On the face of it, the statement “Science is a menace to civilisation” seems to be utter nonsense. Today, if we have a toothache, we can visit a dentist who can perform a painless extraction or make a permanent filling. A hundred years ago, dentistry was carried out by a barber with a pair of pliers, imagine that. Medicine, through science, has certainly made astonishing strides in improving the lot of mankind. Besides, it also promoted health and longevity, improving man’s whole way of life by allowing him or her to use the world’s natural resources to the full, etc. So what then?
However, yet today, something has to be said on the other side and I agree with this other end of view. The old proverb ‘knowledge is power’ has more truth than it will ever before, and in many advanced countries, we are reaching the position where the real power has fallen into the hands of nuclear scientists who possess the means of whole-sale destruction. Such brain-power often goes together with psychological immaturity and childish dreams of an “international society” in which all knowledge should be pooled. Such idealism, noble in the abstract, is dangerous in an imperfect world, particularly, when scientists reveal potentially dangerous secrets or defect from one political block to another. Today, science is indeed the enemy of civilisation in this sense.
Further considerations are the fact that science has made warfare easy for the unscrupulous. Any small or vindictive nation can purchase jet aircraft, poison gas or the high velocity rifle. Some of the more general results of science are also somewhat disquieting. Crop fertilizers taint the crops. Tampering with nature can produce imbalance or drought. Besides, animal experimenting, chemical research and farming techniques also rose in number. Only the uncivilised would allow such cruelty. But perhaps, the most important danger is that science seems to be gaining control over man himself, as it has produced what we call “modern life”, with all it nervous tension, ceaseless activity, worry and unbalanced living. City-dwellers tend to curse the machine like the computer which has forced them into a rigid pattern of restricted, high-pressure and yet monotonous living. Highly developed electrical entertainment and communication devices such as handphones, emails, etc, have posed a threat to numb our brains as it kills our life social skills and the art of conversation. So has science improved our lives? I doubt exactly so.
Charlie Chaplin’s old film “Modern Times” effectively satirized this tendency some forty years ago and, for most of us, life has developed along the lines he predicted. Science undermines the environment slowly, but still as ruthlessly in times of peace - through the technological developments of the industrial revolution (c.1750-1850) such as the coal-fired steam engine, and more recently through fossil- and nuclear-fuelled power stations. Even more recently, developments in genetic science have brought is to the brink of realising the nightmare scenarios of novels such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984.
All in all, I am more inclined to agreeing that science can be a menace to civilisation. However, it is actually neither man’s enemy nor his friend. Like the jungle, it is neutral. Everything depends on man’s use or misuse of it. Today’s signs are that its worst dangers are at least being recognized. To end off, there is hope for the future, provided science is made man’s servant and not his master.
“Our way of life has been influenced by the way technology has developed. In future, it seems to me, we ought to try to reverse this and so develop our technology that it meets the needs of the sort of life we wish to lead.”
PRINCE PHILIP
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Pornography
Pornography is a billion dollar industry; it is defined as any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings.
Many talk about the destructive nature of pornography, even in terms of morality. A stereotype way of looking at pornography is that it is a harmful tool which affects one negatively and is strongly advised not to participate in any forms. If you are using pornography, you are not morally clean, even if you haven't done anything else immoral. Objectification of women is prevalent in pornography where they are treated as sex objects instead of a sexual partner and people often look at it as a form of degradation of women. These media erotic fantasies become deeply embedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed. The addiction is comparable to those of drugs like heroin. Pornography triggers myriad of endogenous, internal, natural drugs that mimic the 'high' from a street drug. As pornography became mainstreamed and pushed the envelope of moral sexual conduct, law enforcement reported that sex crimes mimicking comparable acts were being inflicted on women and children.
Pornography serves as a method to release sexual urges by giving the sexually frustrated a harmless outlet to relieve sexual tension. It could be said by some that pornography might serve to only worsen perversions and pollute people’s minds.
