Session 7: BioBusiness in Agriculture & Environment

Image from http://www.aboutxinjiang.com/

Brief summary:

1.     The focus this week was on the Biomedical BioBusiness, Agri-Veterinary and Food BioBusiness, and the Environmental and Industrial BioBusiness.

2.    “When we are able to grow the resources we need, only then will we be on the way towards sustainability.”

We watched a video on Biotechnology crops, which told us of the numerous benefits of Biotechnology- for instance, the avoidance of crop disease, coping with drought, and more efficient use of water. This to me was symbolic of one of the great innovations of humans- that not only improves the current quality of our life, but also aids the situation (food shortage) in developing countries (by lowering the cost of food significantly).

3.     Some everyday frontiers of biotechnology: Cheese, enzymes, yoghurt, food preservatives, beer, the kiwi fruit(!), tomato ketchup(really?!), etc. I was enlightened how biotechnology was so pervasive in our modern lives, and how reliant we are on it. There have been some fears about biotechnology- that they may possibly develop deadly strains of virus in the future; threatening to be a medium for such new epidemics to spread. Such fears are understandable, thus, some countries require companies to label Genetically Modified food, so that consumers are fairly informed on their food choices.

4. Food Security - It is a condition where all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. One of the presentations suggested that a particular innovation, “Plumpy Nut” can help to address this issue. Whether a society is able to achieve Food Security relies on two issues: whether it is able to afford such food, and whether there is infrastructure present to facilitate the distribution of such food to the masses. Again, in the cases of poorer countries, this highlights the importance of good governance in managing the given funds and ensuring that they are being in a non-corrupt, efficient manner for the good of the public.

Interesting observations & ideas:

1. The “Malthusian Nightmare” – It was a prediction that society would be forced to return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production. (above is a picture depicting this concept)

However, it did not come to pass: Our innovations e.g. Industrial Revolution enabled society to break out of the Malthusian Trap. Improvements in agricultural production methods have increased productivity levels, believe that as long as people are educated and have economic freedom, the world will be able to increase production as such ventures remain profitable.

2. Shift from Farmer to “Farmist” – in that Farmists are becoming more specialized in their industry, and take advantage of new technology to increase quality and efficiency.

3.     Making food from POO! Prof told us about a certain innovation, which was able to create high-protein consumables from human waste. However, this business venture failed in the commercialization of their product, as people could not get quite comfortable with the idea of eating their own poo. (I shall elaborate more on this in the section below)

  

Issues for further discussion:

Would you be comfortable with eating a derivative of your own waste? Well, it may seem utterly disgusting now but as Prof humorously pointed out, we currently do drink NEWater.

I then asked Prof if such food was expensive. The answer was that it is cheap – since waste is all you need.

Could such a technology be used for countries which are facing food shortages? I suggested that this could be provided as an option of food, especially since it was high in protein and low cost. This would potentially enrich the thousands of malnourished bodies and even save some from the deadly plight of starvation.

However, Prof raised some moral issues about doing this: Was it respecting their human dignity by giving them something that we ourselves would not like? He shared that as a practioner, he often told himself to only give a treatment to a patient a treatment he they would give to a loved one.

However, after further thought on this, I feel that this is perhaps not as bad as it seems. If one of my loved ones was in a life-threatening situation, I would be desperate to rectify the problem. It is this very desperation that would drive me to want to solve the problem in almost any way that is possible. I guess that this was initially a question of Ethics vs Practicality, but when the situation is dire, I feel that it’s the care for the ultimate well-being for these people that would lead me to the view that “the ends justifies the means”.

Could this be another case of our human mindset limiting technological innovation? Our unease with such innovations is primarily a product of societal norms which we have been brought up with. Perhaps sometimes the greatest hurdle is ourselves.

Key takeaways:

1.     Technological innovations in the sphere of BioBusiness have historically disrupted our traditional concepts of food, and they continue to do so.

2.     Such technology can be used to the ends of solving World issues

3.     What’s next? The possibilities of the future may only be bound by our perception on things. Sometimes, it is necessary to radically dissociate ourselves from prejudices and common expectations to discover or lead a change that is truly world-changing.

My ratings for this lesson

7/10. The presentations were informative and interesting. However, I wish we could spend more time on how governments are currently doing the balancing act in prioritizing; analyzing the decision-making process.

Humans are living longer and longer – Argh!

The 'problem' of extending lives. With all the biomedical advances enabling humans to become more ‘immortal’, living past the traditional life expectancy, there is a potential issue of having an ageing population, or even over-population.

Currently, our economic system is not ready for an ageing population. Our physical landscape is as unready as well - It is still very inconvenient for a physically disabled person to maneuver from one place to another. There is a problem because there is hardly any incentive to improve this situation. Improving such infrastructure may not be exactly profitable, and governments may not have much political interest in solving this. 

