However, I think that governing bodies play a crucial part in saving the Earth. For one, the government has the power and resources to portray the required message to the mass public. They are the ones who have the control over what is being broadcasted through the media like televisions, radios etc. Although there are means like Facebook, Youtube through which environmental advocates can transmit their cry for environmental protection, these efforts can be miniscule as compared to what the government is capable of reaching. The government for example can use push means such as encompassing such message into educational syllabus and through radios. But with the limited resources and money (since most are non-profit organisations) they are frequently unable to portray their views through the more effective means. Moreover, few would actively fight for such causes except for the enlightened ones or maybe the very much educated ones. It is after normal to care more about one’s immediate survival than the public’s future survival. Thus all these portray the importance of governments in ensuring that the countries work toward the goal of saving the Earth.

                Furthermore, if the governments were to disregard the issue thus allowing continuous pollution and destruction of natural landscape, they have to ultimately pay the price for it. A direct impact would be for example China where the government had to pay billions of dollars to clear polluted waters and land to present a good image during the 2008 Olympics. Much money also had to be pumped in when algae flood China rivers recently. Governments have to pay an indirect price too. Pollution leading to contamination can cause growth in bacteria (for water and land pollution) affecting health of villagers. Air pollution due to bad regulation toward industries and transport in the country can also lead to sickness such as bronchitis and lung inflammation. Governments then have to pump in more money- that could have been put to other uses- into health care facilities to cater to the rise in sickness caused by pollution. Thus governments for their own benefit should take appropriate action to protect the environment.

                Furthermore, pollution such as water and air is not stationary. They cannot be contained in one country and thus one country’s pollution can affect their neighbouring countries to a large extent too. Singapore’s annual haze problems due to slash-and-burns in our neighbour country Indonesia is an example. To ensure positive relationship between countries, which is especially important today due to our high interdependence, governments should thus take extra care to keep pollution under an appropriate cap.

                In conclusion, governments are the crux since they are the ones who set the direction for the people to follow.

            The most obvious I would think, would be how technology has paradoxically caused a substantial drop in our quality of life. Suicide is currently the third leading cause of death for youth and young adults in the US and the trend seems to be on the rise especially for the more developed countries like South Korea. The creation and implementation of technology was originally to make production  more rapid and in larger quantity but later developed to increase efficiency of our work today. Thus it should have made us happier and given us more free time since work is supposed to be accomplished in a shorter time due to aid of technology. But ironically, people today seem to be spending longer hours in offices and finding it more and more difficult to separate work and personal life. Things like hand phones and emails keep us in constant connection with our employers while global connections sometimes require us to work at irregular timings. Coupled with the culture to always strive even higher, technology enables it but unfortunately, in expense of the quality of our lives.

            Furthermore, the availability of technology and the continuous expansion of it takes away many things, be it explicit or implicit. For example technology allows us to dig deeper and find out more plausible sites for resources and fuels but ultimately we end up having to face the problem of depletion in a much shorter time. In order to make way for hydro dams (i.e. in China), huge areas of villages were demolished to make way for the bigger project. Even in a more microscopic level, technology and mass production can cause us lower quality of food and more harmful chemicals present in almost everything we eat (pesticide in non-organic food and recent melamine issue), etc.

            Lastly, from a wider angle, technology has inevitably caused greater inequality. It has pulled those in the higher bands closer together and on the other hand, forming an invisible barrier barring those from the lower bands who have not the ability or the income to afford the knowledge and equipment (i.e. a computer in order to have access to the Internet). In time I believe, this situation will worsen as the Internet at least becomes our third hand, a necessity, more than an accessory. Thus while we celebrate the advancement of these newer and rapidly changing technology, we are careful not to leave out those who have negligible access to it to that such inequality will not pose a more and more serious problem.

            In conclusion, technology is a double edged sword and we should be careful such that we gain from it and not become a servant to it. People or organizations in power should also keep the possible social implications that may come with it and not let the perception of its benefits overshadow the sharp edges.

