Group presentations II

Topics covered in class: Ebooks, nuclear power, weather forecasting, 3D technology and genetic engineering.

On Ebooks: I am personally in favour of ebooks because they can really change the conventional methods of learning and facilitate our way of life. I think one of the main advantages of ebooks is the searchability of information. Regular books have nothing like this to offer. When looking for information in a book, I'm sure we often find ourselves spending quite a bit of time browsing the pages because we have forgotten the exact page the information is on. Ebooks will help save us the time and trouble of doing this. Indeed, regular books have a content page and indexes to help us find the information we need, but they offer a very crude (and still tedious) solution to finding things within the same book. However, when advanced searches of phrases or words in proximity, or when searches in a library of books is involved, a paper book would not be able to be much of a help. The long, painful process of having to browse through each book one by one is still inevitable. Especially for students like myself, who need to do a lot of research, there is really no comparison between researching ebooks or doing it the traditional way of trying to find something useful in paper books. Ebooks would certainly go a long way in helping students gain access to the information they need much more accurately, and more efficiently.

Another more common advantage of having ebooks is the idea of a mobile library. With ebooks it is possible for us to have access to a complete library of books all the time, no matter where we go. Already, it is possible for us carry hundreds of ebooks in little flash memory cards or thumb drive. Regardless of where we go or stay, we can always have a library of knowledge with us. We can go up into the mountains and have a little hand held computer to give us access to the accumulated knowledge of our subject area of interest. Our thoughts can flow better and our research will be accurate, based on a vast reference library.

Ebooks would also be an economical way to frequently publish updated and corrected versions of books. For most hard copy books today, it is difficult for publishers to make corrections in errors in the books because the cost is too high. Corrections can be made easily and published and sent out immediately to a large audience. The ebook can be kept up to date and updates can be produced and distributed with a reasonable amount of work and cost.

Furthermore, I think a lot of improvements have been made to ensure that ebooks become user-friendly and suitable for our everyday needs. An example would be the issue of the short battery life of ebooks. However, current developments have demonstrated the ability to overcome this limitation: eReaders. eReaders are slim screens about the size of a thin hardback and they use a special technology technology is called ePaper, which is what makes a changeable, computer-style screen possible without the use of backlighting. No electricity is used to preserve the image on an eReader, so long battery lives are easily attainable. As the image is created simply by reflecting light, ePaper can achieve a contrast ratio similar to newspaper print.

However, I feel that regular books should not be completely eradicated simply because a better and more convenient alternative has been developed. Traditional books still hold a lot of value in the hearts of people and I'm sure that they will continue to have an intangible connection with people in the same way they have done so for centuries. Thus, I feel that it is best for individuals to possess both ebooks and traditional books. When we need to do extensive research or travel long distances, we can tap into the convenience and mobility of books that ebooks offer. However, when we are at home or would just like to do some leisure reading, it is perhaps better to read traditional books. It is also healthier for our eyes to read traditional books than stare at the screen of an ebook. People today still appreciate the physical nature, the touch and feel of traditional books and it is unlikely that this feeling wans as we move into the future. Ebooks should be seen as complements to traditional books and not replacements.

Overall rating: 7/10

Group presentations I

This week's lesson covered the topics of cosmetic surgery, cybercrime and water.

Some thoughts:
Earlier on this year, the UN declared that access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basic human right. I managed to find some pretty cool technologies that have been invented to make clean, drinkable water out of  undrinkable water:

Lifesaver Bottles: They were initially designed to help of natural disasters. Today, they come in many  shapes and sizes and are being used around the world to help people gain access to safe, drinkable water without the need of complex machinery and filtration systems. This technology would give a possible solution to providing drinkable water for those in developing countries or water-scarce areas.


Lifestraw: It takes dirty water and through the use of a filter in the straw, turns it into safe drinking water. It is also very very cheap, at $3-$4 a piece.


These two inventions seem to have one thing in common, they are disruptive technologies. They have made water more accessible to those who do not have the financial ability or infrastructure to gain access to safe,drinkable water. The invention of disruptive technologies is thus probably the most effective short-term solution for those who have no access to drinkable water due to natural disasters, war or poverty.

If water is so precious and essential for survival, I wonder why it was not established as a basic human right until now? This then begs the question: Why was the right to water contentious in the first place? I think there a few reasons for this. The first is that water is a scarce resource, so for countries that have an abundant supply of water resources, making water a human right would bring up fears that they would have to share their water supplies with others. The next reason would be the privatisation of water. Water would no longer be commoditised and would cease to be profitable anymore. Many companies that provide water supplies will no longer make as much money as before. Some may even close down and many employees will be out of a job. Furthermore, nobody likes to be told how much water they can use, even knowing that those in the developed world use much more water than those in developing countries.

Overall rating 6/10

Technology Assessment and Forecasting

Today's lesson talked about the different methods by which we can forecast and assess technology. We learnt about technology road-mapping and PTAs. We also identified the various drivers of technology assessment. These include limited resources and the exponential growth of new technologies with potential world changing significance.

