Environment would refer to the totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms. This would especially be reflected in the combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms. Our environment has continually through time provided us with fundamental necessities for survival; however this is not reflected in our responsive treatment towards the environment. This relationship can be seen in our dependence on our parents in the early years, often children would seek to look after their parents in their old age though a minority would not. However , humanity has continued throughout time harm the environment, though this would be significantly worst without the existence of government intervention of civil rights groups most notably environmentalist.

The harming of the environment though appearing to most as a relative straight forward ideology of society harming the environment is very much more complex than that. Firstly, how makes up content of society that harms the environment. Secondly, for what purposes would this group want to harm the environment for? Surely, there are those of us who want to save the environment in its derived forms.

Much of society who has harmed the environment can be attributed to Multi-national corporations (MNC) who by massive industrial production produces vast quantities of harmful organic material which harm the environment. Though many MNCs would argue that it is consumers who cause such demand for production of this massive scale citing, how much power does consumer demand really have in modern context with MNCs of today using supply to create demand. Furthermore, with the presence of new clean technology in the forms of hybrid energy sources, MNCs could in realisation turn to such. However, clean technology is more expensive. Thus it only reflects that MNCs by their profit driven nature would only serve to protect the environment should it be cost efficient or profitable and until then we can only count on environmentalists and government efforts to cater for the environment.

Ecology would refer to the science of the relationships between organisms and their environments. Such was on the surface highlighted by the earlier example with MNCs. A deeper question would be between the idea of derived products and the main form. Many have come to believe through science that human beings are derives product of their environment, products of the earth. Should the earth die as a result of our combined efforts of harm to the environment, would we still exist. Clearly by our plans to reach space, set up homes in mars and explore the stars. Humanity is often trying to be independent from it host environment, the earth. By theory and history, no other derived product has survived without the existence the main product. Should society be able to exist independently without the earth, it would break the very foundations of this ideology. However, this might have consequences not just on the environment but more so on society. No longer might we see ourselves as products of our environments, we might seek to become its creators and there is no limit to what we might create, cloning is a good example to prove this point. A new age has begun, one where humanity might actually be the centre of the universe.

Technology can be defined as the body of knowledge that deals with the making and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, through subjects such as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science. Though many would say that technology has helped society progress far in economic and industrial development, we must still look sociologically into the use of technology in society and see whether this progress has actually made society really better as a whole or is this only reflective of a small group of people notably the elites. Also if technology has helped, is it reflected in our daily lives and how far can this be said for the masses.

Human beings are growing ever dependent on technology in the basic running of their lives. From the inventions of cars, planes and trains which have helped to ease transportation to communication devices such as cell phones, blue-tooth and global positioning systems which have helped the world stay connected. However, we must look at the impact of technology holistically and see whether they really add ease to our daily lives or have they actually become obstacles in our daily life? Take the specific example of handphones whose purpose is to ease communication and keep us connected. Though handphones help us to communicate with each other when we are far away, it also proves to be an obstacle in daily communication and social interaction. Both parents and teens use short message services (sms) or calls to communicate with each other and social interaction is overtime less prominent. Families living in the same household hardly interact with each other physically rather relying on technology to substitute social interaction with each other. It can be seen in this case that technology can both prove to help and harm society at the same time , however not all of us would be aware of this in the short term , such effects can only be seen over time.

Energy would refer to the capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. Living in an industrial and technical age, energy is of vital importance to the human race. Energy is often associated with the resources that produce it. In modern context, oil has become one such resource.  Countries which have huge quantities of oil have profited out of the growing industrial needs for oil. All Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Brunei prove this case, not only is their economy growing through the sale of oil, oil has proved to be the main contributor to the economy.

Much conflict has resulted over the control of oil. Iraq’s attack on Kuwait o take over its oil goes to show this, this is also supported by America’s takeover of Iraq though listed as a war on terror; America now controls the sale and acquisition o Iraq’s oil. From a sociological view it can be seen that energy like technology both serves to help and divide society. Conflict have risen over the acquisition of such energy producing resources as often they is no other way than economic trade to distribute such resources, Nations without such resources would surely be at a losing end. Not only should we encourage for a more fair system of distribution , we should note that helpful developments in our history such as energy or technology can also prove to harm society and only by understanding this would we make better developments in this fields with such notions in mind.

