This session's topic was a really interesting one. The fact that we are predicting what is going to happen in future is an exciting task. This session, I was really inspired by the quote given in Professor's powerpoint. “You see things; and you say, 'Why?'But I dream things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?'”. That is the spirit of a successful innovator. Many people blame their failure on their luck. They say those who succeed were lucky enough to have the opportunity. However, I would say that most of these opportunities are actually created, not given. When the same idea come across their minds, some people will say "Why? This is impossible."; while will say "Why not? There must be a way to do it." It is the "never say die" fighting spirit that urge people to move on until they achieve the impossible. Looking at professor's readings, I was truly amazed by the future technology they came up with. Ideas like the Global Electronic Library, Vibrational Medicine, Superlearning Systems, will change our era. What impressed me most is not their creativity, it is their courage to pen down their ideas and put it into action. Many people have brilliant ideas but do not have the guts to expose it to the world in fear of mockery. Thanks to these brave people, our society is what it is now and will prosper in future.
Looking at the content of some of presentations, I was and still fascinated by the ideas and future innovations. Firstly, is the idea about wireless electricity. The article suggest 2 methods in replacement of the wires to transmit electricity: mutual induction and electromagnetic waves. This is indeed a idea as it is a common sight, especially in office where computers are essentials, that wires get entangled or people experiencing the anxiety of bringing the charger with long messy wires everywhere they go. With this innovation, all these will no longer be a problem. However, I believe that the society will have questions about the safety of this innovation. Nobody knows whether having a close contract with these waves on a long term basis will have an impact on our health. As we all know that some waves can be harmful (radioactive waves), one may never know whether these waves used to replace wires will change our body system since we are exposed to it wherever we go. So, I doubt this innovation will be widely utilised unless researchers are able to prove that long term exposure will not have an impact on us.
The other innovation that was mentioned was also an interesting one. The idea of falling in love with virtual people seems ridiculous at first. However, looking at the explanation given in the article, this idea is indeed feasible for some of the people. People fall in love with another person might be for several reasons: appearance, behavior, personalities. If a robot is able to fulfill the criteria and is constructed completely based on people's preference, why would people not fall in love with it? In our society, some people commit suicide or undergo depression due to the loss of their love ones. If these virtual robots are used to imitate their love ones and calm them down, suicide and depression rate will decrease. However, this might be unacceptable to some people. Some people might argue that the knowledge that "she" or "he" is non-human will stop them from falling in love with virtual people. In addition, all parents will not be happy if their children fall in love with a robot. This is because robots are not able to produce our future generations with human. Imagine a society where everyone is in love with a virtual person, I believe that the world's population will decrease drastically. Thus, I feel that this innovation is interesting but is not feasible and will not be widely recognised.
I would rate this session 9.5/10. I truly enjoy this session a lot. New ideas introduced were fascinating. Especially the presentation about invisibility. I bet the idea of being invisible has been in people's mind for quite some time but only until now that people have the ability solve part of this problem. However, as I always mention, technology is a double edge sword. While looking at the benefits future technologies will bring about, scientist should also spare a thought for the harmful impacts they might have on the society. For example, if the invisibility cloak is invented, what will happen to the safety of our society? CCTV will be useless and chances of criminal escaping will be very great. Even if they are caught, there is also a high chance of them escaping law as there is no witness!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Session 8 week 9
Climate change is one of the most worrying trends in today's context and the fear that the earth is reaching its maximum capacity is overwhelming. People are finding ways and means to reduce greenhouse gases emission and the usage of natural resources. Tracing back to the root of these 2 problems, excessive non-renewable energy consumption is the main culprit of why we are in this situation. But even though people have found the root of the problem, we cannot eliminate it because energy consumption is inevitable. Thus, the only way to solve the problem is to create renewable energy which are environmental friendly. This idea coincides with professor's statement, which states that: "the days of fossil fuels are numbered. Renewable energy will drive the green revolution." However, some problems might appear for certain countries if people solely rely on renewable energy. One of the reason is because selling natural resources (to provide non-renewable energy) is a major source of national income for them, for example, 95 % of Nigeria's national income comes from selling of oil. Thus, if the world is completely relying on the renewable resource, these countries will lose their main source of livelihood. Nonetheless, seeing that the world is reaching its limits, man have to look at alternative means for energy consumption, or we will be facing dire consequences.
