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*

TWC - Week 6 discussion

There are a few interesting topics discussed during the lesson.

1) Gene therapy and modification
This is a really hot ethical debate topic nowadays, and maybe in the near future as well.
Many have accused the religious in America for intervening and halting the development of possible future technologies, such as stem cell, which could be the pinnacle of human medication technology. I am wondering... is their ethical arguments valid at all? I do not have time to do extra researches for this week, but it is a question which I will certainly keep in mind.

2) Healthcare coverage rate in developing countries
This is another topic for monday's discussion. Rampant corruption, weak infrastructure and low education level have decreased the effectiveness of aid/medications donated by other countries. Is there a way to fix this? Actually, there is, and that is UN's role as an international organization authorized to provide help for the poorest and sickest people in the world. If a consensus can be reached to let UN bypass each government's sovereign reign on the aids given and let the UN people manage everything, I still think it is possible to target those people.
The problem here is that, many of developing countries' governments are not capable enough to make a systematic and efficient distribution plan for this poor people, nor would they want to spend resources on this so-called "half-dead" kind of people. I am pretty sure that is what they are thinking... With high fertility rate in developing countries, I must say that the deaths of the AIDS-afflicted group of people will not affect their population growth rate... It is a huge moral ignorance on the government's part.

All right, before I sound too accusing, I am not generalizing all the developing country's gov't under that category. Some are sincerely trying to help, but have no resources to. Still, NGOs and international bodies are the way to go to solve this problem. Somebody please go and organize an event so that developing countries can bring all their health ministers together with the UN people. Maybe some sort of consensus would be reached there.

3)Rising cost of healthcare
Big Pharma and profit. A student in my class said, "It's all about the money, money, and money". And... I agree with him. There is no way pharma company would produce something that's efficient and cheap. They will be experiencing losses. Still, the way big pharma companies nowadays do thing really annoy me. Why could not doctors prescribe generic drugs when those would do the job? No need for some high-end fancy medications which cost 10X more than generic drugs. It seems like a huge scheme to reap off fat profit from sick people.

So, what I want to know is this. Is it possible to bring to cost down, clamp down on disproportionate price increase with medication effectiveness by a lot of pharma companies, and make the doctors prescribe cheaper drugs?

Is drug/medications all that bad? I do not think it is fair for all those in pharma industry if we brand them all so.
Is insurance all that bad? I do not think so.

Without medication, a lotta of sick people would have died (e.g. antibiotics to stop inflammation and infection - usually human body could not cope with infection's rate of growth).

Without insurance, a lot of people will feel insecure when they fall sick - maybe make it even worse for their illnesses.

As always, technology and innovation are not all that bad. It is human vices which make them into instruments of.... profit-making.

TWC - Week 5 discussion

Information Communication Technology (ICT)
There is no doubt that this acronym has made its mark in the history of mankind, along with other world-changing technologies, such as, smelting, printing and steam-powered engine.

ICT has changed the landscape of human communication. Well, one of the articles even stated that machine-to-machine interactions has surpassed that of humans.What are the impacts of all these technologies to society? What have it done to all different strata of the society?

All these questions are inter-disciplinary question and could not be addressed without looking at the big picture.

Well, let's just take the evolution of internet.
Has it improved our life?
There will be no definitive answer for this particular question. Everybody has different opinion on this one.
However, I would like to highlight the fact that the net benefit will certainly surpass that of the cost.

Benefit:
Mitigation of knowledge disparity between the educated and the non-educated, bringing about a more egalitarian society. -  How true and correct is the information on the internet? Would the poor generally use it to boost productivity or waste even more time engaging in virtual world in order to forget about the reality?
For example, Indonesia recently was touted as the No.1 in Twitter usage. While I do not think that it is a bad thing, but what is more important is how people use it. If most of the people use twitter to sate their own narcissistic selves, then it is bad for the people and economy (in lost productivity). If more are about businesses, and real content and information exchange, then there is something to be leveraged there.

Mitigation of information lag time - everybody is connected, and informed - so is it really definitely a good thing? Doesn't it cause more stress and information overload? How are we going to manage all our information? Which one is the true and dependable source of information? How do one know?

Web applications to make life easier - but is it really so? How about the lost productivity by playing games or using web applications which "waste time"?