Looking at pornography in another way, it may not be totally harmful but in fact, rather healthy and worthy of appreciation. Pornography may be a beautiful art form. It is very human and portrays one of man's greatest strengths and driving force for live. Pornography also has a role as a form of expression. Pornography expresses human sexuality and represents a side of the human mind that that society otherwise ignores and declares obscene in normal settings. That, of course, is sexual desire. But its expression via pornography, some argue, is undesirable due to its absence of portraying healthy sexual relationships. This is because it displays sex for the sole purpose of pleasure rather than sex for emotional connection with another being. Societal norms and morals also serve as obstacles to the expression of pornography. Anti-pornography proponents have been calling for censorship for decades, which has brought forth the question: to what extent is pornography protected by the freedom of expression? Besides, because of unequal distribution of sexual experiences among different people, it could also be used as a substitute for those who could not experience sex for some reason. Furthermore, through reflecting and encouraging sexual fantasies, it exposes human to the most intimate form of expression and asserts the pleasure of human sexuality which makes human more humane, and enjoy to the fullest.
Considering that it is treated and recognised as an entertainment industry, pornography has no doubt groomed many notable porn stars, serving as an opportunistic and rewarding career for mainly women. On the issue of exploitation of women, pornography instead could arguably help some women to their road for success in life.
Regarding censorship, on the thought of the various crimes rose from pornography like rape or abuse cases, negative impacts that it could cause, it is radical. Anyway, censorship would be difficult given pornography's wide range of mediums such as magazines, movies, art, and internet. Some might argue that pornography may indeed have positive benefits as an instrument of crime control. Studies have shown that cases of voyeurism and rape, molest cases have dropped after pornography became readily available. However, we cannot risk the fact that some react negatively after interacting with pornography and even mimic actions from them on innocent women or children. Hence, instead of censoring pornography totally, we could mainly censor those hardcore ones and set age limits like the current systems in the world. Historically, it has evolved from softcore to hardcore, and it will evolve further. We should stop such unhealthy evolution before it influences all age groups. Earth is made up of humans, if the humans are corrupted, Earth would follow suit.
Many talk about the destructive nature of pornography, even in terms of morality. A stereotype way of looking at pornography is that it is a harmful tool which affects one negatively and is strongly advised not to participate in any forms. If you are using pornography, you are not morally clean, even if you haven't done anything else immoral. Objectification of women is prevalent in pornography where they are treated as sex objects instead of a sexual partner and people often look at it as a form of degradation of women. These media erotic fantasies become deeply embedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed. The addiction is comparable to those of drugs like heroin. Pornography triggers myriad of endogenous, internal, natural drugs that mimic the 'high' from a street drug. As pornography became mainstreamed and pushed the envelope of moral sexual conduct, law enforcement reported that sex crimes mimicking comparable acts were being inflicted on women and children.
Pornography serves as a method to release sexual urges by giving the sexually frustrated a harmless outlet to relieve sexual tension. It could be said by some that pornography might serve to only worsen perversions and pollute people’s minds.
Looking at pornography in another way, it may not be totally harmful but in fact, rather healthy and worthy of appreciation. Pornography may be a beautiful art form. It is very human and portrays one of man's greatest strengths and driving force for live. Pornography also has a role as a form of expression. Pornography expresses human sexuality and represents a side of the human mind that that society otherwise ignores and declares obscene in normal settings. That, of course, is sexual desire. But its expression via pornography, some argue, is undesirable due to its absence of portraying healthy sexual relationships. This is because it displays sex for the sole purpose of pleasure rather than sex for emotional connection with another being. Societal norms and morals also serve as obstacles to the expression of pornography. Anti-pornography proponents have been calling for censorship for decades, which has brought forth the question: to what extent is pornography protected by the freedom of expression? Besides, because of unequal distribution of sexual experiences among different people, it could also be used as a substitute for those who could not experience sex for some reason. Furthermore, through reflecting and encouraging sexual fantasies, it exposes human to the most intimate form of expression and asserts the pleasure of human sexuality which makes human more humane, and enjoy to the fullest.
