week 12 & 13: reflections on group presentations

My group: Cryonics

It was a lot of fun preparing our web report and presentation. At the start, our group wanted to choose a topic that was something we were all curious about but knew nothing much of. Hence cryonics seemed like the perfect idea. Learning about the opposing view points and trivia facts not only peaked our interest, but brought us all to the conclusion that we are accepting of crynocists, but it was not an ideal for any of us.

Our debate-style presentation was enjoyable for us in the sense that we were engaging one another.

Other groups:

My general thoughts are that the presentation showed preparations and the content and design of the web reports were often innovative and engaging. We also learned that, because people have little time thus leading to short attention spans, the whole point of a website is for it to be aesthetically attractive and interactive in order to capitvate audiences to explore more of one's website, beyond the home page.

It was also impressive that some groups, like the first group (Kar-Men's) and the Ting Tongs (who presented on music) had interesting ideas and action plans on how to make real and profitable changes. It displayed how much they had learnt through Prof's way of teaching us to be change leaders.

Other groups such as Bernadette's and Szecindyo's groups gave me insights to other ways to capture an audience:

- font! even a small detail such as using an interesting font is crucial in adding overall aesthetic appeal

- fun and uncommon animations become memorable

- comprehensive information, when provided succinctly will ensure the website is informative and useful for readers to learn more

Lastly, Marcus's group showed how injecting humour into one's presentation will maintain audiences' interest.

In summary, the last two weeks in TWC for me was about creating better web designs, using them to effectively convey one's message in an interesting manner, and finding out even more about the various topics covered.

The motif of change

Over the weeks learning and reflecting about Tech & World Change (TWC), my appreciation for looking into the future and preparing for technology advancements has grown tremendously. Before, my mindset was a passive one, I always thought that I was in no position to evaluate current research because I did not have the expertise needed to be a strong influence in cutting edge technological fields. I realised that this thinking was nonsense! Thankfully, great scientists need great people around them, including businessmen, patent lawyers, sales and marketing people, investors etcetera. As reading 2 brought up, even the imagination of sci-fi writers could be the inspiration for world change. Also crucially, TWC is not just about high-tech. Just as often the most influential thinkers in the world use simpler ideas (“lower tech”) to better the way we live and work in massive ways. These ideas include design and infrastructure.

With this newfound clarity, I began to question last week how we could predict the most promising drivers of change. Reading 1 opened my eyes to the fact that there is no one way of undergoing tech assessment; that there is a whole variety out there waiting to be used. Prof also stated that each specific tech would require a judgement on which assessment techniques would best be used.

Some techniques that I found interesting were the Delphi technique and the use of scenarios. The former is under the subset of opinion measurement, in which one records the forecasts of experts, known as “Genius Forecasting”. The problem that arose was that these experts regretted what they said in recording most of the time, and disparities in viewpoints were difficult to resolve. The Delphi technique also involves a pool of experts but there are rounds of iteration added on to the process. At the end, data analysers would find the median of all the viewpoints. Secondly, I also found imaging scenarios to be a highly effective way to think about how people would respond to new tech that are introduced into the market. It reminded me of how technology does not exist in a vacuum, but is intricately interknit with all other aspects of society like politics, economy, social, ethics, philosophy, environment etcetera.

In class, Prof showed the video “Future, tech and the next 50 years megatrends” in which the narrator runs through a substantial list of some of the most exciting and promising technologies that we have discussed previously. At the end, Prof posed to us “Are you ready for the future?”, which I found to be thought-provoking. What does he actually mean? My interpretation is: Have we bothered to look at all the future possibilities and thought about where the world is headed? Are we positioning ourselves at the forefront of change and are we the ones who will try and safeguard the world from adverse side-effects of change? After giving it some thought, I found that it is true that people are most often getting stuck in past or present problems, and in effect they fail to see how much more hopeful and exciting the future is so long as they pay more attention to getting to that desired future. We can solve present problems and not repeat the same past mistakes if we were to carefully consider and bring about desirable change for the future!

