19th Commentary - Poverty and Economics

This commentary is on the question, "Give reasons why the poor remain poor. Can you suggest solutions to this?"

Poverty has always been a problem in many parts of the world, especially in many of the African nations. These poor are trapped in a cycle of poverty, often with little or no chance to lead better lives. Reasons for such situations include civil war, corrupt governments, natural disasters, or poor infrastructure. All theses problems would deter investors from investing in these countries, and without foreign investment, it would be hard to improve a country's economy.

The richer countries and international organizations like the IMF or World Bank have given aid of different sorts, but usually, it consists of monetary aid. These goodwill gestures may have been targeted at reducing poverty, but they fail to work. Some of the reasons are the same ones that caused poverty in the first place. With a corrupt government, any monetary aid given would be wasted, as it would just go into the pockets of the high-ranking officials, funding their opulent lifestyles while the majority of the population suffer. Similarly, monetary aid has little effective use in a country torn by civil war. Money would either go to military spending, or not be distributed effectively due to the lack of proper governance. The poor people in these senarios have no chance to break out of the cycle of poverty.

Furthermore, other problems also cause the poverty-stricken nations to remain just that, and they come from the richer nations. When firms from the richer nations go to some of the poorer countries to make use of cheap labour, they do a good thing by providing jobs for the people, and giving them wages. However, some of these firms take advantage of the situation, and force workers to work extremely long hours for very low pay in terrible working conditions. Such exploitation only brings harm to the poor people.

To truly help these people break free from poverty, the richer nations should send more appropriate aid to the countries. For example, a country could send experts on certain industries into the poor nations to help increase the efficiency of firms there. Exploitation needs to be stopped.

Some of the poor countries in Africa actually have large amounts of natural resources, which could have made them rich. However, most of the natural resources are used up by foreign companies, and little can be done with the remaining. If such exploitation did not occur, then the people could have used the resources to save their own citizens, and aid would then no longer be required.

Thus, poverty can be solved, but owing to the large scale of poverty in the world, any attempt would need to have much international support, and not just be token moves. The main step would be to eliminate the main causes of poverty, and free the people from the cycle of poverty.

18th Commentary - The New Quest for Energy

This commentary is on a combination of various news and magazine articles, centred on the renewed quest for alternative energy sources, especially nuclear energy. The main article the nuclear issue is based on it entitled "Push for N-Power" dated 1st May 2006.

In the recent years, there have been numerous reports in the newspapers and magazines talking about the dangers of pollution and the potentially disastrous impacts of Global Warming. Furthermore oil prices have seen sharp rises in recent months. A few months ago, Russia threatened to cut off oil supplies to Ukraine. The threat of an oil embargo by Middle-Eastern countries has always been present. The nationalization of Bolivian natural resources increased oil prices. All these are problems that arise over the control of oil. With so many issues in the recent months, many countries are looking into other sources of energy that is cleaner and more stable.

This is where nuclear power comes in. As a source of energy, it is much cleaner than coal, oil and natural gas. It is also more efficient than wind and solar energy. Furthermore, nuclear power plants can be built in more places, unlike hydropower and geothermal energy, which are restricted by geographical attributes. More environmentalists are also advocating it, leaving behind their past reservations, as the use of coal – a cheap and efficient, but highly polluting source of energy - continues to increase air pollution at a rapid rate.

However, many people are still afraid of the high risks of using nuclear power, as they remember the disaster at Chernobyl in the USSR in 1986 and the near disaster of the Three Mile Island plant in the USA in 1979. The high costs to build the plants are also another prohibitive factor to the increase in the usage of nuclear power as a replacement for sources like coal or oil. Then there are the dangers of radioactive waste, which needs to be located away from people and stored under high security, due to increasing fears of nuclear terrorism. This make the rate at returning to nuclear power slower than what it could be, especially in the US and Europe. The fastest growing nuclear countries at present are in Asia, including India and China.

Another issue related to nuclear energy is the fear that countries would use the technology and develop nuclear weapons. This is the issue that is currently causing tensions between Iran and the West, where one side claims that civilian use is all it wants; while the other insists that there is a hidden agenda behind the push for nuclear power. Nuclear proliferation is a major issue that cannot be taken lightly, especially in the light that the tensions revolve around the Middle East. This is yet another issue that nuclear power users need to contend with.