One of the articles that caught my attention was about transport. Transportation plays a very crucial role in our lives. Looking at the amount of greenhouse gas produced by transportation, we can see that if people want to be environmentally sustainable and "save the world", new transportation or transportation system has to be created. Before reading this article, I have thought about the future transportation technology and felt that researchers should focus on create alternative fuels or new car system which requires other form of energy (electricity, pressure etc.) to operate. However, I realised that it is not an easy task for these researchers to come out with a completely new technology, it takes years to achieve. Thus, at the mean time, people should also focus on other ways of reducing greenhouse gas emission such as improving current technologies to make vehicles more technically efficient than they are now and lessen their fuel consumption per kilometre of driving or creating new transport systems and infrastructure to reduce the need for vehicle travel and enable more efficient routing, as mentioned in the article. The article also states that the ultimate goal is to create a sustainable transport system, hence exploring alternative fuels for transport is still one of the major research areas that people are focusing on. The current results of the research (on alternative fuels) are:
-Electric propulsion and powertrain systems
-Hydrogen fuel-cell propulsion systems
-Technologies that allow use of biofuels which have near-zero emissions on a well-to-wheels basis
With the introduction of these new technologies, people are no longer solely reliant on non-renewable resources for transportation and at the very least controlling the amount of carbon emission coming from transportation.
Some countries in Africa are so poor was mainly because of the vast space occupied by the desert in their country. In the past, people are not able to utilized the deserts efficiently due to the bad environmental conditions of the deserts. But this does not mean that the desert is completely useless. With the introduction of solar energy, people can actually set up solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, which convert the sun's energy into electrical energy, in the dessert, acting an electricity generator for the whole country. This is possible given the vast abundant space of land that they have. Also, given the strong sun in Africa, building solar panels on residents' own house can also help contribute to the amount of energy (mainly electricity) generated. The only problem they will be facing is the monetary factor for creating and maintaining the technology. Given the serious corruption problem in Africa, it is predictable that investors will be quite reluctant to invest their money in Africa.
I will rate this session 7/10, because there are some repetitions in the content with the previous sessions about alternative fuels being used as renewable source of energy. However, they are still some interesting ideas that caught my attention, which is the idea about individual families selling the energy generated to the company at a higher rate and buy the same amount of energy at a cheaper rate. This is a good incentive for the public to install solar panel on their house as this can actually act as a source of income for the families. This will be a win-win situation where families earn money and companies receive energy generated without investing in the equipment required. From this, I can derive that it is very important to have an effective policy if the country wants to drive green revolution. People will only adopt the "renewable technology" only when it benefits them. By just saying "to save the world" is not a sufficient reason for them to adopt the technology in this increasingly profit-driven world.
One of the articles that caught my attention was about transport. Transportation plays a very crucial role in our lives. Looking at the amount of greenhouse gas produced by transportation, we can see that if people want to be environmentally sustainable and "save the world", new transportation or transportation system has to be created. Before reading this article, I have thought about the future transportation technology and felt that researchers should focus on create alternative fuels or new car system which requires other form of energy (electricity, pressure etc.) to operate. However, I realised that it is not an easy task for these researchers to come out with a completely new technology, it takes years to achieve. Thus, at the mean time, people should also focus on other ways of reducing greenhouse gas emission such as improving current technologies to make vehicles more technically efficient than they are now and lessen their fuel consumption per kilometre of driving or creating new transport systems and infrastructure to reduce the need for vehicle travel and enable more efficient routing, as mentioned in the article. The article also states that the ultimate goal is to create a sustainable transport system, hence exploring alternative fuels for transport is still one of the major research areas that people are focusing on. The current results of the research (on alternative fuels) are:
-Electric propulsion and powertrain systems
-Hydrogen fuel-cell propulsion systems
-Technologies that allow use of biofuels which have near-zero emissions on a well-to-wheels basis
With the introduction of these new technologies, people are no longer solely reliant on non-renewable resources for transportation and at the very least controlling the amount of carbon emission coming from transportation.
