PRESENTING....

ECOTECH, PAPARAZZI, RICE BOWL and E-COMMERCE! :D

It was group presentation week! In which my group presented as well. My group is Rice Bowl, which is a really really awesome group! But I won't brag so much.

Let me talk to you about the presentations these week. First up, it was Ecotech. It was really interesting to know that there are actually many ecotechnology that are developing, or even in place already. Prof have been emphasizing the need for sustainability, and ecotech is definitely the way to go.

In my previous post, I have mentioned some of the interesting individual presentation regarding sustainable energy, some energy include hurricane energy and matter-antimatter annihilation. So interesting presentation! FYI: Their intro video was really cool.

Next up, Paparazzi. They told us about the evolution of cameras throughout the ages. Actually cameras is really a huge invention that is one of the many things we take for granted everyday. Imagine what it would be like to not able to capture your time with your friends and families or your time overseas, traveling.
And what Paparazzi brought up is very true, there are a lot of positive benefits but yet there are many downsides.
You know, STOMP? What you do in public becomes the world business as well. Seriously, like when did this happen?! Yes, its good in a way it discourage people from unwanted behavior but again, sometimes things happen. Falling down unglamly, like what can you do about that? You are just following the laws of gravity. Or what if you have this really horrible itch at a spot you are 'not suppose to touch' in public. Like what can you do! Suffer in silence?
Gosh.

Rice Bowl is next! We talked about food technology. To find out a lot of interesting videos and ideas e.g. *drumroll* bubblegum meal! GO TO OUR WEBSITE!

Here:
http://www.wix.com/wyt_91/foodforfuture#!

Next, its e-commerce! Its about shopping online! Well there are a lot of things trying to make shopping online more like shopping at a mall, like virtual fitting room.
I mean I like the convenience it brings especially when you don't have time to go shopping, like now when I am in SMU. But the quality of the products and the actual fit can still be misleading. Unless the avatar for the virtual fitting room is EXACTLY like you, other than that, the probability of getting a prefect fit dress.... ehh... I guess I am still skeptical.
The mall is still here to stay though. Malls are a sort of entertainment, it allows for relaxation and socializing. Hanging with your friends, your boyfriends, your family, etc.

So yea, this week is really awesome! Looking forward to more presentations! Signing off!

You Got to Have Foresight

This week's lesson was about technology assessment and forecasting. It is about finding the next big thing - the next Apple or Facebook. Gigantic.

Recently, I have been reading numerous articles on Steve Jobs, talking about how he was a genius, how intelligent he was, and most importantly, the foresight he had of the future. He had a vision, he knew what he wanted, what he could do - change the world, and giving the world the next big thing. And he did it.

The first huge change he brought for Apple - the one that began making Apple popular - was the iPod. Who knew that we needed a small portable music device! I still remembered back when I was in primary school, the Disk-man was the coolest thing, an improvement from the walkman. Now 10 years later, I am bombard with iPod, iPhone, iPad and the MacBook. Who knew we needed them, who knew they would become the most necessary entertainment and technology in our everyday lives. Well, Steve Jobs did.

However, that is not what I wanted to talk about. The interesting thing that I have recently found out and would like to share is that Steve Job has been working at Apple for a really long time; in fact, he co-founded Apple all the way back to 1976. In 1985, he got fired from Apple. Yes, Steve Jobs got fired from Apple. I was totally shocked. To quote a saying, 'Apple with out Jobs is like Disney without Waltz'.

But he did not give up, he founded another company called Next and an animation company which came to be known as Pixar Animation Studio. (Again, do you know Jobs was the one who created Toy Story?? Shocker!) When Apple sales went down down down, Jobs came in, encouraging Apple to buy over his computer company, Next. Within months, he was in charge of Apple, and rose to the position of Chief Executive Officer of Apple. 

So my point here is that even the great Steve Jobs initially failed at first but he did not give up. He did not give up on the vision and foresight he had. He failed but that does not mean he was not meant for something great, that he could not bring about the next change. He brought the change, in fact a HUGE change. 

However, having foresight is not a thing we mortals can easily do, successfully. It requires both vision and action. Really bold action, not afraid of ridicule. There are methods to help identify potentially successful ideas or technology. And this was covered in this week's class - There are the SWOT method, Delphi methodology, modeling and stimulation, all of which can help in judging your vision and foresight. 