This idea reinforces the class discussion about the need for change in organisations through paradigm shifts and strategic visioning. Prof gave the example of FedEx to illustrate paradigm shifts. FedEx started out as a delivery company aiming to provide the fastest and reliable courier service. Now, it has changed its self-image into that of a logistics firm. Paradigm shifts are an important means to restructure and move forward. As companies interact with so many “outsiders” like consumers, suppliers and potential shareholders, they need to change in accordance with all these peoples’ needs and preferences. If they do not constantly adapt to the rapidly changing world, they will stay stagnant or even more likely, become irrelevant and die out. In the class discussion about strategic visioning and the video shown just before that, the message that we should work back from the future rather than work from the past and present was emphasised. The speaker in the video states that the latter is a form of “corporate madness”, because reliance on the past is a poor and inaccurate indicator for the future. There is a need for organizations to break away from today’s thinking and foresee future developments.

That being said, the past and present comparison is useful for us to understand how we got here in this first place; the trends that are currently changing the world. But beyond that, being constrained by present challenges will restrict the world from achieving a possible ideal.

The future looks fun (and scary?)!

This week’s TWC lesson was so rich in the amount of promising technologies for the near or far future and general insights with regards to these Future and Emerging technologies (FETs)! It truly impressed upon me how much the wheels of technology is pushing towards change at every single moment, and how fun and useful it is for us to look at all these possibilities to make human life better.

Firstly, the famous quotes that prof mentioned to us in class were insightful and made me think a lot about them:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand”- Albert Einstein

I get what Einstein was trying to put across- that the power of imagination is immense; without it, knowledgeable people will be stunted and cannot progress themselves or the world. This I agree with fully, and am growing to appreciate and admire the creative pioneers who are pushing at the forefront of technology today. That being said, I’m still sceptical about Einstein’s quote, as I believe knowledge is just as important as imagination, rather than less important. Without knowledge, it would be extremely difficult for individuals to put their imaginative ideas into words or actions. Knowledge allows us to gauge how much our imaginations would work in the real world, decide on which projects to undertake that would reap the most success, and think up ways to realise our imaginations and overcome obstacles in the process. To me, knowledge is very often essential for us to make real change for the world or community.

“Innovation distinguishes the leader from the follower”- Steve Jobs

What Steve Jobs said was powerful to me. A follower works within a paradigm, whereas a leader works to push beyond it, and shift other’s paradigms. It made me think about the kind of worker I wanted to be when I graduated. It goes without saying that we all want to be leaders. But saying that is easy, whereas being bold, innovative, flexible and open is another thing altogether. I will work towards cultivating these attitudes within me.

A most interesting idea that was brought up in class was that of human-robot romantic relationships. The idea simply appalled me! How can we fall in love with something that isn’t even alive?! We deem it wrong to love animals or plants in that way, what more machines?

Some points that were brought up that could possibly propose the idea would be that robots are becoming more human-like, whilst humans are becoming more robot-like. Lisa, “the perfect woman” looks very much like a woman (albeit her actions are still more robotic), has an IQ of 130 which means she is capable of intellectual conversation, and can do housework, massages, and prepare meals. In essence, she is able to do all the chores a housewife does, and better- she doesn’t argue, is completely subservient and agreeable. Does this mean she is better than human? To me, to be married or be in love with a machine that does not have the same emotional capacity to love me back is simply lonesome and undesirable. It’s sad that the inventors of Lisa or men who want to buy Lisa would think that a slave-robot is someone they could love. What does it say about their values?

