Even though developing countries receive financial aid from the developed, poverty is still a problem. Some people believe that in order to eliminate poverty in developing countries other forms of aid are needed.

·         To what extent do you agree or disagree?

·         And suggest what other form of aid could be offered.

Developing nations and poverty are inseparable all the monitory assistance these nations enjoy notwithstanding. In this respect, I think some other forms of help would help address poverty to an extent, but poverty eradication as such is a big deal.

It is not the other day when developing nations started benefiting from the funding of developed nations. It has been ages since, and the same is reason enough to prove that monitory aid is of no big use to address poverty. For example, financial aid may be able to do a window dressing to poverty scene; like provision for a meal a day, a few days’ work a week or supply of certain quantity of staple grains per month. But, these provisions would not help remove, but alleviate poverty peripherally. In my opinion, poverty elimination involves a lot more than external help.

Poverty, in fact, is the by-product of poor human production. Therefore, any aid that augments production would eliminate it in the long run. For example, developing infrastructure in a BOT (Build, Operate & Transfer) manner would generate employment, direct and indirect, leading to better buying power.

Technology transfer is another idea. This may help the poor harness their own natural resources. Technical knowhow for oil rigging, mining of precious metals, high yielding farming practices and the like are examples. Developed nations can do these things for a while but developing nations themselves need to run the show called removing poverty for ever.

In short, monitory assistance alone cannot remove poverty; rather there must be lasting steps to do away with it like the ones I have suggested. In my opinion, however benevolent the rich may become, at the end of the day, developing nations themselves must take bull by its horn.

Research & Development activities, most of the time, are driven more by men than women. But this is not so across the whole world, especially in the developed world. Some say this poor representation of women in R&D is the primary factor that keeps many nations poor for ages.

·         How far can you agree or disagree with this view? 

Human intelligence and the way it works are far beyond the reach of any technology, and there is not going to be any system or technology that would substitute human intelligence in any way.

·         Argue for and against this prediction on human intelligence.

Science and technology has come a long way, and the day is not too far before man is able to get his entire job done with the help of artificially intelligent machines and systems.

·         Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?

Environmentally speaking, promoting cars is friendlier than encouraging flights, as the fuel consumption of a single flight equals to what a car takes for a year or so.

·        To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

That the fuel consumption of a single flight trip is enough to keep a car running for a year does not make promoting cars sensible, even if it may seem alright in environmental terms. It is not so, as a matter of fact. I cannot agree with the opinion.

The first thing with which I am going to disagree with the view is that environmental concern is not just fuel consumption. Rather, we all know that our Planet is pressed by countless other concerns generated by automobiles and their allied industries. For example, establishing a plant consumes hundreds of hectors of land, huge material consumption, both natural and manufactured. Coupled with these are the allied pollutants and temperatures it raises.

Well, if cars are promoted, we would come to live in a world seething with pollution, congestion, scrap, terrestrial noise, waste and high mercury readings every passing day. Private cars are much bigger a threat than flights. Let me substantiate it still further. In fact, personal cars consume much less fuel, but a single user takes some 20 to 30 square foot of street space, burns a liter of fuel every 10 or 15 kilometers, and the suffocating gases these cars muffle out can blacken the Planet much faster then flights.

In short, flights do consume huge quantities of fuel; they pollute, and put the environment in trouble, but not as much as cars do. Besides, the services they do in terms of human and material movement can never be equated to cars’. In my opinion, we must learn to live with much fewer cars for the sake of our environment.

275 words

Ajaypeesdoc.3.3.13

The working world is no more 9-5; rather it is 24x7 since the world stands very well networked. Therefore, the new age employment providers who fail to absorb this change are actually missing the bus of limitless opportunities.

Comment on the statement. jaypeesdoc.3.3.13

Much water has flowed down the bridge of 9-5 work culture, and now it is a Net connected global professional level-playing field. So internalizing this change is a must. The employers, who fail to do so, may obviously miss the right bus.

In today’s fast-forwarded business world, there are a few things that employers cannot do without like competition, corporatizing time and creating comfy zones for employees. These three are extremely inseparable. For example, competition can be busted only if time is exploited wisely, and the latter is possible only if the employees are comfortably kept. What all these three demand for is nothing but the all encompassing ITES, Information Technology Enabled Services that keep the world running 24x7.

Let me make it clearer. Employers would feel the pinch unless they harness the potentials of technology by shedding the conventional professional modus operandi. For example, a businessman, who employs some people, cannot sit back and rest between 5 pm and 9 am because, the world is working all through these hours and the real business is the art of keeping these hours too tick in favour of production. This needs employees online, requires technology at finger tips and it calls for greater employer-employee confidence quotient. In such a pressing professional scenario, 9-5 is too limited. It is flexi-time, work at home or it is work all the way. It is 24x7.

Concluding the discussion, I feel like adding that businesses may either stay networked or go bust. The working world is no more prepared to wait for those who wait until 9 am everyday; rather, there is heightened need for jumping into the opportunity bandwagon that keeps running 24x7.  

275 words.

Ajaypeesdoc. 3.3.13. 8.45 am

  

There was a time when universities discouraged learners from taking up more than a course at a time, but now many institutions allow multiple courses simultaneously. This will put students at a greater advantage. But there is a question of quality being threatened.  

·         How good is it for students, and see how this change is going to influence the quality of education?

Much water has flowed down the bridge of ‘a course at a time’ era, and now it is many courses simultaneously, or the time of meta-schooling has come. Obviously, students stand to gain, but the quality of such qualifications may suffer. 

At the very outset it is right to say that students’ multi-faceted interests can find expression, if meta-schooling is promoted. This is highly advantageous in the sense that, at a time when it seems to be very difficult to do with a particular skill or qualification, it is a blessing to have multiple qualifications. Secondly, in an age when time is getting converted into more money every passing day, multiple qualifications at a time may make many students don man skills in the shortest possible time. These skills are going to be appreciated by an opportunity-rich world of globalization.

However, meta-schooling leaves a little room for concern in terms of quality. As a matter of fact, universities in the past had genuine reasons not to allow students take up many courses at a time. The primary concern was quality. That concern is relevant now as well. For example, when students are given freedom to do so, they may not stick to the quality standards set by the university. This may be true with regard to universities as well because some profit-driven institutions may resort to offering courses of no use or of poor quality, and make money out of it. At the end of the day, it is the quality of education that is going to take the beating.  

In short, letting students do more than a course at a time is advantageous only if it is implemented selectively. Since quality of education is much more important than number of qualifications, universities should dread cautiously when they roll out red carpet for meta-schooling.

Jaypeesdoc

280 words

3.3.13