Perhaps?

Inbreeding

I fear that someday, we shall all become inbred children of generations of elite-school-kids.

You see, the IP crams people together from the moment they accept that invitation in P6. Hence poor children who don't know better are immediately dunked into one of a few IP categories-- back in my day it was just Raffles or Hwachong, depending on what JC you were set to go to, but now apparently ACS and VJC have their matchmaking offices up too.

Matchmaking office! I love that word. It's like, they get a constant inflow of boys and girls from their feeder schools, who are thrown together for two years and eventually fall in love and get married and have 2.1 kids, just like the good civil servants they have been bred to be.

So from that moment you accepted that invitation in P6, your destiny to become part of a giant inbreeding conspiracy was sealed.

Think-- what happens to the 2.1 kids of the couple of said JC? Let's just use RJ for simplicity's sake; you may substitute it with whichever JC you are currently schooling in and its respective feeder schools for RG and RI. The phenomenon still stands (arguably stronger in certain JCs, but yeah.)

So. RG girl and RI boy meet in RJ. They fall in love, due to the hormones they have been repressing (or, shockingly, not) in their respective single sex schools. They have 2.1 kids. And these 2.1 kids (obviously a boy and a girl) grow up, take their PSLE/apply for DSA and which schools will be their first choice?

This evidently results in a vicious cycle, the product of which are what now appear as "2nd-generation Raffles", "3rd-generation Raffles", and even "5th-generation Raffles", as appeared at our Founders' Day last year.

In a couple of generations (depending on how fast people act) you will have people going: "And my mother was from RGS. And my mother's mother was from RGS. And my mother's mother's mother was from RGS. And my..." and this will not be an exaggeration.

Obviously this rate of population growth is rather unsustainable, and within a number of generation all Raffles people will be related to each other. Your seatmate will be your second cousin thrice removed and your CCA chairperson will be your great-grandaunt. Eventually the population might dwindle to the point where there is only one boy and only one girl left, and they will be forced to mate with each other despite being siblings. And then it will proceed from being inbreeding to incest.

Okay what the hell I don't really know what I'm talking about, knowing next to nothing about population growth/shrinkage, but the inbreeding trend still applies.

We have got to stop inbreeding before Singapore becomes divided along the lines of IP schools. The pledge will have to be changed to read "regardless of race, language, JC, or religion". Is this a future you want for Singapore?

Stop inbreeding today.

I think DCT and Functionalism are both equally annoying theories, and both equally inaccurate.

DCT totally fails when approached with the Euthyphro dilemma (Is stuff moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?) unless you accept the argument that God is by definition moral, which I don't. That generally requires some other standard of morality in the first place.

And then there's functionalism, which ascribes immoral motivations to moral actions. So the only reason why I'm not killing people right now is because I don't want people to kill me.

(Then again, yeah, that is the reason I'm not on a killing spree right now.)

But then it of course ascribes odd motivations to every nice action, saying that people generally don't do nice stuff for the sake of being nice. So that nice uncle who bought you a sweet when you were 5 didn't do it to see the smile on your face; he did it so he could kidnap you/rape you/murder you.

I MEAN, HELLO, HOW MUCH MORE CYNICAL CAN YOU GET?

There are times I wonder whether I would have been more idealistic if I hadn't learnt Philo. But then of course I would be dumber, which would have not been very nice.

I saw this quote in a Bertrand Russell essay which I liked: something about people around you: even though they have bodies and semblances of thought, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have a brain.

This reeks of elitism, but I assure you it was in the context of skepticism: I know that I exist, but how do I know that YOU exist? Just because you say you exist doesn't convince me a bit. My dreams tell me they exist too.

How do I know my blog isn't completely devoid of readers now?

DO YOU EXIST, READERS?

Nah, I thought not. I am sure that I'm the only one who actually exists around here.