A Formal Complaint to AQA

Dear AQA,

I am a student in year 13, currently studying for A2 Biology, Chemistry and Physics. The bizarre nature of the ISAs (Investigative Skills Assignment) set by AQA has been apparent to me since GCSE, but now that the scores I receive are so important to mine, and my peers, futures I felt it necessary to pursue. The key problems that I have identified are as follows:

1. The exam is internally sat and assessed, without the need for external invigilators. It is common knowledge that some schools will drop hints on what will be on the written section of the test, with some going so far as to tell students what will be on it. This creates inequalities between those with schools that are prepared to abuse the system and those that are not.
2. The exam is sat at different times between schools and between classes in individual schools. This means that the questions on the written part of the ISA can be freely shared between students, putting those who sit in early on in the period at a disadvantage, and those who sit it later at a great advantage.
3. The above two points, combined with the generic nature of the test, have led to scores becoming bloated to ludicrous levels. Using the UMS converter for ISAs, it can be seen that half marks will usually result in a notional N grade, and full raw marks are usually required for full UMS. Even a few marks often makes the difference between two grades, making it an assessment that does not properly measure candidates' ability. By means of example, an extremely able former student at my school, now at University, achieved full UMS in BIOL1 and BIOL2, but a grade C in BIOL3T. I have heard many similar stories.

I would be interested to know AQA's rationale for allowing such flagrant abuses of the examination system, and for its lack of interest in accurately assessing students' ability. I would also like to know what steps you plan to take, if any, to remedy these problems.

Regards,

Daniel Hurt



I'll keep you posted!

Rationing and Rationality in the Health Service

The rationing of health provisions is something that garners considerable controversy, so I felt it would be worthwhile to go into it in more detail.

As you’ll know, the NHS is a publicly funded health provider, with finite resources to treat and care for patients. However, if the very best interventions were used for every patient, the NHS would need many times the funding it currently receives. As a result, something has to give, and certain drugs, procedures and care elements must be withheld to stay within budget. The billion-pound question is how the service should be rationed – what should be provided, and to whom.

Intuitively we might be lead to a simple cost to benefit ratio system. Each treatment could have the years of life, or better still years of life adjusted for quality, compared with its cost. This could give a simple value of the cost per year of healthy life. However, it cannot be so simple, in part because the use of one treatment may in time lead to far more expensive care for an illness in later life, such as dementia. A doctor I shadowed during the Summer actually suggested that, if the NHS wanted to save money, they should encourage people to smoke so that people died from acute rather than chronic diseases.

Ignoring the indirect effects for now, here’s an example: A Primary Care Trust (or soon to be Clinical Commissioning Group) has a portion of its funding left to spend, and has two options. It can provide statins to all those with moderately raised cholesterol levels thus reducing the risk of vascular or cardiac diseases slightly for each individual, or artificial dialysis for all those in renal failure, which is clearly saving lives directly.  Both cost the same, but spending the money on providing statins has a cost per healthy year of, say, £10,000, whereas the figure for dialysis is £20,000. This situation is simplistic and ignores the side effects of both, and the figures are made up but not far from reality. In this context ‘Statins’ could be replaced with any risk-reducing, preventative or early diagnostic measure, and ‘dialysis’ with any direct intervention with a greater cost to benefit ratio.

If we were only to use a simple ratio we would consign those in renal failure to certain death in order that a much larger number of people will have only a slightly reduced risk of disease because the net benefit is greater if we provide statins. However, this seems intuitively wrong to us, and the potential recipients of the statins would likely prefer that the money be spent on providing dialysis rather than giving them an insignificant reduction in personal risk.

This is known as the ‘rule of rescue’, that we see ourselves as having an ethical prerogative to save an identifiable person, even if the resources put into it would be better used on what could be termed ‘statistical’ people. The term comes from the enormous resources that are often put into finding a missing person, or rescuing one in danger. You may have noticed that, to quite an extent, this is how the NHS functions, with things like intensive care units, expensive ‘last-ditch’ cancer drugs, and arguably many surgical procedures. In other words, prioritising care to people who require it immediately at the expense of people who could have their risk of disease reduced. The fact remains that those ‘statistics’ are still people in need of healthcare, and that their eventual illness and death is just as real as the individual’s. The rule also acts the other way - patients believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are entitled to certain treatments. This can be very difficult for doctors if the expected treatment is not within guidelines.

The ethical dilemma of a cost to benefit ratio is deepened when we consider groups such as the users of tobacco, the overweight, the elderly and other at-risk groups. It seems reasonable that the future prospect of life, which is often limited for, say, the elderly, should also be factored into healthcare rationing decisions. The practical implication of this would be that that the prior-mentioned groups may have certain treatments withheld on the grounds that they will get less benefit than a young, healthy person would. This runs against our intuitions about the need for equality in healthcare provision, and again for providing care to those who need it immediately.

