Referring to all the articles, do you think science and technology has done more good than bad? Consider all the aspects, from the impact on daily life, on medical science (our health), on the environment, on ethics, on human nature, on the physical, mental and social and spiritual development of a human being.
I refer to “Better late than never ( ST 23/01/05)”, where Professor Iliescu, at the age of 66, successfully gave birth to an infant daughter, making her the new record holder of the world’s oldest mum. This is most definitely a benefit that science and technological has derived for many singles, regardless of their age. I am puzzled by the fact that this conception has aroused radical criticisms that I see as unfair to Prof Iliescu. Every woman in this world has the right to conceive, as it is a special ability imbued after puberty-reproduction. Although the critics’ concerns about selfishness and irresponsibility are not invalid, however, they tend to think that they can be right to judge whether it is morally abject. I find this repugnant. At least she would have the ability to take care of her right now, given that she is still healthy, and that she is financially capable of doing so. Therefore, I do not see why there should be objections to that, although the child would have lost its parent at a young age. However, all of us would have to lose our parents one day through death, and that no matter when it happens, it would strike us hard all the same, hence responsibility and selfishness cannot be said to be valid issues. After all, with her inheritance, the baby would likely grow up to be independent-of course her mum would have either implicitly or explicitly prepared her for that already.
In “Plan for babies with genetic mums draw fire”, I also similarly agree with my previous point that I do not see why there should be criticism. Although this is a fresh concept, but the child need not know that the mother who has contributed her cells with healthy mitochondria, until he/she is old enough to be able to understand such concepts. Even the age 30 can be said to be a safe age to disclose this fact, as it is not likely to induce radical disapprovals from the child later on. After all, this was made out of good intention, and while being wrong ethically, I feel that it can be validated as it would lessen the chance of a child having to suffer its life being a defect. Hence, on humanitarian grounds, it can be fully justified. Of course, my reasons for agreeing with such newfound breakthroughs are based on a ‘ends justify the means’ belief.
Meanwhile, in “Coming to a stadium near you: Gene Cheats”, I think that gene doping can be ‘legalised’ in the sporting world. However, athletes (or even possibly, superathletes) should be fielded under a new category more akin to novelty- altered athletes in which they would be merely showcases and only used to flaunt our flouting of our human achievements. Why flaunt such a flout? Why be proud? This would serve as a reminder to us that as humans, we will never attain perfection, nor immortality. No matter what we do, we would still have our physical limits. Hence, the idea of gene doping should not be considered as an alternative to boosting athletic performance in the same sense as steroids.
-3:30 PM-
IDIOT.
In his commentary, Ho cited Nakajima’s observation that “…we know how to deal with the living-decently. We also know how to treat someone whose hear has stopped for good-with respect…But this respect seemed sidelined in a brain-dead person for the ‘greater good’ of prolonging the lives of others.” Do you think it is right to sideline the respect for a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others? Write a short response, drawing from the text as well as from your own examples and experiences.
It is definitely not right to sideline respect for a brain-dead person based on moral grounds. In the case of using harmful, true death-accelerating drugs to preserve the integrity of the organs to be transplanted, I view this with utter disgust. Already, the receiver can be seen as needing such organs to be transplanted, but yet, in order for him to live a few more days comfortably/not live a few more uncomfortable days, he must take away the same number of days to his donor-his saviour. Is it right to hurt someone who is helping you? I do not think so.
If the really dead can be respected by members of the living, then why is respect not accorded to the benefactors who are still biologically alive, although mental processes have shut down already? Would this not be a great irony of our millennium? It is an unwritten law in many religious doctrines that as long as a person lives, his right to living must not be taken away. Somehow, this now sounds like an accusation of murder. While I did not intend to do so, however doctors by hastening the patient’s deaths are indeed catalyzing the irreversible final process of death.
When my grandfather was announced to brain-dead, I was too young to understand what it meant technically. All I knew was that he would never be what he used to be. No more games in the playground, no one to call grandfather. Yet even though the whole family was aware, there was always this clinging on to hope, that he would smile and call us by our names again-one day. This was not denial, but a great emotional need to comfort ourselves. Having experienced this agony, I can imagine what worse the brain-dead patients’ families are feeling having to see their family member being ‘killed’ and that drugs are administered to speed up their death-an additional charge! It is emotions that make us different from animals. If we were to be selfish and engage in such acts, it would make us no more than barbarians-or even animals.