Other clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and hydropower are also increasingly popular, as new technology has made these types of energy production more effective than ever, although still nowhere near that of using the fossil fuels. Despite that, more countries are using these sources, as they are clean, renewable, and readily available. Of course, these sources have their problems too. For example, there are people who dislike the use of wind energy, as the windmill fields needed take up a lot of space, and often become an eyesore in the landscape, spoiling the scenery. For hydropower, the unhappiness is with the drowning of habitats, both of animals and humans, and in the case of the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, the drowning of beautiful scenery and a waste of water due to excessive evaporation (Lake Powell is located in a semi-arid area). There are many other issues too.

Overall, the quest for energy has reached a new stage, moving from just looking for the cheapest and most effective forms to include environmentally-friendly ones. What a country chooses would depend on which type of problems they would want to face – air pollution, nuclear problems, or lower efficiency and eyesores.

17th Commentary - Population Issues

This commentary is on the question:"It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population, usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. What are your views?"

It is true that unequal distribution has led to problems amongst the people in many places; Some people are extremely rich, while others are terribly impoverished. To solve such a problem is definitely not simple, as the issue is closely linked with many other problems, including rapid population growth. It is not the most important of the issues affecting the problems of world population either. Poverty in some of the poorer African or Asian nations are usually due to the combination of these factors. In these poor countries, standards of living are very low, and basic facilities and necessities are often scarce. In addition to this, the rate of population increase is also usually very high. With these two conditions, the people would surely face a shortage of resources. If the wealthier people used the resources they had to help these poor people, the situation may be improved. However, it would be very difficult, as a huge sum of money would be required. Furthermore, if the poor do not take such an opportunity given to them, the provided resources would only be a short term solution - the problem of poverty itself would still remain unsolved in the long run.

As we know, countries like the US, Australia, and some members of the European Union are wealthy because they are developed countries, with relatively more stable governments and economies. Due to such stability, resources are used better, with most of the people being at least marginally wealthy. In some of the developing countries, the situation could be much more chaotic, as people fight for what little things they have.

In a way, equality in resource distribution is something that the communist ideology strives to achieve. However, such an aim is extremely difficult to reach, due to the many obstacles present. Human greed is an inbuilt trait, and that would be the greatest obstacle to achieving greater equality in resource distribution. Anyone who does any work would want to receive benefits from it. Business would want to make profits and keep it for themselves. Because of such issues, we can see that no communist country has truly succeeded in achieving their goals as yet. Thus if communism is so difficult to achieve, it is thus as difficult to achieve greater equality in resource distribution and resolving the worlds population problem.

There are, of course other problems in the world population as well. In recent years the issue of an aging population has been cropping up frequently, in many areas of the Earth. This is just one of many other problems that countries face, other that the issue of uneven distribution of resources.

16th Commentary - The Problem of Swearing

For this week's commentary, we are required to comment on the posting of another student's blog. I have chosen to comment on Adeline Tan's (3305) commentary on the article, "More Americans swearing, poll shows", dated 30th March 2006.

I do agree that Americans swear a lot, and that this fact is clear when one watches American TV programs. The fact that even the American vice-president swears is actually quite shocking, as politicians are supposed to be more or less civilized. Of course, it is quite probable that other members of the government swear too.

But as we all know the problem of increased swearing is not restricted to the US alone. Even in Singapore, one can often hear various swear words being utilized for a multitude of purposes. Swearing has become so commonplace that some people inject them into almost every sentence they utter.

One source of this problem is of course, television programs, especially American ones. With American culture being widespread around the world, is therefore quite unsurprising that even their habit of swearing so often spreads to many other countries. No one really likes to be sweared at, and some actually get very offended at the language used.

I agree with Adeline that reducing the amount of profanity spoken in television programs would help reduce the spread of the use of swear words, and that education plays a vital role. However, one must note that any attempt to eradicate or reduce the problem would still be very tedious and difficult, as the problem is already widespread.

Adeline's URL is : http://generalpaperblog.blogspot.com/

15th commentary - Global Warming

This commentary is for Week 5, and is on the question: Reflect on the causes of global warming, its consequences, the solutions and the problems that hinder the solutions attempted. The commentary will be based on the given articles in the GP Times, as well as my own background information.

As countless reports over the years have stated, the world is facing the worsening problem of global warming, and that if nothing is done to improve the situation, life on Earth could run into major problems. Some of the possible problems that scientists have predicted include a rise in sea levels that could be between half a meter to seven meters, more powerful and destructive hurricanes, greater droughts, and even a new ice age. Some of these problems may seem far fetched now, but research models have shown that many of these scenarios are actually possible, depending on the extent of global warming.

