Globalization, soaring consumption levels and ludicrous pollution levels has resulted in the world desperately seeking for alternative fuel methods that are not only green, but also able to rid the world of additional problems, such as famine and poverty.  One of the proposed situations is to use biofuels, which are essentially solid, liquid or gas fuel derived from recently dead biological material, meaning that it can be from any carbon source, but the most common remains photosynthetic plants. On the surface, it does indeed present itself as a viable idea as carbon emissions will be lowered and with food being a renewable source, supply will definitely be more constant as compared to fossil fuels. However, I fervently believe that the cons undoubtedly outweigh the pros in the usage of biofuel.

With food such as corn or wheat being the source of fuel, the demand of such staples in any human’s diet will rise drastically. Not only are they being heavily demanded to feed the billions around the globe, they are now needed to produce fuel, to run the numerous machineries that keep the economy going. This will put an even greater strain the environment, with nutrients being stripped from the soil at a faster rate, and at a possibility that it will be even faster than the rate at which the soil replenishes it nutrients. As the dependence on food increase, the environment will begin to deplete and its inability to meet the growing demands of the world both in terms of fuel and food consumption will be more significant than ever.

By turning to biofuel, it seems as if the theory that Thomas Malthus proposed will become a reality not far in the future. Malthus proposed that population grows exponentially while food supply is linear in growth. Population as we all know has indeed grown exponentially, with a prediction that it could hit nine billion within the next couple of decades. Food supply on the other hand, has been unable to grow as rapidly as compared to population. Moreover, with the introduction and possibility of increased in usage of biofuel, food supply for human consumption will indeed lowered.

Critics may argue that with technological advancements, especially with the success found in the research and development area for food, food supply can definitely increase and may even surpass that of population growth. Furthermore, as countries develop and the cost of living rising, the population growth can be lowered severely as seen in developed countries such as Singapore and Switzerland. Hence, Malthus’ idea that food would be insufficient to support the world’s population would not hold true.

But at the end of the day, advancement for genetically modified food (GM food), is still rather slow and it remains expensive for the poorest and most agriculturally dependant countries to adopt. In these nations, population will remain high in order to increase their chances of having some of them surviving into adulthood and with the demand of food increasing day by day, the environment will continue to suffer as we continue to strip away the precious nutrients found in soil.

Lastly, to make matters worse, globalisation intensifies environmental degradation. This is because it accelerates pollution and has resulted in climate change such as global warming to occur. This has resulted in the weather fluctuating immensely and hence heavily affecting farming season and resulting in lower crop yield. In this event, production for biofuel and consumption will decrease. The world would be once again be pressured to seek alternative fuels and biofuel would have failed both its purpose and the environment as it would have reduce the fertile fields to be barren.

So while we’re trying to save our environment by turning to “green fuel”, we are at the same time destroying it and making the situation far worse than before. Instead of saving the world from pollution and any potential harm that current fuel production could cause, biofuel accelerates and increases the occurrence of such dire consequences. Isn’t it ironic something that deemed as “green” and beneficial could do so much harm?  

In today’s globalised world, the use of technology has become inevitable, with it being more than just a tool for basic cross border communications. It has evolved into something more powerful, so much so that even the politics of a country can be decided by its usage.

Probably the first sign of technology’s power could be seen in Singapore’s 2006 General Elections. The PAP was confident of ensuring at least 80% of the votes, but they walked away with a measly 66%. And more recently, technology, particularly the new media, which includes the internet, plays an immense role in next week’s US Presidential Elections.

However, the most significant case can be seen in Malaysia’s General election in March this year. The incumbent Barisan Nasional (BN) was expected to sweep the elections with astounding success as in the previous elections. However, they suffered a crushing defeat, winning only 140 seats, down from the 198 seats in 2004. It was also the first time since the 1969 election that they failed to achieve the two-thirds super majority required in the Malaysian parliament to pass amendments in the Malaysian Constitution. The opposition’s success can be mostly attributed to their campaign strategies where they diverted from the norm of just rallies. The opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat consisting of parties such as theDemocratic Action Party (DAP), Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)made used of new media technology including text messaging, blogs and YouTube to influence voters in their decision,  particularly the Generation Y voters.

Youth in society today are relatively politically ignorant, choosing to not to entangle themselves in the web of politics. However, by incorporating new technology into their campaigning, it reaches out more to these politically apathetic individuals. The youth are hardly enthusiastic about large scale campaigning and chances are they would not show up at rallies. Hence, by resorting to blogs, YouTube and text messaging, the most common form of communication among the youth, the possibility of getting them interested increased significantly, and so were the chances of getting them to vote as seen in the opposition’s success in the 12th Malaysia General Elections.

