developments, which means that more people are essentially going to be involved in politics at a young age, something that Singapore’s government seeks to do. Obviously, citizen journalism puts a different spin to things, making life more interesting and allowing people more opportunities to be active in modern society.

  Critics mention that people start to abuse the media more. One characteristic of citizen journalism is that it goes viral like a wild bushfire, which indicates that people tend to exploit certain aspects of the news, without considering the wider scheme of things. As a result, many people are wrongly drawn into such false concepts which breed a lack of trust in citizen journalism in the long run. However, it is exactly this characteristic that allows people to form more meaningful groups with a common interest. Citizen journalism makes use of the vast internet space to develop its own form of discussion, for example in Facebook groups or blogs. In such Web 2.0 technologies, people can respond to the posts made, and give their own opinions, and here is where more ideas are thrown into the mix for consideration. This marketplace of ideas gives space for many more ideas to be refined, so that a better understanding is held in this community of people with similar interests. For example, WikiNews is a web-based framework that runs parallel to the worldwide know Wikipedia. This gives opportunities for people who are excited by similar concepts to share their knowledge amongst each other. Therefore, this improves the understanding of many people.

In conclusion, the impact of citizen journalism is vast, and it will become a powerful tool if applied correctly. The questions to ask ourselves – how do we best mitigate the different forms of harms that may come about? And how do we allow ourselves to further boost and accentuate the benefits that are presented.

The war between Technology and Ethics

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” Albert Einstein’s words are exceedingly true. Technology has unconsciously seeped into our lives, and this can have two effects. Technology can either boost the world’s development, but it can also give way for different people can make use of technology unfavourably. This topic essentially assumes that there is something inherent in technology that can cause people to become less ethical. Ultimately, technology can be characterised in three different ways. First, its advances are sudden and rapid. Second, it is pervasive, and can be very tempting to abuse. Third, it confers great power upon mankind. Technology, in fact, has not made us less ethical, but in fact can make us more ethical in some cases.

Technology is largely popular among technology, because it is constantly changing, and provides new forms of hope, and lifestyles for today’s people. As a result of this, people are not sure how they should treat certain new technological developments which exists in the grey areas. For example, the creation of the first cloned being, Dolly the Sheep in 1996 sparked off much controversy. People were worried that the technology created would be applied to humans, which would end up being very dangerous. However, history has shown that our current system of ethics is very reliable. The basic ethics in man has not altered much, as people are generally told not to harm people, and to respect the sanctity of human life. Just because technology changes, it does not mean that our basic ethics changes. Furthermore, technology affirms the general sentiment that ethics is kept. Shortly after Dolly was created, there was discussion between the developed countries at great length. In the end, there was an agreement in the United Nation’s Declaration on Human Cloning, calling for member nations not to infringe upon human dignity in any way. In addition, the use of medical technology has proved to be useful. As a result of vaccinations, the number of people dying from malaria has dropped from 20 million to a mere 8 million, and there has been an increase in the average life expectancy. This reflects the strength of Man’s ethics, as people reverted back to their fundamentals before delving into the usage of technologies in the grey areas.

Proponents of the topic would also argue that the fact that technology is all around us allows for great exploitation. Criminals would have more means to do unethical things, for example identity theft and data mining using computer programmes. This means that more people will be harmed by the lack of ethics. In addition, the fact that technology was the catalyst for such unethical actions would mean that technology is the cause of all this. However, the thing is that the benefits greatly outweigh the harms caused. Technological advances have created the opportunity for us to do much more. For example, the “pervasiveness” of information technology has allowed for the rapid dissemination of information. The Internet has provided Web 2.0 platforms to spring out, for example blogs, Facebook and Twitter. This allows for events from one end of the world to be seen at the other end. The fact that technology is the one being used shows that technology is merely a tool, and does not inherently change us. Conversely, criminals will not stop being criminals even though the Internet is not available for them. Furthermore, ethics is boosted through the available technology. For example, in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, social activism was given a leg up when the Internet allowed them to convince others to follow in their footsteps. Not only did it allow for more immediate aid for the people there, it also gave rise for willing donors who do not want to go all the way to Haiti. Evidently, the pervasiveness of technology can be turned into a concrete benefit, instead of making more people unethical.

 Some would assert that technology confers great power upon mankind. Technology is the means through which many people are harmed, and the degree of harm even increases as technology improves. For instance, the creation of the atomic bomb during the Second World War proved that technology is capable of making humans commit unethical acts. Thousands of people were affected by the radiation for countless generations as a result of Man’s actions, and this is clearly against one’s ethics. On the other hand, there are many possible explanations for the use of the atomic bomb, some of which are legitimate. When we look at the bigger picture, we note that the bomb was used mainly to stop Japan, a country who was also committing unethical acts. In addition, there can be different plans to ensure that such technology does not fall into the wrong hands. For example, smallpox, a deadly disease, can be used as a dangerous biochemical weapon, and is thus kept into two laboratories only around the world. These forms of check and balances can be used to ensure that unethical people are stopped, which in itself is an ethical act.

Technology has indeed pushed humans beyond the boundary, providing both opportunities benefit mankind and to the power misuse it, killing people. However, as of now, Man’s ethics has held out, ensuring that people are, in fact able to keep themselves in check. The question is – how long will this continue?