Does religion have a place in modern society?

I wrote this in the latest examination (Promotional Examinations) and I was told that it was a really relevant and well argued essay, so here I've decided to use it as my post for this time. Hope you people find it to be a good read as well.

With the passing of time, many question if religion is still a relevant institution in the modern world. Indeed, in the age of science, many religions have lost their central roe in the lives of people. At times, conflicts have even arisen due to the "irrelevance" of religion. Darwin, in his pursuit of science was forced by the church to stop his support of the theory of evolution which tries to explain how organisms exist as a plethora of species in the world today. Inter-religions conflicts dominate the headlines in these troubled times as well. With such problems prevalent in society, it is truly justified that some may question if religion has or does have a place in modern society.

Religion, even with its flaws, does have its role in society. Religions, in their preaching, teach followers to take on selfless roles in society to benefit the less fortunate. it is under the strong backing of religion that organisations like YMCA Youth For Causes are formed to benefit society, Churches are also known to bring followers on overseas volunteering work, which often aids in the development of rural areas in less developed countries. Locally, a monastery provides free meals for those who are too poor to afford basic necessities. Such acts, though not always limited to those of religious organisations, show that it is indeed important that religion exists in modern society, as the ability of religion to call upon and influence its followers to do good are often something few others are able to do, even for multibillionaires and pop starts who command companies of more than a hundred thousand workers worldwide or fan bases that possibly reach into the millions.

Religion is also able to help individuals survive trying times. Karl Marx once remarked tat religion is the opiate of the masses, and more recently, a book was written with the title "The God Delusion". While these terms often bring with them a negative connotation, it is only right that this "opiate" and "delusion" should be promoted if it is able to strengthen the soul in times of adversity. That is why many patients of terminal illnesses often turn to religion for moral support and a report in the Straits Times mentioned that religious individuals are able to embrace the controversial topic of death with relative ease compared with those who do not have a faith. Thus, whether religion brings tenacity to individuals through seemingly "unglamorous" ways such as "delusions" would be insignificant to the final result of religious individuals being able to out-do their counterparts in mental resilience.

Some may also argue that religion, though a "relic of the past", helps preserve the traditional way of life in societies faced with the fast paced twenty-first century. Much of ancient society revolves around religion, as seen from the church being the highest authority in medieval Europe, after the monarchy. In China, Emperors used to offer lavish gifts and food to the gods, during festive occasions. Thus, by preserving the religions that have made ancient societies the way they were, the preservation of ancient traditions and culture is highly achievable, even without much need for organisations to protect certain sites.

However, the diminishing role of religion is indeed evident in modern society, In the past, religions used to provide an explanation for the unknown from the movement of celestial bodies to the origin of mankind. However, it seems, with the improvements in science and technology, mankind no longer turns to faith for explanations. Now, science has taken over the role of explaining and defining the world. The movement of planets is explained by physics and the origins of man, by evolution. People no longer believe in luck, but statistics. To some, death is no longer associated to the afterlife, but cardiac arrest and brain death. In the age of science, not even religion is able to survive the "cutting edge" of our advancements in this field and has lost its place in society.

Also, in modern times, many individuals, having developed in relatively peaceful times, and with freedom of religion. do not see much benefits in religion in contrast to the "costs" they pay in the form of conformity to heir religion's guidelines on their way of life. Scientists, in particular are most adversely affected. Stem cell testing has always been contested by the church even though scientists promise of a better future in the scene of medicine. With the dilution of cultures, many have also seen religion restricting their choice of spouses. Thus some individuals see religion as irrelevant in modern times as changing times have lead to changes in culture and goals of individuals.

To put all views into context, religion is indeed losing its influence, and thus its place in society. After all, it is already remarkable that any institution is able to survive the changes that accompany the passing of millennia. However, the role of religion is still important in the hearts of many, and though it is expected to lost its role of explaining the unknown some day, it is still relevant as as source of hope and moral guidance in the complexities that define today's state of affairs, and therefore has a place in modern society.

Respect: not everyone gets what they deserve

My brother recently spoke of a conference between a high ranking official in the military and cadets of the Specialist Course (people in this course graduate as sergeants). As part of their training, some infantry specialists were sent to Taiwan for their training, and they remarked that the treatment of soldiers there is much different from that they received in Singapore. In Taiwan, citizens view soldiers as respectable individuals involved in a noble profession, deserving of great respect for their tireless duty of protecting a state. In Singapore, the contrast is stark. People view NSFs as nothing more than youths who have yet to mature, while regulars are at times viewed as people who take up such a government affiliated job in order to seek a comfortable lifestyle with a "metal rice bowl" as some chinese put it.

