There can be no doubt that science has brought enormous changes to our lives. Yet, there is still suffering and with the presence of nuclear arms and global warming, we seem to be close to self-destruction. As such, there are some who conclude that science is a menace to civilisation. However, I believe otherwise. Firstly, science has its benefits. Secondly, science is just a tool, it is the user which decides if it is used for good or ill. Thirdly, I think we have no alternative anyway.
One of the benefits science has provided is the greatly increased life expectancy and reduction of child mortality. While some may rant about the possibilities of using genetic manipulation to control the world, we should look at the tangible benefits. Why talk about grim predictions of the future such as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World when the statistics tell us that today, we have a vastly greater life expectancy and lower child mortality rate compared to say 200 years ago. Surely civilisation, which values life, should take this as a great achievement.
What then about the charges that science has destroyed the meaning of our existence, rendered us incapable of communicating face to face and destroyed the environment? In my opinion, this is just the effects of a misuse of science. Science, like all tools, can be used for good or evil. Take a kitchen knife for example. It can be used to kill a person or to cut vegetables but no one is going to say we should abolish it. Similarly, a lack of social skills will only result from an overuse of technology and a lack of purpose from one who may ignore religion. In addition, while science has allowed us to overexploit the environment, it also gives us ways to repair it. Science, when used in excess, definitely can turn against us. But used in moderation, with a positive outlook and the right intentions, one can avoid its negative aspects.
Lastly, all this talk about science being a menace to civilisation is useless if there is a viable alternative. As far as I can see, there is none. Science has become so entrenched in our modern society that we are not equipped to deal with its removal. There is practically no society and occupation that is completely free from the influence of science. As far as I know, likely only nomads in desert areas would be free. Even then, what kind of life is to be had just trying to scrape together enough food to survive? As for the rest of us, a world without science is like leaving a domesticated dog in the wild, it dies because it is unable to adapt to its new environment. Science has essentially become part of our civilisation.
In my opinion, while science has undoubtedly brought us closer to destruction than ever before, we must not forget that it has also allowed civilisation to come so far. As John F. Kennedy said in his inauguration speech, “man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life”. It is up to us to decide what we will do with technology but regardless, science has only been just a tool for us, it is ultimately our human nature that has been the greatest threat to our civilisation.
Sunday 12 April 2009
Friday 3 April 2009
Censoring pornography
Pornography is a major issue in our society with 4.2 million pornographic sites, 12% of all websites. Clearly with the widespread Internet access, pornographic material is readily available. So should the government censor pornography? What is the definition of pornography in any case? Pornography, is material explicitly depicting sexual content and meant to make the viewer sexually excited. In my opinion, pornography is morally objectionable and can potentially have negative consequences. Thus, the government should censor pornography as much as possible as well as send a clear message that pornography is disapproved.
Most pornographic material (I am referring to pornographic films and pictures) is directed towards men as 72% of men visit pornographic sites. Thus, these tend to portray women as weak, submissive and emphasizes male exploitation of women as well as the treatment of women as merely objects of pleasure. While these films or pictures were taken with the consent of the female actors, nonetheless, the impression is conveyed anyway. Younger viewers would probably be more likely to have these mistaken impressions, especially if they are unaware of the background.
Pornography should also be censored because it offends members of certain religions, such as Christianity and Islam. In both religions, sex is seen as an expression of true love by married couples. Pornography, can be seen as indulging in lust and using sex as merely a shallow means of satisfying short-term pleasure. It can also potentially undermine the traditional form of marriage as a result. Thus, just as the government censors material that is seen as insulting a religion, so should pornography.
Aside from the possible mistaken impression of women, users can become addicted to pornography. Thus, their work efficiency will obviously be lower if they cannot resist watching pornography. If this is done during work, they could be fired. Such addiction would also drain money as the addict buys more pornographic films.
