Guest Post by Ivan
*The following article has been written by Ivan and strictly reflects his personal opinion. This article should not be interpreted as an attack against any religious organization or individual.
The existence of a God has often been widely debated. As a nonbeliever of any supreme being or creator God, I will attempt to bring the scientific evidence against the possibility of a God or transcendental form of consciousness beyond the limits of neurological processes.
Philosophy
Before I begin discussing about the various evidences for the nonexistence of God, I will first discuss about the fundamental philosophy regarding the debate. First of all, the existence or nonexistence of a God cannot be proven. If a God does not exist, then obviously its nonexistence can never be proven. As an analogy, if I say that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Russel's teapot), can anyone disprove me? Of course not. Likewise, no one can prove if it exists. Of course, we know that it does not exist because nothing proves its existence. On the other hand, if a God exists, we can never prove it unless the God decides to show itself to the world. Despite this impossibility of proving or disproving God, it is still possible to provide evidence for and against each side to add to the argument. Like the Chinese teapot analogy, an absence of empirical observation would mean that its nonexistence would be accepted unless proved otherwise.
However, the important thing to note at this juncture is that the debate revolves around evidence that shows how probable or improbable God’s existence is. It is in this post that I will give evidence for the latter in the form of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
Part 1: The Origin of the Universe
One of the most important arguments put up by theists is the concept of the first mover, or primum movens. The idea is based on the axiom of causality which would logically indicate that a set of causes for the universe’s existence would extend to infinity, which is impossible. In order to solve the problem, theists would invoke the idea of a God. This idea is augmented by the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy in a closed system can never be created nor destroyed.
However, an important philosophical argument would render this concept false. Since the laws of physics, as well as the axiom of causality, is created at the time of the big bang, it is perfectly possible for energy to be created out of nothing and spontaneous creation to take place without the need for physical laws to be fulfilled. It is the nonexistence of causality and physical laws before the big bang that permits spontaneous creation to occur. Presently, it is thought that a hyperspace exists to allow such spontaneous creation of an infinite number of galaxies. I will discuss this on more detail later on.
Part 2: The complexity of the Universe
For most people, space is simply the black sky that hovers over their heads every night. In the past century, however, the magnificence of our universe has started to reveal itself to science. To put things into perspective, the observable universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years across (one light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometres), with the Earth being at the centre (since the calculation of the horizon is based on Earth’s perspective). In the observable universe, there are approximately 8 quintillion stars, with the sun being just one of many. I derived this number from the calculation of the number of galaxies observed by the Hubble ultra deep field, multiplying that value to the area of the night sky, and multiplying that number to the number of stars in one galaxy. This is a staggering number indeed, and it shows that Earth, being only a tiny speck of dust in the great cosmic depths, is not as special as it was once thought to be.
The universe has a beautiful set of physical laws in terms of mathematical aesthetics. Equations are always symmetrical in terms of the values on both sides, the golden ratio is found naturally in organic life, and the precise arbitrary constants of the standard model allow the existence of stable matter for life to exist. I have realised that many theists enjoy using the complexity of the universe as evidence for intelligent design. Of course, all becomes clear when the anthropic principle is understood.
First of all, the laws of the universe are undoubtedly perfect for life to form. Should the mass of the proton change by a tiny fraction, stable matter would not exist. The Earth has a perfect atmosphere and temperature for life to evolve, and the laws of physics and chemistry drives evolution in a positive direction. However, this apparent coincidence is actually based on a sort of observation-selection bias. If the conditions of the universe (and Earth) were not perfect, there is absolutely no way that life could exist. If life did not exist, we wouldn’t even be here to ponder about our existence. In today, modern physics has begun to unravel a world that is much stranger than we thought. Most scientists now believe that there is more than just the three dimensions we know today. In total, eleven dimensions are thought to exist, with only the limits of sensory perception limited to the familiar three causing the illusion that higher dimensions do not exist. With this, it is also thought that an infinite number of parallel universes exist alongside ours; each with a different set of physical laws that determine how the universe works. Using the anthropic principle, we would then realise that only habitable universes can contain life. Since life is indeed formed upon rare chance, we would assume most universes to be devoid of life, or even stars. Likewise, it is only through habitable conditions of Earth that life could exist here.
Another argument related to the anthropic principle on a planetary scale is the low probability of abiogenesis. According to creationist statistics, the probability of a protein molecule forming by itself is less than that of a hurricane sweeping through a metal scrap yard and assembling a working Boeing 747 (Hoyle’s fallacy). However, when we look at the staggering number of stars in the universe, it is obvious that this probability is overcome easily. Furthermore, the 15 billion-year old universe would have provided sufficient time for this to occur. Most importantly, however, the autosynthesis of liposomes and microspheres (membrane-bound RNA, believed to the earliest form of life on Earth) has been performed in the laboratory. This shows that the probability calculated by the creationists is not accurate in the first place.
Another argument that is often put up by theists is the apparent beauty of nature. To them, the grandeur of the sunset and breathtaking views of Earth from atop a mountain is due to the work of intelligent design. However, what they fail to take into account is the fact that our brains are adapted to the Earth and universe that we inhabit after four billion years of constant evolution. As an analogy, us humans would often feel repulsed at the sight of a female cockroach. To a male cockroach, however, the structure of a female cockroach is perfectly and beautifully designed. This was a requirement for reproduction and their survival as a species. The most important thing about this analogy, however, is that it shows how beauty is only the result of adapted psychology. This means that the mathematical and aesthetic beauty of the universe is the byproduct of evolution and not a creator. This brings me to my next point on evolution.
Part 3: Evolution
The theory of evolution is often one of the most widely-debated topics as it directly challenges the claims made by the Christian genesis. Although evolution is described as a ‘theory’, it has as much doubt in biology as quantum physics had in physics. This is important to note as many creationists argue that evolution is ‘only a theory’. By their definition, atomic theory and the theory of relativity would be only theories. As an analogy of scientific theories and facts, the constant rising of the sun in the East everyday is now established as a fact since all observational evidence proves it. If, however, the sun rises in the West one day, the theory would be proved wrong. The same goes for evolution: to date, all scientific data supports it. However, it is very susceptible to being disproven because a single evidence against it would render it untrue. In fact, the theory is supported by a massive amount of evidence which I will now put forward. At the same time, I will also clarify some of the misconceptions about evolution based on the people who argue against it.
