This week's lesson went by in a blur as I had been sick over the weekend. Being on medication, especially drowsy medication, does nothing for your concentration in class.
From my brief periods of consciousness, there were some points which I noted and felt could have been addressed in class.
Looking at Prof's slides on the different countries' spending on healthcare and its results, I remembered the article I presented on in week 2 (see "What Broke My Father's Heart: A Pacemaker Wrecks a Family's Life" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html). The USA has an unfortunate system which penalizes doctors who do not medicate or operate aggressively. Medical practitioners are awarded for implementing new procedures on patients, even in cases where a due diligence examination of the surrounding circumstances would suggest that non-intervention might be better (e.g. an senile elderly woman with dementia should not be fitted with a pacemaker as the device would probably do nothing to improve her quality of life, instead, it would prolong her misery). Another example of this can be found in this article ("Child's Ordeal Shows Danger of Psychosis Drugs for the Young" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html), where medication is seen to be the "cheaper" solution to children's attention problems, which can have repercussions on the child's development in the future.
The underlying problem behind most of the world's problems (including these healthcare-related ones) is a lack of responsibility. David Brooks has an interesting article on this point ("The Responsibility Deficit" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24brooks.html?scp=1&sq=responsibility&st=cse) He argues that the current system has made the consequences of our actions seem remote to those who are making the decision. With this disjoint, people are less likely to take responsibility for their actions or try to find solutions as it does not affect them. Coupled with the perception that those who make wrong decisions do not suffer for their mistakes (e.g. the bankers in the recent financial crisis), you have a recipe for disaster:
(a) problems brought about by a few actors who do not care about their consequences or think that the responsibility can be delegated to someone else
(b) these few actors mainly caring about keeping their comfortable lifestyle
(c) many people suffering from those consequences
(d) resentment from the masses due to the lack of punishment + struggle to survive
(e) groups of masses who have nothing to live for but are filled with resentment
-> possible social upheaval
I tend to agree with this author's view. For people to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences, it has to impact them directly (e.g. during the time of subsistence farming, if you don't do your job well, you have nothing to eat. Thus, people tended to their crops well). However, we are unlikely to return to the pre-Industrial Revolution times, so it is important that we come together and think of how to engage the public and influential actors to ensure that social upheaval does not become a problem of the distant future.
Another issue that was brought up in the presentation on "Biobusiness in brief: the challenges in the clinical trial" was the issue of using people in the developing countries to test products. There are serious ethical issue and evidence of a "double standard" on the value of human life if people in the developed countries are not involved in clinical trials but citizens of the developing countries are. Is human life "cheap" in the developing world because there are so many people there who are starving? Does that mean that their lives are less valuable than ours? As much as the benefits of these clinical trials would probably benefit the whole human race, does it make it acceptable to utilise human beings in such a utilitarian manner. This brings to mind an extreme example: the issue behind the use of research collected by the Nazi doctors during the Holocaust. The Jews and other incarcerated people were treated as sub-human subjects who could be utilised for testing with no issue of their dignity or the value of their life. No doubt such trials yielded results which are of great benefit to our understanding of the human anatomy and its limits, BUT what cost was such research carried out? I do understand that I am risking a slippery slope argument here, but it is worth considering the potential impact and underlying reasons for one's actions before embarking on their actions. (think Big Pharma)
That's all my thoughts for this week. As I wasn't entirely engaged throughout the session, it would not be fair for me to rate it, so I'll sit this one out.
Another point, I do realize that most of my views are influenced by American authors and press due to my favourite online newspaper(i.e. the New York Times). I will try to diversify my sources of information on the world to provide a more diverse and nuanced opinion.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Just more articles to share
Taiwan turns plastic junk into "green gold" (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/lifestylenews/view/1080691/1/.html)
A look at how we can upcycle certain types of waste to create new products and reduce wastage
How is the Internet changing the way you think? (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brockman10/brockman10_index.html)
A collection of responses on how the internet has affected the lives of these individuals in the way they interact with the environment and think about different issues.
The Body Electric (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/books/review/Saletan-t.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
A book exploring the merger of man and machine
In the Future, Smart People Will let Cars Take Control (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/science/04tier.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
the title is self-explanatory
A Plastic Wrapper Today Could be Fuel Tomorrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/business/09plastic.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
Another self-explanatory title
Enjoy reading the articles if you have time!
A look at how we can upcycle certain types of waste to create new products and reduce wastage
How is the Internet changing the way you think? (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brockman10/brockman10_index.html)
A collection of responses on how the internet has affected the lives of these individuals in the way they interact with the environment and think about different issues.
