#3a: "The greater the class difference within countries, the greater the environmental degradation."

Do you agree? Can you think of any instances in both cases?
This was a very interesting point brought up by Kuan Ling in her presentation, which I liked. Wish we could have spent more time discussing that.

Session 2B

PART TWO: TECH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

#3. Human Development Millennium Goals

Poverty & hunger	Target: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the number of people living on less than $1 per day.
Education	Target: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
Gender equality	Target: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015
Child Mortality	Target: Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate.
Health	Target: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality rate.
Combat disease	Target: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/Aids Target: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.
Environment	Target 1: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources. Target 2: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Target 3: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers.
Global Partnership	Target 1: Address the special needs of the least developed countries, landlocked countries and small island developing states. Target 2: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system. Target 3: Deal comprehensively with developing countries' debt. Target 4: In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth. Target 5: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries. Target 6: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications.

It is apparent that technology is the answer to many of the targets above. The capabilities it has granted us with enable us to extend a helping hand to those in need. However, this brings us back to the issue raised in Session 1- Should the richer countries help the poorer ones?

There are a few issues:

1.     Moral obligation.

2.     Potential economic gain from helping them- e.g. developing countries could be a profitable market in the future

3.     Politics
However,

4.     A big one: the opportunity cost of aiding them- at the expense of one’s own economy, especially in trying economic times.

Bill Gates is probably one of those who believe in helping out the poor. The co-Chairperson of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he emphasized the need to help out poorer countries even during trying times.

Bill Gates and his Wife, Melinda, the two chairpersons of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

Taken from http://www.eschoolnews.com

"The success we've had in meeting the needs of the poorest are easily lost," he said.

"Otherwise, we will come out of the economic downturn in a world that is even more unequal, with greater inequities in health and education, and fewer opportunities for people to improve their lives."

Further Points for Discussion: Which do you think are the most important goals? Which are more urgent, and which are more long-term? How are the goals inter-related?

#4. Let’s talk about LIFE

After taking a look Millennium Development Goals(above), we then broke into a discussion on what life means to us. It was quite interesting to hear the answers from my classmates, and I weighed their responses against my views to test and refine my personal views. Here are some points:

- Happiness as a goal in life

Happiness constitutes many things- including meaningful relationships, satisfaction with one’s achievements and some may say material wealth.

I, however, felt that happiness can be fleeting and is very dependent on the actual outcome of events. What if I don’t become rich? What if I fail at everything I’ve tried? I feel that perhaps joy is more important. It exudes from within and is much less dependent on external circumstances. It is an attitude of optimism and a commitment to finding beauty in the simplest things. It can be infectious too, and spreads joy to your loved ones, which will in turn reinforce your own. This may all sound very idealistic but I believe that it is important to develop resilient joy as it is something that will affect one’s enjoyment of life and also determine how far one goes in life.

Sometimes I feel that creativity is linked to joy. In creativity, you have an open mind. You see the possibilities. In joy, you are optimistic about things. Appreciation sometimes requires creativity. Creativity, like joy, I feel, is a choice.

- Material fulfillment as a platform for happiness

How modern busy-ness and focus on productivity/$$$ may sometimes cause us to lose track of what matters the most. How the most luxurious house is just a concrete emptiness without a nice family inside to fill it with warmth. As Ken from Toy Story 3 once said (to Barbie), “I have everything, except someone to share it with!”

Screenshot from ToyStory 3 taken from the site http://www.filmschoolrejects.com.

Rating: 6.5/10 because we didn’t have enough time for though-provoking discussion! I guess it is because we had many individual presentations to watch! 

Session 2A

#1. Rising Stars vs Falling Stars

Prof shared with us a model of the different stages of innovation, leadership and technology in societies (and companies)- with the highest point becoming dominant leaders in their respective areas.

Societies could be divided into either Rising or Falling Stars:

Rising Stars - open perspective, optimistic, hungry to learn, keen to invest in new ideas

Falling Stars - closed perspective, arrogance, not interested in new ideas, etc.

-> It showed us the importance of remaining open to change and keeping up-to-date.

-> This is strikingly similar to what a person would do to keep himself abreast of changes too. I feel this is rather applicable to us students in our pursuit of education, especially since information today is so easily outdated.

#2 Not only Product innovation, but also Process innovation  

Henry Ford with one of his cars. Picture taken from http://everythingishistory.com

I particularly liked the presentation by Daisy on “Henry Ford Changes the World, 1908”. She pointed out how Henry Ford revolutionized car-making by using technology to make the process much more cost-efficient. He reversed the process! Which I felt was very creative.

Can this be considered to be thinking inside the box? I’d like to suggest that Henry Ford was thinking within the box, understanding the various existing components it had inside, then reshuffling them around to achieve a better combination. Perhaps we don’t always have to look for solutions outside the box, but first examine what’s inside and whether it can be improved upon.