Steve Jobs was a brilliant man, and he will always be remembered. No matter which direction Apple takes now, the Jobs era is legendary. 

The Future

VIDEO!

This video contains one of a emerging technology - claytronics.
A short search on Wikipedia shows the definition of claytronics : Claytronics is an abstract future concept that combines nanoscale robotics and computer science to create individual nanometer-scale computers called claytronic atoms, or catoms, which can interact with each other to form tangible 3-D objects that a user can interact with.


Seriously the future hold so much possibilities! And I wonder how much change I can see in my lifetime. I still remember back when I was in primary school, my parents still held pagers and the super big and bulky handphones. I still remembered the time when my mother got her first Nokia colorless phone which was so small. It was like the coolest thing I ever seen then.
Fast forward to today, 20 October 2011, we are bombard with colored smart phones with touch screen technology, internet access, high resolution camera, music players, animated games, thousands of apps, need I say more?

So in class, there were interesting presentations - one of which was given by me. I talked about Nanorobotics, or Nanobots, about how it can cure cancer in the future. How it does is that it target and destroy the Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) in cancer cells so it cannot pass on information to replicate. Interesting huh!

My classmate did a really interesting presentation too, she talked about the having a Cure for Aids in the future. There are indeed people who has natural resistant against HIV and Aids, so by cultivation their T-cells, we may be able to fight the Aids virus. The problem is about keeping the T-cells in the body, because the T-cells will die off after a while, like every cell would. Some suggested doing like a dialysis method for kidney failure, good idea but it would be very very costly. More research are underway. Hopefully there will indeed be a cure in the future, and hopefully it can be made accessible to everyone.

Don't mind the short post guys! Signing off!

reNEWable energy

Video Time!

This is Germany's solar energy plan! I'll talk more about the video in a while.


So for today’s lesson, it was about energy – particularly renewable energy. With all the talk about the world not having enough energy to sustain us for the next 100 years or so, and the talk about climate change due to the horrible, unsustainable methods we use to get energy, it seems like renewable energy is our only solution – or perhaps its our only solution.

The most common sources of renewable energy that we know of currently are solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy and nuclear energy. Though they are adopted in many countries, it only produces ___ percent of the world energy. There’s still a long way to go before renewable energy produce most of our world’s energy.  

How do we get countries to produce and use renewable energy? In our own country, lovely Singapore, we do have any renewable energy sources. It is true that our land space is too limited to build any renewable energy source – for example how many windmills can Singapore build? Or nuclear plants? Well, its true we can install solar panels, with Singapore being so sunny most of the time, such that we Singaporeans keep sweating all the time, and our use of electricity is hitting the roof – quote slide. But we have yet to implement it!

Let’s observe Germany, a country, who unlike Singapore, is not at all sunny for most of the time, and yet has one of most number of solar panels being built. How did they do it? Germany has came up with an interesting and feasible way to get it citizens to switch to the use of renewable energy - particularly solar energy. And that is cash incentive. And that is what the above video is talking about. But prof said that when you try to do it in Singapore, it was not allowed. Singapore still got a long way to go to renewable energy!

So for presentation today, my classmates presented really interesting ideas that they have researched. Some of the more interesting ideas were tornado energy and matter-anti-matter annihilation energy. Cool huh! 

 

Tornado energy is harnessing the power of tornado. The tornado reactor will be placed beside coal-fired factories so the hot steam coming from the factories will mix with cool air in the reactor to create a tornado. And there is minimal energy that is needed to be contributed to reactor because no energy is need to heat the air, all the hot steam is recycled from the coal-fired plant. 

Next up, it is the energy created by the collision of matter and anti-matter. So in case you are wondering, matter is mainly just anything on Earth. Your bottle, your food, a hamster, grass or even yourself. You are a matter. So as Confucius say, every Yin has a Yang, every good has an evil, therefore every matter has an anti-matter. 

 The collision of matter and anti-matter will cause them to eliminate one another, creating huge amount of energy. A mass of just 1 kg contains an energy of 90 million gigajoules, equivalent to worldwide energy consumption over 90 minutes.


