Teaching Literature for Employability

The revolutionary changes brought about by 21st-century technology have significantly altered the way we view teaching, learning, and employing literature. Many are supporting the claim to its redundancy and are advocating the closure of literature teaching departments in universities quoting the lack of employability of degrees in literature in the tech-driven world of 21st century. While it may appear that literature has lost its immediate value as a direct livelihood tool, this does not mean that teachers, students, or lovers of literature should abandon this discipline. Instead, it is imperative to adopt new pedagogical approaches that reposition literature as a skill-building and employability-oriented field, rather than one confined to passive reading and aesthetic enjoyment. Literature is the storehouse of knowledge and experiences of highly imaginative genius minds and ignoring its teaching would be an injustice to the progeny of humanity by denying them this rich area of knowledge and aesthetics.  Besides, teaching literature means helping people, tell, listen and analyze the stories of individual as well as collective. Abandoning teaching of literature would deny this opportunity of storytelling to humanity. 

Literature must evolve into a discipline that fosters transferable skills essential for navigating the rapidly changing technological and economic landscapes of the 21st century. UNESCO and the World Economic Forum highlight at least five core competencies required for sustainability in contemporary society: critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration, cultural understanding, creativity, and digital literacy. Literature, when taught innovatively, can nurture all these skills and thus ensure its continued relevance. Teachers can transform literature classes into dynamic spaces for skill development. For instance, Critical Thinking can be cultivated by comparing dystopian texts such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which encourage students to analyze power, surveillance, and gender politics from different angles. Cultural Literacy can emerge through reading Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart alongside Kamila Shamsie’s Home Fire, prompting students to reflect on colonialism, identity, and cross-cultural conflicts. Communication Skills can be enhanced through debating Shakespeare’s Hamlet or staging scenes from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, exercises that sharpen persuasive expression and public speaking. Creativity and Innovation can be encouraged by asking students to reimagine Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a modern AI ethics narrative, blending literary study with technological imagination.

Beyond classroom engagement, literature teaching can be reoriented towards employment-oriented activities. In today’s digital economy, content creation for blogs, podcasts, YouTube channels, book reviews, and storytelling platforms has become highly significant. For example, students analyzing Emily Dickinson’s poetry can transform their interpretations into short-form video essays for TikTok or Instagram, thereby practicing digital communication and audience engagement. Similarly, classes on narrative structure can be linked to scriptwriting, journalism, or creative advertising, opening pathways into the creative industries. Teaching literature may emphasize more on these proliferating activities rather than simple classroom analysis. Moreover, the study of literature also provides opportunities to explore leadership and ethics. Shakespeare’s Macbeth offers a case study in ambition and moral compromise, while Orwell’s 1984 raises questions about propaganda, governance, and truth, which are skills relevant for leadership training, policy analysis, and media literacy. Furthermore, with the global demand for English and multilingual communication, literature can serve as a resource for teaching and interpreting language. For instance, analyzing Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies allows students to see how cultural translation, empathy, and nuanced communication operate—skills essential for international careers.

To remain relevant, literature must also embrace artificial intelligence and digital humanities. Students can use text-mining tools to compare language patterns in Shakespeare’s tragedies and comedies or create digital corpora to track the evolution of themes such as migration in contemporary fiction. AI can also be used to generate visual adaptations of texts, such as book trailers or interactive storytelling projects, combining literary study with technological fluency. A revolutionary shift in pedagogy is required, moving from traditional instruction to project-based and interdisciplinary learning. Literature can relate to psychology (Freudian readings of Kafka), politics (postcolonial readings of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o), economics (Dickens on industrial capitalism), media studies (film adaptations of Jane Austen), and environmental studies (eco-criticism in Amitav Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide). Experiential approaches, such as theatre workshops simulating historical debates, or student-led podcasts reviewing contemporary novels, can make literature more interactive. By encouraging learners to design newsletters, blogs, or social media campaigns inspired by texts, teachers help them practice professional communication in digital formats.