On the other hand, prof brought to our attention that humans already have things like prosthetic legs, metal chips within them, even antibodies etcetera. Since we already have metal within our bodies, what of metals and more advanced devices being implanted into our brains or other parts of the body to enhance our quality of life? In reading 4, Mike Adams states a very interesting belief that we are all walking museums; outdated hardware that was meant for the stone ages, since we still share 98% of our genetic make-up with apes. His idea is that our human bodies are not suited for the environment of the 21st century, and that genetic engineering could become a major area in healthcare in the future.

If we extrapolate the above 2 trends, does this mean robots and humans will eventually be similar? This might be talking too far into the future, but philosophically, this is wrong. Healthcare and genetic engineering should not extend human life to that of robotic status, which means that we extend life to an extreme extent of over a 110 years. We must also ensure that robots do not go out of human control, and start controlling us. This highlights what can be said of many cutting-edge technologies in development today- the potential for benefits are immense, but so are the possibilities for misuse or abuse that lead to catastrophic consequences. I believe that scientists and researchers have to keep this in mind and thread with caution.

Lastly, the idea that technology does not just involve higher level science, but also many other ideas and observations from the world around us was reiterated in the discussion about “the placebo effect” which Mike Adams categorises under vibrational medicine in his paper. The placebo effect refers to the belief of the mind that the body has undergone treatment (drugs and surgery) when it hasn’t, and this belief alone leads to a 30% success rate of recovery for patients. What I’ve learnt is that we cannot always be caught up in high science and cutting edge technology, but simple ideas and truths, such as the mind being an integral part of our well-being, are important forms of technology as well.

During the last part of our class discussion, Dylan’s presentation brought out the point about whether the iWallet will become a big thing that everyone will use in the future. This has made me wonder: is predicting the most promising FETs a game of luck; a method of trial and error? I shall leave this question for next week’s assessment and forecasting lesson!

Is it time for Singapore to use greener energy sources?

Introduction
Green technology has become such a hot topic with the growing global, organizational and individual awareness that we will eventually deplete fossil fuels in the foreseeable future, such that more and more people have begun to reflect on how their excessive and unsustainable consumption habits are selfishly removing resources for future generations.

Nonetheless, we need energy. We would have severe difficulty functioning without it- would I have to cycle 2 hours to school and back everyday? Would we have to take down every note via pen and paper? And worst of all, bearing with the Singapore humidity without the aid of a fan or air-con?! Sounds like a nightmare. So my point is, I truly appreciate fossil fuels and all that it has provided for us. That being said, it is time for us to move on to other sustainable and cleaner energy sources. Of particular interest to me prior and during this week, was how Singapore is extremely slow (by our own standards at least) to capitalise on developing green technologies. Based on prior personal research and this week’s class discussion, I will attempt to offer some reasons, issues and provide a value judgement regarding why Singapore is as yet not stepping up to the “green” plate.

The Singapore Context
Our country has for decades reaped monetary and stability benefits from free riding on cheaper sources, especially oil. Shell’s headquarters here is the largest oil refinery in Southeast Asia, and our cooperation with oil companies like Shell has provided us jobs, energy security, and thus all other forms of societal security. Hence, my belief is that since our top priorities have always been economy and stability, embracing oil and resisting alternative sources become a favourable stance for these objectives.

Currently, Singapore is still providing an underwhelming response to a global surge in focus on green technologies. We have only just begun financing local solar research institutions, and even then it was because Chinese firms came and approached us. We are still holding an overly-passive stance. Also, our public and private institutions are doing too little to build up the infrastructure necessary to truly incorporate reusable sources of energy into our everyday lives.

Solar & Osmosis: viable alternative energy sources?
On the other hand, there are many other indications that we are actually in a favourable position to begin applying green energy sources into our daily lives.