But the risk is really big. The accident collision of matter and anti matter may destroy the world, way worse than the nuclear bomb would. In fact, way worse than several nuclear bomb. If countries are already so worried about nuclear energy, especially what happened after Fukushima, they should be way, way, way more worried about this. 


Furthermore, the collision of matter and anti matter may result in the formation of a black hole. It is crazy even imagining having a black hole on Earth! Maybe after thousands of years of absorbing everything on Earth, Earth itself may get absorbed. Gosh, so sci-fi.


It is a do or die thing. If it succeed, the world will never have to worry about energy ever again. or about harming the environment to get it. But if it doesn't, bye bye to the human race. So its about humans probably slowly dying off or a quick fast one - one minute you are here, next minute you just poof. Anyone dare to take the risk?


With that thought-provoking question, here's me signing off!

TWC Individual Report Draft 1

Nuclear Technology and Its Impact On the World

By Jolene Choo

Summary

Nuclear technology has impacted the world in so many ways, especially to the scientific community. It had astounded military scientist, medical scientist and environmental scientist alike in its various application to the military, medical and energy sector.

It started out being a medical tool and an energy source, but on August 6, 1945 nuclear technology, in the form of the atomic bomb, changed the world. After the dropping of ‘Little Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unbelievably devastated, and the world was stunned - a single weapon could now deliver the destructive power of a whole wing of airplanes carrying conventional arms (Roland, 1997). The atomic bomb clearly brought with it a new level of destructive power.

Background

The use of the first nuclear technology was not actually for war, which is a common misconception. Its first uses can be traced back to the medical sector. Back in 1936, Dr. John H. Lawrence founded the Donner Laboratory within Ernest's Rad Lab and in 1937 he used the radioisotope phosphorus-32 to successfully treat Polycythemia Vera, a bone marrow disorder. In 1939, he used beams of energized neutrons to a patient with leukemia, the first treatment of cancer with beams from a particle accelerator (Yarris). However, this was not the major turning point of nuclear technology.

A group of scientist, led by Enrico Fermi, began constructing the world’s first nuclear reactor. On December 2, 1942, Chicago Pile-1, the world’s first nuclear reactor, became self-sustaining. From that moment on, the scientists knew that the world has entered the nuclear age (U.S. Department of Energy).

The rest of the world, however, only realized they have entered the nuclear age after the dropping of the first atomic bomb.

Bomb History

There was an escalation of the development in nuclear technology from 1939 onwards not for the reason of producing energy but to create a bomb that can stop Hitler – Germany (World Nuclear Association, 2010). Two scientists, physicist Albert Einstein and his Hungarian colleague Leo Szilard, who had fled from Europe to escape Nazism, feared Germany was already working on a bomb that has unprecedented power (Njolstad, 2003). Einstein and Szilard had urged the government of the United State to join the race to create the atomic bomb. Between 1941-1942, the start of experimentation to create the world’s first nuclear bomb began under the code name ‘The Manhattan Project’ (AtomicArchive.com).

Prior to the making of the nuclear bomb, the world was at war. World War II was raging, Germany and Italy was in control of huge areas in Europe - France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and the list goes on. Japan was invading Southeast Asia - The Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Burma (Scaruffi, 1999). Life was being loss at a rate of hundreds or even thousands a day. War has to be put to a swift end in order to save the many lives that would have otherwise been lost. And that was what the nuclear bomb did – end the war swiftly.  

World Changer

Nuclear technology has changed the way war is fought. What were the effects of conventional air bombs compared to the devastation a nuclear bomb can bring? Nuclear weapons are able to inflict far greater damage within a few hours than previously resulted from years of warfare (Oracle Think Quest, 1996). New types of war came up. Just after World War II, in 1946, the Cold War started. The way World War II and the Cold War were fought was entirely different. There was no major battle and no offensive bombing in the Cold War (Cold War, 2011), a contrast to World War II, due to the rise of a new military strategy - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

For the first time in human history, war with the use of nuclear weapons threatens to become not genocide but omnicide - total extermination of humanity. For the first time the problems of war and peace not only concern particular states, nations, classes, or social groups, they have become a global problem for all of civilization.

Nuclear weapons also created a new paradox in the world – the contradiction between their enormous destructive force on the one hand and the incapacity to totally destroy the adversary's nuclear potential on the other (Melville, 2001).