First of all, what exactly is evolution? Evolution is actually the process whereby small changes in the form of genetic mutation occur along every generation that produces a substantial shift in genetic composition of an organism from its distant ancestors and is naturally selected due to its chances of survival. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs in every generation. While the genetic composition of the offspring is almost genetically identical to that of the parents, small changes in genes over hundreds or thousands of generations would eventually cause a significant change in the observed characteristics that differentiate the descendent species from the ancestral species. Traits that are beneficial for an organism’s survival is selected preferentially due to the fact that organisms with beneficial traits would survive better and hence be able to reproduce. Over time, constant sexual reproduction would cause beneficial genes to be spread across the entire population of a species, causing a shift in the genetic composition.
It is important to note that all organisms are transitional species between two others. Due to the fact that evolution is a gradual process, transitional fossils exist to show the smooth transition of one species to the next. In the case of humans, the chimpanzee-like australopithecines evolved to species with the genus homo, such as Homo erectus and homo habilis right up to homo sapiens as shown by fossil evidence. Although many creationists maintain that evolution is false because humans evolved from monkeys, it is important to note that modern species do not evolve from modern species. Rather, humans and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. In fact, all organisms share a common ancestor with one another. The only difference is, the greater the difference in genetic composition, the more distant that common ancestor is.
Another important evidence for evolution, besides the transitional fossils, is the experimental observations of evolution occurring in the laboratory. Known as the Escherichia Coli Long term evolution experiment, twelve containers of the bacteria are allowed to grow in a nutrient broth of glucose and citric acid. Due to the rapid rate of reproduction, a small sample of the bacteria would be extracted from each container daily and allowed to reproduce to the original amount on the next day. The rest of the bacteria would be frozen for observational analysis. The experiment has been going on for over twenty years, and has recently reached the 50,000th generation early this year. The significance of this experiment is that the results showed ongoing evolution in all of the different containers. The bacteria in each different container would take a different evolutionary path due to random mutations. The results were indeed stunning. At first, the original bacteria sample could only thrive on glucose as the source of food. However, one sample suddenly managed to evolve and utilise the citric acid mixed with the glucose in the nutrient broth, resulting in a sudden surge in bacteria count for that particular flask. This shows that ongoing evolution can and has been observed, and the fact that it is done based on empirical methods would mean that evolution can be directly verified.
Intelligent design, besides having only a few arguments, has much evidence to disprove it. In human males, the vas deferens (the tube carrying semen from the testes) loops over the ureter before making its way down to the penis. This is unintelligent design as the looping of the vas deferens requires the wasting and channelling of more resources to the building of the extended tube. From an ecological perspective, this is a detriment to the survival of the organism as the resources used could be channelled to other areas that would have otherwise improved other aspects of survival. From an evolutionary point of view, however, all becomes clear. In our ancestors, the scrotum was located above the bladder. After millions of years of evolution, the location of the scrotum ‘moved’ downwards to its present position due to the benefits of having it exposed to the ambient air which is of a lower temperature. During this process, the vas deferens would have to loop over the ureter by that path.
Another evidence of unintelligent design is from the ecological perspective of a forest. In forests, and especially in tropical rainforests, trees compete for sunlight by growing taller than the other trees. Although resources are wasted to increase the tree’s height, the benefits of gaining more sunlight for photosynthesis outweighs the extra resources used. From the perspective of a single tree, this is a requirement for competition. From the perspective of the entire forest, however, large amounts of resources are wasted: if all the trees did not compete with one another, the resultant intensity of sunlight falling on the surface of the trees would still be the same. As an analogy, spectators from a concert might start to stand to get a better view of the performance. However, since their act of standing up would block the view of the people behind that person, the people sitting behind would thus stand up to prevent the person from blocking their view. Over time, everyone would be standing up and the result would still be the same. From an evolutionary point of view, the wastage of resources is due to the fact that evolution occurs on an individual basis and not as a whole.
Part 4: Morality
Many theists disregard the study of science as they think that it is the work of a devil. This is an extremely closed-minded thought. Good and evil do not exist: They are concepts created by us humans. Good usually refers to morally upright acts, or acts that seem ethical. There is no clear distinction between good and evil, as changing circumstances would change what defines both. Furthermore, behaviour is the result of both our psychology (i.e. greed, sex drive), and the living environment (e.g. bad childhood). All people are created with a somewhat similar psychology (with slight variation as a result of genetic mutation), but different living environment. Personality is determined by experiences and not the existence of a soul.
Yet, why do we stand up against injustice? The answer does not lie in a god, but with evolution once again. By feeling pity for another member of the same species, we are increasing our chances of survival. Of course, you might argue that animal-lovers are common and this would contradict evolution. However, evolution does have an explanation for it. It is known as reciprocal altruism (you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Reciprocal altruism refers to the apparent non-selfish act involving first helping another organism at the expense of one’s own survival. This is evident in symbiotic relationships between species. Within a single species, each organism has ideal behavioural characteristics that lie somewhere in between all-greedy and all-giving. This ensures that while an organism would aid and cooperate with other members of the species, a form of selfishness must exist to ensure the survival of itself.
Evolution cares nothing for the comfort of any organism. The many wasps sting an insect prey as a host for reproduction. By strategically stinging the ganglia of the host prey, the prey would be paralysed, thereby enabling the wasp to inject its eggs into the body of the insect. Throughout this process, the host insect is kept alive, only paralysed. The larvae hatched from the eggs would then move on to devour the meat of the host insect while it is still alive. This is indeed a traumatising death for the host insect. Yet, this is important for the survival of the wasp as it ensures that the meat is kept fresh. This is a fact of evolution, and nature does not care whether the host insect suffers a traumatising death. Justice often fails to be done. That is a fact of life that has to be accepted. Morality is merely an illusion created by reciprocal altruism. Does this mean that the theory of evolution would cause chaos in society? Perhaps it will. Theists often use this argument that by accepting Darwinism into society, injustice would pervade. This argument is also known as argumentum ad consequentiam. However, our preferences do not decide how nature works. Whether we like it or not, evolution is still true. Per contra, even if Darwinism is accepted by the scientific community, it does not mean that society would function based on its principle. This, however, is beyond the scope of this post.
Part 5: Are humans the only species to qualify the entry to heaven?
This is perhaps one of the most direct evidence against the existence of a God. Many religions assume that only humans would go to heaven. However, fossil evidence shows that there is no clear distinction between humans and apes. Transitional fossils exist with a smooth transition until the human species. If this is the case, how do we define what a human is? Humans are continually evolving, and because the process is so gradual there each successive generation can be considered genetically identical from the previous one. Yet, there exists a slight change in DNA from one generation to the other. This amounts to large scale changes over millions of years. This also means, however, that there is a loss of clear definition of a human, and thus who goes to heaven. The idea of hell is also based on a fallacy. How do we define good and bad? There is no common consensus that clearly defines the two.