Just to add on to the point about cultural stickiness: I think many companies today are seeing the importance of taking cultural considerations into account. Anthropologists and ethnographers are finding it easier to find jobs with high-tech companies. I think these companies see the value of using the highly developed skills of anthropologists as observers to study how people live, work and use technology. These anthropologists can understand their users and find new products and markets the engineers never dreamed of. Intel for example, was looking into designing a computer chip that can withstand a blast from a deck hose. Even major technology universities are beginning to recognise the importance of considering cultural implications when forecasting the impact of a certain technology. The University of California, Irvine, and Georgia Tech are some examples of Universities that have included ethnographic training as part of their computer science degree programs.

Science fiction: Often, it is said that science fiction can predict the future and that we use science fiction as inspiration for the future. However, I think the sci-fi stories and scenarios tell us much more about our pasts and our present than it does about the future. The models used by Sci-fi writers have been extrapolated from the present situation using information gathered from past events, and they can be innately flawed because our human brain has its limitations. Even the computer models and mathematical formulas built using rules devised by human brains are equally subject to these shortcomings.  Furthermore, even if the authors' technical predictions are correct, the society is often wrong. Future societies inevitably display the unquestioned assumptions of the present, such as women's current role or the hot political issues of the day. Once again, this ties into the idea that technology is easy but people are hard. There are many unintended effects of technology. These failures occur because the social impact of disruptive technologies is nearly impossible to predict. Home computers led to video games and the Internet led to the World Wide Web, spam, and viruses. It's easy to imagine a social change from any major technological change, but the number of possibilities is so great and the impact of unpredictable aspects of the human psyche so significant that correctly predicting which social changes will occur is much harder. Thus, while many of us believe in a future by watching sci-fi movies, it is actually difficult to achieve the exact same type of technology (and its effects) in real life. Furthermore, it is a reflection of the kind of lives we led in the past and less so of a prediction for the future.

Open source networks in forecasting: I really think that We are at a time where technological innovation is moving at an exponential rate. We simply cannot afford to have years to study the implications of every new emerging technology. An open source approach to technology assessment, particularly online public consultation, will provide the necessary speed and agility. They will be increasingly matter and be critical to proactive strategies and policies and competitiveness. It would also lower the costs of technology assessment. Many of those who participate in open source networks do so with the willingness to contribute their time based on the intangible rewards associated with solving tricky problems and the status achieved in doing so. These people do not request to be paid as in conventional technology assessment methods where companies pay consultants to analyse their company's technology.

Key Takeways:

1. We need to work backwards from the future instead of projecting from the present. We need to ask ourselves what we'd like to see in future and then assess what needs to be changed now in order to achieve that vision.
2. Roadmapping plays an important role in predicting the success of technology. What is more important is that we have the intellectual honesty to accept the need to change when we realise that something is not going to work. Only when we embrace our mistakes and start taking proactive steps to make those changes can we capture the full potential of our technologies.

Overall rating: 7/10

New & Emerging Technologies

Today's lesson covered the various kinds of new and emerging technologies that are sure to revolutionise the way we do things, perhaps even in the following years to come. We realise that there are so many creative and potentially groundbreaking ideas out there that are not receiving the attention that they deserve. We also learned about the 4 "Smarts": People, Ideas, Money and Alliances and Partnerships. People with the creativity and will to translate dreams into reality, ideas that can work, money to make the ideas happen and other people who have the necessary skills and expertise the innovator doesn't. Increasingly, we find that there are many social and ethical issues that will arise from the development and subsequent use of emerging technologies.

I think the idea of augmented reality is really fascinating and it's definitely the innovation I'm most looking forward to. Apart from the idea of facilitating our movement around as presented in the video, augmented reality has a lot of potential implications on education and learning. When students go for excursions or field trips, they will be instantly able to view all the information pertaining to their surroundings. By supplementing existing worlds rather than create new ones, students will be able to understand the real world in context, comprehend what they learn better and even remembered it better as they can put a name or some information to an object. As augmented reality is likely to manifest in low-cost infrastructures like mobile phones, students will be able to move learning outside the classroom and into the spaces they are familiar with. They will then be able to form connections with their surroundings without the facilitation of a teacher, or having to spend much time on research. Augmented reality will also benefit students who miss classes, especially location-based classes, as the information they learn is easily accessible to them when they go out into their surroundings.

Having said that, while augmented reality's application into learning will be phenomenal, it is important to drive home the fact that teachers still play a crucial part to the learning process. The use of augmented reality applications should be seen as a supplement to daily teachings and not a replacement for the teacher. To realise the full potential of augmented reality, we must address the issue that most augmented reality projects rely on customised hardware. There is thus a need to ensure that the information presented inside augmented reality is constantly up to date and reliable.

Regarding the question on the positive or negative impact of Artificial Intelligence, I feel that it is really subjective. On one hand, these robots can perform tasks that are dangerous, complex or stressful in place of humans, perform them more efficiently and more accurately. On the other hand, they will blur the lines between human and robot and give rise to a variety of ethical questions and redefine human (or even robot) rights. Whether it will be for the better or worse really depends on what we choose to use artificial intelligence for and how we use the knowledge. One of the readings for this lesson aptly points out the greatest difficulty in predicting the impacts of these new technologies. That is, once the technical and commercial feasibility of emerging technologies is demonstrated, subsequent developments are just as much in the hands of the users as in those of the innovator. So new technologies like Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology can affect society in ways not intended by those who created them. What the world really needs is wisdom. And once again, technology is easy and people are hard. Judging from all the ethical and social debate about the uses of new and emerging technologies despite their groundbreaking nature, I too truly believe that our technology has exceeded our humanity.

