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.