Considering that it is treated and recognised as an entertainment industry, pornography has no doubt groomed many notable porn stars, serving as an opportunistic and rewarding career for mainly women. On the issue of exploitation of women, pornography instead could arguably help some women to their road for success in life.
Regarding censorship, on the thought of the various crimes rose from pornography like rape or abuse cases, negative impacts that it could cause, it is radical. Anyway, censorship would be difficult given pornography's wide range of mediums such as magazines, movies, art, and internet. Some might argue that pornography may indeed have positive benefits as an instrument of crime control. Studies have shown that cases of voyeurism and rape, molest cases have dropped after pornography became readily available. However, we cannot risk the fact that some react negatively after interacting with pornography and even mimic actions from them on innocent women or children. Hence, instead of censoring pornography totally, we could mainly censor those hardcore ones and set age limits like the current systems in the world. Historically, it has evolved from softcore to hardcore, and it will evolve further. We should stop such unhealthy evolution before it influences all age groups. Earth is made up of humans, if the humans are corrupted, Earth would follow suit.
Monday, March 9, 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?
Firstly, considering the existence of the embezzlements of charity funds, The common response from people who are asked to donate when charity shows are on is, “What for donate to these charity shows because I don’t know who are going to benefit directly from them? I might as well, donate to that homeless and destitute guy who’s begging for money at the train station.”
Sad to say, I have that same mentality. What people and the charities really want is not a charity show that showcases different talents performing and flaunting their beauty and sexiness, (almost) ‘begging’ for donations and just plain wasting resources during the 2-3 hours of broadcast.
Rather, we need transparency and accountability in place before we are thrown off with such entertainments which are in the name of a good cause. So what if the most important person in the country paints calligraphy? People need him to show them how the money that they put into this charity show is being used in every single charity. Everyone knows it’s being use to help Charity Organization A, B, C… but how and in what ways?
Before the charity show can begin seeing a spike in donations and overwhelming compassionate response from the public to donate during a 3 hour entertainment show, there’s a need to treat people who part with the money like shareholders of these charities - account for what they are being used for, how and well, who’s benefiting directly from it. Without such transparency and proper accounting in place, nobody’s going to trust a man or even a monk with a few million dollars.
The event used to be a visual treat for the viewers with Mediacorp artistes and international starts like Jacky Cheung and Emil Chow, performing and entertaining for that charity dollar. Well, not anymore. The show has degenerated into an obstacle course of nails, swords, bees etc. In order to draw calls, one would have to risk life and limb, Fear Factor-style. Our very own Mediacorp stars had to perform stunts which demanded physical strength, concentration and lots of courage. One must wonder if the purpose was to raise funds or to out-do one another. Our artistes are professionals in acting, not stunts. Is charity work a justifiable reason for putting them at risk of possible deaths or permanent injuries? Having a high threshold for pain is not equivalent to having a big heart. Worse, the appeal of their grueling acts was ranked according to the number of calls made. I wonder if the calls were made because the audience cannot bear to witness their sufferings and bid to stop their acts, rather than out of goodwill to donate.
German playwright Berthold Brecht once wrote that a man who sees a beggar with only a stump of an arm will be shocked the first time. He'll give his six pence. The second time, it'll only be three-penny sympathy and if he sees him a third time, he'll have him handed over to the police.
Perhaps, there should have been more transparency and more communication. Charity organizations should have considered the opinions of the donors before embarking on the tie-up. Then again, will people want more information? How many of us bother to ask the school children holding donation tins outside MRT stations which charity they are helping or how the money will be distributed? Not that they would have the answers either. I remembered myself participating in a charity drive in my primary school days, and never had a clue about how my one single tin can was going to help. Which shelter home was I helping, what was the total amount rose by the school, how much went into buying medicine or food? These were the questions I should have asked, and not whether have I clocked enough hours for my community service.
