Lies are often less harmful than the truth.
Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.
___
"Liar, liar, pants on fire." This commonly uttered phrase by school children exemplifies how lying is one of the first "bad" acts that children are taught to shun. Lying--or deliberately saying something untrue--is generally perceived as being a negative act. Lying can harm other people and cause those around the liar to perceive him or her as untrustworthy. No one wants to be labeled as a "liar" but the reality is that the act of lying is part of our social fabric. In order to be accepted by society and deemed as a "nice" person by those around us, we may occasionally tell "white" lies. However, some will lie for malicious reasons or habitually lie to others. This type of lying, indeed, will eventually prove more harmful than telling the truth.
Telling white lies--or lies not intended to harm but told to avoid distress--may be helpful to integrate into society. There are certain situations when we do not want to embarrass those around us. For example, when a friend asks us, "Do I look fat in my jeans?" More than likely, we will answer in the negative and spare her bad feelings (although in fact we think she does look fat in her jeans). We also want to be perceived as nice people, so we may find it helpful to compliment others (especially those lacking in self esteem) on their appearance and their abilities. Oftentimes, we exaggerate the extent of these compliments in social network profiles, such as Facebook, because we are socially mandated to give flattering comments every so often to friends and acquaintances. This is especially true of the other person has been especially generous in their compliments towards us. Failing to "return the favor" with white lies may cause us to be perceived as cold and ungrateful. Granted, telling white lies to make others feel good is not absolutely necessary to get along well in society. However, sometimes telling the truth may be socially insensitive and could cause harm to those who are not confident in themselves.
When one lies for malicious reasons, more than often the results will be negative. An example of this harmful lying is the type used to cheat on one's spouse or significant other. The cheater may feel that his lies prevent his official partner from being hurt; however, the lies are putting the partner in danger by misleading her and compromising her health. Even if the official partner never finds out about the truth, she is essentially harmed by not knowing the real status of their relationship. She had no say in the betrayal and did not have the choice to evaluate its trajectory given the true circumstances. Lies may be told for a number of malicious reasons---for instance, to steal from others, protect oneself from mistakes, etc. While the liar may escape "punishment" when his lie goes undetected, he is also harmed in the long run by going through the trouble of keeping up with the lie. A habitual liar will also find it difficult to distinguish his lies from reality---in some instances, even believing his own lies.
Any type of lie---whether white or malicious-- can be more harmful than the truth when actually exposed as a lie. The liar will be perceived by those affected as untrustworthy. He or she will not ever be trusted for his opinions or anything--even truths-- that comes from his or her mouth. It is quite difficult for one to recover from a reputation as a liar and easy to burn bridges when caught telling a lie. Indeed, while some lies may be less harmful than the truth, it is prudent to just keep one's mouth shut. One can be perceived as dishonest from failing to say anything but it is not as harmful being caught telling an actual lie.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Globalization Eliminates Important Cultural Differences
Globalization eliminates important cultural differences.
Describe a specific situation in which globalization might not eliminate important cultural differences. Discuss what you think determines whether or not globalization eliminates important cultural differences.
___
Globalization--or the process in which people, companies and governments of different nations become integrated--has existed for centuries. There have been exchanges among nations, mainly for purposes of trade. Nations have also imposed themselves or taken over other parts of the world for economic gain and dominance. However, the pace of globalization has been greatly accelerated in the last few decades due to the emergence of technologies, such as the television and internet. While the commercial effects of globalization have been widely discussed, scholars are now contemplating the cultural implications. One idea is that globalization eliminates cultural differences. While this may be true in most aspects, globalization has also caused local and indigenous cultures to take a defensive stance and proactively reject foreign influences.
Globalization, in general, has the effect of shrinking our world. That is, people from different nations become connected to one another and exchange cultural aspects. Undoubtedly, the cultural exchange is bent towards Western influence---or more specifically, the "Americanization" of the world in which values, preferences, and other aspects of culture reflect influences from the United States. For example, movies from Hollywood have become largely popular in nations other than the US and people attempt to emulate the appearance, dress, and activities of Western actors and actresses. This has manifested itself in darker women lightening their skin, dying their hair blonde and wearing clothes similar to American pop icons whose images dominate fashion magazines. Another instance includes the infiltration of Western fast food chains in other countries and Americanization of local cuisine. Indeed, improvements of communication technology have made people of other nations idealize Western culture while downplaying or rejecting their own.