As Prof shared in class, our tropical climate and large amounts of sunshine, coupled with the fact that solar technologies have already been created means that we are fully capable of becoming primarily dependent on solar energy! I was awestruck when I heard this. I have always had the impression that devices like solar panels was too expensive and that solar-powered devices were unreliable. But this week’s TWC readings and class has led me to see the folly in thinking that technology in this field has been stagnant. Perhaps in Singapore things have been slow to change, but elsewhere around the world (case in point being Germany), solar power is becoming a real big deal. Energy from the sun is so abundant, but sadly Singapore is thus far largely unwilling to capture that energy…

Secondly, energy harnessed via osmosis (presented by Ren Liang) could be another feasible alternative source. The fact that SG is an island surrounded by water, has severe land constraints but yet can build such infrastructure underground, means that the only obstacle seems to be the costly price of membranes. I am however optimistic that experts would eventually create membranes that can be washed and reused, then lowered barriers to entry would encourage expansion into this field.

Are we, as a country and as individuals, ready to make the switch?
While we have established that solar and hydro powers are locally feasible, it would be simplistic or rash to believe that this immediately leads to change. As Singapore's governmental decisions are very pervasive, so long as the authorities project a reluctant attitude, most private sectors or individuals comply with the inertia. Furthermore, as previously stated our economy is still benefitting from the sale and usage of oil and other fossil fuels, so I believe that a push towards greener sources will not happen right now or at least in the very short term.

Of course green technology has and will increasingly become an issue of necessity and urgency in the foreseeable long term. When the time comes, I am fully confident that we have the necessary expertise, leadership, and adaptive and flexible attitudes that can be transferred to this cause.

Necessary Evils?

On the whole, the TWC topic in week 7 emphasized the importance of Bio Business in the agriculture and environmental industries, because of the continuingly expanding world population and hunger crisis still being faced by the world’s poorest. There needs to be improvements in food production and food security.

The topical readings and class discussions brought about some burning questions for me. Firstly, Reading 5 addresses a concern about developing nations having problems (e.g. access to sufficient funding and expertise) developing biotechnology or even adopting advancements brought about by outside research. The issue is that cleaner but more expensive technologies have already been developed by advanced nations, but developing nations are reluctant to embrace them, thereby resulting in environmental degradation in urbanising provinces like in China and India. The rapid economic growth of such rising stars is actually a major damper on the green movement and sustainable economic model.

However, the dilemma lies in that developed countries too first used cheaper and pollutive technologies for their economic progress in the past, hence wouldn't it be fair to also give developing nations equal opportunities for rapid progress? Evidently, there is a conflict of interest especially within developing nations: their top priority is to fully capitalize on their current economy’s advantages and accelerate growth to produce national and individual wealth, and the sad reality is that environmental interests have more often than not been completely ignored.

Are their actions “necessary evils” as they purport them to be? To a certain extent, I sympathise with their myopic vision of adopting an unsustainable and linear economic model. For example, in the Chinese province of Guangzhou, local factories have directly caused toxic waters, and highly polluted air. But at the same time, if these factories were to be shut down because they created unhealthy living conditions, the majority of people in the province, whose livelihoods depend on these very factories, would starve to death soon after. So yes, to an extent there is some truth in the necessary evil of cheap and pollutive technologies especially in the developing world. Nonetheless it is clear that we need a real change in attitudes before humankind can ever realize clean, sustainable economies of the world.

In relation to this, Prof showed us a quote by Daniel Quinn that explained his labelling of mankind as parasites, and went along the lines of:

“Upwards of 200 species, mostly of the large, slow-breeding variety, are becoming extinct here every day because more and more of the earth’s carrying capacity is systematically being converted into human carrying capacity. These species are being burnt out, starved out, & squeezed out of existence…”

Clearly Daniel Quinn was criticizing humankind. Immediately a question came to my mind: “How do we really change attitudes?”. The often-pronounced suggestions of “education” and “knowledge” are becoming increasingly unconvincing to me (definitely jaded in this respect). A rise in educated peoples all over the world has not seen a significant corresponding rise in environmental-consciousness, clear evidence that knowledge does not necessarily lead to empathy. Unfortunately, having spent some time delving into the issue, I find no conclusive suggestions to provide. In our modern society where individuality and self-interest are prized over all else, it is becoming more difficult to truly inspire a change within people so that they commit long-term to the green movement.

