Furthermore, individuals would naturally have the incentive to provide quality healthcare for themselves (basic instinct to survive), hence the State should offer the necessary guidance.
Conclusion
The decision to seek or accept healthcare is indisputably up to the individual. However, given the advantages of information and resources, the State has a larger role to play and hence bears greater responsibility in the providence of such healthcare to the people. The individual’s basic instinct of survival will motivate him to seek quality healthcare, but the onus is ultimately on the State to provide the framework for a health conscious society.
3. “Disease is not just an individual concern, but a global one.” What is your view?
Introduction:
Define: - global village of the modern world
- diseases: not just communicable ones, but all types of illnesses
Stand: disease in the past may just be an individual concern. However, as the world grow in its state of inter-connectedness, illnesses can no longer be viewed as merely individual, but more of a global issue.
Thesis:
-
globalization → easy spread of viruses/diseases
Integration of the world in all aspects, tearing down of international borders → increased traveling, immigration, of ppl, ideas, and diseases.
e.g: SARS, bird flu, etc…
Outbreaks of transmittable diseases pose a greater threat than terrorism: Unexpected and very limited control.
Unimaginable consequences eg economic recessions, etc…
-
interconnectedness → each decision has global repercussions in various aspects
“butterfly effect”
e.g. Chinese government concealed the real extent of spread of SARS in China → globalization → travel → spread of diseases → out of control. → economic downturn/ as people lose confidence in the economy = decreased investment, reduced consumption (save more in preparation for rainy days) → decrease in national output, etcetc → unimaginable consequences!!
Interconnectedness cancels away the option of keeping things to ourselves.
-
nature of medical research: advancements based on build up of theories → facilitates breakthroughs and discoveries when issues are not kept behind closed doors of each country
Antithesis:
Selfish human nature: each man for himself
No country would be perfectly willing to make use of their own resources to help counter diseases of another.
Counter: should not let self-interests impede the overall progress of mankind.
Conclusion:
Even though diseases might appear to be a private affair, concerning only the person who contracted it, the global world does not give us the choice of leaving it as that.
4. 2002 Q6: “Science and religion will always conflict” Discuss.
Stand: Science and religion do not conflict most of the time.
Anti-thesis (science and religion conflict)
- Governed by different set of rules
- Course of action science dictates may not be ethical on religious grounds
- Possible quote: “The religion that is afraid of science dishonours God and commits suicide.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Examples: euthanasia, cloning, GM foodstuffs
- Scientific discoveries may contradict with what religions want the masses to believe.
- Example: Galileo and the Catholic Church.
- Counter: In the context of today, this is not really applicable as the advent of science has proven that a lot of the previous conflicts were just because of political or social reasons.
Thesis (science and religion do not conflict)
- Interdependence of science and religion
- Religion provides set of rules for science to follow
-
Possible quote: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” –Albert Einstein ➔ suggesting that religion and science are interdependent
- Although they may conflict at times, both are necessary for each other to exist.
- Counter-argument for “ethics” point
- Religion: morals/faith
- Science: facts
- Both science and religion can coexist
- Both can be combined to fulfill the spiritual needs of Man
- E.g. scientology
Conclusion:
How science and religion may conflict would be up to how each side reacts when a potentially controversial topic arises. Given the current lack of animosity between both sides, the history of bad blood would be expected to remain as history.
5. General Paper: N2006 Question 7
“The young embrace technology; the old feel threatened by it.” Is this true?
Stand: True to large extent
The young embrace technology
- Yes, the young embrace technology
- The young of today are heavily reliant on technology to satisfy their everyday needs. For some, they rely on technology to such a large extent that they seemingly cannot live without it. Some examples of such technology are as follows:
- Mobile phones
- Internet
- Personalized computers
- Instant messaging
-
Modern technology also allows one to enjoy higher standards of living → many youngsters want the most comfortable lives possible, thus welcome and embrace technology
- No, the young do NOT embrace technology
- Many of the young today have made no conscious choice to accept technology. Societal circumstances cause the young to perceive that they made the choice to adopt new technology.
- New technology might not always be embraced by the young due to high prices
E.g. the use of Segways is not as commonplace as, say, mobile phones
Counter-argument: The young who do not embrace technology are only a small proportion of the population. Most of the young always seek new technology that makes their lives easier, and are not easily contented, thus constantly trying to keep up to date and embrace new technology.
The old feel threatened by it
- Yes, the old feel threatened by it
- Many of the old today are relatively reluctant to use computers. They still rather rely on more traditional methods even though they may not be as efficient.
- The old may feel threatened with the rise of technology because of possible structural unemployment resulting from them lacking the relevant skills. Furthermore, even despite this threat, some are unwilling to upgrade themselves in order to stay relevant.
- No, the old do not feel threatened by it
- With new technology, quality of healthcare will also improve. Thus as the country progresses, the old can enjoy higher life expectancy and higher quality of life with better healthcare services.
- Not all the old are afraid to accept new technology. Some are very willing to acquire new skills through new technology. For example, there are many old folks attending computer lessons at community clubs around Singapore, so that they can more easily communicate with younger generations.
Counter-argument: The old folk who are so open-minded about new technology only form a small proportion of the entire population, thus not representative of the general opinion.
Conclusion
On the whole, many of the young today rely heavily on technology. They embrace it whole-heartedly because it can often make their lives easier. It makes communication and many tasks or jobs much easier and more efficient. On the other hand, the old are less open toward new technology because they are too used to their old ways, and are much less willing to embrace new technology.
