This was one of the most wide-ranging lessons, and opened my mind to the different possibilities out there. While all these possibilities were very exciting, I've always been rather sceptical. The realisation of these ideas is contingent on so many things, such that failure seems more probable than success.
Take Asimov and robots for example. I was very fascinated by that discussion, having read his Foundation series and one of the books in the Robots trilogy. Asimov envisioned robots which were so similar to human beings, such that almost no one could determine their true nature. Because they had such superior brainpower, they were able to rule empires and play important roles in government. The perfect woman, created by those Japanese men and meant to cater to those unable to find girlfriends, is a far cry from the kind of robots Asimov envisioned. Although her physical appearance is similar to that of a human being, her movements are still unnatural.
Even if we manage to create the promised invention, the next step is making it affordable. This is less of an obstacle, but can still require a substantial amount of time.
I do agree that the future is bright and that technology will enable us to achieve amazing things during our lifetime, but I think that scientists and other business leaders should be careful not to over-promise. And frankly, most peopleare too busy dealing with the present to bother about these distant future innovations that will purportedly change their lives, unless it pertains to their job. We'll embrace it when it comes, but only then.
Monday 24 October 2011
Monday 17 October 2011
Energy and World Change
The lesson began with a quote about how oil would run out in 9 years if every person in the world used the amount of fossil fuels that each Singaporean or American use. It's a stark reminder that we could run out of oil sooner than we think, given the rising middle class in developing countries who are using more energy. But estimates of how soon fossil fuels will run out have taken increasing consumption into account, and currently stand at 30-40 years.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that fossil fuels are finite and it is necessary to find alternative energy sources. This led to an interesting discussion on the extent to which the world will depend on renewable energy. There general consensus in class was that it could meet more than 50% of the world's needs by 2030. I think this is a realistic projection given that energy security in crucial to every country's economy.
I recently took part in the Rodyk Challenge, and the topic was the role that the law can play in securing Singapore's energy future. My group's proposal was to introduce feed-in tariffs in Singapore, so as to increase the proportion of electricity generated from solar energy and reduce our reliance on other countries. Our proposed statute was modelled on that of Germany, which has very successfully implemented feed-in tariffs across a wide range of energy sources, including solar, geothermal, hydro etc. In the process of doing research, I discovered that the EU's renewable energy target is 20% by 2020. Germany is one step ahead, and is targeting to have 100% of its electricity generated from renewable sources.
Singapore has invested heavily in developing a clean energy industry and has successfully attracted leading companies to set up shop here, such as Conergy and Solar Phoenix (solar), as well as Vestas (wind). A lot of money has been pumped into R&D, with various research institutes being set up. Other countries in the region as well as China have been doing the same, which is an important first step in the shift to renewable energy.
While we explore alternatives, it is important to increase energy efficiency, so that our existing supplies of fossil fuels can last longer or at least in time for us to make the switch to renewables. To that end, many energy-saving devices exist, though I think that to be effective, there must be a change in people's attitudes and practices.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that fossil fuels are finite and it is necessary to find alternative energy sources. This led to an interesting discussion on the extent to which the world will depend on renewable energy. There general consensus in class was that it could meet more than 50% of the world's needs by 2030. I think this is a realistic projection given that energy security in crucial to every country's economy.
I recently took part in the Rodyk Challenge, and the topic was the role that the law can play in securing Singapore's energy future. My group's proposal was to introduce feed-in tariffs in Singapore, so as to increase the proportion of electricity generated from solar energy and reduce our reliance on other countries. Our proposed statute was modelled on that of Germany, which has very successfully implemented feed-in tariffs across a wide range of energy sources, including solar, geothermal, hydro etc. In the process of doing research, I discovered that the EU's renewable energy target is 20% by 2020. Germany is one step ahead, and is targeting to have 100% of its electricity generated from renewable sources.
Singapore has invested heavily in developing a clean energy industry and has successfully attracted leading companies to set up shop here, such as Conergy and Solar Phoenix (solar), as well as Vestas (wind). A lot of money has been pumped into R&D, with various research institutes being set up. Other countries in the region as well as China have been doing the same, which is an important first step in the shift to renewable energy.
While we explore alternatives, it is important to increase energy efficiency, so that our existing supplies of fossil fuels can last longer or at least in time for us to make the switch to renewables. To that end, many energy-saving devices exist, though I think that to be effective, there must be a change in people's attitudes and practices.