The example of the US itself is a manifestation of globalization on a regional level. The US, composed of immigrants from different parts of the world, includes a mix of cultures and identities. While the US is ethnically diverse (relative to other nations), it is surprisingly homogenous. For instance, the majority of US citizens only speak one language, have no interest in outside cultures, and are steadfast believers of consumerism. While there exist communities segregated along ethnic lines, US citizens (through the school system) are not encouraged to know more about cultures that exist outside the borders and learn another language.
While most of the world idealize US culture, some have become defensive of their territory and seek to protect their own customs. Globalization, in a sense, has caused many in the Islamic world to take a stand against Westernization and defend their culture. Many see US influences as a threat to their Muslim way of life where religion is the center of all matters and women/children must be protected against harmful Western ideas. There exists a gamut of reactions to the defense of Islamic culture---from peaceful protests and boycotts of Western products to suicide bombers and physical attacks of Westerners. This "us vs. them" mentality does not only exist in the Middle East but also in the US itself. When the US experiences negative times, such as economic recessions, citizens tend to blame outsiders, such as illegal immigrants and Muslims for their woes.
The idea that globalization eliminates cultural differences holds true in cases where people can readily adapt to changes. It also is influenced by whether people of a society embrace or reject Western influences. Those who idealize the US as the land of success and wealth will be more likely to adapt aspects of Western culture to the detriment of their own customs. Those who feel pride for their ways will want to preserve their cultural integrity by rejecting globalization. They will define themselves even more so against the dominating influences and take proactive measures to preserve their way of life. Indeed, only a minority of people will reject the effects of globalization. As technologies improve and policies favor free trade, the world will continue to get smaller and eliminate cultural differences.
Describe a specific situation in which globalization might not eliminate important cultural differences. Discuss what you think determines whether or not globalization eliminates important cultural differences.
___
Globalization--or the process in which people, companies and governments of different nations become integrated--has existed for centuries. There have been exchanges among nations, mainly for purposes of trade. Nations have also imposed themselves or taken over other parts of the world for economic gain and dominance. However, the pace of globalization has been greatly accelerated in the last few decades due to the emergence of technologies, such as the television and internet. While the commercial effects of globalization have been widely discussed, scholars are now contemplating the cultural implications. One idea is that globalization eliminates cultural differences. While this may be true in most aspects, globalization has also caused local and indigenous cultures to take a defensive stance and proactively reject foreign influences.
Globalization, in general, has the effect of shrinking our world. That is, people from different nations become connected to one another and exchange cultural aspects. Undoubtedly, the cultural exchange is bent towards Western influence---or more specifically, the "Americanization" of the world in which values, preferences, and other aspects of culture reflect influences from the United States. For example, movies from Hollywood have become largely popular in nations other than the US and people attempt to emulate the appearance, dress, and activities of Western actors and actresses. This has manifested itself in darker women lightening their skin, dying their hair blonde and wearing clothes similar to American pop icons whose images dominate fashion magazines. Another instance includes the infiltration of Western fast food chains in other countries and Americanization of local cuisine. Indeed, improvements of communication technology have made people of other nations idealize Western culture while downplaying or rejecting their own.
The example of the US itself is a manifestation of globalization on a regional level. The US, composed of immigrants from different parts of the world, includes a mix of cultures and identities. While the US is ethnically diverse (relative to other nations), it is surprisingly homogenous. For instance, the majority of US citizens only speak one language, have no interest in outside cultures, and are steadfast believers of consumerism. While there exist communities segregated along ethnic lines, US citizens (through the school system) are not encouraged to know more about cultures that exist outside the borders and learn another language.
While most of the world idealize US culture, some have become defensive of their territory and seek to protect their own customs. Globalization, in a sense, has caused many in the Islamic world to take a stand against Westernization and defend their culture. Many see US influences as a threat to their Muslim way of life where religion is the center of all matters and women/children must be protected against harmful Western ideas. There exists a gamut of reactions to the defense of Islamic culture---from peaceful protests and boycotts of Western products to suicide bombers and physical attacks of Westerners. This "us vs. them" mentality does not only exist in the Middle East but also in the US itself. When the US experiences negative times, such as economic recessions, citizens tend to blame outsiders, such as illegal immigrants and Muslims for their woes.