Key Takeaway: Many emerging technologies are within our reach and they hold many promises for a better and more convenient life. However, we still lack the capacity to deal with the potential ethical and social issues that may arise

Overall Rating: 7/10

Energy and World Change

Today we covered a topic that is so predominant, and so relevant in many aspects of our lives: Energy. Energy makes the world go round. Without it, we'd be left in complete darkness, frozen to death and unable to operate our vehicles. The next Industrial Revolution is clear to us all: We will see a transition from our current use of unsustainable energy resources to sustainable energy resources like renewables. Green technologies will work on increasing the energy efficiency, so that we can power more appliances per kilowatt of energy, and reducing the pollution of current technologies.

I personally don't like the idea of nuclear energy being a main source of energy in the future, especially in a tiny island in Singapore. No matter how many safety features a nuclear plant has installed, and no matter how many times a nuclear plant has been proven to be safe by scientists, I still feel that there is no guarantee of our safety when it comes to the use of radioactive material like uranium. As they always claim, science has many unexpected results. I, for one, wouldn't want to see what unexpected results lie ahead with nuclear energy. Yes, I agree that the two main nuclear disasters in the past were not due to the technology within the nuclear plants but rather, the people who constructed and operated the plants. The disaster at Chernobyl resulted because the soviet union tried to cut corners in construction to save money and the nuclear incident at Three Mile Island resulted from an error by the operator guy. Yes, the plant itself may be safe for use but human error is unavoidable, and there are many unforeseen circumstances out there that are not within our control. I definitely wouldn't want to take that chance of making a mistake while operating a nuclear plant because even the smallest percentage of error/accident can be culminate in the extermination of an entire town or even an entire state.  Another concern is the leakage of radioactive waste. Nuclear plants emit some radioactivity into the air and water during operation but these releases are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, there have been examples in the past few years of unauthorised  release of radioactive waste into groundwater. Although very few have resulted in detectable increases in radioactivity in public drinking water, more problems could arise if this is uncorrected.

No doubt, nuclear energy would prove to be a very viable resource alternative once it can e proven to reach the same efficiency level as our current energy sources. However, I feel that it would defeat the purpose of using sustainable energy if we wipe ourselves in the process of using it.

Having said that, I am not completely against the idea of using nuclear energy. I just feel that they should not be a main energy resource especially for Singapore. If a nuclear plant was built in Singapore and an accident would happen, our entire island could be wiped out in seconds! Countries that should be exploring nuclear energy are those that have extensive land mass or mountainous regions and hence enough land to build buffer zones for the nuclear plants or have then built in caverns. Countries like the United States, especially, have these resources. For these countries, I feel that nuclear energy is viable because damage would be minimised even in the event of a massive nuclear explosion. Small countries like Singapore may not be so lucky. For Singapore, I think it would be more viable to invest in osmotic power and solar energy rather than nuclear plants, or buy nuclear energy from other countries.

Here's a video I found on a possible alternative source to uranium for nuclear power:

Discovery-News.com: Power From A Floating Metal Donut @ Yahoo! Video

Key Takeaways:

1. Short-step objectives vs Long Stretch objectives: There is value in both. Short-step objectives give people more confidence and inspires them to keep improving in small bites because they are easily achievable and realistic. Long stretch objectives, on the other hand, may seem like over-ambitious goals but they encourage a whole new perspective and way of doing things. It forces people to rethink and reinvent current methods in an entirely different way because we would be unable to achieve that target using these current methods.
2. In order to safeguard the rights of developing countries, developed countries should enter a mutual agreement with them when they decide to build energy plants in developing countries. This includes energy security for the developing countries (a guaranteed portion of the energy produced,), job security, revenue and training and expertise transfer to the locals.
3. It is important for developing countries to address short term issues like food and water supplies. However, they despite the lack of funds, developing countries should also invest in long-term issues like sustainable energy production because they would never progress if they choose not to do so. The challenge then is to get the right balance between the two.

Overall rating: 9/10

Biobusiness: Agriculture and the Environment

Today we recognised and addressed the concern that in light of the world's skyrocketing population, there is a growing constraint on food supply. We established that GM food may very well be the solution to this problem. It increases the productivity of food production processes and increases the yield of our crops without compromising on the the resources available for our future generations. Furthermore, the promises of GM food include crops that can be genetically engineered to provide human nutrition, crops that are resistant to environmental stresses and pests, and crops that are capable of producing vaccines or antibodies (Biopharming). Prof also introduced the "Structure, Function and Application" model where the success of any technology requires the transition of hard facts and knowledge into appropriate innovations that change the world. Increasingly, we find that more research is now being done in the area of waste management; how we can recycle our wastes, convert it back to raw materials and even use it as an energy source, such that we develop a sustainable production cycle (Eg. Flash Pyrolysis).