Some countries in Africa are so poor was mainly because of the vast space occupied by the desert in their country. In the past, people are not able to utilized the deserts efficiently due to the bad environmental conditions of the deserts. But this does not mean that the desert is completely useless. With the introduction of solar energy, people can actually set up solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, which convert the sun's energy into electrical energy, in the dessert, acting an electricity generator for the whole country. This is possible given the vast abundant space of land that they have. Also, given the strong sun in Africa, building solar panels on residents' own house can also help contribute to the amount of energy (mainly electricity) generated. The only problem they will be facing is the monetary factor for creating and maintaining the technology. Given the serious corruption problem in Africa, it is predictable that investors will be quite reluctant to invest their money in Africa.
I will rate this session 7/10, because there are some repetitions in the content with the previous sessions about alternative fuels being used as renewable source of energy. However, they are still some interesting ideas that caught my attention, which is the idea about individual families selling the energy generated to the company at a higher rate and buy the same amount of energy at a cheaper rate. This is a good incentive for the public to install solar panel on their house as this can actually act as a source of income for the families. This will be a win-win situation where families earn money and companies receive energy generated without investing in the equipment required. From this, I can derive that it is very important to have an effective policy if the country wants to drive green revolution. People will only adopt the "renewable technology" only when it benefits them. By just saying "to save the world" is not a sufficient reason for them to adopt the technology in this increasingly profit-driven world.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Session 7
I did not go for this week session as I was having fever:( However, I have read through some of the aritcles given, students' powerpoint slide and notes from friends.
This week's topic was an interesting one: still on biobusiness revolution, but focusing on agriculture.The statement given to class for this session is "When we are able to grow the resources we need, only then will we be on the way towards stability." I understand that this statement is true to a certain extent as if we are able to grow the resources, this means that these resources are somewhat "renewable" in the sense that we can regenerate it when we are running out of supply. Hence, they are considered sustainable. On the other hand, given that "resource" is actually a big word, which includes resources for energy, food, raw material for products, there will be several problems we will be facing if we completely rely on the method of growing resources. Firstly, there will be a limited usage of land. Since resources are required for so many purposes, there will not be enough land for us to grow these extensive amount of resources unless we remove the forest, find ways to grow crops in the desert or reducing the the amount of space man live in. However, if we resort to these solutions, other negative consequences might arise. Secondly, excessive use of the land might lead to depletion of nutrients present in the soil. Hence, growing of resources is not exactly sustainable as one of the factors (nutrients in soil) for growing crops might be depleted if not well managed. Hence, I would say that even though men has discovered this method of growing resources which seems to look and is sustainable to a certain extent, men must still continue to explore alternative methods of getting resources rather than putting all eggs in one basket.
In the article "Industrial and environmental application of Biotechnology", there is one segment talking about the opportunities given to the developing countries by the introduction of biotechnology. Bioproducts such as biofertilizer, bioenzyme, bioleaching etc aim to benefit the developing countries both economically and environmentally and giving opportunity for them to make the transition from raw material exports to processed products. I would agree that they definitely do benefit them by increasing the efficiency of the production and improving sustainability developments with the use of environmentally-friendly-technology. However, it is a pity that the author did not discuss about the problem that they will be encountering if they are adopting these bioproducts and technology. Even though these products do increase the yield of production, hence earning more profit, the author did not consider the starting cost. Taking farmers as example, they need invest a large aount of money to buy the biofertilizer, for some cases, GM seeds to increase crop yield. This amount of money might be a heavy burden on the farmers. The profit earn from the extra yield produced might be used to buy more biofertilizer and GM seed. This will seem like a never-ending-debt. To minimize this "side effect" and maximise the benefits of bioproducts and technology, I feel that it is very important for the government to regulate them such as improving market access or provide subsidies for these products.