The idea that globalization eliminates cultural differences holds true in cases where people can readily adapt to changes. It also is influenced by whether people of a society embrace or reject Western influences. Those who idealize the US as the land of success and wealth will be more likely to adapt aspects of Western culture to the detriment of their own customs. Those who feel pride for their ways will want to preserve their cultural integrity by rejecting globalization. They will define themselves even more so against the dominating influences and take proactive measures to preserve their way of life. Indeed, only a minority of people will reject the effects of globalization. As technologies improve and policies favor free trade, the world will continue to get smaller and eliminate cultural differences.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Stability in Society can lead to Stagnation
Stability in society can lead to stagnation.
Describe a specific situation in which stability in society might not lead to stagnation. Discuss what you think determines whether or not stability in society leads to stagnation.
__
Stability is a state of being coveted by many human beings but sometimes is unattainable due to internal and external forces. The former may include a person being accustomed to extreme changes during his entire life. The latter may include lack resources or a foundation to address problems of instability. Stability is also desired in a macro level, for instance, by society in its will to survive and succeed. While stability is generally viewed as a positive state, it may also lead to negative circumstances. This may include the people's inability to face and address more volatile situations in the future. This could also lead to a lull in society where people do not challenge themselves to promote positive changes.
If a society experiences a relatively long period of stability (e.g., economic and social realm), they could lose ability to deal with more volatile circumstances. When people are used to a constant state of balance, they stop worrying about adverse situations and fail to prepare for a sudden lows. For example, during President Clinton's administration, the US experienced a relatively long period of economic stability. The population experienced very low unemployment and many people started to place all their eggs in one nest---that is, investing in the housing market and depending on the value of their house to keep on rising. People mistakenly did not diversify their portfolios and relied solely on the housing market to continue providing them with security in the present and future. Once the housing bubble burst, many aspects of the economy also suffered, including employment numbers and the deficit. Indeed, long periods of economic stability tends to prevent people from thinking about the possibility of adverse circumstances. In turn, they assume that the situation will continue to be stable indefinitely and fail to address unfortunate swings before they occur.
Stability can also lead to a sense of complacency in society. People become listless after long periods of stability. Lacking the incentive to plan for more adverse situations, people settle for their situation and do not challenge themselves. As a result, a society experiences less innovation, entrepreneurial efforts and new modes of thinking. Indeed, lack of stability (or rather, a need for something that is lacking) helps drive people forward to resolve the situation. Currently, instability in the Middle East has led thousands of people to join together in the effort of promoting democratic change in society. While several factors have led to the multiple uprisings, the lack of stability in the social and political realm has been a major factor.
Undoubtedly, stability has mostly positive consequences. For instance, people's basic needs of food, water and shelter are met in relatively stable society. When the basic needs of people are met, society can begin to explore more advance thinking and ideas in public life. They, for example, start to contemplate ideals of human rights and societal issues that promote an improvement in the quality of life of society. Indeed, stability is usually preferred over volatile situation---both on a personal and community level. However, the downside of long periods of stability may include the inability to be resilient and confront more difficult situations. Stability also may lead to stagnation and less output of innovative thoughts and ideas in society. As with most things in life, too much of a good thing will always carry negative consequences.
Describe a specific situation in which stability in society might not lead to stagnation. Discuss what you think determines whether or not stability in society leads to stagnation.
__
Stability is a state of being coveted by many human beings but sometimes is unattainable due to internal and external forces. The former may include a person being accustomed to extreme changes during his entire life. The latter may include lack resources or a foundation to address problems of instability. Stability is also desired in a macro level, for instance, by society in its will to survive and succeed. While stability is generally viewed as a positive state, it may also lead to negative circumstances. This may include the people's inability to face and address more volatile situations in the future. This could also lead to a lull in society where people do not challenge themselves to promote positive changes.
If a society experiences a relatively long period of stability (e.g., economic and social realm), they could lose ability to deal with more volatile circumstances. When people are used to a constant state of balance, they stop worrying about adverse situations and fail to prepare for a sudden lows. For example, during President Clinton's administration, the US experienced a relatively long period of economic stability. The population experienced very low unemployment and many people started to place all their eggs in one nest---that is, investing in the housing market and depending on the value of their house to keep on rising. People mistakenly did not diversify their portfolios and relied solely on the housing market to continue providing them with security in the present and future. Once the housing bubble burst, many aspects of the economy also suffered, including employment numbers and the deficit. Indeed, long periods of economic stability tends to prevent people from thinking about the possibility of adverse circumstances. In turn, they assume that the situation will continue to be stable indefinitely and fail to address unfortunate swings before they occur.
