The Biobusiness Revolution has the potential, for now, will transform our lives and our economies. The “lives” here include our health, food, cloths, and energy source. I have been listening to many news on how Biotechnology or business has been integrated in our society. In my opinion, I always equate biobusiness to biotechnology. However, the truth is Biobusiness has a much wider range than biotechnology. Biobusiness includes food industry, energy source, anything that is got to do with live, and of course, biotechnology. Professor Shahi also mentioned that biobusiness might even include prostitution-.-"
Many people think that Biobusiness might be our best hope for achieving sustainable development. However, I would say that there are 2 answers to this question. On the positive light, biobusiness does benefit the society to a certain extent. Alternative source of energy such as bio fuel are being discovered to reduce the depletion of non-renewable natural resources or using genetic engineering to increase food production to cope with food scarcity are all great discoveries. However, technology is always a double edge sword. No matter how good it may seems, there will always be detrimental effects. The main source of bio fuel are corn, wheat and rice. Why would people turn the world's main food staple into fuel when there are people starving to death? Also, due to the introduction of bio fuels, the price of these main food staple increased drastically. Isn't it imposing a heavier burden on the poor? As for the case of using genetic engineering to increase food production, there is one well-known product, which is the genetically modified Salmon. Scientist has discovered that these sterile Salmon are more attractive to their partners as compared to the normal salmon. This may disrupt the ecosystem if these GM salmons are let into the wild as there will be a great reduction in the number of salmons. Hence, I feel that even though Biobusiness have contributed to the sustainable development, people must be aware of the danger or detrimental effects of it.
Disruptive innovation, is a completely new concept that I came across in this week's article. According to the definition from wikipedia, disruptive innovation is an innovation that disrupts an existing market.The article suggests that the health care industry is actually resistant toward the introducion of disruptive innovation (low cost alternative health equipments which can be used by public). This resistant comes from certain professionals, such as radiologist, insurance company and hospitals, as mentioned in the article. It is understandable that in order to keep their jobs or maximising their profits, these people are not in favour of introducing disruptive innovation, however this resistant actually hinders the development of public care. There is one statement written in the article that have my full support: "[m]anagers and technologies need to focus instead on enabling less expensive professionals to do progressively more sophisticated things is less expensive settings." The direction that the health care researchers are moving towards should no longer be focusing only on developing more advanced technology, but also on creating innovations that enable procedures to be done in less expensive and more convenient settings. Imaging one day if most of the patients that requires hospital stay can receive treatments in the clinic, this will defintely remove the heavy burden of medical fee from the patients family. In regards to the solution of this crisis (resistant), I fully agree with the article that leaders of the industry should take the initiative to remove the barrier that have prevented the introduction of disruptive innovation.
I will rate this session 8/10. This is because I am interested in this topic. I was a biology student in Junior College, hence some of the technical terms mentioned during the presentation was memory refreshing. The presentation that I like most in this session is on the growing of organs. I have heard of it but not in detail. The ethical issues associated with this technology is similar to human cloning. Should man be creating man? Or should it be God's work? I am agreeable to one of the ideas brought up, which is to use this technology only for medical purposes, but not to create a "better man kind". I have actualy came across a forum discussing on the question "should man be mordifying our genetic make-up?" Some people brought out the fact that if people mordify their DNA so that they get the so called "best" genetic make up, won't everyone ended up having the same appearance, behaviour and character? While studying on the topic "evolution", I learn that in order to survive, variation is required. One of the very good example is cheetah. According to the research, cheetahs are 99 per cent genetically identical and a virus could wipe out entire populations. If we human are also 99 per cent genetically identical to each other (all having the "best" DNA), wouldn't we be facing the same problem also?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
session 5
With increasingly more and more knowledge generated or discovered, conventional means of disseminating knowledge such as books are no longer sufficient to meet the great demand. An alternative route is required such that knowledge can be easily accessible. Information and communication technology (ICT) as we can see from its name, it means any kind of technology that already exist to help individuals, businesses and organisations use information. Written by Professor Shahi, ICT is the catalyst that facilitates the knowledge revolution. Why is it a catalyst? I feel that it is because ICT has not only made access to information easier, but also speed up the process of generation of knowledge. When people get to access more knowledge, they tend to widen their scope and perspective. In this way, new ideas are more easily synthesize.
