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.