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.

Make the Change, Know About the Change

The TWC readings and class discussion in week 4 have brought to my attention a few questions and insights, which I would like to share here:

In class, Prof mentioned that in 2001, NIC’s Global Trends Report predicted a highly Euro or American-centric version of world trends. A mere 5 years later, they changed their stance to a East-centric one and wrote about the West to East power shift. I’m sure everyone, including myself, would have largely agreed with both reports when they first came out.

But in a world with so much uncertainty, is attempting to forecast the future a futile exercise? This question got me thinking. On the one hand, it is inevitable that there are many factors- drivers of change- that are extremely unpredictable and over which we have no control over. However, this should not discourage us from persistently keeping up-to-date with the evolving nature of factors that are changing, and how they implicate the current and future global landscape. In order to “make the change”, it is vital that one understands the current contexts in which one operates in, and only then can change be more effectively and easily initiated. Furthermore, even without complete certainty, planning ahead is important in any group or organisation, both for the short and long term. Thus, we should never discount the value of considering and acting upon our predictions of the future.

A second take-away point that I learnt this week through TWC class comes from my reading of the article Herding Cats: Human Change Management. The source stated that ¾ of all change programs fail because employees feel left out of the process. According to the article, the key reason for this is that organisational managements’ methods of motivating employees to embrace change are not tailored to various personalities inherent amongst any group of employees. The insight I gained was that organisations expect workers to change according to their goals. But it should be organisations who first change their methods of getting employees to identify themselves with the direction in which the organisation is heading towards. This will enable workers to own the change being implemented, and alter their job roles accordingly. Ultimately, if employees cannot see the link between their work responsibilities with the organisation’s goals, then there cannot be real change being effectively made throughout the company. For example, rapid and uniformed off-site training does not address the differences between job scopes and learning styles. In effect, people might feel forced and obliged to swallow the new information and skills without being given the opportunity to understand clearly how they can apply this into their specific jobs.

3B: The Idea Factories of the World (follow up to 3A)

Personally, I am fascinated by “idea factories” such as Google- places where invention and innovation is a way of life, where a suitable environment is created to encourage creative ideas, and applying them to the real world which can have a massive potential impact on other’s lives.

Learning about Google, Zappos and Ideo has led me to appreciate the way corporate culture can be deliberately shaped so as to encourage such creative thinking. The CEO must desire such a culture, allow their employees large amounts of space and freedom for thought, and allow failure as well.

Beyond the corporate world, it is also interesting to find out about top-class art and design schools that combine creative work with technology and engineering. These are the places that hold the next generation’s best architects, designers, infrastructure planners and so on. The list of roles that they can play is non-exhaustive. As Prof Shahi explained, it is best to enter into a market that has summit opportunities. Thus, it is highly valuable to be able to come up with refreshing ideas, AND be bold and unafraid of failure to try them out.

A video about a competition that ECAL (an art and design school) is taking part in; to gain some understanding to the dynamics of an Idea Factory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OoI4XbTQjM&feature=related

Note: check back for a scanned article that better describes ECAL!

3A: technology for the greater good

The first part of TWC session 3 was about the urgent need to change the existing business model from a linear to a cyclical one. From the readings and class discussion, there was a consensus that a practical methodology for such a cyclical model of marrying business profitability and environmental sustainability needs to be found.

However, as always in reality, it is difficult to apply ideals to practically, often they can even seem mutually exclusive. I would believe that for existing business people in large and established corporations, it might be difficult for them to change things. A lot of the companies initiating a sustainable model of operations are mostly start-ups or a very small percentage who champion pioneering change, even when they come with higher costs and risks. Therefore, unless one has sufficiently large amounts of authority and influence to persuade his/her company to embrace very new business models, the reality is that it is very hard to do so.

One easier way to cultivate the green movement in corporate culture is to nurture the next generation of/ up-and-coming business leaders who are still obtaining their tertiary education (and who will partake in government, investor and corporate strategies and decisions in the near future) - young people like us!

Being a Year 1 student at SMU, I am just beginning to unravel the culture of tertiary education. In a nutshell, SMU students are highly passionate to succeed in all areas of life- academics, sports and recreation, community service etc. Thus it wouldn’t be far-fetched at all to be optimistic and counting on our generation to make far more progress in pushing for environmental issues in the global economy. Of course, education must install a deep and lasting sense of importance and urgency.

On a different note, a case study of the Melting Himalayan Glaciers has led me to gain new insights. See video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0IWb2w-jM&p=621C25D465357A6F&playnext=1&index=7

Hundreds of villages dependent upon the Rongbuk glaciers for their very livelihood and survival are suffering under the brunt of environment degradation which they themselves did not cause. They live a rural, agrarian life which is being adversely affected by the callous consumerism of the world’s rich and affluent.

Understanding these villagers’ plight and countless other injustices like it is one way to enable us to be more sympathetic and determined towards making a real change in the way business right now, with a blatant disregard for the ecosystem.