I think one of the most frequent warnings or argument is that overpopulation can cause insufficiency of the limited resources on Earth. This is currently affecting the poorer population on Earth. For example statistics have shown that India with 16 percent of the global population uses only 3 percent of its resources. However things may most likely affect those in the richer areas or city areas if overpopulation is not controlled. Insufficiency of shelter and space due to the higher density can also cause much discomfort and social problems. Hong Kong seems to be already feeling this intently with its exorbitant flat prices, tiny offices and constantly congested traffic. Although the developed areas may not be feeling this implication as intently as those in the developing (since after all having to squeeze with more people is much more comfortable then starving) it should be that we are aware of the problem and play our part to not aggravate the situation.

Overpopulation can also cause higher probability of development of a hierarchy system. This seems to be a natural consequence since those closer to where the money lies tend to gain power and status faster, leaving those far away remaining as what they are or developing much slower than those in the ‘central’ area. This may cause segregation and inequality. Once established it becomes difficult for people to cross over from one boundary to the other (especially for the poor to climb up into a higher status).

Of course, overpopulation also causes increased tendency for the spread of diseases. One reason is due to people being in close proximity to agriculture and domestic animals. This increases our contact with rodents like rats and mice and higher probability of viruses being passed on from animals to us. An example will be Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Another reason is the close proximity between human being ourselves. Closer contact allows rapid spread of any disease or virus and makes it difficult too to track down possible sources of the disease.

Lastly, overpopulation reduces ability of people in power to regulate happenings around. Again, this is due to the difficulty of tracking the movement of everyone. Crime rates may rise, corruption being the most widespread and uncontrollable. Especially without the control of wise and strong government, things would get worse. Thus allowing things like child kidnapping and labour to rise steadily in poorer countries like Indonesia.

Overpopulation seems to be a serious problem but leaders of developed countries and countries with low birth rate seem not to be taking it into account such as Singapore and Japan. Thus it seems to be a problem that will be left unresolved for quite a time yet despite of its many implications.

                By norm, urbanisation should be a positive force that can help Africa lift itself up and away from the vicious poverty cycle. Most developed countries originated after all as a third world country, and progressed to what they are today through agriculture, industrial revolution and urbanisation. Urbanisation brings about development, turning an area into a vibrant centre of education, culture and inter-dependence. Average income and thus standard of living rise, revenue earned is then put back for further development. But if this is the case, why are things not going according to plan for Africa and even some other countries that have been going through urbanisation for years but still remain as developing countries?

                A reason for this I feel, is that urbanisation can only portray its maximum benefit only if the state is strong enough to provide the sufficient network and control to support it. This seems to be what is lacking in Africa. With the onslaught of urbanisation but ignorance or corruption of the government, people and investors are left to survive on their own. With urbanisation, much is needed so that the side effects of it can be foreseen and then eliminated, such as the inevitable increase in solid waste, pollution, traffic and the need for amenities to cope with the sudden rise in the number of people in the area. Without which, money earned remains in pockets of the already rich (or more likely in that of the government officials) and not used to further develop the country. Urbanisation in this case can cause more to suffer as the uneducated are often exploited while the rich get richer.

                Furthermore, hyper urbanisation can cause great income disparity. Constant focus on one area and thus the neglect of the other ‘not so important’ areas can lead to major gap between the rich and the poor who are most likely those living in the rural areas. This is a social problem but it seems to be ignored possibly because of the large land space making it difficult for the state to regulate; but I think that it is more because the state chooses to ignore the problem. Condition (lack of food, education and exposure to the outside world) is so bad for those at the lower end that they pose no immediate threat to those at power. No riots no rally to usurp the government and thus no one to regulate the actions of the governing body. Hyper urbanisation is thus harmful to the nation since it only enables one small part to benefit from urbanisation (high standard of living and good living conditions) while the majority are left to fend for themselves as they are deemed to be of no use to the state.

                In conclusion, urbanisation can benefit an area to a very large extent only if sufficient and adequate support is given to it. Moreover, urbanisation will also be more effective if happens at a relatively slow pace, sufficient so that an area has time to adapt properly to it.

               The concept of social identity has been in existence since civilisation. The division of tribes from the earliest of times prove the innate need for human to group together under a common identity for primarily survival. However this instinct seems to have stayed with us even as dependence on this to maintain survival decreases. Existence of social identity becomes an inevitability but to me, it seems to be doing us more harm than good.