-10:29 AM-
IDIOT.
i refer to the post of the said title on newscientist.com, 27/03/06, in which it is mentioned that many alcohol-consuming youths in other parts of the world are adding energy drinks to their alcohol to have a mix that is thought to be not as harmful to their sobriety, and other detrimental effects of alcohol too. This has been recently founded to be untrue, after an experiment. While between the two groups of youths who drank alcoholic drinks and those youths who drank alcoholic drinks mixed with energy drinks such as red bull, the latter thought their coordination and visual skills were unimpaired. Even some researchers have lent credibility to this belief, due to taurine being present in red bull, which they think is able to modulate the effects of alcohol, so that you would have the effect of a 'balanced' drink.
Instead of being disillusioned that one would not suffer as much unbalance after drinking the mix, such drinkers should instead be more wary of themselves. they should understand that drinking energy drinks mixed with alcohol would still impair judgment, resulting in a false sense of being affected by alcohol. obviously, this would also mean drink-driving, even if the drink were mixed with part energy drink, is not safer than unmixed alcoholic based drink driving. Especially where many of us are reaching this stage, we should start to be aware of all these.
-5:45 AM-
IDIOT.
i refer to said subject in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12135630/from/RS.1/, in which Iran's torpedo test created stress in the international oil market, pushing oil prices US $2 higher, to reach $67.93 a barrel. what i am concerned with is not all the issues about oil, but rather the urgency to derive better energy alternatives-better in all aspects, be it environmental, renewability, efficiency, reliability. Oil has been the focal point of many modern conflicts, military or diplomatic regardless. From the Arab oil crisis of the 1970s' to actions detrimental to international concepts of peace, oil has been used, way too many times as a weapon. somehow, the image of michael jackson waving and dangling his infant over the balcony strikes my mind.
Renewable, alternative energy forms have already been found, but unfortunately, many governments of the world do not preach of its goodness, believing that current usage costs would be ridiculously high in comparison to oil usage. this is a result of short-sightedness and being blinded by current advantages of keeping to oil usage. surely, everyone using oil would result in a significant cost disadvantage for any country which decides to switch to higher shares of renewable energy. While such energy forms will only cost lesser over time with researches funded by governments, there also seems to be another diversion yet again, that of dark matter. it is an interesting concept, where less than 0.1 g of it yielded can be used to power a lightbulb for a 1000 year period kind of thing. it remains elusive, and would surpass all energy forms-IF we harness it one day. Meanwhile, we can only hope oil blockades and threats aren't used that much.
-5:26 AM-
IDIOT.
I refer to Green explosive is a friend of the Earth, 27/03/06 as reported on the newscientist website. A group of US researchers have solved the limitations in producing relatively environmentally friendlier primary explosives which serve their functions from blasting caps all the way up to ballistic missiles. Toxic plumes are released whenever an explosion using lead-based compounds as primary explosives, and will lead to a marked increase in lead levels in the bloodstream. As a result, many researchers have tried to find a breakthrough that will help workers heavily involved in scientific and extraction based work. One of the most prominent weaknesses which the successful group led by My Hang Huynh, explosives expert of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, not only hurdled through, but also exploited to their advantage, is that the green explosive when wet, will be rendered ineffective as an explosive. Hence, their product has to be dried out before it can be used for its purpose. Therefore, it can be kept incombustible in the meanwhile, and this means an indefinite period of time, since they do not degrade in solution too. At last, this is a great step towards respecting our lives as human beings and towards care of the environment.
-5:06 AM-
IDIOT.
The death of the internet may be not long from here. Initially a project by the US Army in communications, the internet has grown extensively and evolved and changed facets over the years to what it is now. All the while its key principle remained the same- a location where anyone in any place has the rights to free access to information provided by others in the form of websites and portals.