Monday 10 October 2011
Biobusiness and agriculture
The lesson began with a highly thought-provoking quote: "Educate women to save the world - they'll educate the whole family". I'm inclined to believe that this is true - social projects focusing with women tend to have been highly effective. Women have traditionally taken on the role of caregiver, and will probably pass on the benefits of their education to their children, perhaps more so then men. It seems like a valuable element to incorporate into the strategy of alleviating poverty and possibly improving the quality of agriculture.
Within this broad topic of biobusiness and agriculture, I was quite fascinated by the area of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It's been a controversial area for some years, ever since the advent of the Flavr Savr Tomato. I think the problem is lack of understanding of the effects of GM food - it just hasn't been around long enough for us to determine whether it has any long-term negative impact on health. Perhaps chanelling more research funding into this area would help, but it may be really difficult to design a study that can conclusively determine its effects. In the absence of strong evidence indicating that GM food is harmful, we won't be getting rid of it anytime soon, unless there's strong political will or pressure in this direction of course.
The food vs energy debate has also risen to prominence in recent years. I'm inclined to think that the food side will triumph, though countries will continue to tap crops like corn and sugar cane for fuel. This in light of the looming food crisis the world is facing, and the fact that there are many other renewable energy sources. I also think that it's bad to encourage poor farmers in developing countries (e.g. India, as shown in the video) to grow crops for fuel, as this makes them vulnerable to market conditions and prevents them from being self-sustaining.
Nevertheless, I agree that technology is going to have a huge impact on agriculture, with the advent of a new generation of farmists. These people are equipped with university degrees in agriculture, and having grown up on farms, will be able to apply their knowledge in creative ways to increase yields and improve efficiency.
Within this broad topic of biobusiness and agriculture, I was quite fascinated by the area of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It's been a controversial area for some years, ever since the advent of the Flavr Savr Tomato. I think the problem is lack of understanding of the effects of GM food - it just hasn't been around long enough for us to determine whether it has any long-term negative impact on health. Perhaps chanelling more research funding into this area would help, but it may be really difficult to design a study that can conclusively determine its effects. In the absence of strong evidence indicating that GM food is harmful, we won't be getting rid of it anytime soon, unless there's strong political will or pressure in this direction of course.
The food vs energy debate has also risen to prominence in recent years. I'm inclined to think that the food side will triumph, though countries will continue to tap crops like corn and sugar cane for fuel. This in light of the looming food crisis the world is facing, and the fact that there are many other renewable energy sources. I also think that it's bad to encourage poor farmers in developing countries (e.g. India, as shown in the video) to grow crops for fuel, as this makes them vulnerable to market conditions and prevents them from being self-sustaining.
Nevertheless, I agree that technology is going to have a huge impact on agriculture, with the advent of a new generation of farmists. These people are equipped with university degrees in agriculture, and having grown up on farms, will be able to apply their knowledge in creative ways to increase yields and improve efficiency.
Monday 26 September 2011
Biobusiness and healthcare
Biotechnology and the life sciences have become an important part of S'pore's economy. By pumping in millions of dollars into research, the government is hoping that we will be able to develop practical applications which will eventually translate into big bucks. But beyond the economic benefits, biotechnology holds great promise for healthcare. Think new drugs to tackle illnesses, individualised treatment based on genetic profiling, new vaccines, and nutritional medicine to promote health and well-being.
As always, the problem is availability. Only the rich can afford all these new drugs and treatments. These new technologies are largely unavailable to the poor, and are something that the middle-class will struggle to afford. This issue of availablity lies at the heart of what I presented on, namely the battle between big pharma and developing nations over patent rights. On the one hand, it's necessary to protect patent rights to enable big pharma to recoup their R&D costs and continue to innovate, but on the other hand, we have a health crisis on our hands and the available drugs are simply too expensive. While the severity of the situation can be mitigated through compromise, this problem will never disappear entirely.
Also, I think that not enough resources are being channelled into prevention. And given the profitability of pharmaceutical companies and their importance to the economy, it seems as if there's little incentive to do so. Where infectious diseases are concerned, investing in sanitation is the way to go. As for lifestyle diseases like cancer, diabetes and stroke, public education is the key
As always, the problem is availability. Only the rich can afford all these new drugs and treatments. These new technologies are largely unavailable to the poor, and are something that the middle-class will struggle to afford. This issue of availablity lies at the heart of what I presented on, namely the battle between big pharma and developing nations over patent rights. On the one hand, it's necessary to protect patent rights to enable big pharma to recoup their R&D costs and continue to innovate, but on the other hand, we have a health crisis on our hands and the available drugs are simply too expensive. While the severity of the situation can be mitigated through compromise, this problem will never disappear entirely.
