The Dust Bowl Years
In the 1930s, a devastating ecological disaster took place in the regions of Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. It had a huge area of effect and the decade during which it took place was termed ‘The Dust Bowl’. Clouds of dust blotted out the skyline as they rolled over the land. Visibility was reduced to a bare minimum and the air became unhealthy to breathe in.
Soil erosion had occurred on a massive scale by a combination of man-made factors and a series of consecutive droughts over the ten-year period. The dust that was rolling over the plains was actually eroded topsoil, leaving the region barren and infertile. Popularly accepted man-made factors included over-farming that depleted the soil’s nutrients and destroyed grasses which held the soil together, as well as the introduction of harvesting technology that was more efficient in gathering but damaged the soil. (NDMC on the Dust Bowl Years, 2006). The disaster precipitated because of a series of droughts that left the soil dry and dusty, eventually blown away by winds.
The main socioeconomic cause was likely a drop in crop prices which influenced farmers to farm more extensively and intensively, as well as abandoning soil preservation processes such as the resting of the land, planting of windbreaks, and care for beneficial soil organisms. The 1929 Great Depression caused financial strain on farmers who had, in prior years, purchased more capital in a bid to expand their operations. Furthermore, bumper wheat crops increased overall supply in the market and pushed down prices as recession caused a drop in demand (NDMC, 2006).
Socioeconomic effects include farmers who had to sell their farms because they were unable to pay off loans made to finance their asset purchases, as well as the mass migration of residents of the uninhabitable area to the surrounding regions.
Scientific rationality and capitalism are two practices that are carried along in the current of globalization, and I feel that the above example illustrates the kind of negative impacts they can have on people and the environment.
The reduction of the relationship between the land and farming to that of a mechanical equation has encouraged over farming and poor care of land. The discovery of the key roles of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium (N-P-K) in the nutrition of plants, and the subsequent development of synthesized fertilizers has led to theories that suggest that the relationship between land and farming is as simple as: Input chemical nutrients to produce more food. (Pollan, 2006:146) It has also given farmers the option of farming their land without rest by pouring in more chemical fertilizers to increase growth of plants, and the 1930s episode shows that they will exercise that choice in dire situations.
In his book, the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan studies methods of sustainable farming (Pollan, 2006:130). His study suggests that farms that diversify their livestock and crops can provide abundant produce on a level equal to those of conventional, monoculture farms, without any harm to the environment. This is achieved through processes of crop rotation and animal rotation, and the giving of special attention to cultivation of pasture and the production of natural fertilizers from animal waste. He suggests that this counter-cultural trend is growing in the States, but he also highlights some of the obstacles that prevent more farms from diversifying their produce in this way. Firstly, distributing companies find it economically unsound to deal with transporting and storing many different types of crops from one particular farm; they would rather follow the principle of economies of scale and buy large amounts of a single crop from one farm. Secondly, government subsidies encourage farmers to keep producing corn as part of their agenda to keep food prices down (why this is bears further investigation); farmers receive money from both buyers and the government for the corn that they produce (Pollan, 2006:53).
However, the continued oversupply continues to drive down the price of corn in the market, and for farmers to continue to maintain their standard of living and pay fees, their only option is to produce more corn, which eventually drives prices down more. The result is that agribusiness companies continually research ways to goad consumers into eating more corn (various forms such as corn syrup in drinks and corn in cereal), in spite of the fact that naturally, the demand for food is generally inelastic (there SHOULD be a limit to how much each person can eat, though companies work tirelessly to distort this limit through advertising and product design). Chemical fertilizer manufacturers profit from this cycle of over-stimulated production and artificial demand creation as well, because farmers pay out for more fertilizers to stimulate production.
The historical shift from subsistence to commercial farming, as well as the proliferation of efficiency-oriented technologies, has culminated in episodes of behavior by farmers that can be characterized as desperate and sometimes hysterical. The agricultural system is tied to a profit-oriented, capitalist system that does its best to distort the reality that food consumption is not elastic, and encourages monoculture farming for a number of reasons. Ultimately, I feel that the US government should shoulder a greater part of the blame in today’s context, as its agenda to subsidize food prices and keep them low is what artificially stimulates supply and, in the long run, withholds from farmers what is due to them for their labors.