Ultimately, literature is no longer just about books; it is about cultivating skills for life, society, and work. In the 21st century, literature must be reframed not as a relic of cultural tradition but as a living discipline that equips learners with vital competencies. Through critical thinking, creativity, cultural understanding, digital literacy, and communication skills, literature can contribute meaningfully to employability and social development. By embracing interdisciplinary approaches, digital tools, and experiential pedagogy, literature teaching can prepare students not only to appreciate texts but also to thrive in an increasingly complex and technologically driven world.

The Rise of Convenience Culture: A Critical Appraisal

 

Since the advent of Covid-19, societies across the globe were introduced more forcefully to what we may call a convenience culture. This culture is characterized by the ease of purchasing goods, accessing services, and conducting daily activities online, often with just a few clicks. During the pandemic, when physical interaction was restricted to curb the spread of the virus, this mode of living seemed not only useful but necessary. Food, medicine, and household items could be ordered from home and delivered through courier services. Educational institutions, workplaces, and even social gatherings moved to virtual platforms. While this shift initially represented an effort to safeguard human lives, the trend has continued even in the post-Covid years, embedding convenience culture as an integral part of modern lifestyles. However, convenience culture is not limited merely to the purchase of commodities. A wide range of services are now available online. For instance, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Careem, food delivery platforms like Foodpanda, and online grocery apps have become part of everyday life. On the surface, this provides comfort, time-efficiency, and flexibility. Yet, beneath this convenience lies a range of social, psychological, and environmental costs that are often overlooked.

One hidden cost is the risk borne by service providers. For example, delivery riders often drive under pressure to meet deadlines, exposing themselves to traffic hazards. Another cost is environmental: the packaging materials involved in online deliveries contribute significantly to waste and pollution. Furthermore, the reliance on digital platforms reduces opportunities for face-to-face interaction. Traditionally, visiting a marketplace or shopping center allowed individuals to engage in casual social exchanges, observe products firsthand, and build connections within the community. This type of interaction, which contributed to confidence, trust, and community spirit, is increasingly disappearing. Education has also been affected. Learning, which thrives in the physical presence of teachers and students, has shifted substantially online. While online classes offer accessibility, they often lack the depth of real-time human interaction. Nuances of communication, immediate feedback, and the sense of community inherent in a classroom environment are diminished when teaching is reduced to video or audio calls.

Moreover, the glamour of convenience culture fades when its fragility becomes apparent. Poor internet connectivity, technical glitches, or sudden system shutdowns cause frustration and disrupt important activities. Issues such as data breaches and cybercrime further expose consumers to risks that are not easily reparable. Even when applications function smoothly, their maintenance costs are indirectly passed on to users, creating economic burdens under the guise of “free access.” Thus, the one-click lifestyle often results in socio-psychological inconvenience despite its initial promise of ease. The erosion of human relationships is perhaps the greatest casualty. Social media interactions—likes, comments, and shares—are increasingly replacing genuine human connection. What was once achieved through gatherings, shopping trips, and face-to-face exchanges is now mediated through screens. This not only diminishes empathy and emotional depth but also weakens the bonds that sustain communities. For example, previously, shopping excursions were occasions of recreation, friendship-building, and shared experiences. These have largely been replaced by solitary scrolling and digital transactions. Another dimension often neglected is the environmental footprint of convenience culture. Data centers, which store and process the massive amounts of online activity, consume vast amounts of energy and require rare-earth materials for maintenance. These costs are seldom discussed in public debates but represent a significant burden on the planet. Admittedly, convenience culture has created economic opportunities. The rise of digital platforms has opened new businesses and provided employment to many young people, particularly in developing countries. However, these gains come with trade-offs, as many traditional businesses, small shops, and community marketplaces have struggled to survive against the tide of online consumerism.