Some thoughts:

The problem of feeding millions of malnourished and undernourished people in developing countries is rife. Undoubtedly, GM food will play a crucial role in helping to nourish these people because with genetic engineering we are now able to develop crops that express certain nutrients originally not expressed in parent breeding lines, or nutrients that need to be increased in the amount needed to improve nutrition. Certainly, GM crops that have been tested to be viable should not be withheld from these poor people. However, I personally feel that there are limitations as too how far GM food can help re-nourish these people to a healthy state. Many of the GM foods currently available are specialised to contain a high amount of just one particular nutrition (Like Vitamin A for Golden Rice). Unfortunately, people suffering from one nutrient deficiency will also most likely be suffering from other nutrient deficiencies. Thus, at present, even if the GM foods reach developing countries, how successful will its tackling of one nutrient deficiency be when we are concerned with the lack of so many nutrients. The next step, and challenge, in genetically engineered food research is probably to try and pack a full meal's worth of nutrients into a stable crop like rice or corn. At the same time, we need to genetically engineer these crops to have a longer shelf life such that they can be kept for a longer period without going bad. Having said that, such research and development may take a considerably long time as most of the work today is still mainly focused on developing GM foods containing a high amount of a particular nutrient. Perhaps it would be more effective if we encouraged people to have a balanced diet including green leafy vegetables, fruits and proteins. That being said, more effort has to be put into making these other dietary essentials more accessible to them. 

Next,  GM food cannot and will not be the only answer to malnutrition. There are many reasons why people suffer from malnutrition; the situation is not as straightforward as many people make it out to be. It isn't a simple problem of people just not having enough food to eat because they are poor. Many of the poor remain so because there is also a lack of infrastructure, poor government involvement and initiative, civil wars, military dictatorships, lack of accessibility to markets etc etc. Efforts cannot be limited to GM foods. We need to have huge legal reforms to ensure an appropriate political structure for the distribution of resources, in particular food. Governments need to distribute arable/ productive land effectively and ensure that the poor get all the help they can get to possess basic necessities. Governments also need to encourage its people to diversify their diets and help them gain access to technologies and modern practices that will enable them to grow crops/animals rich in nutrients. The international community also needs to play their part by supporting the development of GM foods, bringing in and teaching locals useful technologies and encouraging its use in developing countries. There is only so much that GM foods can do to solve malnutrition. What the poor really need are, on top of GM foods, the knowledge and accessibility to technology that can enable them to independently grow their crops at a high yield. 

With regard to waste management, I feel that while many today strongly believe in the need to use alternative fuels (renewable sources) that have a less harmful impact on the environment, we also should not forget the need to improve on the currently flawed systems of waste disposal.  Turning to alternative fuels is easy because there isn't much of a change process; we just replace one fuel for another. However, the fact remains that such alternative fuels have yet to be developed or discovered (at least for natural resources) in large quantities to meet current energy requirements. Hence, at least for the short term, there is a more important need to improve on our current systems of waste disposal ie. while we are using the same energy sources like oil and coal and emitting the same type of harmful gases, we have to develop a method or technologies that minimise the emission of greenhouse gases or convert these harmful gases into less harmful ones. For example, there has been recent developments in the area of the disposal of gaseous exhaust from industrial processes.  Scientists are currently in the process of developing a system that separates carbon dioxide from flue gas, mimicking the human respiratory system. 


Key Takeaways:

1. To achieve sustainability, we really need to look into methods that enable us to convert waste products back into raw materials and ensure strict waste management programmes to reduce harm on the environment. 
2. We need biotechnology to achieve food security in the long run. With biotechnology, feeding the entire population on earth is no longer a myth. The challenges that biotechnology needs to address is, less of developing the GM crop per se and more of getting people to accept GM foods and enabling those we really need it to have access to the right technology.
3. I was particularly intrigued by the idea of using algae as a bio-fuel and how modern methods have enabled the growth of algae in 'closed tanks' which do not require sunlight. I am convinced of the promise of algae as a bio-fuel and I really think that this could be a very viable alternative energy source.

Overall Rating: 8/10

BioBusiness: Health Care and Biomedical Science

Today's lesson focused on the shift in the methods of healthcare provision towards remote consultation and customised medicine, how the integration of medical and communication technologies helps to facilitate this process, and finally the reinforcement of the individual's role in taking responsibility for their own health. We also distinguished Biotechnology from BioBusiness; BioBusiness is commercial activity based on an understanding of life science and its processes, and the idea of taking advantage of biological systems to engage in commercial activity. Biotechnology is the application of our knowledge in biology into products and using that knowledge to create the appropriate technology. Finally, we also uncovered the disturbing fact that healthcare costs in USA already account for more than 50% of the world's total healthcare expenditure.

Some thoughts:

1) The article on disruptive innovations is particularly memorable because it had a lot of sense to it. It made me realise that the answer to all our woes about expensive healthcare costs is very much within our reach. Yet, this seems so far away with all the resistance. The examples of the camera, telephone and photocopier were very relevant and highlighted just how effective disruptive technologies can be in making what was once expensive and exclusive, into something that every man can do and have access to. I think it is also important to note that many disruptive technologies today are not pioneering technologies. For example, even though Google became a major search engine, it was not the first of its kind. In fact, there were 10 such search engines before Google came about and revolutionised the industry. Personally, I feel that acceptance is definitely going to be the greatest barrier to overcome before disruptive technologies can go mainstream. Change can be difficult, so a person has to be experiencing real pain in order to want change. A small change is easier for people to accept, rather than changes that will drastically affect the their lives. It will be hard to get people to bravely step away from the security of the status quo and to take the risk of embarking on something that will potentially transform the way they live their lives. And I don't blame people for hesitating; it is rather daunting to take up something that has no guaranteed success. Therefore, I think the most effective way to ensure that disruptive technologies go mainstream is qualm this uncertainty and certify disruptive technologies. This will reassure people of its potential benefits. The government can play a very important role in this. Perhaps the government could set up governmental bodies that deal specifically with the accreditation of disruptive technologies. They could run tests and do market researches to validate feasibility, run trials in selected agencies or in a selected group of people and then certify these technologies. It is also important that these bodies give the public a rough projection of the benefits associated with the application and implementation of such technology. Having said that, the government itself has to believe in the use of disruptive technology and be willing to take that leap of faith. Without the government's support, I feel that such technology will indeed mostly remain unacknowledged, which would be a very sad ending.

2) While I was doing some research on modern health care methods, I came across a very interesting pill bottle that reminds patients when it is time to take their medicine. It's called the GlowCap and it was developed by a company called Vitality. The GlowCap is an intelligent pill bottle that flashes a light when it is time for the patient to take his/her medicine. When the bottle is opened it sends telemetry back to a portal which can be used to track patient medication adherence. It also has an accompanying device that lights up, beeps and even make auto-generate phone calls to you house if you still forget to take your medication.


Vitality GlowCaps from Vitality on Vimeo.

This video ties in with what was mentioned in the video that prof posted, about how many of the patients today suffer from relatively low risk diseases/conditions that can be cured by a strict routine of medication, a healthy diet and exercise. The challenge is then to get these patients to stick to their exercise and drug therapy regimes. More innovative technologies like the GlowCap are sure to rise in the future and they will play a big part in helping us cope with low-risk diseases by ensuring that medication is taken when it is necessary.

Overall rating: 7/10

ICT and World Change

Today's lesson reinforced the pervasiveness of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) in our lives and how it will continue to have a long-lasting effect on the world. We examined the impact of ICTs on humans and also evaluated the extent of success of these technologies based on a variety of criteria from achieving a closely knitted world where everyone has access to the same kind of information to poverty alleviation.

Some thoughts regarding issues covered during the lesson:

1)  I actually agree with the author of Reading 1 that our greatest challenge in managing ICTs today is to balance control and freedom. ICTs can be a double-edged sword, as with any other technology. The great thing about ICTs is that it allows for the decentralisation and democratisation of information. People no longer find that they have only one source of information and for the first time ever, are allowed to select information, evaluate it and make judgements for themselves. There are even avenues for feedback which is crucial for any government or organisation that seeks to improve its policies for the betterment of the people. The empowerment of the people is something I think most developing countries need in order to develop a more diverse and knowledge-based economy. On the other hand, ICTs can also used by those in power to remain powerful or extend their control. The access of knowledge does not necessarily guarantee transformation in societies. As mentioned in class, technology is not always the solution. Without good management and proper processes, technology will serve no more a purpose than without it.

2) Prof's video on Project Natal was really enlightening because it was so amazing to see such ground-breaking technology incorporate aspects of our lives into the virtual world. The huge amount of detail and intricacy placed into Milo's personality, as well as his reactions to the interaction with Claire are just so astonishing...it was as if Milo really existed. It is indeed good to see such 'live' interaction between Milo and Claire: Claire could literally show Milo her drawing and Milo could react to it accordingly, based on her individual design, without relying on pre-programmed answers, thereby suggesting a kind of independent intelligence. However, while I do agree that such Immersive Technology can be applied to everyday life like a virtual caretaker for children when their parents are out or a virtual nurse to remind patients when it is time to take their medicine, it was a little disturbing for me to see technology step into the boundaries of the human realm (I'm probably living up to the quote "Technology is easy, People are hard"). I don't know about other people but I felt disturbed when the narrator described Claire feeling "so connected to Milo's world". The first thought that came to my mind was: If children were in contact with this technology, how would they be able to separate true reality from the virtual one? Would they grow up living in a fantasy world that is detached from reality?

No matter how close the similarities are between virtual humans and real humans, virtual humans are STILL virtual. They do not breathe, eat, sleep and can't be touched in the same way that real human beings do. Also, no matter how similar situations in the virtual world can be depicted to reflect real life, they can never, a hundred percent, be the real life. There are so many unintended and unexpected situations that arise in real life that require us to think on our feet and respond accordingly. This, I feel, is something that no machine can help us cope with, at least not entirely. The element of human touch is still very important and I feel it is important that we do not neglect it despite being overwhelmed with such immersive technology. I guess it all boils down to how extensive this technology is going to be used, how often it is going to be used, and in what circumstances it is going to be used. Using immersive technology for simulations (virtual laboratories, vocational training, educational games) and as back-up solutions are fine, but I think a virtual friend is really too much.

Key Takeaways:

• Cloud Computing and its prospects for the future of companies: Instead of spending loads of money on individual servers containing data for each individual company, information can now be accessible in a "Cloud". This extends to the idea of shared information between companies. While privacy is a concern, we find that companies can now choose to customise their own settings to ensure privacy. But still, it is important that these companies retain information which they think is valuable and always have back-up systems to ensure security. Cloud Computing decreases costs and increases reliability.