In an ideal world we should want to help all groups of people, be they identifiable individuals or ‘statistics’, and be they young or old, but we often aren’t able to do so. In these times of economic trouble, perhaps we have an imperative to move from the ‘rule of rescue’ to a more holistic provision of healthcare which has greater emphasis on prevention and early diagnosis, lest the service run into such financial difficulties that it cannot adequately provide either. By the way, this is not a manifesto to stop dialysis or shut down ICUs, but simply something to get people thinking about how healthcare is rationed, and whether some parts of the NHS may have become too bloated at the expense of simpler preventative intervention.

So, do you agree with my tentative conclusion? Do we base too much of our health policy on the rule of rescue at the expense of healthcare? Where should we draw the line between expenditure on public health and on treatment?

- Daniel

The Case for Space

Space exploration is often seen as an excess of Humanity, funded at the expense of more important needs. Surely the 150 billion dollars spent on the International Space Station would have been better used combating poverty, or cancer, or climate change? However, people often don’t look beyond the immediate and the conspicuous elements of space travel, and thus ignore the important effects that space exploration has on civilisation.

For a long time space exploration has perched on the edge of technological know-how. Many people are familiar with the fact that the Moon landing was achieved with less than the computing power of a pocket calculator. The list of technologies that were either developed or improved through the space programme is enormous. A cursory glance at Wikipedia’s ‘NASA spin-off technologies’ page will show you an imposing list of such technologies, including light-emitting diodes (LEDs), radically improved solar energy and structural analysis software. Whilst even these important technologies pale in the face of the many billions that were poured into the Space Race, they cannot be ignored when looking at the value of that funding.

Space exploration is not just about landing people on other planets; it is about putting satellites into orbit, sending unmanned probes to distant reaches of the solar system, and learning more about the Universe we inhabit. The benefits that satellites have brought us are immediately clear – information networks, weather forecasting, monitoring farming, atmospheric studies and so on. An understanding of climate change, a phenomenon that could prove to be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, would have been immensely more difficult had we not made such concerted efforts to leave the planet. Our ability to communicate would also have been greatly diminished without satellites that can send signals to the other side of the Earth in a fraction of a second.

Sending unmanned probes has improved our knowledge of other planets and other-worldly bodies, and by extension has augmented our understanding of our own planet. By looking at how the climates of planets like Mars and Venus have changed we gain insight on the mechanisms that affect our own. Space-based telescopes have allowed us to peer into the depths of space, showing us a previously hidden Universe that has lent help to our knowledge of physics. Even today space exploration is trying to answer the most important questions that we can ask: Are we alone? Why is there something instead of nothing? What does out future hold? In this respect, space exploration is a necessity for us to satisfy our species’ endless search for knowledge and new frontiers.

Our tentative first steps into space have also had a cultural effect. The heavily publicised major events of space exploration have likely inspired a generation of engineers, scientists and technologists. It was an affirmation of the exciting ideal that anything humanity can imagine, it can achieve; to paraphrase Kennedy, ‘We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard’. Undoubtedly the earlier stages of the journey into space may have had an even greater effect if it was in the spirit of co-operation, as it is increasingly nowadays, but the direct and indirect effects of the events that captured the entire world’s imagination cannot be understated.

Our decision to beginning, and continue, our forage into space will be crucial to Humanity’s long-term survival. The impact by a large asteroid (or similar apocalyptic event such as nuclear war) is not a matter of if, but when. We will be very glad when that we started when we did, when that time comes. If we had dismissed space exploration as an unnecessary luxury, we would have literally putting all our eggs in one basket. It only needs one rouge comet (or nation!) to put an end to virtually all human life on Earth, and at least now we stand a fighting chance at being able to do something about it.

 

Some of the effects of space travel are not easily tangible. Arguably pictures from space, such as Earthrise (right) or the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (see elsewhere) have given many people a new world-view. To see our small oasis in an endless sea of unforgiving space underlines our need to protect it, and maintain a sense of perspective. In the words of Carl Sagan:

“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

- Daniel

Resolving The Trolley Problem

In the discussion of ethics, analogies and thought experiments are often used to support a certain viewpoint, or to test an ethical approach. A thought experiment often used to elucidate the difference between consequentialist (the ethicalness of an action is based on its ultimate end) and deontological (certain things [e.g. killing] are wrong, regardless of the situation) positions is the 'Trolley Problem'. I'll look at the original problem, and then at two interesting modulations of it.

