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