The official, taking the question, replied that it is true that Singaporean soldiers garner much less respect from the people they work to protect, compared to their counterparts in other nations. He claimed that there was once when he boarded a commercial flight in his uniform, and the captain of the flight announced to the plane that there was a soldier (him) on board and requested for all passengers on board to applaud his effort in keeping the area safe. Later, he told the cadets that it was common for captains of commercial flights to do such announcements overseas so long as there is a soldier in his/her uniform on board.

It is evident that something must have gone really wrong on our side. Soldiers are arguably on of the most noble professions. Without soldiers, there would be no security in the state. We would have to live every day fearing that other countries can easily take over the very land we call our home. Vulnerable countries would also be subjected to lacklustre economic performance due to investor fears of political instability caused by such country being viewed as incapable of maintaining its sovereignty. In times of political turmoil, it is notable that the police loses its effectiveness in maintaining social stability. It is often the army that is mobilised at such times to ensure that there are fewer disruptions to the lives of civilians. Yes, soldiers at their best are the protectors of the weak and the helpless, creating order in times of chaos.

So why do local soldiers command less respect than their foreign counterparts? I do not have much of an explanation, but perhaps, it might be due to the fact that our citizens live in times of relative peace and stability. In other places, the role of a functional military is always one of the top priorities. The US, with its  role as the "global policeman", has had the largest number of troops stationed overseas. The role of US troops in fighting wars on terrorism as well as in the recent Arab Spring showed the never ending role of US troops on the world stage, and thus their importance to the American people. In Taiwan, an example named above, the maintenance of a functional military is of utmost importance in the event of a turn in (until recently warming) cross-strait ties. In such places, the citizens are able to see and feel the role of the military in their country, unlike in Singapore, where the military is kept as a deterrent and has not been mobilised or tested in actual warfare since independence.

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind that even without any visible involvement of soldiers in the daily lives of citizens-in our case, not even in the news- having men involved in this profession even as nothing more than a deterrent force is already a great improvement to not having anyone to guard us. George Orwell once said, "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Remember, anyone in any occupation can go on a strike to request for pay hikes and more work benefits, but if the military does that, we might well lose our sovereignty in the blink of an eye. We owe much to them, and they certainly deserve a certain level of respect.

Nuclear energy: should we continue to develop it?

I was just watching the International Varsity Debate on television and I heard about the debate over developing nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy. Ever since the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, many have rekindled the old sentiment about the safety of developing nuclear energy as a source of electricity. Timely a reminder, though. When news of the nuclear accident spread throughout the world, many countries were forced to put their pursuit of nuclear energy on hold. Few governments have cancelled their plans, though, and in Asia, the "pillar of growth" for the years to come, many governments did not even seem to be shaken by the severity of the accident, as well as the reactions of their citizens to the effects of nuclear power accidents. The incident was more than just news at that point in time. It was a checkpoint, a consideration for governments in an era where the pursuit of renewable energy is of utmost importance.

In my humble opinion, the development of nuclear technologies for generation of electricity should not be stalled by these developments. It is true that the tragedy of Chernobyl should never be repeated, and that the impacts of any nuclear accident is much more severe than many other forms of renewable energy. Contaminated land usually takes years before radiation is eliminated as a health threat. However, the use of nuclear technology does not always come with such accidents. Accidents are not a sign of the unsuitability of nuclear technology, but lapses in safety procedures and government policies that govern the use and maintainence of plants. In the Chernobyl incident, the explosion was a result of a testing in the nuclear power plant that ended up in the mess that turned a bustling city into a ghost town. In the Fukshima plant, it shows that the construction of nuclear power plants should be done with consideration of the geographical location (the plant had backup generators that could have shut down the plant and prevented the accident, but they were knocked out by the tidal waves that accompanied the earthquake). If more consideration had been given, it is visibly possible to prevent the nightmares that occured, and we would never have considered nuclear power to be so dangerous a tool to meddle with.