Has it improved the economics?
Yes, certainly. The articles show that Network Readiness Index is proportionate to GDP growth.But, see some of my points above for the lost productivity part
Why and how?
By bringing about knowledge economy.
Knowledge economy - low cost to SMEs, more knowledge through internet, more network/partners, increase education technology.

Has it changed political landscape?
Obama won partly because he uses twitter. People think he is the hippest presidential candidate of all time, and hence, he won. Other than a direct usage of internet, politics need to adjust themselves as society become more informed. For example, Iran government could not repress news that is censored due to a leak in internet/SNSs.
So, has Internet become a harbinger of democracy to the whole world?

All my points underlined above are good reflection points by themselves. I will spend too much time discussing each point. I'll rate the class 9/10, partly because I am an IS student.

TWC - Week 4 discussion

This week's discussion: Driver of Change.
A quote by Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you."
 
Let's get one fact straight. Change is ever with us. Maybe it will be stopped if everything is frozen at 0 Kelvin temperature, but humankind still could not reach that absolute temperature yet. Therefore, we have to embrace change - or defy it, there are only two choices (no false dichotomy here, there really are only two choices - comment if you think otherwise).

What are the drivers of change? My classmates pointed out last Monday that increased awareness of sustainability and enlightened self-interest is one, consumer expectation is another one. Now, there is something underlying the two drivers of change, those are drivers of changes for businesses.

I think that money/wealth, prestige (in achievement sense), and status (in social sense) is the real driver of change. Those three things are the main motivational drivers of change in humans. Therefore, change is us, humans.  We are the main driver of change. And how do we actually manifest those drivers in our lives nowadays? Through businesses and economical impact, scientific researches, and social contribution or occupation.

The driver of change in the Ancient times (BC and Middle Age), is something called power and influence. People want to conquer each others' land and resources. Therefore, they innovated, they made strategies to counter a problem/threat, they made ideologies which support their actions, etc.

It just manifested in a little bit different manner in our post-modern era. Everybody wants something called wealth and money. Power and influence in the ancient time is equated to wealth, prestige, and status of the modern era.

I apologize if the above seems like ranting to you, but nevertheless it is true for most people. That's my opinion and I am going to reference myself for that.

Let's go on to the next question: Should we embrace change?

Human will certainly embrace changes which will benefit them. Change that will give them more opportunity to improve their lives. Now let's see, during the Third Reich era of Adolf Hitler, many of the Germans wanted change from their economic woes, hence they support him. President Obama promised change and it gave him the presidential seat. People are naturally attracted to change, but few are willing to initiate it or become the first follower (like the presentation in the class have stated). So, people see a change in different perspectives, but if they perceive that it is going to benefit them, they will certainly embrace the change.

Why don't some people embrace change, then? For example, internet, facebook?
If you think those people are irrational, please hold your tongue. As I have said before, people act in the manner that if it will benefit them, they will certainly embrace it. However, many obstacles are in the way. High learning curve, generational gap, habits, different thought processes, people who have high stakes in the status quo and lack of time to embrace the change (esp for SMU student). These are some of the reasons among the multitude of them.

I, myself, like to distance myself from all form of changes and see how those changes affect our mindset, paradigms, our culture, behaviours, actions, ideologies, society, and individual wants. These are very broad topic of discussion, and many philosophers spent their WHOLE life exploring these issues.

I lament the fact that many people are thinking of change only in terms of technological and monetary (profit) terms nowadays. The virtues and philosophies of the Ancient Greek have been diluted and forgotten.

Even as we embrace change, I want us to keep in mind a few questions: What is the meaning of all those changes in the first place? Why does it occur in the first place?

I sometimes feel like we are trading our soul and humanity for all these superficial changes.

My reflections for this week is a little disorganized, and I apologize for those who read through these haphazard opinions.

Oh, and this week's rating... Maybe around 7/10. The discussion could have been a little bit more in-depth.

Back to my topical research paper...

