Environment

Should developed countries shoulder more responsibility to tackle global environmental problems?

“If everyone is responsible for something, the no one is” – this is an old adage of management which is applicable to the context of environmental preservation. Developed countries have achieved rapid economic growth and prosperity at the expense of the environment during the Industrial Revolution and this has intensified in the last century. It is only today that we are beginning to experience the adverse effects of environmental degradation. Moreover, due to emerging economies (which were previously labelled as developing countries) like China and India joining the global competition for economic growth, the situation has been aggravated. I believe both developed and developing should take joint responsibility to tackle global environmental problems.

Developed countries have both the financial and technological resources to alleviate the problems of environmental destruction and to prevent further damge from being inflicted upon our environment. Renewable energy resources like solar, wind and hydro can help prevent more emissions of greenhouse gases. In the US, wind energy is used to power up to 2.5 million homes while in Japan, photo voltaic cell cars which run on solar energy has been developed. Such technologies should be shared with developing and poorer countries to join efforts in reducing greenhouse gases. However, green technologies can be prohibitively expensive due to long term research and development. Most developing countries cannot afford to adopt these technologies due to a lack of finance and expertise. Also, developed and rich countries are unwilling to share their research for free. In economic terms, this selfish act violates the theory of comparative advantage and thus promotes inefficiency – increased greenhouse gases. Hence, a shift of mindset is needed. To tackle global environmental issues, the developed countries may try to see beyond monetary benefits and power, and lay the foundation by transferring green technology to the rest of the world. Only then can developing countries continue to do their part. However this is easier said than done. The world today is fuelled by stiff competition and by sharing, one would lose its upper hand power.

It may seem natural and easy to push the blame to developed countries for the environmental degradation today. They were after all the ones who started all of it in the first place since the period of Industrial Revolution. However, it should be recognised that responsibility should not be pushed, but shared as this pressing environmental problem is affecting everyone and not only the rich countries. As it is, environmental problems respect no national borders. They can easily cross physical borders. For example, the Indonesian haze in 1997 cost Malaysia approximately US$8 million in lost revenue as a result of closed workplaces, medical bills, lost tourism, crop damaged and disrupted school and transport. Hence, countries ought to co-operate with one another to protect and conserve the environment.

Developed countries may have started degrading the environment since centuries ago, but developing countries such as China and India are aggravating the situation today. The United States which was the number one greenhouse gas emitter is going to be dethroned by China in a few years’ time. India is expected to follow suit. As it is, the pollution index in China is one of the worst in the world today. Most recently, China almost failed the criteria of healthy air for the Beijing Olympics just a month before the event. Extensive measures were used to clear up the air to pass the criteria. For developing countries, economic survival takes precedent over environmental concerns which accounts for the rapid depletion of resources and degradation of environment. Moreover, poor countries have an important responsibility towards the world to prevent over exploitation of their natural resources. Activities such as illegal logging and poaching, inappropriate discharge of toxic wastes and uncapped pollution emissions are evident in many developing countries. With informed knowledge and technologies and strict rules and regulation, developing countries can do a better job at conserving the environment.

Ultimately, everyone inhabiting the Earth has an important and equal role to play in protecting the environment. Regardless of wealth and status, all of us consume nature’s resources. Therefore, we all have a moral obligation to preserve the environment. When we fail our environment, it may ultimately fail us one day. All the obsession with and accumulated wealth amounts to nothing when everything falls to ashes.

Technology & Energy

The Price of Technology

In our daily lives today, almost everything is a result of technology advancement and invention. Even now, I am typing my essay on my laptop instead or writing it on a piece of paper with a pencil. In fact, the use of pencil is an invention as well. Primitively, people of the Stone Age might have used rocks and stones to carve symbols as a form of writing. Science and technology advancement has indeed manifested throughout the history of mankind. I cannot imagine my life now without television, air conditioner, water heater, cell phones and laptops. Technology has undoubtedly improved and made comfortable my life to a great extend! However technology acts a double edged sword. It takes away from mankind, almost as much as it gives. The price of technology as I explore, is costly.