Current Situations

Nuclear Weapons

Even though war may still be fought with an array of missiles, armored vehicles and aircrafts, the nature of threats that countries provide are different. The presence of nuclear weapons instantly changes the leverage a country has and its threat to other nations. When a state acquires nuclear weapons, the cost of invading that state increases, making it more difficult and expensive for the invader to gain a military edge (Marquardt, 2003). By owning nuclear weapons, countries turn into military superpowers overnight and they will gain more leverage over foreign policies.

Iran Case Study

Let us look into the situation of Iran, where the country has recently revived plans to develop its nuclear weapons. It has not been confirmed whether or not Iran does actually have nuclear weapons, however the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons has created quite a stir around the world with much discussion on the likely impact on the world if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. Thus, by looking further into this issue, we can see from start to finish the impact a country – in this case Iran – has on the world when it obtains nuclear weapons. There are many possible reasons for Iran wanting nuclear weapons, however we will only be observing the impact of Iran having nuclear weapons.

Impacts

Political

 Shi’ites Muslims are the majority in Iran, and they have support Iran’s anti-US, anti-Israel posture (Gorrie, 2011). Around Iran, there are many countries in the Middle East that have large Shi’ites Muslim populations but are ruled by Sunni Muslims, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. It is known that there has been rising tension between Shi’ites Muslim and Sunni Muslim ever since the Iraq war – with the Shi’ites community taking over the once-Sunni-ruled Iraq. It is possible that Shi’ites Muslims in Sunni-ruled countries may feel dissentient towards their ruling government. With Iran having nuclear weapons, Shi’ites Muslims neighboring Middle East countries may have a sense of security, knowing that Iran will likely protect them. Any uprising that they may have or any encounter of unfair treatment in their countries, they have Iran to give them a helping hand.

In the bigger picture, this might likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Many Sunni countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are concerned about Shi’ites Iran becoming a nuclear power, and have started developing nuclear programs of their own (Kliger, 2010). This is similar to what had happened in the past, back in the days of the Cold War – the United States began to develop the atomic bomb out of the fear that Nazi Germany might build it first, and the Soviet Union then developed its first bomb as a result of the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons (Katulis, 2010).

Furthermore, with more countries possessing nuclear weapons – Saudi Arabia, Jordon and other Middle Eastern countries obtaining nuclear weapons because Iran has them, in such an unstable region, the chance of terrorists getting a hold of nuclear weapons increases significantly (Feldman). The impact of terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons will be discussed further under social impacts.

Economic

Iran has oil, which is a national treasure especially since this oil can be used to feed its people and to build a strong state. However, Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports. A crippled oil industry could make Iran unstable and vulnerable (The Washington Post, 2006). There are likely only two things Iran can do, obtain more oil or raise the price of oil.

Forty percent of the world’s oil is shipped through the Straits of Hormuz, which is an area between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf – a strategically important waterway where oil is commonly exported. For many years, Iran has been involved in significant territorial disputes with its neighbors over control of islands in the Gulf. It claims that three islands, that are strategically important near the Straits of Hormuz – Abu Musa, Greater Tunb Island, and Lesser Tunb Island, are part of Iran (Cordesman, 2007). Iran has built up a large mix of forces in the Gulf to challenge its neighbors. Whether it can succeed is not a guaranteed issue; and that’s where nuclear technology comes into play. With nuclear weapons on hand, it is highly likely Iran will be able to gain control of this waterway and thereby able to control the oil traded through the Strait of Hormuz and set the price of oil to her will. It is able to seal of the Straits of Hormuz, causing the price of oil to skyrocket as a result. Not only that, Iran will also be able to threaten other oil producers to the sales of their oil and also to earn a portion of their oil revenues. In this way, Iran became the dominant controller to oil exports to the rest of the world and will definitely generate more revenue as a result, benefiting Iran economically.

Furthermore, with Iran’s anti-US stance, it is possible that Iran may try to attack the US economy. It may stop the flow of oil into the US or it may stop accepting payments made in US dollars and demand only, say, Euros. As such, this will cause oil prices to skyrocket in the US and weaken its currency, causing damage to the US economy.