In terms of environmental damage, hydroelectricity, one of the world's fastest growing source of renewable energy, is known that the construction of dams distrupts the ecosystem in rivers and lakes, potentially leading to the extinction of species. For example, the population of white sturgeon, a fish native to the US, is on the decline due to the fact that this species of fish depends on fast flowing waters to wash away sediments on the riverbed to allow its eggs to be protected under stones and pebbles which have now become covered by layers of silt, leaving the eggs of the white sturgeon exposed to predation. Also, deltas which depend on a continuous flow of sediments to form and serve as a habitat for animals and farmers alike, are now deprived of the silt that makes them fertile land for plants and crops. With the construction of dams, it is possible that the deltas will get eroded away soon, never to be replaced again with new sediments that are now trapped behind dams. It is known that the Nile delta is now retreating because the construction of the Aswan high dam causes sediments to be trapped in lake Nasser in Egypt. Thus it is visible that the widely favoured hydroelectricity does have its own drawbacks too, but they simply happen so slowly that few of us notice so long as it is not in our field of expertise.

Finally, nuclear energy has its advantages. Nuclear energy is much more consistent than other forms of energy, namely solar and wind energy. The two forms of energy named are highly dependent on weather conditions. Of course, many may argue that countries would choose whichever is more suited for local conditions, but who would know that there would be a month with 18 rainy days in Singapore? Even the government was given a rude awakening at the truth of climate change when floods hit the city. After all, the reason many have delve into this topic is to save the environment of climate change, and to depend on the climate in a time of climate change might not be the best solution. In my opinion, that should at best be a part of a greater solution, with other sources to complement it in areas where it has failed.

The reason why man has risen above other creatures over the numerous milleniums is due to the fact that we have learnt to triumph over nature. Long ago, man used to gather and hunt in the wild, subject to the conditions handed to us by the grasslands that was at once our home, our garden and our battlefield. Once, man used to sail by wind power that made travelling uncertain and dangerous at times. But with developments in our society and in science, we now domesticate our own animals and grow our own crops, using automated sprinklers and man made fertilisers (though the wave of organic activists are aiming to change that). We now travel using planes and ships that depend not on nature but on fuel. Yes, mother nature is fickle, but for there to be development, there must be consistency. That is why the mongols gave up their nomadic lifestyle after their successful conquest. It was only when civilisation breaks away from the whims and fancys of mother nature's inconsistencies that we have finally found a way to grow and develop in directions chartered by our own will. To once again turn back to nature and subject ourselves to these inconsistencies would take us back to the level we once were, which is why nuclear energy is indispensible in the end, as an alternative to fossil fuel. Surely, we are not talking about having majority of our energy generated by electricity, but as part of a system for provision of "cleaner" electricity, it gives us the consistency that we require.

Woonerf: modern day paradox

The Woonerf. A system of controlling traffic that would not even be considered an attempt at managing traffic. Ironically, it is the direction many countries are headed, and research has provided us with statistics that prove it is the right direction. This is the epitome of a modern day paradox that surprises many because the state of chaos that they expect does indeed occur, but to the benefit of society.

What is the Woonerf? Many may ask. It is a traffic management strategy started by the Netherlands where the use of traffic installations is removed in order to promote the use of "common sense" and personal awareness of drivers and pedestrians or any other road users to improve the overall safety on the roads. On Woonerf roads, traffic lights and pedestrian crossings are removed, and all roads are shared between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

However, laws regarding the punishments meted out to drivers who injure cyclists and pedestrians still stand. Thus, all 3 parties stand to lose out in the event of an accident. A motorist would have to pay fines or be sent to jail for knocking down cyclists and pedestrians, and cyclists and pedestrians would be injured should they be involved in traffic accidents. With such a situation, all 3 parties would aim to reduce traffic accidents as it is not beneficial to any of the 3. Also, since they do not have any traffic installations to rely on anymore, they would be forced to observe the traffic conditions as well as the other road users around them in order to ensure that they are able to avoid traffic accidents.

The principle of the Woonerf is to reduce the reliance of people on traffic rules and installations. With traffic rules and installations already an integral part of societies, many have come under the impression that traffic accidents can be avoided so long as everyone follows traffic rules. But that in itself is the mistake. We assume that everyone will follow traffic regulations simply because we do. And because of our reliance on such a "perfect" system, we are unable to react appropriately when we are faced with individuals who decide to break these established rules. With the implementation of the Woonerf, jaywalking and running red lights has become legalised. It is not uncommon for people to hold activities on roads which are shared with cars. With so much happening and so little "attempts" at managing traffic, road users are left to "negotiate" with each other on who gets the right to use roads and who doesn't. A pedestrian who sees an oncoming speeding car would not cross the road, and a car travelling at slower speeds would allow pedestrians to cross. This is opposed to a system where a car would continue driving past a traffic light even if a pedestrian decides to jaywalk, simply because the system has given him the right of the way, or a pedestrian who crosses a junction without concern for speeding cars simply because the "green man" is up.