Even if all creatures go to heaven, how do you differentiate conscious life from non-conscious life? You might say that this lies in the presence of a brain. However, there is also no clear distinction between what is considered as a brain. For one, some organisms contain a centralised and complex network of nervous tissue but lack what we would consider as a brain. Like I mentioned previously, evolution is a gradual process and no clear distinctions can be made. If a conscious organism is but a smooth transition from an unconscious one (as proven in fossil record), how do we define what can transcend physical death? It is unlikely that a benevolent and omnipotent God would favour a certain group of organisms over another.
Even assuming that all creatures, both conscious and unconscious, would transcend death and go to heaven (or hell), how do we define life and non-life? Viruses show characteristics of both, and the first organisms were just a clump of membrane-bounded RNA. From all the evidence above, it is thus obvious to note that it is unlikely that a God could exist. The absence of any clear distinction between all forms of life, as well as life and non-life, would indicate that it is impossible for any afterlife to exist.
Part 6: The Paranormal
Paranormal activities in the form of haunting by entities returning from the afterlife have been reported in most, if not all cultures across the globe. These cultures exist independently from one another. It is possible, however, that the idea of the supernatural has existed in the very first humans who originated in Africa. For the benefit of the doubt, however, I will assume that the ideas of ghosts were created independently from the different cultures.
If the idea of supernatural forces influencing human lives were created independently across the world, does this mean that ghosts really do exist? The answer is a vehement ‘no’. Reports of paranormal activities are more likely to be the side effect of an evolutionary byproduct. First of all, our natural curiosity towards the universe (which has benefited us by enabling us to develop technology that started in primitive humans) results in a tendency to attribute unknown gaps in information to an unknown force. For example, our distant ancestors believed that fire was the result of a God and required the adding of firewood as a way to appease it and continue producing fire. This characteristic of the human mind has far-reaching consequences that resulted in many theists arguing about gaps in science through an argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignoratiam.
The second cause of supernatural beliefs is the result of the psychological need to believe in the continuation of consciousness beyond death. When organisms evolved from non-conscious life to conscious life, the need for survival is transferred from a physical level to a psychological level. This results in us not being able to perceive a time when conscious activity ceases. As a result, we would tend to think that some sort of continuation of one’s self and mind would transcend beyond physical death, resulting in a belief that dead ancestors would manifest in a ghost-like entity capable of returning from the dead.
Most paranormal encounters are the result of psychological activities that stem from psychological inadequacies prevalent in all humans, such as paraedolia, or the natural tendency to look for patterns. Hallucinations are also a common cause, and are often augmented by one’s belief system. Experiments in virtual reality have proven that whenever a person enters a place believed by that person to be haunted, he or she would observe entities or objects that are not really there. This effect can be increased by the addition of electromagnetic fields and infrasound.
Reports of paranormal activity observed by more than one person simultaneously cannot be attributed to psychological effects. However, they too, can be explained by physical effects not quite understood. Human emotions are extremely powerful energies that can leave a signature at a certain location. This is often the cause of residual haunting. Although the neurological model of consciousness and emotions is not yet completely understood, biochemical reactions occurring as a result of powerful emotions such as a traumatic death might release vast amounts of energy, possibly electromagnetic in nature. If the energy is powerful enough, local conditions such as the presence of material in soil that can be easily magnetised might act as some sort of natural recorder. This energy can be replayed continuously for centuries when the electromagnetic fields interact with the brain of the visitor. Note, however, that this is only a theory and that a diverse range of scientific phenomena can account for this. The growing field of Quantum mechanics might also provide another explanation for such paranormal activity.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the existence of a God is highly unlikely. Given all the scientific evidence, rational thinkers would easily assume that the existence of a God is highly improbable. While there is still the possibility that a God exists, our current understanding of the universe shows that it is highly unlikely that there is such a possibility. For one, a God is not required for all that we see today, and closer observation of life and the universe indicates that God does not exist.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Guest Post: SMRT
Response to WK's No Eating or Drinking: Fine $500 post
WRITTEN BY: MING FENG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009: SMRT introduces the complete ban on consuming all form of food, including plain water, on all trains.
2011: SMRT bans sleeping on trains, the rationale being "dunno, just for the heck of it." Offenders are fined $500.
2012: The notorious East-West line claims the first victim, who died of dehydration after attempting to ride from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon.
2013: Fine raised from $500 to $5,000.
2013: Fine raised from $5,000 to $50,000.
2013: Fine raised from $50,000 to $500,000.
2014: SMRT bans singing, loud handphones, talking louder than 45 decibels, not keeping to the left on escalators and not giving way to alighting passengers, as part of their motto of "Moving People, Enhancing Lives".
2015: SMRT renamed to SMaRT despite their rules being quite on the contrary. SMaRT changes motto to "Moving People, OUR Way".
2016: SMaRT bans inhaling of plain water, after one commuter attempted to justify the ingestion of plain water through the nose as "inhaling, and not drinking, and therefore you can't fine the shit out of me". The man was detained for being a public nuisance.
2018: 172 people died from dehydration while attempting the "Coast to Coast" feat, riding from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon without alighting to drink water. Local adventurer Mr S.C Khoo becomes the first man in the world to succeed in this feat, becoming a national hero once again.
2019: SMaRT caught 783,402 people attempting to drink or inhale plain water on the train, and decided to make smuggling more than 18 grams of plain water into trains a capital offence. In the same year, SMaRT declares a profit of $402 billion, a world record for a public transport company, while denying that fines make up the bulk of their profits.
2019: First person executed for attempting to smuggle a bottle of NeWater into trains.
2021: A commuter with 18kg of plain water strapped to his body, managed run through the water detector gates, evade pursuing station officers, and charged through the ticket gantry without paying. He later disappeared into the peak hour crowd and was last seen distributing water on the platform. The Water Bearer, as he was later affectionately known among commuters, was branded a hero by the people but was never seen attempting the feat again. SMaRT arms their station officers with police-issued MP5 submachine guns after the infamous incident. The SMaRT management deals with the humiliation by likening the Water Bearer's actions to that of "a terrorist, a suicide bomber", and threatens to shoot any commuter attempting to emulate the Water Bearer.
2027: To solve the problem of commuters not giving up seats to the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped, SMaRT bans the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped from taking trains. SMaRT buys over SBS Transit.
2030: After a nine-year hunt, the Water Bearer was finally caught and was due to be sentenced to death. However, he escaped through the window inside one of the toilets in a detention facility. The notorious Window was last reinforced in 2008 when a wanted terrorist escaped through it. The Water Bearer was never seen again, despite eye-witnesses reported seeing him swimming in the Straits of Malacca with a flotation device fashioned out of 180 NeWater bottles hours after he was reported missing.