Social

As mentioned earlier, there is the likelihood of terrorists obtaining information regarding nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons themselves from the Middle East especially with all that information available in Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordon to make nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the Middle East is the home of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Terrorists have already created a lot of destruction, as you can see from events like the September 11 attacks in the US, the Bali bombing and the Madrid bombings. Having them obtain nuclear weapons will only escalate the destructions they are able to cause. Thousands of lives have already been loss to terrorist acts. Nuclear terrorist act will only result in tens or even hundreds of thousands lives being loss.

In another scenario, Iran has wanted to obtain a new great power status (Gold, 2007). Having nuclear weapons, it may start with its rise in power and try to gain control of more territories so as to become a dominant power in the Middle East. There is a chance that this may in turn lead to war in the Middle East. Buildings, land and homes may all be destroyed and thousands of lives may be lost. It will be chaotic and people will be living in fear, creating instability in the Middle East. Additionally, Shi’ites Muslims from the neighboring countries may support the rise in power of Iran, while the Sunni Muslims will be against it, and this may ultimately lead to internal conflicts in countries.

Environmental - Nuclear Energy

Currently, the use of nuclear technology to produce energy has garnered a lot more discussion around the world compared to previously where the focus was largely on the atomic bomb. There is a lot of focus on nuclear power plants especially with the world’s rising energy consumption. From 1990 to 2008, world’s energy consumption has increased by 43 percent, and it is expected to grow by 53 percent from 2008 to 2035 (U.S Energy Information Administration, 2011). As of September 2011, 30 countries worldwide are operating 440 nuclear reactors for electricity generation, producing 13.5 percent of the world’s electricity production, and 65 new nuclear plants are under construction in 14 countries (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2011).

The latest nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, however, has slowed down the construction of nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster serves as a reminder of the risks of using nuclear energy, and a wake-up call to countries around the world regarding the safety of their nuclear plants. Some countries around the world have taken extreme measure of phasing out their nuclear plants. Countries like Germany and Switzerland has decided to shutdown their nuclear power plants by 2020 and 2034 respectively. On the other hand, countries like France have continued with their use of nuclear plants. Let us look into the situation of Germany and France, whose governments have opposing viewpoints on the use of nuclear energy, and find out the consequences of discontinuing and continuing with the use of nuclear energy.

Germany Case Study – Anti-Nuclear

Germany has decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants by 2020 for safety reasons as a result of the nuclear crisis in Japan. Indeed, Germany’s concern about nuclear plants is valid as after all, many lives were lost from the nuclear disaster. From the phasing out of its nuclear power plants, Germany plans to substitute the amount of energy produced by the nuclear plants with coal, natural gas and renewable energy. It plans to double the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy to 35 percent (Sacks, 2011). Currently, 23 percent of Germany’s electricity is from nuclear energy.

The resulting advantage of Germany shutting down its nuclear plants is the possible innovations and improvements that could be made to renewable energy. However, the resulting repercussions of phasing out nuclear energy are no small matter. The amount of greenhouse gas emission produced will be huge – an increase of approximately 400 million tons of carbon dioxide emission by 2020 – especially with Germans having new support for coal-fired plants over nuclear power plants (BBC News Europe, 2011). Furthermore, even if Germany were to make significant progress in renewable energy development, solar and wind power, it will account for just 7 percent of total electricity production (Dubner, 2011).

Phasing out nuclear energy does not do any good to Germany’s economy as well. About €25 billion per year will be required to meet the government's nuclear phase-out goals. This includes up to €10 billion on fossil fuel plant, €144 billion on renewables plant and up to €29 billion on 3600 km of high-voltage transmission lines. Also, with Germany importing electricity from neighboring countries like France, Netherlands and Czech Republic, it will become dependent on its neighbors for electricity, making it vulnerable (World Nuclear Association, 2011).

France Case Study – Pro Nuclear

France has the highest reliance on nuclear power in the world – nuclear power accounts for 80 percent of the country’s electricity. What makes nuclear energy popular in France? The atomic-energy industry employs 200,000 people, and due to the high percentage of electricity coming from nuclear plants, French electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe – specifically, the second lowest, just after Finland, and most importantly, energy independence (Patel, France Dodges Nuclear Angst From Fukushima That Cost Merkel Vote, 2011).