The Original Trolley Problem

The dilemma goes like this: A train is heading full steam towards a two-way junction, and there's no time to engage the break. The train is currently set to run over 5 workers repairing the track, and there's no time to warn them. On the other arm of the track is a single worker.

You happen to be standing directly next to the lever that can be pulled to change the course of the train, killing the one worker instead of the five. What do you do? Which is the most ethical course of action?

The choice from consequentialism is clear: You must pull the lever for the greater good, saving five lives at the expense of one. However, an ardent proponent of duty-based ethics would most likely not pull the lever, as to change the course of the train would be equivalent to murder.

This raises some interesting issues and problems with both positions. While leaving the train to take its present course will result in the deaths of five people, changing the direction of the train (an act) will be certainly be equivalent to murder, even if it is for the greater good. Would leaving the train (an omission) be the same as murdering five people. This is the fundamental problem of acts and omissions, and whether there is any ethical distinction between the two. This is something that you will have a personal view on, mine being that there is no distinction between the two; if you are in a position of responsibility, to allow something to happen is equally bad as consciously doing something that will have the same effect.

The Bridge

One interesting change in the original problem is to have, instead of a single person on a branch of the track, a man on a bridge, that you can push off to save the lives of the five.

It's likely that this situation will have evoked a greater emotional response, even though both situations are essentially the same in terms of possible outcomes: Either five people will die, or one will die. Where does this difference come from?

One possibility is that, in the first instance, the death of the one person was intended (i.e. the train would not have run over the five people, even if there was no person on the other track). However, in this situation, the death of the single person is intended to save the lives of the five. This is the principle of 'double effect' - that while there are two results of the action (the death of the single person, and the survival of the five), in the original scenario the death of the one was unintended (but foreseen), while in the second the death was both intended and foreseen (to save the five).

Is there any difference between the situations? In terms of ultimate eventualities, no. However, there is still something that evokes a different response, and it is hard to put our finger on it. In part, it could be the simple fact that the death of the one person was unintended in the first, but intended in the second, as alluded to earlier. I believe that there may be something more to it though; that part of this is relating to the person in control of the situation.

People often give each other similar options between two undesirable events (would you rather do x or y?) Perhaps some of our opinions on the trolley problem stem from an empathising with the person who must make the decision. In the first situation, the person only needed to pull a lever to change the situation, simply changing the direction of the train. However, in the second, the person must physically push an unsuspecting person into the course of the train to stop it - a prospect that no one would like to face.

In summary, the distinction between the two scenarios comes from the nature of the act designed to avoid the worst eventuality. The difference comes, in my opinion, from the intuitive contrast between acts and omissions, and in part from our relating to the decision-maker. I've no doubt that you will have different opinions on the situations, and on whether there is any moral difference between them, and what the nature of this difference is.

The Surgeon's Dilemma

I will now present one final ethical dilemma. A surgeon has five patients who are all going to die within the week if they aren't given an organ transplant. Unfortunately, there are no suitable organs available for transplant, so are all certain to die very soon. However, there happens to be another healthy patient recovering in a nearby ward who happens to have all of the organs required.

I would be surprised if you were not very strongly against the killing of the healthy person, yet this situation is technically no different to that of pushing one person off the bridge to save five. There is, however, a few subtle difference that I think may be responsible for this disctinction.

The first is an intuitive 'slippery slope' argument - most people know that there is a shortfall in organs to be used in life- saving transplantation. If we assumed it ethical to kill the healthy patient to save the five, it follows that this should be done whenever the situation arises, hence leading to deaths of hundred, or thousands, of healthy people every year to satisfy demand. No person with any sense of morality would see this as a desirable state of affairs, so we naturally reject the original case.

The second is that, although the scenario specifies that a particular patient has the required organs, and that the five requiring the organs will die if they don't receive them in the next week, we may automatically think of other scenarios. Unlike the trolley scenarios, where there could only even be two options, the matter of organ transplantation has other options in the longer-term: Opt-out organ donation schemes, use of animal organs, transplantation from live donors (e.g. a kidney or lung), and even the harvesting of organs from the deceased who haven't given permission. In summary, the presence of better possibilities, even if not in this specific case, could also cause us to be outraged at the possibility of organ harvesting from the non-consenting living.

Daniel

The IMF and Neo-liberalism: A cause of poverty

Introduction

The IMF was founded in 1944 with the purpose of assisting the economies of its member’s countries, reduce poverty and secure financial stability. However, it has caused greater exploitation of the developing world by the Northern hemisphere for corporate gain, undermined democracy and increased poverty and inequality.