Stability can also lead to a sense of complacency in society. People become listless after long periods of stability. Lacking the incentive to plan for more adverse situations, people settle for their situation and do not challenge themselves. As a result, a society experiences less innovation, entrepreneurial efforts and new modes of thinking. Indeed, lack of stability (or rather, a need for something that is lacking) helps drive people forward to resolve the situation. Currently, instability in the Middle East has led thousands of people to join together in the effort of promoting democratic change in society. While several factors have led to the multiple uprisings, the lack of stability in the social and political realm has been a major factor.
Undoubtedly, stability has mostly positive consequences. For instance, people's basic needs of food, water and shelter are met in relatively stable society. When the basic needs of people are met, society can begin to explore more advance thinking and ideas in public life. They, for example, start to contemplate ideals of human rights and societal issues that promote an improvement in the quality of life of society. Indeed, stability is usually preferred over volatile situation---both on a personal and community level. However, the downside of long periods of stability may include the inability to be resilient and confront more difficult situations. Stability also may lead to stagnation and less output of innovative thoughts and ideas in society. As with most things in life, too much of a good thing will always carry negative consequences.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Should Education Promote Learning Outside the Classroom?
Education should promote learning outside the classroom as well as within.
Describe a specific situation in which education might justifiably not promote learning outside the classroom. Discuss what you think determines whether or not education should foster learning outside the classroom.
___
The educational system plays a crucial role in the development of a nation. In particular, education within the classroom promotes important goals in society, such as nurturing citizen who can take care of themselves as adults, exhibit loyalty to the nation, and drive innovation and the economy. Lessons in the core curriculum of math, reading, science and history are designed to further the growth of children so they can develop into well-functioning adults of society. Education, however, should not only promote learning within the classroom---it should equally encourage learning outside the classroom because not all life skills can be covered by the school system.
Traditional curriculum of the classroom serves to promote skills that will allow citizens to function in a literate world. The skills of reading and performing simple mathematics will help serve people's sense of independence and ability to do basic tasks outside the house, such as shopping and finding one's way around a city. However, certain life skills cannot be covered by the school system and are better learned outside the classroom. This includes developing "street smarts" or the ability to protect oneself in an uncertain environment. This also includes "people smarts" or the ability to read others and socialize with people. One can also develop a sense of civic responsibility out side the classroom by volunteering for various causes in society.
If the system promotes learning in the classroom as the only method of education, it will encourage one-sided citizens. Citizens that are limited in their ability to approach practical situations that cannot be learned through books. Citizens that cannot work well in groups or handle social situations. Indeed, education should also inspire curiosity of the world outside the classroom---particularly, an appreciation for students' surroundings and nature.
Indeed, the ways to learn outside the classroom are endless. Education, however, should not promote ALL types of learning outside the classroom. For example, first-hand experience of certain things and acts that could endanger children should not be encouraged. Undoubtedly, the best way to learn about sex and drugs is to engage in them but schools should not promote this type of experimentation. They should, however, have the responsibility of somehow warning about the dangers of certain activities via the traditional curriculum.
In general, education should also value the type of learning that can be achieved outside the classroom. Indeed, the school system(ideally) aims to level the playing field by providing children with lessons of reading and numbers that may not necessarily be learned at home. However, the system should also stress to students that learning also occurs outside the classroom and will help them develop in a well-rounded manner.
Describe a specific situation in which education might justifiably not promote learning outside the classroom. Discuss what you think determines whether or not education should foster learning outside the classroom.
___
The educational system plays a crucial role in the development of a nation. In particular, education within the classroom promotes important goals in society, such as nurturing citizen who can take care of themselves as adults, exhibit loyalty to the nation, and drive innovation and the economy. Lessons in the core curriculum of math, reading, science and history are designed to further the growth of children so they can develop into well-functioning adults of society. Education, however, should not only promote learning within the classroom---it should equally encourage learning outside the classroom because not all life skills can be covered by the school system.
Traditional curriculum of the classroom serves to promote skills that will allow citizens to function in a literate world. The skills of reading and performing simple mathematics will help serve people's sense of independence and ability to do basic tasks outside the house, such as shopping and finding one's way around a city. However, certain life skills cannot be covered by the school system and are better learned outside the classroom. This includes developing "street smarts" or the ability to protect oneself in an uncertain environment. This also includes "people smarts" or the ability to read others and socialize with people. One can also develop a sense of civic responsibility out side the classroom by volunteering for various causes in society.
