Articles Reviews and Opinions

I have decided to continue this blog and make use of it as a platform to organize my thoughts and opinions on articles that I've read.

Let's start with this:

·         http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/11/in_race_between.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InfectiousGreed+%28Paul+Kedrosky%27s+Infectious+Greed%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

      There is no doubt that this is old news, the article was written half a year ago. But recently, researchers have found more NDM and super superbugs, as they call it, in India.

I have no idea why this is not a cause for alarm. With R&D on antibiotics slowing down, there might come a day when a simple infection could be deadly... again. Modern techniques which rely on antibiotics to prevent inflammations/infections will be rendered unusable as well. I think the medical industry need to refocus their effort on either finding a new alternative to fight against the ever-evolving bugs or finding drugs to kill those bugs.

TWC - Week 7 discussion - Revisited

This post is to make up for the missed week 7 discussion topic on Agricultural Biotechnology.

The greatest fear that humans have about this Genetically Modified Food is definitely its potential to harm mankind on the genetic level. That is the reason why EU have been trying to ban the crops from being sold in the region.

But, let's ask ourselves a question: Is GM crops the way to go? Is it basically the same as the cross-breeding that humans have done for the past few centuries, except that now it is done on the genetic level and a whole new world of "cross-species" genes can now be inserted into crops.If the answer is yes, then I see no benefit in banning the crops.

Let us just do a simple cost and benefit analysis for GM crops:

+:

1. Increase resilience in crops, allowing them to grow in harsher climates (especially with Global Warming now)
2. Increase food stock level in the world due to its more abundant harvest. 
3. Increase the nutrition level in crops, allowing people to get more nutrition from the eating the same food.
4. Lowering the price level of food (due to its abundant harvest)

-:

1. Unknown effects on human body
2. Unknown possibility of polluting the crop's natural gene pool and the consequences of it.
3. Destruction of normal farmer's livelihood
4. Dependence on certain firms to produce the crops (seeds)

Therefore, the way to go is to maximize the benefit and reduce the cost, how are we going to do it?

First, address the first two negative points. Those two are the main factors against the adoption of GM crops. Extensive research would be required, and might not be enough, given humans' limited knowledge on ecosystem and ecology. I am surprised that humans really have such a limited knowledge on the consequences of their actions on nature (e.g. oil spill). If the "visible" actions are not even fully addressed, how would the "invisible" actions be taken into account?

Yeah, I am skeptical about the researches in this area. But, let us be constructive. How would a research on consequences of GM crops be done in an ethical and effective manner?

I personally do not learn anything about research methodology, so I would not clearly know the answer, but certain criteria and measurements that I think should be the focus of the research would be these:

1. Likelihood of genetic mutations in living being when ingesting GM food.
2. Likelihood of genetic mutations in living being when reproducing from a gamete from GM organism.
3. There should be no violations in ethics while doing all these researches (meaning, no testing on humans)

Yeap, once this is known, we would be able to assess the situation  more objectively, and not just scream "NO!" at GM crops without fully understanding the potential and dangers.

The social aspect of the problem would be more easily addressed once the first two negative points are made clear. When the benefits of GM crops far outweigh the cost of it, then there is no reason why government would not use it to increase the productivity of their farmers. GM crops would be the new normal, and everybody should be standing on more or less equal ground, of course, assuming that all governments put in enough money into the research of better crops, or a standard institutions to ensure that a new normal can be established for the farmers all around the world.

Biotechnology will certainly be our future. Let's face up to it and fully know whether this would be our foe or friend in the future.


Rating 9/10
Very interesting and thought provoking class.

TWC - Week 13 Discussion

Group presentation Week 13.

Let us discuss about the drug war, something that one of the presentation groups talked about.

Drug wars have been a big problem plaguing Mexico.
What are the factors leading up to this particular problem in Mexico?

