Week 2

This second week of TWC was split into 2 sections-

Technology, Society & Global Dominance

We started off by listing the various types of dominance (cultural, military, information & even disinformation) and Prof also kinda defined dominance. It's a country/ organisation who's clearly the leader in the market, setting the tone for the rest. Prof also showed us his own model for organisational behaviour for identifying innovating leaders & dominant players! T'was quite cool with the Triangle thingy that had Rising Star & Falling Star on both slopes of the triangle, and a Dominant Player being well-balanced between the two.

One point I remember from this was when Prof mentioned how you can either choose to energise people, or sap energy from people. And I guess this boils down to individual choice, on whether you would wanna influence people, or be influenced. From this model I also gathered how it's important to be open to new concepts and information from external sources, in order to prevent being isolated.

Prof wrote another quote on the board before lesson (I wonder if he's gonna come up with a new quote every week hahaha) stating that, Change is inevitable and often necessary; the transition process can often be difficult or painful (for some). This is really true, as we have previously discussed how we've moved on from hunter-gatherer times to now, that change is indeed inevitable. It's also necessary for us humans to continually be on the move to improve ourselves, so as to keep up with modernisation.

However, the time period between the start and end product of change would leave some struggling, because whenever there's change, someone else is bound to lose power and influence. And most of the time, people prefer to stay where they are. This then brings us to the question whether people are in fact contented with what they have, or are they constantly in hunger for change. One example mentioned of an organisation that has been successful with continual change is Apple who have been reinventing themselves with the recent launches of the iPad & the iPhone 4.

One key takeaway point for this segment of the class was the video Prof showed us on Globalisation, and the New Rulers of the World, which can be found here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgMlXoQMbY. Honestly, I was quite sad after watching this as it depicted reality, about how wide the income disparity has become, and truly there is a huge income gap between the rich and the poor. In light of this, I feel it's important that society sees the need to help the less-fortunate population of the world. And I'm glad that what the UN is doing about the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is working towards that, which was discussed in the second half of class.

Technology & Human Development

Development, as what I make of it, is the process of advancement. There was then some discussion in class whether change is development or vice versa, and we concluded that change is in fact, a consequence of development. We then went into the different examples of development like social, economic, cultural, human etc. But what striked me was Prof summing up sustainable development pretty well- Choosing options Today that wouldn't limit your options Tomorrow.

One highlight of this segment was the question that Prema posed to the class, and which Prof asked me to answer- How do we go about catergorizing which technology would be related to human capabilities? I went about answering the question saying that people can be categorized according to their education levels, so as to allow them to fully maximise their potential using technology, of an appropriate level, assigned to them. I had thought that since the less-developed people weren't exposed to modernisation, they'd just have no clue.

I then went on to state that people in less-developed countries were probably be unable to use an iPhone 4. Which at this point, Prof gives me a look of shock and refutes my answer, stating that developing countries can actually be adaptable to new technologies! He stated that it was ignorance and the lack of experience on my part, which I have to agree with. Haha. But for that, I'm now a little more aware on how some developing countries are in fact, adaptable to new technologies, just like how a classmate pointed out he knew of this group of young students on a mountain being able to utilise a laptop within the time period of a month! Impressive.

So, one thing that we could have discussed further would be how we, as normal people, can contribute to society in realistic yet pragmatic ways that can somehow benefit the less-developed countries? The MDGs project would indeed go a long way, but it is a little tough for everyone of us to be in that project and to contribute significantly.

I would give Week 2's lesson an 8/10 as I've come to have more interest in class due to insightful presentations by my classmates, and the discussion that followed.

Thoughts from Week1 Readings

Just covered my readings as stated by Prof Shahi in the slides, and thought I should do a summary kinda thing here lest I forget the small details of what I’ve read.

www.worldworld.com provided me with a timeline of how civilization progressed from the very beginning, with the formation of galaxies and Earth, all the way to intellectual developments by humans today.

I thought a brief flowchart would provide better visualization, and hence came up with one. Please correct me if I provide inaccurate details or missed out on vital information, which I should have included.