This is changing, however. With exponential advancements in internet speed technology from cables to fibre-optics to satellite transmissions, it is no wonder that many leading broadband companies are taking the chance to boost internet speeds for consumers who would be paying much more for the use of a 'privileged' facility. This, in the name of profit, makes perfect economic sense, but personally, it removes the bit that makes humanity in us complete. If, ten years down the road, others can only get access to the internet which is provided at the same speed as now, then does not that nullify the sincere wants of humanity as a whole to progress through the availability of information and processing of transactions being provided at the same high speeds as another consumer who, supposedly will pay more just to play a game of Go without the lag that others may experience? Thus, economic sense sometimes will just numb the human sense. How unfortunate.
Fortunately, this potential problem will not be allowed to manifest in its full horrors. Several legislators in the United States have been exploring ways to prevent the segregation of the Internet by the gang of big players. A Democrat senator of Oregon, Sen. Ron Wyden has promised to 'make sure that equal content gets equal treatment'. He is even preparing a bill to lock in that principle even before the problems are born. It is likely that other government officials concerned with this new media of the century will support such similar moves. It will definitely not be an easy process given the tremendous combined power of the telecommunications and cable industries, which would be able to provide its share of lobbyists when the time comes. However, the fight against the corporate giants is one of utmost imperative, perhaps the first of its many other kinds that will come later in the century over not just the internet, but other vital resources. Hence, this battle must be won.
-9:21 AM-
IDIOT.
Singapore's jobless rate went down to 2.5% in last December, the lowest in four consecutive years. This, combined with the unemployment rate of the three earlier quarters of the year, brought the average unemployment rate to 3.2% for 2005. In economics term, a full employment situation will be expected if the current fall in unemployment is continued, and which is very likely, as analysts speculate.
Full employment situation does not refer to a phenomenon with no jobless people in the economy, but rather it means a state where unemployment is 3 percent or lower. However, it does not mean that there will be a job for everyone though it will be not as difficult to find a job. In times of full employment, more consumption is to be expected with higher incomes, and this consumption has to be met by equal amount of production from the unemployed to be employed to produce them, and furthermore they may either be reluctant to be employed to meet this surge in demand for goods and services, or if not, are not skilled sufficiently to meet the demands of the job.
Secondly, as Singapore gradually upgrades its economy by modifying the proportions of its industries, the low-skilled will find it still as hard to find work as the availability of their jobs are reduced in supply. Ever since its independence, Singapore has been quick to recognize the current urgent needs to adapt with the rest of the world. Thus, it has moved from a primary-based and to a secondary-based and now to a tertiary and quaternary-based economy, with some elements of secondary industry infused to aid in hard physical infrastructural and manufacturing production. Thus, this structural unemployment will not affect those with skills pertinent to the needs of our current economic situation, but even then, such people should be wary, and are encouraged to be flexible and adapt to new tasks and duration of work should they still want to keep their job. The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) has rejoiced in the good news, but affirms that structural unemployment will continue to be a problem for some, especially as their jobs have shifted overseas, where wages are lower and the workers are willing to work longer hours with less favourable conditions.
The increase in employment rates could be due to the economy's fine performance for the last year and thus more companies and workers have reserved more hotel rooms and restaurants for the annual celebrations for a good harvest. Even in the usually dull construction industry, economic growth also was able to generate 8500 jobs last year. This is merely overshadowed by the gains in the services industry-the most prosperous part and the focus of our economy. Three out of every four jobs created in the last quarter was in the services sector, which includes financial services, tourism and the like. Even manufacturing also benefited, with 6500 jobs created over the same period.
As a result, workers have started on a trend of job-hopping, albeit a diminished version in contrast to the rates of job-hopping in the mid-1990s. nevertheless, it is a sign that more jobs are at last available and that people are more confident about getting another job.
-9:19 AM-
IDIOT.
“How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”
In our modern state of Singapore, democracy is claimed to be the style of government. However, not all tenets of democracy have been fulfilled. Freedom of speech for example remains a technically impossible thing. In spite of this, an individual should continue to have such a freedom restrained. He would still have other freedoms, such as the liberty to choose soul mates et cetera. As seen in Singapore and worldwide, freedom of speech, when easily abused, is damaging.