Moreover, only issues that are of high concern and usually containing negative connotations will surface on in the media. It is generally human nature to remain silent when satisfied and to make their miseries known. And with the youth being completely ignorant regarding their society, these issues will only catch their eye and cause dissatisfaction with the government simply because it pops up everywhere in their mode of communication. Such is the power of technology. Not only is it able to sway voters’ decisions, it can also increase the pace in which their decision is made.

With the youth only being exposed to the one sided, dirty politics, and coupled with their general lack of concern, they will tend to vote for whatever that they deemed as the best for their nation. And their decision on what is then seen as best would be based on the information they get via the new media technology.

Some may call reaching out to the youth via new media technology a dirty political ploy, but politics is dirty by nature. I believe that what political parties are doing now is simply just making use of the resources and technologies that they have. It is perhaps dirty but the world has evolved much faster than anyone can cope. And by ignoring the power of technology, it is as good as throwing the competition away. For the numbers you can reach out to will be greatly reduced and you are essentially giving your opponent the upper hand.

The proliferation of such an occurrence should be embraced and taken advantage of. Technology is essentially is just a tool, and it can be interpreted and manipulated in any way possible. So why allow your opponent to benefit?  Use it to your advantage and the results may be surprising and extremely beneficial.

When Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) exploded onto the world stage in 2003, it caused widespread panic, fear and anxiety. It was new, no one had any clue how it spread, whether there will even be a cure and even simply what it was. It was a period of peril, with societies suddenly being thrown into turmoil and even the best governments in the world at complete lost over what to do.

In Singapore, it was no different. Singaporeans were overwhelmed with panic and anxiety and the situation was made worse with Singaporeans being naturally kiasu. Singaporeans were demanding for answers and when they heard a rumour that something could possible cure or prevent the deadly infection, they rushed out to get them. Masks and thermometers flew off shelves at lighting speeds and public places were avoided like the plague had hit town.

The government appeared to be swift in their actions, with the implementation of isolation room, contact tracing, temperature taking among the various measures introduced. Now that the whole saga is over, SARS has evolved into more than just a pandemic; it has become the government’s tool for national unity.

In almost every speech made by the societal leaders over the past few years, SARS will be given a mentioned, serving as a form of motivation for us when we faced any forms of predicament, telling us that if we overcame SARS, we can overcome anything, for nothing is impossible.

When Singapore was finally declared SARS-free, was it really an issue of Singaporeans uniting together as one? The nation may seem like it was working together, but in reality, who wouldn’t be worried for their own health? For their love ones?  It is only human nature that people fear for their health, and with an illness as serious and fatal as SARS, who wouldn’t do their very best to protect themselves and their love ones?

On the surface, we did appear as if we worked as one nation to combat the deadly disease. With campaigns such as Singapore OK, temperature taking in offices and schools and the obsessive cleaning of public and private areas, it did seem as if Singaporeans were working together to the minimise and eventually prevent the spread of SARS.

True feelings of national unity cannot be created by simply propagating the people with such ideas; it is definitely more than that. I do agree that SARS was indeed a huge obstacle and that overcoming it was certainly an incredibly feat, but I do not agree that it should be used to brainwash citizens. Not only is it saddening to ride on such a painful event to foster something should be of second nature to a country, SARS is not something that was exclusive to Singapore; it was a global phenomenon, with fear and anxiety piling up in every single country. Moreover, haven’t we gone through together more than the SARS pandemic? What about the Asian Financial crisis in 1997-1998? What about now, when we are trying to combat arguably the biggest global economic meltdown to date?  

If we do and I certainly hope that we will overcome the global financial crisis, I think it is more suitable in trying to promote national unity. This is simply because health is a personal issue, and as mentioned earlier, everyone worries for their health as it is really a matter of life and death. Whereas for something like the economy, it is a true representation of a nation and even global effort, with trust being placed that the economy would recover and that our lives would return to normal or improve. For with a booming economy, many things can come your way and benefit you. It is something that allows the true implications to be felt universally, whereas the pains of an illness like SARS usually only hurt the family members and those who are at the front line. Others can see the suffering but they will never be able to fully understand the effects of it. National unity has to be built on something that can be felt and identified by everyone, not just isolated groups. SARS should be a painful memory and a lesson, but not a reason or an excuse for national unity.