1) Money, money, money
Drug trafficking is a big business. The verb "trafficking" increases the price of the drugs by a few times. It is almost as obscene as the word "branding", in my opinion, but this one is worse because it costs lives.

There is a conspiracy theory on how US has waged this war for their own profit. I am extra careful when dealing with conspiracy theories, but sometimes I think it makes more sense than the reason given by officials nowadays.

Trafficking makes the drugs much more valuable, mainly due to its scarcity, while demand is always high.
By making military posts, checkpoints and increasing security at the border, trafficking becomes a lucrative business for the rowdy youth in Mexico.

There is merit in the group's presentation, despite the fact that legalizing such a drug would lead to slippery slope.

But, I plead that people do an official research on this "conspiracy theory".
This question must be asked: How much of the military profit made in US actually came from Mexico (the cartels) purchase of weaponry?

Are the weapon suppliers getting their "cargo" from US or other countries?

Efficiency of checkpoints in preventing the influx of drugs.
If it is not efficient, then I see no reason why you should keep doing it. There must be a change and reassessment of what the real problem is.

2) Lack of government power
Why is it that the government not deal with this problem with their military and intelligence might? I don't the cartels' operations are that clandestine. It should be easy to identify them and identify the root of the problem.
However, this might have an adverse effect as explained in 1). Therefore, government should at least try the soft approach.

3) Lack of choice
The poor people in Mexico rely on growing the "drugs" as their main income. This is the part which technology can help, by empowering this people with information and other expertise to deal with problems.


It is a topic which deserve more attentions nowadays.

TWC - Week 12 Discussion

Group Presentation Week 1

I will be discussing on an extension of one of the group presentations on week 12, the one about biological warfare. Related to this particular topic would be the topic of transhumanism: a way that modern humans can transcend themselves through genetic manipulations.

Transhumanism, it can be argued, is a way human can destroy humanity without any kind of "warfare", which means that it is much subtler and more people are not aware about this.

The follower of transhumanism believed in the usage of genetic engineering to create a better "breed" or "race" for humanity. They argue that it is  possible to insert all the "good" genes and remove all the "bad" genes in human and create a superhuman race which will be benevolent to both nature and mankind.

So, if there is a chance that this really happen, will I offer myself to be "transhuman"?

I might not want to be.

A lot of people might disagree, but this is what I really feel should not happen.

Technology do improve our lives, and productivity. But, it can be argued that it makes human even more detached than ever. Why?

The advent of internet, Skype, facebook, live video streaming and others seems to provide a platform for communications. A lot of critics have stated that there is a positive correlation between narcissism and the number of tweets on the internet. Their point of view might be biased, but I personally agree with them. There is no reason why you should broadcast your activity and feeling to the whole world. Well, not like anybody care that much, either...

Many people think that by liking a comment or posting a happy birthday post or by adding a friend in Facebook, then you are a friend already. But, how much of a friend are you if you can't even remember your friends' birthdays without looking at their facebook? How much of a friend are you if you comment on an issue on a problem and you think it counts as a consolation?

Of course, coming from a guy like me, those questions do not sound very credible indeed. But, if you are brought up thinking that saying happy birthday to a friend on his wall is sufficient a message, then you are already "detached" from your friend.There is just no replacement of meeting your friend and saying happy birthday and celebrating with him/her.

The point is: people stop asking what makes them "human". This definition of "human", I believe, should not be relative or subjective in any way. It is an objective truth that everyone ought to understand and commit to. Technology is a huge Red Herring for the pursuit of the answer to this question.

So is transhumanism.

 Before I proceed, I must confess that I am heavily influenced by my religious values.
My definition of "human" as a creation created by a sovereign Being in His image is enough to deter me from transhumanism, which would "change" this creation into something else.

So, what is the objective definition of "human"? I do not the answer to that question, but I'll surely keep looking for the answer. This is a question everybody must ask themselves and seek the answer themselves.

So, start pondering, people.