Inventions such as the internet and cell phones have overcome the barrier of geographical differences and brought people together. What might have taken months to send a letter from one side of the globe to another, can now be easily done via a click of the mouse with emailing. Most of us would shout hurray to such inventions. What has these communication tools and advancement given us? They have given us convenience, more time and efficiency. But, simultaneously, it has taken away social interaction. Physical social interaction is actually very important. After all, the messages we went via emails and instant messages cannot effectively convey our physical emotions. They may be very efficient, but they are very impersonal. Less interaction among human easily makes one less effective and expressive physically. This is the social cost of technology.

Also, with improved communication networks, news and cultures spread fast across the globe. Youtube is one good example of vast networking. It is a cyber space where one can find and also upload videos of various genres. These videos can be viewed by anyone in the world who has internet access. Very often, cultural ideas and habits are portrayed in videos, which are subsequently uploaded onto Youtube. Take Bhutan for example. Bhutan was the last nation in the world to have television. And the introduction of it has changed the lives of the Bhutan people forever. What used to be a highly religious and traditional Buddhist country is now a democratic country which is highly influenced by the Western Cultures. This change is strongly believed to be fuelled by the influence television programmes have on its people, especially the youths. Families now spent less quality time together, e.g. having dinner together, and spend more time watching television programmes or play stations. The youth are increasingly fascinated with western brands such as Nike and Levis, as well as celebrities such as David Beckham. Some of them even abandoned their traditional clothes for trendy shirts and jeans. The traditional culture of Bhutan is evidently slipping away helplessly. Has the television brought more good or harm to Bhutan? I for one do not have an absolute answer to this. But one thing is for sure, Bhutan cannot have the best of both worlds. If she wants to be part of the technology-savvy age, there must be some things she has to sacrifice in return. The Bhutan people have to decide for themselves if what they have given up or lost to the television, is worth it or not. This is the cultural cost of technology.

In the medical field, technological advancement never ceases. Several options have been opened up as such, e.g. human embryonic stem cell cloning. However, these science issues never fail to be tied to moral issues. Apparently, they overstepped the boundaries of science and challenged the conscious and moral values or mankind in bid of these progresses. The dilemma between science and morality is almost impossible to resolve. I once watched a documentary of a true life story of an ill baby boy. He is commonly known as baby Jesse. Baby Jesse was diagnosed with leukaemia when he was only two years old. None of his parents was a suitable donor. The doctor then suggested that it was possible for the parents of baby Jesse to give birth to another child to save baby Jesse’s life. What is different in this case from other pregnancies is that, the baby has to be “designed” to be a suitable donor for baby Jesse. This can be done by human embryonic stem cell cloning. In simple terms, doctors have to fertilise embryos with the stem cells of Jesse to develop a foetus which could accept and infuse the stem cells into it. Whichever embryos could not do so, would be discarded. This arises the moral question: Isn’t a fertilised embryo a life? Different people have different claims and views to this. Some do not consider these embryos as lives, while others felt that the process of making a perfect brother for Jesse equates to killing. There were also questions about the value of the younger brother’s life. If his life was purposely developed solely to prolong the life of his elder brother, then what other meaning and value does it have? Will his parents love him less? All these are questions I cannot answer as well. The dilemma is always around. Again, the choice of using technological advancements comes with a price, the moral price in this context.

Technological advancement till today is an ongoing process. Even if we seem comfortable with our lifestyles now, some inventors or scientists would come up with a new innovation, invention or idea to make our lives “better”. It is almost as though human has an obsession of conquering the “impossible”. From space exploration to medical fields and to everyday devices, there will almost always something better to wait for. When we first had cell phones, everyone was elated! Yay! Finally we can talk on the go. Then we wanted more, our cell phone is now not only a phone, it is also a camera, a music player, a television and an internet access point where we can send emails and surf the internet. Maybe in the near future, our cell phone will also become our personal atm machine. Who knows, it might really happen!

This obsession of conquering more and even more has an adverse side to it. It has been proven by my various points aforementioned that technological advancement must be dealt with carefully. One might find oneself losing more than what one has gained. There can be no control on striking a balance, it is really all up to one’s discretion.

Globalized Identity

Is religion meant for the weak?