Also, I think that not enough resources are being channelled into prevention. And given the profitability of pharmaceutical companies and their importance to the economy, it seems as if there's little incentive to do so. Where infectious diseases are concerned, investing in sanitation is the way to go. As for lifestyle diseases like cancer, diabetes and stroke, public education is the key
Tuesday 20 September 2011
ICT and World Change
Information and communications technology (ICT) is probably the one aspect that everyone can identify with. According to Wikipedia, ICT consists of all technical means used to handle information and aid communication.
I think that to a large extent, we have harnessed the potential of ICT, but its negative effects have not been sufficiently tackled. Privacy is one major issue. Hacking into the databases of major companies (such as the attack against Sony) and stealing personal information is one thing, but what many people don't realise is how much information is collected about them when they do Internet searches and use social networking sites. Google actually knows a ton about you, not just through tracking what you key into their search engine, but through your use of applications like Googlemaps on your mobile devices. Crime is a related problem. ICT has made it much easier to execute large scale criminal operations and to cover your tracks much more easily.
But I suppose all this is inevitable. The onus is on governments to strengthen the regulatory framework and move quickly to tackle emerging problems.
I think that to a large extent, we have harnessed the potential of ICT, but its negative effects have not been sufficiently tackled. Privacy is one major issue. Hacking into the databases of major companies (such as the attack against Sony) and stealing personal information is one thing, but what many people don't realise is how much information is collected about them when they do Internet searches and use social networking sites. Google actually knows a ton about you, not just through tracking what you key into their search engine, but through your use of applications like Googlemaps on your mobile devices. Crime is a related problem. ICT has made it much easier to execute large scale criminal operations and to cover your tracks much more easily.
But I suppose all this is inevitable. The onus is on governments to strengthen the regulatory framework and move quickly to tackle emerging problems.
Monday 12 September 2011
Drivers of World Change and Change Management/Change Leadership
Drivers of World Change
The world is changing rapidly, possibly faster than it ever has at any point in history. It's an exciting period in which to live, but also the most unsettling. With change comes opportunities, but also a whole slew of problems to deal with.
'Global Drivers of Change to 2060' was a very insightful study, and got me thinking about the future of our world. Some drivers of change suggest a bleak future, but others hold great promise and captivate the imagination. Climate change is a rather fearsome thing, as it will change the way we live and is very difficult to control. Food security is also a major problem, in light of the projected exponential increase in world population, and how technology seems to be nearing its limits. There's only so much food we can squeeze out of one acre of land. The increasing consumption of meat in developing countries is a related concern, given how much more resource intensive producing 1 kg of meat is, compared to 1 kg of grain. Infectious diseases also threaten.
The other drivers of change are more within human control, but as always, international cooperation is terribly difficult. There is also a tendency to focus on short-term problems, rather than seeking to tackle the long-term challenges that lie ahead.
Change Management / Change Leadership
In light of how change has accelerated, change management has become an increasingly important skill. The 2 change management models discussed in class, traditional (freeze-unfreeze-freeze) and modern (continuous monitoring and renewal), should be seen as representing opposite ends of a continuum rather than two distinct approaches.
While it is necessary to respond to changes that directly affect a company, it is neither efficient nor practicable to keep changing the way certain things are done. Nevertheless, it is important to every now and then evaluate whether a certain approach is working, and consider what improvements can be made.
The world is changing rapidly, possibly faster than it ever has at any point in history. It's an exciting period in which to live, but also the most unsettling. With change comes opportunities, but also a whole slew of problems to deal with.
'Global Drivers of Change to 2060' was a very insightful study, and got me thinking about the future of our world. Some drivers of change suggest a bleak future, but others hold great promise and captivate the imagination. Climate change is a rather fearsome thing, as it will change the way we live and is very difficult to control. Food security is also a major problem, in light of the projected exponential increase in world population, and how technology seems to be nearing its limits. There's only so much food we can squeeze out of one acre of land. The increasing consumption of meat in developing countries is a related concern, given how much more resource intensive producing 1 kg of meat is, compared to 1 kg of grain. Infectious diseases also threaten.