If the system promotes learning in the classroom as the only method of education, it will encourage one-sided citizens. Citizens that are limited in their ability to approach practical situations that cannot be learned through books. Citizens that cannot work well in groups or handle social situations. Indeed, education should also inspire curiosity of the world outside the classroom---particularly, an appreciation for students' surroundings and nature.
Indeed, the ways to learn outside the classroom are endless. Education, however, should not promote ALL types of learning outside the classroom. For example, first-hand experience of certain things and acts that could endanger children should not be encouraged. Undoubtedly, the best way to learn about sex and drugs is to engage in them but schools should not promote this type of experimentation. They should, however, have the responsibility of somehow warning about the dangers of certain activities via the traditional curriculum.
In general, education should also value the type of learning that can be achieved outside the classroom. Indeed, the school system(ideally) aims to level the playing field by providing children with lessons of reading and numbers that may not necessarily be learned at home. However, the system should also stress to students that learning also occurs outside the classroom and will help them develop in a well-rounded manner.
A Nation's Ability to Survive is Dependent upon Military Strength?
A nation's ability to survive is often dependent upon its military strength.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's ability to survive might not depend on its military strength. Discuss what you think determines when a nation's ability to survive is dependent upon its military strength.
___
Militaries serve a crucial role as vehicles for completing a nation's objectives. Their most important purpose is to defend a nation from attacks within and outside of its borders. In addition, they also may launch offensive attacks on enemies for various reasons, such as preventing the suspected accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and helping to depose authoritarian leaders of other nations (to site recent examples). Usually military strength correlates with a country's relative power in the world. However, possession of military strength is not always necessary for a nation's survival.
Militaries have helped their respective countries promote goals in nation building. While the expansion of territories is no longer a widely accepted practice, nations for several centuries have grown their territories through the use of military strength. For instance, the powers of Europe spread their influence in the newly discovered western hemisphere and other parts of the world from the 15th to 19th century . The native people of these territories could not defend themselves using their unsophisticated weapons. Those nations with guns and other tools of military strength quite easily took over wide areas of land. The New World countries eventually gained independence from the colonists; However, today's inhabitants of the western hemisphere continue cultural traditions inherited by the conquistadors, including language and religious practices.
Militaries have also played an important role in ensuring victories during times of war. The United States, especially following WWII, started to strengthen its military in response to the Communist threats. While major wars, such as those in Vietnam and Iraq have not been characterized as "successful," the US military strength helped achieve its defense and security goals in many other smaller contexts. In the present, this includes subduing various actors suspected of terrorism links.
When a nation does not have close allies of great military strength, it is important for it to have its own powerful military capabilities. This is especially important in fending off attacks from outside forces. In a recent example, President Gaddafi of Libya has isolated himself and does not possess allies of great strength. It has been an uphill battle for them to fight against NATO and its allied military forces. Indeed, Gaddafi's military weakness in relation to its enemies will spell the end of his rule sooner or later. The nation of Libya will survive but not under the leadership that they have been accustomed to for the last 30 yrs.
A nation with powerful allies, however, need not have a strong military to survive. For example, the formation of the European Union resulted in a sort of United States of Europe. In times, of war, nations of member nations, such as Switzerland, can probably count on defense assistance from its more military-capable leaders, such as England and France. Also, nations that receive substantial aid from world powers can also survive without possessing its own powerful military. Israel, for example, has a relatively strong military but not nearly as strong as that of the United States. With substantial funding from the US, Israel can maintain this strength and defend itself from certain threats posed by its Arabic neighbors.
Indeed, military strength is a strong indicator of a nation's relative standing in the world. A powerful military not only can help a nation defend itself from outside and inside threats---it can also promote other objectives such as expanding territory and subjugating people of other nations. Use of a military in certain instances, such as fighting a war deemed unnecessary for maintaining a nation's security, may prove unpopular with the people. However, leaders of nations can use their gift of gab and argument to justify any situation they feel warrants military intervention.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's ability to survive might not depend on its military strength. Discuss what you think determines when a nation's ability to survive is dependent upon its military strength.