Religion, as defined by American Psychological Association (APA), is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. The idea of God is promising, but elusive. After all, it is usually hard for someone to believe in something which does not appear to us, let alone be devoted to it. Religion is really a matter of intangible faith. How, and why then, do a majority of human population subscribe to a religion? What is it that people seek for spiritually? Is it an emptiness within themselves that they long to fill, but could not find satisfaction from the physical world? If yes, then is religion meant for the weak?

It should be noted that religion here is taken to mean formalized and accepted religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism for example. Cults are not regarded as religions.
A weak person, in this context, is not just someone who is frail in strength. A weak person could also be someone who is emotionally unwell. On an individual level, one might seek spiritual support when one is physically ill. In unpromising medical situations, only religious and spiritual hopes or comfort may ease the fear in such individuals. To a broader perspective, a weak member of society may refer to an outcast, a rejected or simply the minority, for example race minority. The sense of dejection or disapproval in one’s living environment may lead to one finding acceptance in another realm. Religion, in this case, may provide reasoning to their “unfair treatment”. In the above explanations, religion does seem to be meant for the weak. However, there are instances whereby “the strong” subscribe to a religion. There are instances whereby devotees of a religion subscribe to it not out of seeking acceptance and strength, but because of the promises made to them by the teachings of the religion. Therefore, religion is not meant for the weak. Maybe, religion does appeal more to them than the more fulfilled healthy and successful population though.

Let us discuss about the suicide bomber. The Muslim self-justification of suicide bombing lies in the interpretation of “Jihad”. Islamic writings have featured jihad as physical warfare. The act of suicide bombing by Islamic terrorists, are largely driven by the idea of jihad. It has been said in the Islamic scriptures that, those who sacrifice their material comfort and bodies for jihad win salvation and would be given the reward of virgins in heaven. In such a scenario, these suicide bombers are most probable healthy and functioning members of society. Their devoted act and faith to their religion, is not driven by their weakness, by rather by the tempting promises of the religion.

In the context of a relatively “normal” member of society, religion plays other different roles other than supporting the weak. Most religions guide people in almost all aspects of lives. From how one behaves, relates to others, maintain relationships and socialise, dealing with grief or illness – it takes discipline and commitment for one to subscribe and obey strictly to the rules of a religion. This shows strength as contrary to weakness. For example, in the religion of Christianity, Moses was asked by God to list down the Ten Commandments. All disciples of God and Jesus Christ were expected to obey to these rules. However, in today’s society and living environment, it takes a lot of discipline to resist the various temptations, such as booze and gambling, and be religiously upright. Religion here is a matter of commitment, and not as a crutch for the weak.

The weak, as defined earlier, may generally be more inclined to subscribe to a religion. The idea of a supernatural being may make them feel more secure, or may offer an explanation for their suffering or misfortunate plight. However, the purpose of a religion does not merely serves that. The other of human population, the well, mighty, wealthy and strong, do subscribe to a religion or another as well. Religious for them, is a spiritual commitment, fulfilment and maybe enlightened. A religion enriches their lives.

Democracy and Human Rights

Is Democracy the best governing system?

In Sernau’s chapter, he has mentioned several forms of governance. In the earlier times people live in organized groups, which are relatively small in sizes, called bands. Bands are governed by a system of chiefdom. As these societal groupings enlarge to form nations, states, empires or kingdoms, the system of governance took on many different forms and titles. The common ruling systems that are practiced through the past few centuries are: monarchy, dictatorship, communism, and more recently popularised, democracy.

Majority of the countries worldwide are currently practising democracy. In the dictionary definition, democracy “is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is impossible for democracy to fulfill the ideals of every single individual under its rule. History has shown numerous failures of other governing bodies, such as the fall of the Roman Empire (monarchy) and the Sovereignty of Hitler (dictatorship). Since democracy is unable to achieve perfection as well, is it bound for failure too? In my opinion, imperfection is inevitable but for most of its benefits and advantages over other ruling systems, democracy is by far the best governing system today.

I state my stand on the basis that, I value human life, freedom and rights above economic and military might and power.