The other drivers of change are more within human control, but as always, international cooperation is terribly difficult. There is also a tendency to focus on short-term problems, rather than seeking to tackle the long-term challenges that lie ahead.
Change Management / Change Leadership
In light of how change has accelerated, change management has become an increasingly important skill. The 2 change management models discussed in class, traditional (freeze-unfreeze-freeze) and modern (continuous monitoring and renewal), should be seen as representing opposite ends of a continuum rather than two distinct approaches.
While it is necessary to respond to changes that directly affect a company, it is neither efficient nor practicable to keep changing the way certain things are done. Nevertheless, it is important to every now and then evaluate whether a certain approach is working, and consider what improvements can be made.
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Sustainable Development
The phrase 'sustainable development' is nothing new, given how it was one of the important chapters in the secondary school Social Studies curriculum. Singapore's definition of sustainable development is growing the country in a way that is efficient, clean and green. Various measures have been implemented to ensure energy efficiency and minimise pollution. To the government's credit, most of them are highly effective. Nevertheless, Singapore remains one of the most energy intensive economies in Asia, and nearly all our energy comes from non-renewable sources (i.e. natural gas and oil). Things are likely to remain this way, as there are no plans to move away from manufacturing, which forms the bulk of our energy consumption. Technology can help us to increase our energy efficiency and perhaps gradually shift towards renewable energy sources, but as far as the present and near future are concerned, Singapore's development is not and will not truly be sustainable.
For countries that can easily tap on renewable energy sources e.g. tidal, wind, it is much easier to move towards sustainable development. But doing so requires a huge amount of political will and signficant government investment. If resources like coal and oil are readily available and more economical than renewable alternatives, there will be little or no impetus to change. Sustainable development also requires a change in mindset and attitudes. There has to be greater emphasis on recycling and other environment-friendly practices, both at an individual and commercial level.
Innovation Management
The Shahi landscape model for technology was an interesting categorisation of the various business opportunties available. The value creation pipeline adequately represents the process of innovation, and seems rather obvious, though I suppose that a diagram does aid in understanding to some extent. I think success in innovation is a combination of an insightful idea, hard work and a large dose of good luck. It's hard to put it into a formula, and no amount of study or learning can guarantee success.
The phrase 'sustainable development' is nothing new, given how it was one of the important chapters in the secondary school Social Studies curriculum. Singapore's definition of sustainable development is growing the country in a way that is efficient, clean and green. Various measures have been implemented to ensure energy efficiency and minimise pollution. To the government's credit, most of them are highly effective. Nevertheless, Singapore remains one of the most energy intensive economies in Asia, and nearly all our energy comes from non-renewable sources (i.e. natural gas and oil). Things are likely to remain this way, as there are no plans to move away from manufacturing, which forms the bulk of our energy consumption. Technology can help us to increase our energy efficiency and perhaps gradually shift towards renewable energy sources, but as far as the present and near future are concerned, Singapore's development is not and will not truly be sustainable.
For countries that can easily tap on renewable energy sources e.g. tidal, wind, it is much easier to move towards sustainable development. But doing so requires a huge amount of political will and signficant government investment. If resources like coal and oil are readily available and more economical than renewable alternatives, there will be little or no impetus to change. Sustainable development also requires a change in mindset and attitudes. There has to be greater emphasis on recycling and other environment-friendly practices, both at an individual and commercial level.
Innovation Management
The Shahi landscape model for technology was an interesting categorisation of the various business opportunties available. The value creation pipeline adequately represents the process of innovation, and seems rather obvious, though I suppose that a diagram does aid in understanding to some extent. I think success in innovation is a combination of an insightful idea, hard work and a large dose of good luck. It's hard to put it into a formula, and no amount of study or learning can guarantee success.
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Technology, Society and Global Dominance; Technology and Human Development
Global dominance
In the last two centuries, we have seen how technology has allowed first Europe and then America to achieve global dominance. Europe's quest for natural resources to feed its booming industries, combined with its superior military technology, led to the successful colonisation of much of Asia. Going further back in history, it was the desire to expand and consolidate their empire (so as to obtain gold and cheap labour) that spurred the Europeans to conquer the Americas. Their superior technology enabled the Spaniards, despite their tiny army, to hold Atahuallpa ransom for so many days and extort a huge amount of gold from him.