Overall Rating: 8/10

Drivers of World Change & Change Management

Today we examined the various factors that lead to world change: environmental drivers such as evolution (transformation from a baby into adult results in both physical and mental changes) and Germs (such as the Plague and it's devastating effects on Europe during the Dark Ages), Scientific Discovery, Globalisation and Changing expectations and tastes. Next, we talked about Change Management and summarised 3 ways by which we cope with change; We be pro-active and anticipate change before it arrives and make change happen, we be reactive and change only when required, or we remain in a state of ignorance and be "surprised" when change happens and cope with the consequences without doing anything significant. We also learned about the "Pessimism-Time Curve" where we have a tendency for positively perceived change by optimistic. However, that optimism inevitably transitions to  informed pessimism when reality proves to be different from our expectations. The peak of the curve is basically where we lose our expectations and hopes. Once communication steps up, we become hopeful again and we move on to "informed optimism", and finally "Completion". We also highlighted the difference between Leadership and Management where leadership provides the drive and means being at the forefront of change, guiding and leading people. Management on the other hand refers to the implementation of ideas to make that change a reality. Finally, the only true way to achieve success is to be courageous enough to take an unprecedented step forward, take the risk and embrace the possibility of failure when implementing change.

" Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly"   - Robert F. Kennedy

Drivers of World Change: In the article about the Zambian Construction Industry, the author talks about how changes in the world are transforming the landscape of the construction industry and raises some key strategies to further propel the industry forward. The construction industry is moving towards privatisation in order to tap into the benefits of a free-market and is starting to view the ensuing competition positively in the sense that it encourages innovation and a need to develop not just a local profile, but an international one as well.  I find it rather encouraging that even a backward country like Zambia is at least aware of the need to change the way it conducts business and is ready and willing to take that step forward to go against the status quo (government control) and incite positive changes in the construction industry. Undoubtedly, this goes to show how important change is to the survival of firms or whole industries in the national or even global arena. Sadly, it can be noted that not all firms choose to be pro-active and anticipate changes or even invoke changes. This is more of a case in countries with very tight and rigid governmental regulation and whose conservative governments fear losing power over the people should they open the economy and let newness into society. For some firms in developed countries, this may be applicable as well. But, if firms in a developing country like Zambia with a history of massive government control can acknowledge the need for change, there is little reason for firms in developed countries to think otherwise. Perhaps it is arrogance (the I-am-great-and-there-is-no-need-to-change mentality) that has caused some firms in developed countries to remain stagnant and remain satisfied with the status quo in their environment. This is rather dangerous because these firms may very well be eating their words when developing countries like China, India or maybe even Zambia catch up with them within the next few decades. This is exactly how fast change works.

Change Management: The reading "Human Change Management: herding Cats" is insightful and is very right in emphasising the importance of incorporating the "people factor" into change schemes not just superficially, but as a significant portion of the programme. Ultimately, it is the people who make up the organisation and make an organisation work. What's the use of having excellent managers with great strategical plans when you don't have staff to carry out and implement the plan in order to achieve the large-scale effect  of this change. I feel that empathy is key to change management because it means that managers know their employees, understand their needs and seek to reconcile the needs of the organisation with the concerns of their employees. This will make the employees feel valued by the company and increases their loyalty and commitment to the company, thereby even increasing their productivity and positive response to the change. I think the reasoning underlying all this is the fact that people resist change because they feel that they are not in control or when there are associated risks at a personal level. Managers should acknowledge this and ensure that their employees' concerns are addressed in order to facilitate smooth and successful progression and the development to better employee-employer relationships.

Key Takeaways:

1. Brain Drain vs Brain Flux: The notion of the best minds from developing countries flocking toward developed countries for better opportunities thereby resulting in a lack of academics in developing countries is untrue. Increasingly, we see that the best from developing countries are returning to their home countries to catalyse change and help bring them out of poverty.
2. CIOs today are not only concerned with the IT infrastructure of the company but with business strategies as well. In order for CIOs to come up with better IT infrastructure, it is important that they are aware of the way business is carried out in their company in the first place. The crucial role of the CIO now is to find ways to incorporate IT into business strategies, particularly to improve its service and cut costs.

Overall rating: 8/10

Sustainable Development & Innovation Management

Today we talked about technology's role in aiding countries toward sustainable development and how countries/societies manage the use to technology to achieve their purposes. Sustainable development is development in which we maximise the use of resources to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the options and resources available of our future generation. As observed, there is currently a phenomenal shift from a ''Linear" mindset, in which we are only concerned about turning raw materials into end products, to a "Cyclical" mindset, in which we now internalise the externalities, fully access the impact of industrial activities on all aspects of society and work towards more sustainable methods. Interestingly, where the area of development is concerned, we discover that there is an "advantge in backwardness".  Countries/companies that lag behind their counterparts have the advantage of not having to go through the pain of inventing, experimenting and validating the use of a certain technology. All they have to do is simply take it and build on the technology to their benefit. This is then illustrated by the different generations of Asian '' Tigers''.  For innovation management, we covered the issue of how failure is an inevitable fact of innovation, and how taking this risk is the only way companies or governments can successfully translate "cloud'' opportunities to ''summit'' opportunities. Failure is also the only way in which companies learn from their mistakes and improve themselves. In order for them to be at the forefront of the technological race, it is a necessity, not a choice, that these people constantly re-invent and further develop their products or new products.