The Woonerf has much to show us. More than the way of managing traffic, the Woonerf has actually shown us how seemingly "perfect" systems have the potential to fail because systems, no matter how complex or how comprehensive they can get, are nothing more that "dead" objects meant to serve an inflexible role. That is also why the justice system has to have judges and lawyers who "operate" the system of rules set by a country. It is a wonder that few people have thought about injecting more life into a system like those in traffic management, which can arguably be referred to as the "heart" of nations, transporting people from one place to another. But as the Woonerf has already shown us, people have already begun to see the failures of systems when they lack a human presence. Perhaps, we would soon find ways to improve on other systems as well when we find out more of them that are failing to reap the desired results simply because they lack the human touch that has dwindled since the industrial revolution and the "rise of machines" that has replaced some roles once played by humans.

The meaning of zero (beyond its mathematical significance)

Just a random thought, but the number zero, is a really peculiar number isn't it? After much thought, this number and what it stands for is more than just another number in the number line.

The number zero, is neither an integer or a real number. It is neither positive or negative. It is neither odd nor even. For such a number, it is nothing more than a symbol of non-existence in the language of numbers. It is a presence meant to mark the absence of numbers. But yet its presence means so much more in larger numbers where a zero means more than just the absence of any other numbers. It represents a jump in the value of numbers preceding it by 10 times the value of the next digit in the number, while also signifying that the particular spot it is situated holds no value.

Zero is more than just a an absence. It is a balance, where neither positive or negative of a number is in excess. It is the thin line where any number to its left on the number line would be of the same magnitude as that of any number equidistant to zero from the right, though the 2 numbers would be opposite in direction on a vector diagram.

The symbol of zero itself is an interesting one. Shaped as a circle (though often drawn as an ellipse or oval), it is a shape without a beginning, and without an end. A symbol of eternity that, in some cultures is favoured during times events marriages. A puzzling fact that any number, no matter how insignificant it is, when divided by zero, a non-existent presence (which is in itself a paradox), would give a number so large it can only be an infinite string of numbers that run as long as eternity represented by the character used to denote zero.

Fear: what are we really afraid of?

Quite some time ago, I was asked a question that got me thinking about the logic behind such a saying. An ex-literature student asked, "what do you gather from the saying 'there is nothing to fear but fear itself'?" Not the best question to ask a science student, but of course, I tried my best to come up with a satisfactory answer. However, rethinking it, I feel there is much more to this saying than the mere need to comprehend it that I felt at that point in time. Or perhaps, its significance goes way deeper, becoming an explanation of our behaviour and how we treat challenges that come our way.

So what does this saying mean? I do not claim to have the best and most accurate interpretation, but from my understanding, it means that when an individual performs an arduous task, it might not be the nature of the task that prevents individuals from completing it, but rather, the emotions associated with completing something of that nature. Yes, it is not about what happens, but how we react to what happens. And more often than not, it is our pessimism that leads us astray. To put it into context, we can say that the saying "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" means to say that often, it isn't the daunting nature of the task that prevents us from completing it, but the fact that we become paralysed by the thought of performing such a task that we do not even dare to take the first step to complete it, and even if we do, we often get so nervous about the thought of taking up such an endeavour that we make mistakes that we would not do under normal circumstances.

Indeed, if one did not experience fear, one might not be clouded by emotions so much so that he or she is unable to see or comprehend the situations he or she is in. However, we should also bear in mind that without fear, our other emotions might no longer be in check, and we might fall to our vices since there is but nothing to fear, not even consequences. In the end, fear is a double-edged sword that has the potential to do good as well as do harm to people who feel it. And it is my belief that there is no individual who has never experienced such an emotion in their life. Certainly, what a person fears depends on his or her values and goals, but there cannot be anyone who knows no fear. After all, fear is at times what drives us to improve on our weaknesses. But we should bear in mind that fear should be used to drive us in positive ways, and not serve as another obstacle on an already painful journey ahead.

This post is dedicated to all students taking the A-levels in due time (starting from PW oral presentation tomorrow): To all students, if you feel fear (or all other emotions related to it in any way) in the exams, remember, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Clear your mind of all emotion and see the present for nothing more than facts. Good luck and all the best for your endeavours. May you succeed in what you undertake.