Sad to say, I have that same mentality. What people and the charities really want is not a charity show that showcases different talents performing and flaunting their beauty and sexiness, (almost) ‘begging’ for donations and just plain wasting resources during the 2-3 hours of broadcast.
Rather, we need transparency and accountability in place before we are thrown off with such entertainments which are in the name of a good cause. So what if the most important person in the country paints calligraphy? People need him to show them how the money that they put into this charity show is being used in every single charity. Everyone knows it’s being use to help Charity Organization A, B, C… but how and in what ways?
Before the charity show can begin seeing a spike in donations and overwhelming compassionate response from the public to donate during a 3 hour entertainment show, there’s a need to treat people who part with the money like shareholders of these charities - account for what they are being used for, how and well, who’s benefiting directly from it. Without such transparency and proper accounting in place, nobody’s going to trust a man or even a monk with a few million dollars.
The event used to be a visual treat for the viewers with Mediacorp artistes and international starts like Jacky Cheung and Emil Chow, performing and entertaining for that charity dollar. Well, not anymore. The show has degenerated into an obstacle course of nails, swords, bees etc. In order to draw calls, one would have to risk life and limb, Fear Factor-style. Our very own Mediacorp stars had to perform stunts which demanded physical strength, concentration and lots of courage. One must wonder if the purpose was to raise funds or to out-do one another. Our artistes are professionals in acting, not stunts. Is charity work a justifiable reason for putting them at risk of possible deaths or permanent injuries? Having a high threshold for pain is not equivalent to having a big heart. Worse, the appeal of their grueling acts was ranked according to the number of calls made. I wonder if the calls were made because the audience cannot bear to witness their sufferings and bid to stop their acts, rather than out of goodwill to donate.
German playwright Berthold Brecht once wrote that a man who sees a beggar with only a stump of an arm will be shocked the first time. He'll give his six pence. The second time, it'll only be three-penny sympathy and if he sees him a third time, he'll have him handed over to the police.
Perhaps, there should have been more transparency and more communication. Charity organizations should have considered the opinions of the donors before embarking on the tie-up. Then again, will people want more information? How many of us bother to ask the school children holding donation tins outside MRT stations which charity they are helping or how the money will be distributed? Not that they would have the answers either. I remembered myself participating in a charity drive in my primary school days, and never had a clue about how my one single tin can was going to help. Which shelter home was I helping, what was the total amount rose by the school, how much went into buying medicine or food? These were the questions I should have asked, and not whether have I clocked enough hours for my community service.
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown
There has indeed many issues brought up on the matter of freedom of speech in Singapore. Singapore government had set strict guidelines for the discussion of such matters. Topics of criticism could land you in troubles like fines or even imprisonment. There are hence regulations of political commentary on the internet in Singapore. Such examples could be seen from the www.talkingcock.com , Mr Brown Shows and singabloodypore.civiblog.org.
The Singapore government however do allow blog posts to comment on politics, etc, but it is strictly regulated. Now, this podcasting ban comes after the previous regulation of political content published online. From 'Singabloodypore', I learned of Yawning Bread’s must-read article entitled Blogging During Elections. There you’ll find a glimpse of our government’s regulations on the Parliamentary Elections Act, specifically related to the blogging of political content and the ease at which uninitiated bloggers can be prosecuted in Singapore. Throughout this legal document, three words kept repeating: “No election advertising”. There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations.
Personally I feel that such political podcast or commentaries are not always harmful but actually healthy in various ways. Nevertheless, I feel that we should not hide behind anonymity. On top of this, we must ensure responsible use of the internet during campaigning as the free-for all environment of the internet is open to abuse. According to the same Channel News Asia report, the “government’s view is that people can have diverse views, but should not hide behind the anonymity of the internet, to manipulate public opinion.” This is a controversial issue since most opponents of online anonymity suggest that anonymity encourages illegal or dangerous activity (e.g. terrorism, sexual predators). However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and both honorable. In the tradition of anonymous British political criticism, the Federalist Papers were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. While there is an intrinsic lack of control the government can have over the anonymous, perhaps the idea of anonymity leans more towards the western ideal that is freedom of expression. This might not appeal to the Singaporean government which subscribe to the so-called 'Asian Values'.