In a country that practices democracy, every single individual in the country is a part of the process of governing. The legislature is elected by the people and in return, it makes laws for the people. The executive, selected from the legislature, runs the country for the people. Under such system, the individuals have their own says and are expected to hold responsibility for it. If the elected government is corrupted, the people would have the choice and right to not elect the party for the next election.
Other forms of government are monarchy and dictatorship-of an individual, of a foreign imperialist government, of a military or of a political party. In both monarchy and dictatorship, the ruler-individual or group-wields absolute power and people have no remedy against its misuse. As history has shown, in several cases such as the Nazi party led by Hitler, their protestors and minority groups were brutally oppressed, tortured and eventually killed. Such ruling forms are bloody and inhuman and several acts of the powered are unjustifiable, such as the taking away of lives blatantly. People under these ruling systems have very minimal or no rights and might, and often suffer and deprived of a decent and peaceful living.
On the other hand, under the ruling system of democracy, everyone is treated equally before the law, irrespective of caste, creed or sex. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, worship, occupation and to move through out the country. The dignity of man is recognized and respected. People are given ample opportunities to become strong and self reliant.

However, like any other forms of governance, democracy has structural flaws as well. One of the most prominent defects is the fear of democracy becoming the “tyranny of the majority”, as stated by John Stuart Mill, an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. In cases where this is practiced, the minorities’ rights and freedom are neglected and deprived. For example, recreational drug use is typically tolerated to a degree where the majority deemed appropriate. Any use above beyond this standard is considered misuse or a crime. This is deemed as unfair for the minorities who do not see eye to eye with the standard, and are subjected to criminal charges. This is contrary to the original idea of democracy, which is “the empowerment of the electorate as a whole”.

Another flaw of democracy is corruption within the elected ruling party. In rare cases, even in the system of democracy, dictatorship is still practised when the people elect out of fear for the oppressor. An infamous case in point is that of Charles Taylor in the election in 1997. In cases of corruption, people do not get to enjoy their due freedom and are instead exploited of their trust and money.

To minimise the flaws of democracy, the people have to be alert and the ruling party ought to be transparent. The people ought to be constantly kept informed of the activities of those to whom they have entrusted the reins of government. In this case, a free press is very crucial to carry out this task. Democracy itself gives the people the right to voice out against any injustice and atrocities.

Democracy might not be the perfect ruling system, but it is the best thus far in human civilization. Democracy is built upon freedom and the responsibility of possessing power. It can effective on the basis that the people are civilised and the ruling party are just and loyal to their state and people. Imperfections are inevitable, but they are definitely tolerable and can be minimised. At least till today, democracy has seen less bloodshed than the rest of the ruling forms.

War

Why should there be war?

As an individual, I would get into occasional quarrels or arguments with friends, family members or even strangers. When it happens, I may scold, curse or even fight mildly with the other party. After which, I would be angry for at least awhile at that person. However, no matter how angry I am, the idea of killing the person had never crossed my mind.

Human life is sacred and it is almost a universal rule that it is morally wrong to claim the life of another or even oneself. Also, the act of killing or intensely hurting someone physically (or emotionally) requires a person with little conscious and regard for a fellow human being to perform such cruel task. However, this may be argued that the offender might not be in the right state of mind, such as under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For most cases, I for one, would not bare to see someone growling in pain with injuries all over one’s body, what more being the culprit of the suffering. I believe that majority of the human population are compassionate and sane, and believes in the sacredness of human life.

If human are such feeling beings, and war is such a cruel matter which often results in massive bloodshed, I am led to wonder: Why should there be war in the world?

War is defined (by www.dictionary.com) as a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. War between two countries or empires, more often than not, involves mass killing of the enemies’ people. These people, who lost their lives to war, are frequently made up of innocent civilians who had contributed nothing to the feud between the two parties, except being a part of one of it. The mass loss of lives due to war are very often not accounted for. I believe this is so because the mass loss of lives to war has become such a “normal” situation that it did not require justification. Also, this phenomenon somehow develops an unofficial consensus among the armed force that, “one would rather kill an innocent by mistake, than to let an enemy escape.” This ruthless thinking has severely diluted the meaning and sacredness of human life among these assaulters.