One of the risks that will affect the future biotechnologies and products for crops mentioned in the article "how to feed the world in 2050" is climate change. Global warming and greater frequency of extreme weather events will lead to damages in the form of declining yields and water scarcity. Therefore, it is a challenge to
take effective action both to mitigate its effects and to adapt to its unavoidable consequences. Solutions such as conservation agriculture, avoiding deforestation, forest conservation and management, agro-forestry for food or energy, land restoration and recovery of biogas and waste to "increase resilience of production systems in the face of increased climatic pressures" are proposed in the article. However, I feel that this is insufficient given that the nature of the crops is still dependent on the temperature of the climate. Once the temperature exceeds its limits, no matter how much water or how many land spaces we reserve for agriculture, the crops will not be able to grow, unless they are grown in the green house, where temperature is being monitored. I would suggested that heat or cold resistant crops (GM crops) seeds should be on stand-by so that in the case of drastic climate changes, we are still able to produce food.
This week's topic was an interesting one: still on biobusiness revolution, but focusing on agriculture.The statement given to class for this session is "When we are able to grow the resources we need, only then will we be on the way towards stability." I understand that this statement is true to a certain extent as if we are able to grow the resources, this means that these resources are somewhat "renewable" in the sense that we can regenerate it when we are running out of supply. Hence, they are considered sustainable. On the other hand, given that "resource" is actually a big word, which includes resources for energy, food, raw material for products, there will be several problems we will be facing if we completely rely on the method of growing resources. Firstly, there will be a limited usage of land. Since resources are required for so many purposes, there will not be enough land for us to grow these extensive amount of resources unless we remove the forest, find ways to grow crops in the desert or reducing the the amount of space man live in. However, if we resort to these solutions, other negative consequences might arise. Secondly, excessive use of the land might lead to depletion of nutrients present in the soil. Hence, growing of resources is not exactly sustainable as one of the factors (nutrients in soil) for growing crops might be depleted if not well managed. Hence, I would say that even though men has discovered this method of growing resources which seems to look and is sustainable to a certain extent, men must still continue to explore alternative methods of getting resources rather than putting all eggs in one basket.
In the article "Industrial and environmental application of Biotechnology", there is one segment talking about the opportunities given to the developing countries by the introduction of biotechnology. Bioproducts such as biofertilizer, bioenzyme, bioleaching etc aim to benefit the developing countries both economically and environmentally and giving opportunity for them to make the transition from raw material exports to processed products. I would agree that they definitely do benefit them by increasing the efficiency of the production and improving sustainability developments with the use of environmentally-friendly-technology. However, it is a pity that the author did not discuss about the problem that they will be encountering if they are adopting these bioproducts and technology. Even though these products do increase the yield of production, hence earning more profit, the author did not consider the starting cost. Taking farmers as example, they need invest a large aount of money to buy the biofertilizer, for some cases, GM seeds to increase crop yield. This amount of money might be a heavy burden on the farmers. The profit earn from the extra yield produced might be used to buy more biofertilizer and GM seed. This will seem like a never-ending-debt. To minimize this "side effect" and maximise the benefits of bioproducts and technology, I feel that it is very important for the government to regulate them such as improving market access or provide subsidies for these products.
One of the risks that will affect the future biotechnologies and products for crops mentioned in the article "how to feed the world in 2050" is climate change. Global warming and greater frequency of extreme weather events will lead to damages in the form of declining yields and water scarcity. Therefore, it is a challenge to
take effective action both to mitigate its effects and to adapt to its unavoidable consequences. Solutions such as conservation agriculture, avoiding deforestation, forest conservation and management, agro-forestry for food or energy, land restoration and recovery of biogas and waste to "increase resilience of production systems in the face of increased climatic pressures" are proposed in the article. However, I feel that this is insufficient given that the nature of the crops is still dependent on the temperature of the climate. Once the temperature exceeds its limits, no matter how much water or how many land spaces we reserve for agriculture, the crops will not be able to grow, unless they are grown in the green house, where temperature is being monitored. I would suggested that heat or cold resistant crops (GM crops) seeds should be on stand-by so that in the case of drastic climate changes, we are still able to produce food.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Session 6
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?
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 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)