Science - A Menace to Civilisation?

      “Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.”

                                                                       -George Santayana 

       The title of the article itself seems like a paradox. Science brings forth a sense of development; everything in our world today is related to science. However, coupling it with the hindrance of civilisation just seems ridiculous. Now imagine a world without science, would civilisation still exist? The answer would be no, we would most likely still be living in the prehistoric, surviving as cavemen. 

      However, looking at the flipside of this issue, 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. 

     People who think that science is a menace to civilisation may argue that even though science helped humans, but it harmed the environment and wildlife. This is not completely true. Charles Darwin’s investigations and theories made us respect animals more. Knowing that we had a common ancestry with animals causes us to respect and take care of animals. Without this knowledge, we may be still treating animals as purely food sources.

     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.

      I acknowledge that science is not purely beneficial to civilisation. There is no such thing called ‘absolute’. Science has been used in a correct and beneficial way in most times. However, there are certain cases that I think that science overdid itself and created more harm for humans than good. One example is the nuclear bomb. We can just exterminate and eliminate our enemies at any moment with a nuclear bomb. It is a dangerous weapon that we did not need. This is what happens when humans misuse science. However, it is unfair to denounce science entirely because of specific incidents. In all, we used science the right way and more good than harm was created.

      In conclusion, science in overall is a blessing to civilisation. Science gave us the comforts that we take for granted everyday. Life would have been very different without science. Thus, we should not denounce science as a whole just because of specific incidents where we misused science. After all, learning from mistakes is the best way to bring about success.

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.

      Hence, I do believe that science is not exactly a menace to civilisation, but instead will bring the human race to greater heights. 

Pornography

     With the advance in technology, the amount of pornographic materials has increased over the year, not solely by quantity but also types of pornographic material, from stagnant pictures to animated videos of pornography. No doubt the migration of pornography to online platforms also increases its accessibility. Pornography has already evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry with more and more people being exposed to such materials. The question now is whether we should exercise censorship over such materials?

      Well what is pornography, one may ask. Pornography is defined as a creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) to stimulate sexual desire. Interesting to note how pornography is classified as a “creative activity”. It does in a sense promote creativity, one way or another, but the topic today is whether this creative activity should be barred due to many various reasons. 

      Both the articles given provide two very contrasting but relevant view points. The first article states that pornographic materials are giving forth a negative message to its audience, lowering the social standards of women as these pornographic materials depict women as victims of rape. However, the author notes that many of these explicit materials are showing women actually want to be subjected to such raping acts. These types of male oriented attitudes should not be promoted. This is true in certain contexts I believe but certainly not all. 

      On the other hand, the second article it states that “Pornography is speech, word and pictures about sexuality,” similar to the previous definition of how its message is conveyed through writing pictures or even films. It also states that pornography should be encouraged as it reflects the sexual fantasies of many. Furthermore it is said to be a depiction of sexual experimentation, also linked to the previous provided definition of pornography being a creative activity. Thus I do agree with the second abstract as it clearly gives the definition of pornography and also shows why it should be promoted. 

      However, some may argue that pornography is a method of self release, opening up a harmless alternative to the frustrated to release their bottled up tension. However, like the first passage states, misconceptions conveyed through these materials, views not only of the male being overly dominant but also women selling their body, like they really crave to be raped. Pornographic material like these indeed should be censored. 

      Furthermore, pornographic contents that suggest hostility towards the female may very likely be the root to many social problems such as increasing in crimes such as rape. If females continue to be degraded in pornographic materials, depicting females as mere objects to satisfy one’s sexual needs then our moral society may likely crumble before our very eyes. Reproducing is not the sole cause that humans exist, instead people start to abuse the gift of pleasure humans gain from having sex, this is in fact a horrifying phenomenon.  

      On the contrary, others may argue that they are merely viewing the human body in its natural state. Some people of the society who have been labelled “ugly” have no choice but to resort to such ways to satisfy their own human instinct, otherwise known to some as raging hormones within the body. These ostracised bunches of people have no chance to experience the real deal due to their social segregation and hence watching pornography is their only means of satisfying their sexual needs. 

      As you can see, pornography may likely be crucial to some members of the society but once mismanaged, pornography can cause serious damage to the society and thus I do believe that censorship should be present, but it must be carefully managed. 

President’s Star Charity [Stunt] Show

      “They need your help, and all we need you to do is call this number below. 1-900-112-6868! Your donation will be …..” my memories of the first “President’s Star Charity Show” was still vivid, I can still remember myself punching in the numbers on the phone while staring at the screen, naively hoping that my donation will show up on the television screen, completely oblivious that the number was increasing every second. That was me 4 years ago. But now that I reflect on this, I wonder to myself, why exactly did I make that call? Was it out of sympathy for the poor, applaud the performances or just plainly for fun?

      However, I was not the only one who was donating. What was the reason the other audiences were donating? If they were so willing to donate money to charity, is there a need for such shows to be aired? If a simple commercial or two could get locals to donate, then I would say “Why not?” The main aim of such shows is after all, to raise funds for the needy. However, our topic today is about the heart stopping stunts that some of the Mediacorp artistes perform during these fundraisers are they really necessary for such events?