And it is very often abused. The recent ugly news of two Chinese Singaporean bloggers hurling racist remarks online is such an example of what happens when such a freedom is compromised. The gains that freedom grants are far overshadowed by those detriments that result from taking it too far. In a country where racial harmony has been the gospel ever since it was established, freedom of speech is especially to be restrained. It is just that easy to influence groups of people into certain negative beliefs, for the pen is mightier than the sword indeed. The government has done a great deal to ensure that freedom of speech is curtailed much of the time. Even the online community is not spared. Just when one thought he was hiding behind a monitor, he would be damned wrong to realise that no one is anonymous online. The government is watching him.
However, too much of limiting, and the individual becomes lifeless. He is no longer a citizen of the country he was born and belongs to, but a factor of economic production in the economy. He would have no social life, and a wife would mean someone to take care of him. Such a bleak world could result from an absolute removal of freedom of speech. It sounds definitely like a communist society. Freedom of speech would be the last right granted to its citizens, even if they are genuinely thought out for the betterment of the nation. Without criticism and a form of self-reflection, the government is likely to remain as it is just because it assumes that it is functioning at its best when there is nothing to tell them that it is just not true. At other times, freedom of speech and press freedom that are closely linked and inseparable may result in not issues of racial harmony but rather severe economic and political repercussions. Take the case of the recent offensive comics that were insensitive to the Muslim community worldwide. Diplomatic relations have been strained and hurt, with Saudi Arabia recalling its ambassador from Denmark, and Libya closing its embassy in Copenhagen. Other countries’ ministers have coined various phrases to emphasize the effects of the comics. Even though comics are to be taken for comic relief and light-hearted entertainment, yet they still caused such an uproar. Indeed, the freedom of speech must thus never be granted to an individual fully. He must, in order to be worthy of it, be conscious that limits may be crossed, but it should never occur. If it does, then his right has the right to be forfeited.
-10:35 PM-
IDIOT.
Seto and Ser oppose the views that Teo has regarding the abortion of babies with disabilities. What are your views regarding this issue?
I am with Teo, with regard to his view that the authorities should review the abortion policy. As he had explained, there were three possible ways to account for why there was this fact that two babies are born with a major handicap daily. The first was that the defect had slipped past screenings, but this is virtually impossible, as it is a very rare thing for any defects to be missed out. The second explanation is due to the parents, even after bring informed of a potential birth defect continuing the pregnancy. This may be on moral or religious grounds, or if not, the pure love that parents give, that is no matter what they become, as long as it is their flesh and blood, they would fight for their survival the same way most parents do after their normal children are born. However, I feel that this would not boost our national birth rate in the future, as many of them would be unable to procreate. This would be from a very public societal point of view.
However, such parents should still be allowed to proceed with their pregnancy even after the defect is detected. All this, in spite of the potential 'burden' to society which Teo implies. This 'burden' must be defined carefully, and the use of this term is controversial too. As Ser points out, such groups of people may not be dependents of society after all. For example, people with severe physical disabilities may be of good intellect and because of this will excel in the knowledge-based economies of today. A child with Down's syndrome may still be able to contribute in terms of physical labour. Hence, though 'they' can never be as all-rounded as 'the others', there is no reason why they should be frowned upon as abnormalities in our society.
The third reason offered by Teo is that parents would only continue with the pregnancy just because they are under the pressure from the law which no one can escape from. By law, any foetus above the age of 24 months can not be aborted. However, has anyone ever known why this time of 24 months? This value seems too absolute. Would not this mean that 1 day after reaching 24 weeks, the foetus can no longer be aborted? If it is indeed true that parents continue with the pregnancy only because they are bound by law to do so, then it is a sad fact. Either that they did not take enough time to think about the issue or that they could not make a decision at all, just because it was too tough a decision. Hence my view is that this period of 24 weeks should be extended, which is in opposition to Seto's view that it should be contracted instead. It is my view that any foetus, as long as it is aborted, would feel the pain one goes through in death. Therefore his view is irrelevant and he is just speaking from a weak moral base.
-9:21 AM-
IDIOT.
recently, the Family Life society of Singapore has been going to schools around giving sexuality talks to schools. of course, anderson junior college was not missed out on. However, there has been a number of factual errors that have generated quite a controversy in the local youth population, as can be seen in several blogs that have debunked the workshop and exposed their underlying motives for such a 'sex talk'.