Currently, due to the easy access to the Internet, it is extremely easy for younger users to stumble across pornography and get addicted. In fact, most of the 8-16 year olds who view pornography online do so while doing homework. With their lower will power and their curiosity to discover more about it, they may not grasp the negative implications of pornography. Thus, pornography should be restricted to minimize the impact on this vulnerable group.
The government should attempt to censor as much pornography as possible. While they obviously cannot censor all the pornographic sites on the Internet, they can at least censor the most prominent ones i.e. well-known ones and those that appear first in the search engines. This can be accompanied with the censoring of the more traditional and easily regulated mediums such as magazines. These actions can send out a strong message of disapproval and remind people that viewing pornography is socially unacceptable. While the government currently does block some pornographic sites, these are not thoroughly blocked. Thus, they may not send much of a message when it is so easy to circumvent them.
If the government blocks major pornographic sites consistently, younger web users who may be curious as to what pornography really feels like will be discouraged by their inability to access any sites. Thus, they might give up and find it is not worth the effort. In addition, the realization that the government is blocking these sites may shock them into recognizing that they are engaging in an activity that is disapproved by society. They may shift their focus from enjoying pornography to considering the negative social stigma of their behaviour.
In conclusion, I feel that pornography can potentially portray women as inferior, insult religious sensitivities and have a negative effect on productivity. The government should thus censor pornography, especially to minimize the impact towards the more vulnerable, younger Internet users. The large number of pornographic viewers worldwide should not lure us to think this is acceptable. The negative effect of pornography are far too large to just turn a blind eye.
Most pornographic material (I am referring to pornographic films and pictures) is directed towards men as 72% of men visit pornographic sites. Thus, these tend to portray women as weak, submissive and emphasizes male exploitation of women as well as the treatment of women as merely objects of pleasure. While these films or pictures were taken with the consent of the female actors, nonetheless, the impression is conveyed anyway. Younger viewers would probably be more likely to have these mistaken impressions, especially if they are unaware of the background.
Pornography should also be censored because it offends members of certain religions, such as Christianity and Islam. In both religions, sex is seen as an expression of true love by married couples. Pornography, can be seen as indulging in lust and using sex as merely a shallow means of satisfying short-term pleasure. It can also potentially undermine the traditional form of marriage as a result. Thus, just as the government censors material that is seen as insulting a religion, so should pornography.
Aside from the possible mistaken impression of women, users can become addicted to pornography. Thus, their work efficiency will obviously be lower if they cannot resist watching pornography. If this is done during work, they could be fired. Such addiction would also drain money as the addict buys more pornographic films.
Currently, due to the easy access to the Internet, it is extremely easy for younger users to stumble across pornography and get addicted. In fact, most of the 8-16 year olds who view pornography online do so while doing homework. With their lower will power and their curiosity to discover more about it, they may not grasp the negative implications of pornography. Thus, pornography should be restricted to minimize the impact on this vulnerable group.
The government should attempt to censor as much pornography as possible. While they obviously cannot censor all the pornographic sites on the Internet, they can at least censor the most prominent ones i.e. well-known ones and those that appear first in the search engines. This can be accompanied with the censoring of the more traditional and easily regulated mediums such as magazines. These actions can send out a strong message of disapproval and remind people that viewing pornography is socially unacceptable. While the government currently does block some pornographic sites, these are not thoroughly blocked. Thus, they may not send much of a message when it is so easy to circumvent them.
If the government blocks major pornographic sites consistently, younger web users who may be curious as to what pornography really feels like will be discouraged by their inability to access any sites. Thus, they might give up and find it is not worth the effort. In addition, the realization that the government is blocking these sites may shock them into recognizing that they are engaging in an activity that is disapproved by society. They may shift their focus from enjoying pornography to considering the negative social stigma of their behaviour.
In conclusion, I feel that pornography can potentially portray women as inferior, insult religious sensitivities and have a negative effect on productivity. The government should thus censor pornography, especially to minimize the impact towards the more vulnerable, younger Internet users. The large number of pornographic viewers worldwide should not lure us to think this is acceptable. The negative effect of pornography are far too large to just turn a blind eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)