2034: The number of deaths related to the plain water drinking ban exceeds that of the Death Railway, earning SMaRT the nickname of "The Death Transit".
2035: SMaRT successfully monopolises public transport after completing the buyover of ComfortDelgro. The people likened the move to an experience similar to the Japanese Occupation. SMaRT shot down the claim, saying nobody in this generation has ever been through the Japanese Occupation, and therefore there is no basis of comparison. SMaRT ridership at an all-time low.
2036: In a brilliant collaboration with the government, private transport, including bicycles and tricycles, are completely banned from the roads. SMaRT encourages the people to take their world class public transport service. SMaRT ridership at an all-time high. SMaRT embarks on the Great Leap Forward programme, massively and rapidly expanding their transport services.
2038: Taxi flag down rates raised to $24.40. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2048: Taxi flag down rates raised to $96.70. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2086: Great Leap Forward ends. There are now 666 kilometres of train tracks serving every corner of Singapore, including previously inaccessible places like the Live Firing Area, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sudong, Jurong Island, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Batam extension opens. There is one taxi for every four people, and one bus for every 12. SMaRT employees make up more than half of the 15 million people in Singapore.
2987: SMaRT celebrates 1000 years of public transport service.
WRITTEN BY: MING FENG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009: SMRT introduces the complete ban on consuming all form of food, including plain water, on all trains.
2011: SMRT bans sleeping on trains, the rationale being "dunno, just for the heck of it." Offenders are fined $500.
2012: The notorious East-West line claims the first victim, who died of dehydration after attempting to ride from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon.
2013: Fine raised from $500 to $5,000.
2013: Fine raised from $5,000 to $50,000.
2013: Fine raised from $50,000 to $500,000.
2014: SMRT bans singing, loud handphones, talking louder than 45 decibels, not keeping to the left on escalators and not giving way to alighting passengers, as part of their motto of "Moving People, Enhancing Lives".
2015: SMRT renamed to SMaRT despite their rules being quite on the contrary. SMaRT changes motto to "Moving People, OUR Way".
2016: SMaRT bans inhaling of plain water, after one commuter attempted to justify the ingestion of plain water through the nose as "inhaling, and not drinking, and therefore you can't fine the shit out of me". The man was detained for being a public nuisance.
2018: 172 people died from dehydration while attempting the "Coast to Coast" feat, riding from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon without alighting to drink water. Local adventurer Mr S.C Khoo becomes the first man in the world to succeed in this feat, becoming a national hero once again.
2019: SMaRT caught 783,402 people attempting to drink or inhale plain water on the train, and decided to make smuggling more than 18 grams of plain water into trains a capital offence. In the same year, SMaRT declares a profit of $402 billion, a world record for a public transport company, while denying that fines make up the bulk of their profits.
2019: First person executed for attempting to smuggle a bottle of NeWater into trains.
2021: A commuter with 18kg of plain water strapped to his body, managed run through the water detector gates, evade pursuing station officers, and charged through the ticket gantry without paying. He later disappeared into the peak hour crowd and was last seen distributing water on the platform. The Water Bearer, as he was later affectionately known among commuters, was branded a hero by the people but was never seen attempting the feat again. SMaRT arms their station officers with police-issued MP5 submachine guns after the infamous incident. The SMaRT management deals with the humiliation by likening the Water Bearer's actions to that of "a terrorist, a suicide bomber", and threatens to shoot any commuter attempting to emulate the Water Bearer.
2027: To solve the problem of commuters not giving up seats to the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped, SMaRT bans the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped from taking trains. SMaRT buys over SBS Transit.
2030: After a nine-year hunt, the Water Bearer was finally caught and was due to be sentenced to death. However, he escaped through the window inside one of the toilets in a detention facility. The notorious Window was last reinforced in 2008 when a wanted terrorist escaped through it. The Water Bearer was never seen again, despite eye-witnesses reported seeing him swimming in the Straits of Malacca with a flotation device fashioned out of 180 NeWater bottles hours after he was reported missing.
2034: The number of deaths related to the plain water drinking ban exceeds that of the Death Railway, earning SMaRT the nickname of "The Death Transit".
2035: SMaRT successfully monopolises public transport after completing the buyover of ComfortDelgro. The people likened the move to an experience similar to the Japanese Occupation. SMaRT shot down the claim, saying nobody in this generation has ever been through the Japanese Occupation, and therefore there is no basis of comparison. SMaRT ridership at an all-time low.
2036: In a brilliant collaboration with the government, private transport, including bicycles and tricycles, are completely banned from the roads. SMaRT encourages the people to take their world class public transport service. SMaRT ridership at an all-time high. SMaRT embarks on the Great Leap Forward programme, massively and rapidly expanding their transport services.
2038: Taxi flag down rates raised to $24.40. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2048: Taxi flag down rates raised to $96.70. Bus fares increased by 600%.
2086: Great Leap Forward ends. There are now 666 kilometres of train tracks serving every corner of Singapore, including previously inaccessible places like the Live Firing Area, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sudong, Jurong Island, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Batam extension opens. There is one taxi for every four people, and one bus for every 12. SMaRT employees make up more than half of the 15 million people in Singapore.
2987: SMaRT celebrates 1000 years of public transport service.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Guest Post: The Meaning of Life V.2
WRITTEN BY: IVAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of life is perhaps mankind’s most fundamental question as it gives reason to our existence. For millennia, many philosophers, and even scientists, have tried to decipher this mystery. Yet, many argue that life has no special purpose, and the reason that we are here is due to random chance. However, the ability to ponder about our very existence on this planet is something that defines humanity from all other life forms as we know it today.
Life and consciousness have an extremely complex origin and have often been debated in science. It is our nature in reality that makes us wonder about our place in the cosmos, and without it, our lives would be meaningless and our existence, futile.
In my opinion, life is all about making the world a better place than it was. As a whole, it is the spirit of humanity that keeps us from having wars ever so often, and allows us to progress. Since the appearance of our species, many fights and violent happenings had occurred, and it is only because mankind is in itself an inherently angst-driven being. Yet, why is it that people nowadays seem to show more care and concern for others than thousands of years ago? Well, the answer lies in the fact that many people nowadays are trying their best to aim towards harmony amongst all. Despite having wars and terror attacks plaguing the general public, it is no doubt that many of us have advanced from a fight for survival to a fight for peace.
