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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)