Regards,

Ronny

TWC - Week 11 Discussion

This week's presentation topics range from automotive to social issues like poverty.

I have a lot to say about poverty, especially extreme poverty.

Before we proceed on to the international level, I would like to take a look at my own country, Indonesia.

Extreme poverty is still rampant in Indonesia. Despite the increasing living standard for the past decade, it is still a perennial issue unsolved by the current president and his parliament. It is a matter of willingness and passion to help the people that the politicians/civil servants are supposed to serve. There is actually no excuse for running away from our responsibility to do social services to the community.

Why is it that extreme poverty still exist?
The reason is simple: We DO NOT know extreme poverty and the suffering it wrought. No matter how much pictures can tell, they can only convey images, not the pain, the suffering that each individual in the picture is experiencing. We DO NOT know the people in extreme poverty line. I personally am guilty of the same mindset, but I hope that does not diminish the credibility of this post.

One thing is clear: The poor people want to increase their standards of living, and are willing to work for it, given the chance. This particular fact is supported by a Ted Talk that I watched recently. The poor in African country strive to increase their living standard and they do not want to be dependent on foreign aids all the time, either. They are willing to work hard for it, given the chance to learn. This is an important point of view that everybody must have.

Exactly because we, people who live comfortably in modern cities, do not possess this kind of point of view that extreme poverty still exists. We are too detached from them, and by donating some small amount of extra change, we think that we have reached out to them, that we have done our part. This is a blatant lie that many of us are telling ourselves.

The eradication of extreme poverty can be brought about by increasing our awareness of how massive are our actions' consequences. I am not talking about some chaos theory here. If, every one of people who are middle-income earner and above would spend, say a few weeks to help teach and interact with these people. We are becoming increasingly egalitarian in our point of view regarding poverty. That is a hindrance, too.

Obviously, we can't choose who to be our parents, and which family we are born into, are they well off or not.... An egalitarian society is one that perpetuates a negative cycle. As poor and rich became segregated, the gap usually becomes bigger due to the oppression of the poor by the rich, and rich becomes more powerful. Listen to the poor people, for often they are robbed of their options and choices, their freedom to shape the course of their lives due to our disdain for "non-elite" people.


A few things we can do so that we can create some real and sustainable impact rather than fooling ourselves continuously by just donating money:

1. Be involved in community services, e.g. Teach the community your insights and experience and skills
2. Utilize your skill sets for the benefit of these people, e.g. engineer could build water filtration plant, etc.
3. Encourage friends/families/others to do 1 and 2

Rating: 10/10

Highest rating for the last class (for teaching, anw)

TWC - Week 10 Discussion

Future Technology.

In the class, we discussed all the different technologies which would be a life-changer: nuclear fusion technology, augmented reality, driverless cars and others.

Those are all cool technologies which would definitely sell when it become economically viable to purchase them.


Investment and financing of the researches constitute half of the battle for the scientists. First, they need to get the money or grant in order to start something, and then, they need to do the science and meticulous research to prove their hypothesis.

Now, there are many ideas and theories which are scrapped before researchers could even prove their ideas due to the lack of grant and money to do the research. I personally think that this filtering is absolutely necessary to uphold the quality of the research and prioritize the one with the highest benefit to society.

I would like to think of the logical steps needed to evaluate a research. On what measurement would we evaluate a research's value? Is a research on animals less important than the medical research on AIDS? How are we going to justify such a claim? Who will make such a claim? And who can give such a claim the weight of authority?

1. Research must be feasible, with adequate literature with which scientists could design the methodology and experiment, and yield certain result.
Human is a "loss averse" creature. It has been proven by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. .
Such characteristics made assessment of risks for investment portfolio an important thing. Investors do not like seeing their money lost, but is this the correct behaviour?