              Firstly, social identity promotes discrimination. Once a person identifies himself as a member of the same group, outsiders are automatically seen as outsiders. Though a natural defence mechanism, discrimination be it in terms of gender, racial or even age causes a social problem. For example in a male dominated workplace i.e. in an engineering department, women may be discriminated against as the weaker species with less ability to cope with work in the department although the female may have been employed based on similar or even higher capabilities than the rest of the guys. She may thus have less chance to undertake tasks of higher importance or difficulty because of this stereotype. Pay ceiling and lower percentage of women holding management posts are too examples of disadvantages that the discriminated have to bear. The thing that makes it worse however is the fact that such discrimination- because of the natural instinct to ally with those of common social identity-is a form of perception. It is a belief that is not easily changed especially for the insiders as they are at advantage when having that perception. Thus social identity because it causes stereotyping does more harm than good.

              Secondly, the existence of social identity can be used as a means to violence. This is when the insiders deem their common social identity as important enough to fight for. It is undeniably a very scary tool since people who believe in it can cause much harm to uphold their belief. This is apparent in terrorism today. The Singapore leaders’ first reaction therefore was to reach out to Singaporean Muslims for fear that some may identify with the terrorists (due to same religion) and possibly leading to social tension in the country. Not only religious wise, with respect to a common ethnic group for example the Tamils in Sri Lanka resorting to violence because they want to fight for their own rights, separate from the Sinhalese. Therefore it is apparent that social identity can evolve into a dangerous weapon in some situations.

              On a more minor scale, the path to achieving a certain social identity can do more harm than good too. Because of the want to fit into a certain group or to present a certain identity, people may do things that are insensible and foolish. An example would be when average earner wanting to fit into the upper class status (for whatever reason). Money spent on branded goods and high end lifestyle may be largely inproportionate to what he/she is earning. This may result in debts and unrealistic expectation and actions.

              In reality however I feel that with globalisation, there tend to be an increasing mix of social identity where people have to play multiple roles or have more choice to undertake different social identities. This is especially in women today where they basically play distinct identity at work and at home, unlike in the past where their basic identity was just at home. There is therefore also a need for extra effort when having to switch between multiple identities.

              All in all, social identity does more harm than good although this existence is an inevitable one which is here to stay.             

Some may disagree because of the most obvious reason: since the decisions are dependent on majority voices, where does this leave the minorities? Democracy, these people argue, is often used as an excuse to make decisions since anyone who want to blame would have nobody to blame on except for himself. A loophole of democracy is that it can cause social problems since minorities have no choice but to accept decisions since it is after all a decision made by the majority (majority rules). This is when a good government is crucial in ensuring that democracy agrees with the majority but that the minorities are also pacified. A good or far sighted government would know the importance of listening to the voices of the minorities since unhappy minorities can lead to social problems that may cause negative ripple effect throughout the whole country. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka for example; as their (Tamil minority) voices were constantly ignored, they resorted to violence since they thought that it was the only way left to get their wants effectively across. Therefore with a government that can foresee problems that may incur for minorities due to any decision and acknowledge them before the problem solidifies can actually ensure that everyone (not only the majority) benefits from the democratic structure.

Another argument against democracy being good for everyone is that democracy promotes income inequality in the nation. Although research shows that there is no direct link between democracy and inequality, it is indisputable that democracy has a higher probability of promoting inequality than communism. With democracy, power lies with the people of the nation, thus the control of financial means lies with them to. This leads inevitable to capitalism and thus income inequality. The poor is then the one who suffers because of democracy since there is no equal distribution of income. However, advocates argue that democracy and capitalism can actually lead to economic growth of the country as a whole. Only if the whole country prospers will it be able to redistribute income, for example through charities, subsidies, welfare benefits and money packages. It is after all common sense that only if a person is taken care of will he have the ability to take care of others. Thus with re-distribution on income, everyone including the poor can benefit from democracy and capitalism.

Of course all these are just theoretical and in reality, democracy may not be as democratic as it is supposed to be. A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 19 nations conducted around the world finds that although majority agrees that democracy is the best government structure, there was a low 4.5 (on a scale of 10) on how responsive the people thought the democratic governments were to the people’s will.  Therefore in conclusion, democracy if applied in the way it is supposed to (where power lies in the people), it can be good for everyone when coupled with good and moral government.

