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.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
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...
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...
Saturday, September 4, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)