Many times, the amount that people can go toward standing up against atrocities and injustice has shown that we are not always following the course of evolution. In the Darwinian theory of natural selection, stronger species tend to survive better than weaker ones, and fighting between humans is generally a result of this. Yet, is our movement toward world peace nature or nurture? It can be both, but the latter is the most likely cause. The shift toward global unity lies within us, and it is what gives life its meaning. If everyone does their own little part to contribute toward society, the change will be tremendous and our place in the large expanse of the cosmos, justified.
Life is full of unpredictability, and many times we might meet obstacles and challenges. The will and power to overcome them also gives meaning to life, and it is our determination that changes our lives. Through all the trials and tribulations, we have all made it to what we are today. I firmly believe that life is about surviving each day, and it is this that gives us the reason to live on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of life is perhaps mankind’s most fundamental question as it gives reason to our existence. For millennia, many philosophers, and even scientists, have tried to decipher this mystery. Yet, many argue that life has no special purpose, and the reason that we are here is due to random chance. However, the ability to ponder about our very existence on this planet is something that defines humanity from all other life forms as we know it today.
Life and consciousness have an extremely complex origin and have often been debated in science. It is our nature in reality that makes us wonder about our place in the cosmos, and without it, our lives would be meaningless and our existence, futile.
In my opinion, life is all about making the world a better place than it was. As a whole, it is the spirit of humanity that keeps us from having wars ever so often, and allows us to progress. Since the appearance of our species, many fights and violent happenings had occurred, and it is only because mankind is in itself an inherently angst-driven being. Yet, why is it that people nowadays seem to show more care and concern for others than thousands of years ago? Well, the answer lies in the fact that many people nowadays are trying their best to aim towards harmony amongst all. Despite having wars and terror attacks plaguing the general public, it is no doubt that many of us have advanced from a fight for survival to a fight for peace.
Many times, the amount that people can go toward standing up against atrocities and injustice has shown that we are not always following the course of evolution. In the Darwinian theory of natural selection, stronger species tend to survive better than weaker ones, and fighting between humans is generally a result of this. Yet, is our movement toward world peace nature or nurture? It can be both, but the latter is the most likely cause. The shift toward global unity lies within us, and it is what gives life its meaning. If everyone does their own little part to contribute toward society, the change will be tremendous and our place in the large expanse of the cosmos, justified.
Life is full of unpredictability, and many times we might meet obstacles and challenges. The will and power to overcome them also gives meaning to life, and it is our determination that changes our lives. Through all the trials and tribulations, we have all made it to what we are today. I firmly believe that life is about surviving each day, and it is this that gives us the reason to live on.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Guest Post- On Belief
WRITTEN BY ED CHNG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of clarification, let it be known that I am neither religious, nor am I a spirited atheist of the ilk of Eric. Religion interests me purely at an intellectual level, with such an interest primarily stemming from how much religion affects literature. Secondly, I do not claim to quote reliable statistics to back myself up, neither do I lay claim have a take on a higher truth. Any conception of the truth is, after all, inherently unstable.
I start by quoting J.M. Coetzee, who could not have accented it better:
As a rule of thumb, one of the premises on which the scientific discipline operates is that what cannot be proven to be true, is untrue. Unfortunately, such a ‘rule’ has been elevated to into what Coetzee calls ‘epistemological axioms’, or in other words something close to a ‘universal truth’. Such a measure of validity has been advanced onto all accounts of life, above and beyond the discipline of science. It is one favourite argument of atheists, to argue that if you cannot see God, or if his existence cannot be proven, He does not exist.
I would like the militant atheists also to consider the possibility that we human beings do not even come close to comprehending the exact degree of complexity that the universe holds. In short, we know, and are capable of knowing, far less than we would like to know about how the world came to be and what kind of beings we are. It can therefore be said, that this is one yay for religion.
Nevertheless, the concept of Intelligent Design is still regarded very much as a creation myth, rejected in schools as a credible alternative to Evolutionism. Most schools do not even explore the theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Yet, as Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas and author of various books on this subject succinctly puts it, “intelligent design is not open to being tested experimentally and has no basis in science… (therefore) such treatment is not disrespectful of people’s religious beliefs, but simply intellectually honest.”
Playing the amateur sociologist, the functionalist theory with regards to religion holds that religion plays the important and much under-appreciated role of ensuring social solidarity and cohesion. Stretching the term ‘religion’, one could also take the communal fervour excited by events like concerts or football matches to mean that the very events themselves are somewhat religious. At least I know for me, I have idols to worship and rituals to follow when I watch Chelsea play. Lucky shirt on, beer always after chips. Religion, therefore, can loosely be defined as any such thing that evokes in one a belief in and of anything.
So, is not the fervent and ardent, not to mention collective belief that there is no God, or as Friedrich Nietzsche famously proclaimed, that “God is Dead”, in a sociological sense at least a religion? Quasi-religion, some may call it. My point is, that atheism and it’s beliefs in the absence of God as well as the fierce determination to prove themselves right has a lot in common with what we may call the traditional institutions of ‘religion’. Atheists hide behind supposed logic and reasoning, which I personally purport, because of the abovementioned elevation of scientific inquiry to the level of ‘common sense’, to be flawed. Is not a belief that science can magically provide all answers, even as we ourselves do not comprehend what we do not yet know, in itself a leap of faith?
I do personally believe, even if I am not myself a believer or religious by any consideration, that the very concept of religion is positive. While it is true that people throughout history and even today abuse religion for their own negative ends of violence, such as against those with contrary beliefs, or wrongful subjugation of certain groups of people like women, that itself is no fault of religion. The blame has to lie squarely at the criminal religious leaders.
So, live and let live. I hate the way some ‘evangelists’ have their tongues down my throat. Yet neither do I thus believe in the cause of the atheists. We all have different beliefs, and these beliefs contribute in no small part towards who we are, for better or for worse, whether or not it is huge and is institutionalised globally or it’s just some idiosyncratic OCD quirk. The religious people (in the traditional sense) have their gods, the militant atheists believe in overthrowing religion. And I believe in beer.
In the course of this rambling entry, I hope my other point has not been lost. It goes along the lines of: Don’t be complacent with whatever version of the truth you think is right. The very nature of truth is precarious, and whatever we know of everything is simply what everyone else accepts to be right.
We all have our lucky shirts, lucky underwear, et al. And I believe that when Chelsea win I must not brush my teeth for that particular night, for good luck. The whole world tells me I’m disgusting, but I simply shrug and move on.
Taken from: http://blueballs.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of clarification, let it be known that I am neither religious, nor am I a spirited atheist of the ilk of Eric. Religion interests me purely at an intellectual level, with such an interest primarily stemming from how much religion affects literature. Secondly, I do not claim to quote reliable statistics to back myself up, neither do I lay claim have a take on a higher truth. Any conception of the truth is, after all, inherently unstable.