When we talk about ICT, the first thing that comes to our mind is internet. Internet is so prevalent in our society now that it is almost impossible to find a middle-income-family without a computer. In this session, Professor Shahi asked a question that has never stuck my mind before. Should internet be a human right? In the third world countries, where having 3 meals a day is dream, do they need internet? To them, is internet considered as a luxurious good? I feel that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. If a country is so poor that even having a meal is a dream, what is the use of internet? Can it fill their empty stomach? On the other hand, some people may argue that giving them internet is something like teaching people how to fish. If we only supply them the food and not the technique to get food, they will not be able to get out of poverty. I will say that it all depends on the circumstances. For people who are on the verge of starving to death, of course supplying them food is priority. For those who are able to survive, but is in poverty, then supplying them internet, getting to come in touch with the rest of the world will be a good idea.
One of the topic that caught my attention in class on Monday is Cloud computing. Given that there are more and more projects nowadays, students like to use applications such as drop box or Google documents. However, I didn’t know that there is specific name to this kind of applications, which is known as Cloud computing. Given in an article: “Cloud computing is an Internet-based technology through which information is stored in servers and provided as an on-demand service to clients, possibly jointly with the traditional form of access.” After looking at this definition, this first thing that came to my mind is since the information is stored in the server, wouldn’t it be unsafe? Maybe the information might not be accessible to the rest of the public, but I doubt that this information is safely protected against the person or organization controlling the server. This might be the reason why certain companies or industries, which do not allow their information to move outside the companies' firewall, are not willing to adopt cloud computing. Furthermore, there is still the question of whether this system is reliable or not, as who knows maybe the system might crash or come in contact with virus, which can lead to detrimental consequences. On the other hand, I do not deny the convenience and benefits brought about by cloud computing. Therefore, I feel that the companies should use cloud computing in a selective manner. Important or confidential information should be stored in the companies’ own hardware. For the rest of the information, why not use cloud computing given its advantages?
For this lesson, I will rate it as 7/10. I particularly like the presentation on “Why I am quitting Facebook?” I guess this is the situation most the Facebook edicts will have to face. Checking photos, friends, playing Facebook games, replying messages, all these applications made Facebook more interesting, but also more time consuming. I feel that this link to the quote Professor Shahi mentioned in the previous lesson, about how technology is easy and people are hard. Facebook is meant to create bonds between people. Who knows why the results turn out to be this way?
When we talk about ICT, the first thing that comes to our mind is internet. Internet is so prevalent in our society now that it is almost impossible to find a middle-income-family without a computer. In this session, Professor Shahi asked a question that has never stuck my mind before. Should internet be a human right? In the third world countries, where having 3 meals a day is dream, do they need internet? To them, is internet considered as a luxurious good? I feel that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. If a country is so poor that even having a meal is a dream, what is the use of internet? Can it fill their empty stomach? On the other hand, some people may argue that giving them internet is something like teaching people how to fish. If we only supply them the food and not the technique to get food, they will not be able to get out of poverty. I will say that it all depends on the circumstances. For people who are on the verge of starving to death, of course supplying them food is priority. For those who are able to survive, but is in poverty, then supplying them internet, getting to come in touch with the rest of the world will be a good idea.