Session 6: The BioBusiness Revolution 1: Healthcare and the Biomedical Sciences: Past, Present, Future

Brief summary:

-       BioBusiness refers to commercial activity based on an understanding of life sciences and life science processes.

-       We covered these aspects of BioBusiness today:

o   Biomedical BioBusiness

o   Environmental and Industrial BioBusiness

o   Agri-Veterinary and Food BioBusiness

-       Valley and Summit opportunities. Valley: low value-added agriculture; Summit: new innovations like cures for HIV, cloning technology, etc.

-       Healthcare- in the past, it was more corrective than pro-active or preventive. Pre-emptive medicine for people at risk, which can reap huge revenue.

Interesting observations & ideas:

- BioBusiness constitutes over 25% of global GDP! It employs 40% of the world’s labour force

-> Still low value-added; valley opportunities instead of summit opportunities

- Biotechnology has a very broad definition. Traditional biotech would include making beer!

- The Obesity Pandemic – symbolic how technology has destroyed our health and well-being.

- BioBusiness may include cosmetics as well. Prostitution as well, possibly?

Issues for further discussion:

-       “We wont stop being sick until we stop making ourselves sick.” The less we depend on drugs, the more motivated we are to keep healthy.

-       Abuse of BioBusiness: Doping among athletes, abusing human rights in biomedical testing.

-       Ethical issues – Where should we draw the line, and how would we do that?

Key takeaways:

-       The healthcare industry has significant barriers to entry: both specialized knowledge and high costs.

-       BioBusiness may well be our best hope for achieving sustainable development, as it deals with life. Life in the broad sense- of humans, animals and plants.

My ratings for this lesson:

8.5/10. I found the various presentations interesting and insightful. I also liked the ethical debates! However I wish there was more time for discussion and exploration of other related issues, for example how the abuse of BioBusiness can be regulated.

The Exciting Future of EMR!

Integrating EMR into hospitals:


It’s interesting how doctors may resist such change due to reluctance to be transparent. This shows how EMR can also help to achieve greater transparency in the healthcare industry, as there is often asymmetric information and the patient is not in a position to decide which treatment he requires. There has been an issue of over-charging which patients are often unaware of.

Currently, in Singapore the government is attempting to produce industry standards of charges for General Practioners at least. However, such standards are probably static and even if they are updated frequently, patients may not even access them frequently.

Thus, EMR may serve as a stepping-stone towards having an integrated system storing with all medical records and biomedical technology advances. The prospects of this are exciting – a streamlined cloud computing system which doctors can access and update patients’ medical records. Such a consolidated system will also facilitate research and development in the laboratory to study how various patients react to different treatments, and any common allergies. It would also help to address the problem of asymmetrical information in the healthcare industry, solving the common principal-agent problem. EMR systems could also help to ensure safety of patients, by alerting doctors when they fail to follow the recommended guidelines for a particular drug, which can potentially cause undesired reactions in patients.

What about using EMR to create a potential testing ground for emerging biomedical technology? Patients may be able to choose from a platter of treatments- traditional or relatively new, perhaps at a lower cost. However, there are huge ethical issues as less well-off patients may choose more affordable, yet riskier technology. Moreover, such a system which allows too-new treatments to be consumed by patients may lead to an uncontrollable surge of different illnesses born from the different combinations of treatments administered, leading to a healthcare disaster. Thus, this again highlights the importance of the government in the healthcare industry for the right amount of regulation- to reach an optimal level of social welfare, balancing risks and minimizing the costs.

Here’s an example of a current EMR technology which has already been adopted by 1,500 hospitals and 10,000 extended care organizations: Allscripts Healthcare Solutions

*Economic Analysis: It is interesting to note that there are Network Effects present in the market for EMRs- The more clinics are connected, the more information will be stored in the database, hence the more benefits obtained from the information system itself.

Session 6: Review of my Favourite Pre-Reading this week

I particularly liked Reading 4: Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare by Clayton Christensen, John Kenagy. (Disruptive tech! I had talked about it in my individual presentation last week, in the context of the media industry.)

It basically talks about Disruptive Technology in the healthcare industry.  There was an interesting example of low cost x-rays, which uses technology borrowed from night vision technology which originated from the military. This shows creative use of technology where a link is drawn to address a particular area of need, which is different from the original intended use.

However, particularly for the healthcare industry, it is harder for such Disruptive Technologies to develop. Due to the high barriers to entry in the market structure, the big players are reluctant to invest in such technology as it threatens to topple their original business model. This situation highlights the importance of government intervention in the arena of healthcare, as healthcare after all achieves a social good.

However, even though such technologies may be promising, governments may often be slow to fund them, as they have to thoroughly check that they are safe and tested. This links back to the reality where regulatory authorities are afraid of failure, thus the requirement for a great deal of testing which will lead to increased costs. This adds to the already high barriers to entry that healthcare has.