I start by quoting J.M. Coetzee, who could not have accented it better:
I have no desire to associate myself with the people behind the Intelligent Design movement. Nevertheless, I continue to find evolution by random mutation and natural selection not just unconvincing but preposterous as an account of how complex organisms come into being. As long as there is not one of us who has the faintest idea of how to go about constructing a housefly from scratch, how can we disparage as intellectually naive the conclusion that the houseful must have been put together by an intelligence of a higher order than our own?
As a rule of thumb, one of the premises on which the scientific discipline operates is that what cannot be proven to be true, is untrue. Unfortunately, such a ‘rule’ has been elevated to into what Coetzee calls ‘epistemological axioms’, or in other words something close to a ‘universal truth’. Such a measure of validity has been advanced onto all accounts of life, above and beyond the discipline of science. It is one favourite argument of atheists, to argue that if you cannot see God, or if his existence cannot be proven, He does not exist.
I would like the militant atheists also to consider the possibility that we human beings do not even come close to comprehending the exact degree of complexity that the universe holds. In short, we know, and are capable of knowing, far less than we would like to know about how the world came to be and what kind of beings we are. It can therefore be said, that this is one yay for religion.
Nevertheless, the concept of Intelligent Design is still regarded very much as a creation myth, rejected in schools as a credible alternative to Evolutionism. Most schools do not even explore the theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Yet, as Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas and author of various books on this subject succinctly puts it, “intelligent design is not open to being tested experimentally and has no basis in science… (therefore) such treatment is not disrespectful of people’s religious beliefs, but simply intellectually honest.”
Playing the amateur sociologist, the functionalist theory with regards to religion holds that religion plays the important and much under-appreciated role of ensuring social solidarity and cohesion. Stretching the term ‘religion’, one could also take the communal fervour excited by events like concerts or football matches to mean that the very events themselves are somewhat religious. At least I know for me, I have idols to worship and rituals to follow when I watch Chelsea play. Lucky shirt on, beer always after chips. Religion, therefore, can loosely be defined as any such thing that evokes in one a belief in and of anything.
So, is not the fervent and ardent, not to mention collective belief that there is no God, or as Friedrich Nietzsche famously proclaimed, that “God is Dead”, in a sociological sense at least a religion? Quasi-religion, some may call it. My point is, that atheism and it’s beliefs in the absence of God as well as the fierce determination to prove themselves right has a lot in common with what we may call the traditional institutions of ‘religion’. Atheists hide behind supposed logic and reasoning, which I personally purport, because of the abovementioned elevation of scientific inquiry to the level of ‘common sense’, to be flawed. Is not a belief that science can magically provide all answers, even as we ourselves do not comprehend what we do not yet know, in itself a leap of faith?
I do personally believe, even if I am not myself a believer or religious by any consideration, that the very concept of religion is positive. While it is true that people throughout history and even today abuse religion for their own negative ends of violence, such as against those with contrary beliefs, or wrongful subjugation of certain groups of people like women, that itself is no fault of religion. The blame has to lie squarely at the criminal religious leaders.
So, live and let live. I hate the way some ‘evangelists’ have their tongues down my throat. Yet neither do I thus believe in the cause of the atheists. We all have different beliefs, and these beliefs contribute in no small part towards who we are, for better or for worse, whether or not it is huge and is institutionalised globally or it’s just some idiosyncratic OCD quirk. The religious people (in the traditional sense) have their gods, the militant atheists believe in overthrowing religion. And I believe in beer.
In the course of this rambling entry, I hope my other point has not been lost. It goes along the lines of: Don’t be complacent with whatever version of the truth you think is right. The very nature of truth is precarious, and whatever we know of everything is simply what everyone else accepts to be right.
We all have our lucky shirts, lucky underwear, et al. And I believe that when Chelsea win I must not brush my teeth for that particular night, for good luck. The whole world tells me I’m disgusting, but I simply shrug and move on.
Taken from: http://blueballs.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Guest Post: Elitism in Singapore
WRITTEN BY: IVAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the dawn of the twenty-first century, elitism has become widespread amongst many students in Singapore, including those from non-elite schools. From the blog posts of Intellectual Snob to the Wee Shu Min elitism scandal, elitism has bred dissatisfaction. Yet, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: Why is elitism such a common sight in our nation?
First and foremost, Singapore’s education system has become increasingly competitive over the years. Due to the high emphasis placed on education by parents and schools, many students have strived to attain high grades so as to prove themselves superior to others who do not perform as well as them. Consequently, this causes the idea that achieving success in the aspect of having good paper qualifications would equate to being on a higher level in the social hierarchy. From a psychological point of view, this idea is often embedded in the subconscious mind of many students and graduates, which is the platform for which beliefs form and character builds.
In many students, there is a presence of an inferiority complex that is caused by a lack of self worth, often evoked by the presence of others who perform better than them in studies. This causes them to compensate for their feelings of inferiority and hence start acting superior, which arises from the instinct of self-preservation. Often, this causes them to become what we know as elitists, and explains why elitists can also materialize from non-elite schools. Of course, inferiority complex can plague students from elite schools, but it is relatively common in the non-elite ones.
In today, the constant race-to-riches has caused many to strive for academic excellence in order to get a high paying job. It is the mentality of equating success to a high salary that exists in many elitists which causes them to chase grades. When this happens, these people usually dismiss others who are not as work-directed as they are to be deemed as people with “no future”. Often, having a standardized education system prevents people to have truly groundbreaking ideas by which new business models are based upon. As such, people without a proper education would not think like the millions of other graduates, and might dare to deviate from the current thinking, which is where many creative and “out-of-the-box” ideas originate. Yet, many do not come to realize this fact.
Through this, the entire concept of success has changed. Many intellectuals often work in a job that they do not enjoy, and only do it for the sake of monetary reasons. Holding many meetings and having to fly from one country to another every few days has often caused job dissatisfaction. Even so, these people believe that they are successful, given the high salaries that they have. Is this true success? No, it is not. However, many elitists simply have the idea that it is being etched into their minds, and leads them to believe that they are better off than their lower-salaried counterparts.
In the advent of a dividing social class, elitism plays a major role in shaping our future. With many people disregarding the nation’s problems and acting only for their own interests at heart, elitism causes many to lose the spirit of teamwork and leads to a failure in cooperation as a nation. Although the problem is relatively small-scale at this point in time, elitism has the potential to cause major problems in the future. On the other hand, elitism has already caused some disharmony between the two social classes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the dawn of the twenty-first century, elitism has become widespread amongst many students in Singapore, including those from non-elite schools. From the blog posts of Intellectual Snob to the Wee Shu Min elitism scandal, elitism has bred dissatisfaction. Yet, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: Why is elitism such a common sight in our nation?