Reference list
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 2: ‘The Farm’. Penguin Books.
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 8: ‘All Flesh Is Grass’. Penguin Books.
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 9: ‘Big Organic’. Penguin Books.
National Drought Mitigation Center. (2006). NDMC on ‘Drought in the Dust Bowl’. Taken from http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm. Retrieved on 2 November, 2008.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
HS103 blog entry 11 (Response to 'Technology and Energy')
Light
In 1879, after numerous attempts, Thomas Edison succeeded in producing the first commercially viable light bulb. Following this, developments in electrical energy distribution by Edison and his peers led to entire cities being electrically powered and lit up, the first of which was the town of Roselle, New Jersey on January 19, 1883. Thomas Edison pursued his research on his own accord, and was not coerced or pressured by others into making his inventions. The results (intended and unintended) of his passion and drive have, and continue to change the face of cities, even today.
Today, power is generated by burning fuels and natural gases and main power stations. The electricity is transmitted at a high voltage to smaller substations within cities, and these provide low-voltage power to homes and businesses. The energy can be transmitted through overhead or underground wires. Because underground networks are somewhat expensive, they are often bundled with other utility lines (e.g. gas, water) to form common utility ducts.
When a new technology is embraced by society, the ramifications are rarely, if ever predictable. Its effects embed themselves so deeply into our daily lives that we rarely give them a second thought. I decided to write on this topic after a 3am stroll under the streetlamps in Nanyang Technological University. On reflection, I feel that the three most defining elements of the light bulb (and by extension all technology) are:
1. The unintended functions of technology- The functions of many kinds of technology can be used to positive or negative effect on others. Even when an invention appears to have only a positive function (e.g. medicine), those who control it can either provide or withhold it from the needy in order to exploit them.
2. Symbolic significance of technology- Sociology emphasizes the influence and dominance of society over the individual. In the book ‘Ten Questions’, the author writes that the individual’s ability to make a difference in society is limited (Charon, 2007) (edit). He writes that in order for lasting change to occur, it is likely that an individual first requires a power base in society. However, technology seems to contradict this point because many scientists underwent their research without any significant public demand or support, and yet their inventions and ideas went on to make radical changes in the landscape of society. While some might argue that it was only through a power base that these inventions gained popularity, I would think that that argument ignores the question of why the power base gathered in the first place. It was the charisma, imagination, and virtues in these ideas that compelled people to support them, rather than the people making an arbitrary, conscious choice.
3. Increasing ignorance and accountability for technological function and consequences- Sir Joshua Reynolds had a famous quote: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." The average person has no time to learn the mechanics and designs of his hand phone, computer, or microwave oven. This leads to two consequences: The first is that of unintended (often negative) consequences of the use of technology, and the second is that of increasing specialization and interdependence within a community.
I wish to use some examples concerning lighting and electrical power distribution to illustrate points 1 and 3.
The path which the use of technology takes is largely unforeseeable. Analysts may succeed in making one or two predictions, but together with society in general, they often overlook many functions of technology which do not get utilized in a popular fashion until several years later. In the case of light, what seems most salient to me is the way that it has allowed to human activity to continue on a massive scale during night-time.
On one hand this has allowed human productivity to increase significantly. On a personal level, a student like me has the option to study and work on assignments past midnight without any disruptions because of the stable supply of lighting and energy. On a wider scale (and a darker note), this same light provides chances for companies that use extensive manual labor to extend operation hours and coerce desperate workers into working 16-18 hour shifts (Lilley, 2004), in atrocious conditions, for pitiful wages. This takes place in countries that have poor enforcement of workers’ rights, are rife with corruption, and have underdeveloped economies and infrastructure that forces them to rely on cheap labor as a way of attracting foreign investment.
Electric lighting is also the foundation for new forms of global culture. The nightlife of a city is often touted as part of its cultural allure, and all cities develop their own forms of nightlife, perhaps reflecting something about human nature and desire. Whether officially or unofficially recognized, the clubs and pubs in the city serve various functions from supporting the tourism industry to the business industry (businessmen may often try to sweeten the deal with their clients over beer and company with women in pubs or KTV lounges). And could Zouk, the Ministry of Sound, and other nightclubs in Singapore function without the functional and aesthetic uses of different kinds of light? Dancing in the dark would be dim-witted.
