Monday, July 7, 2008
The rich benefit from the current food crisis. To what extent is this true?
The current food crisis has impacted everyone, in one way or another. It is caused mainly by an increase in demand for biofuels and meat, an increase in oil prices, and to a lesser extent, a disruption is the production of crops. The current food crisis has been a controversial issue around the world as it has been argued that the rich and developed countries benefit from it at the expense of the poor, hence creating greater inequity and worsening the problem of poverty.
A well-known cause for the current food crisis is the increasing emphasis on growing crops that can be used for biofuels in the United States, Europe, and many other countries. Many developed countries are turning to biofuels in a bid to reduce pollution and to achieve sustainable development. Thus, producing corn to make ethanol is in direct competition with the use of these crops for food. Last year over 20 percent of the entire corn crop in the United States was used to produce ethanol. The US government also encourages the production of biofuels by giving out subsidies. A few companies in the rich world benefit from huge agricultural subsidies while the right of developing country governments to protect their own farmers is being whittled away. Hence the poor will suffer the most from the increase in food prices, while the rich will have an increase in income.
Farmland around the world is also being cleared to make way for development projects, which will benefit mainly the rich, and worsen the food crisis. For example, the fast pace of farmland conversion in China is causing alarm among top leaders concerned with food security and China’s ability to remain self-reliant in crop production. In China during 2000 to 2005, there was an average annual loss of 2.6 million acres as farmland is used for development. This loss of farmland is a direct result of China’s remarkable success in economic development over the past two decades, which has resulted in rapid urbanization and the conversion of enormous amounts of farmland into residential, industrial, commercial, infrastructure and institutional uses. Multinational corporations(MNCs) will benefit the most from this development as their profits will increase. On the other hand, farmers and people living in the rural areas will lose their livelihood. As a result, they will not have the income to enjoy the benefits of the development intended for them. Furthermore, countries such as China which are previously self-reliant in crop production may have to import food, and drive up the prices of food around the world. Therefore the rich and MNCs will benefit from the current food crisis.
On the other hand, most developed countries have abandon traditional ways of farming and turn to modern farming technology, which requires machineries and fertilisers. With the increasing oil prices, their costs will rise, and profits will fall. The food crisis may represent an opportunity for the poor to get out of the poverty cycle. For example, small farmers who are not reliant on expensive fertilizer or oil-fueled machinery can sell their excess produce at higher prices, which are still less than prices for food that might be trucked or flown in. It is also possible that the current food crisis may attract some of the world's urban poor back to the countryside to earn decent wages. A report released in April by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization confirmed that farmers worldwide would benefit from reducing their dependency on fossil fuels and adopting practices that help protect their environments. Hence, the rich may not necessarily benefit from the current food crisis.
The current food crisis is also caused by natural disasters, and both the poor and the rich will suffer. Natural disasters can disrupt the production of crops. For example, a 2007 cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent. Also, the drought last year in north-central China combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will lead to greater imports, hence keeping the pressure on prices. Hence, both the rich and poor will suffer from the increase in food prices as it is a necessity, though the rich are better able to cope with the higher prices.
No matter what, the food crisis will be here to stay as one of the major world issues in the 21st century. The poor will always remain at the bottom of the economy unless something is done to help them. The rich will most probably stand to benefit from this food crisis and they are also the people who has the power to help these poor people get out of the poverty cycle. As quoted by Mahatma Gandhi , "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." There will be less income disparity between the rich and the poor if the rich were to stop getting richer while the poor gains more. Food crisis will also be solved in the process of gaining income equity.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
4． “This is home, truly.” Is this the sentiment of young people in Singapore?
INTRO YES 4
Define “Home” – security, stability, sense of belonging
1
experience security and stability.
Good governance, forward looking --> good defence system
Strict laws in place --> low crime rates
2
Proud to be a Singaporean, many world class facilities. Eg. Changi airport being internationally competitive, and recognized as one of the best airports in the world.
NO
3
Due to meritocratic system, our education system is very competitive --> stress level high
People migrate to other countries with lower competition/slower pace of living.