The IMF acts as part of the spearheading of the capitalist ideology of Neoliberalism across the world by the USA; an ideology that advocates the protection of financial institutions at any and all costs, reducing state involvement in regulation of corporations, and expanding the role of the private sector in the public sector. This allows the business elites of the capitalist upper class to accumulate vast wealth at the expense of the majority of the people through exploitative, immoral, high-risk and environmentally damaging practices for short-term profit, whilst under the protection and blessing of subservient governments. When the consequences of such practices do cause economic disaster, the people of those countries pay the price through austerity to subsidise the government bailing-out of financial institutions. Essentially, the people suffer the socialising of the losses,  from cutting of welfare, job loss in the public sector and under-funding or removal of public services such as healthcare or education. Countries who have adopted this ideology have ended-up with a widened rich-poor gap, environmental destruction, inefficient or useless transport, infrastructure and healthcare services. This is due to private owners putting profit before people, in addition to weakened democracy, increased corruption and unaccountability, as governments become accountable to corporate interests and the IMF, as well as unable to make important decisions to help their people.

The IMF makes loans to poor nations for development providing they adopt Structural Adjustment Policies, or SAP’s, with the pre-text of guaranteeing the loans are paid back and re-structuring to ensure economic stability. However, this includes introducing the neo-liberal doctrine to that nation, allowing the countries of the Northern hemisphere to enforce trade conditions favourable to themselves, and to “liberalise” and focus their markets on resource extraction, as well as exports to provide a plentiful flow of cheap commodities to the Northern hemisphere. When the developing countries export their resources and commodities they do gain some revenue, but when they import the processed goods made from their exports, they will lose it, as the products are more expensive as they have required additional labour. Countries that also produce commodities to export as well extracting resources will gain revenue to pay off their debts, and keep their currency stable. However, as result of the large number of other countries forced into the global markets, a price war scenario is created, which pushes prices down, and hence the value of exports of the poor countries is reduced. Many will be given a focus on a single or few resources and/or commodities, and the saturation of the markets with the products also pushes down the prices. This leads to a further fall in revenue from, making it even more favourable to buyers in developed countries. An example of such saturation is that around fifty of these developing countries depend on exporting three or fewer commodities to generate over half their revenue from exports, and twenty are dependent on exporting commodities for 90 percent of all revenue from foreign exchanges. The lack of revenue generated from exports leaves the countries unable to import processed commodities, or food to feed their population, or to fund development programs. Also, the focus on production of cash crops can lead to starvation, as land needed for growing food is used to grow crops purely for export, such as coffee, sugar, cotton etc. rather than to feed people.

The adjustments made result in countries having to increase exports of their raw resources and/or commodities in order to be able to pay off their debts. The large number of other poor nations that have entered or been forced into the global markets with a focus on the export of raw resources and commodities, results in a price war which forces these countries to lower their prices, which is favourable to the richer countries as they make large savings when they import. The reduced prices of raw resources and commodities then forces the poor countries to increase exports to pay off their debts and keep their currency stable, which is expensive, and so are forced into austerity in order to pay off their debts, which keeps the countries in poverty or increases poverty. This reduces the value of labour, and hence workers’ wages, often generating social unrest, with protests and riots against the IMF taking place in these countries. The flow of capital from investors into these countries becomes more unstable over time, but they are easily able to pull out if they become concerned about their interests and assets, and this can results in a major economic collapse. An example is the Asian Crisis in 1997, when Western corporations withdrew from many countries in Asia, which sent millions into poverty, increased debt, devaluated currencies and created major decreases in GDPs in the affected countries. The resultant unrest in Indonesia resulted in a regime change when the President was forced to step down.

The lack of revenue from exports makes paying off debt very difficult, or even impossible. This can become useful for the developed countries who import goods from the developing countries, as they can keep them in a state where they can get access to their exports on the terms that are most beneficial to themselves. This is brought about by the price wars and competition between the developing countries, and so can force them to accept their terms, or lose all trade, and hence income, with which to pay off their debts. The lack of revenue means that the developing countries cannot import advanced technologies for development, or fund programs, such as improving infrastructure, education or housing.

Below is a description of these SAP’s, and the negative effects they can have.