Michael Jackson: The Earth Song

What about sunrise
What about rain
What about all the things
That you said we were to gain…
What about killing fields
Is there a time
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine…
Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we’ve shed before
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores?

Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah
Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah

What have we done to the world
Look what we’ve done
What about all the peace
That you pledge your only son…
What about flowering fields
Is there a time
What about all the dreams
That you said was yours and mine…
Did you ever stop to notice
All the children dead from war
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores

Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah
Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah

I used to dream
I used to glance beyond the stars
Now I don’t know where we are
Although I know we’ve drifted far

Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah
Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah
Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah
Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah

Hey, what about yesterday
(What about us)
What about the seas
(What about us)
The heavens are falling down
(What about us)
I can’t even breathe
(What about us)
What about apathy
(What about us)
I need you
(What about us)
What about nature’s worth
(ooo, ooo)
It’s our planet’s womb
(What about us)
What about animals
(What about it)
We’ve turned kingdoms to dust
(What about us)
What about elephants
(What about us)
Have we lost their trust
(What about us)
What about crying whales
(What about us)
We’re ravaging the seas
(What about us)
What about forest trails
(ooo, ooo)
Burnt despite our pleas
(What about us)
What about the holy land
(What about it)
Torn apart by creed
(What about us)
What about the common man
(What about us)
Can’t we set him free
(What about us)
What about children dying
(What about us)
Can’t you hear them cry
(What about us)
Where did we go wrong
(ooo, ooo)
Someone tell me why
(What about us)
What about babies
(What about it)
What about the days
(What about us)
What about all their joy
(What about us)
What about the man
(What about us)
What about the crying man
(What about us)
What about Abraham
(What was us)
What about death again
(ooo, ooo)
Do we give a damn

Aaaaaaaaah Aaaaaaaaah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Hcd60VoRM

I first watched this music video and heard this song back in 2005, when I was in Secondary 4, during one of my human geography lessons.  When I saw it, I was really struck by the amount of destruction humans are doing to Earth, the place we call home. When we look around us, we are essentially blinded by the modernization, the technological advancements and the improvements. We only see the benefits, the beautiful side of the development of nations, cities and rural areas, the glamorous side of urbanization. But what Michael Jackson did with this video was to highlight the detriments of a process that numerous places around the globe are going through or desiring for it to happen.

As we urbanize, we tend to sacrifice the natural environment, our heritage and even our fellow human beings. This is extremely disappointing as humans have evolved to be selfish beings who only think for themselves, who seek to satisfy their thirst for modernization for their own benefit. We fight, we destroy and we kill just for that desire to come true.

At the end of the song Jackson asks, “Do we give a damn”, this made me stop and think, do we even care that we’re killing our home? Do we even care that we’re killing fellow human beings over perceived differences? Do we even care that others are suffering in order for us to improve our lifestyles?

It’s an extremely shocking realisation and an awfully disturbing thought. It really makes one wonder whether urbanisation is really worth all these sacrifices. Is the value of human life and the environment tantamount to the so called benefits of modernisation?

Personally, I think not. While I agree that urbanization has indeed brought about numerous benefits such as a higher standard of living, greater efficiency and brought about immense economic and social benefits, it has still destroyed the place we call home. We have turned against our own and lost much our natural habitat and biodiversity. All these are not something that continued urbanization and modernization can easily recover.

I fervently feel that the process of urbanization is in fact a dilemma in itself. This is because it is undoubtedly needed for the world to improve and for human survival to continue as people have grown to be extremely depended on it and comfortable with their current lifestyle. Moreover, once they have gotten that first bite of luxury, it is only human nature to desire more. However, with it comes destruction.

Urbanisation needs to strike a balance, it needs to maintain modern development and yet minimise destruction to the world. It is an uphill task but not impossible to overcome. Many countries are going green, promoting products that are environmentally friendly to reduce environmental damages.  Interaction and integration is promoted in order for a mutual understanding to result. And awareness is increasingly being raised to help those in need.

The effects of urbanisation need not be as ugly as proposed by Michael Jackson, it all starts will people bothering and giving a damn about others and our environment.

The upcoming US presidential elections is more than a competition for a new commander in chief, it is more than electing someone to rectify the US$10 trillion deficit the United States of America (USA) currently faces, it is also the time when judgment falls on whether the USA has finally shattered the ceiling of racial inequality once and for all and the true realisation of Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream founded more than 40 years ago.