On a more optimistic note, I find the idea of designer, transgenic crops a fascinating one! Signs point to us heading in the direction of easy and systematic creation of biotechnologically designed crops, as opposed to the current long-drawn process of cross breeding. What comes to my mind is how such an advanced technology could bring about improvements to human life in terms of food, medicine, intermediate resources… the possibilities are endless! It could even be a very effective answer to one point which I raised in my previous post about how healthcare would have to respond to diverging needs of different countries in the world. For a specific rural or developing population that still faces malnutrition for example, farmists can respond to such needs by adding nutritional values to the daily diet of these people, thereby directly addressing the health implications. Quality and quantity of food is thus very much linked to health standards. Such designer crops, if one day realized, managed and used well, will have so much potential and applications to various needs of the world.

To end off, Genetically Modified (GM) foods were also discussed as a controversial issue in class. It reminded me about our discussion on climate change, and how both have differing schools of thought that use subjective interpretations of scientific findings to back up their claims. Even though we all agreed that it is far too early to conclude if GM foods will have any adverse impact on us, thereby making us “guinea pigs” to our own innovations, it was a consensus that GM foods have been steeped so much in our everyday lives that it is definitely a “necessary evil”.

This week in TWC: Biomedical Technology & Healthcare

The moment I opened reading 1’s link to prepare for this week’s TWC class, the quote “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” (Greek Proverb) came to my attention. And the meaning didn’t come immediately or obviously to me. However, after giving it some time, I’ve come to understand that it’s an advice to be concerned with not only self-interest but also the interest of one’s community. It is natural for man to look out for his interest first. For example, when we look into how technology can provide us with limitless business opportunities, the immediate motivations could be attaining personal fame, wealth, and the admiration of others through our bettering of the human condition in some way. Perhaps what is even more valuable than obtaining money and popularity is leaving behind a lasting legacy, a needful impact on humanity, which are the metaphorical trees in the quote. It is also a call to look at the larger scheme of things: not just focusing on the individual interest, experience and perspective, but also being concerned with where society/humankind is headed and steering it in the right direction in terms of values, psyche etcetera.

With specific regard to the biomedical and healthcare issues, reading 1 usefully elaborates on the fact that healthcare trends are varying in greater degree across the world, depending on the context of a particular location. It gives the examples of Asia. Asia’s developing nations are still struggling to provide basic infrastructure like sanitised water and vaccinations, which have been long-established in more advanced countries. Largely affluent societies are facing a healthcare concern of a different kind: low birth rates and death rates resulting in aging populations, and the rise of disease caused by lifestyles excesses, such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Thus a burning question that has stayed in my mind is: How can governments, NGOs and local healthcare industries use technology to better respond to such increasingly varied needs?

Some possible answers:

- ICT can play an increasingly important role in the healthcare of patients staying at home, by connecting them seamlessly and comprehensively to online resources that can provide information on self-medication, or link them to their doctors.
- Growing amounts of technological innovations that enable developing countries to provide necessities. Eg. Windbelt for electricity generation and Life Sack for clean water
- Broadening the definition of healthcare to include wellness management with disease management, and using technological tools like exercise, nutritional and educational aids to enhance wellness.
- Transport technologies will enhances importation of vaccines into extremely rural areas.

Thirdly, week 6 has once again brought my attention to another perspective on technology. Within reading 4 and in class, the definition of disruptive innovations was discussed. They refer to methods and equipment that enables a large pool of less-skilled people to do in a more convenient, less expensive setting things that historically could be performed only by expensive specialists in centralized, inconvenient locations.

This has some link to reading 6, in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation states “We are passionate about innovation at every level.” This “innovation at every level” encompasses the creation of breakthrough technologies, taking highly complex technologies and developing them into applicable, affordable and available solutions, and technology-based approaches to everyday thing.