We must consider the fact that not all of them are commenting behind anonymity and sincerely wants to voice out their thoughtful inputs on the issues in their most humble and truthful opinions. So in a way, the opening political commentary could benefit a country like Singapore a lot. There are many innovative leaders in Singapore who sought to improve the systems and to give their creative ideas. For systems of a country to be successful, firstly, the government must make known to the masses that they care for them, before embarking on the systems they deem feasible. No matter how good the systems are, if you do not get the opinions of the people and force and brainwash them to submit to it, there will be many controversies raised then. Then chaos will be brought to the society which I think nobody would be pleased to see that. Having such stricter regulations and rules, many people are now reluctant to voice their own views, in fear that they would say something wrong and be landed in any trouble after which. In my opinion, this is an unhealthy approach.
Besides all of these, we have to consider the government’s point of view. As everyone knows, the Internet is a very powerful networking system of idea dissemination. For example once a rumour or false news is leaked onto the Internet, it could spread to hundreds and thousands within minutes. This has to be taken into consideration before opening the privilege of freedom of speech lest such possible false news result in fragmentation of the country.
The Singapore government however do allow blog posts to comment on politics, etc, but it is strictly regulated. Now, this podcasting ban comes after the previous regulation of political content published online. From 'Singabloodypore', I learned of Yawning Bread’s must-read article entitled Blogging During Elections. There you’ll find a glimpse of our government’s regulations on the Parliamentary Elections Act, specifically related to the blogging of political content and the ease at which uninitiated bloggers can be prosecuted in Singapore. Throughout this legal document, three words kept repeating: “No election advertising”. There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations.
Personally I feel that such political podcast or commentaries are not always harmful but actually healthy in various ways. Nevertheless, I feel that we should not hide behind anonymity. On top of this, we must ensure responsible use of the internet during campaigning as the free-for all environment of the internet is open to abuse. According to the same Channel News Asia report, the “government’s view is that people can have diverse views, but should not hide behind the anonymity of the internet, to manipulate public opinion.” This is a controversial issue since most opponents of online anonymity suggest that anonymity encourages illegal or dangerous activity (e.g. terrorism, sexual predators). However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and both honorable. In the tradition of anonymous British political criticism, the Federalist Papers were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. While there is an intrinsic lack of control the government can have over the anonymous, perhaps the idea of anonymity leans more towards the western ideal that is freedom of expression. This might not appeal to the Singaporean government which subscribe to the so-called 'Asian Values'.
We must consider the fact that not all of them are commenting behind anonymity and sincerely wants to voice out their thoughtful inputs on the issues in their most humble and truthful opinions. So in a way, the opening political commentary could benefit a country like Singapore a lot. There are many innovative leaders in Singapore who sought to improve the systems and to give their creative ideas. For systems of a country to be successful, firstly, the government must make known to the masses that they care for them, before embarking on the systems they deem feasible. No matter how good the systems are, if you do not get the opinions of the people and force and brainwash them to submit to it, there will be many controversies raised then. Then chaos will be brought to the society which I think nobody would be pleased to see that. Having such stricter regulations and rules, many people are now reluctant to voice their own views, in fear that they would say something wrong and be landed in any trouble after which. In my opinion, this is an unhealthy approach.
Besides all of these, we have to consider the government’s point of view. As everyone knows, the Internet is a very powerful networking system of idea dissemination. For example once a rumour or false news is leaked onto the Internet, it could spread to hundreds and thousands within minutes. This has to be taken into consideration before opening the privilege of freedom of speech lest such possible false news result in fragmentation of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)