Lesson 3

Sustainable development and innovation management were among the topics discussed today. The insights provided by most of the speakers I must say were rather thought provoking and it got me thinking about certain topics more then others. In particular, the idea of sustainable development and making it happen as well as the idea of history being an open source.

For an idea that has been around since the 70’s, sustainable development is definitely taking a very long time to be implemented globally. From the discussions during class, it can be attributed to the fact that reallocating resources towards sustainable development would reduce the productivity thus reducing the current levels of profit one stands to gain. Therefore, you can have companies agreeing to cut down carbon emissions and focus on sustainable development but at the same time sticking to their normal framework of productivity. Upon further reading on environmentalleader.com, it states that US companies under the “Carbon market readiness: accounting, compliance, reporting and tax considerations under state and national carbon emissions programs, companies should consider their carbon emissions under their business and financial requirements allowing for proper taxation to be done. However many of these companies do not actually report this for tax considerations or continue to be inconsistent about information provided. So on the one hand they can agree toward a sustainable development but on the other hand their actions are not congruent.

So from this and it has been something I have been noticing throughout the 3 weeks of TWC, Regulators can only do so much. It is more the willingness of the party to want to make that change towards progress that has a positive impact on future generations. We need to start being accountable and make the change.

The presentation on Wikipedia was something I think is relevant to us because of the era that we live in. Should history be open source? Why not? The history made especially in this day and age happens to everyone. Think Obama getting elected, it affected the world. The housing bubble that subsequently led to the financial crisis in US and the a global recession happened to everyone. Even when the Iphone 4 was released. The point here is that we are all interconnected therefore to reiterate, history happens to everyone. So it is valid for anyone to have a say in it. However if history is allowed to be open source then we must also be prepared to filter for ourselves what is credible and what is not.

An issue that would be fitting for further discussion is perhaps how we can incorporate sustainable development into our lives as fast as possible rather then waiting for guidelines and regulations to be passed.

Listening to the presentations today was enjoyable because this was one of the few times for me where I got to see people present during class about something that they had a strong opinion for rather then simply presenting because they had to.

However something that really got me thinking was the triangular model showing the definitions of rising and falling stars and well as the neutral dominant powers. I was reading a Newsweek article titled “The Problem with presidents” and it states that with the world so interconnected and globalization progressing at exponential rates, now more then ever we need global leaders rather then just national leaders. Here we see the leaders of China and India and even the USA doing exactly that. They are fitting the definition of a rising star because they are countries governed by global leaders. The leaders of these countries are jumping on the globalization bandwagon because they know and as the article “Rising up to the Global Challenge” states , “growth is rarely just in the home market” because now the world is your home market. For example they are keen on investing in new ideas as well as learn from other people’s success. In short, any nation has the opportunity to be a rising star as long as they have a global perspective rather then isolating themselves. Just take a look at Brazil and President Da silva’s effort to learn from others and improve themselves transforming the nation from an economic nothing to an emerging market powerhouse.

Peoples attitude’s determine the outcome of their position in world dominance.

Another thing that intrigued me was the discussions that were brought up after the very interesting and enjoyable presentation that showed the changing roles that women play now and how they are more empowered. It made me feel rather old fashioned to think that family was more important than ambition be it whether the man or woman takes the back seat to ensure a good upbringing for one’s children but I don’t mean being a house wife/husband of course. However on the topic of the presentation, world change had allowed for the empowering of women for example the equal rights amendment…and things like this should be encouraged. If we haven’t already, we should allow women to be on the same playing field as us men be it allowing women in certain countries to finally have excess to education all the way to removing that glass ceiling that everyone talks about. There are certain things that women are much better at doing then men and if you want society to be at it’s optimal productivity, women empowerment is a key factor.

An issue for further discussion I feel should be the issue on globalization and it’s correlation with being a dominant power. Does that mean for one to be a dominant power globalization is a priority rather than an option?

Lesson 1

There were a few key topics discussed today. Among which were, why certain countries are able to make technological progress while some countries lag behind or remain stagnant altogether as well as finding the balance between our biological nature and the lifestyles that we have cultivated with the benefits brought by advancements in technology.

From the discussions as well as the video “ Guns, Germs and Steel”, it can be concluded that technology requires a step-by-step progression and if one cannot reach a certain level then technological advancement comes to a halt. Take an example from the video shown, Papa New Guineans and the Middle Easterners were both hunter, gatherers at the beginning. However over time, Middle Easterners were able to make that transition to an agricultural society because they had resources that allowed them to progress. For instance their geographical location made it possible for them to find animals they could domesticate and work for them. Therefore now they could use these animals to plough the lands allowing for a larger amount of crops to be sown. On the other hand, the Papa New Guineans continued growing crops the “old” way because they did not have the resources required to progress. So essentially, technology can only progress if there are resources available which was why the Middle Easterners were able to become more advanced technologically while the Guineans did not eventhough they were highly intelligent and highly adaptable.

This is also relevant in the modern world. With rising income inequality, lack of education and resources, a gap in created between people from different countries and even within the country itself. Therefore while technology continues to grow and change the world at an exponential rate, there are still many people who are left behind. That’s why a key takeaway for me from this is how we can bridge that gap so that technological progress, which was meant to benefit everyone, can in fact benefit everyone.

The second point mentioned in the introduction sparked a mini debate about how the biological nature of human beings is being affected negatively by technological progress. I agree to a certain extent because our body has yet to evolve to the point where we can handle our consumerist nature or the long hours we spend on the computer without exercising or even the fact that improved technology which were meant to make our lives better such as handphones, computers and MRI machines, actually produces radiation that in the long run has harmful effects on the body. However I feel this is about personal choice, therefore it is more the lack of discipline on our part to find that balance rather then it being a negative impact that technology brings.

So for me, a key takeaway from this is how do we find that balance? So that technology and world change does not bring the demise of the human race.

An issue for further discussion was the quote that was written on the white board. “Technology is easy but people are hard” We all agreed with it but we never really dug deep into why it was so? Sometimes technological progress is hindered due to moral or religious issues. Which begs the question, when do we draw the line because it is impossible to please everyone, for instance on the topic of cloning or abortions. I hope we will have the chance to discuss this.

The class out of a 10 was a 7. It was a good start, nothing too heavy but a lot of thought provoking questions to get us started and allow us to be more vocal in the future.