TWC - Week 3 discussion

Week 3 session of TWC focused on development and sustainable growth, a topic which I have a great interest in. Coming from a developing country myself (Indonesia), I can see that much of the discussion is actually relevant to issues a developing country is facing. My thought on several of the issues discussed in class:

1. Human's dependency on oil
Oil, dubbed the black gold in the world, is the main driver of our modern economy. A thought experiment on a world without oil. Cars would break down and become useless. There will be energy shortages in many country. Infrastructure won't be able to be built, and could not be repaired without chemicals extracted from oil. Some country will lose their main export commodity, causing imbalances. People would start using renewable resources, albeit too late. There will scarcity of uranium for nuclear power and rare metals for renewable resources. (efficient solar panel and wind turbines need rare metal), driving up the cost of those resources... and developing country will once again be poor. The world will be once again divided between the have and have-not.

That is how important oil is to our economy. It is the cheapest driver of economy. All industries use oil in varying amount, and without oil, people will be hard-pressed to find alternative energy and resource.

From history, America had taken extreme political measures in securing oil (From John Perkin's The Economic Hitman), and there is no telling what superpowers will do in order to secure the rare resources which could generate renewable energy. I foresee a dark future if we do not prepare ourselves for the incoming oil depletion.

2. Renewable energy VS nuclear power
Many arguments have been offered for each one of the sides.. I personally would like to embrace both energy sources. I find that there are many conflicting studies and statistics to support proponents of each side. I find those numbers misleading, because sometimes the two sides could produce studies which produce opposing statistics/numbers. Then, we are thrown into the discussion of the validity of the studies they used. That is absurd... They are not expert on the studies, the debaters just cite them to support their views. Those studies are purportedly peer-reviewed and scientifically rigorous enough to be published in famous and credible journals - so the question is - What is happening here?

So, now, I think that rather than stopping research on nuclear energy because they are dangerous - politically (militarily, e.g. North Korea) and technologically (e.g. Chernobyl's accident) , we should put all our resources to solve the problem caused by nuclear power. /For example, designing a low cost nuclear waste recycling centre at the power plant complex - or something like that. Then, rather than stopping researches on renewable energy just because they are costly, inefficient and taking up too much space area is not a reasonable argument. We are researching exactly because we want to improve its efficiency, decrease the cost and creating a solar panel/film which can be attached anywhere (just check en.wikipedia.com) and thereby reducing the area used by solar panel (because we can attach it almost anywhere, e.g. buildings, cars, etc). Why are we stopping researches on these renewable sources of energy which might be the only way humans could survive (other than returning to dark age)? Thus said, I am a proponent of both energy sources - wanting the best of the two sources while eliminating the drawbacks. I don't think it is an impossible feat to accomplish - we just need a new paradigm on the problem.

3. GDP VS HDI (or other index) as a measuring tool of growth and development
Joseph Stiglitz, an economic noble laureate, himself has said that GDP is an outdated measuring tool for economy and development.

See here for more info:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19784660/Happiness-and-Measuring-Economic-Progress-by-Joseph-Stiglitz

I say focusing on GDP is a really dangerous paradigm. GDP, even GDP per capita, does not reflect the true condition of the economy.

For example, high GDP per capita does not ensure that there is low income inequality, instead trickle down economy might not have happened here. Economists/bloggers now are debating on whether income inequality itself is the cause of the crisis:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/08/does-income-inequality-help-cause-financial-crises.html

This is not an academic research, but it still proves something: Income inequality itself is something which must not be ignored to ensure stability, and GDP could not measure that. Moreover, I personally think that there are many accounting loopholes that GDP can use to inflate the number. Many people have reported that China is reporting false statistics in order to gain more investments.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/False-Shanghai-data-muddies-China-property-picture/articleshow/6420079.cms

How reliable are the agencies measuring those numbers? Do you still have faith in those agencies when there are frauds such as these? Is the resultant number reliable, then?
This question must be kept in mind because we are measuring and projecting economic growth and modeling based on these numbers. If they are wrong, future projections are wrong too.

So, should we change to another index? Who will make sure that the number is an approximately better indicator of economies and citizen's welfare? Will there be any change without international consensus on such matters? I surely do not know the answer, but I know one thing for sure: Numbers can't lie, but whoever makes up the numbers can. How skeptical should we be when looking at those numbers? What kind of analysis could validate and re-validate those indexes? I challenge future economists to do this.

