Session 12- LAST SESSION :(

I can't believe this is the last official session! Time in SMU passed really fast and I can still vividly remember the first session. This was what I wrote in my first blog entry : "I entered the class with apprehension because TWC is my first seminar in SMU and without any prior knowledge regarding this module, I do not know what to expect from it. " I'm glad that the apprehension I first felt in class no longer exist. 

The topic presented today are Epidemic Management, Technology & Sports, Crowd Sourcing & Green Technology. 


Epidemic Management


My group presented on epidemic management. Being the first to present, I was slightly nervous and did not perform as well as I expected. 


Overall, I believe my group did well. One improvement will be to include a conclusion to have a comprehensive coverage on the issues discussed (which is now included in our website). Another issue will be pertaining to the use of  "Game Theory" as one of the possible future epidemic management.Although game theory can aid us in decision-making, it is still unable to eradicate fear during epidemics, which is usually the root of the problem in epidemic management. Game theory can help us to determine the people who should be prioritized for the vaccination, the amount of funds necessary to tide the epidemics...however how it actually works is not mentioned in our presentation because the process in complicated and will be hard and uninteresting to understand. 


One of the issues raised in class was the issue on equality: How can we distribute resources such as vaccines fairly/equally? Who should get the vaccines first- the rich? the poor? doctors? or politicians? 

Personally, I feel that it is impossible have equality in epidemics management. The fact that we are prioritizing groups of people for vaccinations show that epidemics does not allow for equality. And the reason is simple: Scarcity. Shortage of vaccines will compromise one party of another. With a higher demand than supply of vaccines, not everyone can be satisfied. 


Since there couldn't be equality, the main focus on epidemic management should be on reducing inequality. Reducing the gap between the have and have-nots in epidemic management can be done using Game Theory which allows for a more even distribution of resources, although not an equal distribution. 


Crowd Sourcing


I find the presentation on crowd sourcing really interesting. Random requests to do surveys on the streets, wikipedia... I have been constantly exposed to crowd sourcing but wasn't fully aware of it. Although crowd sourcing have numerous benefits such as the pooling of invaluable knowledge and cost savings, its inadequacies include the difficulty in finding the exact and more effective solution to a problem. As such, the group proposed smart-sourcing which is to do crowd sourcing on targeted crowds who are experts in the field. This will ensure that suggested solutions and answers to a question is focused. 

 Crowd-sourcing  VSSmart-sourcing

However, What are some inadequacies of smart sourcing? Could restricting the type of crowd also restrict the innovativeness of the solutions raised? The fundamental reason for crowd sourcing is to gather new ideas from different sources. Could smart-sourcing defeat such a purpose? I feel that this should be an issue for further discussion. 


I rate this lesson an 8.7/10. Everything is good as always but -1.3 because I'm gonna miss my TWC classmates :( really had lotsa fun during lessons!

Session 11- Group presentations

The first round of presentations are really insightful and set really high standards for the groups presenting next week :( Sometimes, I find it really hard to raise the bar.

The topic presented today are Designers Babies, Nanomedicine, Space Travel & Tourism as well as, the Plastic Vortex. All presentations commonly covered the background and history of the topic, the current state of technology now and challenges faced by the technology. It typically ends of by predicting how the future of such technology will be like. Personally, I enjoyed the presentation on designer babies and the plastic vortex because...

(1) They are strong in their content and are really insightful
(2) Both presentation have a 'magic touch' because they present their content in a innovative and engaging manner.
(3) Logical flow & consistency are present.

Designer Babies


Designer babies involves carefully choosing the gametes with the genes which carry desired characteristics (whether appearance or traits) to create the perfect infant as perceived by the parent. There are 4 technique regarding this technology and although it is interesting to know them, I feel that the group should not have focused too much on the technical part of such technologies as it got a little dry.

The current impacts of designer babies were clearly analyzed by splitting them into individual, family and society impacts. One interesting impact to the individual (the designer baby, him/herself) is the concept of negative enhancement and its infringement of basic human rights and liberty. Although positive enhancements such as increased IQ and beauty are nothing new to designer babies, negative enhancements are definitely unheard of- at least to me.

It is curious why parents will choose negative traits for their children! Don't every parent want whats best for their kids??? Parents who opt for negative enhancements do have their rationale. For instance, deaf parents may want to introduce the gene that carry the hearing-impairment DNA to their unborn child because it will be easier for them to communicate with their child next time. Gay parents may also want their child to be born gay as that will make parenting easier and more effective. Although such a rationale is valid, I do not believe it is for the betterment of the child. Even though parenting and communication will be much easier, introducing disabilities to the child when he/she could be a normal person is a great defiance of personal rights and autonomy. Such disabilities may even caused them to be scrutinized in society- although not always necessarily. I feel that the issue of negative enhancements and its ethics should be discussed in greater details.

Apart from the usual implication of inequality in the future due to designer babies, the group has also brought up the possibility of off-planet survival whereby infants can be genetically-engineered to survive extreme conditions. Although this will mean an improvement to the ability and quality of mankind, are there any negative implications to such a possibility? Will is make us less human-like? This should also be discussed in greater details.

It is interesting that the group included a poll to gauge the public responsiveness to designer babies. After I did the poll, I realise more people object against the notion of designer babies and even fewer people will consider designing their baby. Personally, I am not against designer babies- it is indeed an improvement to mankind and strengthens our survival. Although there are possible adversities, I believe with regulation and monitoring by global organizations and local authorities, the benefits will outweigh the harms.

Besides, designing babies is already happening and it will happen more frequently in the future and become widely accepted just like the case of IVF. New technology, such as designer baby technology, will face initial rejection; but as the public sees the greater benefits of it with regulations, they will be more receptive towards it.

Although I do not reject the notion of designer babies, I will not want to have one. Whether parents want their child to be perfect is subjective. Although i want the best for my children, I do not wish that they are flawless. Perfection means that there is hardly room for improvement and people will become complacent if they are born perfect. They are unable to grow and toughen up from their mistakes because they will not commit any. Actually, thinking about this, will designer babies actually weaken humankind psychologically? 

Space Travel & Tourism


The group presented on the possibility of us traveling to space for leisure. An issue that should be further discussed is that: Do we need to bring a passport to travel to space? Are security concerns an issue when we travel to space? And if so, who is responsible to ensure security in space? These are all issues that needs to be explained regarding space tourism in the future as the threat of terrorism is prominent and there is no international laws governing the security of space at the moment. 

All in all, I rate this lesson a 8.9/10 because I like to know how other groups envision the future of such technologies.