The reading, 'The Colonial Holocaust and its Legacy', though rather one-sided, drove home this important truth. It wasn't that the Europeans were more intelligent or culturally sophisticated; they merely had more advanced technology. Their military might enabled them to embark on a programme of mass extermination, and cement their presence in North America.
In the present age, it has been emphasised time and again that innovation is the key for companies to survive and prosper. In other words, corporations must continue to apply knowledge in creative ways, in order to achieve market dominance. The example of mobile phone companies, as discussed in class, is highly pertinent. Things are moving so fast and consumers are always demanding more, so the only way to stay ahead of the game is to keep improving their handsets.
Human development
I still find it quite hard to see a link between technology and human development. The only obvious connection is between technology and improved healthcare, which results in people living longer and having a higher quality of life, as suggested by the Human Development Index (HDI).
Apart from that, I suppose that technology has brought many labour-saving devices, which frees us to pursue other more enriching activities (such as acquiring knowledge, which is another HDI indicator). I'm actually thinking of how women can spend far less time in the kitchen and doing household chores, given how much easier cooking and washing clothes or ironing has become. But apparently, people have become fatter and less fit as a result. No one needed to go to the gym as their daily lives incorporated sufficient physical activity, which is why gyms and those sophisticated exercise machines didn't exist in the past. That aside, technology has undeniably made it much easier to access information. But whether we've become smarter is another matter.
As for the final indicator, income, technology and all that it's brought about hasn't really affected our purchasing power. People always marvel about how things were so cheap in the past, forgetting about inflation.
In conclusion, technology is probably the explanation for the dominance of certain organisations or countries, but I don't think it's done much for human development.
Saturday 20 August 2011
Technology and the rise of civilisations
The ethical dimension
"Why is that you white people developed much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"
Yali's question is a very simple one - something that even a child might ask - but it struck me as one that must be carefully answered, as the answer will shape human decisions. An explanation based on biological differences between races can be used to justify discrimination and maybe even genocide, in a Brave New World-type of society. Lee Kuan Yew, to some extent, subscribes to these beliefs and this is reflected in some of his policies (e.g. graduate mothers). This makes for an interesting contrast to Diamond's thesis: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.”
The nuts and bolts of technology aside, I think that the ethical dimension is something that cannot be ignored. After understanding the changes that technology has brought about, we should ask ourselves how it can be used as a force for good and how we can mitigate any negative effects it might have.
The rise of civilizations
As for the content covered in class, it seems that nearly every region of the world had its heyday at some point in history. I think many historians have already identified the common factors, though of course there will always be disputes about which are more important and whether some should or should not be on the list. These are interesting and worth exploring, as understanding the past helps us to better shape the future
And beyond that, there will always be a specific explanation for each region and for each “technology” revolution (e.g. the Middle East's in the 7th century, which was covered in reading 4). I think that knowing these explanations is valuable, as you need to use these specific examples to illustrate the general factors.
All in all, I look forward to becoming better acquainted with these ideas via the TWC course.
"Why is that you white people developed much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"
Yali's question is a very simple one - something that even a child might ask - but it struck me as one that must be carefully answered, as the answer will shape human decisions. An explanation based on biological differences between races can be used to justify discrimination and maybe even genocide, in a Brave New World-type of society. Lee Kuan Yew, to some extent, subscribes to these beliefs and this is reflected in some of his policies (e.g. graduate mothers). This makes for an interesting contrast to Diamond's thesis: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.”
The nuts and bolts of technology aside, I think that the ethical dimension is something that cannot be ignored. After understanding the changes that technology has brought about, we should ask ourselves how it can be used as a force for good and how we can mitigate any negative effects it might have.
The rise of civilizations
As for the content covered in class, it seems that nearly every region of the world had its heyday at some point in history. I think many historians have already identified the common factors, though of course there will always be disputes about which are more important and whether some should or should not be on the list. These are interesting and worth exploring, as understanding the past helps us to better shape the future
And beyond that, there will always be a specific explanation for each region and for each “technology” revolution (e.g. the Middle East's in the 7th century, which was covered in reading 4). I think that knowing these explanations is valuable, as you need to use these specific examples to illustrate the general factors.
All in all, I look forward to becoming better acquainted with these ideas via the TWC course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)