The Body Electric (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/books/review/Saletan-t.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
A book exploring the merger of man and machine
In the Future, Smart People Will let Cars Take Control (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/science/04tier.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
the title is self-explanatory
A Plastic Wrapper Today Could be Fuel Tomorrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/business/09plastic.html?ref=defense_advanced_research_projects_agency)
Another self-explanatory title
Enjoy reading the articles if you have time!
Session 5: ICT and World Change (Mass Media, the Internet, Wireless, Interactive Telecommunications) Past, Present and Future
This week's session was different from the rest as we only had one topic to cover instead of the usual two. This gave us more time to delve into the presentation questions and the discussion was much better.
There were several types of technology and points raised during the session which I felt should be addressed:
(1) the "Milo" video (see http://stuffmx.blogspot.com/2009/06/microsofts-project-natal-and-beyond.html)
This technology, originally developed for gaming, represents a new frontier in interactive technology. Possible uses for this technology included simulative interaction with young children/elderly grandparents who live alone so that they have "someone" to talk to. Coupled together with surveillance technology, this can be used to look ensure that dependants at home are taken care of, so parents who are at work have one less thing on their mind, and are able to concentrate better at work.
However, what justifies the expense spent on developing such technology?
There are so many people in the world who are out of work and could use the job of a housekeeper to sustain themselves economically, especially in the large. Furthermore, for young children who are unable to differentiate between virtual and real, this further blurs the lines. Children might then have difficulty telling exactly what is happening in the real world. A lot of energy and money also goes into developing such technology which could be better directed towards solving other problems.
The only advantage of such a programme is that it eliminates the tiring screening process to find the right housekeeper as all virtual minders will be programmed identically.
(2) Personal Media vs Mass Media
With the rise of the ability to customize our news and internet sites to our preferences, information is no longer disseminated in the same way as the past. The rise of news blog sites (e.g. the Huffington Post). It was argued in class that having freely available news channels could mean that the traditional media model, with its journalists' certifying the accuracy of the reports, are no longer commercially viable. However, I feel that the dissemination of news through non-accredited sources, which usually "lift" information from other parts of the web instead of sourcing their own, is not reliable. Evidence of this can be found in the number of news hoaxes that have been perpetrated through the web. If everyone moved towards personal media to gain the information, it would result in a situation where it is impossible to tell the truth from the lies. A lot more time would be wasted sifting through all the information to get to the truth. Thus, many personal media sites (e.g. the Huffington Post) have started to hire their own journalists to ensure the quality of their work. I see a confluence between the two areas in the future instead of one replacing the other. However, the diminishing impact on the printed press is unlikely to abate.
Overall, I felt the discussions went quite well this week and would give the lesson an overall of 7/10.
There were several types of technology and points raised during the session which I felt should be addressed:
(1) the "Milo" video (see http://stuffmx.blogspot.com/2009/06/microsofts-project-natal-and-beyond.html)
This technology, originally developed for gaming, represents a new frontier in interactive technology. Possible uses for this technology included simulative interaction with young children/elderly grandparents who live alone so that they have "someone" to talk to. Coupled together with surveillance technology, this can be used to look ensure that dependants at home are taken care of, so parents who are at work have one less thing on their mind, and are able to concentrate better at work.
However, what justifies the expense spent on developing such technology?
There are so many people in the world who are out of work and could use the job of a housekeeper to sustain themselves economically, especially in the large. Furthermore, for young children who are unable to differentiate between virtual and real, this further blurs the lines. Children might then have difficulty telling exactly what is happening in the real world. A lot of energy and money also goes into developing such technology which could be better directed towards solving other problems.
The only advantage of such a programme is that it eliminates the tiring screening process to find the right housekeeper as all virtual minders will be programmed identically.
(2) Personal Media vs Mass Media
With the rise of the ability to customize our news and internet sites to our preferences, information is no longer disseminated in the same way as the past. The rise of news blog sites (e.g. the Huffington Post). It was argued in class that having freely available news channels could mean that the traditional media model, with its journalists' certifying the accuracy of the reports, are no longer commercially viable. However, I feel that the dissemination of news through non-accredited sources, which usually "lift" information from other parts of the web instead of sourcing their own, is not reliable. Evidence of this can be found in the number of news hoaxes that have been perpetrated through the web. If everyone moved towards personal media to gain the information, it would result in a situation where it is impossible to tell the truth from the lies. A lot more time would be wasted sifting through all the information to get to the truth. Thus, many personal media sites (e.g. the Huffington Post) have started to hire their own journalists to ensure the quality of their work. I see a confluence between the two areas in the future instead of one replacing the other. However, the diminishing impact on the printed press is unlikely to abate.
Overall, I felt the discussions went quite well this week and would give the lesson an overall of 7/10.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Lesson 4 - Drivers of World Change/Change Management & Leadership
There were several questions and arguments this week that struck a chord with me.