___
Militaries serve a crucial role as vehicles for completing a nation's objectives. Their most important purpose is to defend a nation from attacks within and outside of its borders. In addition, they also may launch offensive attacks on enemies for various reasons, such as preventing the suspected accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and helping to depose authoritarian leaders of other nations (to site recent examples). Usually military strength correlates with a country's relative power in the world. However, possession of military strength is not always necessary for a nation's survival.
Militaries have helped their respective countries promote goals in nation building. While the expansion of territories is no longer a widely accepted practice, nations for several centuries have grown their territories through the use of military strength. For instance, the powers of Europe spread their influence in the newly discovered western hemisphere and other parts of the world from the 15th to 19th century . The native people of these territories could not defend themselves using their unsophisticated weapons. Those nations with guns and other tools of military strength quite easily took over wide areas of land. The New World countries eventually gained independence from the colonists; However, today's inhabitants of the western hemisphere continue cultural traditions inherited by the conquistadors, including language and religious practices.
Militaries have also played an important role in ensuring victories during times of war. The United States, especially following WWII, started to strengthen its military in response to the Communist threats. While major wars, such as those in Vietnam and Iraq have not been characterized as "successful," the US military strength helped achieve its defense and security goals in many other smaller contexts. In the present, this includes subduing various actors suspected of terrorism links.
When a nation does not have close allies of great military strength, it is important for it to have its own powerful military capabilities. This is especially important in fending off attacks from outside forces. In a recent example, President Gaddafi of Libya has isolated himself and does not possess allies of great strength. It has been an uphill battle for them to fight against NATO and its allied military forces. Indeed, Gaddafi's military weakness in relation to its enemies will spell the end of his rule sooner or later. The nation of Libya will survive but not under the leadership that they have been accustomed to for the last 30 yrs.
A nation with powerful allies, however, need not have a strong military to survive. For example, the formation of the European Union resulted in a sort of United States of Europe. In times, of war, nations of member nations, such as Switzerland, can probably count on defense assistance from its more military-capable leaders, such as England and France. Also, nations that receive substantial aid from world powers can also survive without possessing its own powerful military. Israel, for example, has a relatively strong military but not nearly as strong as that of the United States. With substantial funding from the US, Israel can maintain this strength and defend itself from certain threats posed by its Arabic neighbors.
Indeed, military strength is a strong indicator of a nation's relative standing in the world. A powerful military not only can help a nation defend itself from outside and inside threats---it can also promote other objectives such as expanding territory and subjugating people of other nations. Use of a military in certain instances, such as fighting a war deemed unnecessary for maintaining a nation's security, may prove unpopular with the people. However, leaders of nations can use their gift of gab and argument to justify any situation they feel warrants military intervention.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
What is the role of political opposition?
The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power.
Describe a specific situation in which the role of a political opposition might be something other than to criticize the policies of those in power. Discuss what you think determines when the role of a political opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power and when it should not.
___
Last month, the Egyptian people protested in masses against the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. They successfully ran him out of office and are currently creating a more democratic system that would make room for political parties and other marginalized groups of the past. In authoritarian governments, such as that of Mubarak, political opposition does not really exist and the people suffer as a result. While part of a political opposition's role is to criticize the policies of those in power, it also has the broader effect of keeping the political atmosphere dynamic and evolving according to the needs of the people.
Indeed, the political opposition seeks to gain office through criticizing the policies of those in power. The opposition offers an alternative to the people when the policies of the status quo is not working for them. For example, in the United States, the Tea Party wing of the Republican party gained a rather large following through their opposition of current administration policies. They are largely united and defined by what they're against, such as government regulations and taxes on the higher class. Given the downturn of the economy and accompanying high unemployment rate, the Tea Party has gained a lot of ground and support from Americans. While their extreme positions may seem odious to some on the left, they play an important role in maintaining an open dialogue about current policies and ways to improve the dire economic situation.
Political opposition is also healthy for reasons similar to why competition is beneficial for the marketplace. In general, competition allows businesses to come up with a better product that addresses the needs of the people. With a monopoly, businesses do not have the incentive to produce quality products at a reasonable price. The need to surpass the competition allows businesses to nurture creativity and savvy thinking that will result in higher profits. Political opposition also provides incentives for current leaders to please the people and be accountable for their actions. The need to stay in power by being re-elected for another term allows politicians to keep their ideas fresh and value the thoughts of their constituents.