Income disparity: what is fairness?

We've seen it too many times on the news: angry protesters taking to the streets to march against authorities. But this time, it seems politics and government policies are no longer (directly) the trigger of waves of unhappiness that have swept across numerous developed countries like a pandemic. It is a march against the congregation of wealth in the hands of the elite in the upper strata of society. It is a march for fairness in society. It is the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. As the "Occupy Wall Street" movement consumes the globe like wildfires, it is perhaps time for us to consider what is fairness in income distribution. What exactly would one consider as "fairness" in income distribution? Many of those involved in the recent protests would probably consider the rise of the "elite" in society as a sign of unfairness, that these individuals should not control the wealth of society. But why then, did they even reach that state to begin with?

So now, I guess I should start with my definition of fairness. In my opinion, fairness should be rewarding people with what they deserve from their labour and talents. Individuals who toil harder than others should be rewarded with a greater income than their peers who gave up on material benefits for a life of simpler pleasures. Indeed, those who put in the extra effort to do what their counterparts are unwilling to do should be allowed to live a life of luxuries to compensate for their sacrifices made in their careers. Thus, it is unavoidable that wealth would congregate in the hands of certain individuals even if all men were born with the same intellectual rigour, as the difference in the value each person places on his or her career and thus the effort they are willing to put in would differ, resulting in the more hardworking individuals amassing wealth beyond the rest.

Also, some individuals simply earn more than others because of their innate talents. Individuals who are more skilled or capable would be able to complete tasks more efficiently and achieve desired results at a success rate higher than average individuals. For such individuals, it is only natural that they earn more that others because the market demand for such individuals would push up their wages. This is inevitable as companies strive to increase their revenue and compete for the same talent pool. After all, companies are often responsible for the money invested by numerous stakeholders. It is only natural that these stakeholders would entrust their money to only those with the calibre to make the most of their money. These individuals who control the assets of the numerous stakeholders are also justified for having such a high salary as their responsibility is unlike the average man on the street.

Thus, before we are quick to shoot down the Nouveau Riche, we should consider how they even accumulated their wealth to begin with. For the process to have even started means there might just be some justification to their present state. Of course, there are times when the elite and the seemingly infallible decision makers fail to guide their corporations on the right path, but for most parts, have these men been at fault all the time? Even if that was the case, there may not be a better solution, and definitely not government control to the extent of nationalisation of companies.

Religion: the political scene of the 19th century?

What have you and will you give the world to remember you by?

Recently, there has been a picture on Facebook which attempts to challenge the morals of individuals by questioning why millions cried for the demise of Steve Jobs while few would consider the plight of individuals who would need our affection more than a man who has completed his journey in the circle of life. While some may empathise with the picture and even take up positive action to alleviate the problem, others might simply pass it off as anti-capitalist. However, in this post, what I wish to talk about isn't the intended action of the picture; that can be inferred by any individual at a glance. Instead, what I wish to talk about is the reason why individuals behave the way they did as depicted in the picture.

In this world, and even more so in the "age of self", most individuals pursue their own personal interest, aiming to maximise their utility, or satisfaction by engaging in what they enjoy. Of course, to maximise our utility, is to give individuals the satisfaction that would ensure them a basic quality of life, and individuals who provide us with goods that do just that are able to tap into this new social norm to propel themselves into fame and power.

Steve Jobs is one such example. He created the iPhone and other Apple products which gave consumers the satisfaction they could derive from using the applications and functions of the phone. Few can argue about how much convenience his products can bring to individuals with its ability to access the internet, to use applications that allow individuals to play games, read the latest news updates and send emails. But more than that, he has changed the scene of the handphone market. If it had not been for Apple, Nokia would still be creating smartphones twice the size of the average phones of today to the wow of consumers, and Motorola would still be resting on its laurels after its success with the razr series handphones. Our concept of handphones would still be devices that send SMSes and make calls, and maybe allow individuals to use a few applications. But Apple pushed forth a revolution that made smartphones flatter, faster and more versatile through the use of smartphone application markets. Perhaps, what is even more commendable is the fact that smartphones no longer depend on the numeric pad, but qwerty keyboards on their digital displays. Even the fundamental details of a phone no longer hold now, thanks to the entrance of Apple into the market.