Population can be referred to a group of individuals of the same species occupying a particular geographic area. Populations may be relatively small and closed, as on an island or in a valley, or they may be more diffuse and without a clear boundary between them and a neighbouring population of the same species. Health refers to the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigour: good health; poor health. The terminology of population and health are closely linked as both are derived from the individual which is a primary concept for both terms. Populations are made up of individuals and health is concerned with the individual thus the individual is of primary significance in understanding both concepts.

It is remarkable how the population of the human race has grown exponentially over the two centuries from 1800. From a mere 200 million in 1800, to a striking 6 billion by 2006. One must wonder with this continued growth in population , how the earth is going to cope especially with the growing concerns of starvation, employment and health , the primary concerns of the globalized world. Though many argue that these problems can be easily solved as much of these resources are in the hands of a few people, we need just ensure a more equal share of distribution to solve these major issues. However, that is not the case of the human race. No other species is known to annihilate its own kind even in times of exponential growth. In theory all seems well and perfect and society is constantly seen in trying to spread a more equal share of distribution to the population. Organizations such as the United Nations and the Red Cross all go to prove this. However, in reality, these organizations are powerless compared to the multinational corporations who hold these resources.

How then are we to ensure the continued existence of our population despite its exponential growth, surely, we would not want to engage on a war of survival to ensure our continued existence or should we? I don not see a definite answer to that. However, whatever decision we may choose, it is best that it is through the general consensus of the population and not some mass following through a small group of people that is to say government ideology which so often becomes a following by the masses through globalization and the use of the mass media. In present day society , the populations are easily influencing each other through the use of the mass media coupled with secondary effects of globalization.

Health today is ever becoming a primary concern. However, the individual should note that physical health is less important as compared to the mental state of a person. This often is of little concern as the world so stresses on the outside appeal. Beauty and superficial value hold important values in today’s society. Just having a pretty face might get you far in life. This can be seen in terms of employment, relations and opportunity stressing the huge significance of such.

 However do not despair. History still shows signs of the human race trying to co-exist and science and technology offer us a platform in doing so. This might not be the case of health however, as though physically we might look good, our mental condition hardly reflects this. The body is of little use without the mind.

Urbanization

Urbanization derives from the word urban which refers to relating to or concerned with a city or densely populated area; “urban sociology”; “urban development” city. Urbanization refers to the process by which cities grow or by which societies become more urban as taken from dictionary.com. This is notably observed by the moving of masses to the urban centres in search of employment resulting significantly from industrialization. The concept of the urban city before and after industrialization is significantly altered. It was industrialization that led to the development of urbanization, showing urbanization to be a derived product of industrialization.

Though many would argue that urban cities are better off for the individual due the better infrastructure, employment opportunities and close demography of the population, how much of this is significantly true in reality? Urban cities though ensuring a higher rate of employment due the presence of many factories and corporations needing mass employment effectively reduce the need for the individual to express his individual skills or talents in production which is little relevance to the factory system which focuses on monotonous day to day operations. Urban cities are also a strong environment for crime to operate in due to the noticeable presence of inequality with unequal segments of society living in close demography. Furthermore urban cities are where black market economic sectors such as prostitution and legalised gambling operate and are legalised in many countries such as Singapore, The U.S.A and even Thailand. So how much so can the individual or society say that urban centres are better than rural centres which though lacking nice physical outlay in infrastructure and demography are heavily based on ideas of community care and individual crafts and qualities. Are urban cities really areas where we would want to raise our families in and would we really be better off living in them?

Urban cities are where ideas of society moral or immoral tend to form the general consensus especially if these ideas draw mass support from the government, media and corporations. With the heavy presence of globalization which influence most urban centres due the massive media coverage and government policies to induce these values and ideas into the general population. Values of individual success backed by ideas of materiality and wealth form the basis of urban culture. In Singapore, the government promotes meritocracy through its policies especially in employment, it does not want Singaporeans to rely on state welfare. This is further backed by today’s material culture which showcase people feeling satisfied through the acquisition of branded goods such as expensive watches, cars and handbags. It is ironic that urban cities are where much of the produce the rural and agricultural societies tend to end up due to linkage by the economy though rural societies are often lacking in these resources. It is contradictory that rural populations support the basic needs of most urban centres and are often the societies where starvation occurs. Therefore it can be questioned whether rural society should continue to support urban culture who are often unappreciative and inconsiderate of rural or agricultural society at large labelling them as backward societies.  