The engagement in war itself can cost a bomb. Expenditure on mass destruction weapons can easily cost up to millions or even billions if the course of it drags on for years. After which, more money has to be spent on rebuilding the nation. Debris has to be cleared, roads and building reconstructed, people has to be relocated to safety regions and amenities have to be rebuilt. Very often, the period of recovery may take years. The population’s confidence has to be rebuilt, the victimised families have to be taken care of for their psychological problems (e.g. Loss of family), and the younger generation has to be educated on the lessons learnt from the war. From reconstruction of the country to rebuilding of the nation’s people and economy, all procedures and plans need financial means. Isn’t war such an expensive affair? The money could have been spent on more meaningful and constructive areas such as charity to third world countries, or on education and healthcare services for the needy population of the country.

A war is usually carried out between countries (in current context) when an issue cannot be resolved peacefully. If we look back on an individual scale, one would often have unresolved conflicts with another counterpart. For most of us, how often do we resort to harbouring thought of killing the person, and actually executing the unclean thought? Yes, sometimes one does get into fights which may turn out fatal, in cases of gang fights or just fights outside bars and pubs. I believe that the occurrence of fights, or war, is fuelled by the culture of violence in the country or community. When a country or state is socialised in wrong directions, such as violence is not a matter of concern, it may continue to do the “wrong” things that it was taught to do or influenced to believe in. People pass on these beliefs and norms from generation to generation, thus giving birth to a nation which is violent. When a person or a country is violent, she would often think of using violent means to resolve a problem above all other methods, because that is what she has been taught to be might. Hence, if a country is socialised in a more civil way, war may be less likely. There are peaceful alternatives to resolve a conflict, such as signing a treaty or getting help from a third party, e.g. United Nations.

War has little value and purpose, and often result in brutal killings and massive destruction to land and properties. Except for creating some war heroes, war does not have any virtues. Some may argue that it acts as a motivation for progress of the nation or weapon creation, but I say that there are many more ways to achieve any goals one wish to achieve without sacrificing lives.

Crimes

Crimes

 

To me, the most hideous crimes are murder, terrorism and rape. Terrorism often involves the mass killing of innocent people and destruction of properties to terrify the state and its people. Murder, deliberate or accidental, causes the loss of lives of one or many. Since terrorism is carried out usually by murdering, I shall rephrase and say that murder and rape are the two most unforgivable crimes in my opinion. However, while murderers are often dealt with grave penalties and punishment, rapists on the other hand, are let off quite easily from what I observed. This is highly unacceptable.

 

The common penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment or the death penalty. In cases of manslaughter or homicide, the offenders seldom get the death penalty and the number of years of imprisonment is very often much shorter, usually less than 20 years of imprisonment. To me, this is totally not justifiable.

 

Rape, although do not constitute death which may sometimes happen, is the deliberate act of sexual intercourse forced upon an unwilling party. This hideous act can have very serious consequences on its victim, both psychologically and physically. Physically, the victim is physically violated and is exposed to threats of sexually transmitted disease. Direct harm inflicted on the victim includes over bleeding and pain due to repeated penetration. The contraction of sexually transmitted disease can then cause long term physical conditions on the victim. If one is unlucky, the victim may contract the deadly Aids virus which is still incurable today. As if these physical harms are not sufficient to justify for more stringent and grave penalties for rapists, the victims often suffer from psychological problems after the violation. According to statistics, victims of sexual assault are three times for likely to suffer from depression, six times more likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and four times more likely to contemplate suicide.

 

More statistics show that only 16.3% of reported rapists will end up in prison and nearly 60% of rape or sexual assaults are not reported.

*not updated

Work and Trade

Work has a different meaning and different purpose for every individual at different times. In the agricultural age, work mainly involved hunting wild animals and harvesting crop for food. Work generally meant survival needs. Then, work continued to revolve into other dehumanizing states such as slavery and prostitution. People working in such industries were very often forced against their will and suffered severe hardship. In today’s context, slavery has been almost abolished completely, fortunately. However I believe some form of slavery is still being practiced in some rural parts of the world, unknown to the world.The prostitution industry is still common in several countries. How the difference from the past is, while the “workers” are not forced by another party most of the time, they are forced by circumstances to earn such “easy” and “quick” money.