Ideas for further discussion: Is innovation only for specialists or can simple yet different ideas from anyone make a real difference? 

Session 1

#1. SHIFT Happens.

We are living in exponential times: Information is being created every instant and technology advances at an increasingly increasing rate. As a result, society also evolves.

That made me wonder: Are we benefitting as a society or are we a victim of our own invention? Prof showed us a cartoon depicting the evolution of mankind; where an ape evolved into human, then eventually into an obese man carrying a fastfood drink. I felt that was symbolic of our society’s minds at times. Perhaps technology and modern conveniences has allowed us to slip into laziness. Relieved of basic chores such as washing clothes, taking the stairs and even doing simple math problems, we often become reluctant to work hard and seek to find the easy way out. Even though it has increased our efficiency, has it improved our quality of life? I guess we all have a different view on quality of life, but I feel that one must be clear one’s priorities before embracing technology, and have discipline to be able to detach oneself from it whenever needed. Otherwise, technology may end up robbing us from what matters most. E.g. Busy parents working on the computer/checking the stock market at home (a convenience technology has blessed us with) at the expense of quality time with their children.

Issues for further discussion: Which sectors of the economy benefit and which lose out from this rapid production of information? How will/has Singapore be able to ride on these changes?

#2. How did the disparity (ever) get so large?

We watched an episode from the Guns, Germs and Steel series, which gave us an idea of the standard of living of the locals in Papua New Guinea. Their level of technology was literally zero; they used primitive methods to obtain their food. One particular statement, made by a local named Yali, struck a chord in me:

"Why you white men have so much cargo and we New Guineans have so little?"

This sparked off a discussion of how the rich-poor divide got so large. Why are some societies able to embrace technology and develop wealth, yet others remain stagnant?

One point was that it is often a matter of luck, of being given the right opportunities or resources from the start. However, I feel that this is often not true. Look at Singapore- we never had natural resources from the start. However, we have been able to develop ourselves far past our humble beginnings, or “lack of luck”. Besides, even if a country were to be abundant in natural resources, without proper management and strategic planning for sustainable development, its wealth and technological advancement will likely be short-lived; just how some previously flourishing countries have started to decline due to complacency or possible corruption.

This led me to think that there perhaps is an important element of ‘nurture’, as opposed to ‘nature’, in attaining technological advancement in societies.

Perhaps it is also a matter of governance and leadership- whether there is foresight in how the country’s natural and human resources are managed. Some governments may even choose to limit the spread of or advance in technology in its country, possibly in order to retain political power. North Korea’s totalitarian leadership has isolated itself from the progress of the world: the technology and science they teach at the colleges is more than half a century behind present times. Apparently, the average North Korean engineer has never used a computer! (http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/policies/1946-land-reform-law/ )

<EDIT> A friend of mine disagreed with my example on Singapore above. He felt that Singapore was lucky from the start, as one of the main reasons for its economic success was its geographical location. I guess. However, I argued (perhaps for the sake of arguing) that it required foresight from its early founders to first recognise this opportunity, along with good leadership to develop and manage it; to even captitalize on its 'lucky' geographical location. Well! Waddya think? </EDIT>

Other reasons raised were the degree of success of the country’s trade and the society’s openness to change (attitude and lifestyle habits).

However, even though the discussion was on disparity among societies as a whole, I could not help but wonder about individuals within a society itself. Could one draw parallels to the factors leading towards technological advancement/wealth in both societies and individuals?

I’ll try:

1. “A matter of luck” – Yes, whether one is born into a rich or a poor family

2. “Governance and leadership” – Perhaps “leadership” is akin to self-management. One’s discipline and drive in working for a better life.

3. “Success of trade” – Ok, not really… Ok, maybe how relevant one is to the jobs market (the trade of income for skills?)

4. “Openness to change” – yes, especially so in this technological age, where information is growing exponentially. One has to not only embrace change; but also be able to find a unique way to ride its wave.

Okay, that was fun… Anyway,

Prof recommended us this site: www.pbs.org where we can learn about China’s growth over the ages. Go check it out if you want!

#3. Creativity, Invention, Innovation

What’s the difference? Which comes first? During our discussion in class, we established that it could be Creativity > Invention > Innovation, or Creativity > Innovation > Invention. Or, Creativity > Innovation. I gather that Creativity is probably the basis of all improvements because it is the ability to identify a connection that others previously didn’t- thus one is the pioneer in such a situation.

Some Points for Discussion I wish could have been covered: How and Why creativity is important in today’s economy.

Rating of today's lesson: 7/10. Not bad, I felt actively engaged and liked the way we bounced our ideas off each other!

Conclusion: Some criticize technology to have made us into lazy bums. Others fear that technology is robbing some of our jobs. However, I believe that it is our Creativity which differentiates us from those ol’ machines. Creativity is the difference between man & animal, and man & machine. Embrace it :) 

I like this quote:

"If at first, the idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it."
-- Albert Einstein