Our current age is one where capitalism permeates every corner of society. It is the basis on which a business organisation is built upon. And since we are talking about sustainable development in our current age, what  then is the relationship between capitalism and sustainable development? Capitalism is an economic system that rotates around the idea of individual rights. Where business is concerned, this translates to mean that the production of goods is privately owned and owners (usually a minoruty of the population) of these organisations have the right to operate them in a way that maximises their profits. The government has no say in decisions regarding the business organisations such as supply, prices or demand. Under this system,  there is the capitalist and working class. Profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what the working class produces than what they cost in the labour market. Today, we see that capitalism is convicting itself, not so much because of the financial crisis, but because it is polluting and depleting natural resources in its insane pursuit of profits. As a result, we see many NGOs and people condemning the Corporation as they come under increasing international scrutiny.

Today, we see a change in the mindset of the capitalist as seen in how many business organisations have now embarked on a corporate social responsibility crusade of sorts. Additionally, we see a shift in power from the government to the Corporation. The days of companies "privatizing the profits" and governments "socializing the losses" are now gone. These organisations realise that the only way it can save itself is by respecting nature's limits. Increasingly, companies no longer see nature as a pure investment opportunity and have come to realise that a healthy environment forms the bedrock for a healthy economy. The fundamental question facing capitalism now is how it can reform itself in a world experiencing both ecological and economic stress. The answer to that lies in the effort Corporations put into sustainable development. In fact, as the Corporation begins taking a more humane stance, we observe that there could be many benefits associated with the transfer of power from the government to the private sector. Firstly, CSR makes sense especially to larger firms because arguably they, they have the necessary resources and connections to the market to ensure that CSR gets carried through to the end. In some countries, the corporations are even larger then the countries themselves! There is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy for the government and thus, they may not be as efficient in carrying out environmental activites as the private sector. Secondly, as consumers become more environmentally aware, they would want to choose products that are environmentally friendly or that the product that they would be paying for would go to a good cause. Corporations acknowledge this and know that they can also use CSR to get brownie points from consumers and boost their reputation. There is thus a lot of incentive for the Corporation to engage in CSR.

However, ultimately capitalism is still profit-driven. I think the only true way we can marry the two realms of capitalism and sustainable development is to change people's consumption behaviour because it is the people, the customers of these corporations, who affect the way these companies do their businesses. As we established during class, innovation should be market-driven and in order to completely change companies' perspective on meeting environmental needs and make sustainable development to be achievable, we should first and foremost change our consumption behaviour and create an even BIGGER demand for green products. We, as individuals, have to take responsibility and live within nature's biocapacity before the "system" can adjust and adapt, thereby fulfilling the cycle of  sustainable development. 

Key Takeways:

1. Change can present dangers to some while opportunities to others. It is a double-edged sword.
2. Globalisation can lead to innovation. This because as you open up the country, you are exposed to a variety of ideas and opinions. Competition also increases with globalisation. This provides a lauchpad for innovation. Conversely, innovation can lead to globalisation as seen in the use of telecommunications and modern transport system to facilitate the movement of goods, people and ideas across geographical boundaries.

Overall rating: 6/10 ( the lesson was a bit too fast today)

Technology and Human Development

Today's lesson comprised of two parts: Technology, Society & Global Dominance and Technology & Human Development. For the former, we discussed the characteristics that define a society/company as a dominant leader in their respective fields; It has have an open perspective with a willingness to learn despite whatever stereotype they have of others, accept the need to change and have a positive mindset. On the other hand, those that rest on their laurels, isolate themselves and get carried away with arrogance end up lagging behind their counterparts. We then explored the area of military technological dominance in the form of US Hegemony as well as how Henry Ford's assembly line laid down the foundations of modern day industrial processes. For the latter, we were introduced to the Millennium Development Goals and explored the implications of globalisation on developing countries (why there still is an imbalance despite efforts to transfer technological knowledge to them).

Human development, in particular, interests me because a significant idea in the realm of human development involves the conversion of basic social needs into human rights. Wikipedia defines human development as a model which measures the creation of an environment where people can maximise their potential and "lead productive, creative lives in accordance with their needs and interests." What then is the difference between a need and a right? Is a need necessarily a right? I think a need is something you as a person decide to require while a right is something which you are entitled too because it is something you are born with or have earned. We can say that we need to feel accepted by others but nobody says that they have a right to be accepted by others. The idea of a right implies some form of enforcement. That means there will be punishment for those who fail to give others their rights. You can't say you have a right to be accepted by others because nobody has the right to punish them if they don't.

I think a huge part of human development has to do with rights more so than needs, and replacing basic needs with rights is essential. This then leads me to my next question: who decides what a right is? To me, a need is not a right until it has been decided to be so by one group of  people, namely the government. This highlights the importance of good government  in order for countries to attain a certain level of human development. Hence, technology is not the only driving force. The government plays an instrumental role in guiding the use of technology. Also, we need to identify the kind of rights people should have before we can decide the kind of technology we should use to improve the lives of these people should they not have access to this right, thereby using technology to protect their rights.  For example, what's the point of having super advanced medical equipment if it has been decided by the authorities that people do not have a right to healthcare?