Our system has established several mechanism for making sure politicians best serve their communities. One is the ability for different political parties to compete during elections. In reality, however, only two parties (Democrat and Republican) remain relevant to the system. The government also has established term limits, so that fresh faces can offer new ideas and perspectives every so often. The problem with a 30-year Mubarak-like rule is that politicians become complacent with time when they feel that their term is guaranteed for many years to come.
Indeed, political opposition plays the important role of questioning current policies and offering alternative ways to address society's problems. However, political opposition plays a more broad role in the grander scheme of things. That is, it keeps current politicians on their toes and more likely to address problems of society. It also allows fresh ideas to circulate in the political atmosphere and prevent the complacency often seen in countries permitting authoritarian rule.
Describe a specific situation in which the role of a political opposition might be something other than to criticize the policies of those in power. Discuss what you think determines when the role of a political opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power and when it should not.
___
Last month, the Egyptian people protested in masses against the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. They successfully ran him out of office and are currently creating a more democratic system that would make room for political parties and other marginalized groups of the past. In authoritarian governments, such as that of Mubarak, political opposition does not really exist and the people suffer as a result. While part of a political opposition's role is to criticize the policies of those in power, it also has the broader effect of keeping the political atmosphere dynamic and evolving according to the needs of the people.
Indeed, the political opposition seeks to gain office through criticizing the policies of those in power. The opposition offers an alternative to the people when the policies of the status quo is not working for them. For example, in the United States, the Tea Party wing of the Republican party gained a rather large following through their opposition of current administration policies. They are largely united and defined by what they're against, such as government regulations and taxes on the higher class. Given the downturn of the economy and accompanying high unemployment rate, the Tea Party has gained a lot of ground and support from Americans. While their extreme positions may seem odious to some on the left, they play an important role in maintaining an open dialogue about current policies and ways to improve the dire economic situation.
Political opposition is also healthy for reasons similar to why competition is beneficial for the marketplace. In general, competition allows businesses to come up with a better product that addresses the needs of the people. With a monopoly, businesses do not have the incentive to produce quality products at a reasonable price. The need to surpass the competition allows businesses to nurture creativity and savvy thinking that will result in higher profits. Political opposition also provides incentives for current leaders to please the people and be accountable for their actions. The need to stay in power by being re-elected for another term allows politicians to keep their ideas fresh and value the thoughts of their constituents.
Our system has established several mechanism for making sure politicians best serve their communities. One is the ability for different political parties to compete during elections. In reality, however, only two parties (Democrat and Republican) remain relevant to the system. The government also has established term limits, so that fresh faces can offer new ideas and perspectives every so often. The problem with a 30-year Mubarak-like rule is that politicians become complacent with time when they feel that their term is guaranteed for many years to come.
Indeed, political opposition plays the important role of questioning current policies and offering alternative ways to address society's problems. However, political opposition plays a more broad role in the grander scheme of things. That is, it keeps current politicians on their toes and more likely to address problems of society. It also allows fresh ideas to circulate in the political atmosphere and prevent the complacency often seen in countries permitting authoritarian rule.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Role of Technology as improving Human Life
The role of technology should be to improve human life, but not to affect human values.
Discuss what you think determines whether or not technology should affect human values.
___
The development of technology reflects a dynamic world with endless possibilities. Throughout time, humans have used their accumulated body of knowledge to create certain tools and develop skills to serve different purposes in society. As time moves on, the outpour of technology has become more sophisticated in its functions and purposes. While technology has the promise of improving human life, it also carries possibilities of abuse in the hands of the wrong people. It also may affect human values in adverse ways such that people lose part of their humanity and connection to nature.
Oftentimes, technology is used to improve human life and make arduous tasks more feasible. In the case of the United States and other economic powers, technology has allowed society to evolve from a subsistence lifestyle to one that allows people to specialize in a skill and outsource other tasks. This ability to specialize has, in turn, led to more accumulated and complex knowledge in certain subject matters and increased innovation. Furthermore, the advancement in technologies especially-- in the last quarter century--has led to increased communication among human beings without the past limitations of distance and borders. The internet has, in a sense, made our world smaller since people from opposite sides of the globe may communicate and conduct negotiations in real time with a click of a button.