One of the topic that caught my attention in class on Monday is Cloud computing. Given that there are more and more projects nowadays, students like to use applications such as drop box or Google documents. However, I didn’t know that there is specific name to this kind of applications, which is known as Cloud computing. Given in an article: “Cloud computing is an Internet-based technology through which information is stored in servers and provided as an on-demand service to clients, possibly jointly with the traditional form of access.” After looking at this definition, this first thing that came to my mind is since the information is stored in the server, wouldn’t it be unsafe? Maybe the information might not be accessible to the rest of the public, but I doubt that this information is safely protected against the person or organization controlling the server. This might be the reason why certain companies or industries, which do not allow their information to move outside the companies' firewall, are not willing to adopt cloud computing. Furthermore, there is still the question of whether this system is reliable or not, as who knows maybe the system might crash or come in contact with virus, which can lead to detrimental consequences. On the other hand, I do not deny the convenience and benefits brought about by cloud computing. Therefore, I feel that the companies should use cloud computing in a selective manner. Important or confidential information should be stored in the companies’ own hardware. For the rest of the information, why not use cloud computing given its advantages?
For this lesson, I will rate it as 7/10. I particularly like the presentation on “Why I am quitting Facebook?” I guess this is the situation most the Facebook edicts will have to face. Checking photos, friends, playing Facebook games, replying messages, all these applications made Facebook more interesting, but also more time consuming. I feel that this link to the quote Professor Shahi mentioned in the previous lesson, about how technology is easy and people are hard. Facebook is meant to create bonds between people. Who knows why the results turn out to be this way?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Session 4
There are essentially 3 ways to cope with changes:
Option A- Make it happen (proactive)
Option B: respond what it happens (reactive)
Option C: Be surprised when it happens (Blur like sth)
After looking at this, I think I am categorized either under Option B or Option C. I am not a person that is very proactive. In the reading “Human Change Management: Herding Cats”, it discusses a lot about option B, about how people in the organizations adapt to changes, using the unfreeze-change-refreeze model. I agree with it by saying that this is model is already outdated due to the constant changes in the world. Personally, I feel that option A is the best model where everyone can try to make changes. However, this is unrealistic as making changes happen requires talent and a bit of luck. Hence, the modern model: Continuous monitoring and renewal (also option B, but with certain qualities of option A) should be used instead. Another quote was also mentioned in class: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” When I first saw this, I thought that there was some typo error: the “unreasonable” should be “reasonable” instead as I have always thought that the successful men are the ones who can adapt to the change quickly. But after Professor Shahi’s explanation, then only I understand what “unreasonable” meant. It is not purely accepting what is given to him, but in turn making the change himself, causing people to change for his sake.
Speaking of changes, one of the main changes stated in “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World” is about the global multipolar system. It was predicted that there will be an unprecedented shift of power from the western (USA) to the East (China, India). Superpower is something of the past. During the cold war, USA and Russia are the superpowers at that point of time. However, due to the “complex economic interdependencies on the international scale” and “the creation of a global village”, the idea of superpower is obsolete. As mentioned in the reading “Global trend 2025”, more countries might be emulating China’s economic model instead of the Western Model in future. The writer also mentioned about multipolarity without multilateralism (multi countries working in concert on a given issue, from Wikipedia). I agree with this as due to globalization, issue required to be tackled are usually issues that affects everyone (transnational problem). Multilateralism can no longer suffice the manpower required to resolve the problem. Efficient governance is necessary and this is where multipolarity comes in. According to the definition on Wikipedia, mutipolarity is the distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence. I also feel that this system can avoid exploitation to a certain extent as now a few countries in the dominance and they can pin down or restrain each other from doing so.
Overall, I rate this lesson 7/10.There was an interesting fact raised in class, about how virus is one of the driver of the changes in Europe, which affects not only in the economically, but also people’s belief. However, it is quite a pity that we did not come out with a satisfying answer on the question: How can LDC compete with the developed countries. But I guess if we managed to get the correct answer, we will be politicians instead of sitting here in class
Option A- Make it happen (proactive)
Option B: respond what it happens (reactive)
Option C: Be surprised when it happens (Blur like sth)
After looking at this, I think I am categorized either under Option B or Option C. I am not a person that is very proactive. In the reading “Human Change Management: Herding Cats”, it discusses a lot about option B, about how people in the organizations adapt to changes, using the unfreeze-change-refreeze model. I agree with it by saying that this is model is already outdated due to the constant changes in the world. Personally, I feel that option A is the best model where everyone can try to make changes. However, this is unrealistic as making changes happen requires talent and a bit of luck. Hence, the modern model: Continuous monitoring and renewal (also option B, but with certain qualities of option A) should be used instead. Another quote was also mentioned in class: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” When I first saw this, I thought that there was some typo error: the “unreasonable” should be “reasonable” instead as I have always thought that the successful men are the ones who can adapt to the change quickly. But after Professor Shahi’s explanation, then only I understand what “unreasonable” meant. It is not purely accepting what is given to him, but in turn making the change himself, causing people to change for his sake.
