06/10 Paragraphs for Science & Tech questions
Please post your paragraphs in the COMMENT section in response to this post using the following format:
NAME:
QUESTION:
MY STAND:
MY PARAGRAPH:
9 comments:
Lester Ng 06/10
Question: Science has lost its social and moral purpose. To what extent do you agree?
The ultimate purpose of nuclear technology is still the pursuit of knowledge. It has allowed the advanced study of particles and the atomic nuclei. It has kept to its moral and social purpose of pursuit of new knowledge, which is to discover and understand more about the world we are living in and the undiscovered science that is happening around us. One of the successful examples of nuclear technology is the “Hadron Collider”, the world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator. It is expected to address some of the most fundamental questions of physics like how particles around us act and advancing the understanding of the deepest laws of nature. Nuclear technology has not lost its social purpose as its essential presence is needed to help scientist answer unexplained theories of science.
However, some may argue that science which often is initiated for noble reasons eventually result in application that has a negative effect on mankind example the creation of devastating weapons such as nuclear bombs that have the potential to kill thousands hence threatening our very survival. I do not dispute the fact that science has resulted in appalling innovations but that is precisely why there are ethics committees to govern specific exploration. The exception or the limitation of science is indeed the creation of numerous deadly weapons but they were first built by the Americans during war in the interest of national security. Even now, they are strictly regulated to make sure they do not fall into the wrong hands.
Khairul 06/10
‘Science and religion will always conflict.’ Discuss.
Stand: Yes. They will conflict but not always.
Men place themselves, in the name of science, in the position of ‘God’. In many religions, God is considered the Almighty that creates all, which mere mortals cannot hope to be. However, as Science advances to further delve into the depths of knowledge, it seems that humans have taken a liking to playing ‘God’. Yet, many would question, ‘How can Man take over the place of the Almighty?’ In recent times, humans have started to practise cloning, the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature. At first, it garnered little attention from the general public, that is, until the birth of the first cloned mammal in 1997, Dolly the sheep. This success in animal cloning sparked off fierce debates between scientists, politicians and even normal citizens on the use and morality of such technology. It is just not right, according to religion. However, science has continued to successfully clone other animals also and began research on human cloning as well. In the end, science has conflicted through and through against the ethics of religion from playing the role of ‘God’.
On the other hand, though it might seem like such, religion could be, in fact, actually limiting science from going too far. From constant criticism and debates, scientists cannot keep experimenting too freely without restrictions. In order to soothe the public state of mind and avoid social unrest, the government had to put forward safety regulations so as to ensure that cloning would not create uncontrollable or dangerous chimeras, an organism consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering. In conclusion, just as how a safety belt in a car prevents the driver from harm, in a case of an accident, religion actually restricts science from going overboard instead of just conflicting with it.
Muhammmad 06/10
Science and religion will continue to be in conflict due to the nature of their discipline and ideology. Religion dwells on limited knowledge about God and the world, what has been taught by religious leaders can only be passed down. However, Science, on the other hand, expects its pupils to continue to venture and understand the world with a better vision each day. It is not uncommon that science that was taught in the past has been proven wrong and justified to be correct now, and yet be proven wrong in the time to come. For example, it was believed that there could not be possibly be a square root of a negative number. But in the past centuries, we have considered this to be true and now a new branch of mathematics, complex numbers, has been created which has its uses in quantum mechanics. This is unlike religion where having a new belief and ideas about a particular concept in the past would lead to severe repercussions in the future. One famous example to illustrate this would be how Galileo almost wrecked the very institutions of the catholic church in the 16th century. He came up with the idea that the earth was not flat as it was once believed, that if a man who travel to the end of the world will fall down, like a ball rolling off a rectangular table, but however spherical. Science is able to adapt while religion will almost always fail and this differences will continue to be in conflict, between the new age scientists and the religion hardliners.
Lin Yuan
Are we embracing the advances made in the life science too readily?
Most of the time, the government, the authority that is supposed to regulate the adaptation of new life science technology, may also embrace the new achievements in the era of life science too readily due to other motives. A fast adaptation of new life sciences usually arises when the government realizes that issuing more patents to new medicine will mean extra million dollars of profit possible for the pharmacy industry annually. For instance, in 2010, the Chinese government issued 12698 patents to new medicine. Among them, 30% of the medicines were invented within 1 year. Such a short approval period for new medicine can turn out to be quite detrimental since the most of the side effects of these new medicines are probably remain unknown to us within such short period of testing time. The government's hasty decision to embracing the new advanced in the life sciences is an indication of their greater motive of driving the country's economic development at a faster rate. By doing so, the government is taking a risk with the people's long term health for the nation's shirt term economic development. Such practice is a clear indication of the state embracing the life science too readily. Furthermore, consumers usually have the tendency to choose the most ‘advanced’ medicine, believing that they will be a faster and more effective cure to their diseases. Therefore, the new, patented medicines which usually come with a hefty price tag are usually the ‘best” choice for many wealthier. Hence, when the government allow rush decision such as accepting new medicine too readily to be made, the consumers will also get influenced and put too much trust on such new medicine which may not have the expected effectiveness in curing the diseases. In contrast, such new medicine may cause unnecessary side effect to the patients. In this case, both the government and the consumers are embracing the advances in the life science too readily.
Chiang Hai Wei 06/10
Science has lost its social and moral purpose. To what extent do you agree?
