Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

Question: In Text A, the author argues passionately for why he considers Science to be a menace to civilisation. In contrast, the author of Text B reasons that it is unfair to simply denounce Science as such. Whose view and arguments do you agree with? You may use relevant information from the texts to justify your answer. However, you should rely largely on your own relevant ideas and experiences.

I believe that Science was not a menace to civilisation in the past. However, it has become more and more of a danger to civilisation in this nuclear age.

In the past, Science was a branch of studies which gave rise to many new innovations and inventions. Tooth extraction in the past made use of many dangerous-looking types of equipment and encompassed many tiring procedures. However, after being “blessed” by the wonderful Science technology, tooth extraction became a much easier process which just requires one machine and one dentist (obviously). Many things which we see around us everyday are all also breakthroughs of Science, such as the laptop, air conditioner, and the lifts and so on. In this way, we can see that Science has indeed improved our lives by making it more comfortable and efficient in getting things done.

In the 90^th century, science made almost anything possible. There were better healthcare, better medical faculties and better defence system. It also made people’s death come easier and earlier. Science could kill as easily as saving people.

In the warring ages, there appeared to have a drastic increase in war machines production and advancement of war technology which also encompasses the production of new and more efficient bombs, missiles and tanks. All of this science technology improved the country’s defence system, but it also exposed us to more danger and death from the advanced weapons and their destruction forces, such as the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War 2. Many suffered side-effects from the bomb, and these effects were not short-termed. After seeing the impact that Science has on civilisation in this instant, it is understandable that there is such a statement that says Science being a menace to civilisation. However, it is thoroughly unfair to announce Science as a menace to civilisation just based on a few points.

It is totally unfair to say that Science has helped the humans only and not the other species of living organisms. As more research is done in the field of living organisms other than humans, we have come to realise more of their importance and have come to realise that there are not just food sources, the animals can be a human’s best friend as well. Take for example, a sensitive and intelligent dog leading a blind man on the plain streets. This was not possible in the past, when human beings did not know that the dogs could be such a good helper to humans.

Science is a branch of studies. The study of Science itself cannot be evil or good. It is the results of science discovery that marked out whether it is helpful to society or it will not benefit society. It is the humans who make use of the science technology for good or for evil. If the human use the science technology for good, science would then benefit the majority. If the human who is using the science has evil intentions, then science itself would then become a menace to civilisation. Once you gain the knowledge of the science behind the mechanisms, you may unleash it for good or evil.

Therefore, I believe that Science when used correctly will not be a menace to civilisation, however, it could in another way be a menace to civilisation as well.

Pornography -- to censor or not to censor

Question
In the first passage, pornography is seen to be “morally objectionable … (that) degrades women as mere sex objects” while in the second passage, pornography is said to be a mere expression of sexuality. Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

Pornography is defined as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, magazines, videos with little or no artistic merit designed only to excite sexual impulses and to stimulate sexual desire. It is considered by public authorities as a violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. Many people have conflicting ideas on the reasons of whether censorship should be exercised. However, currently, censorship has been exercised in the area of pornography. What is considered the accepted standards of sexual morality? What is the nature of pornography? What can we do to prevent pornography from corrupting young people’s minds? As described on Mormon Times, pornography is described as one which is seductive and contains a destructive nature.

Why is the nature of pornography deemed as destructive?
It has the power to enslave and destroy. Enslavement comes with the form that the sexually explicit images have addictive properties. In 2004, Dr Judith A. Reisman explained that emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain triggering an instant, involuntary but lasting biochemical memory tail. These neurochemical pathways, once established and activated from hibernation, are difficult and almost impossible to delete and remove. Some of these erotic images may trigger fear, shame, anger or hostility. These fantasies become embedded, commonly confusing and addicting many of those people being exposed to pornography.
Therefore, I strongly believe that we should try to exercise censorship in the area of pornography. Pornography not only endangers the healthy development of young people, but also erodes people's mind, destroying the accepted moral standards of the society.

Women who act in the pornography industry are labelled as “porn stars”. In the New York Times Magazine, the author, Frank Rich, came up with a thesis that states Pornography is a big business with $10 billion to $14 billion in annual sports. This gives others the wrong impression that these women would do pornography all for the sake of getting rich. These also give men the impression that the women who do such stuff are cheap and the men would obviously be more superior to them.

However, in recent years, there has been a significant increase in pornography addiction by many teenagers and others. Censorship should really be exercised in area of pornography as many people would be affected by uncensored pornography. As stated by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, the viewing of such pornography films or videos or photographs will “awaken the hibernating irritated beast” or will “arouse the sleeping lion in the brain”. Some of these people who viewed these pornography films said that they do it to while away their time. However, the time that is being used to watch pornography can be used for more consequential things. Activities such as posting stupid things on blogs, it could also be another way to waste away their free time. Another way to idle away their time would be to do more meaningful activities such as reading, participating in Community Involvement Programme and also to interact more and spending more time with the family.

What can we do to prevent pornography from corrupting young people’s minds?
We can censor pornography as pornography is seductive, destructive and unsuitable for young people. When viewed by the young people, it would be a forever permanent memory that would be entrenched into the brain. Unlike studies and notes memory, it would be very hard to delete.

People have been quarrelling about whether pornography is a violation of accepted moral standards. While some may agree with this, others disagree. I strongly feel that it is wrong to show prejudice to women by viewing them as sex objects. Therefore, I feel there’s a need for pornography to be censored.