Government constantly tries to attract foreign scholars to Singapore --> competition in schools.
Young people may feel that their own welfare is not much better den those foreigners.
High competition in the country for white-collar jobs.
Due to an inflow of foreign talents and outsourcing, companies avoid hiring local talents due to their demand for higher pay.
As the cost of living is high in Singapore, people usually aim for higher paying jobs; (white collar jobs) -->High competition for better paying jobs causes young working adults who just enter the workforce, to be unable to get jobs --> leading to people going overseas to find job opportunities.
5
Easily affected by western cultures due to the mass media and the rise of the new media – Internet.
This new media can be easily assessed and information around the world can be easily found. --> Young people are the main users of the internet --> most easily affected/influenced
Influence of western culture on locals due to globalisation.
Availability of goods from other countries, changes the spending and eating habits of locals
Example: fast-food restaurants like MacDonalds.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Animal testing or animal research refers to the use of non-human animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human primates — are used annually and killed during or after the experiments. Although much larger numbers of invertebrates are used and the use of flies and worms as model organisms is very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely unregulated and not included in statistics. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; while most animals are purpose-bred, others may be caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.
The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.The topic is highly controversial. Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in some areas. Opponents, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, question the necessity of it, arguing further that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation. The US and British governments both support the advancement of medical and scientific goals using animal testing, provided that except as necessary to achieve scientific goals, the testing minimizes animal use and suffering.
Pain and suffering
The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering, and the capacity of animals to experience and comprehend them, is the subject of much debate.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. About 420,000 were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 84,000 were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved.
In the UK, research projects are classified as mild, moderate, and substantial in terms of the suffering the researchers conducting the study say they may cause; a fourth category of "unclassified" means the animal was anesthetized and killed without recovering consciousness, according to the researchers. In December 2001, 39 percent (1,296) of project licences in force were classified as mild, 55 percent (1,811) as moderate, two percent (63) as substantial, and 4 percent (139) as unclassified. Although there have been suggestions of systemic underestimation of procedure severity.
The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17th-century French philosopher, René Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack consciousness. Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals, writes that researchers continued to equivocate into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain. In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain.
Laboratory veterinarian Larry Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support, some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined. The ability of invertebrate species of animals, such as insects, to feel pain and suffering is also unclear.The defining text on animal welfare regulation, "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" defines the parameters that govern animal testing in the USA. It states "The ability to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress and distress in animals."[76] The Guide continues that "Fundamental to the relief of pain in animals is the ability to recognize its clinical signs in different species...It is therefore essential that personnel caring for and using animals be very familiar with species-specific (and individual) behavioral, physiological, and biochemical indicators of well-being." On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states "The selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol". Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval.
Euthanasia is the practice of medically-assisted death. It is illegal in most countries.Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, or physician assisted suicide, is a merciful method of death. At the other end are opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this method as a form of murder.
Arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia
Since World War II, the debate over euthanasia in Western countries has centered on voluntary euthanasia (VE) within regulated health care systems. In some cases, judicial decisions, legislation, and regulations have made VE an explicit option for patients and their guardians.[17] Proponents and critics of such VE policies offer the following reasons for and against official voluntary euthanasia policies:
Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:
- Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
- Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence. Moreover, despite modern painkillers, there is little available to deal with the problem of 'breathlessness', which makes many ailing patients feel they will suffocate.
- Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society.
- Pressure: All the arguments against voluntary euthanasia can be used by society to form a terrible and continuing psychological pressure on people to continue living for years against their better judgment. One example of this pressure is the risky and painful methods that those who genuinely wish to die would otherwise need to use, such as hanging.
- Sociobiology: Currently many if not most euthanasia proponents and laws tend to favor the dying or very unhealthy for access to euthanasia. However some highly controversial proponents claim that access should be even more widely available. For example, from a sociobiological viewpoint, genetic relatives may seek to keep an individual alive (Kin Selection), even against the individual's will. This would be especially so for individuals who are not actually dying anyway. More liberal voluntary euthanasia policies would empower the individual to counteract any such biased interest on the part of relatives.[citation needed]
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:
- Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
- Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable.This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
- Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
- Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
- Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
- Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
- Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent. While VE proponents concede that personal and even socialized economic costs may add to the motivations for consent, they point out that health systems offer sufficient exceptions so as to relieve the pressure on hospital personnel.
Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of something. In biology, it collectively refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell cloning), or organisms. The term also covers when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually.
Ethical issues of cloning
Although the practice of cloning organisms has been widespread for several thousands of years in the form of horticultural cloning, the recent technological advancements that have allowed for cloning of animals (and potentially humans) have been highly controversial. Some believe it is unethical to use a human clone to save the life of another. Others have countered that people who exist today and have interpersonal relationships and personal histories should take precedence over never-conscious life at any stage of developmental maturity. The Catholic Church and various traditionalist religious groups oppose all forms of cloning, on the grounds that life begins at conception. Conversely, Judaism does not equate life with conception and, though some question the wisdom of cloning, Orthodox rabbis generally find no firm reason in Jewish law and ethics to object to cloning.From the standpoint of classical liberalism, concerns also exist regarding the protection of the identity of the individual and the right to protect one's genetic identity.
Gregory Stock is a scientist and outspoken critic against restrictions on cloning research.The social implications of an artificial human production scheme were famously explored in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration, food coming from cloned animals is safe to eat. In addition the FDA stated that cloned food does not require special labeling. Both meat and milk from cloned animals such as swine, goats and cattle has no differencies from the conventionally bred animals.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, said that cloned food still should be labeled due to the fact that safety and ethical issues of it remain questionable.
Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, stated that FDA does not consider the fact that the results of some studies revealed that cloned animals have increased rates of mortality and deformity at birth.
FDA specialists mentioned that when the cloned animals are aged from 6 to 18 months, they are almost similar to conventionally bred animals. The food receives a certain label only in cases when its features are modified by the way it is produced.
Stem cell controversy is the ethical debate centered around research involving the creation, usage and destruction of human embryonic stem cells. Some opponents of the research argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and fundamentally devalues the worth of a human being. Contrarily, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies could have significant medical potential, and that excess embryos created for in vitro fertilisation could be donated with consent and used for the research. This in turn, conflicts with opponents in the pro-life movement, who advocate for the protection of human embryos. The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that embryonic stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.
The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and constitutes murder. The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the opinion that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell.
A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.
Medical researchers widely submit that stem cell research has the potential to dramatically alter approaches to understanding and treating diseases, and to alleviate suffering. In the future, most medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a variety of diseases and impairments. Spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease are two examples that have been championed by high-profile media personalities (for instance, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox). The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research add urgency to the debates, which has been appealed to by proponents of embryonic stem cell research.
Recently, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., succeeded in obtaining stem cells from mouse embryos without killing the embryos. If this technique and its reliability are improved, it would alleviate some of the ethical problems related to embryonic stem cell research.
Another technique announced in 2007 may also defuse the longstanding debate and controversy. Research teams in the United States and Japan have developed a simple and cost effective method of reprogramming human skin cells to function much like embryonic stem cells by introducing artificial viruses. While extracting and cloning stem cells is complex and extremely expensive, the newly discovered method of reprogramming cells is much cheaper. However, the technique may disrupt the DNA in the new stem cells, resulting in damaged and cancerous tissue. More research will be required before non-cancerous stem cells can be created.
Bioterrorism is terrorism by intentional release or dissemination of biological agents (bacteria, viruses or toxins); these may be in a naturally-occurring or in a human-modified form.
In September and October of 2001, several cases of anthrax broke out in the United States in the 2001 anthrax attacks, caused deliberately. This was a well-publicized act of bioterrorism. It motivated efforts to define biodefense and biosecurity, where more limited definitions of biosafety had focused on unintentional or accidental impacts of agricultural and medical technologies.
Anthrax is an acute disease in humans and animals that is caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis and is highly lethal in some forms. Anthrax is one of only a few bacteria that can form long-lived spores. When the bacteria’s life cycle is threatened by factors such as lack of food caused by their host dying or by a change of temperature, the bacteria turn themselves into more or less dormant spores to wait for another host to continue their life cycle.