Speaking of changes, one of the main changes stated in “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World” is about the global multipolar system. It was predicted that there will be an unprecedented shift of power from the western (USA) to the East (China, India). Superpower is something of the past. During the cold war, USA and Russia are the superpowers at that point of time. However, due to the “complex economic interdependencies on the international scale” and “the creation of a global village”, the idea of superpower is obsolete. As mentioned in the reading “Global trend 2025”, more countries might be emulating China’s economic model instead of the Western Model in future. The writer also mentioned about multipolarity without multilateralism (multi countries working in concert on a given issue, from Wikipedia). I agree with this as due to globalization, issue required to be tackled are usually issues that affects everyone (transnational problem). Multilateralism can no longer suffice the manpower required to resolve the problem. Efficient governance is necessary and this is where multipolarity comes in. According to the definition on Wikipedia, mutipolarity is the distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence. I also feel that this system can avoid exploitation to a certain extent as now a few countries in the dominance and they can pin down or restrain each other from doing so.
Overall, I rate this lesson 7/10.There was an interesting fact raised in class, about how virus is one of the driver of the changes in Europe, which affects not only in the economically, but also people’s belief. However, it is quite a pity that we did not come out with a satisfying answer on the question: How can LDC compete with the developed countries. But I guess if we managed to get the correct answer, we will be politicians instead of sitting here in class
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Session 3
“Sustainability requires a shift from linear to circular thinking. Old industrial Model: Economic Development Vs Environmental Well-being. Sustainable Industrial Model: Economic Development and Environmental well-being.” In the past, to many people, environmental issues seems to be very irrelevant, all people care about is the profit or the convenience they will gain from the product. This is because they have not yet experience the consequence of the complete depletion of the world’s resources or the disaster that will come if global warming exit the limits. Hence, the typical old industrial model does not include environmental issues. It is a linear thinking as they only focuses on producing the products from the raw material without considering the process. However, as we can see from the increasingly prominent disasters and the forever rising temperature, the world is reaching its maximum carrying capacity, and people are starting to realize that. Therefore, people started to change their mindsets, instead of treating pollution as externalities, it is considered as part of the economic assessment, as internalities. It is called the circular thinking. For the earth to be more sustainable, circular thinking has to be adopted.
Most people will agree that it is important to implement the sustainable industrial model. However, is it fair for third world countries to take into account the cost of environmental degradation such as adopting green technology? Previously, the first world countries used the old industrial model (which is much more efficient in generating profit than the sustainable industrial model as no funding was required to be allocated to buy green technologies or the process without considering environmental issues are less time consuming) to achieve rapid growth in their economy, without taking into account the environmental issues. But now, we are forcing the third countries to adopt the costly industrial model when it is their turn to undergo rapid economic development? I do not think it is fair. Much of the pollutions were the products of the first world countries. Hence, it is not fair for the third world countries to bear the consequences. I am not saying that these countries shouldn’t use the green technologies, but these technologies should be subsidised by the first countries, who were the main culprits that caused the world to be in the state it is now. Moreover, these acts can be seen a sign of peaceful ties between countries. Friendly treaties such as exchange of resources and technology can be made. In the world of globalisation, it is better to have more friends than foes
In this session, Professor Shahi brought up a very interesting idea: the advantages of backwardness. Countries such as Germany and Russia were slower at picking up the development of green technology at the beginning as compared to Europe countries. Hence they do not need to go through the pain of researching from the scratch. By the time they were ready to use the green technologies, they were already several final products from the more developed countries, and all they need to do is to utilize it. Hence, the cost and manpower required for research was greatly reduced. However, for countries that are “too backward”, even though they enjoy this benefit, they will face the problem of not being able to undergo rapid economic development, as mentioned in the above paragraph.