Future technologies are the brave new world of science. They are uncharted territories, which would require vast resources and effort to explore and discover. There is gain without any pain. When there is excess wealth, I personally think that it is better to invest in causes and researches which could potentially bring about great benefits to the society. It is not unlike what Bill Gates and Melinda Gates have been doing for the past decade. Their institutions have raised money to help to poor.


So, research need not be totally feasible when it starts, because breakthrough could not happen without breaking the limitations given to us. However, research should at least be based on certain empirical finding or observation before being approved for funding. T


2. Creation of Technology Assessment Organization.
A non-profit technology assessment organization with powerful think-tank team will bring credibility to the papers released by the organization. Such technology assessment organizations could potentially direct the scientific community's energy towards future goal.


The future awaits us.


Rating: 8/10



















 

TWC - Week 9 Discussion

After 2 weeks of break (I missed one entry on agricultural biotech, I will include my opinion later on this entry), finally I am resuming my entries on this blog.

So, renewable energy/ alternative energy. Viable or not?

With increased technological capability and effectiveness... yes. As long as we are able to gather all those wasted energy that pours down on us everyday (solar energy), we will be able to keep the whole world ticking without oil and other fossil fuels that we are currently using. There is certainly no doubt about that.

But, is it expanding fast enough to save the world from the looming environment catastrophe, i.e. Global Warming? Will we, people (and government), who are always slow in embracing new technology, be willing to sacrifice the revered "economic development" for "sustainability"?

Why do I say so? As always, I do not have figure to totally support my point, but from the articles/journals that I've read before, I am pretty sure that embracing this technology will bring some pain in the short run. Increased/High capital cost of the energy, efforts to curb toxic emissions/waste, and others. It will cost money, and people do not like that.

I am reading John Perkin's The secret History of American Empire, who gives quite a worrying account on environmental devastation that humans have done to Mother Earth. Some pictures on toxic flood that I've seen before give me goosebumps (the link is here http://webecoist.com/2010/10/12/wave-goodbye-10-of-the-worlds-worst-toxic-floods/) . Such is the extent of damage that we have wrought, and all of us have been implicated in this damage. We could not escape from the allegations/responsibility. We are consumerists, we consume products which production processes kill the environment. That is a fact.

For example, John Perkin mentioned something about the "bloody" minerals obtained in Africa.  Just like the movie "blood diamond", this is a real-life account on how conflicts in Africa are mostly politically motivated so that certain corporations or country could obtain certain resources (rare minerals important for electronic products, gold, oil, etc). We might have blood on our hands. I have not gotten the time to trace the sources and others, but this possibility in itself is not giving me any comfort.

Yeah. That's my point. It is not going to be so easy to change the mindset of the people and the corporations who care mostly about the bottom-line. I must admit, we need more CEOs who appreciate the benefit of "enlightened self-interest". That is the only way we could bring our current situation around, through the business world, through the capitalism system itself. We must introduce some drugs to help this diseased economic system, that drug might just be this "enlightened self-interest".

Personal opinion: We are touting renewable and alternative energy as some world-changing technology which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. Yeah, but, those are empty ideology in  my opinion. We are just cheering the scientists and engineers on from the front line. I say, we do what we can to stop our dependencies on fossil fuel. I mean, it's like drug addiction, it's going to be painful not to use it... but, think about the future.

OOOK, am I being too alarmist here? All right, maybe OK, even if the world is not going to end if you don't change your way, there is still quite a considerable economic benefit and I believe, "personal satisfaction" - or "moral satisfaction", if that "value" still exist., of changing our ways. Oil will fluctuate in price and geologists have predicted the end of oil in coming decades, its days are numbered. Reducing dependency now will make the oil price increase less relevant to us (and maybe curb the hegemony of USD - coupled with the reduction of US debts owned by other countries, I'm pretty sure USD will lost its current hegemonic strength). My second point, is... more or less an appeal to common sense and human's sense of dignity as the stalwart of mother earth.

Rating: 7/10
Still, even after writing this post. I am guilty of being a hypocrite. *Sigh*