Thus, it is not impossible for us to realise why so many individuals shed their tears of sadness on the day of Steve Job's demise. He has impacted much of humanity in a way that seems so immeasurable. He has changed the way the handphone - product that has become a necessity to us - is being constructed. His impact on the numerous individuals in the developed world is so great, he is remembered for that contribution, and those who have benefited from the creation of his products mourn for him. Indeed, how much attention the world gives you is directly proportionate to what you have given to the world. The individuals in that Facebook picture were not remembered, or did not have many tear for them simply because their contribution to society is insignificant. Of course, some may argue that these people did not have the opportunity to shine like the much celebrated geniuses did, but whatever the process, the end result, is as observed, and as mentioned above.

Bottom line: a man is remembered for his contribution to society. If he does not impact society, he will not be remembered, and no one will mourn for him. But if he were to change society in ways we never imagined, he would go down in history as more than just someone worth remembering, but someone worth identifying with, someone people are proud to be associated to. So ask yourself today - what do I want to do for society? That question is something only an individual can answer for himself. And with the passing of time, perhaps, only those who have known him, would know if he has really contributed and be remembered in the way he had wished it to be.

Have humans lost our natural tendency to evolve and adapt?

One of the most widely contested theories in the world, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is one that scientist have tried to prove for some time, to the dismay and objection of some religious leaders. In fact, among scientists, many have also questioned the feasibility of this age old argument which started off as a few simple observations made by Charles Darwin on the island of Galapagos. As such, this post, which leverages on the Darwinian theory of evolution, might not have the credibility that some may wish to see. Also, those who see this might object due to the moral inadequacies they think is being promoted. However, with a disclaimer already up, on this website, I hope individuals who dare to venture into the sphere of my thoughts have braced themselves for what is to come.

First of all, let's start with the Darwinian theory of evolution. Most of us already know the details. Some have an expertise in this field but for the benefit of those who have limited knowledge about it, this is basically an overview. In all populations, individuals have the tendency to over reproduce and leave behind more young than the environment can support. Thus, these individuals compete against each other for space, food, mates

and anything essential that is finite in the environment. But with so little going around and so many who want a share, competition gets tough and only those who are capable of surviving in the given environment due to beneficial traits conferred upon them by heredity from their parents leave behind young which are then able to live their parents' legacy and continue to spread their advantageous characteristics to future generations. Over time, evolution occurs when the population accumulates a large number of beneficial characteristics, leading to that population being highly adapted for the environment they live in.

For years, we as humans have lived under the same conditions described above. We have been subjected to environmental pressures that result in evolution in our populations. It is still visible among the poorer developing countries which are still plagued by high birth rates, high infant mortality rates, and harsh environmental pressures. But for the rest of us who can afford a computer, we are probably living in places that have broken the conditions required for the theory. We live in countries of declining birth rates, and this trend seems to be even more prevalent among families consisting of an educated woman in a highly paid managerial position. For men who already wield power and fame, public concerns of morality binds them to a single partner and through that, reduce the number of children they father. Furthermore, we live in countries where equity problems cause the government to embark on policies to "leave no man behind". So it seems, the most basic conditions of competition and overpopulation have been removed. 

With these crucial conditions removed, man has stagnated in the evolutionary timeline. If the theory is true, we no longer adapt to this new era characterised by conditions which favour individuals of greater mental resilience and intellectual rigour, much unlike those of the older ages where the brawls were valued over the brains. Thus, to be unable to adapt to these conditions is to be unable to propel ourselves as a species into a new age where science and technology, harnessed by intelligent minds, would allow us to further catalyse the development of new innovations that benefit society as a whole.

Of course, there have been some changes during our time that might possibly soften the impact of our concept of society on our evolutionary prospect. We have seen the world transformed into a global village where the whole world is gradually being integrated into an single population. In more open societies, polygamy is accepted provided both parties are in a mutual agreement and neither party or the family is shortchanged on their welfare. With a booming population, it may be high time that nature keeps us in check while improving the quality of individuals in the population. But for us living in the volatile 21st century, we can only hope to predict but the unpredictable future which never fails to surprise in ways we can never imagine. 

The worst (legitimate) profession: investing?

Highly controversial statement indeed. But first of all let's set the boundaries of what we're talking about here. In this post, we're exploring the moral and ethical side of legitimate occupations. Or rather, one legitimate occupation. Forget about your drug cartels and street thugs. We all know how these people bring harm to society. What I would like to ponder about is how legitimate professions might just be less than beneficial to society. I hope this post will be insightful to you.