Science has lost its moral purpose since decades ago, when scientists and government agencies lost their moral standing when they used deception to get people into becoming their laboratory subjects. This cruelty to fellow humans is eminently unjustifiable and morally corrupt. The film “History Secrets” exposed the dark and shameful deeds of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Cold War. The CIA tricked volunteers into testing human’s tolerance of a poisonous gas by blatantly lying to them that the CIA is testing for a vaccine for flu virus. This diabolical act inevitably took the lives of many, and outraged the public. The US government had indeed gone too far in their research experiments by not disclosing to the volunteers that their lives are being endangered and the heavy risk associated with it. Even though this occurred in the past, it left its mark to this very present day. Scientists today are still using laboratory subjects, experimenting with animals and plants. Admittedly, science is meant to improve our lives, and using test subjects to aid them in the process undoubtedly speed it up and enhance the reliability of scientists claim. But the act of putting the lives of other living things in danger is morally corrupt, and ought to be shamed upon. Arguably, it should only be used when there is no other efficient method available, which makes this necessary and not uncalled for. More often than not, scientists and researchers will defend their act by asserting that sacrificing a few lives would in turn save many more when the solution or cures had been derived, with the loud echo of “it is all for the greater good of mankind” accompanying it. Clearly, neither the scientists nor animal activists would step back and give way to the other party, resulting in a deadlock. Perhaps the best way to go about this is for both parties to compromise. Scientists can limit their actions and use of laboratory subjects while extreme animal activists should also come to terms with the hard truth that it is all for the benefit of mankind. Hopefully, this act of compromise of both parties will pave the way towards a better solution to this chronic problem of using living things as lab subjects. The world can only pray that someday in the future, there would be no need for lab subjects, and that an alternative, morally upright and equally viable method would replace this. But for now, I still agree to a large extent that science has lost its moral purpose.
Qn: Should poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met?
Poorer countries should not develop their tourist industry due to the simple fact that its own people are not prepared as they might not be sufficiently educated. In many poor countries, the government has failed to provide its people with the basic needs such as food and shelter. This has caused its people to be trapped in the harsh poverty cycle. As a result, its people will not be able to progress and break out of the poverty cycle as they are not being provided with sufficient education opportunities. Education can help people to acquire knowledge and act as a platform for people to escape the poverty cycle if the government provides this opportunity. To make matters worse, these poorer countries might have corrupted governments who act based on self-interest and so developing their tourist industry might be difficult without the help from its government. In short, when the population is not sufficiently educated, the population will not be able to control its own tourist industry as they might not be able to handle the jobs available. Only the low skilled or low paid jobs can be acquired while the higher skilled jobs may be challenging for the people. For example, India has the largest illiterate population of any nation on Earth. This shows that one quarter of its people is not prepared for a tourist industry as how can one communicate with tourists when he cannot communicate properly? Developing the tourist industry might lead to the country wasting resources and may incur debts. Hence, I feel that poorer nations should not develop its tourist industry as its people who lack education may not be prepared for this.
Ajay 06/10
NAME: Jasmine Ang CG 06/10
QUESTION: Science has lost its social and moral purpose. To what extent do you agree?
MY STAND: It has not lost its social and moral purpose.
MY PARAGRAPH:
The purpose of science is to find cures and save people’s lives. Critics of science point to the fact that it has lost this social and moral purpose as many applications such as nuclear power testing, creation of weapons have killed many lives. While unfortunately it is true to an extent, but we cannot deny what science has created and saved many lives too. Cures to previously incurable diseases such as tuberculosis, vaccination to H1N1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) have allowed many people to live longer. Other inventions of science to save people’s lives include growing organs for patients who require organ transplants, better technologies and many more. Indeed, the growing of human organs came from the idea of cloning people and killing them later to use their organs. It was after the success of cloning a sheep that scientists had that idea. However, after much debate, the idea was debunked and scientist came up with the growing of organs. As such, given that these ideas were not carried out and many people’s lives are being saved every day with science, condemning it and saying that it has lost its social and moral purpose would be too harsh. Even if there are times when it did, it would be inappropriate to conclude that science has lost its social and moral purpose. As such, I would instead say that science still has its social and moral purposes but it gets lost sometimes like a child exploring the world. There are times when it loses its way, but at the end of the day, it will reach where it is meant to be and meant to do which is to save lives.
Mame:Zhang Yurou
Question:Can a politician's reputation survive the judgement of time?
My stand:Disagree
My paragraph:
In a democratic system of government, where a leader' power to rule has to be renewed every four to five years through election, the temptation to perpetuate their power is a distraction from the business of good governance. Even good political leaders who wanted to start on an idealistic platform to serve the society and its country for the larger good may be trapped by this desir to sacrifice integrity for expediency and to sustain their power to rule. Richard Nixon's fall from grace during the Watergate scandal (1973) which tarnished and contaminated an otherwise impeccable and flawless reputation may be attributed to his desire to remain in power and to impede the political progress of the opposition. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; there is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it", the seduction of power with all its trappings can enchant a politician so much that he would risk engaging in dishonourable conduct, even at the expense of a wholesome reputation.
Ming-Xuan 06/10
Qn: Examine the claim that people need the arts now more than the sciences.
Globalization, a product of the sciences has also spurred the dissemination of the existence of diverse cultures across the world. The arts are made more available now than ever. However, globalization has also forced upon a homogenous pop culture on many countries. 7-11 convenience stores and McDonald’s fast food restaurants can be found in virtually every country. The loss in an identifiable art culture in many countries has incurred a loss in their uniqueness. Thus, it is quite true that the arts are needed more than sciences now. As for a global citizen, a loss in diverse arts cultures indicates a lower standard of living due to the loss in diversity.
Post a Comment