In conclusion, urban cities though are increasingly gaining popularity and seen as pillars of success and fortune are so much so supported by agricultural and rural communities who often face exploitation by urban society. It should be sad should we continue to think of societies and cultures outside urban areas as backward and insignificant. They might very well be our lifelines and supporting networks which help sustain us in out rich castles of fortune and materiality showing us to need them more than we can ever comprehend.

Ethnicity refers to Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group’s customs, beliefs, and language. Religion refers to belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe as defined by the American heritage dictionary. Religion and ethnicity though 2 separate concepts share a common similarity. Both are used as tools for segregation of society and are often elements of much political and strategic justification. Forms of oppression with religion and ethnicity as is basis can often be extended to the large masses of society gaining credibility as righteous acts.

Why does one ethnicity so often views itself superior to another? And should it be superiors why should it go out to crush inferior societies. Throughout history , such has constantly patterned society throughout the ages and can be seen through ethnic violence emerging primarily in the form of physical war. Examples of colonialism, the Nazi holocaust as well as Genghis khan expeditions all go to prove this. Often a ethnicity justifies destruction of life and property of other lesser rivals simply by the basis of superiority. Superiority is a concept most ethnicities believe in, that is the feel they are the centre of the universe and therefore should be given rightful attention, privileges as well right to rule over lesser civilizations.

Many debate whether religion is actually a false belief and following, such as during the ages where people believed the world was flat. Over time, science has often come into conflict with religion as it shook religious fundamentals to its roots which threaten to destabilise society and its hierarchy system which before the 1800s was primarily governed by religion and its derived forms. Though questions will continue to arise about religion and its relevance in modern society where success and materiality have become key concepts, one thing is certain. Religion cultivates a more gracious society and gives mankind hope in today’s ever troubled occupied world. Stalin as well as Napoleon saw religion necessary for keeping society cultured and humane. Napoleon considered Catholicism as the form of worship most favourable to the maintenance of order and the true tranquillity of the moral world. Religion therefore might be just a platform used for by authoritative leaders for agendas unknown to the masses and since religion is hard to dispute due to its God centred nature, such can be administered most effectively.

So it can be seen that ethnicity as well as religion can suit to function society by either destroying it or alleviating it which is rarely the case. Religion or ethnicity by their basic terns define societies into segregated contexts, whether they aim to promote harm or good is of secondary nature. Often Man does not question authority in ethnic or religious authority which if determined to harm can cause much misery and suffering as seen in the various world wars and regional conflicts notably rivalry between the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s in Rwanda. Regardless of our ethnic or religious background, we must question our morale consensus in making decisions that result in the welfare of others. This is a much better basis to live by.

Democracy can be defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system or a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Human rights refer to fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.

Democracy to many might be an ideal form of government. In theory it seems to reflect the will of the people and gives equal opportunity to its citizens in terms of governance. However, does a democracy really reflect the will of the masses and if it does reflect such would its reflection be necessarily good for society and the community. Many strong democratic parties when holding great power have actually used these powers to create an electoral dictatorship under an electoral guise. In countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore , there is much strict legislature in limiting freedom of expression and government critic though they are termed liberal democracies. Furthermore, in times of election political parties must appeal to the people’s liking be it in their policies, dealings or stand. This so often becomes of primary concern. This often stands in the way of what a government is initially intended to do which is to serve the people in a fair and just way. The fact strong political parties being funded by major corporations flaw this value; it shows that the government could be in a way promoting the vested interests of these companies often present in state legislature and unfair competition.

Which is why the individual must question, how much power should be given to a democracy and who will keep watch over them in governing society. We so often fail to consider that there is a possibility that a democracy might turn corrupt and we might be powerless to act. The states in Indonesia display these with raden sukarno’s rise to power in 1967 which claimed at least 700,000 lives though undocumented at that time.  How ironic it would be for revolutions to take place against democracy when in fact the term revolution sprung from the attack on authoritarianism and its derived forms. Authoritarianism and dictatorship fell giving rise to democracy but to what extent is society any more content. Although one would notice that there is greater equality in the political and economic sense, how much better off is society. Democracy coupled with globalization and the mass media has been engineering values in society. One cannot help but notice the materiality success and individuality key concepts in modern society. I personally feel these are values leading us to less fulfilling lives and negative evolution though many would disagree with me, claiming that these are important pillars of individual development, but is society not meant to function as a supportive, caring core. Our move and desire towards capitalism has definitely showed our liking for economic success more so of individual concern.