Overall, I will rate this session 7/10. I was really surprised by the idea of having two meanings in the Chinese character of crisis. Crisis = danger + opportunity. I believed that this opportunity (green technology revolution) which arises is of great potential. Also, I was truly amazed by Air car, which is so environmentally friendly. I am sure that even though it is not in production now, one day (when the world runs out of petrol), this invention will be greatest invention in the century. During the lesson, the term “Kyoto Protocol” was mentioned. From what I understand from this term, it is a protocol created to fight global warming. It gives the incentives to reduce pollution, as by doing so, they will be able to sell the extra units to the other countries. However, the negative aspect of this protocol was not discussed in detail. From the rate at which America is producing the greenhouse gases (20 tons per person annually, over six times that of the global average (ignoring the US)), it seems that the protocol is not very effective in the reducing the level of emission greatly as a whole. Personally I feel that it is because since America is a rich country, they can afford to buy the units from the other countries (a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol). Hence, for America, it does not really serve as a deterrent to reduce GHS emission. It is quite a pity that this issue was not discussed in class. However, I understand that due to the time constrain, Professor Shahi would not able to discuss everything in detail.
Most people will agree that it is important to implement the sustainable industrial model. However, is it fair for third world countries to take into account the cost of environmental degradation such as adopting green technology? Previously, the first world countries used the old industrial model (which is much more efficient in generating profit than the sustainable industrial model as no funding was required to be allocated to buy green technologies or the process without considering environmental issues are less time consuming) to achieve rapid growth in their economy, without taking into account the environmental issues. But now, we are forcing the third countries to adopt the costly industrial model when it is their turn to undergo rapid economic development? I do not think it is fair. Much of the pollutions were the products of the first world countries. Hence, it is not fair for the third world countries to bear the consequences. I am not saying that these countries shouldn’t use the green technologies, but these technologies should be subsidised by the first countries, who were the main culprits that caused the world to be in the state it is now. Moreover, these acts can be seen a sign of peaceful ties between countries. Friendly treaties such as exchange of resources and technology can be made. In the world of globalisation, it is better to have more friends than foes
In this session, Professor Shahi brought up a very interesting idea: the advantages of backwardness. Countries such as Germany and Russia were slower at picking up the development of green technology at the beginning as compared to Europe countries. Hence they do not need to go through the pain of researching from the scratch. By the time they were ready to use the green technologies, they were already several final products from the more developed countries, and all they need to do is to utilize it. Hence, the cost and manpower required for research was greatly reduced. However, for countries that are “too backward”, even though they enjoy this benefit, they will face the problem of not being able to undergo rapid economic development, as mentioned in the above paragraph.
Overall, I will rate this session 7/10. I was really surprised by the idea of having two meanings in the Chinese character of crisis. Crisis = danger + opportunity. I believed that this opportunity (green technology revolution) which arises is of great potential. Also, I was truly amazed by Air car, which is so environmentally friendly. I am sure that even though it is not in production now, one day (when the world runs out of petrol), this invention will be greatest invention in the century. During the lesson, the term “Kyoto Protocol” was mentioned. From what I understand from this term, it is a protocol created to fight global warming. It gives the incentives to reduce pollution, as by doing so, they will be able to sell the extra units to the other countries. However, the negative aspect of this protocol was not discussed in detail. From the rate at which America is producing the greenhouse gases (20 tons per person annually, over six times that of the global average (ignoring the US)), it seems that the protocol is not very effective in the reducing the level of emission greatly as a whole. Personally I feel that it is because since America is a rich country, they can afford to buy the units from the other countries (a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol). Hence, for America, it does not really serve as a deterrent to reduce GHS emission. It is quite a pity that this issue was not discussed in class. However, I understand that due to the time constrain, Professor Shahi would not able to discuss everything in detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)