With almost all good things in the world, there exists downsides. While technology can be used to improve human life, there may be adverse consequences. For example, technology can be implemented as a tool for control. Weapons, for instance, are used to kill or threaten people and nations. People also lose a certain amount of privacy with increased use of the internet. Companies, for example, can target customers by purchasing private information and web preferences from data mining companies. The negative possibilities of advancements of technologies are endless and also have been the topic of dystopian classics of literature, such as Brave New World and 1984.
The negative impacts of technology are not only a result of by those seeking personal gain and power. Technology also has certain unintentional consequences; in particular, it can adversely affect human values. For instance, it may cause people to lose their connection with humanity and nature. While the internet can connect people from long distances, it also has led some to prefer "virtual" contact over actual human contact. Some have lost the ability to read and connect with others on a personal level due to the inordinate time spent in front of a computer. Furthermore, advancements in technology has led some to lose their human instincts and ability to do certain tasks for themselves. They over rely on technologies to perform all tasks and they then develop a sense of lethargy. The simple pleasure, for instance, of taking a walk outside to go to the store or to do chores has become--for some-- an act of drudgery and waste of time. Using cars to travel short distances has become the norm and people, as a result, now lead sedentary lifestyles.
The advancements in technology throughout time has showcased the possibilities of human ingenuity. It has allowed societies to develop in dynamic ways, as well as ease the lives of future generations. While technology can be used to improve human life, there are always possibilities of abuse. People can use this accumulated knowledge to gain power and compromise the health and safety of others. Technology also carries the danger of dehumanizing people and isolating them from real human connections and nature. Therefore, it is vital for societies to maintain an open dialogue about the benefits AND the downsides of technology. Unfettered use of technology, indeed, can cause havoc in society such as those predicted in the dystopian classics of literature.
Discuss what you think determines whether or not technology should affect human values.
___
The development of technology reflects a dynamic world with endless possibilities. Throughout time, humans have used their accumulated body of knowledge to create certain tools and develop skills to serve different purposes in society. As time moves on, the outpour of technology has become more sophisticated in its functions and purposes. While technology has the promise of improving human life, it also carries possibilities of abuse in the hands of the wrong people. It also may affect human values in adverse ways such that people lose part of their humanity and connection to nature.
Oftentimes, technology is used to improve human life and make arduous tasks more feasible. In the case of the United States and other economic powers, technology has allowed society to evolve from a subsistence lifestyle to one that allows people to specialize in a skill and outsource other tasks. This ability to specialize has, in turn, led to more accumulated and complex knowledge in certain subject matters and increased innovation. Furthermore, the advancement in technologies especially-- in the last quarter century--has led to increased communication among human beings without the past limitations of distance and borders. The internet has, in a sense, made our world smaller since people from opposite sides of the globe may communicate and conduct negotiations in real time with a click of a button.
With almost all good things in the world, there exists downsides. While technology can be used to improve human life, there may be adverse consequences. For example, technology can be implemented as a tool for control. Weapons, for instance, are used to kill or threaten people and nations. People also lose a certain amount of privacy with increased use of the internet. Companies, for example, can target customers by purchasing private information and web preferences from data mining companies. The negative possibilities of advancements of technologies are endless and also have been the topic of dystopian classics of literature, such as Brave New World and 1984.
The negative impacts of technology are not only a result of by those seeking personal gain and power. Technology also has certain unintentional consequences; in particular, it can adversely affect human values. For instance, it may cause people to lose their connection with humanity and nature. While the internet can connect people from long distances, it also has led some to prefer "virtual" contact over actual human contact. Some have lost the ability to read and connect with others on a personal level due to the inordinate time spent in front of a computer. Furthermore, advancements in technology has led some to lose their human instincts and ability to do certain tasks for themselves. They over rely on technologies to perform all tasks and they then develop a sense of lethargy. The simple pleasure, for instance, of taking a walk outside to go to the store or to do chores has become--for some-- an act of drudgery and waste of time. Using cars to travel short distances has become the norm and people, as a result, now lead sedentary lifestyles.
The advancements in technology throughout time has showcased the possibilities of human ingenuity. It has allowed societies to develop in dynamic ways, as well as ease the lives of future generations. While technology can be used to improve human life, there are always possibilities of abuse. People can use this accumulated knowledge to gain power and compromise the health and safety of others. Technology also carries the danger of dehumanizing people and isolating them from real human connections and nature. Therefore, it is vital for societies to maintain an open dialogue about the benefits AND the downsides of technology. Unfettered use of technology, indeed, can cause havoc in society such as those predicted in the dystopian classics of literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)