6. Medical science has become so successful that people today expect too much from it. Discuss.
Intro:
Today we live in a rapidly-changing, fast-paced society. Technology, especially medical science, has provided the human race with a host of benefits, ranging from the treatment of many deadly diseases to the control of the potentially pervasive and fatal viruses. However, despite the many breakthroughs in medical science, there are still many problems that cannot be solved; at the same time, the seemingly omnipotent medical science has influenced the public today to harbor unrealistic expectations and even put total faith and reliance in it.
Counter-argument: medical science has had many advancements and it indeed has prolonged and improve our lives. Ostensibly, its future appears to be rosy picture.
Examples: a lot…
Start to rebut
Point #1: we have conquered so many deadly diseases that people overestimate the ability of medical science to cure diseases; however, we are often caught off-guard by newly discovered viruses such as HIV/AIDS and SARS.
Point #2: modern medical science relies heavily on high-tech instruments for diagnostic purposes, which may produce unreliable results.
Example: possible contamination of blood and DNA samples and sloppy lab practices may result in wrong conclusions about a patient’s conditions.
Point #3: people expect medical science to offer solutions to moral questions such as whether we should support euthanasia or “designer baby”. But the mere existence of the technology does not justify the application of it and medical science by itself cannot offer answers to such moral questions.
Conclusion:
It becomes obvious now that people are really expecting too much from medical science. Even though its benefits are undeniable, there still exist many problems that cannot be solved by medical science alone. When we are enjoying the treatment provided by its rapid development, we should also keep a skeptical view on it.
7. ‘How inventions and discoveries are used is not the concern of the scientist.’ Do you agree?
Stand: Agree
- Research funded by companies who request for a particular product
- Their role is to develop the product; how the product will be used is not important to them, and often out of their control.
- Scientists should not take responsibility if their discoveries are misused
- If discoveries are misused after scientist’s death, he cannot be blamed for it.
- If discoveries are misused during scientist’s lifetime, but he was unaware of or unable to stop the misuse, he cannot be blamed for it. Discoveries from scientific research or development of new technology are public goods that are available to all after they are published. While the masses are able to enjoy the benefits of such discoveries, anyone can also use the new information to their own advantage, sometimes leading to negative consequences. Such misuse of discoveries cannot be blamed on the scientists. E.g. Einstein cannot be blamed for atomic bombs that were created from his work in nuclear physics.
- Fear of misuse might hinder innovation and new discoveries that could potentially be beneficial to mankind.
Counter-argument:
- If scientists already knew the potential destructive ability of their invention, they should not go ahead with it.
- E.g. The building of the atomic bomb
- However, they might not know the potential destructive ability.
Conclusion:
Innovation and discovery is a process that cannot be stopped. Even if discoveries are not made currently, either because of political restrictions or morality issues, they will still be made eventually in future, as it is in the nature of mankind to continually innovate and discover new wonders about the universe.
8. Is a world dominated by science a dream or a nightmare for future generations? ‘98
Stand: More of a dream than a nightmare
9. Science never provides solutions, it only poses questions
Stand: science does provide solutions to the extent that it makes us better off but also gives questions which can be addressed and overcome.
Positive:
1. Telecommunication
Enable effective communications among people worldwide. Greatly assist economic development and
social advancement.
2. Mass production
Provide sufficient provisions for survival
3. Prediction of economic behavior and formulation of policies using maths models
Logical thinking allow people to solve problems reasonably instead of pure conjectures
However it does not work all the time
Negative
1. Misuse and abuse → exploitation, war (eg. Nuclear weapons, MNCs, loss of privacy due to advanced telecommunication tech)
Defense: necessary for regulations to monitor the process
2. over dependence → loss of basic survival skills
Defense: Man can still find ways to acquire skills depending on whether he wants to spend resources on it
3. mass production → loss of craftsmanship, loss of quality
Defense: there is still mkt for handmade goods (luxury mkt)
Conclusion: more solutions than problems
10. 2006 Does modern technology always improve the quality of people’s life?
Stand: yes
Define quality of life: 1) materially
2) Spiritually
Argument 1
Communication
easy access of information
search engine
aid international business cooperations & transactions
entertainment
- Transportation (greater mobility)
Argument 2
Medical & health
- cure of disease e.g. small pox ,Tuberculosis
- Early detection of disease
- Therapeutic cloning
Unlimited supply of healthy tissues or organs no waiting list
Argument 3
Disaster prediction e.g. typhoon, tornado, tsunami
ease of reconstruction to minimize lose
better rescue technology and equipments
Counter-argument
- Fast pace of life- stress does not necessarily have a better life with modern technology
Greater competition
Privacy
(Counter: state of mind)
Mass destruction & radiation e.g. Hiroshima & Nagasaki (counter: government)
Conclusion
Technology improves people’s life to a large extent; government regulation; state of mind
Introduction
Gustave Le Bon said, “Science has promised us truth. It has never promised us either peace or happiness.” In this era of modern world, technology remains a controversial issue. Whether it is improves our life is subjective to doubt. Therefore it is worth to examine whether human being has improved both spiritually and materially. Despite all the restrictions about technology, we have in fact made our life better in the field of communication, health care and disaster prevention.
Conclusion
To conclude, I would say that technology has enriched our lives and benefited Man to a large extent, what with greater efficiency in communication and transportation as well as advances in the medical world. However, all these improvements would have failed in their purpose if they were used to cause destructions. Therefore, to what degree technology bring harm to human being not only depends on individual minds, but also government regulations.
by
halwa (student)