In conclusion, convenience culture—though initially embraced as a survival mechanism during the pandemic—has now become a permanent lifestyle feature with profound implications. While it offers efficiency and creates economic opportunities, it simultaneously undermines human relationships, weakens community ties, burdens the environment, and creates new psychological and social challenges. The task ahead is not to reject convenience altogether but to strike a balance: to embrace technology where it truly adds value while safeguarding the social, communal, and ecological dimensions of human life.

When Politics Meets Cancel Culture

Whenever one turns on the television, whether at home or elsewhere, it is common to see politicians participating in talk shows or panel discussions, primarily engaging in personal attacks against their opponents. Such confrontations are often aimed at portraying oneself as the most capable and dedicated leader, eager to serve the nation, while presenting the opponent as utterly unworthy of respect or consideration. Unfortunately, these exchanges rarely introduce constructive agendas or policy proposals; instead, the focus is almost entirely on discrediting rivals. This style of discourse feeds into the broader phenomenon of “cancel culture,” which has gained significant traction on social media. This is happening not only in the developing counties but also in the advanced states of the globe and is promoted mostly by the populist leaders. Be it east or the west, the agenda of undermining one’s opponents is in full swing. This cancel-culture is seeping and spreading not only in politics but also almost every section of society which is rapidly spiraling into increase in street crimes, hate, intolerance and self-aggrandizement. Be it parliament, pressers, media meet, the opponents are derailed instead of debating policy for the public benefit. Politics is being discussed, promoted and popularized but there are no solutions for the issues of the people debated. Where are the politicians whose main aims were to promote people not individuals? 

On these platforms, ordinary users, celebrities, and the media arms of political parties frequently participate in campaigns to highlight and amplify the alleged flaws and shortcomings of their opponents. The original purpose of cancel culture, intended to promote accountability, uphold healthy social values, and encourage constructive discussion about individuals, issues, and institutions, has largely been lost. Instead, it has devolved into a mechanism for personal attacks, fostering hostility, and aggravating societal divisions. Whenever an incident occurs or an individual voices an opinion—particularly on matters of national interest, online discourse often quickly descends into trolling, harassment, and the dissemination of inflammatory content. These reactions generate anger, distrust, and polarization, undermining the democratic spirit that social media was once believed to foster. Political self-promotion now dominates these spaces, overshadowing the possibility of productive dialogue.

While this dynamic may provide short-term satisfaction for certain politicians, both domestically and internationally, it is producing a deep and damaging divide within society. Young people, in particular, are either left confused about which perspectives to trust or become blind followers of partisan rhetoric. Cancel culture, as practiced in televised debates and on social media, has reduced public engagement to the uncritical acceptance of one side’s views while rejecting or ridiculing all others. Ideally, political discourse should focus on substantive agendas, enabling the public to evaluate ideas, policies, and ideologies before forming opinions. Open and respectful debate helps citizens determine whether a proposal is beneficial or harmful. Instead, the current climate fosters personal hostility toward anyone who holds even a slightly different viewpoint, further entrenching social divisions. It is imperative that political actors in our country reassess their approach. Rather than undermining opponents in the harshest possible terms, they should work toward the intellectual and moral development of youth and the overall progress of the nation. Democracy cannot be established, let alone flourish, in an environment characterized by factionalism, segregation, and hostility. Such conditions nurture authoritarian tendencies rather than democratic ones.

Politicians must also recognize the far-reaching consequences of their public statements. Once broadcast or posted online, their words can quickly spread globally, often being edited, reframed, or repurposed to serve narrow, self-interested agendas with little regard for the collective good. If this trend continues unchecked, the long-term result will be a society where mutual antagonism is the norm and national unity becomes impossible. Besides, such unchecked spread of hate for opponents develops a personality focused fellowship instead performance- based fellowship. Consequently, the national and collective benefit is left far behind, and people and individuals gain more ground which ultimately generates an unhealthy trend of democracy.