Humans have used this newfound time at night for both industry and revelry. Those who do so willingly often do not count the cost to their health of repeatedly staying up so late. Those who have no choice feel their bodies wearing down, but they can do little about it. Either way, it seems that research on the effects of technology on our health and society rarely keeps pace with technological advancements and the lifestyles that follow it. I think it is understandable that research on the effects of inadequate sleep come about only years after the trends take place. However, there is a darker side to this. Companies that produce products such as hand phones for instance, are making something that has a radioactive component to it. Although they are in the best place to research and fix the problems that their products cause to people’s health, the likeliness is that as a group whose predominant concern is profit, they would be willing to overlook these problems even if they had some clues about their existence; if the problem is not easily noticeable or traceable over a few years, it seems economically senseless for them to spend money to account for this externality. For example, the movie Erin Brokovitch was an account of real story about a female lawyer who fought for compensation for a town of people who had suffered severe health problems because of their proximity to electrical power lines; her opponent was the company that built and used the power line, and naturally they tried their best to avoid blame, though they failed in the end. I feel that accountability is one of the key points of conflict between government (and non-government) research and regulatory bodies, and companies that invent and manufacture new forms of technology.
Finally, technology creates increasing specialization and interdependence within a society (Haha, is this what Durkheim means by organic solidarity?). Chains of employment and industry form around a single technology. In the case of the light bulb, the city and its citizens find itself in need of manufacturers, repairmen, packaging manufacturers and packagers, and installers. Considering the diverse array of places in which light bulbs are used, the people associated with their use and production can be said to be an integral (though not celebrated) part of society… I guess I confused the idea of organic solidarity brought up in class to mean that people gain a sense of belonging and identification with others because of their dependence on each other (e.g. I feel a sense of community with my plumber). I disagreed with this idea because I thought it was the opposite: Those with resources to employ these workers are more likely to feel like superiors ‘providing’ employment for them, rather than grateful and connected with them… Now, I understand organic solidarity to mean that people are brought together, and continue to live together in cities and communities simply because they must depend on each other. A feeling of community and belonging is not a necessary part of this.
To me, technology reflects key characteristics of human nature, although I’m not sure how to articulate them. Perhaps it shows the single-mindedness of humans, both in the pursuit of their dreams and their use of technology while ignoring externalities such as the damage to the environment or tiny but consistent damages to their health. Certainly it represents human potential and the power for an individual to change society. I get this feeling that a more cultivated approach to invention and regulation will lead to technologies that are beneficial in every way, rather than acting as a trade-off between quantity and quality, speed and safety, or nature and humanity.
Reference list
Charon, Joel. (2007). Ten Questions. Chapter 8: “Does the Individual Really Make A Difference?”. ThomsonWadsworth.
Lilley, Sasha. (Aug 11, 2004). Corpwatch: Sweating for the Olympics. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11493 on November 2nd, 2008.
In 1879, after numerous attempts, Thomas Edison succeeded in producing the first commercially viable light bulb. Following this, developments in electrical energy distribution by Edison and his peers led to entire cities being electrically powered and lit up, the first of which was the town of Roselle, New Jersey on January 19, 1883. Thomas Edison pursued his research on his own accord, and was not coerced or pressured by others into making his inventions. The results (intended and unintended) of his passion and drive have, and continue to change the face of cities, even today.
Today, power is generated by burning fuels and natural gases and main power stations. The electricity is transmitted at a high voltage to smaller substations within cities, and these provide low-voltage power to homes and businesses. The energy can be transmitted through overhead or underground wires. Because underground networks are somewhat expensive, they are often bundled with other utility lines (e.g. gas, water) to form common utility ducts.
When a new technology is embraced by society, the ramifications are rarely, if ever predictable. Its effects embed themselves so deeply into our daily lives that we rarely give them a second thought. I decided to write on this topic after a 3am stroll under the streetlamps in Nanyang Technological University. On reflection, I feel that the three most defining elements of the light bulb (and by extension all technology) are:
1. The unintended functions of technology- The functions of many kinds of technology can be used to positive or negative effect on others. Even when an invention appears to have only a positive function (e.g. medicine), those who control it can either provide or withhold it from the needy in order to exploit them.