Food for thought

Healthcare and Education: It has been observed that these industries have been the slowest to innovate and advance. Is it because they have been trained to be conservative? How can we create a shift in the mindsets of the people – is education, ironically, the answer?

Session 5A: Will there ever be a borderless world?

With increasing connectivity in information technology, perhaps the notion of having international borders will increasingly become outdated as people can travel to where they want, when they want. Besides, information is so easily transmitted between people that meeting up in person can even be unnecessary. Holding meetings with videoconferencing tools like Skype has become commonplace for companies. Even if physical presence is preferred, there is the emerging technology of Virtual Reality to enable this. The possibilities are almost infinite!

A lil tidbit for Session 5

I chanced upon this video on the future of Virtual Technology. It's quite exiting how the possibilities are *virtually* limitless. In this video, Dentistry students in the University of Minnesota utilize Virtual Tech to facilitate their learning and training - they perform practice on life-like mannequins, replicating real-life situations without the risks and difficulties of using real patients. What a brilliant application of tech!

Session 5: An expanding concept of what it means to be human

Firstly, we had a broad overview of how Information Communications Technology has progressed over the years. We covered many areas, and I shall elaborate the most exciting points:

-Mass Media


-Internet


-Wireless Technologies- What would it be like to have a completely wireless Singapore? This would definitely revolutionize the way businesses are carried out. Will there still be the concept of offices in the future, when people can create value from anywhere in the world, and share it with their colleagues any time they wish? However, what is the purpose of a physical office? Perhaps an element of physical reality is still needed to keep employees more accountable and feel a sense of loyalty to their organization.

-Gaming


-Interactive telecommunications- Presents very exciting potential, especially in the realm of virtual reality. This technology has overlapped with that of gaming- we have technologies like Wii that detect physical movements and integrate that into the gaming system. But what about projecting the gaming system into reality? The applications of Virtual Reality are boundless- to social, military and educational aspects, just to name a few.

-Cloud Computing- more open concept.

-Knowledge management-
Data -> Information -> Knowledge –> Wisdom


Digital Divide: Can ICT help to close that?
“Today’s real borders are not between nations, but between powerful and powerless, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated.”
– Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the UN.

There is also the changing dynamics in the political realm – where political leaders can use technology as a platform for interaction. I feel a good example of this is Barack Obama’s use of New Media:

“Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post.

Here’s an interesting article from the New York Times on How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics

Session 4

Outline of Lesson
For the first half of the lesson, we discussed the various Drivers of World Change- Environmental Drivers; Scientific Discovery and Tech Innovation; Social, Cultural and Ideological Innovation; Commercial Innovation; Competition; Globalization and Changing Expectations. I thought it was interesting how all the different forces of society interacted and moved towards a certain line of change.

For the second half, we explored the various methods of reacting to change. This can be classified into three broad categories:
#1. Make it happen.
#2. Respond to change.
#3. Be surprised.
Which in other words is to be pro-actice, to be re-active, and to be ‘blur’.
#1 is usually practiced by Leaders; and #2 by Managers.

Interesting Points
I found it ironical how Plague could be an example of world change - how it caused the need for a cure, thus eventually pushed society to research and develop a cure for it, in the process advancing medical technology significantly. Prior to the success, however, it was not all rosy- society turned to religion and superstition as a cure for the plague. This did not facilitate any technological advancement at all. I found this symbolic of the tussle between Science and Religion; just at the tip of the iceberg of many more complex issues today.

Food for Thought
Religion vs Science: Can the two ever exist in harmony? I would think so. I believe religion and faith is a complement of science; providing humans with the security of the unknown- something which cannot be proven or broken down into predictable concepts by Science. Science is crucial for development and progress, to tangibly improve the standard of living of the world. Religion at the very least, arguably has practical purposes of instilling hope within individuals, inspiring them to perhaps work for a better life – which may cause the economy to grow. More fundamentally, religion also reinforces largely positive values, which ultimately increases the welfare of society. In Freakonomics, it is mentioned that a study by Angus Deaton found that higher religiosity among the elderly may be due to aging effects as opposed to simply secularization of younger generations. Religious people view themselves as more fit, reporting better health, more energy, and less pain. (Perhaps prayer is a substitute for complaining?)

Rating for this lesson: 7/10
The lesson and presentations were insightful, but I guess the small mix-up in the number of presenters resulted in the discussions having to be kept shorter, in order to keep within the class time.

Rating for Week 3: 9/10

:)
-I liked the 3 Innovation Models prof shared with us (I like models!) (They give me a macro view of things)
-Short & sweet presentations, mostly of interesting subject matter
-Thought-provoking discussions

How to get that one more point:
-I look forward to a session where discussions are more spontaneous and radical, as opposed to standard & predictable answers!

