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?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
President’s Star Charity Show - is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?
Let's just start with a question: Would you donate to charity?
If your response was an immediate, unequivocal 'yes', then what is the point of the series of performances during every charity show? Would there even be a need to have charity shows in the first place? Looking from a cynical perspective, I believe that many of us need to be bribed into making donations. We need to question our morals: What is the ulterior motive of the artiste's performances? Let us go back to the basics, what is the definition of charity? I believe that we can skip most of the fluff and the definitions and summarise it into a few word. Charity is compassion. It should be spontaneous, not something coaxed out of you.
I believe that these performances should be removed, lest, we are instilling in the younger generations false values. One might dispute, "NO! These are an absoute must! Without them, charity shows would be dead for!" If that is so, charity events are running on a distorted set of values.
Some might argue that after the NKF scandal, one might begin to have a stingy mindset and that all these life-risking events are to garner support for charity. However, wouldn't that equate to us sympathising the artistes instead? All these events should be rid off. Appealing to our inner compassion, we should not draw sweeping generalisations, and arrive at an uncategorical decision stating that all donations made to charity organisation end up in the pockets of others.
No, we should move along and not get swept away by a tide of the past.
On the other hand, one must take into consideration. If we were to hold these charity shows, and there were not to be any performances, what should be held instead? Personally, I can't come up with any answer. However, I have ended up wth a rather risky solution. We can stop airing charity shows, nd allow people to donate t charity organisations by thir own free will.
At the end of the day, would you want to look at the staggering figures and know that those numbers have no actual representation of our compassion? Eventually, we would need to correct that. Why not start now?
If your response was an immediate, unequivocal 'yes', then what is the point of the series of performances during every charity show? Would there even be a need to have charity shows in the first place? Looking from a cynical perspective, I believe that many of us need to be bribed into making donations. We need to question our morals: What is the ulterior motive of the artiste's performances? Let us go back to the basics, what is the definition of charity? I believe that we can skip most of the fluff and the definitions and summarise it into a few word. Charity is compassion. It should be spontaneous, not something coaxed out of you.
I believe that these performances should be removed, lest, we are instilling in the younger generations false values. One might dispute, "NO! These are an absoute must! Without them, charity shows would be dead for!" If that is so, charity events are running on a distorted set of values.
Some might argue that after the NKF scandal, one might begin to have a stingy mindset and that all these life-risking events are to garner support for charity. However, wouldn't that equate to us sympathising the artistes instead? All these events should be rid off. Appealing to our inner compassion, we should not draw sweeping generalisations, and arrive at an uncategorical decision stating that all donations made to charity organisation end up in the pockets of others.
No, we should move along and not get swept away by a tide of the past.
On the other hand, one must take into consideration. If we were to hold these charity shows, and there were not to be any performances, what should be held instead? Personally, I can't come up with any answer. However, I have ended up wth a rather risky solution. We can stop airing charity shows, nd allow people to donate t charity organisations by thir own free will.
At the end of the day, would you want to look at the staggering figures and know that those numbers have no actual representation of our compassion? Eventually, we would need to correct that. Why not start now?
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore
Modern technology has blessed many Singaporeans with the opportunity of "freedom of speech", giving us the ability to express our deepest, most innerfelt feelings through a myriad of internet forums where anonymity can be maintained.
Personally, I believe the human mind is always critical to a certain degree. Furthermore, with the continuous chain of events happening in the world, there would definitely be discrepancies and snide comments are bound to be formulated. With the need to express ourselves, the computer becomes the vehicle where our thoughts are encrypted into computer language and inscribed into the universal web for all to see.
The computer is a lethal weapon against any policy-forming organisation and in Singapore, what other organisation can that be? With a snap of the finger, the answer comes into mind: the Government.
With this in mind, the Government would have to take up precautions, stripping the people off their power to aminadvert on any of the implemented policies. However, in Singapore, the rules do not seem to apply. Many websites have popped up here and there, jeering and mocking some of the government's decisions. Yes, comments are absolutely capable of influencing a person's final decision, yet, if the comments are whimsical and have absolutely little or no relation to one, one would just take a secondary glance and move along. Intrinsically, I feel that most SIngaporeans are happy with their current standard of living. Pleased with the government's implementations, any revolutionary ideas might just be swept along and not taken into any deep consideration. I believe that with this, there is not much of a need for the government to worry much about the need for any regulation on political commentary.
Currently, the Singapore's government seems to know what it is doing. A large majority of the people are generally contented with the ongoing happenings and events. Though the PAP might be criticised once in a while, I believe that many of the Singaporeans believe in their government, reasoning why all the political comments seem to be categorised as jokes and are laughed at. In the end, it comes down to what the government is doing; if the government pleases the people, chaos would not erupt.
Personally, I believe the human mind is always critical to a certain degree. Furthermore, with the continuous chain of events happening in the world, there would definitely be discrepancies and snide comments are bound to be formulated. With the need to express ourselves, the computer becomes the vehicle where our thoughts are encrypted into computer language and inscribed into the universal web for all to see.
The computer is a lethal weapon against any policy-forming organisation and in Singapore, what other organisation can that be? With a snap of the finger, the answer comes into mind: the Government.
With this in mind, the Government would have to take up precautions, stripping the people off their power to aminadvert on any of the implemented policies. However, in Singapore, the rules do not seem to apply. Many websites have popped up here and there, jeering and mocking some of the government's decisions. Yes, comments are absolutely capable of influencing a person's final decision, yet, if the comments are whimsical and have absolutely little or no relation to one, one would just take a secondary glance and move along. Intrinsically, I feel that most SIngaporeans are happy with their current standard of living. Pleased with the government's implementations, any revolutionary ideas might just be swept along and not taken into any deep consideration. I believe that with this, there is not much of a need for the government to worry much about the need for any regulation on political commentary.
Currently, the Singapore's government seems to know what it is doing. A large majority of the people are generally contented with the ongoing happenings and events. Though the PAP might be criticised once in a while, I believe that many of the Singaporeans believe in their government, reasoning why all the political comments seem to be categorised as jokes and are laughed at. In the end, it comes down to what the government is doing; if the government pleases the people, chaos would not erupt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)