1. Basic forming of galaxies and the Earth + development of survival skills + primary inventions (eg. Wheels)
2. The rise of religions (eg. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism)
3. More modern inventions (eg. Telephones, Aeroplanes, Radio-signals)
4. Progressed to have more intellectual inventions/ developments (eg. Nuclear weapons, Spacecrafts, Microchips, Cloning etc.)

In summary, this website provided me with the whole timeline of how human civilization has developed over the thousands of years, and how technology has advanced over the course of time. One line that caught my eye was “Stoning to Cloning in a few thousand of years”, illustrating how we’re advancing at an exponential rate, and it would certainly be unimaginable what we would be like 5 billion years down the road when the galaxy is supposed to be naturally destroyed (if we’re not already gone by 2012, haha).

The second site that was recommended was www.history-world.org/agriculture.htm. It elaborated on agriculture and the origins of civilization. It states that an increasing number of humans shifted to dependence on cultivated crops and domesticated animals for their subsistence. Tools & skills advanced sufficiently to support >1000 people.

The Agrarian Revolution was brought about by a few factors

1. Climatic Changes

· Led to the migration of many big game animals to new pastures in the North decreased the supply of game for hunters in the Middle East.

· Led to a change in distribution and growing pattern of grains and crops, which hunters depended on.

2. Increase in Human Population

· Led to a shift to sedentary farming.

· Caused by a change in climate, plant & animal life, with people moving to places where shifts were minimal.

· Cause by harvesting grains intensively. More grain harvest led to a systematic cultivation of plants.

The broadcasting of wild seeds involved selecting the best grain for seed, leading to improved crop yields and resistance to plant diseases. Time needed increased, but labour required declined, and potential yield rose significantly.

Spread of the Neolithic Revolution

Agriculture was far from the dominant support for society. However, those who adopted it survived and increased in numbers, spreading the techniques throughout the Middle East and to India, to Europe and to Africa.

Transformation of Material Life

The growth of sedentary farming in the Neolithic era greatly accelerated the pace of technological and social change.

Technological: There was a rise in invention- increased reliance on sedentary farming led to the development of agricultural implements (eg. Digging sticks to break soil, axes to clear forests, etc.) Seed selection, planting, fertilization and weeding were also improved. The end of the Neolithic age saw newly devised ways of storing rainwater & rechanneling river water for irrigation. Transportation also improved leading to the making of skin-covered boats and reed-and-log rafts.

Social: Surpluses in agriculture led to exchanging part of their harvest to specialized services and production of non-cultivators (toolmakers & weavers). Specialized production in tools is a good consequence of the development of agriculture as it led to regional specializations and interregional trade.

Women played an important role in the domestication of plants, but soon men took over tasks like heavy labour (eg. plowing, hoeing, controlling vital irrigation systems). Men also took the lead in taming animals and soon the economic position of women declined.

Causes of civilization in the Middle East

Settled agriculture implied forms of property, giving families an identity. With property, there was incentive to introduce improvements (eg. wells & irrigation). Property brought about laws & enforcement mechanisms and an extensive government, leading to possibilities of trade.

Settled agriculture also encouraged the formation of large and more stable communities, which developed around fields. The primary incentive for stability was the need for irrigation systems. Farmers needed to cooperate and be dependent on each other, leading to people living in villages rather than in isolation. The increase in scale of political and economic organization ensured that users along the river had equal access to it.

Further innovations- New Tools & Specialisation

New inventions enhanced the productivity of Middle Eastern Agriculture. Consistent surpluses shaped civilization, leading to a recurrent series of technological changes. (eg. Potter’s Wheel & Obsidian, a hard stone used for tools. One significant technological change was the introduction of metal for use in tools & weapons (eg. copper + tin = bronze). The use of metal enabled them to manufacture a greater variety of tools, which were lighter and easier to make. The Middle East was the first to move from the Neolithic (stone tool) Age to the Bronze Age. Trade also led to the formation of sea routes.

The last site, www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/themes/science/, informed me about cutting age science in the Middle East. Some of these include calculating the diameter of the Earth, and areas in medicine, like the removal of cataracts, and the treating of kidney & gallstones, at the time when the Europeans were still using leeches.