2. Symbolic significance of technology- Sociology emphasizes the influence and dominance of society over the individual. In the book ‘Ten Questions’, the author writes that the individual’s ability to make a difference in society is limited (Charon, 2007) (edit). He writes that in order for lasting change to occur, it is likely that an individual first requires a power base in society. However, technology seems to contradict this point because many scientists underwent their research without any significant public demand or support, and yet their inventions and ideas went on to make radical changes in the landscape of society. While some might argue that it was only through a power base that these inventions gained popularity, I would think that that argument ignores the question of why the power base gathered in the first place. It was the charisma, imagination, and virtues in these ideas that compelled people to support them, rather than the people making an arbitrary, conscious choice.
3. Increasing ignorance and accountability for technological function and consequences- Sir Joshua Reynolds had a famous quote: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." The average person has no time to learn the mechanics and designs of his hand phone, computer, or microwave oven. This leads to two consequences: The first is that of unintended (often negative) consequences of the use of technology, and the second is that of increasing specialization and interdependence within a community.
I wish to use some examples concerning lighting and electrical power distribution to illustrate points 1 and 3.
The path which the use of technology takes is largely unforeseeable. Analysts may succeed in making one or two predictions, but together with society in general, they often overlook many functions of technology which do not get utilized in a popular fashion until several years later. In the case of light, what seems most salient to me is the way that it has allowed to human activity to continue on a massive scale during night-time.
On one hand this has allowed human productivity to increase significantly. On a personal level, a student like me has the option to study and work on assignments past midnight without any disruptions because of the stable supply of lighting and energy. On a wider scale (and a darker note), this same light provides chances for companies that use extensive manual labor to extend operation hours and coerce desperate workers into working 16-18 hour shifts (Lilley, 2004), in atrocious conditions, for pitiful wages. This takes place in countries that have poor enforcement of workers’ rights, are rife with corruption, and have underdeveloped economies and infrastructure that forces them to rely on cheap labor as a way of attracting foreign investment.
Electric lighting is also the foundation for new forms of global culture. The nightlife of a city is often touted as part of its cultural allure, and all cities develop their own forms of nightlife, perhaps reflecting something about human nature and desire. Whether officially or unofficially recognized, the clubs and pubs in the city serve various functions from supporting the tourism industry to the business industry (businessmen may often try to sweeten the deal with their clients over beer and company with women in pubs or KTV lounges). And could Zouk, the Ministry of Sound, and other nightclubs in Singapore function without the functional and aesthetic uses of different kinds of light? Dancing in the dark would be dim-witted.
Humans have used this newfound time at night for both industry and revelry. Those who do so willingly often do not count the cost to their health of repeatedly staying up so late. Those who have no choice feel their bodies wearing down, but they can do little about it. Either way, it seems that research on the effects of technology on our health and society rarely keeps pace with technological advancements and the lifestyles that follow it. I think it is understandable that research on the effects of inadequate sleep come about only years after the trends take place. However, there is a darker side to this. Companies that produce products such as hand phones for instance, are making something that has a radioactive component to it. Although they are in the best place to research and fix the problems that their products cause to people’s health, the likeliness is that as a group whose predominant concern is profit, they would be willing to overlook these problems even if they had some clues about their existence; if the problem is not easily noticeable or traceable over a few years, it seems economically senseless for them to spend money to account for this externality. For example, the movie Erin Brokovitch was an account of real story about a female lawyer who fought for compensation for a town of people who had suffered severe health problems because of their proximity to electrical power lines; her opponent was the company that built and used the power line, and naturally they tried their best to avoid blame, though they failed in the end. I feel that accountability is one of the key points of conflict between government (and non-government) research and regulatory bodies, and companies that invent and manufacture new forms of technology.