Furthermore, to what extent are human rights preserved and accorded to its citizens, to what extent does a democracy uphold these fundamental rights. In many societies and organizations, much personal freedom, privacy and individual security have been intervened by the government. We might be unaware of these as they might not have affected us minimising its concern. Creations of holding facilities such as Guantanamo bay and international security acts only validate this claim.

Democracy might be a the best form of  governance society is presently intended to believe however it is far from perfect, so often democracies might be dictatorships under a political guise. We as citizens must never fail in our part to act should a democracy turn to a dictatorship, then only can power be seen in the hands of the people. Governments should serve its people and not vice versa.

Violence can be defined as the unjust or unwarranted exertion of force which could be carried out by rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment. There are 3 main forms of violence being structural, cultural and direct violence. Direct violence is the most visible and with its destructive and harmful nature is the most harmful. Structural violence can be referred to any constraint on human potential due to economic and political structures. Cultural violence is defined here as any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. The different aspects of violence complement each other and are very much linked. Structural often leads to direct violence and vice versa, cultural violence creates the idea that structural or direct violence is right given the right cause.

Humanity is often said to be pushing for a non-violent environment hoping for peace and stability. However, is this really true of how we think and feel, I believe not. Humanity is constantly obsessed with violence; this is clearly shown in media and the demands of such by society. Violent movies such as transformers and lord of the rings excite us whereas shows with little or no violence put us to sleep. Even favourite children cartoon such as the x-men and Spiderman portray violence as justifiable given the right means. Should we not be imparting to children that violence is never justified no matter the cause. Maybe we are not able to save our generations and those before from the influence of violence but we still have a chance to help educate our future generations in non-violent behaviour. However, maybe there is too much to lose in order for such a message to be passed on a large scale. Firstly on an economic level, there is too much at stake, many people hold jobs in violence-derived jobs such as national defence, ammunition and arms factories, weapons research and development institutions, the lists go on. A call for total non-violence could cause much instability and loss of jobs in these sectors, especially with much of the earth’s population involved. If this only affected a minor group then maybe the call for non-violence and its forms would be much easier especially with increased globalization and the influence of the mass media. Secondly in terms of a political viewpoint, the call to drop arms and shifts to more non-violent forms of competition would upset the balance of powers. The current world great powers also have the best armies. All China, the USA and Russia have credible armed forces, their political superiority add to their economic progress so a push for reduced arms and more peaceful international legislation may fall on deaf ears.

War is a continuation of violence on a mass scale, characterized by organized violence and is often the result of failed diplomacy from an international relation dispute state. It is a period of armed hostility or active military operations acting as an alternative (and violent) form of diplomatic interaction. Though the scale of war and its effects on society and the earth have changed drastically over time, its basic conditions for credibility have not, this very much to a large extent. With today’s innovations of nuclear weapons and smart technology , the effects of any world or regional war will very much be more costly in terms to the environment and humanity, these probably proves a reason why diplomacy has picked up so much pace over the last century. However , still holding the authority on whether a state should go to war is still held by certain individuals most noticeably state governments. These are the very people who we trust to serve and protect us. However, power, especially if absolute tends to corrupt. War as the media portrays it is the view or following of the majority but so often this is not true especially when our basic understanding of the term ‘masses’ is misinterpreted. Upon closer scrutiny show that the masses may refer to a powerful party leader who has made some decision or initiated some action in the name of the masses. This is proven in the case of Hitler and Stalin. War as we know may not be of mass grievances and support for it but of one man’s desire and manipulation of the masses.

Crime can be defined as an act of negligence that is aimed to injure the interests of the public, state or the individual. This act should also be legally prohibited. However, one must agree there are different standards of legislation in different countries, and so the term “illegal” might not be universal. For example, Consumption of heroine which is allowed in Amsterdam is pretty much the opposite in Singapore, where jail sentencing is often the case for consumption of heroine. Therefore, legislation in my opinion often goes along with the acceptance of society and would change with time due to the ever increasing influence of globalization. So in this essay I would focus more on harm to society as the basis of crime.