What I have come to better understand from cross-referencing to these two sources is that technology can:

1. Simplify ways of doing things through the adopting of increasingly complex technologies. (e.g. Automation of tasks via use of robots)
2. Provide disruptive innovation- making methods simpler and more accessible by adopting simpler technologies. (e.g. downloadable digital media disrupts the CD & DVD market)
3. Provide technological approaches to everyday things that are considered long established in developing countries. (e.g. encouraging pregnant women to give birth at the hospital rather than at home)

On the whole, Healthcare, just like all other aspects of our lives, is increasingly dependant on technology. It is heartening to know that the world is putting biomedical technology to good use to overcome real and changing healthcare issues.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT)- understanding its effects on the world

Week 5’s TWC has been particularly interesting as we were able to go deeper into a specific and exciting technology. Thus, I’m looking forward to the other specific technologies to be explored!

I’d like to share a few burning questions and insights I have gained this week:

1.In a futuristic world where national boundaries no longer exist, will it still be possible to preserve national character, societal tradition and language?

At first, my instinctive response was that they appear as dichotomies of each other. My initial thought process was that if people were no longer constrained by any sort of constructs of nationhood, then it seems a contradiction to think that the diversity of language (a characteristic of national identity) will be preserved.

However, after hearing Prof’s explanation that a majority of people remain rooted to their home countries/ place of long-term residence in a current modern world where transnational human movement is increasingly accessible, and with some internal reflection afterward, I’ve become clear why this is indeed possible. In fact, it is a sort of phenomenon that is happening right now.

Vast advancements in transportation and ICT has given rise to global citizens- the world’s affluent, and foreign immigrants split their time between their home countries and other places for work and leisure. This is an example of how national boundaries have become easily transcended. Yet, we are also seeing a rise in protectionism, from countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland. Even in Singapore, there has been a spike in debate and worries about the influx of immigrants causing an erosion of our local culture. Some countries are responding by trying to close themselves against foreigners, while others are utilising ICT to strengthen and maintain their national identity so as to better integrate foreigners. Thus ICT is partly responsible for both the growing irrelevance of territorial borders and the maintenance of cultural diversity.

2.Will the world’s rural populations be able to capitalise on ICTs if they were made available to them?

A popular instinctive response would be of concern that these populations lack the skills and education to utilize ICTs in ways that improve their standards of living. However, a major flaw in this argument is the assumption that ignorance through the lack of exposure and experience means that rural peoples will not be able to appreciate ICTs. These people, just like urbanites, have traits like curiosity, flexibility and dynamism which will actually enable them to adapt and make productive use of ICTs quickly. In the specific example of the aids pandemic in parts of Africa, NGOs and individual do-gooders are bringing in ICTs as a major and effective way to educate the public about HIV and the availability of treatment. There have been more and more efforts to provide technical education and accessibility of ICTs in rural places all over the world. Evidently, it is inaccurate to over-generalize that all rural populations have no interest in ICTs, or are incapable of capitalising on them.

3.The TWC readings and class for this week has also gave me a greater awareness of the true relationship between technological ideas and their application to a practical function in response to needs in daily life. From Prof’s blogged response to Microsoft’s Project Natal, I’ve begin to realise that I myself have failed to fully recognize how an idea and invention in a particular industry (in this instance, the gaming industry) can be applied to medical, childcare, IT etcetera to address very real and urgent needs. In other words, a single technology idea is often applied and useful in a wide variety of fields.

Inversely, many different technological ideas and inventions can work together to bring about a shared objective. For example, in EPN’s video on web 3.0, a semantic web would be able to combine GPS, weather forecasting and information technologies to automatically provide a driver with the most comfortable route from point A to point B.

Therefore, what I appreciate most is my clearer perspective of how there is an intricate interplay between technological inventions and functions, rather than a simplistic matching of one invention to one function.