Finally, technology creates increasing specialization and interdependence within a society (Haha, is this what Durkheim means by organic solidarity?). Chains of employment and industry form around a single technology. In the case of the light bulb, the city and its citizens find itself in need of manufacturers, repairmen, packaging manufacturers and packagers, and installers. Considering the diverse array of places in which light bulbs are used, the people associated with their use and production can be said to be an integral (though not celebrated) part of society… I guess I confused the idea of organic solidarity brought up in class to mean that people gain a sense of belonging and identification with others because of their dependence on each other (e.g. I feel a sense of community with my plumber). I disagreed with this idea because I thought it was the opposite: Those with resources to employ these workers are more likely to feel like superiors ‘providing’ employment for them, rather than grateful and connected with them… Now, I understand organic solidarity to mean that people are brought together, and continue to live together in cities and communities simply because they must depend on each other. A feeling of community and belonging is not a necessary part of this.
To me, technology reflects key characteristics of human nature, although I’m not sure how to articulate them. Perhaps it shows the single-mindedness of humans, both in the pursuit of their dreams and their use of technology while ignoring externalities such as the damage to the environment or tiny but consistent damages to their health. Certainly it represents human potential and the power for an individual to change society. I get this feeling that a more cultivated approach to invention and regulation will lead to technologies that are beneficial in every way, rather than acting as a trade-off between quantity and quality, speed and safety, or nature and humanity.
Reference list
Charon, Joel. (2007). Ten Questions. Chapter 8: “Does the Individual Really Make A Difference?”. ThomsonWadsworth.
Lilley, Sasha. (Aug 11, 2004). Corpwatch: Sweating for the Olympics. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11493 on November 2nd, 2008.
HS103 blog entry 10 (Response to 'Population and Health')
The population of pre-independence Singapore was often left to its own devices, and as a result of factors such as cultural values and unceasing immigration, the population growth rate was incredibly high. When the PAP came into power in 1959, it felt itself predisposed to check the rapid population growth in order to create more stability and manage development. Symbolic markers of their efforts include the ‘Two is Enough’ campaign in the 1960s, and the subsequent ‘Have Three Or More If You Can Afford It.’ Campaign in the 1980s which was meant to reverse the overly-successful effects of the ‘Two is Enough’ campaign (perhaps the effects of increased education on family patterns was underestimated during the 1960s).
In 2007, the fertility rate for Singaporean females was 1.29 (Singstat on Demography, 2007), a number significantly lower than what is needed to replace the population. Higher levels of education, increased individualism, and perceived difficulties in starting a family here are some of the contributing factors towards the low fertility rate. The PAP-led government is fervently attempting to reverse the changes they helped set into motion. The question is whether or not they’re efforts since the 1980s have been effective, considering that the fertility rate of women then was 1.82. It might be worthwhile to observe one of the government’s latest initiatives, the Social Development Unit.
The Social Development Unit was formed in 1984. Today, its main website is called ‘Lovebyte’ (www.lovebyte.org). Among the many pages in the website, several dating and communication services are promoted, and social events are advertised. One of the website’s mission statements is: “We want to create awareness amongst you, our eligible graduates, on the importance of marriage and family, and the need to start early.”
By 2006, more than 33,000 SDU members had gotten married, an average of 1700 each year. (MCYS on SDU, 2006).
Something interesting to take note of is that all of the membership plans, without exception, allow entry only to university graduates, a detail that is most curious considering that limiting membership works against the government’s explicitly stated goal of increasing the population. It suggests that the SDU is trying to achieve a particular kind of population growth, one skewed towards the higher educated. If it is simply a matter of observably lower fertility rates among university graduates, why should such stringent regulations exist for those outside of university circles?
Even assuming that SDU influence and activities has some significant part to play in encouraging 1700 marriages per year, the number is still relatively small and statistics show that fertility rates are still declining, regardless of the SDU’s efforts.
Overt SDU activities, such as the ‘Romancing Singapore’ campaign in 2003, are often stigmatized by a noticeably large proportion of Singaporeans. One often-cracked joke is that SDU stands for “single, desperate, and unwanted.” It seems as if there is a growing cynicism towards government-initiated attempts to influence the lifestyle choices of everyday Singaporeans; the reaction may be especially strong considering the SDU’s blunt approach to a social pattern of intimacy that is synonymous with ideas such as fated meetings, romance, and spontaneity.