Privatisation

Sate-owned services, assets or industries are sold off at low prices to the corporate elites of the country, or to corporations based in the Northern hemisphere, which results in the government losing revenue and national output from its formally owned industries (e.g. Russia’s national output fell by 50% when it privatised its utilities), and public services being inefficiently run as they become focused on the accumulation of private profit. This includes the hideous situation of the American healthcare system, which generates enormous profits whilst being inefficiently run, and leaving many patients who struggle to pay their bills in poverty, or letting those who cannot pay suffer and die. Privatisation has severe consequences for the population, as vital services such as water, healthcare and education etc. become financially crippling or impossible to use, causing more suffering and deaths in the population, and leaving them without education, healthcare, sanitation, utilities and water. This leaves many unable to work due to illness, or unable to get better jobs from a lack of education or skills, leaving them in poverty. In Africa, efforts to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis are being undermined by a privatised healthcare system, as effective delivery of treatments are made unavailable to many, creating greater inequality as healthcare become an exclusive commodity for the rich, rather than a necessity and a right.

Austerity

The IMF emphasises the balancing of budgets in the form of austerity, by removing subsidies and cutting social programs, even when they are desperately under-funded, and despite the important role that they have in bringing development and reducing poverty. Cutting of these programs can have negative long-term effects on economic growth. For example, cutting healthcare allows AIDS to devastate workforces, or Tuberculosis to infect those living in poor living conditions. If people have to cut back on spending due to job loss, demand in an economy falls, and businesses suffer reduced revenue from fewer sales and have to lay off members of its workforce. The government cannot collect as much tax from business and its redundant workforce, and so is forced to cut more of its social programs to save money, resulting in a vicious cycle of deeper austerity leading to more poverty. At the same time, the country may be ordered to lower taxes for the rich elites with no benefit to anybody but the rich, and raising taxes on the poor, with no benefit to anybody at all, other than make the country look more attractive to foreign investors. The social provisions that are cut are the same that helped the industrialised nations of the world develop as they are now, and kept them stable, yet are still cut, with highly damaging results for development.

Deregulation

Deregulation is when a government reduces its role in the private sector by a reduction or removal of regulations, and allowing greater economic freedoms.  The consequences of such deregulation lead to lax state intervention in reducing carbon emissions and pollution, increases in corporate power greatly influencing governments through bribes and/or lobbying and the erosion of long term conditions for production (such as by global warming from high carbon dioxide emissions causing floods, droughts and crop failures). In addition it subverts labour rights, and can lead to major financial crises as the state no longer intervenes in preventing high-risk financial practices, such as credit default swaps or high-interest debts and/or mortgages that can never be paid back.

Currency Devaluation

The IMF may force some countries to devalue its currency against the dollar and remove price controls, particularly for countries that produce and export cash crops, or have plentiful natural resources. Devaluation makes domestic goods and raw resources cheaper to buy for Northern countries, and aggravates inflation for the poorer nations. The effects of simultaneous devaluation and removal of price control can raise prices of products three or four times, putting so many people into poverty that social unrest and riots become a frequent occurrence.

Conclusion

Consider this:

“According to UNICEF, over 500,000 children under the age of five died each year in Africa and Latin America in the late 1980s as a direct result of the debt crisis and its management under the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment programs. These programs required the abolition of price supports on essential food-stuffs, steep reductions in spending on health, education, and other social services, and increases in taxes. The debt crisis has never been resolved for much of sub-Saharan Africa. Extrapolating from the UNICEF data, as many as 5,000,000 children and vulnerable adults may have lost their lives in the continent as a result of the debt crunch.” Ross P. Buckley

A real step forward in economic equality would be for the neo-liberal doctrine to be thrown out completely (and ultimately capitalism, which is discussed in another article by Daniel), as it only serves to massively enrich the few at the expense of the many. I have listed some alternative policies that developing countries could employ instead of the SAPs enforced by the IMF.

Governments of developing countries should keep markets out of their public services and infrastructure, to ensure that they are run to benefit the people, not corporations. They should be run effectively and efficiently to keep the population healthy, educated and literate without them being forced to pay extortionate amounts to stop avoid and poverty, and prevent divisions forming in the population, creating a more stable and equitable society. Austerity measures should also be ended, as they only serve to slow or reverse development, reducing the revenue a government can make from tax to use for development and public services. Debt cancellation will also be very helpful, as it keeps developing countries from being exploited by unfair trade agreements, and allowing them to use their revenue for development. Currency devaluation to the dollar should be ended, and price controls kept in place to ensure that inflation does not rise, so people can more easily afford food and necessities. Regulations should be kept in place, particularly on large corporations and financial institutions, so that they do not exploit workers, cause long-term growth prospects to be damaged or made impossible by pollution, or utilise high-risk and/or exploitative financial practices which can cripple the economy.

