What distinguishes between a backward society and a modern cosmopolitan? What is the reason for the different existing entities, both starting out the same, but both ending differently? The answer is clear. Modern day experiments in the different disciplines of Science enlighten us, allowing us to improve our daily lives. Furthermore, the dwelling into biochemistry has produced various medical discoveries. Science plays a vital role in society, and to claim that it is a menace is utter rubbish.
Experimental results and findings bring us more information, and with more information come new products which can improve the lives of the world population. Probably an up and coming topic would be nanotechnology. Intrinsically, it involves manipulating miniscule substances, using their latent capabilities to our use. For example, nanotechnology is used to power our current generation of slim and compact hand-phones, as compared to the first generation bulky phones. By shedding light into new topics of interests, we would be able to develop new equipment which would improve our quality of life. Thus, with the steady research in the various departments of science, we would be able to bring about a better world for people to live in. Hence, science benefits civilisation.
Biochemistry has shed light into the realms of medicine. Medicine has probably become categorised as an essential must for everyone now. There was a time once where Tetanus was a sure ticket to the makers. However, cast away those bad memories and marvel at our current medical world now. With a simple injection of a vaccine, Tetanus no longer poses a threat to us humans. Evidently, our crossing into the vast dimensions of the sciences has unlocked bits and bits of information, and by piecing them together, we would be able to utilise our findings into creating a weapon against pathogens. Intrinsically, science brings salvation to humankind.
However, opposition debate that science is a menace, raising the topic that science has brought about weapons of mass destruction. Yes, this is true. Firearms, nuclear and atomic bombs, they are all the products of science. Everyone probably remembers the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the World War 2. Till today, the trails of its destruction are still haunting its descendents. True, science has been a threat to society. However, these incidents only arise when science falls into the wrong hands. Science without conscience is destruction to the soul. Yet, it is clear that the population does not consist purely of heinous malefactors; there are those who intend to use the science for the betterment of mankind. Clearly, the outcome of the usage of science is dependent on the user itself and as such, science is not a menace to civilisation.
Hence, science is not a menace to society, playing a vital role to civilisation itself. Despite this, in retrospect, science is no doubt a menace if used for wrong causes. Yet, by ensuring it does not fall into wrong hands, we are able to prevent horrific calamities from materializing. With this, science is not a menace to society.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Pornography: Should we or should we not exercise any form of censorship in this area
Pornography: to ban or not to ban? Widely regarded as taboo in societies around the world, Pornography is often frowned upon. Pornography is intrinsically sexually explicit materials which is shown via the films, magazines and other mediums. It was programmed to cater to the masses, but those specially created to appeal to the male hormones are perhaps the most notorious among all. Personally, I would say that there is no need to ban Pornography. First and foremost, watching of pornography does not necessarily equate to immediate pornography addiction. Next, pornography acts as a substitute for those who are deprived of sexual fantasies. Lastly, if any form of censorship is made, pornography would soon be exuding a mysterious aura which would only lure more prey into potential downfall.
Viewing of pornography does not equate to eventual addiction. Take the example of films, there are many R21 films being shown in Singapore and being circulated within society. If addiction were to be a byproduct of pornography, shouldn't Singapore's economy be in the slumps now? Evidently, the answer is an unequivical no. They say that curiosity kills the cat, but by taking a small peek, would it really mean that the cat will be killed? As long as self-control is exercised pornography does not always corrupt a certain curious individual. As shown from the above example, self-control is obviously a quality humans are endowed with. If people are able to exert a modicum of disicpline, the so called abomination would not lead to addiction. Ultimately, that cat still has its nine lives.
Pornography acts as a substitute to sexual experiences denied to some in society. In our highly critical world, when it comes to beauty, there are essentially two categories: the beautiful swan and the ugly duckling. Superficial as it is, during sexual intercourse, beauty is essentially skin deep. Seriously, would one think: She is modest, she is hardworking so on so forth during copulation? No. Some individuals culturally labelled as ugly would miss out on the multitude of sexual experiences. Thus, pornography is their gateway to these opportunities. Should we state that their watching of pornography is reprehensible? Once again, no. To these people, poronography simply emulates intimate sexual experience, and is nothing but a supplement for them.
Lastly, if action to cover pornography were to be made, it will only increase its exclusiveness. Paradoxical it might be, it actually runs on a simple principle. Once again, we invite our very curious cat here. If we were to label pornography as a forbidden fruit, it would soon be enveloped by an emanation of mystery. So our cat stumles upon this and by nature, his curiosity is piqued by this intriguing mystery. Automatically, he would want to find out what is this 'pornography'. On the reverse, if we were to let this forbidden fruit be abundant, people will possibly become weay and become jaded to it. At the bottom of it all, it being conspicuous only reverses the effect.
In essence, there should not be any form of censorship on pornography. As can be seen from the above theory of the mysterious forbidden fruit, that of it being a gateway to sexual expereince and it not being the direct malefactor of addiction, pornography should not be banned. Even if attempts are made, is the idea even feasible?
Viewing of pornography does not equate to eventual addiction. Take the example of films, there are many R21 films being shown in Singapore and being circulated within society. If addiction were to be a byproduct of pornography, shouldn't Singapore's economy be in the slumps now? Evidently, the answer is an unequivical no. They say that curiosity kills the cat, but by taking a small peek, would it really mean that the cat will be killed? As long as self-control is exercised pornography does not always corrupt a certain curious individual. As shown from the above example, self-control is obviously a quality humans are endowed with. If people are able to exert a modicum of disicpline, the so called abomination would not lead to addiction. Ultimately, that cat still has its nine lives.
Pornography acts as a substitute to sexual experiences denied to some in society. In our highly critical world, when it comes to beauty, there are essentially two categories: the beautiful swan and the ugly duckling. Superficial as it is, during sexual intercourse, beauty is essentially skin deep. Seriously, would one think: She is modest, she is hardworking so on so forth during copulation? No. Some individuals culturally labelled as ugly would miss out on the multitude of sexual experiences. Thus, pornography is their gateway to these opportunities. Should we state that their watching of pornography is reprehensible? Once again, no. To these people, poronography simply emulates intimate sexual experience, and is nothing but a supplement for them.
Lastly, if action to cover pornography were to be made, it will only increase its exclusiveness. Paradoxical it might be, it actually runs on a simple principle. Once again, we invite our very curious cat here. If we were to label pornography as a forbidden fruit, it would soon be enveloped by an emanation of mystery. So our cat stumles upon this and by nature, his curiosity is piqued by this intriguing mystery. Automatically, he would want to find out what is this 'pornography'. On the reverse, if we were to let this forbidden fruit be abundant, people will possibly become weay and become jaded to it. At the bottom of it all, it being conspicuous only reverses the effect.
In essence, there should not be any form of censorship on pornography. As can be seen from the above theory of the mysterious forbidden fruit, that of it being a gateway to sexual expereince and it not being the direct malefactor of addiction, pornography should not be banned. Even if attempts are made, is the idea even feasible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)