In fact there have already been some evidence that these scenarios could be starting to occur. A recent news article claimed that 2005 was the hottest, driest and stormiest year on record. Other articles have highlighted the melting of the polar ice, both in the north and the south poles. Chunks of ice, larger than ever before have been breaking off the ice shelves of Antarctic; the sea ice of the Arctic has become much thinner than ever before. The hurricane season of 2005 produced more Category 5 hurricanes than all other hurricane seasons, and it also produced the most number of hurricanes within a single season, and the duration of the season was actually longer than many of the recent years. The Amazon has been stated to be much drier than usual as well.

Where would all these problems be coming from? Well, scientists have also found that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is much higher than ever before. Levels of carbon dioxide had already been increasing since the industrial revolution in the 19th century. However, with more of the countries in the world becoming industrialized, and with larger quantities of energy needed, the levels of greenhouse gases have been increasing very rapidly. The industries of many developing countries produce great amounts of pollution that add to the already serious problem. The use of non-renewable resources like coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity also contributes to air pollution. Amongst the three, coal is by far the most polluting. With many countries using coal due to its cheap monetary cost, the amount of air pollution contributed from this source alone is very great.

The consequences of global warming are actually very varied. The immediate problems that result would be the climatic changes that were mentioned in a earlier paragraph. But from those problems, more would result. Melting ice and rising sea levels would cause widespread flooding across many low-lying areas around the world, especially if the rise is of several meters. Countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives could see large amounts of land becoming submerged by the sea. If this occurred, many people could become displaced, losing both their homes and their livelihood. Droughts could kill thousands of people, due to starvation when crops failed. Hurricanes and storms could cause greater damage to the land than before, wrecking havoc around the world. Animals could lose their habitats; flora and fauna that failed to adapt to changes in the climate could become extinct. One example of this could be the polar bears of Canada, who face diminishing hunting grounds due to the earlier melting of sea ice in Hudson Bay. Coral, which are extremely sensitive to temperature changes, would become bleached due to rising sea temperatures.

The worst case scenario that may occur would probably be the onset of a new ice age. This scenario is explored in the movie "The day after tomorrow", where global warming caused too much polar ice to melt, halting the Gulf Stream and causing a massive temperature drop across much of the northern hemisphere, leading to superstorms that heralded the ice age. Obviously, climate shifts of such a sudden occurrence would not occur. However, the change could be much faster than ever before, due to global warming. Thus, I would not dismiss the scenario shown in the movie as pure fiction. If a climate shift does occur, humans would be in a great deal of trouble. Millions would die, and people would need to learn to adapt to a whole new environment.

How can we prevent the problems from occurring? Is anything being done to resolve the issue of global warming? This are questions one would ask after seeing the possible consequences of uncontrolled global warming. Well, the good thing is that many countries and organizations have started taking steps in attempts to slow down global warming. Some companies are switching to the use of environmentally friendly products, while others use recycled materials; Governments are taking steps to make their countries "greener"; International treaties have been drawn up to curb pollution... But how successful are these steps?

Well, there have been both positive effects from the attempts, but also negative ones. One such example would be the Kyoto Protocol, which is an international treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Many countries have signed and rectified it and have taken steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. However, many are finding the targets hard to meet. Furthermore, the fact that developing countries like China and India are exempt from the curbs makes the Protocol quite ineffective. This is due to the fact that both China and India are major contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Another problem of the Protocol is that the US, which is the world's largest contributor of greenhouse gases, refused to rectify it. Without the participation of the US, the Protocol does seem very unlike to achieve great successes. The US also seems unlikely to sign any other treaty that could hurt its economy.

Another problem with the attempt to reduce emissions would be the fact that many developing countries are not able to afford the more expensive cleaner technology. For example, countries would not want to rely on Solar power for electricity generation when there is coal, which is far cheaper, to use. Some companies do not want to spend the extra costs as they want to maximize their profits. Some people do not conserve because they find it too troublesome to do so.

With such hindrances among many more, it is therefore unsurprising that the global effort to slow global warming has not gone far. However, all is not lost, as some governments have finally started to see the dangers global warming could bring. Furthermore, some people have taken their own initiatives to be more environmentally friendly, providing a small but important boost to the effort of slowing global warming. In this battle for the environment, every step, no matter how small, counts.