Humanity's Best Bits

We live in a world that, at times, can seem cruel and broken, especially with news services than naturally focuses on the negative. Yet, every day there are untold stories of heroism, selflessness and progress that few will ever hear of, and countless more hidden in the mists of time. Rising above all these are a group of major events that everyone knows of - humanity's greatest achievements. From the Moon Landings to the Human Genome Project, these are some things so important that their effects go far beyond the event itself. In no particular order, and likely with many that should justifiably be on this list, I'm going to look at what I believe are humanity's best bits (with an obvious science/technology slant).

Space Exploration

The clichéd ultimate achievement is the Moon landing; undoubtedly reflecting the pinnacle of perseverance and technical know-how, it is only one of many milestones on our species' journey beyond our home planet. The first man-made object to be put into Earth orbit, the first man in space, the first landing of probe on Mars, and very recently the crossing of Voyager 1 into interstellar space are all accomplishments comparable to the manned landing in 1969.

Space exploration is the highest expression of humanity's innate drive to explore. Arguably, our adaptability to new environments and desire to spread across the planet, is one of the key elements of our psyche that makes us so unique and successful. From the first exodus from Africa, to the colonisation of the Americas, human history is filled with expansionary tendencies. Having explored all but the deepest recesses of our planet's surface, the move to space seems like the natural next step.

Some say that space exploration is a waste of resources, but I disagree. Aside from the enormous benefits of satellites that measure our planet's climate, allow us to communicate near-instantaneously from opposite sides of the world, and to peer to the very edge of the universe, space technology has had many offshoots that are inextricably woven into the fabric of human life.

In time, we will be glad that we began the move into space when we did. Our planet is threatened by countless events, both internal and foreign. Should an asteroid on a collision course with Earth be discovered tomorrow, and forecast to hit within 10 years, we would be more than hard-pressed to put up any resistance at all had we not yet bothered to begin our journey into space. The coming of such an asteroid is only a matter of time, and when it comes we should be prepared thanks to the leaps we have already made. Similarly, should a different apocalyptic event arise sometime in the next century or so, it is highly likely that we will have established some sort of permanent settlement on other bodies in our solar system, and that should civilisation on Earth be destroyed, humanity will continue.

While space missions are usually done under the name of a particular country, they are usually supported by an enormous team of people from all over the world, making space exploration a profoundly international endeavour. Although nationalism was heavily intertwined with exploration during the 'space race', more recently it is often considered as more of a collaborative enterprise, epitomised by the most expensive man-made object ever to exist, the International Space Station. The view of our planet from space has ignited a new view of the world, with perspective shifting from a national to planetary level, as summarised by astronaut Donald Williams: "For those who have seen the Earth from space, and for the hundreds and perhaps thousands more who will, the experience most certainly changes your perspective. The things that we share in our world are far more valuable than those which divide us." This can only accelerate as journeying to space becomes more commonplace, and eventually available to not only astronauts the mega-rich.

Eradication of Smallpox

Over the 20th century, Smallpox killed between 300 and 500 million people - several times more than the total killed by both World Wars combined. Since the early 19th century, humanity has made efforts to wipe this scourge, which leaves many who survive it disfigured, from existence. Only in 1959, following a recommendation from the USSR's deputy health of health, was a concerted effort made to complete the job, eradicating what remained of it mostly in developing countries. In 1977 the last person was naturally infected, and two years later Smallpox was declared extinct, apart from a few strains remaining in storage possessed by the USA and USSR.

The eradication of Smallpox gave new hope to the similar extermination of diseases, including Polio and Malaria. For once we managed to wipe out a species that we actually wanted rid of (as opposed to the many hundreds, and possibly thousands that have become extinct due to our destruction of the natural environment) and saved many millions of lives as a result. Interestingly, the eradication Smallpox passed with little celebration - surprising for an event of such importance.

The Internet

The internet has come to dominate all spheres of civilization, from education and business, to social networking and journalism. The culmination of developments in communicative technology over the past century, it provided a place at which most human knowledge can be stored and accessed, and a hub for all types of media and art. It's true potential is only just being realised, and is likely to continue to increase in its effect on society and use in all walks of life.

The rise of the internet has lead to the creation of new dynamics, including instant messaging, social networking, memes (the funny pictures, and not the unit of cultural evolution), blogging (as you can see!) and so on. Arguably, our lives have been enriched more by the internet than by any other technological development, with the obvious exception of medical advancements. The achievement that is the internet is clearly not its creation alone, but also its populating with billion upon billion of web pages by many millions of people from every country in the world.

The Large Hadron Collider (and other awesome machines)

I'm lumping in machines like the first nuclear reactor (despite it's use in the first nuclear weapons), International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), National Ignition Facility (NIF) and various other particle smashers. The benefits of nuclear reactors are clear, providing clean (or at least somewhat cleaner than fossil fuels) energy with very little material, and the potential benefits of fusion reactors are even greater.

