Recent scientific and technological innovations have enhanced the quality of life. Do you agree?

The quality of life is normally taken to mean the general wellbeing of people and the environment in which they live in. it is undeniable that recent scientific and technological innovations have enhanced the quality of life for many. However, the developments of today that promise us a better quality of life are also the ones that can worsen the quality of life. Science and technology give their creators and inventors ever-greater supremacy and control, for good or otherwise, over the physical universe. Indeed, the possible dire consequences and impact of misused and misapplied innovations can affect the quality of life drastically. Technological innovations have resulted in an improved and well-established system of telecommunications and satellites. This leads to ease in access of communication system globally. International calls can now be made so readily that two people at separate ends of the world can now stay instantly in contact with a touch of the dial. But, with the onslaught of the worldwide web and wireless communication devices, technology has in fact, drawn people away from each other. The presence of electronic email and short-text messages, gave busy people of this high-tech society yet another excuse to dismiss the need for face-to-face meetings and interactions. Humans have become overly dependent upon such gadgets and devices to carry out the basic task such as to communicate. What will result from the above phenomenon is that the generations to come will be lacking in inter-personal and interactive skills. Medical scientific and technological innovations have been largely beneficial. Death rates, infant mortality rates as well as diseases of the past that used to lead to alarming numbers of deaths, have been eradicated greatly. Modern drugs and vaccines have eased much physically suffering. But, the discovery of Euthanasia and Genetic Engineering have sparked off a series of moral questioning concerning the supposed death with dignity as well as issues that include abortion as the latter opens up possibilities of misuse. It is true that abortion practices enable pregnant women who are at health risk to remove the baby in the course of pregnancy but many have taken advantage of this procedure to rid themselves of the product of irresponsible actions on their part. Also, Euthanasia, despite being said to be death in dignity, nevertheless, opposes many religious and conservative views. Advanced military technological innovations have provided a higher degree of security for citizens in countries. This does actually contribute to enhancing the quality of life as cyber warfare, biological warfare and nuclear warfare help to create a new form of defence mechanism to protect the people. Conversely, advance military technological innovations have also empowered modern armies a great level of destructive potential and selective aiming targets. This results in civilians and innocent people ending up as the greater victims in wars. In addition, the use of chemical and biological weapons has diffused effects that make the clear-cut drawing of battle lines more complex and difficult. Hence, instead of enhancing the quality of life, humans vulnerability increases and security decreases in times of war. Another political and legal aspect in which scientific and technological innovations have helped to improve the quality of life for humans is the availability of knowledge. Indeed, the access to information enhances democracy that provides citizens with a more liberal political system.

However, it should be noted that technology, though allowing easy access to the supply of knowledge, actually devalues the worth of information and knowledge. Today, knowledge can easily turn obsolete as focus is placed on the survival of the most info and techno-savvy society. Also, what is accessible from the wide pool of resources on the worldwide web does not always provide the correct and morally upright information. For instance, the wide pool of pornography corrupts ones mind and worsens the quality of life as it presents an improper, inaccurate and unrealistic view towards sex. Next, computers and high-tech machinery have aided in improving many economies, especially those of the developing countries. For example, South Korea went from being a developing country to becoming a newly industrialized country because they have become more capital-intensive and technologically oriented in their industries. Areas ranging from manufacturing processes to the service sector have been made easy by the use of both the computer and machinery. Nevertheless, such gadgets have become such an indispensable and essential tool in modern life that the need for labour-intensive employment has greatly declined. This puts lowly educated and lowly skilled workers out of jobs. Such an over reliance branches into almost every type of human activity and the importance of human resources will eventually be lost with time. How can quality of life be enhanced when the technology is deemed more valuable and useful than human resource? Another area to ponder about is the environmental aspect of life. Pollution and deforestation have both worsened the quality of life in todays society. Health problems have resulted from air, water, soil and hazardous waste pollution. Governments of less developed nations, in their eagerness to improve their economies by employing technology in their commerce, are willing to forsake the importance of the environment in maintaining the quality of life of their people. Poor air quality in twenty megacities in the world, with population of more than ten million results in an increase in lung, heart and brain cancer. This is the effect of traffic fumes; industrial processes, new sewage systems and even open refuse burning. Water quality is greatly diminished by the pollution caused by petrochemical complex, pesticide and factories. The issue of deforestation is also linked to the worsening of the quality of life as basic needs of recreation, culture and leisure are greatly affected. Thus, it is evident that though busy industries can be an indication of a healthy economy that can increase the monetary aspect of standard of living, actually denies humans their basic right to drink clean water and breathe clean, uncontaminated air. In conclusion, the issues of the quality of life that are affected by scientific and technological innovations are urgent and require much reconsideration. The nuclear power that promised virtually limitless, cheap and non-polluting energy for future generations proved otherwise in the disastrous accidents such as those that took place at Three Mile Island and Chernoblyl. Furthermore, the down sides to the supposed enhancement of the quality of life as depicted by the double-edged sword qualities of science and technology like those presented in this argument have clearly shown that recent scientific and technological innovations can increase the quality of life as well as degenerate it.