      The most prominent example would be stunt shows put up by the famous Venerable Ming Yi who not only transformed into Spiderman and scaled a building; he even immersed himself into a tank of ice cold water for nearly half an hour. An interview with a member of the general public stated that, “every time he slipped, my heart skipped a beat. My phone was right beside me as I watched Ming Yi Fa Shi climb slowly up the building, cheering him on.” Evident from this, such stunt acts indeed causes the donations to increase, but I personally believe that this misses the whole point of the fund raiser. Even through the interview, it is evident that the people donate because they are cheering Venerable Ming Yi on, and this has nothing to do with empathy for the poor, donating to reach out and help the needy. 

      Many may argue that having such stunt shows will greatly increase the entertainment value of fundraising events such as “President’s Star Charity Show” and thus would increase the number of audience exponentially. More people would then call in to donate after watching the show. This too, however, misses the point of the fundraiser. People call in to donate because they enjoyed the show and not because they feel like they wish to lend a helping hand to the needy parties, the real targets of the whole fund raiser. 

      Others claim that only through these stunts can they feel how much the artistes would do just to raise money for these needy people and thus would gauge the danger level of performances and donate accordingly. This may be true to a certain extent but I do believe that if you really wanted to help these needy people, you would not need to feel through a second person, you can simply donate to show that you care. 

      Furthermore, the amount of money needed just to produce a show like this costs quite a hefty amount. The preparation, hiring of trainers to train performers, booking of stages, production of movie clips, setting up of hotlines… The list just goes on, and the cost rises. If these shows were to be omitted, wouldn’t there be more funds for the charity? Furthermore, artistes don’t have to put their life on the line and risk getting injured. 

      Last but not least, fundraisers are defined as an event to raise money when in lack of it for a cause. This means that fundraisers are held when the lack green is experienced, however, having an annual event eventually evolves into a ritual, regardless whether the organisation needs funding or not, they hold these fund raisers to earn money as “reserves”, but many suspect that these types of “reserves” is the reason of cases like the NKF saga surfacing as organisations have more than enough funding and thus turn this cash towards luxuries of their employees. 

      Hence, though stunt performances during fundraising events may be effective in reaching the desired amount of money, it is instilling the wrong values into the people of the general public and thus I believe that simple advertisements on interviews with the needy, background films on the people who need help are more than sufficient to call out for donations. 

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

      Online videos, audios, pictures, podcasts… This is only the tip of the iceberg of what technology has in store for us on the World Wide Web. Despite their astonishing large array, each and everyone is uniquely influential in their own way. Technology has simplified most every aspect of media, with just a push of a button and an e-article can be published. However, this convenience has caused an outburst of public opinions all over the globe. Topics of all sorts: living, eating, dressing, most anything! You name it and there is bound to be a couple of threads. 

      The spotlight today, however, belongs to the rampancy of political podcasts. This rise in Singaporeans airing their views on political topics online has attracted attention from the government, hence the setting up of policies against such podcasts. Though political podcasts are not banned in Singapore, but such podcasts can only be displayed and not downloadable by users, thus preventing us, the general public, to keep the videos and spread it to others. However, I believe that this regulation is rather redundant as people can simply access the sites themselves if they wish to view these videos. On the other hand, completely banning political podcasts would be an infringement of people's freedom of speech. 

      This freedom, however, has been abused by many. People start small by poking fun at political events, expression of discontent with the sudden increment in ERP prices and other unreasonable policies. This act of harmless fun eventually evolves into a routine of criticising the government. This might garner the podcaster a bunch of avid reader but it may also receive a jail term, credits to the strict regulations set by the government. Though, it is agreeably natural that the government would not tolerate public shaming on the internet or even stir up anti-government feelings within the people. 

     One other point about the regulations that I do not agree to would be the one about banning all political podcasts during elections. Websites such as the talkingcock.com merely make jokes about such political events, and mean no harm towards the candidates of the elections. Furthermore, candidates should know better than to take such sites seriously. Thus I believe that this policy is not exactly necessary because they really are merely just for laughs. 

      However, if we view this from another way, the government should in fact welcome such comments. Podcasters being the voices of the general public should not be stifled by the government. Instead members of the public should be encouraged to voice their opinions, like an online version of the speaker’s corner. The government will thus be able to gain knowledge of view points from the public, government officials might even join in the discussion. 

      This brings us back to the point on online political podcast regulations. Having such stringent regulations not only keeps podcasters in place, but it may likely deter people from posting online. People are afraid of being marked by the government and thus would hesitate when posting about their feelings. One famous example would Mr Brown.

      Mr Brown is a Singaporean blogger well known for his social and political commentary amidst Singapore's tight media restrictions. Affectionately known by many as Singapore's "Blogfather", Mr Brown is one of the more notable bloggers in the Singaporean blogosphere.
On 30 June 2006, Mr Brown wrote an article, titled "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", for his weekly opinion column in Today newspaper concerning the rising costs of living in Singapore. Three days later, on 3 July, an official from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) published a response letter on the same newspaper calling Mr Brown a "partisan player" whose views "distort the truth". On July 6, the newspaper suspended his column. Mr Miyagi subsequently resigned from his column.

      Being an avid fan of “The Mr Brown Show”, I noticed a significant decrease in the degree of humour within his posts after the above incident. It is surprising how such a small incident could affect Mr Brown so much. 

      If Singapore really wants to live up to its name as a democratic society, I suggest that the government lighten up on these regulations and let we the people of Singapore have a say!