It is true that the French are worried and are becoming increasingly anti-nuclear after Fukushima, which is highly understandable. However, it is not just Fukushima that gives the French reasons to be worried about their nuclear power plants. In 2010, there were 1,107 incidents at French nuclear plants, with 143 requiring public notification (Patel, France Opens Doors to Nuclear Sites to Woo Public Post-Fukushima, 2011).

Nuclear Energy Considerations

Rather than completely phasing out nuclear energy, more extensive reviews on the safety of nuclear plants around the world could be undertaken. Lessons from this disaster can be learnt and applied to existing and future nuclear plants, similar to that learnt from Chernobyl and Three Miles Island. Nuclear reactors are a lot safer now than they were back in the days of Chernobyl and Three Miles Island.

What caused the breakdown of Fukushima nuclear plant was the loss of cooling capabilities due to the power loss caused by the earthquake. The earthquake that hit Japan was several times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for. The 8.9 earthquake that happened was more than the 8.2 earthquake the plant was designed to withstand – that is about five times more (Brook, 2011).

Furthermore, further improvements and developments can be done to increase the safety of nuclear power plants. France, for example, has been pursuing three Gen IV technologies such as a gas-cooled fast reactor. This means substituting gas for water as the intermediate coolant. The advantage of the gas-cooled fast reactor is that it increases the breeding potential of the reactor allowing used fuel to be reprocessed on site thereby reducing production of long-lived radioactive wastes (World Nuclear Organisation, 2010).

The Future of Nuclear

Nuclear power may get more stable and smaller such that it is not just nuclear power plants that are able to provide the environment for nuclear fission to occur, it can be a reactor that is merely 1½ feet wide by 2½ feet high – the size of a carry on suitcase. That is what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is trying to achieve. This will enable electricity to be supplied for missions to outer space. Unlike solar energy, which is currently what provides electricity for space missions, nuclear reactors can produce power in any environment. Fission power technology is not reliant on external conditions, making it able to produce large, steady amounts of power at night or in harsh environments like those found on the Moon or Mars (Denver, 2011).

With such advancement in nuclear technology, it may soon be possible for our everyday objects, like our laptops and mobile phones, to be powered by nuclear energy. Imagine a laptop that can run for years without having to charge it. Gone is the hassle of having to find a power outlet to charge your ‘nearly-dying’ laptop, or having the trouble to bring your charger and its extension cable wherever you go.

For now, however, improvements and innovations in nuclear technology should focus on keeping nuclear power plants save, thereby providing safer, reliable and economical electricity so as to prevent another nuclear crisis from occurring.

Conclusion

Nuclear technology has impacted our lives in large and numerous ways, be it good or bad. However it will be interesting to imagine what the future is like for nuclear technology, whether the world will completely do away with nuclear technology or whether the world will embrace it. For me, I would hope that we would do away with nuclear bombs because really, all it had brought about is a great amount of destruction; but it does not mean we should completely do away with it. As the great Einstein once quoted “The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse.” Like matches, if in the wrong hands may cause great destruction, but if used righteously, it can bring great benefits to mankind.

We cannot change the fact that nuclear technology has come and changed the world. All we can do is keep moving forward. Keep moving towards making nuclear technology safe; keep moving towards preventing the wrong hands from getting hold of this technology; and most importantly, keep moving towards solving the world’s problems rather than creating them to protect the world for the future generation.

HUMANS and Biotech

Let me start off with yet another video!

So, my first thought for this video was 'This look like an episode of Happy Tree Friends!' You know Happy Tree Friends, the one where cute little cartoons meet Final Destination, where everyone just dies a horrible and gruesome death.

Then my next thought was 'Are we that bad?' I was thinking how much the maker of the video, Reza Rasoli, must have hate humans or something to depict us in such a way.

However, when I slowly started to think about it, I realized what the humans are doing in the video are very very similar to what WE are actually doing on our planet. We have been killing off different species of animals in cruel ways, poaching them and taking away their homes by cutting down trees in the rainforest. Not only that, we are releasing carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide that are poisoning the earth's atmosphere, releasing all the toxic chemicals into the waters, and burying all that waste into our land.
We are slowly, but surely, killing the earth.

That is really a wake-up call.
When you put humans into the perspective of the environment, it really shows us how cruel we actually are. It does not matter that as a person, you may be this really sweet person, to understanding, righteous or caring; in the bigger picture, that's more or less who we humans are to the environment.