Many people object to the pure research that machines such as the LHC are involved in, on the grounds that it is costs an enormous amount ($4 billion) for no tangible benefit. This isn't necessarily true, as the construction of operating of the LHC has created and maintained jobs, and may have unexpected implications in the future. Without pure research there would be no applied research, and therefore no technology, so it is unreasonable to object to pure research. It is also difficult to establish whether a particular pure research project could produce anything directly beneficial in time, so the best course seems to me continuing pure research, if not only to satisfy human curiosity.

Note also that the cost of the LHC is less than what the world spends on it's militaries PER DAY - if there's a drain of resources that people should be complaining about, that is it!

These great machines are important not only for their use, but also for what they represent: the pinnacle of engineering and technical knowledge. Each is comprised of many millions of parts, precision engineered and fitted together to produce something that carries out something incredible, be it splitting atoms or smashing them together. They truly are testaments to our ingenuity and curiosity.

Artificial Intelligence

Obviously (at the time of writing) this isn't something that has been created yet, and is not likely to very many years. This would  be, in my opinion, the single greatest development that humanity could make, both past and future. The creation of a true AI would be revolutionary directly in neurology, and indirectly in everything from philosophy to gaming. As I've suggested earlier, AI could spark an unprecedented shift in technology, and society as a whole.

Interestingly, now that I've got to the end of the list (remember that this is not exhaustive) I noticed they tie in chronologically:

Space exploration: 1957 (Sputnik) onwards

Smallpox eradication: 1979

The internet: 1982

LHC: 2008

Arificial intelligence: 20?? (being a techno-optimist)

What does it mean?

You may have noticed a theme running through this article - that all of these achievements were international in scope. The point I would like to make is that far greater progress can be made through co-operation than competition, and that to tackle the great problems of our time necessitates greater collaboration and unity. Be proud of what our species has accomplished, and look forward to what it will achieve in the future!

Amnesia: The Dark Descent - The Art of Fear

I recently managed to pluck up enough courage to complete the horror game, 'Amnesia: The Dark Descent'. I've seen some horrible things, and gone to some dark places, but it's finally over... This post is half-review, and half looking at what makes people scared (which Amnesia does exceptionally well). There are *MINOR SPOILERS* in the article, so if you want to play Amnesia with no prior knowledge at all, just skip to the conclusion now! If you don't mind, I'll put the spoiler alert on paragraphs that give away things in the game that would better be left to experience yourself.

About Amnesia

First things first, Amnesia is a horror game developed by Frictional Games. It follows the story of protagonist, Daniel (BONUS!), after he wakes up the suspiciously empty castle of Brennenburg, muttering about his name and rolling around the floor a little. This is the only information that the game gives you at the beginning, initiating fear immediately through the sense of mystery and feelings of vulnerability.

You quickly find items called 'tinderboxes', which you can use to light most light sources in the game. Soon after you find the only equipable item in the game, the lantern, which has a finite fuel supply that can only be replaced by finding even more limited oil flasks. You are forced to actively conserve tinderboxes and oil, lest you be left in darkness, which will drain your sanity (Daniel suffers from nyctophobia and necrophobia - not great in a castle filled with both darkness and corpses). If you end up on low sanity because you've spent to long in darkness, or see too many 'unsettling events', your vision begins to go blurred, and you will eventually collapse onto the ground, crawling. Again, not fantastic when you're about to get eaten by a hungry looking monster with a jaw as wide as its arm is long.

Even better, you can do absolutely nothing about these monsters, other than hide, run or simply avoid them altogether. No guns. No swords. You can't even punch the blasted things! You are completely defenceless, leading to paranoia and a lot of hiding in corners. Don't try negotiating with them, or offering shiny trinkets that you've gathered on your journey - it just makes that angrier. Looking at the things will drain your sanity further, and will cause your vision to become distorted (see picture).

The game is comprised of 3 main elements - avoiding/running from/crying-in-corners-until-they-pass monsters, completing puzzles and exploring the castle as you descend deeper and deeper through its many levels. That should give a good overview of the game, so I'll now go to what makes it quite so scary.

Generating Fear

"I don't see what's so scary about it? It's all just on a screen so it can't hurt you."

- My sister

Oh, if only it were so simple! Yes, perhaps if you just threw caution to the wind and ran through the entire game fearlessly, it might not be so scary, but if you actually want to experience it fully you need to do what it says at the start (play in the dark, don't expect to 'win' and let yourself enter the world of Amnesia.) Instead of rambling about what makes Amnesia scary, I'll instead examine the three components (in ascending order) that I found to be the most important in generating the extreme fear that I, and most who play it, felt.

