We are the architect of our own demise.

From George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 to the decaying political integrity of the Galactic Republic in George Lucas's sci-fi lore of Star Wars, many Georges in the world have both demonstrated and articulated their interpretation of a demise. Be it from the reigns of social tyrannies of Big Brother or the beautiful manipulation of Darth Sidious; but what if the downfall of mankind, the real Palpatine, is ourselves. A 2017 Oxford Union debate centred around the decided question, raised concerns around the most debated topics of technology, AI and the internet. It seemed most of the speaker's arguments revolved around the hot idea of how technology detriments or benefits humankind and in a macro perspective: our world. As the world undergoes the fourth industrial revolution: genetic engineering, AI, 3D printing etc, the prevalence of technology is now ever so relevant in our world. Hence, the need for such a scope to be fully engaged and broken-down is a definite part of the itinerary for my argument. Yet, it is important to note that the question simply is not limited to exciting topics like technology and AI how they cause the apparent end of the world. A micro view on individualistic ideas of the sins of increasing privilege and apparent social entitlement is a valid argument all the same. My stand is apparent, we are in fact the architect of our own demise.

It seems like the rise in technology has brought undeniable numerous benefits of growth, innovation and convenience. Yet the surface-dwelling masquerade often seems to very successfully disguise the unnoticeable unintended consequences. To illustrate such ideas, let me take you on a journey to the dystopian universe of every Singaporean drama series that usually entails a spoilt oversized toddler holding a tablet in one hand and well, strike that: both hands, he is holding the tablets with both hands. Calling it a dystopian drama seems like a stretch does it not? Yet it's apparently so. Dystopia is a fictional world centred around inherent suffering and injustice, and it seems quite the contradiction to say that these kids are suffering or experiencing injustice seeing that they obviously are enjoying the fruits of technology through the many mediums of tablets and phones. Yet, relating to reality, is it really wrong to say that they are indeed unknowingly suffering? They seem to live in a haven governed by the virtuality of games and social media; forcing them to renter the real world, full of REAL problems and REAL people is a sudden change in the environment that often leads to them wailing and crying to be placed back in their virtual encapsulation of the television. And can't we question the injustice in introducing them to the virtual world in the first place, and undeniably nursing their reliance on technology. This mostly fulfils the idea of a dystopia: the injustice and the suffering, and it seems like the only fact that seems to make it not a dystopia is it isn't fictional but more real than we can ever imagine. Of course, even then, a dystopia is a hyperbolic representation, for now... The world first publicly experienced the internet in 1991, and the addiction to computerised material came soon after. That wasn't too long ago, 30 years in fact from the date I am writing this article. Yet it's only been 30 years and the development of virtual reality seems to be an occurrence even more common in everyday households. The effects of virtual reality may hold even worse impacts for the contemporary generation, increasing our reliance on the safe virtual haven and giving us the means to run away from the very real reality. As our world shift towards a generation advocated to not face reality, it seems that our demise would be inevitable if its effects overwhelm. Our world, now more than ever, is leaning towards the not-very fictional idea of a dystopian universe, and it isn't too unrealistic to imagine that there may be a certain shift of reality, a life in virtual perhaps: a simulation.

Technology as mentioned has brought up benefits of political and social significance, more so a certain convenience, through the means of connections or activities, it seems like our lives are now so much more convenient than they were just 50 years ago: a click of a button sends groceries to our doors or a connection made to someone halfway around the world, it is apparent that the conveniences are nowadays enjoyed by the very capitalistic people in our world. But yet, the convenience that arose may pose a bigger detriment than benefit in many different areas of our society, be it its social, cultural or behavioural aspects. It's an often drilled idea that our generation has things easier than our forefathers, who had held the many qualities of grit and determination which has propelled them to create the very infrastructure our society thrives on. Yet, their hard work to build the ultimate foundation for generations to come seems to be the very ironic reason for our demise. It is first very essential to establish that it was their vision and their futuristic endeavours that had led to the rise and foundation of technology in the first place. Take, for example, the industrial brilliance of Henry Ford, creator of the industrial essential of Fordism, a method used even today to innovate technologically and dynamically. Such ideas had ultimately led to the convenience that we, the contemporaries, enjoy today. But yet this convenience leads to things being that much more simple which makes us reject the very ideas our founding father's had in the first place: grit and desire. As things get much more convenient, we start to take the practical, fast approach, in the process often ignoring social or cultural practices and meaning due to their lack of modern practicality. It has become more apparent in my race's holiday of Chinese New Year that fewer people are participating in cultural practices. The capitalistic nature of our world now overruns our forefather's core values and the only hint of perseverance isn't fueled by happiness or meaning but money and power. The convenience and attainability of resources now advocate a culture of quantity and we seem to be more fixated on how much we know instead of how well we know. Generally, we don't experience hardships or at least the same level of hardships our forefathers experienced, and it seems like we are simply a spoonfed generation. Convenience has made us lose our values, values that make us human and not a machine, and as our world continues to grow conveniently, we lose that much more human in us, would it lead to our literal demise? No, probably not, but a loss in our culture and values may lead future generations astray, a demise nonetheless.

Economics teaches us that the standard of living is divided into the material and the non-material, the Human Development Index measures our general satisfaction of living. Some would argue that from an economic perspective, technology leads to an increase in economic growth and productive capacity, more jobs gained and ultimately a higher standard of living. Now that mundanity has been established let me question how much economics, stats and numbers know about living. It is apparent that humans crave a definite pragmatic answer to most things, hence the very creation of such an equation to somehow quantify a person's standard of living or in other words, happiness. I believe it is human arrogance or desperation for an answer that inspires such equations but to calculate something as complex as an emotion is an appalling demonstration of human ignorance. It a known fact that technology propels the collective society to every next level, which economics can confidently explain but prioritising collective societal good and loosely linking it to humankind's happiness with the simple use of an estimated equation simply means we are being slaves to the collective entity of society. I mean, won't the creation of this very system lead to our demise? It's the ultimate loss of humanity, being dictated by a system cloaked behind ideas of capitalism and money and power. Thinking about it, the world survives to contribute to this system: a farmer grows potatoes to sell them, the same way a banker provides his service in a bank or even a prostitute selling his or her body just to earn that bit of money. Humans work and survive simply to provide for this intrinsic system, to breathe fire into it and in doing so, we work hours upon hours to earn a papered social construct just to pay for a service abused by the system to incentivise us to continue its unending existence, and we without question simply follow it. We let go of what really makes us happy and we let this system tells us what really makes us so. We created this system, we orchestrated this system, we are now dictated by this system, we are ultimately the architects of our own demise.

Humankind is gifted with cognitive abilities which allow us to create elaborate and intrinsic systems of practicality and technology. We strive for perfection knowing full well that perfection is a mere journey and not an end goal that constantly allows us to grow and develop at an exponential rate. Yet, our cognitive dominance allows us to be creators of systems to make our lives easier, unaware of its further than intended outcomes. Alas, it is our arrogance, strive for perfection and natural capabilities which may lead to the downfall of our species. We after all are the architect of our unfortunate demise.