4. Globalization, increasing international trade and poverty.
So, has the advent of internet and globalization alleviated poverty in developing country? Have increased international trade and movement of capital benefited the developing countries? Have increased knowledge, technology and know-hows improved the economy and lifestyle of the people in the countries?

I come from Indonesia, hence I could give an account of what really happened. Indonesia is a rich country, rich in resources and culture. That much is a fact. However, the government's "red tape" causes many businesses to avoid the country. Moreover, there is no sufficient supply of skilled labour to work for the companies investing there. I think that globalization helped to alleviate this particular problem .It helps to educate people more about many things. However, most of the people misuse the technology due to the lack of basic education. Hence, the problem still persist in a vicious cycle. Only a small minority really benefited from internet. Many became addicted to online gaming, chatting and other non-productive activities. While it is good that Indonesia is #1 in the number of twitters (check time.com), but it proves that the citizens are not productive enough in their works and use of technology. Basic educations such as critical thinking must be drilled into citizens. Only with that could a developing country used technology to kick-start its economy and production - and attracting more projects and investment which would benefit the country (not just take the resources and go)

All right, with that, I give the week's presentations a 8/10 due to its breadth of information and provoking questions asked in class.

TWC - Week 2 discussion

A wide array of issues are being discussed in TWC class this week. I will go through each one of them and post my own humble opinion on each of the issue:

1. Colonization

Colonization is an epitome of human greed and cruelty. It had always been done in the guise of religion or the "need" to educate and cultivate cultural values to the savages. So, the question is: just how much benefit did colonization produce for the "savages"? I will take Indonesia as an example. After being colonized for 350 years by the Dutch, there is no significant improvement or transfer of technology to the natives, nor was there any noticeable improvement in education level. Education was given only to few children, with the purpose of setting them up as puppet government/manager. The natives offered less resistance when "governed" by one of their own.

The benefit disparity between Singapore and Indonesia is indeed appalling. However, I do notice a trend here. When a colonized country has more natural resources, it tends to be controlled more tightly by the oppressors.

2. The Benevolent Empire

America might be able to rule the world right after WW 2, but they did not. Instead, they helped the world by taking the rein of leadership on several global issues. I personally think that a country has to be a leader in the world. Without a country with overwhelming military and economic capacity, it would be impossible for any global decision to be made. Every country has her own national interest, and no plan/agreement in the world would make all parties happy. A leading country could "coerce" those "unhappy" parties to comply. In that sense, a global powerhouse is indeed necessary.


Global powerhouses, no matter how altruistic they seem, have their own interest. This is where opinions diverge and people start to accuse global powerhouses of abusing their influence. America, in my opinion, has done enough damage to many countries. Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ecuador are among some of the countries affected by America's foreign policies and military conquests.

However,the question remains: Can the world do without a global leader? Without the existence of a powerhouse, would any country be deterred from expanding their territory through military might? Would it have brought peace or more wars?



More opinions will be posted tomorrow

TWC - Increasing awareness of technologies' externalities in society

The lesson started with a mind-boggling numbers presented by a video. I have always known that many people have unknowingly been enslaved by technologies - whether psychologically or economically. Apparently, its contribution to globalization and burgeoning culture (technology fads e.g. iPhone, BlackBerry, consumerism) could not be ignored, either.

Two questions immediately surfaced in my mind:
1. What are the real impacts or consequences of technology and globalization to the world in general? Does it generate more benefit for certain countries at the expense of another? Or does it generate a positive sum game?

This particular question must be explored in terms of economic, political, and sociological consequences. Why? It is because technology has the potential to transform the landscape of how the society perceives information in the mass media which in turn link it with politics. Politics have two-way relationships with economies and societies. Hence, technology has three-fold consequences which must be explored in depth.

2. Why are people(society in general) resistant in adopting new technologies?


I must bring one particular current issue into this particular discussion. GM crops, genetically modified crops, are under heavy scrutiny by the EU legislation board, with concerns of negative environment effect and negative effect to human health. These two major objections have not been scientifically proven, not by independent, corporate or government scientists. Yet, the legislators still hold on to their beliefs.
It must be reminded that these crops might be our only bulwark against the impact of global warming and subsequent starvation.

We must put everything in perspective and see the big picture in order to have any meaningful discussion.