It often strikes me whether crime being the desire to oppose society’s norms is genetically inherent or is it a development of society. Of course one would consider the average street robber a minority and therefore deserving to be sentenced if he does not conform to the norms of society. However, the same cannot be said of immoral ideas that have spread from a vast minority and into society. Society might not consider this idea as immoral or harmful being extended to its large platform. Take for example the French revolution where the ideas of removing autocracy spread from just a handful of idealists to several states and how mass executions of the nobility soon become a norm of society. This is a similar case for the Russian revolution, the support of society allowed the soviets to carry out purging of their political opponents, many of whom were not guilty of any crimes. This if applied to modern times would prove a scary phenomenon. Imagine if the less privileged formed the majority class in Singapore, if an idea such as socialism could be extended to them on a mass scale, seeing its benefits could very well prove a catalyst for civil war.

Therefore we must constantly make an effort to help less privileged members of society integrate and join the core groups. Much as we fear and hate crime we could very well be contributing to its development and fuelling its progress should we not embark on a process of economic and social integration. We all know that crime spreads as a result of urbanization due to the rich-poor class variances. However, poverty and class discontent exist in rural areas too. What other reasons fuel its spread in urban centres. I believe that a fundamental reason is the density of urban centres. The population density in urban areas is much more compressed than in rural areas, these would make occururences between the rich and poor classes more common and thus the ideas of identity and inequality would spread at a much faster pace. This coupled with the rising globalized problems of inflation and favourable legislation to rich classes would make the development of crime inevitable.

 I also feel that what is criminal now may not be so in the future, society is constantly changing its acceptance of right and wrong. Crimes such as organ trading and homosexuality may soon be globally legislated and accepted. With religion, a common pillar of morality losing its place in modern society, we can be sure that much is to change in the standards of morality. This is especially so if this idea becomes popular with society.

Gender is a term used to describe the individual’s sexuality as either being male or female. Gender, most of the time is based on biological distinctions that classify us as female or male species. This would significantly focus on the physical qualities that make us male or female. However, often it hardly considers on the character of the individual, we must not deny that in today’s ever globalised world, it is clear that certain individuals of society are unsatisfied with the gender given to them by birth and with the availability of sex changes are able to alter such. Gender in time to come might just be an individual’s perception of him or herself. In time to come it might very well be legal to change one’s sex should the individual choose to. And often this might be more beneficial for the individual than society sees it.

Take the example of a boy growing up with feministic actions or abbreviations, often this child would be shun by his fellow male compatriots or bullied. However, if allowed to correct these problems through a sex change, it might very well help with his mental development.  Many would disagree with my point of view, but I stand firm .Many ideas of the human being that society has held as logic might not hold so much truth anymore, this is of huge conflict especially after it has been grounded in us by religion, family and education. This changes might not be a recent development, however might have come to our attention due to media influence coupled with globalisation.

Not just is the society’s perception of gender changing, more significantly is the huge change in gender roles, this especially so after 1945.Before 1945, women in most parts o Europe and throughout Asia were confined to the home and attended to the needs of the house. However, after World War 2 due to the huge male causalities and the spread of industrialisation, women were employed in predominantly male driven sectors such as manufacturing; this is further helped by the development of machines which demanded less physical strength. Today this movement has increased on a significant level.

Woman in Europe and in most parts of Asia have been fighting for equal treatment not only in the workforce but also in the governance of their country. However, slow to make progress has been in the assigning of gender roles at home. Even with their work obligations, woman as are still expected in many societies to take care of household needs and the development of children. Male gender roles have faced little changes even with many men trying to help in the house. However, one must wonder whether the increasingly involvement of women in many previously male dominated sectors or areas such as the armed forces, politics or management  has caused male society to be less masculine. One cannot help but notice that male society is moving from its tough masculine look into a softer more approachable outlook. Gone are the days of Rambo and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s commando themes. Today, stars such as Justin Timberlake and davit Beckham scour the limelight; they are both softer in physique and personality compared to the man of yesteryears. With todays ever globalised world and coupled with the power of the media, I am too scared to think what new roles and ideas society would be willing to accept and should they accept it , how these changes would then affect our social relations with one another.