This is not to say that disagreement should be silenced—healthy debate is essential to democracy. However, political discourse must avoid becoming personal or divisive. Healthy debates are promoted only at that time when such discussions take place, but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in a way that people are divided. This tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come forward to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with the best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people. The leaders may discuss their policies and promote their agenda for the national benefit instead of keeping on claiming ‘better than thou’ status. Leaders should strive to cultivate a culture of respectful discussion, critical thinking, and cooperation, with the shared aim of building a positive, forward-looking society for the benefit of all citizens.

The healthy debates are only taking place at that time when such discussions take place but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in such a way that people are divided that tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come for to come forward in order to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with a best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people.

Privacy Unplugged

Privacy Unplugged Privacy can be understood as a vital space for self-reflection, solitude, and mental rejuvenation—a concept poignantly emphasized by Virginia Woolf in A Room of One’s Own. Woolf argued that every individual, particularly women, must have a space of their own where they can spend time in silence, undisturbed by the external world. Such moments are not a luxury but a psychological necessity for human beings, allowing them to refresh their minds and reconnect with their inner selves. In this sense, privacy acts as a mode of self-renewal. However, in the contemporary era dominated by digital communication tools, such private moments are increasingly becoming inaccessible. We now exist in a perpetual state of self-broadcasting, facilitated by ubiquitous technologies. As a result, the very notion of privacy is under threat, with significant consequences for human well-being. Despite these concerns, some critics argue that the erosion of privacy may not be entirely detrimental. They contend that constant digital connectivity fosters a sense of security and belonging, drawing parallels with collectivist traditions such as African tribalism, where identity is rooted in the community—“I am because we are.” Similar communal modes of thinking were once prevalent in early European societies as well. These critics suggest that the contemporary emphasis on privacy is a relatively recent, Western development—particularly American in origin. Furthermore, they point out that modern devices allow users to configure privacy settings, offering a sense of control over personal information while remaining connected to others. Nevertheless, the tension surrounding the availability of privacy continues to haunt us. Despite the ability to set virtual boundaries, there remains a deep, unmet desire for solitude and disengagement from constant connectivity. As Tiffany Jenkins argues that the domain of privacy has been significantly encroached upon, rendering individuals subject to continuous collective surveillance. She asserts that the technological revolution has not only diminished but also destabilized the very borders of privacy. John Stuart Mill, in his classic liberal philosophy, underscored the importance of privacy as a shield against the surveillance of both the state and society—an essential space where individuals can cultivate independent thought and nurture their inner lives. Without privacy, the possibility of true freedom is severely compromised. George Orwell starkly illustrated this in his dystopian novel 1984, where omnipresent telescreens symbolize an authoritarian regime’s relentless intrusion into individual lives, obliterating any sense of personal space or freedom. Today, this dystopian vision is increasingly mirrored by modern digital technologies that facilitate constant surveillance and data tracking. Michel Foucault’s theory of the Panopticon further explains this phenomenon. Originally conceptualized as a prison design where a central watchtower allows for the surveillance of all inmates without them knowing when they are being watched, Foucault’s this metaphor can be extended to modern societies. In the digital age, we inhabit a panoptic system wherein our actions, thoughts, and preferences are continuously monitored and influenced, leading to a suppression of individual autonomy. Under such conditions, people are compelled to think collectively, performatively, and in alignment with digital trends rather than engage in authentic self-expression. From a sociopolitical perspective, this condition has stifled creativity and critical thought. Social media platforms often privilege virality, hashtags, and trend conformity over originality, creating a homogenized digital culture. Those who resist this flow are frequently marginalized as eccentrics or outsiders. The situation becomes even more perilous when totalitarian regimes exploit these digital tools to enforce ideological conformity and suppress dissent. In such environments, freedom of thought and diverse perspectives are not just discouraged, they are extinguished. This results in a stagnation of intellectual and cultural evolution. Compounding this issue is the normalization of the idea that “the private is public.” Increasingly, individuals are encouraged to share every detail of their lives—from personal joys to intimate struggles—on public platforms. While this may appear to foster connection, it often leads to the dissemination of false or exaggerated information, generating significant social and political consequences. The performance of hypervisibility replaces the experience of authenticity. Considering these developments, the urgency to reclaim and protect privacy has never been greater. Despite the pervasive nature of social media and digital surveillance, steps can be taken to restore a healthy balance. This includes consciously limiting screen time, not just for children but for adults as well, and re-establishing face-to-face human connections. Traditional practices such as reading books, once a source of deep intellectual and emotional nourishment, have been largely replaced by visual content and ephemeral digital messages. The shift from contemplative engagement to superficial consumption poses a serious threat to human depth and meaning. Human progress must continue, but not at the expense of the very qualities that define humanity. The right to privacy is not a relic of the past but a cornerstone of psychological well-being, intellectual freedom, and creative expression. In the face of digital overexposure, reclaiming this right is essential for the future of a free and flourishing society.