For the 2nd presentation, which focused on trade being a driver of world change, the question on LDCs set me thinking. For the benefit of those who were not present, the presenter had asked: "How can LDCs develop their economies and compete with developed countries in the area of exporting manufactured goods?" The context for this question was that many developed countries exploited the developing countries for their abundant cheap raw materials to manufacture products which they then sold back to the developing countries for a huge profit. This resulted the developing countries not benefiting from the trade while the developed countries just got richer. What was proposed by Prof was that instead of letting the developed countries make the profit, resource rich developing countries should not sell their raw materials, develop their manufacturing industries and develop the products for export. Thus, they will earn the profit margin. This is what strikes me when I think about that solution:
No doubt developing countries will be less dependent on the developed countries for products with their own manufacturing industry, but where does that leave the developed countries with no raw materials? Does that mean that there will and should be a divide between resource rich countries which have very developed manufacturing industries and the developed countries with no raw materials which are dependent on the resource rich countries for manufactured products and with people as their only resource? It is probably a slippery slope to argue this but there does not appear to be any space for the developed countries to grow here except through speculative activity or other industries that do not require raw materials.
Another thing that struck me was the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Man's mind, once stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimensions."
Upon going back to think about this quote, a book came to mind - Stefan Zweig's 'The Post-Office Girl'. Just a brief introduction to the story:
The book is on the boom and bust of Capitalism, but it brings to mind the very idea Oliver Wendell Holmes was trying to convey in his quote. The main protagonist, Christine, is a post office worker in the Austrian countryside, who works long hours for little pay. Her life is characterized by monotony and penny-pinching until a surprise letter from her aunt sets her off on a vacation which introduces her to the world of luxury which the rich people live in. When her vacation is unexpectedly cut short, she returns to her old lifestyle with a bitter heart.
The poor girl had been given exposure to a life beyond her reach, and bitterly brought back to earth upon her return. This should shed a cautionary light of those who think that exposure and education can solve all the problems of the world. Exposure, without education on how to utilise it, would do nothing for its participants except to make them bitter in the long run. Another book that expresses this is "The Good Women of China" by Xinran. The author, who goes around collecting stories of people in China, finds out that the people in the rural countryside, away from the trappings of wealth and leading a life full of toil and hardship, were ironically the happiest. So, should we interfere with their lives?
Those are the 2 main streams of thought after monday's class. I would thus give it an 8 :)
For the 2nd presentation, which focused on trade being a driver of world change, the question on LDCs set me thinking. For the benefit of those who were not present, the presenter had asked: "How can LDCs develop their economies and compete with developed countries in the area of exporting manufactured goods?" The context for this question was that many developed countries exploited the developing countries for their abundant cheap raw materials to manufacture products which they then sold back to the developing countries for a huge profit. This resulted the developing countries not benefiting from the trade while the developed countries just got richer. What was proposed by Prof was that instead of letting the developed countries make the profit, resource rich developing countries should not sell their raw materials, develop their manufacturing industries and develop the products for export. Thus, they will earn the profit margin. This is what strikes me when I think about that solution:
No doubt developing countries will be less dependent on the developed countries for products with their own manufacturing industry, but where does that leave the developed countries with no raw materials? Does that mean that there will and should be a divide between resource rich countries which have very developed manufacturing industries and the developed countries with no raw materials which are dependent on the resource rich countries for manufactured products and with people as their only resource? It is probably a slippery slope to argue this but there does not appear to be any space for the developed countries to grow here except through speculative activity or other industries that do not require raw materials.
Another thing that struck me was the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Man's mind, once stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimensions."
Upon going back to think about this quote, a book came to mind - Stefan Zweig's 'The Post-Office Girl'. Just a brief introduction to the story:
The book is on the boom and bust of Capitalism, but it brings to mind the very idea Oliver Wendell Holmes was trying to convey in his quote. The main protagonist, Christine, is a post office worker in the Austrian countryside, who works long hours for little pay. Her life is characterized by monotony and penny-pinching until a surprise letter from her aunt sets her off on a vacation which introduces her to the world of luxury which the rich people live in. When her vacation is unexpectedly cut short, she returns to her old lifestyle with a bitter heart.
The poor girl had been given exposure to a life beyond her reach, and bitterly brought back to earth upon her return. This should shed a cautionary light of those who think that exposure and education can solve all the problems of the world. Exposure, without education on how to utilise it, would do nothing for its participants except to make them bitter in the long run. Another book that expresses this is "The Good Women of China" by Xinran. The author, who goes around collecting stories of people in China, finds out that the people in the rural countryside, away from the trappings of wealth and leading a life full of toil and hardship, were ironically the happiest. So, should we interfere with their lives?
Those are the 2 main streams of thought after monday's class. I would thus give it an 8 :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)