#3b: Will society ever become sustainable?

Part one: Industrial development from linear to cyclical

from liberty-moonbeam.blogspot.com

Almost every society that has experienced rapid development or progress in wealth has done so through industrialization. (Industrialization: the process of automating the production of things in large quantities) However, at what cost has this been?

The rapid industrialization process has inevitably led to environmental degradation- both in running out of scarce natural resources and polluting the environment. However, can we change this?

It is interesting to see how companies are increasingly shifting from the “linear” way of thinking to the “cyclical” approach in designing a product. The difference lies in whether they consider the long-term pollutive effect of the item, from its raw materials to becoming a used good. In other words, products designed from a “cyclical” angle are perhaps recyclable, compared to those, which are rendered worthless after their useful product life.

from http://livingears.com/

There's a problem: Human beings (and private enterprises) don't care so much about the earth as they do about themselves.
It would be ideal if all companies took such an approach, as that would help us work towards sustainable development, where there is development and economic progress, yet not at the expense of future generations.

However, I doubt it is realistic to expect companies to want to switch to the “cyclical” approach soon. Process rigidities are present and private enterprises are more likely than not to want to maintain the status quo especially if current processes are bringing in high profits. They would only be likely to want to change if the return on investment is high- and guaranteed to be high.

Thus, the challenge I feel is to make it 1. More profitable to go green and 2. Establish such “green” practices to be profitable, so that risk is seen to be low, thus gradually persuading more companies to make the switch.

I feel that much of the job is then left into the hands of the government- it is the only body that has the capacity to take into account social costs and hopefully has the foresight to plan into the future. Compared to activism groups, they have far more funds to influence even the minds of self-centered private entities, through tax incentives and research and development grants. This all links back to the motivations of humans- that we discussed in our previous lesson. Money is perhaps the universal tool for such.

Another important driver of sustainability for the future is education: to teach and persuade consumers to go green, out of their own will. This means cultivating habits and mindsets in them to be more conscious of energy consumption and the environment. This may mean curbing extravagant consumption behavior or going out of one’s way to recycle items- of which are challenging tasks for societies which are increasingly affluent and used to living in comfort.

An important case in point is the rising middle class of China- increasingly affluent; they are able to keep up high consumption habits. Such habits will ultimately be detrimental to the environment. This is especially worrying due to the sheer size of the growing Chinese middle class. Thus it is imperative to ‘catch’ them before they develop undesirable environmentally harmful habits. This can be done through campaigns and movements. Perhaps the social make up of the Chinese may aid in this process, due to the focus on community spirit- if the community decides to do it, then perhaps masses of Chinese would do so too.

I wonder if we would ever be driven to desperate times where the government has to enforce strict rules and regulations on “green” standards. Currently, the Environmental Law in Singapore seems to be more of a balancing act- managing both economic progress and environmental sustainability. I predict that with time, if environmental issues become more severe, international bodies would pressure societies to tighten their Environmental regulations.


Or, can we make use of their "selfishness"?
We discussed that the smart way around it would be to sustainable development profitable. I shared that it could be a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" situation where developed and developing countries collaborate towards sustainable development. This would also address the ethical issue of whether developing countries need help protect the environment (since it was the developed countries who damaged it previously, and perhaps now it's only fair that they have their turn at rapid economic progress)

The transfer in skills and development in tech for developing countries would be valuable. Developed countries would be drawn to the cheap labour, land and other raw materials- along with the possibility of a new market in the future(who knows?)

Disclaimer: At the end of the day, it still boils down to the country's comparative advantage- or the potential to create the comparative advantage, in this case, green technology.


Part Two: Tech & Innovation Management

There are two different types of innovation: those that are purely driven by Technology, and those that are driven by Market Demand.

It makes quite a lot of sense to focus on those driven by Market Demand, as one would naturally have a customer base. For the former, one would have to take pains to create it-and risk failing as well.

However, what about the innovations that are Techonology-driven, yet are so good that create a market for themselves? What are some examples of these, and are there many of them? What is the common characteristic of such innovations, and in what field do most of them lie? Perhaps those innovations driven by technology are more successful in the Research & Development sector, where such intermediate innovations can further be used to supplement current innovations-which are still ultimately for market demand.


There was also an interesting presentation on Google Wave and how it failed, but also how it picked itself up. This highlights Google's commitment towards developing a culture conducive to innovation. In which sectors would it be more important to develop such a culture? Is there any sector of the economy that does not require innovation at all? Even then, is it both product and process innovation that is unnecessary?

Key Learning Points:
1. The ultimate self-interest in individuals, enterprises and even countries. This is important if we want to find a real solution to achieve sustainable development.
2. The importance of having the most conducive environment for innovation to take place, and the factors to effectively manage it.

#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