Technology and Sustainable Development

The third session started off Technology and Sustainable development. Prof had some interesting points about how sustainability requires a shift from linear to circular thinking, and how the old industrial model had the role of economic development pitted against environmental well-being but how the sustainable industrial model has economic development working with environmental well-being. I think in the past there was really a strong mindset that economic success overruled everything including the environment. I believe that this mindset is slowly changing and that there are some instances whereby big companies are taking a stance towards taking care of the environment.http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20100902/ts_alt_afp/indonesiausenvironmentcompanysinarmasburgerking.html. This article is a perfect example of how large companies are looking towards environmental well-being, not just economic development.

 US fast food giant Burger King said Thursday it would no longer buy palm oil from Sinar Mas or its subsidiaries after Greenpeace campaigned against the Indonesian group's land-clearing practices.

Burger King joins the likes of Unilever, Nestle and Kraft in shunning Sinar Mas in a move that will increase pressure on other corporate buyers of its palm oil products, such as Pizza Hut, KFC, and Dunkin' Donuts.

Indonesia is the biggest producer of palm oil which is used in everything from biscuits to cosmetics, but environmentalists say plantations are driving deforestation blamed for habitat loss and greenhouse gases.

Burger King said a recent independent audit of Sinar Mas palm oil unit SMART's land-clearing practices -- commissioned by Sinar Mas in response to the Greenpeace allegations -- revealed activities "inconsistent with our corporate responsibility commitments".

"We believe the report has raised valid concerns about some of the sustainability practices of Sinar Mas' palm oil production and its impact on the rainforest," Burger King said on its Facebook page.

I do not think much explanation is required here as by reading the article one gets the idea of the shift from the linear to the circular thinking. Also we talked about the advantage of backwardness whereby the backward countries have just to wait for the more developed countries to innovate and come up with new technologies and just adopt it in time. Basically the slower countries would just let the faster ones come up with the technology, watch them implement it and improve on it, then just adopt it in their own country. This way they skip out on the costs of researching new technology and the costs that failed technology would bring. Prof coined it “The Advantage of Backwardness”. In addition, one of my questions in my presentation provided quite an insightful discussion I feel. The question was whether Green technology should be given freely or at a price. The argument for both sides is simple yet the answer is very complex. If Green technology is not given freely to less developed countries, it will not be possible for them to have sustainable development as economically they are weak. However, if you do give Green technology to them freely, there will be no benefit to the countries that have spent money on research and innovation. This will discourage the advancement of Green technology and in the long run we will lose out. The answer requires much thought and insight although I am more inclined towards supporting Green technology that is priced. I believe that less developed countries should then be helped financially to be able to afford the Green technology. I understand this is not a simple task but just giving Green technology will hinder the growth of the industry to a large extent. My key takeaway for Sustainable development is that there definitely must be a shift in thinking, from linear to circular thinking. Burger King, Nestle and Kraft Foods have taken steps towards caring for the environment and if others can do the same, we are surely on the right track for sustainable development.

The second part of the lesson was on innovation. Prof went through his Landscape Model for Technology which I found very interesting. Basically Prof went through the various opportunities along with their technology and barriers to entry. There was a presentation about Google wave which I thought was quite interesting. The key point I took away from that presentation was that Google really encourages innovation and creativity, even though it might not always pan out. Furthermore, Google was quick in establishing that the Wave was not going to work and withdrew it when they did realise. I think thus you can tie in the rising star falling star model when looking at companies like Google. They are open minded are willing to take risks, even though they failed in the Wave, they had the courage to get in the market which I believe is good attitude. I would like to share a story (not too sure about its authenticity though) about failure which I think is very interesting.  When Tom Watson Jr. was chief executive of IBM in the early 1960s, he summoned an executive to his office after the man lost $10 million in a venture. Watson asked the man, "Do you know why I called you here?" Knowing of Watson's legendary temper, the man replied: "I assume you're going to fire me."

"Fire you?" Watson asked. "I spent $10 million educating you. I just want to be sure you learned the right lessons."

Prof mentioned that innovation is market driven and not technological driven. Basically he said that there should be market demand before you start to innovate. However, I disagree with that. If Humphrey Davy and Thomas Edison had thought that way I think instead of having the light bulb, we would have a really advanced candle. Although I agree to some extent that innovation is market driven, it can also be technological driven. I believe for the most part that innovation is market driven, however sometimes new technology can create its own market demand. In conclusion, innovation is something that has to be resistant to failure and like the rising star mentality, the people behind it must be open to ideas and be open to taking calculated risks. The class was enjoyable and the discussions intellectually stimulating. I rate the class an 8/10 and hope we can have just as insightful debates in the future lessons.