After ingesting or getting spores in a cut in the skin, a new host allows these spores to reactivate themselves and multiply in their new host very rapidly. The anthrax spores in soil are very tough and can live many decades and perhaps centuries and are known to occur on all continents except Antarctica. Anthrax most commonly occurs in wild and domestic grass-eating mammals (ruminants) who ingest or breathe in the spores while eating grass. Anthrax can also be caught by humans when they are exposed to dead infected pigs, eat tissue from infected animals, or are exposed to a high density of anthrax spores from an animal's fur, hide, or wool. Anthrax spores can be grown outside the body and used as a biological weapon. Anthrax cannot spread directly from human to human; but anthrax spores can be transported by human clothing, shoes etc. and if a person dies of anthrax their body can be a very dangerous source of anthrax spores.
Anthrax spores can and have been used as a biological warfare weapon. There is a long history of practical bioweapons research in this area. For example, in 1942 British bioweapons trials severely contaminated Gruinard Island in Scotland with anthrax spores of the Vollum-14578 strain, thereby rendering it uninhabitable for the following 48 years.The Gruinard trials involved testing the effectiveness of a submunition of an "N-bomb"—a biological weapon. Additionally, five million "cattle cakes" impregnated with anthrax were prepared and stored at Porton Down in 'Operation Vegetarian' - an anti-livestock weapon intended for attacks on Germany by the Royal Air Force. The infected cattle cakes were intended to be dropped on Germany in 1944. However neither the cakes nor the bomb were ever used. After the war ended the anthrax-impregnated cattle cakes were destroyed by incineration in late 1945. Gruinard, meanwhile, remained a no-go area until 1990.More recently, the Rhodesian government used anthrax against cattle and humans in the period 1978–1979 during its war with black nationalists.
American military and British Army personnel are routinely vaccinated against anthrax prior to active service in places where biological attacks are considered a threat. The anthrax vaccine, produced by BioPort Corporation, contains non-living bacteria, and is approximately 93% effective in preventing infection.
Weaponized stocks of anthrax in the US were destroyed in 1971–72 after President Nixon ordered the dismantling of US biowarfare programs in 1969 and the destruction of all existing stockpiles of bioweapons. Research continues to this day in the United States on ways to counter act possible bioweapons attacks.
Concentrated anthrax spores were used for bioterrorism in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, delivered by mailing postal letters containing the spores. Only a few grams of material were used in these attacks and it is unknown if this material was produced by a single individual or by a state sponsored bioweapons program. These events also spawned innumerable anthrax hoaxes. In response, the US Postal Service sterilized some of the mail using a process of gamma irradiation combined with the use of a unique and proprietary enzyme treatment formula supplied by Sipco Industries Ltd.
Because there is a worldwide shortage of organs for clinical implantation, about 60% of patients awaiting replacement organs die on the waiting list. Recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of transplant organ rejection have brought science to a stage where it is reasonable to consider that organs from other species, probably pigs, may soon be engineered to minimize the risk of serious rejection and used as an alternative to human tissues, possibly ending organ shortages.
Other procedures, some of which are being investigated in early clinical trials, aim to use cells or tissues from other species to treat life-threatening and debilitating illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, liver failure and Parkinson's disease. If vitrification can be perfected it could allow for long-term storage of xenogenic cells, tissues and organs so they would be more readily available for transplant.
There are only a few published successful xenotransplant procedures. Some patients who were in need of liver transplants were able to use pig livers that were on a trolley by their bedside successfully until a proper donor liver was available.
Xenografts have been a controversial procedure since they were first attempted. Many, including animal rights groups, strongly oppose killing animals in order to harvest their organs for human use. Legitimate medical concerns exist about possible disease transfer between animals and humans, such as the porcine endogenous retrovirus found in pig tissues. Religious beliefs, such as the Jewish and Muslim prohibition against eating pork, may also present concerns for some.