 

In today’s society, people have a lot of freedom. They are free from slavery and forced prostitution, they often have the choice to choose their career. However, this freedom comes with a price, literally. In today’s working society, education plays a major role in determining what kind of job a person will land oneself with. Usually, better education can get one a higher paying job which is often associated with higher social status. However, to achieve better education is often not feasible without money. Education is expensive. Therefore, the freedom of career in this sense is made true only to people who can afford it.

 

Another glaring difference of the workforce of today and the past is the amount of fun in it. Very often, in the past, people work solely for survival. They make clothes to keep warm, hunt food and fetch water to keep themselves full. Today, people work as fashion designers mainly because of their love for clothing and fashion and very little or no regard to keeping themselves warm with the clothes they make. People of today in urban societies have to worry very little about our basic necessities, which allow us more time to explore our interest. This interest can be translated into work which in turn brings food onto the table. However, this is a luxury which not everyone could be fortunate enough to enjoy. Many still find themselves stuck to a job which is not purposeful. The bulk of jobs available are often repetitive work that churns out efficiency but deemed as purpose-less to the workers (Karlx).

 

Work is still essential for survival in today’s society. But it is much more complex than the work during the stone age. Work could be fun or boring, rewarding or purposeless. But it still brings bread to the table nonetheless. Some bring more, some bring just sufficient. Work on the whole is essential to make the entire economy grow.

 

Class and Inequalities

Firstly, I would like to define the different social class as the differentiation of people in a society based on several social factors, which may vary from societies to societies, such as income level, education, ethnicity and religion. I would define inequality as the uncompromised standards within a country as well as between countries.

In my opinion, class division and inequality within a country and among countries is impossible to eradicate totally. In different times, societies will be classified differently as according to the specific time’s assumption of power. It could be financial wealth at one time or military power at another time. Also, as one wise man said, nothing is fair. If someone is rich, someone else would be richer and poorer; if someone is strong, someone else would be stronger and weaker.

I would first like to examine the division within a country.

Every single person is born into different family with different social status, nurtured and equipped with different skills and taught in different (religious) ways from one another. As such, the division among people of a country would already start from birth for some. In many countries where social status is determined by income level wealthier families would have an advantage over the less wealthy families in terms of their exposure to better education and opportunities for success, such as special skills, which often come with a cost. This would eventually widen the gap between the higher class (the rich) and the lower class(the poor) when the rich gets better paying jobs when equipped with better skills, and the poor gets low paying jobs with their mediocre skills. Of course, there are bound to be people who successfully break out of their born-into social status, moving from lower class to higher class or even vice verse, but the initial division may be crucial reasoning to why social classes can never be dissolved. Religious teachings also play an important role in determining a society’s willingness to adhere to the state’s policies for change. In extreme cases, people may hold on to their beliefs and be left out in the nation’s progress.

Between countries, there have been several different groupings: Developing-developed, rural-urban, mega-city-third world countries and the list goes on. To begin with, nothing is ever fair in the world. Some countries found it easier than others to develop because of favourable endowments found within the country itself, such as timbre, oil and quarries. Many countries in Africa could not get a good head start in developing because of the lack of fertile land for agriculture in the continent. Countries with good geographical location also has an advantage of attracting more trade, which generates revenue which could partially be used for social welfare purposes, over other countries in the early days when trade was carried out mainly by waters. In my opinion, a country’s class in the world is greatly affected by the ruling body of the nation. In many poor countries, the people are suffering form poverty due to poor governance or corruption, such as in Indonesia and Malaysia. In today’s context, there are several international bodies which provide aid to needy countries to kick start urban development to bridge the gap between the poor and rich nations. In my opinion, with reliable and capable leaders, and the help of such bodies, the development of poor countries can see improvements eventually. However, by then, the rich countries may have become richer again. But the competition goes on forever.

The link below is of an article I found online which is closely related to the topic we touch this week. It’s just for reference reading.

http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/06-02-006.pdf