First and foremost, Singapore’s education system has become increasingly competitive over the years. Due to the high emphasis placed on education by parents and schools, many students have strived to attain high grades so as to prove themselves superior to others who do not perform as well as them. Consequently, this causes the idea that achieving success in the aspect of having good paper qualifications would equate to being on a higher level in the social hierarchy. From a psychological point of view, this idea is often embedded in the subconscious mind of many students and graduates, which is the platform for which beliefs form and character builds.
In many students, there is a presence of an inferiority complex that is caused by a lack of self worth, often evoked by the presence of others who perform better than them in studies. This causes them to compensate for their feelings of inferiority and hence start acting superior, which arises from the instinct of self-preservation. Often, this causes them to become what we know as elitists, and explains why elitists can also materialize from non-elite schools. Of course, inferiority complex can plague students from elite schools, but it is relatively common in the non-elite ones.
In today, the constant race-to-riches has caused many to strive for academic excellence in order to get a high paying job. It is the mentality of equating success to a high salary that exists in many elitists which causes them to chase grades. When this happens, these people usually dismiss others who are not as work-directed as they are to be deemed as people with “no future”. Often, having a standardized education system prevents people to have truly groundbreaking ideas by which new business models are based upon. As such, people without a proper education would not think like the millions of other graduates, and might dare to deviate from the current thinking, which is where many creative and “out-of-the-box” ideas originate. Yet, many do not come to realize this fact.
Through this, the entire concept of success has changed. Many intellectuals often work in a job that they do not enjoy, and only do it for the sake of monetary reasons. Holding many meetings and having to fly from one country to another every few days has often caused job dissatisfaction. Even so, these people believe that they are successful, given the high salaries that they have. Is this true success? No, it is not. However, many elitists simply have the idea that it is being etched into their minds, and leads them to believe that they are better off than their lower-salaried counterparts.
In the advent of a dividing social class, elitism plays a major role in shaping our future. With many people disregarding the nation’s problems and acting only for their own interests at heart, elitism causes many to lose the spirit of teamwork and leads to a failure in cooperation as a nation. Although the problem is relatively small-scale at this point in time, elitism has the potential to cause major problems in the future. On the other hand, elitism has already caused some disharmony between the two social classes.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Guest Post: The Death of True Beauty
COSMETIC SURGERY: THE CYCLE OF IMPERFECTIONS
--WRITTEN BY: P3ST
Ok, look at the picture below carefully. Now tell me which is Janet Cunliffe, age 50, and her daughter Jane, age 29. Maybe it's just me, but I had to take a few long looks before figuring out that the woman on the left is the product of nearly $15,000 worth of cosmetic surgeries (the hands gave her away!). One might be impressed by the wonders of medical science today in transforming a woman of that age into that of her daughter 21 years younger, but I cant help but think, is this what our society has come to? I'm sure many mothers out there have looked enviously at their daughters in the prime of their lives while shrugging resignedly at their winkles, droopy eyelids and all other signs of old age, but now you know it's perfectly possible to regain your youthfulness as long as you have the money to spare.
I'm not saying that what Janet did was wrong- she's perfectly entitled to spend her money in what ever that makes her happy. What I'm more concerned about is the role of cosmetic surgery being increasingly perceived as the instant solution to problems like low self esteem and poor self image over other traditional means such as counselling. I believe everyone is insecure about their bodies at some point, but are we taking our insecurities too far? In fact, are we even being unknowingly led to think that our flat noses,laugh wrinkles,small breasts, love handles are all wrong because hey, those celebrities and models you see in the media dont have them, and that happiness and success in life can only be achieved after correcting these imperfections?
Take South Korea for example, with many well known celebrities 'coming out' about their plastic surgeries over the years in order to please their fans and garner more showbiz opportunities. The resulting media interest on cosmetic surgery is so overhyped that parents are giving their offsprings plastic surgery packages as graduation gifts in hope that better looks will lead to a brighter future. More and more young koreans are being led to think that exernal beauty is more important in ensuring their success in life, with eight out of ten women over the age of 18 feeling the need to go for cosmetic surgery and nearly 70% suffering stress because of their appearance in a recent survey. What is even more disturbing is that one in two women in the same survey indicating that they had undergone cosmetic surgery at least once. Media programs too, has excebated this phenomenon by distorting the vision of beauty and sending messages to the masses that cosmetic surgery will solve all problems and completely transform lives. In USA reality shows like The Swan, Extreme Makeover, participants are given free cosmetic treatments in return for meeting their own personal goals from getting a job, saving a marriage gone cold to winning a beauty pageant.Ever noticed how such shows always focus on interviewing the subject and their families over the transformation while editing away massive portions of the process and ugly post surgery effects like swollen face? That's right, what these shows did not tell viewers are the risks and pain involve in undergoing such treatments, and the high maintenance and regular follow ups needed in order to keep the changes going. Instead they choose to glorify the process and concentrate on protraying the idea of the means justifying the ends, thus grossly misleading viewers with extremely wrong perceptions on cosmetic surgery that it is a small price to pay for vanity and everlasting happiness.
Now here lies another problem. When do we know enough is enough? We are all pressured into coping with the stress of modern living- the need to fit in with everyone else, having an edge over others in order to stand out and be chosen for success. This fear of being left behind in the race for perfection has inevitably led to some people resorting to drastic means in order to make them feel better about themselves. Coupled with deep seated insecurities or other forms of obsessive compulsiveness to be perfect, problems of unrealistic expectations have surfaced. As one well known Korean plastic surgeon remarked “ I'm not a psychologist, I can only improve what's on the outside.”
The danger of addiction is very real. What most people dont realise is that cosmetic surgery is ultimately still an extremely lucative business, and how patients might be subtly manipulated by their own plastic surgeons into undergoing more and more treatments in their quest for ultimate beauty. For example, many plastic surgeons have taken on offering lunch hour procedures such as botox injections and microdermabrasion. While these low risk, instant result treatments are very popular and considered affordable, they are only temporary in terms of effectiveness. The surgeons themselves know it, and they cant be happier to slot you in for more appointments or recommend treatments once you point out an imperfection on your body. Afterall, it's all possible as long as you can pay them. Before you know it, you are seeing your plastic surgeon every month, looking into the mirror everyday and finding new things to get upset about, getting more disatisfied with the last treatment or surgery because you think your nose should be even higher now that you know you can make it so and it's time to start saving for it.