Key Takeaways:

1. The presentation on the implications of globalisation on human development gave me a new perspective on why most technologies are not suitable for developing countries ie. emerging technologies reflect concerns of the rich, not the poor because the rich provide funding for the research and development and therefore set the agenda for the use of these technologies.
2. Coming back to the issue of whether developed countries have an obligation to share their knowledge with developing countries, I feel that developed countries are now more open to sharing their knowledge not just because they have a moral obligation, but also because they face international scrutinisation. Many non-government organisations and welfare groups make it a point to openly condemn developed countries and pressure them into helping developing countries since they form the bulk of the wealth in this world. Similar to corporate social responsibility, these people feel that developed countries with great power have a responsibility to contribute back to society especially in light of the glaring atrocities and consequences colonialism had on these developing countries.
3. In the transfer of technology, there is the 'hard' part and the 'soft' part. Hard part refers to the knowledge, instructions and scientific facts. Soft part includes fact-to-face training and correct application.

Overall rating: 8/10

Yali's Question (Part 2)

Yali's Question:
So we've all debunked the genetic answer to Yali's question because we all know that there are just as many, if not more intelligent people amongst black people than there are white. We are all subject to the same natural process when it comes to genetics. Hence, where the innate ability is concerned, black people have just as much a chance of being born intelligent as white people have being born dumb.

Why do some societies acquire technology and wealth while others don't? Some of my own takes:

1. Accessibility to the available resources:  We all know that in order to make something, we need the necessary raw materials. If so, could it be that it was the white people who had the necessary raw materials (i.e minerals like iron) to invent and develop "cargo"?
2. Could there be religious concerns?: Perhaps there is a religious explanation for the way some societies have seemed so technologically backward. For example, the Amish people. These conservative christians are aware of the worth of technology in terms of developing tools of utility and convenience. However, they shun away from specific technologies because they feel that it harms the peace of mind that exists only when they walk with God. Iran also banned Youtube because of religious concerns, claiming it as immoral. Perhaps this religious motivation leads us onto another possible answer to Yali's question: Choice. What if some societies remain satisfied with their current backward way of life and would like to keep the status quo, like the aboriginal Australians mentioned or even the Maori's of New Zealand. 
3. Political ethos: Some countries, especially in totalitarian states, a government may purposely ban the use of certain technology in order to retain it's authoritative power or because of conservative reasons. With the advent of the Internet comes the democratisation and rapid dissemination of information, which means that people have access to information like never before. This empowers people and gives them a voice. Some governments do not like the idea of their people doing so. Examples of conservative reasons include india banning youtube because of offensive videos of ghandi.   

Key Takeaways:

1. Innovation is invention followed by its implementation. Only when a designed product is successfully integrated into society and sold in organised markets can we call it innovation.
2. Technology is easy, people are hard. Technology is there for us to use and is easy to use. However, people are the ones who determine the success of this technology. They have the power to decided whether to use it or not and in what way. It is also a matter of people accepting the technology.

Overall rating: 5/10 (Not because it was bad or anything! Just that we spent half the class introducing ourselves and that I was very nervous since it was my first class in smu :/)

Yali's Question (Part 1)

 Topics covered today:

1.  The impact of technology on world change. Note that some technologies do not lead to world change. 
2. How did the world achieve the disparity in power we see today?

 The origin of Yali's question and why we feel the White man is superior:


Yali's question revolves around the idea that the White man is more powerful than any other. Of course today, I'm sure there are instances where we frown at people who come across as pro-white even if they aren't White themselves because it seems so shallow. But really, society can't be blamed for the preconceived notion of White Man supremacy because of the way history has been presented to us. Since young, we have learnt that many scientific and technological breakthroughs have been directly, or somehow indirectly linked with White people. Thomas Edison, The Wright Brothers and Alexander Fleming are just some of the many White people who have contributed significantly to the betterment of people's lives with their ground-breaking inventions and technological discoveries. The first atomic bomb was developed by Whites. The first flush toilet was also developed by Whites. Whites have also been known to dominate the artistic world.: Artists like Michaelangelo and Salvador Dali; Poets like Shakespeare and Musicians like Mozart and Paganini. There are so many things today that we have to be thankful to the Whites for and as a result, I think we have every right to feel that the White man is indeed powerful.


On top of that, I believe that we have all reached a point in time where we can go beyond the historical facts. Personally, I feel we have a great respect for Eurasians, not because of their glorious historical background, but because we like the perspectives they bring, the creativity they exude and how they can live their lives with such zest and carefreeness. I'm sure many non-white people who have interacted with white people would agree that they've had a positive experience. While I'm not implying that all white people are great beings, I do believe that on a general level, our experience with them tells us that they are something different and that only serves to support the historical facts of white man supremacy, leading most of us to really subscribe to the above mentioned idea. 


Of course, Yali's question might hold less relevance now given the rise of many Asian countries like Japan and Korea. The face of the world is changing and just as many economists have predicted, China and India may very well soon become the new powerhouses of this era. In fact, the recent downfall of the great american financial institutions and the budget crisis of european nations hold testimony to the fact that the White man is definitely NOT omnipotent. I'm sure Yali would have been very relieved to hear that.