Technological advancement of the West led to them having a military & economic advantage over the Islamic world. The Middle East had to outsource work to foreign firms due to being tight on cash. They sold their right to develop and & profit (aka concessions). Hence, the European government had interests in influencing Middle Eastern regimes, hence leading to greater dependency on the West, slowly increasing resentment within the Middle Easterns.

Access to Technology

Internet cafes sprung up in major cities for people who couldn’t afford computers. However, the government was the only Internet provider and hence had the right to censor any content they deem unfit. Oil-poor countries had insufficient resources to take advantage of new technology. In summary, the ability to access new technology is related to both economic resources and political openness.

Well, that’s what I’ve gathered from the readings from the various sites. If you’ve read until this line, then I’m quite honoured, haha! It’s really long, but I hope it has somehow benefitted you, cause it sure has enlightened me on a variety of issues (: Do leave a comment if I’ve stated wrong facts or if I’m lacking in elaboration in any part, or if you have anything in mind you wanna say! :D

Week 1

My first TWC class started with Prof Shahi showing us a video "Guns, Germs, and Steel", narrating how a Mr Jared Diamond was in Papua New Guinea, feeding his passion for bird-sighting. It was there that Diamond was immersed into a culture with lots of history, backdating to at least 40,000 years ago, much longer than people living in the continents of North & South America. But what dumbfounded Diamond wasn't how the New Guineans so efficiently eyed and caught their game, it was when a native, Yali, posed a question that at first seemed simple to Diamond, but did not have a simple answer.

"Why you White Men have SO MUCH cargo, and we New Guineans have so LITTLE?"

Cargo is a term for material goods first brought to their country by the Westerners, and was regarded by many as evidence of a white man's power. The Westerners would argue that power was determined by race, seeing themselves as superior to the New Guineans, hence being "natural" that they'd own more cargo. But is this really true? That certain civilisations deserve to be less developed cause of the colour of their skin?

Diamond disagreed, and so do i.

The New Guineans are amongst the most culturally diverse and adaptable people in the world, and could easily knock up a shelter in the hardest of environments within a few hours. So why then are they so much less developed than modern day America?

I believe it is due to the factor of accessibility. Or rather, the lack of it for the New Guineans.

It was stated in the video that "All great civilisations have something in common- advanced technology, large populations, and a well-organised workforce". Papua New Guinea sure has a large population, but not one that is trained and skilled to ensure survival in the modern world. Technology has also not found its way to the forests of New Guinea, hence depriving its citizens of the wide world of the Internet, and many other advancements and advantages that technology can bring. Without sufficient resources, no amount of adaptability, intelligence and innovation in them would allow Papua New Guinea to shift to become more technologically advanced. Some people just march faster in the walk of history.

Something interesting that caught my attention was the image that Prof Shahi had in one of his slides, titled The Future of the Human Race?

Much discussion went on about this. Some stating that it is a result of technology that has made life so much more convenient for us, citing examples like being glued to the television or the computer screen playing video games, or simply picking up the phone to dial for our favourite (and very unhealthy) fast-food and pizzas. However, in my opinion, it is really up to the individual. There shouldn't be a direct blame on technology, it is at most a factor that one can choose to make beneficial or detrimental.

Technology has served us humans in ways that have truly made life easier. Some examples would include public transportation instead of getting around by foot, or simply going on Skype to look at loved ones halfway across the world. Relating back to the photo above, technology is not a direct cause of increasing obesity, as treadmills and weighing machines are also part of modern technology that can help us to keep in shape, if only we are willing.

My Key Takeaway for the lesson would be that technology is neutral, and it is up to us on how we choose to use it. This relates to the quote that Prof Shahi wrote on the board- Technology is Easy. People are Hard. This summarizes how technology can be used to spark off new technology. This is when a new idea is being worked on after seeing how a previous idea has helped civilisation, hoping that this new idea would similarly be of benefit as well. On the other hand, people are not as easily-convinced. People tend to stick with what they're familiar with, like a product that they have full knowledge about, and only few would venture into the arena of new products, trying and testing new technologies that have much to offer to us, if only we are willing.

Something I would like for further discussion would be whether we are contented with how Technology has taken away Tradition. One example would be how e-mails have taken the place of snail mail, and have also taken away the sincerity of a letter along with it.

I would rate the session 7 out of a full 10, as I found it informative and thought-provoking.