In general, however, the use of pig and cow tissue in humans has been met with little resistance. The tissue is harvested from agricultural animals that were already being butchered, which is less offensive to most people than the idea of raising a primate (which due to its genetic similarity would produce more suitable organs for transplants to humans) solely as an organ donor. Similarly, while some individual Jews may not wish to receive a pig valve based on their personal beliefs, the rabbinical view is that the use of pig valves in humans is not a violation of kashruth law. In fact, killing a pig in order to save a human life is a requirement in the Jewish faith, under the laws of pikuach nefesh.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Political Systems
1. Republic
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people) have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic.
In the early 21st century, most states that are not monarchies label themselves as republics either in their official names or their constitutions. There are a few exceptions: the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the State of Israel, and the Russian Federation. Israel, Russia, and Libya would meet many definitions of the term republic, however.
2. Democracy
In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs.
3. Marxism/Communism
Marxism is both the theory and the political practice (that is, the praxis) derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Any political practice or theory that is based on an interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels may be called Marxism; this includes different forms of politics and thought such as those of Communist Parties and Communist states, as well as academic research across many fields. And while there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:
- an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, and social relations among people
- a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
- an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
- an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
- a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
- a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
- and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx. Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology, because it is the consequence of historical materialism and the revolution of the proletariat.
Although many forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism, non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.
4. Socialism
Socialism is a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
In some Latin American countries, socialism has re-emerged in recent years, with an anti-imperialist stance, the rejection of the policies of neo-liberalism and the nationalisation or part nationalisation of oil production, land and other assets. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, for instance, refer to their political programs as socialist. Chávez has coined the term "21st Century socialism" (sometimes translated more literally as "Socialism of the 21st century"). After winning re-election in December 2006, President Chávez said: "Now more than ever, I am obliged to move Venezuela's path towards socialism." [43]
5. Dictatorship
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has three possible meanings:
- Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable,being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
- In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
- For some scholars, like Joseph C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what the government regulates). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) corresponds to liberalism (government emphasizes individual right and liberty). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
In the postwar era, dictatorship became a frequent feature of military government, especially in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In the case of many African or Asian former colonies, after achieving their independence in the postwar wave of decolonization, presidential regimes were gradually transformed into personal dictatorships. These regimes often proved unstable, with the personalization of power in the hands of the dictator and his associates, making the political system uncertain.
Monday, September 10, 2007
1. Globalisation and Culture
Globalisation refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.
Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.
PRO-GLOBALISATION
The pro-globalisation arguments are based on the statement that (cultural) change is an essential part of life and not neccessarily means the loss of traditional values. Proponents also state that the export of American products all over the world is only a sign of economic success, not of monocultural dominance. Indeed, new global media, such as the internet, have proven a powerful means of projecting traditional culture (and the culture of radical opponents of globalisation). In addtion the integration of culture coming along with globalisation is seen as a positive movement against fundamentalistic violent ways of thinking.
ANTI-GLOBALISATION
It is argued that one of the consequences of globalisation will be the end of cultural diversity, and the triumph of a uni-polar culture serving the needs of transnational corporations.
An example of cultural clash in the name of globalisation was the destruction of a McDonalds outlet in southern France by a farmer, Jose Bove, who supplies milk for French Roquefort cheese. http://www.gascd.com/josebove.php
2. Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable Development
Biodiversity is the variation of taxonomic life forms within a given ecosystem, biome or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems.
Sustainable development is defined as balancing the fulfilment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future.
Energy and environment are essential for sustainable development. The poor are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation and lack of access to clean, affordable energy services. These issues are also global as climate change, loss of biodiversity and ozone layer depletion cannot be addressed by countries acting alone.
There is growing recognition that we have to look beyond economic progress to achieve sustainable societies. Sustainable Development must be ecologically sustainable. Economic and social progress depends on base ecosystem services (for example oxygen production and carbon dioxide absorption by plants) and a healthy environment. Development also implies an improvement in the quality of life through education, justice, community participation, and recreation.
3. Terrorism and War
Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants.
War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror.asp