It is more likely that the SDU will be more successful if it directs its efforts towards more subtle initiatives. The building of benches and chairs in quiet corners of parks and riversides are some examples of common-sense works by the SDU. SDU also sponsors events in more casual settings within universities; these events do not have any explicit themes of love or romance, but they can emphasize goals of social interaction between university students. The role that the SDU ought to play is similar to that of the aquatic animals in the movie, “The Little Mermaid”. While the mermaid and the sailor were sitting together on a small boat in a pond, the aquatic animals quietly sang in the background, creating the right atmosphere and mood for the couple.
That having been said, at present the SDU’s efforts are hampered by several factors. The first is its preoccupation with increasing the birth rates of university students alone. The second is that its sometimes inelegant approach is seen as offensive and demeaning to an increasingly cynical population. The third and final factor is that its efforts may very well be at odds with a Singapore culture that, for a whole host of reasons, does not look kindly upon the idea of having three children or more.
Reference List
Singstat on Demography. (2007). “Yearbook of Statistics 2008.” Pg 39. Retrieved from ‘www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/yos2008.pdf’ on 20 October 2008.
MCYS on Social Development Unit. (14 June 2006). “Social Development Unit.” Retrieved from ‘app.mcys.gov.sg/web/faml_promarry_sdu.asp’ on 20 October 2008.
In 2007, the fertility rate for Singaporean females was 1.29 (Singstat on Demography, 2007), a number significantly lower than what is needed to replace the population. Higher levels of education, increased individualism, and perceived difficulties in starting a family here are some of the contributing factors towards the low fertility rate. The PAP-led government is fervently attempting to reverse the changes they helped set into motion. The question is whether or not they’re efforts since the 1980s have been effective, considering that the fertility rate of women then was 1.82. It might be worthwhile to observe one of the government’s latest initiatives, the Social Development Unit.
The Social Development Unit was formed in 1984. Today, its main website is called ‘Lovebyte’ (www.lovebyte.org). Among the many pages in the website, several dating and communication services are promoted, and social events are advertised. One of the website’s mission statements is: “We want to create awareness amongst you, our eligible graduates, on the importance of marriage and family, and the need to start early.”
By 2006, more than 33,000 SDU members had gotten married, an average of 1700 each year. (MCYS on SDU, 2006).
Something interesting to take note of is that all of the membership plans, without exception, allow entry only to university graduates, a detail that is most curious considering that limiting membership works against the government’s explicitly stated goal of increasing the population. It suggests that the SDU is trying to achieve a particular kind of population growth, one skewed towards the higher educated. If it is simply a matter of observably lower fertility rates among university graduates, why should such stringent regulations exist for those outside of university circles?
Even assuming that SDU influence and activities has some significant part to play in encouraging 1700 marriages per year, the number is still relatively small and statistics show that fertility rates are still declining, regardless of the SDU’s efforts.
Overt SDU activities, such as the ‘Romancing Singapore’ campaign in 2003, are often stigmatized by a noticeably large proportion of Singaporeans. One often-cracked joke is that SDU stands for “single, desperate, and unwanted.” It seems as if there is a growing cynicism towards government-initiated attempts to influence the lifestyle choices of everyday Singaporeans; the reaction may be especially strong considering the SDU’s blunt approach to a social pattern of intimacy that is synonymous with ideas such as fated meetings, romance, and spontaneity.
It is more likely that the SDU will be more successful if it directs its efforts towards more subtle initiatives. The building of benches and chairs in quiet corners of parks and riversides are some examples of common-sense works by the SDU. SDU also sponsors events in more casual settings within universities; these events do not have any explicit themes of love or romance, but they can emphasize goals of social interaction between university students. The role that the SDU ought to play is similar to that of the aquatic animals in the movie, “The Little Mermaid”. While the mermaid and the sailor were sitting together on a small boat in a pond, the aquatic animals quietly sang in the background, creating the right atmosphere and mood for the couple.
That having been said, at present the SDU’s efforts are hampered by several factors. The first is its preoccupation with increasing the birth rates of university students alone. The second is that its sometimes inelegant approach is seen as offensive and demeaning to an increasingly cynical population. The third and final factor is that its efforts may very well be at odds with a Singapore culture that, for a whole host of reasons, does not look kindly upon the idea of having three children or more.