Squeezing the Squeezed

 

Squeezing the Squeezed

In contemporary society, we seem to be operating under a harsh and regressive principle: those who are already burdened must be burdened further, especially if their ability to resist is minimal. This unfortunate trend is particularly evident in Pakistan, where increases in taxes, electricity bills, and deductions in salaries disproportionately target government employees, most notably those in the education and healthcare sectors. These individuals, rather than being supported, have become the most convenient scapegoats for the state's financial imbalances.

This situation is reminiscent of an Indian film in which a state Raja repeatedly raises taxes to fund his ambitions, ignoring the suffering of his people. Each time they protest, he uses force to extract more from them. Similarly, in our context, whenever the government faces a financial shortfall or budgetary gap, the immediate response is to cut into the earnings and benefits of public servants. It appears the state is never hesitant to wield its metaphorical sword against the very people who have served it faithfully.

Government employees already pay a disproportionate share of taxes and fulfill remittance obligations more consistently than any other segment of society. Yet, their financial futures are now under severe threat. Pensions, gratuities, and other post-retirement allowances are being slashed arbitrarily and without transparent justification. Historically, public sector employment was desirable because it offered a sense of financial security after retirement, typically after 35 or more years of dedicated service. Today, even that sense of security is rapidly eroding.

A particularly troubling example is the recent elimination of Leave Encashment, a policy through which employees were compensated for unused leave. The government has now replaced this with the Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) system, which denies financial compensation even to those who diligently saved their leave. Gratuity payments have also been drastically reduced, and pension percentages are declining. These policy shifts have understandably created panic among those scheduled to retire in 2025 or in the coming months.

This sense of uncertainty is compounded by the broader economic crisis: spiraling inflation, record-high taxes, skyrocketing food and energy prices, and increasingly unaffordable healthcare. Retired employees, often elderly and vulnerable, are now left to navigate a hostile economic landscape with diminishing resources. Rather than being rewarded for decades of service, they are met with neglect and financial insecurity.

What is particularly egregious is that the government has also refused to release group insurance payments and has withdrawn several allowances—such as the Discrepancy Allowance, which continue to be paid in other provinces. The result is not only declining morale but also a decline in the quality of work in essential sectors like education and health.

These developments have serious social and psychological repercussions. In the past, individuals worked hard to secure admission to higher education institutions and eventually land government jobs, encouraged by the promise of long-term stability. Now, seeing the deteriorating conditions of public sector retirees, many young people are disillusioned. They are turning instead to vocational skills or private enterprises, seeking immediate income over long-term service.

The irony is staggering. Government employees are the only segment of society from whom taxes are deducted directly from their salaries. Yet, they are taxed again and again—on purchases, ATM use, banking transactions, telecommunications, and digital services. Meanwhile, powerful groups such as industrialists, traders, large landowners, and even professionals often pay little to no taxes. Many enjoy state-subsidized perks like free electricity and fuel, all while evading tax obligations through loopholes and underreporting.