And that is a really say fact.

So that leads us to out next topic of discussion - How can we change ourselves, to stop being those humans in the video? Is sustainability the answer to the question?

I have previously covered the topic of sustainability, citing an example, Masdar City, on ways we can live sustainably. Now, here comes another idea for sustainability - Biotechnology.

"When we grow the resources we need, we will finally be on the road to sustainability." From Prof.

What prof said makes lots of sense! If we can grow our resources, we won't have to take the resources of others - by others I meant the earth. Take for example, an idea from my friend Sheryl which she presented in class today, lad-grown meat.

The idea is about getting meat without the need of killing animals. And that produce so much advantages! You won't need land to keep domesticated animals and you won't need land to grow feedstock for the animals, which mean less rainforest being cut down. We can save a lot of animals from extinction as well! With all that hunting we do to animals especially the marine life like salmon, tuna and shark, we are driving them near extinction. 

Another idea from my friend Lenard, who talked about vertical farming. 

Again, this reduces the amount of land we need to grow more food for the growing population. We can have sky high farming, and just use like half the size of the football field! Just imagine that!

With so many ideas for living sustainably, we can stop being those EVIL humans that are killing poor earth. We can ensure the balance in our ecosystem remains. No other planets are similar to earth, okay perhaps some very, very, very distant planet which we may never see when we all die from our own pollution, so we should treasure the one we have. We can't just simply go off to Mars - I recently read about how the sun activity is changing, and going to Mars now would bring greater danger to astronauts than it would have 10 years ago. 

SAVE THE EARTH! Here's signing off, with me turning off my air-condition to the lower-electricity-consuming fan.

Change

Lesson started off with a couple of videos, one of which is about how technology will change the medical sector, not just in terms of surgical or medical tools but also in terms of technology in general being incorporated in hospitals and in doctors', and patients', everyday life. Here's the video : 

So imagine a hospital where everything is just electronic - Medical charts are in an electronic form that stores every history of the patient which includes old medical history, X-ray photos, surgical photos, and the current medical problem and his/her progress, all at a glance as compared to merely looking at the patient's current condition and having to dig out previous medical report. 

It also allows doctors to showcase problems of a patient to other specialists, converse with a few of them at one time and also have the ability to show images of the problem at the same time to allow the specialist have a clearer idea of the problem and give a more accurate diagnostic.

After showing the video, Prof post us two questions : Whether all this is feasible, and can be done in the near future, of say 10 years from now; and whether will healthcare remain affordable after such implementation of technology.

To the first question, my view : Yes.

It is feasible because we already have the technologies there to make hospitals similar, even an exact replica, of the one we saw in the video. We have multi-touch technology, we have GPRS system that can be made small scale for doctors to find their ways around hospitals, and we already have video conferencing technology that enables us to speak face to face to people tens of thousands kilometers away. Its just that all these technologies have not yet been implemented in hospitals, but for more commercial uses. 

To the second question : Yes.

For this kind of 'high-tech' hospital, the implementation of technologies in the hospitals are not technologies that bring new treatments and such to patients. It just a new theme of how a hospital could be like, and having a new theme would very unlikely raise the hospital bill by much. The hospital fees are mainly made of treatments, specialist consultation and such not base on the new environment of the hospital. 

However, after watching the video, the first thing that came into my mind was 'wow, total over-reliance on technology'. I'm serious. What if there is a huge technical glitch, or what if the electric power grid suddenly breaks down? All the high tech gadgets like medical charts would be mixed up or totally wrong, and the hospital staff would start searching high and low for the hard copies of their patient's medical reports. The GPRS system may be affected, and doctors relying on that to find their directions may find themselves lost in a hospital they may have been working at for 10-20 years. That crazy right!

It is really scary to be that over-reliant on technology.

Moving on, the next topic was about disruptive technology. So what are disruptive technologies? Here are some examples : 

Even though disruptive technologies does cause other technologies to be obsolete but that's just the way things are. The new take over the old, the better over the worse - the survival of the fittest (it applies to technology too!) There are always gainers and losers in any industry including the technological industry. There is always something better that is created everyday and people acknowledge, even embrace, that.

So yup, that's all I have for today. Signing off!