Reference List
Singstat on Demography. (2007). “Yearbook of Statistics 2008.” Pg 39. Retrieved from ‘www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/yos2008.pdf’ on 20 October 2008.
MCYS on Social Development Unit. (14 June 2006). “Social Development Unit.” Retrieved from ‘app.mcys.gov.sg/web/faml_promarry_sdu.asp’ on 20 October 2008.
HS103 blog entry 9 (Response to 'Urbanization')
I visited Manhattan in the city of New York during the month of April, as winter gave way to spring. My mother, my sister, and I took up a residence at the Hyatt hotel for the duration of our two week stay, a decision that cost us something close to S$500 a night. The location was near the center of Manhattan, and this gave us easy access to the boutiques and high fashion stores that my mother was keen to explore.
Walking on the streets gave us sharp sensations as we absorbed the flood of new experiences. The air had a cold bite to it, and everyone on the streets had either coats or suits on. The more affluent dressed in fine, navy blue trench coats, while those with more modest backgrounds wore jackets. Every couple of streets we passed, there would be a homeless person swathed in worn, dull coats and scarves, with beanie hats on their head. Often they would have a trolley or shopping cart with them containing their possessions.
The pattern of the roads is a grid of numbered avenues and streets, a system that made navigating the city a simple task. Parking, apparently, is allowed on the streets but not the avenues, and often street roads are lined with cars unable to find spaces in the few (extremely few compared to Singapore) car park lots available. Since the pattern is a grid with very few variations, there are traffic lights in every junction, and this slows traffic down considerably, with taxis having an average speed of about 40km/h (as compared to Singaporean drivers who often drive at speeds of at least 50km/h or above within the CBD.).
On the streets of Time Square, we paid to take pictures with people dressed as famous American icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, Elmo from Sesame Street, and Batman. Theatres and concert halls could be found along every street in the area; neon lights and signs protruded from buildings overhead. As we traveled further north of the city towards Central Park, we entered a district of high fashion retail, with high-end stores such as Saks and Macy’s. Within these glitzy stores, we saw articles of clothing ranging from US$150 to as much as US$10,000. There was a myriad of Japanese and Parisian designer clothing. Levi’s Jeans were nowhere to be seen in this district. We contemplated drinking US$10 tea but decided against it in the end. Down the road there were more shops selling memorabilia, such as the Walt Disney store, the M&M store, and the Fox Network store.
We would often leave the avenues and duck into the streets to find affordable food (Cafes or eateries situated at junctions sold US$6 cups of orange juice.) Mexican burritos were in plentiful supply on these streets. Furthermore, tiny ethnic enclaves could be found along these narrow paths, such as Little Koreas or Little Chinatowns. These streets had shops selling cultural objects or sub-par manifestations of ethnic cuisine, although some shops did manage to provide delightful eating experiences.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the ‘kiasu’ label that Singaporeans have is not exclusive to us. One salient moment was when we discovered that our ‘US$500-a-night hotel’ did not provide complimentary water; a dispenser outside sold 800ml bottles of water for US$2 each. Furthermore, baggage carts at the airport were not free for use, but cost US$2 each to rent.
Manhattan is a place where the most highly regarded representations of culture meet, be it in the form of designer clothing or of world-class performers from all around the globe performing in its concert halls and theatres, and this is what draws people year after year.
Walking on the streets gave us sharp sensations as we absorbed the flood of new experiences. The air had a cold bite to it, and everyone on the streets had either coats or suits on. The more affluent dressed in fine, navy blue trench coats, while those with more modest backgrounds wore jackets. Every couple of streets we passed, there would be a homeless person swathed in worn, dull coats and scarves, with beanie hats on their head. Often they would have a trolley or shopping cart with them containing their possessions.
The pattern of the roads is a grid of numbered avenues and streets, a system that made navigating the city a simple task. Parking, apparently, is allowed on the streets but not the avenues, and often street roads are lined with cars unable to find spaces in the few (extremely few compared to Singapore) car park lots available. Since the pattern is a grid with very few variations, there are traffic lights in every junction, and this slows traffic down considerably, with taxis having an average speed of about 40km/h (as compared to Singaporean drivers who often drive at speeds of at least 50km/h or above within the CBD.).