Now, why do I say that investing is the worst profession? In my opinion, a profession has to contribute to society in order to be considered a "good" profession. We might not be aware of it, but yes, almost every legitimate profession contributes to society. Companies produce goods that are needed by society, and that is how they earn their revenue. The more society craves for the company's products, the more revenue the company earns. This is evidenced from the rise of technological giants like Microsoft and Apple, which propelled their founders into the "billionaire dictionaries" like Forbes. Factory workers, by being part of the manufacturing process, indirectly contribute to the welfare of society by being a "cog" in the whole factory "machine". In short, the more in-demand goods you supply to the society, the more you contribute to society, and the more you get paid. Income becomes proportional to contribution.

But what do investors do? Well, one for sure, there are many forms of investing. Perhaps, investments in stocks and shares might not bring about as much of a damage to society. But let's look at my argument first. Investors are unlike the people mentioned above. They do not produce tangible goods. They do not produce ANY good, in fact. Their job is to make a profit by being somewhat a "middleman" at convenient times, buying goods or stocks at low prices and selling them off when they are able to provide the investor with a profit. But what do we all learn in the first lesson of micro economics? Resource is scarce. There's only a finite amount of resources on our planet. What investors do, is to simply get these resources from doing nothing for society. They produce nothing tangible in replacement for what they take away. They get something from nothing. The good still stays on the market, but they reap a profit for just holding on to the good.

In fact, it has come to my attention that much of the world's turmoil is further aggravated by the actions of investors. With the looming fuel crisis, many have started investing in crude oil, reaping profits while pushing up oil prices, causing a fall in what can be termed as "real income". In countries experiencing rapid economic growth, most notably China, investors have been blamed for pushing up the prices of housing in major cities. In China, there were even reports of "ghost towns" where entire stretches of apartments are left empty after their construction is complete, simply because they are being bought as an investment. In the commodity market, which has made many worked up over the ever increasing food prices, investors have been blamed for stockpiling, leading to a shortage in food, and rapid increase in food prices.

With all these in mind, perhaps, investing isn't such an honourable profession, is it? But of course, many of the world's riches men have donated much of their wealth to the various charity organisations around the world. But that doesn't change the nature of the job. Perhaps, it is just a way to atone for the sins which brought them their wealth.

Are humanitarian efforts unnecessary?

We're all familiar with this as well. Whenever a disaster occurs, everyone rushes to the scene to help out, regardless of nationality, race or religion(well of course, we all know it's for building relations). But with all this "goodwill" going around, it has lead me to wonder if it really helps for people to intervene with what is arguably the course of nature.

Perhaps the first paragraph wasn't that clear. So let's put it in a context that is easily understandable. If a country faces perpetual low crop yields despite high population growth(which is prevalent in many poor sub-saharan countries and developing nations), most developed countries would intervene and provide food aid to these countries. Most non-government organisations would as well. This is the scene we are seeing. The ones that make the righteous feel proud and happy.

But let's take a step back. Imagine if all everyone does is to manage their own countries. These countries would be left in their dire situations, and their citizens would end up starving, with many dying of malnutrition. Cruel? Then let us think of what that leaves us with. In a "ideal" (ideal conditions where all assumptions hold true, not morally ideal where everyone lives in wonderland) situation, the population would immediately shrink back to the maximum size it's crop yields can support. From time to time there would be fluctuations in the population, but the population remains at the largest possible size for that given crop yield.

What that leaves us is a relatively stable population in the world, and the population explosion we have experienced would be slowed down significantly. With rising sea levels threatening to devour our land space and crop production, this might just solve the problems we are expecting to see in the future. No donations required. And perhaps, nature would select for us people who survive with lesser food (if there's such a gene)?

Of course, many would object to such a idea. Even I had to think things through before making this post. But this is just a free zone to shoot any thoughts I have right? But anyways, the question here to ask is, are we ready to desert our feelings? Many of us think of ourselves as the a higher order being because we act differently from animals. We think that humanitarian efforts are what distinguishes us from animals, who merely act on instinct.

So, are we willing to give up on what we think has "made us humans" all these while? I wouldn't be expecting that. Perhaps, not while we haven't grown desperate enough from climate change to discard our morals and turn on ourselves.

Education: perpetuating inequality in society?

This is my first post, so I guess I'll start with something most people are familiar with.