Given these realities, it is imperative for the state to recognize and fulfill its responsibilities to government employees. The state must ensure that those who contribute most consistently and honestly to national revenue are not abandoned in retirement. Through mechanisms such as mutual funds, pension insurance schemes, or public-private partnerships, sustainable support systems must be established for retirees. In Pakistan, finding employment post-retirement is nearly impossible. Older individuals face health issues, mental stress, and often a deep sense of loss and nostalgia, making re-entry into the workforce an unrealistic expectation.

It is therefore not only a matter of economic justice but of moral duty for the government to support its retired employees. These individuals have served the nation for decades and deserve dignity, security, and care, not abandonment and uncertainty.

 

Uniting for Climate Responsibility

 

Humanity has always joined hands in the face of a calamities, threats and disasters and more than often succeeded on warding off the looming dangers. The same holds good for Pakistan because now Pakistan is right now in the eye of a black hole which won’t let it come out so easily and even if it does so, there will be huge and loud scars and pains left on its face. So, now the time has come that we must truly follow the dictates of our beloved father of the nation and that is unity, faith and discipline. We must realize the enormity and colossal nature of the impending catastrophe that we cannot hide our heads in the sand like ostrich because it calls for drastic measures at drastic times. 

The very first and most urgent is the advent new world order of 21st century (2025) which clearly means drying up of all sources coming from USA, neither as a loan, nor as a donation or grant and instead it may bring stringent measures to shift the trade and earning balance in favor of USA. The early signs of decay are visible in the closure of all educational funding and scholarships programs hitherto being run by US State. Pakistan is not now likely to be supported to combat the menace of terrorism as it has been in the past. Now everyone is required to put his own fight against terrorism. The strong and robust effort is also needed to come up with an effective plan to control this menace. A concerted effort at almost every front is the need of the hour to deal with this renewed wave of domestic terrorism. 

The next big thing is the environmental crises which again needs all sociopolitical and psychological measures to combat the global change within our resources. For example, we are facing shortage of rain and temperature rise. The potable and water for irrigation and electricity generation is falling down rapidly. Time is not for ahead that we would run short of irrigation water and even drinking water. So, hands must be joined together by each and everyone to change our habits and everything possible must be done to recycle and conserve water along with the policy of judicious use of available water. Besides, the effect of greenhouse games must be minimized by introducing efficient system of electric bus-based city transportation. In heavily populated areas of the city all type of carbon fuel-based activity should be strictly banned and in big cities at least two days a week, no private fossil fuel run vehicle should be operated. This may bring down the rising temperatures and pollution in the city which may consequently halt or delay the climate change. If we have water, we have life. I mean, the absence of water means loss of food growth, damage to the fruits, absence of Agricultural business. If this happens, half of the Pakistani economy is likely to collapse because we are Agri-based. We shall have make a law that if one tree is cut, at least will have planted in its place. 

Above all, why the population is being allowed to increase as rapidly as possible without any checks and balances which is causing imbalance in the supply and demand of resources and causing a huge strain and burden on services to maitain such a huge population. There is no more time left to wait for someone outside to come and induce a comprehensive plan to stem the rising tide of population in the absence of which we are going to develop a nation of destitute only. The capitalists of the society must take a little rest in exploiting the national resources for their profit. Instead they may join hands with our authorities to introduce environment friendly, innovative, renewable and recyclable techniques and methods to mitigate the impact of previous non-judicious use of environment. This measure is even necessary because if the nation is healthy and strong, they may earn profit, and an environmentally sick nation will not be able to sustain their profit. 

Classroom is the best pulpit to preach such a change of heart and mind in our society. So educational environment must be revamped on war footing to make it more amenable to the life in 21st century than to keep it a traditional liberal education. Classrooms must not only equip our students with technical and Vocational skills but also to make them 

responsible citizens we must arrange for them hands on workshops and practice based learning seminars for awareness and learning. Each institution must teach its students to keep the environment and its use within the normal and acceptable limits . And above all every individual of the nation must make joint efforts at individual and collective level only then the boat of Pakistan nation can be saved from sinking.