To what extent should freedom of speech be a guaranteed right? Basic rights, basic civil, human and political rights are the cornerstone of every democracy, from America to India, Singapore to South Africa, as set out in their various constitutions and in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For examples, the right to live, the right to vote, the right to a life free from fear and the right to freedom of speech, have all been clearly set out as intrinsic rights which are inalienable and should be duly accorded to every human being. However, the right to freedom of speech has long been the subject of much controversy as to the extent to which this particular right should be guaranteed and to whom. Freedom of speech, like all other rights, has intrinsic value. It, in particular, allows an individual the liberty to express his thoughts without fear of reproach, regardless of what he says. This has important implications for a country in the social and political arenas for it is only when citizens are able to freely express support for or speak up against certain ideas, be they political policies or even social norms, that progress can be achieved. For example, in a totalitarian or dictatorial state, it is only when people are allowed to speak freely and come up with their own political parties, that there can ever be political reform and progress within a country. This is something that is widely accepted to be true and this can be seen in the global communitys support of Burma s possible release of opposition leader Aung Sung Su Kyi as a move steeped in foresight and with progress in mind. Similarly, in the social sphere, it is highly beneficial to accord people their right to free speech because it not only breeds a more thinking, more creative societybu it also reduces dissatisfaction and may bring about social reform. If people are not allowed to speak their minds and can only meekly accept whatever comes their way, this is not only detrimental in terms of the type of society being bred, it also gives cause for worry in that citizens may feel deprived of their rights or suppressed, and this could breed latent dissatisfaction in the country. This latent dissatisfaction may result in violence and anger, disrupting stability within a nation. Conversely, if citizens are accorded the right to freedom of speech, this latent dissatisfaction would then have a constructive outlet and backlash would be more peaceful and less antagonistic in nature. This could lead to peaceful social reform, in contrast to the extreme measures that people would otherwise have to undertake in order to successfully put their point across. For example, Martin Luther King, a champion of equal rights in America was allowed to speak up for the rights of the minority, and this was pivotal in bringing about the paradigm shift away from white supremacy to that of equal rights for all. Hence we see that free speech can indeed improve society and enrich people. However, despite its obvious benefits, we cannot be myopic or overly optimistic by failing to recognize the propensity for such a right to be abused. As such, we see that rights are not absolute and they cease to be rights as soon as the exercise of that right infringes on the rights of another. Hence, we cannot assess individual freedom in a vacuum and must put it into a real world context. Free speech, like any other freedom, has the potential for abuse and such abuse results in a clash of interests between societal good and individual liberty. An obvious illustration is extremism. Extremists, who hold views widely divergent from those of mainstream, conventional thinkers, are famous for inciting violence, resulting in social upheaval and hence disrupting law and order. This occurs because certain individuals choose specifically to prey on simmering feelings of resentment, which may exist beneath the surface. This could shake the fabric of society and cause great

confusion and possibly violence. This happened in Britain . In 1989, a new political party quickly gained popularity in areas north of London such as Birmingham and Westhampton. Being strongly nationalist, they managed to bring to the surface racist sentiments which ultimately culminated in wide-spread racial violence, the worst witnessed in England in twenty years. Hence we see that the abuse of freedom of speech threatened the security of the country and this is something that cannot be condoned, much less thinly veiled by the argument of it being a basic right. In such instances, it is in the best interest of society to contain, to some extent, the right of the individual for the good of society. Thus, it is evident that while the intrinsic value accorded to rights is not entirely imagined, it is sometimes over-hyped and exaggerated and therefore must be taken with a pinch of salt. We cannot then blindly protect the right to free speech without properly taking stock of the wider implications of the actions of the individual. So, while it is a great injustice to deny people of their basic right to freedom of speech, it is justifiable to choose to curtail the rights of some for the good of society, and to avoid the case of possibly bringing about a breakdown of societal cohesion and a disruption of law and order and peace.