After doing some research online, I realized that Islamic terrorism on the United Sates started occurring and exacerbating especially after the Gulf War (war between United States and Iraq) which started in 1990 and ended a year later. Shortly, it was followed by the incident that resonated through the world: 9/11 which occurred in 2001. Thereafter, subsequent bombings were reported not only in the United States but also in other countries like the 2002 Bali bombings and in London in 2005. Terrorism has since then been a crucial issue and also one that has caused much headache to governments worldwide. What then has caused this sudden rise in terrorism and will there be no end to it?

            First and foremost, I think that it is common sense to find the reason and root cause of terrorism. Is it just because of jealousy and anger that caused such extreme actions because of the vast inequality, or have we in a way played a part in pushing them (the terrorists) over the line that divides anger and extremism? US former president George Bush once claimed that the reason the terrorists are attacking is because they are jealous of the developed democracy state in the western countries. However things are quite obviously otherwise because in a taped television broadcast by Osama Bin Laden in 2001, he said: “What America is facing today is something very little of what we have tasted for decades.” So if the reason for the terrorist attacks is because they see it as taking revenge for how the rest of the world have been treating them, wouldn’t the Iraq war in 2003 aggravate the whole situation?

            Furthermore, the way we’ve been waging war on the so called ‘terrorist countries’ just because we want to capture the few key terrorists in the countries; isn’t that a form of terrorism too? Just because of the need to get to a few specific targets and thus allowing the mass killing of thousands of other innocents would most probably be seen as terrorism by the victims of our ‘righteous killings’. Moreover, terrorism has seemed to become a widespread ideology. Killing the few top leaders may be a bit of a setback to the terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah but so deep and widespread is the ideology that they would only take a short time before getting back on track again.

            Besides, the advancement of technology today has provided terrorism with a very strong aid: the Internet. Widespread propaganda and teachings of the extremist ways can be easily spread to anyone anywhere (as long as there is access to the Internet). All countries have also become more vulnerable to terrorism too since anyone can be a supporter of terrorism through unseen ways such as just by providing money and information through virtual means. Information that may be harmful and dangerous are also easily available since there is no restriction as to what can be accessed to through the Internet for example on how to make bombs with the usage of easily available materials, etc. Thus, this shows how the advancement of such powerful media has made terrorism so much harder to track, eliminate and defend against.

            In conclusion, it will take a long time yet before terrorism no longer threatens us. We can only hope that powerful bodies involved are able to resolve this without having to harm too many innocent lives in the process.

Should Organ Trading be legalised

                   The point that bogged me most this time is how do you define crime? Something that causes hurt to others? And if so who does the ‘others’ entail? I decided then to flip the dictionary and it gave me this: Conduct declared unlawful by a legislative body and which there is a punishment of a jail or prison term, a fine, or both. Yes, the lecture covered obvious crimes like street crime, drug trade etc but what about ‘crimes’ that are controversial such as abortion, euthanasia and organ trading? I have thus decided to touch on the issue of whether we should legalise organ trading or should it be a definite no no?

            Many may argue that legalising organ trading would be a step down the ethical slippery slope that would inevitably lead to destruction as it may open doors to many other controversial issues that are banned today such as cloning etc. Some argue against it because they fear for the poor who may be exploited. Without money, power and information, they may be forced to or end up making the wrong choice (which is to sell their organ). After which where they have done their job, they would be thrown to one side without the adequate care that should be given after a surgery. On the other hand, legalising organ trading will indirectly mean goodbye to the poor who need a transplant too since only the rich would be able to afford the high price that would inevitably come with the trading of organs. So where does that leave the poor? This may worsen the already distinct inequality between the rich and the poor. Thus because it leaves the poor too vulnerable to exploitation, most countries are still unwilling to legalise organ trading.

            Regardless of these reasons, I think that organ trading should be legalised at least in the more developed countries where governments are able to have a tighter control on security and laws in the country. With the adoption or adaptation of the ‘Iran model’ regarding organ trading, it would solve many of the problems as stated above. This is where the middleman is abolished and taken over by the government. There is no ‘trading’ involved because the organ is given to the patient ‘without charge’. Either charity or the government pays for the surgery and after-care while it is customary for the donar to accept a minimal thank you gift from the patient. Thus in this way, even the poor can benefit since they do not have to get an organ based on market forces. In a way, everyone who needs an organ has an equal chance and the waiting list would be cleared at a much faster pace (more lives can be saved); however, there may be loopholes either with biasness in the government sector in charge of this matching up or rewards can be raised under the disguise of the thank you gift. But in all, this is an alternative that can be applied by first tweaking it such that it suits the different situations in respective countries.