The first of these is the plot, including the scripting of certain events and monster appearances. The plot itself is very dark, as only revealed incrementally mostly through diary extracts you find lying around. There are numerous references to torture, murder and kidnapping, with the descriptions and flashbacks becoming more and more vivid as the game progresses. I found this to be particularly draining, especially the very disturbing 'torture rooms' areas in the late-game, bathed in an eery red glow and rapidly draining your sanity.

The scripting of events is very intelligently done - there are only a few 'jump-out' scary moments, and these are done with such rarity and built up so well that they are genuinely terrifying (I literally started flailing during one of them...) This is in stark contrast to games that rely almost entirely on this type of scare (Dead Space, etc.), and the novelty quickly wears thin, with them becoming predictable. The main horror drive of the game comes from careful pacing, and careful placement of monsters and events that leave you afraid to turn the corner, or take a few steps down a darkened corridor. There is, in fact, only a relatively small number of times that you will encounter monsters, and in many of these the monsters present no real threat. The strength of the game is that it keeps you guessing, and trying to predict where there will be monsters, and then surprising you when they're not around the suspicious-looking corner.

*SPOILER PARAGRAPH* One thing that I noticed to be very powerful was the revisiting of previous areas, which act as 'hubs' connecting to several areas. This is done in many games become it gives the player a sense of reassurance and achievement if they have completed an objective before revisiting, but Amnesia turns this on its head, often having the hub transformed (an example is a nice fountain which fills with blood and has a corpse lying in it), or mostly destroyed by the supernatural being known as 'The Shadow'. A similar device used is the destruction of the feeling of safety in certain areas. Fairly early on in the game, you reach what used to be your bedroom, which comprises of three small well-lit (a blessing in Amnesia!) rooms. You feel like you could just spend a few minutes recovering from stumbling through dark corridors with the sound of monsters around you, until you here groaning and something beating down the door. Although this encounter isn't particularly dangerous (you can just hide in your trusty closet until it finishes messing up your room), it certainly made me doubt the safety of even the nice areas of Amnesia, destroying the last places of refuge in the game for me.

On to the second of the components; the monsters themselves. The design of the monsters are outstanding for the purpose of scaring the player. Importantly, they are recognisable as human, but are horrifically deformed. Although I can't speak for everyone, I literally wanted to avoid looking at them, not only to conserve my sanity and to avoid them seeing me, but because they are actually scary in their own right. Not only their appearance, but their shuffling movements, their nightmare-haunting moans, and even the ominous music that accompanies them, are terrifying.

The formula for monster encounters is also clever - you look at them, they usually look at you, then you must run and hide with them hot on your heels. The adrenalin rush of some of these chases can be overwhelming, and can often warrant taking a break to calm back down (or at least they did for me, as easily scared as I am.) There are no monsters jumping out of cupboards, or similar cheap scares, and you will often see the monster before they see you, if you're fortunate.

The final, and most potent element of the game, for me, may be surprising - the sound. From the dreaded 'chase music' to the haunted cries that echo around the depths of the castle, the sounds of the game are what really make the atmosphere. What was that? It sounded like footsteps. Perhaps it's through that door. Or maybe it's above me. The sounds keeps you guessing and worrying, and the sound of wind through an opening in the ceiling can still make you jump if you're already put on edge.

Some people have suggested that you could remove the monsters to make the fear of the game more manageable (many people do struggle to play Amnesia for more than an hour before giving in), but I think that the simple removal of the background noise and music would be enough to almost neutralise the fear of the game, perhaps leaving it almost comical. I was unable to find the willpower to use headphones as suggested, but I am sure that it would have made much of the game utterly unbearable.

Notable mentions go the lighting, which is not excessive, nor is everything shrouded in darkness, to the use of the 'sanity meter' to provide additional impetus to stay in the light and avoid monsters, and also to physical design of levels. The claustrophobic, mazing passages of the prison, or the dank, water-filled chambers of the cistern, were enough to stop you in your tracks for a while, until you work out the safest path and second-guess where monsters could be.


Conclusion

Amnesia is a masterpiece of the horror genre, and perhaps even of the gaming world. It pushes almost every fear button that our species has - the dark, human-like monsters, death, torture, vulnerability, running from an unyielding enemy, the unknown and even the odd spider. What I've said here only scratches the surface of Amnesia, and you will not be left unsatisfied if you decide to play it in the way that it suggests. The pure dread that I felt as I wandered down those dark corridors clutching my lantern, almost out of oil, is unmatched by any other game I've played, film I've watched or book I've read.

Try it out for yourself! Or are you too much of a chicken? ;-)


- Daniel