On the streets of Time Square, we paid to take pictures with people dressed as famous American icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, Elmo from Sesame Street, and Batman. Theatres and concert halls could be found along every street in the area; neon lights and signs protruded from buildings overhead. As we traveled further north of the city towards Central Park, we entered a district of high fashion retail, with high-end stores such as Saks and Macy’s. Within these glitzy stores, we saw articles of clothing ranging from US$150 to as much as US$10,000. There was a myriad of Japanese and Parisian designer clothing. Levi’s Jeans were nowhere to be seen in this district. We contemplated drinking US$10 tea but decided against it in the end. Down the road there were more shops selling memorabilia, such as the Walt Disney store, the M&M store, and the Fox Network store.
We would often leave the avenues and duck into the streets to find affordable food (Cafes or eateries situated at junctions sold US$6 cups of orange juice.) Mexican burritos were in plentiful supply on these streets. Furthermore, tiny ethnic enclaves could be found along these narrow paths, such as Little Koreas or Little Chinatowns. These streets had shops selling cultural objects or sub-par manifestations of ethnic cuisine, although some shops did manage to provide delightful eating experiences.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the ‘kiasu’ label that Singaporeans have is not exclusive to us. One salient moment was when we discovered that our ‘US$500-a-night hotel’ did not provide complimentary water; a dispenser outside sold 800ml bottles of water for US$2 each. Furthermore, baggage carts at the airport were not free for use, but cost US$2 each to rent.
Manhattan is a place where the most highly regarded representations of culture meet, be it in the form of designer clothing or of world-class performers from all around the globe performing in its concert halls and theatres, and this is what draws people year after year.
HS103 blog entry 8 (Response to 'Globalized Identity')
Christian fundamentalism is a movement that opposes liberal interpretation and practice of Biblical doctrine, and encourages a return to strict and literal interpretations of doctrine. It is a movement that has no clear central leadership or themes; some Christian fundamentalists keep their strict way of life within their own society or individually, whereas others engage actively in politics and some even openly criticize and oppose people of other faiths. Despite their differences, what Christian fundamentalists seem to have in common is the promise of a return to ‘better times’, where society was supposedly more stable and cohesive, and people were more ‘moral’ as opposed to the lawlessness and deviance that they associate with the dominance of extreme liberalism. My question today is whether or not this is indeed true. Has Christian fundamentalism led to greater social cohesion? I wish to examine divorce rates in these states.
There is an often used adage in Christian circles that ‘families that pray together, stay together.’ However, the Barna report, a study on divorce rates interviewing 3,854 adults in 48 states, concluded that divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than those of non-Christians, especially Atheists and Agnostics (Report on
The bible states in both the Old and New Testaments that divorce is not to occur unless the grounds are those of adultery. If indeed, fundamentalist churches follow such interpretations strictly, why should the divorce rates of this group be so much higher than those of other, more liberal religious groups? My belief is that a return to fundamentalist interpretations can no longer facilitate a return to a time when rates of divorce were lower, and that in fact such rates are not an indicator of healthy cohesion in family units; they are instead indicative of the repression of women by consensus on religious doctrine. For instance, a strict, literal interpretation of the bible means that women must tread quietly in church and not make a ‘nuisance’ of themselves. Furthermore, the elements of patriarchy inherent in Biblical texts would become emphasized to an extreme if given a legalistic interpretation. Such edicts find themselves at odds with both modern values of equality and modern realities of women who are gaining equal ground next to men as opposed to the restrictive lifestyles of traditional women. Fundamentalist approaches no longer have any logical appeal in the face of arguments for gender equality, and their insistence on traditional views of subservient women only aggravate domestic situations rather than supporting them.
In conclusion, I believe that a return to traditional and fundamentalist approaches to religion do not necessarily yield the benefits that are promised. The clashes with modern views about marriage, relationships, and equality in fact deepen conflicts in family units.
Reference list
B.A. Robinson. (2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)