This brings us to the Dorian Gray Syndrome.I know an ex-colleague who admitted frankly “once you are in, it's hard to stop, no one wants to look like an old hag when you know you can avoid it.” She first started out with a simple botox injection out of curiosity, and over the years it had branched out to various nose jobs,liposuctions, breast enlargement and whatever impefections about herself that she can think of and knows can be corrected through surgerical means (I hope she's just joking about perfecting her vagina). But will changing the physical aspects of our bodies really remove those hidden fears and difficulties in coping with the realities of aging and maturation of both body and mind? I really do not think so. What I think everyone needs to understand is that we will all grow old eventually, and that it's part of nature. Changing the physical body through artificial means is as good as deceiving youself because ultimately, if you are rotten inside, everyone will still be able to see it and you will never achieve happiness for long. The more insecure you are, the more people will notice and in turn leads to you getting more and more drastic or even dangerous treatments in order to compensate the fear-it's really a neverending cycle. Instead, it's a less painful and much more enriching experience to just embrace your years and see the changes on your body as a positive testament to getting over hundles in life and appreciating what you have achieved,no matter how big or small.
That I think, is really what life is about.
Taken from: http://thejamkingshow.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/50-year-old-mother-who-has-spent-10000-on-surgery-to-look-like-her-daughter/
--WRITTEN BY: P3ST
Ok, look at the picture below carefully. Now tell me which is Janet Cunliffe, age 50, and her daughter Jane, age 29. Maybe it's just me, but I had to take a few long looks before figuring out that the woman on the left is the product of nearly $15,000 worth of cosmetic surgeries (the hands gave her away!). One might be impressed by the wonders of medical science today in transforming a woman of that age into that of her daughter 21 years younger, but I cant help but think, is this what our society has come to? I'm sure many mothers out there have looked enviously at their daughters in the prime of their lives while shrugging resignedly at their winkles, droopy eyelids and all other signs of old age, but now you know it's perfectly possible to regain your youthfulness as long as you have the money to spare.
I'm not saying that what Janet did was wrong- she's perfectly entitled to spend her money in what ever that makes her happy. What I'm more concerned about is the role of cosmetic surgery being increasingly perceived as the instant solution to problems like low self esteem and poor self image over other traditional means such as counselling. I believe everyone is insecure about their bodies at some point, but are we taking our insecurities too far? In fact, are we even being unknowingly led to think that our flat noses,laugh wrinkles,small breasts, love handles are all wrong because hey, those celebrities and models you see in the media dont have them, and that happiness and success in life can only be achieved after correcting these imperfections?
Take South Korea for example, with many well known celebrities 'coming out' about their plastic surgeries over the years in order to please their fans and garner more showbiz opportunities. The resulting media interest on cosmetic surgery is so overhyped that parents are giving their offsprings plastic surgery packages as graduation gifts in hope that better looks will lead to a brighter future. More and more young koreans are being led to think that exernal beauty is more important in ensuring their success in life, with eight out of ten women over the age of 18 feeling the need to go for cosmetic surgery and nearly 70% suffering stress because of their appearance in a recent survey. What is even more disturbing is that one in two women in the same survey indicating that they had undergone cosmetic surgery at least once. Media programs too, has excebated this phenomenon by distorting the vision of beauty and sending messages to the masses that cosmetic surgery will solve all problems and completely transform lives. In USA reality shows like The Swan, Extreme Makeover, participants are given free cosmetic treatments in return for meeting their own personal goals from getting a job, saving a marriage gone cold to winning a beauty pageant.Ever noticed how such shows always focus on interviewing the subject and their families over the transformation while editing away massive portions of the process and ugly post surgery effects like swollen face? That's right, what these shows did not tell viewers are the risks and pain involve in undergoing such treatments, and the high maintenance and regular follow ups needed in order to keep the changes going. Instead they choose to glorify the process and concentrate on protraying the idea of the means justifying the ends, thus grossly misleading viewers with extremely wrong perceptions on cosmetic surgery that it is a small price to pay for vanity and everlasting happiness.
Now here lies another problem. When do we know enough is enough? We are all pressured into coping with the stress of modern living- the need to fit in with everyone else, having an edge over others in order to stand out and be chosen for success. This fear of being left behind in the race for perfection has inevitably led to some people resorting to drastic means in order to make them feel better about themselves. Coupled with deep seated insecurities or other forms of obsessive compulsiveness to be perfect, problems of unrealistic expectations have surfaced. As one well known Korean plastic surgeon remarked “ I'm not a psychologist, I can only improve what's on the outside.”
The danger of addiction is very real. What most people dont realise is that cosmetic surgery is ultimately still an extremely lucative business, and how patients might be subtly manipulated by their own plastic surgeons into undergoing more and more treatments in their quest for ultimate beauty. For example, many plastic surgeons have taken on offering lunch hour procedures such as botox injections and microdermabrasion. While these low risk, instant result treatments are very popular and considered affordable, they are only temporary in terms of effectiveness. The surgeons themselves know it, and they cant be happier to slot you in for more appointments or recommend treatments once you point out an imperfection on your body. Afterall, it's all possible as long as you can pay them. Before you know it, you are seeing your plastic surgeon every month, looking into the mirror everyday and finding new things to get upset about, getting more disatisfied with the last treatment or surgery because you think your nose should be even higher now that you know you can make it so and it's time to start saving for it.
This brings us to the Dorian Gray Syndrome.I know an ex-colleague who admitted frankly “once you are in, it's hard to stop, no one wants to look like an old hag when you know you can avoid it.” She first started out with a simple botox injection out of curiosity, and over the years it had branched out to various nose jobs,liposuctions, breast enlargement and whatever impefections about herself that she can think of and knows can be corrected through surgerical means (I hope she's just joking about perfecting her vagina). But will changing the physical aspects of our bodies really remove those hidden fears and difficulties in coping with the realities of aging and maturation of both body and mind? I really do not think so. What I think everyone needs to understand is that we will all grow old eventually, and that it's part of nature. Changing the physical body through artificial means is as good as deceiving youself because ultimately, if you are rotten inside, everyone will still be able to see it and you will never achieve happiness for long. The more insecure you are, the more people will notice and in turn leads to you getting more and more drastic or even dangerous treatments in order to compensate the fear-it's really a neverending cycle. Instead, it's a less painful and much more enriching experience to just embrace your years and see the changes on your body as a positive testament to getting over hundles in life and appreciating what you have achieved,no matter how big or small.
That I think, is really what life is about.
Taken from: http://thejamkingshow.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/50-year-old-mother-who-has-spent-10000-on-surgery-to-look-like-her-daughter/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