Barack Obama of the Democratic Party and Senator of Illinois has already created history by being the first African American to secure a presidential nomination regardless of party. But he is fighting to go one step further, to be arguably the most powerful man on Earth, the president of the United States of America.

Some say that with Obama already secured the Democratic Party nomination, racial equality has already been achieved and that a win in the upcoming November elections would only serve as the icing on the cake. In reality, only cracks have been made on the ceiling and that in order for true racial equality to prevail, Obama has to be elected.

Why is this so? Well, I fervently believe that only when a leader of a minority race is elected, it signifies the trust and removal of any stigma previously held regarding the race; in this case it would be the African Americans. It is human nature to trust in their own as it is often believed that they are brought up with the same beliefs and ideas. Whereas those who are different would without a doubt have different values and perspectives that may or may not threaten those that I hold true to my heart. Hence, when a leader is selected, I would tend to vote for my kind, believing that my interest, social standings and perhaps advantages be protected.

So imagine the implications when the majority race decides to switch and place their faith in someone who is different, who may or may not share similar beliefs. The amount of risk and trust involved would be gargantuan.  For they have chosen to believe that physical and probably ideological differences can be put aside and their interest protected or even improved.

If Senator McCain were to be elected, it would mean more than just the American public believing in his experience and conservative ideas regarding politics, economics and social issues, it would also mean having an underlying implication that the people are simply not ready for an African American president, that the majority race are unable to place their trust or are unwilling to risk placing their faith in someone who is different.

Come November 4^th 2008, the world would be watching, to see if Americans are finally to able to see race as just an issue of colour, and placing complete trust in another, a minority would be when the dream founded in 1963 finally be realised.

The one –man-one-vote system where everyone has a say is adopted in almost every country in the world. And in those that do not have it, there are advocators, who seek to do whatever they can in order to implement the system. Perhaps one of the most prominent and ardent supporter of this cause would be Aung San Suu Kyi.

The 62 year-old is the daughter of General Aung San, who is hugely considered as the father of modern day Burma.  As the leader of the political party National League for Democracy, she led them to victory in the 1990 general elections, hence earning the right to be Prime Minister. However, the junta, which is the military government of Burma, refused to recognise the results and instead of handing power over, they placed her under house arrest. She has spent more than ten years under the military’s control and their harsh rules. Freedom has always been and still is an option, but on the condition that she leaves Burma, she which has refused profusely. Moreover, she has not seen her children and neither was she able to care or see her husband, even when he succumbed to cancer in 1999.

Her love for her country and desire to bring both freedom and democracy is highly admirable. The sacrifices that she made further prove her aspiration for her nation and her unwavering support for the democratic cause. In 1990, she was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, in recognition of her efforts “for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congress.” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel: http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html)

Democracy’s one-man-one vote bureaucratic system has clearly become so attractive and desirable that Aung San Suu Kyi is willing to forgo so much in her life for its implementation to come true. Many would have resorted to violence, believing that it is the key for democracy and freedom to be brought about, as we have seen in the numerous wars fought over the years.  However, she has repeatedly refused to do so, which is even more laudable.  

Lastly, many would have long given up, opting for the easy way out and leaving the country. But Aung San Suu Kyi stuck to what she believed in, hoping that one day, her people would have a voice and that they can truly fight for what they believe in. 

Democracy is indeed a dream that Aung San Suu Kyi hopes will come true in Burma one day, for not only will it bring economic, political and social progress to her country and her people, it will bring about freedom to them, and more importantly to her. It will be the day when she can finally see her family, and see her country be free from the tyrannical hold from the junta.

The use of violence during disputes is getting more commonplace despite the modernization of society. One may think that with the increased in education, technology and socialization, a greater understanding will be resulted between societies and violence will not be resorted to as often as before in order to resolve conflict. However, it seems apparent to me that despite all these advancements in education and technological levels, constructive conflict has decreased and destructive conflict has increased significantly. War is being used as an excuse to signify a fight for freedom and for the good of all people.

Frankly, I detest war.  I fervently feel that war is completely unnecessary and that those who engage in war are in fact doing it for pure selfish reasons.

While I vehemently feel that leaders do have the passion and desire to help their people, to improve the place which they call home, they do at their back of their minds have one simple motive, one that increases in importance as his or her reign comes to an end-the issue of legacy.   What makes him or her stand out? What will allow him or her to be remembered by society and what will him or her be remembered by? The issue of legacy is one that without a doubt is present in every leader’s mind, some are just more aware of it than others.