14th Commentary - Islam and Religious Conversion

This commentary is on the article entitled "Clearing the air over apostasy in Islam", dated April 14th, and other articles relating to the case of the Mr. Abdul Rahman, who was almost faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity from Islam.

It is worrying to see that one could face the death penalty for converting out of Islam, as this type of punishment is not seen in other religions; not within my knowledge anyway. Why does Islam have such a serious punishment for people who decide to convert out of it? Is there not supposed to be religious freedom in the world? A person should be allowed to choose what religion he or she wishes to believe in, no compelled to remain in one because their parents chose it for them when they were born, or because they had chosen to believe in it earlier. If one no longer sees the values of being in the religion, is there any use in forcing him or her to remain in it? I do not see the point of doing so.

The article does mention that the death ruling for apostasy in Islam is not concrete. This at least is a good point. But why the death penalty in the first place? Is Islam not a fair and tolerant religion? We all know that the image of Islam has already suffered from the terrorists who claim to be following the teachings of Islam in committing their horrendous deeds upon innocent people. By calling for the death of the convert, the conservatives have shown to the world how intolerant some followers of Islam can be. Furthermore, the article also stated that other Islamic countries did not even say a single thing about the issue, while other countries around the world raised concerns over religious freedom and human rights against the possible sentence. Such silence does not help improve the image of Islam. It is fortunate that Mr. Rahman had been spared the possibility of death for his conversion, but the fact that the reason that they gave – about him not being in the right mind when he converted – shows that Muslims still refuse the fact that any sane person would want to convert out of Islam. Yet they allow – even encourage – people to convert into Islam. Such actions only helps to show others that Islam is a monolithic religion, where its followers refuse to admit that their religion is something that no one would want to give up. No other religion has gone to show the world such problems. How would the conservative followers of Islam accept religious harmony then, if they see that all other religions are below theirs?

Thus it is vital that that there is a change in their ways, in order to promote religious harmony in the face of increasing terrorism. They have to stop creating the bad image of Islam being too structured and unfair. Show the world that Islam can be a fair and tolerant religion that protects human rights. I am sure Muslims will be able to do it.

13th Commentary - Scientific and Technological advancements and what they mean

The commentary is on this question: “Do you think science and technology has done more good than bad? Consider all the aspect, 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.” The examples used are largely from the articles inside the GP Times.

We do know that scientific and technological advances in many areas have brought great changes and even greater possibilities to society, and the areas where such advances have occurred are practically countless. There are, of course, still many debates in the scientific community about possible problems and issues, especially ethical ones, of these advances. But overall, it is my opinion that the improvements in science and technology have brought greater good to the world, rather than bad.

New technology has made it possible for robots to replace humans in doing household chores, doing mundane jobs in factories, carrying out dangerous military missions, and many other things. Scientific advancement makes having babies after 60 possible and living to 120 look increasingly likely. These are just a few examples of the good things that the advances in technology and science have brought us. Our lives would become safer and less stressful, and we may one day be immune to the multitude of diseases that plague us now. Some mental problems could be gotten rid of through new medication. Such great possibilities are definitely good – not only for the people, but for the whole world.

The downside to all these possibilities would be the continued issue of ethics. Some of the research needed to speed up progress or to test the feasibility of certain products would cause certain groups to bring up the problem of ethics in research. Would the outcome be morally right? Is the research done harmful to others? Or is the objective in accordance to universal law? These are some issues that would often crop up in the process of scientific and technological advancement. One especially touchy area would be stem cell research. Many in the scientific community feel that stem cell research is likely to bring in much progress in the areas of medical science and the search for cures to diseases like cancer and AIDS. However, the research that is required would sometimes cause uproars over ethical problems, like the use of human eggs or embryo, or the methods used to obtain some of such materials. An example of such a case would be that of the disgraced South Korean scientist, Professor Hwang Woo Suk – The human eggs he used in his research were obtained from his junior staff, not through proper channels. Other ethical problems in scientific research included the carrying out of tests on patients without their consent, and the fabrication of test results. Such problems could actually harm the credibility of the scientific community, and may even lead to a setback, which would be bad.

Although the above examples of problems in scientific and technological research would seem to make any improvements bad or unethical, it is not the case. Majority of the scientists and researchers do not commit such offenses, and all of them would be aiming to create something that would improve human life, not make it worse. Thus, I would conclude that scientific and technological advances are good of people.