In the forthcoming text, i shall attempt to explain for my disagreement with the whole workshop. however, it is not an exhaustive list; it only evaluates the points i felt more strongly against.
The underlying rationale for my absence was the clashing of values between what was strongly being advocated and what belonged solely to me, and which had been laid down as the only moral value I would adhere to since some time ago. The speaker spoke in such a way that, his values that were imparted were the only way to go about in life. His presentation style clearly showed a lack of openness and scope in life and the impression I got was quite a negative one, as if his values were forced down my throat.
Though there was no explicit mention of a God, I believe that his views were formulated in accordance with a religious dogma. Being a firm believer in atheism, it is only to be expected that I took his views with offence. Even without the tainting of religious elements, still I did not agree with much of the content of the booklet that was issued. Hence, subsequent text shall examine the flaws in the booklet and programme that need a serious rethinking.
Firstly, the introduction of the programme is that it will help participants achieve their ‘destiny to be fully alive and truly human’. Does this indicate that before this workshop, all participants were alive only in part and parts of us were ‘fake’, if it claims to help us be ‘true’? I can only frown upon such an expression, as I feel that I already have been as alive as I possibly could have been up to this point in my human life and apart from my antisocial tendencies, I am truly and fully human. Even if I were not, I did not appreciate the idea of someone intruding into my life and trying to infuse foreign sentiments without prior notice. All I was told was that we were to be present at a sexuality workshop. The school should have informed us more thoroughly what was to be expected there, and whether we would be allowed to leave should we find ourselves uncomfortable with the content being delivered. The major part of the ‘sexuality workshop’ dealt with our human experience. Perhaps I am speaking with too much arrogance for a young adolescent, but I feel that it is useless to go through the human experience without having been through it at all, especially since this ‘experience’ would almost definitely differ from individual to individual. That was why I felt that parts of the presentation were irrelevant to me.
Secondly, the goal-setting page conflicted with my personal beliefs yet again. To illustrate the effectiveness and necessity of goal-setting, the presenter quoted statistics from the UK, that people who set goals in terms of occupation earned up to seven times on average then those who did not. The hapless student can only be intimidated by it, and be shaken into filling up the page. However, I resisted that, as I do not believe in goal setting for my life. If I were to set goals for my life, I would have to ensure that all my actions will lead to those goals being closer to attainment. Would I be happy then? To work only because I want to achieve my goal and not because I sincerely want to work for other reasons? Clearly, I do not enjoy being dictated by even my own objectives; my character is that of a volatile one in which my aims of today will differ from those of tomorrow. Hence the futility in setting goals. Also, the next page is on the expectations from my future marriage. Somewhat I shall not attempt to evaluate the completely flawed logic in that, for the word to summarise it all would be ‘delusional’, and somewhat far-fetched.
Thirdly, I disagree with the three fundamental experiences of every human being. The way in which they teach us about the three topics is in a way where we are to read what is imposed there and hence in some way we are to agree with it even if we do not due to the structural form of the sentences there. The theme of personhood affects me the most. My personal opinion of how life should be is that of non mihi solum. Perhaps these three words do not convey my beliefs in great-enough depth, but I certainly believe that I live my life for others around me. Hence, I feel that I should tear apart that page from the booklet, as it emphasises the value of the self. The last line of that page relates to feeling lonely. Alternatively, it seems to be pushing us for getting into a relationship at this point in our lives. When I read that, I would feel that I am a ‘despo’, a person desperate for companionship, a girlfriend. I currently offer no comments for such an encouragement. These three main reasons are sufficient to persuade you that this workshop should never be recommended for any other future generations of our school students. It does not take into consideration the privacy of one’s beliefs and is an infestation upon our current accepted beliefs. The hijacking of one’s values, though unintended would only breed animosity in those who are aware of the true value of the self. For those who are unaware, they may end up as a uniform species when it comes to relating about the meaning of life. This homogenous composition in the student population would then lead to widespread intolerable and insufferable ramifications.
-12:11 PM-
IDIOT.