A leader’s reign is never complete without a celebration of his or her accomplishments. However, almost every leader and boost a resume of an increased in welfare, economic activity, security and other similar issues. Something must be done in order for them to stand out amongst the others, and a victory in war is usually the key.

With a victory in war, a glorious legacy is almost guaranteed. The leader will be seen as the hero, the ambassador of freedom and the endorser of a certain ideology. While there may be casualties, while the economy may suffer, while the whole society may be thrown into turmoil, the victory will and can result in the victors forgetting all these devastating consequences and celebrating the initiator of this. Chances are he or she will go down in history as a shining star, a commander in chief that dared to take risks in order to support a cause and bring salvation to his or her people.

To me, such a leader may be glorious, he or she may be amazing, but he or she is the most selfish of all. How can one allow the desire of self glory to overwhelm him or her and use the desires of the people as an excuse to engage in the most disastrous and devastating act of mankind? As mentioned earlier, with the victory comes widespread devastation in terms of society’s stability, infrastructure, economic situation and the loss of lives. Is the imposing of one’s ideology, the claiming of freedom for society equivalent and worth all these devastation?

War will always remain as the easy way out for legacy, but to me it will always remain as a pathetic excuse for leaders who allow their selfishness to overwhelm their desire to help the people and to do good for the society.  

Drugs, albeit heroin, cocaine or marijuana have been plaguing societies all over the world. It is commonly associated with the poor, who seek drugs as a form of hunger suppressant, particularly cocaine.  With them slowly becoming addicted to drugs, they allow themselves to fall to into a vicious cycle that slowly draws them further and further away from their dream of overcoming poverty. 

However, on 8 October 2004, a drug bust occurred that stunned Singaporeans.  Those arrested were not the urban poor, neither were they street gangs that yielded power over the former, nor were they youths seeking thrill and excitement. Instead, they were a group of high flyers, including private investors, artists and publishers. At least 14 of them were arrested in the drug bust with a grand total of 64g of cocaine, 5.1g of methamphetamine, otherwise known as ice, 1.108 ounces of marijuana and 52 ecstasy pills were seized by the authorities.  (http://www.cnb.gov.sg/Newsroom/index.asp?name=TmV3c3Jvb20gLSBPcGVyYXRpb25z&year=MjAwNA&page=NDk1&type=QXJjaGl2ZQ)

The reasons for drug abuse in Singapore differ largely from those that plague other urbanised cities like New York where the drugs are used as a method to control gain control over others and to achieve a social status that evokes fear.  The yuppies, who are the young, high powered and influential in Singapore, are involved in the drug circuit definitely not because they are poor nor do they seek to control the poor in society. Rather, they are involved in drugs due to the pure fact that they want to seek thrill and excitement. Drugs are simply another form of experimental recreational fun, or a way to show defiance towards the stringent laws of Singapore. (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1431/a06.html?397)

It is quite perplexing as to why they would choose to risk being caught for breaking the law in order to have fun. With their high education levels and their greater exposure to ways of society, it is hard to understand why they still try to play with the law. They should be fully aware of Singapore’s strict rules against drugs and no one is spared when found to be guilty. Moreover, when they are caught, they will lose much more than the urban poor. They will lose their reputation, prestige and privileges.

But I feel that it is due to their high power and affluence in the social hierarchy, that they have the guts to turn to drugs. For it is quite possible that they believe that they could possibly escape the law. This is because social institutions in society and social structures are usually organized and supported in a manner that the elites are protected to a certain degree.   Or in the event that they do get caught, they can well afford a successful lawyer who could help justify their actions and reduce their sentence or escape sentencing altogether. However, the reality is that no one is above the law, and once a crime is committed, and they are convicted of the crime, justice must be served.

The drug bust has also proven another point that while society should still combat crime in found in the urban poor, the focus must also be shifted slightly to the rich and high ranking in society. This is because when the poor are being marginalised and frequently targeted by the authorities, it can result in greater unhappiness and in turn more crime. So my take is that, in order for crime rates to be reduced, the focus and blame cannot be placed entirely on the poor or frustrated youths, but even those who seem to be the least of all suspects, for they can be and usually are the main culprits.