Education. This word has been the centre of attention in many societies past and present. The Chinese started using it as a way to select capable men to serve in the government. The Romans created the first public schools. Now, in the twenty-first century, people turn to it as a solution to break out of the cycle of poverty. But is that really the case? In the country where I live(Singapore), there has been reports that more than half the students in elite schools hail from families with at least one graduate parent, and this percentage increases with the academic performance of the schools. So it seems, the education system is only meant to serve academically inclined parents (who are most probably richer as well)!

Now, what is going on here? Few reasons involved, but I guess what I'm going to say next might not be the kindest of words one would wish to hear. The answer is simple: not everyone is born as intellectually inclined! Many assume that education provides a level ground for students of different family backgrounds to excel despite their parent's inability to perform well in the past, and their rationale is simple, that the rules are the same for everyone: everyone does the same tests, everyone studies the same chapters in each subject, the list isn't too long but at first glance, it's really convincing isn't it?

This is when nature sets in. Intellect is a heritable trait, and it doesn't change much throughout our lives. If anything, it can only decrease due to an unfortunate accident, but it will never increase. Throwing everyone into the same education system is just allowing children of academically inclined parents to continue their parents' legacy and leave the rest further behind. If this isn't enough for you to understand, I'll use the analogy of a fencing session I was watching. There were two fencers sparring, and I was watching it with a few other acquaintances. The rules governing their actions were definitely the same. They were trained under the same coach so they definitely had the same "stances" and "tactics". The scoring system for both were the same. Level playing field, no? Nope, one of them was destined to lose out. And the reason was simple, one of them was shorter, with a shorter arm that couldn't reach as far as the other. How is his sword supposed to reach the other fencer if his hand is shorter to begin with? Just the same way, even if both students have the same training, the same tests and all, the one with a higher intellect would be bound to score better than his peer. And that student who scored better probably inherited his intellect from his parents who were probably smarter than his peer's parent. It's just natural selection in the making, and education simply acts as the vehicle in which natural selection acts.

Another reason is that academically inclined parents are more likely to have a higher income, which allows them to spend more resources on their children's education, sending them to "cram school" as they term it in Japan and Korea, and "tuition" in Singapore. Other than this aspect of education, students of the parents mentioned above are able to learn other skills like music and sports, which gives them a further advantage over their peers who were born into less academically inclined families.

Of course, there are always exceptions, namely our favourite "rags to riches" motivational success stories. But the fact that we always gasp in awe when we hear such stories is in itself proof that such situations do not occur very often, and that to achieve that is out of the ordinary. I'm not saying that we should abolish former education- I believe this is one of the reasons development is so rapid in modern times. However, education has simply taken on the role of natural selection, selecting against less academically inclined students, and selecting for academically inclined students. Even without it, the same effect would have been achieved in the knowledge based economy of today's world. After all, it is impossible to stop a process that has operated for  as long as organisms have existed, to stop the process that lead to the birth of us humans. That however, would not change the fact that education has, contrary to popular belief, not lead to a more "equal" society, but a more "unequal" society where the same group of people simply continue reaping the benefits with their natural gifts- intellect.

Just about me

This is my first post so I'll just be doing some basic introductions about myself. I guess the best way to start is to introduce my personality, since the contents of the blog are largely influenced by my personality, even more so since I'm using this blog to "air" my thoughts online. I've taken two personality tests in this short span of time we all call life(even more so for a teenager like me), and the results of the two tests are pretty much accurate to certain extents. More so for one than the other. In the MBTI, the Myers-Briggs Typology index, I score as a mastermind/scientist. Basically, the description says that I'm all about forming systems internally to create a web of interconnected information that catalogues everything I know of. This makes me pretty much a systematic person empowered with all the traits required to excel in education. It is also said that INTJ My Achilles heel would be an insensitive use of words that offends people more frequently than most other personality types. Also, I've had some comments from friends that my stony personality does not really fit in with what most people want, and that it is really boring to be around me since I'm all about technical issues. As for the other personality, I guess that name itself is self explanatory? Oh, and one last thing. The term "mastermind" comes in because while my introverted character does not really allow me to stand in the spotlight and take the lead, it seems I do have some leadership potential, and I express that by manipulating the people around me to change the course of the group.

For this blog, you can expect loads of technical stuff that would overload you with information. I was told most girls won't like that, and most guys find it boring, but you can't please everyone, right? So exercise selective reading, and for those who actually like this blog after the few posts I put up here in the next few years(and hopefully even longer), hope this blog will be informative to you, and that the views aired will be insightful and more importantly, interesting!