            Furthermore, I feel that legalising organ trading would be better since it allows better control of the ‘transactions’ that go on in a country. If legalised and strict guidelines are put up that have to be followed, exploitation and black market can be reduced to a minimum. Parallel example can be drawn from the legalising of prostitution in some areas in Singapore such as Geylang. Rules have been put in place to ensure that these prostitutes are disease free. Lastly, I believe that many are able to argue strongly against it because they have not been in the situation or do not have families who face such. Singapore tycoon Mr Tang Wee Sung and his family are a good example. When forced under such dire circumstances it is after all quite normal to use this last resort. Thus, I think the reason why many people are able to give such a definite no is hugely because they do not know the seriousness of such situations.

            All in all, I stand more in favour of legalising the ’crime’ organ trading although much has to be done to ensure that exploitation is cut to a minimum as everyone plays their part to ensure that legalising organ trading has been the right choice.

How big a role can foreign intervention play to alleviate poverty

            The lecturer provided much argument against capitalism and how it has caused social problems such as labour exploitation and poverty especially in Third World Countries. To me, this seems like an inevitable process with globalization and the nature of capitalism but again, we cannot deny that it does present social problems that we cannot ignore. So how then can foreign intervention play a part in alleviating such poverty and how big a role can we play?

            I think that foreign intervention can help these Third World Countries only to a small extent. The setting up of international bodies such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO) at least shows that developed countries does recognize it as a social problem that needs to be looked at. Although till today, not much result can be seen since a recent UN report says that 1 in 3 of Africa’s 900 million people still does not get enough food each day, the constant meetings held (for example the IMF and World Bank meeting held in 2006 in Singapore) show that the whole effort has not been given up yet.

           However, the dismal results do make us wonder what the three large organizations, made up the world’s top powers, have been doing. Or maybe it is because of the fact that the countries in power are also countries with the strongest say in the global economy that makes them less concerned with poverty in TWCs. It is after all normal for countries to protect their own interest (especially when it comes to revenue) even if it means the sacrifice of the other countries. “Structural adjustment” becomes an even better tool to profit the governing bodies in the three organizations when terms and conditions have to/ can be tweaked in favour of them in order for a TWC to get any loan that she may desperately need. Thus all these only leave TWCs at a disadvantage while the powerful countries get more and more powerful.

            More on a more pragmatic side, foreign countries can provide aid in both monetary and non-monetary sense to TWCs. However, this too poses a problem because firstly, a country that receives aid falls in debt to the borrower. This will, in the long term, cause the TWC to be sucked in deeper and deeper in the poverty whirlpool. To me, this is no different from borrowing from a ‘loanshark’ since for both cases, the final consequences frequently put the victim in an even worse situation than before. Secondly, we are after all outsiders who are not exactly aware of the reality in TWCs. The information we get are all second/ third hand and has been filtered or altered many times over through the hands of governing bodies etc. Thus, the aid that we provide may not be what is really needed or even if it is, we have absolutely no control over how the aid is used. We may be able to make sure that useful aid reaches the needy country but whatever happens after that and who has the last touch of the aid is information totally unknown to us. All these situations only go to show how limited our efforts are and that many things are actually way beyond our control.

            Lastly, since the lecturer has more or less put the blame on foreign investment and division of labour for being the cause of cheap labour and child labour, is it then better for TWCs to stop foreign investment altogether in order to protect their own people? I think that most people will admit that this is impossible. This is because foreign investment is one of the first steps in breaking out from the poverty cycle. Singapore proves to be a very good example. The government’s decision to encourage the entrance of foreign investors paved a way for Singapore to become what it is today. Likewise, if governing bodies recognize that allowing foreign investment is but the first step to alleviating poverty and that much more has to be done to make sure that the foreign investors do not proceed to just exploiting cheap labour, we would most probably see more results than just depending purely on foreign intervention.

            In conclusion, governing bodies in TWCs and foreign aid bodies should work together in solving the social problem of poverty and exploited labour since foreign intervention alone is obviously far from enough.