Women have been long seen as playing the weak and submissive role in the household. In fact, during the Victorian times, the ideal woman was one that ran the household, whose sole aim was to have children and looked after them to the best of her ability. Her husband was the in charge of maintaining the household via his career, and nothing more. Today, we see “Supermom” emerging, where women not only maintain the household, they also have highly successful careers. This may seem startling to some, but if we were to delve deeper, we would see that this has in fact been occurring for centuries.

Queen Victoria of England was probably one of the more recognisable “Supermom” during the 1800s. She was arguably the most powerful woman then, having control during the time of economic and imperial expansion.  Yet, she is fondly remembered as a mother of nine children, who shared political responsibility with her husband Prince Albert till his sudden death in 1861, where her juggling of career and family got more intense.  She was someone the middle classes could easily identify with. This was because she pushed for a strong emphasis on values regarding family and moral, something that they hold true to. She was indeed a “Supermom”, having a career running the country, and putting her family first, even pushing for these values to be adopted by her people.

The “Supermom” we see today are in fact not too far from Queen Victoria. They juggle the household and their careers, but to many, they are first and foremost a mother to their children. Take Michelle Obama for example. Her daughters Malia and Sasha are of paramount importance to her. Before her husband Barack Obama ran for president, she was a lawyer, a public servant on top of being a mom. She championed services to get youths involved in public service and volunteerism. She has stated that if her husband is elected president, she aims to help families, but not at the expense of her daughters. Her “first priority will always be to make sure that our girls are healthy and grounded,” and subsequently “help other families get the support they need, not just to survive, but to thrive.” (http://www.barackobama.com/about/michelle_obama/) She wants to spread the word that women can indeed juggle family and career, and they should be encouraged to do so.

These women may have seemed to defy the ideal woman of the Victorian times, but personally, I feel that they have just expounded on the definition. While they may not have as many children, family is still their top priority. They provide the best for their families by getting a job. They build on their careers in order to improve the quality of the lifestyle their family is having.  They are still maintaining the household to the best of their ability, and they do so by finding work, instead of playing supervisor to servants and day labourers. Lastly, with the extra income coming from women, men’s heavy responsibility is eased. Men can return to the household to aid the women in terms of the family. They are no longer as worked up as before, worrying whether their income can support their family. “Supermom” is more super than ever, and for those who oppose such a thought, should open their hearts and minds to see the benefits it brings.

As we have seen in our earlier topics, society has evolved tremendously, with countries having remarkable economic growth and radical changes in terms of political structure. But let’s look in terms of social issues, have we really evolved?

By returning to our very basics, our humanity, we can see that the social problems emerging from economic growth has in fact been present all along. Child labour, meagre wages and a complete lack of consideration fellow human beings are increasingly in the spotlight as the economy grows. And each time we read about such unthinkable occurrences, we cringe and ask why is no one doing something about it. But has it ever dawned on us that we as consumers are in fact the root cause of it all?

Each time we purchase a Nike shirt, do we ever considered the fact that behind the shirt, there is a tragic tale of a child on the other side of the globe, working their hardest for a few cents in order to feed their family? Have we ever thought that each time we try to satisfy our material wants, we are in fact contributing to the most prevalent of social problems?

As our economy grows and our disposable income rises, we demand for more luxuries, in a bid to improve our standard of living. We are no longer satisfied with Bata or Hang Ten, but we’re looking for Christian Louboutin and Chanel.  Moreover, with trade becoming one of the most common policies adopted by countries, the demand for such goods will only increase over all over the globe. People are increasingly aware of a lifestyle in the lap of luxury and they desire such a lifestyle. These heartless companies will be more than glad to supply the goods required as it will enable them to earn more money.  Furthermore, these companies justify their actions by stating that for finer quality goods to be produced, the tiny hands of children are required and since they are desperate for work, any amount of pay will do.

This dire situation will not change as the world continues to globalise and the demand for material goods increases by the day. As more nations strive for economic prosperity, more goods are needed to be produced for the demand to be met. This will in turn result in even more companies wanting to tap into the wealth of the situation; they will seek the profit maximization route and violation of human rights.  Even as international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations (UN), seek ways to minimise or even reverse the situation, it will not change or improve in the near future.

The video essentially summaries what I have been trying to drive at. With these corporations so fixed on profit maximisation that they have lost their very essence of humanity, sweatshops will continue to exist, or even increase in numbers. A complete boycott of their goods or a wakeup call for the heads of these corporations is required. Unfortunately, I do not see either happening in the near future, as the economy continues to boom and their thirst for money or power continues to grow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn8LnEkKfIU&feature=related