Cognition versus Artificial Intelligence

 

Centuries ago, human beings learned to create and utilize tools to harness and exploit the natural resources around them. This capacity enabled them to dominate their environment, primarily because no other species possessed the same level of critical thinking or cognitive development. It is this cognitive development that has empowered humanity to innovate, manipulate nature, and secure a better quality of life. The evolution of human cognition has been central to holistic human progress and has long been emphasized in educational theory by figures such as Piaget, Dewey, Bloom, and others. On the other hand, we have already a very meagre share of developing cognition and critical thinking in our education procedure because of overreliance on memorization and rot learning and equally faulty system of testing evaluating the capabilities developed by the learners.

 

Over time, educational practices have become increasingly sophisticated, particularly with the integration of technology. Multimedia, computing, and digital publishing have significantly enhanced the processes of teaching and learning, making them more engaging and accessible. Nevertheless, it is the skilled and reflective teacher who has historically played the most crucial role in fostering cognitive development, critical thinking, and intellectual growth among learners. In the 21st century, however, technology—particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI)—is assuming many traditional roles of the educator. AI now provides personalized and immediate access to vast amounts of information and tailored solutions, reducing the need for both teachers and students to consult numerous physical or digital sources. This shift raises a critical concern: with AI performing many cognitive functions, there is a risk that the human mind may become a passive recipient rather than an active processor of knowledge. Consequently, humanity must once again rise to the challenge of ensuring that technology serves as a facilitator rather than a replacement for human intellect.

 

AI is now used globally across nearly all educational levels, significantly decreasing classroom activities such as reading, writing, evaluating, and independent thinking. While many educators cautiously embrace AI to save time and energy, students increasingly rely on it to generate written content and complete academic tasks. This trend raises a pivotal question: at what point in this process does the student genuinely engage in learning? Or is it AI, rather than the student, that is doing the learning and problem-solving? Recent international surveys reveal that at least 60% of teachers are already incorporating AI into their classrooms—a figure that is even higher in countries like Pakistan. Student usage of AI tools reportedly ranges between 80% to 90%. In such a context, the fundamental purpose of education—nurturing the intellectual and personal development of learners—is at risk of being undermined. As Dewey and Bloom assert, cognition and learning can only be truly developed when learners engage directly with problems, think critically, and apply knowledge actively.

 

Some scholars argue that AI is merely another technological advancement that, like its predecessors, will ultimately enhance human capabilities without fundamentally altering our identity or societal structures. While this view is optimistic, it overlooks a crucial element: human progress has historically been driven by curiosity, struggle, and the persistent desire to overcome environmental challenges. From the invention of the wheel to the exploration of space, it is this innate drive that has fueled innovation. Without nurturing curiosity and training the human mind—particularly at early educational levels, it is uncertain how future generations will rise to the ever-evolving challenges of the modern world. If AI begins to handle all problem-solving and decision-making, the role of human effort may diminish to the point where society becomes complacent, reliant on technology for all solutions, akin to the mythological “Lotus Eaters.” This vision may seem appealing, but reality paints a far grimmer picture.

 

Humanity faces unprecedented global threats, including wars, environmental disasters, climate change, overpopulation, food insecurity, inflation, and resource depletion. Therefore, it is imperative that AI be used judiciously—as a tool to support human endeavors rather than to replace them. Delegating all responsibilities to AI would disproportionately benefit capitalists seeking profit maximization, while eroding essential human traits such as critical thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. This is especially concerning education, where the overreliance on AI could undermine curiosity, discovery, and meaningful learning. Educators must lead the way in developing pedagogical approaches that harness the benefits of AI while keeping the human mind and heart at the center of the educational process. It is equally essential that teachers and classrooms evolve to meet the demands of a technologically advanced society, ensuring that learners are not only equipped with digital literacy but also empowered to think, question, and innovate.