Session 3 - a sustainable world

Brief Overview/Summary of the themes/topics addressed during the session

The first part of the session, we explored the tension between human development and the environment. Societies in the world have all benefited from industrialisation. Some experienced an emergence of new economy sectors (i.e. service sector) while others managed to catch up with the advanced societies due to industrialisation. However, industrialisation today is a ‘linear model’. A very insightful video was shown in class, explaining how this is an impossible way of survival because we live on a planet with finite resources. The video is interesting because it covers how and why some societies lack behind while others prosper so much. However, this development is so fast that this ‘engine of growth’ may soon become the ‘engine towards an inevitable end’.

The next part of the session seeks to provide a solution to the ‘linear model’ problem of industrialisation. It aims to use innovation to change ‘linear’ to ‘cyclical’, and this can make industrial development a sustainable one. Concepts like the ‘R-D-A’ model and the ‘Valley-Summit-Cloud’ model were introduced to help us understand how innovation can lead to success. I believe that if innovation was applied for the purpose of sustainability, damage done to the environment can be significantly reduced.  But, the question is, will societies be willing to head towards a sustainable future or will they simply be satisfied with one that satiates their present wants? And more importantly, can innovation achieve both scenarios – can we have the best of both worlds? 

Interesting Observations and Ideas (ideas and concepts that captured your attention)

There was an interesting concept briefly mentioned in class, in which I pondered deeply about. The idea of internalising the actual environment cost of a product, such that we pay for the damage or impacts brought about by manufacturing the product, rather that the market price (which is based on demand and supply), caught my attention. The Professor did a survey to gauge how much more would we pay for a product that is environmental friendly. In the end, as he increased the difference of the prices, fewer people preferred to purchase the more expensive green product.

I then wondered, if an object was environmentally friendly (i.e. a highly energy efficient television), shouldn’t it be cheaper than one that is not? Isn’t it cheaper to make use of renewable resources (i.e. solar energy) than to use precious, finite raw materials (i.e. fuel)? Why is the world paying a premium for the things that damage us the least?

After a brief research, according to an article on The New York Times and  ‘Cost of going green’, raw materials tend to cost more than the traditional counterparts. Furthermore, the costs of productions tend to be too high due to the smaller market it has, as compared to the big, well-known brands. However, ‘Consumers Don’t Warm to Eco-Friendly Products’ provided a contrasting view. It said that we were not paying more, and that this is simply a general assumption that people make of green products.

After understanding these differing views, it was difficult to judge which is right because both situation seemed to exist. But, I realised that it did not matter which was more accurate because what is most important is the reaction of people towards a sustainable future. All articles seem to show that people are inclined towards green products but if the price becomes higher, fewer people would be interested. This means that people are still more concerned about the benefits for themselves and therefore I am in complete agreement with the article from The New York Times (from above).

I believe that to encourage more people to go green, it is important to convey to them the benefits that green products can give them. It is essential to do this because people don’t see or feel future consequences (brought by an unsustainable development), but they do see what they have presently and how they are benefitting from the present. The article said that ‘the most effective way to increase green-adoption’ is to convey to consumers the ‘personal benefit and then, deliver this benefit’. This way of promoting green products will help to change consumers’ perspective that green-products will only benefit the environment and not them.

I think that if the adoption of green products becomes successful, we would be heading towards a society that internalises actual environmental cost of a product. And with this, I hope that we not only become more aware of the benefits of a sustainable environment, but also try to eliminate all the non-environmental friendly methods of production, so that minimising our damage on nature can be more effective.

Key Take Away Points (the 2 or 3 key messages from the session that you intend to keep in mind going forward)

So, why is it so important to be sustainable? We haven’t seen the Earth crumbling into pieces; some of us have never felt the negative impact of industrialisation – the skies are still blue and the sea is still ‘clean’; most of us are still healthy and there is development of technology that can increase our life span. So why invest so much time, effort and money to be innovative when we are ‘not affected’ at all?

This is a common view held by many. Even when they do know the impacts, they do not see or feel it. This is because the effects of unsustainable industrialisation are affecting our environment and us gradually. But, consumers tend to treat things that cannot be seen or felt with less importance, so the consequences are not promptly or actively dealt with. The video ‘Story of Stuff’ provides a deep insight to the effects of industrialisation that are commonly missed out, or hidden to the general population.

The key thing to note is that industrialisation is doing more harm to the third world countries. All of the products that we have and use today are made from precious, finite raw materials. And if we do not have these raw materials on our land, who did? It is usually the third world countries, where there is still plenty raw materials left, that rich industrialised nations go to to exploit. These countries are poorer and tend to depend on rich nations for manufactured products and services.

While we do not face the loss of our homes, the poor face deforestation, which essentially took away their habitat and traditional way of living. And what happens when these people lose their way of survival (i.e. subsistence farming)? They are being forced to move to cities, to work in factories and live in poor-conditioned slumps. And by working in the factories, they face the danger of exposure to toxic chemicals and waste, all of which can do severe damage to their body. Their health will be affected and so may their future generations.

While we do not pay for the actual cost of production, others who are less fortunate have to do so to survive, because rich countries destroyed their way of life. And that’s why some people term this as the endless cycle of poverty. 

It may or may not be as bad as it was shown in the video, but I think it is important to remember that even though we may not see or feel the effects of industrialisation, there are others who do presently, and some lose their lives because of it. And I think if this message is made known to more, becoming sustainable will be more important.

I think another important takeaway point is the idea that ‘successful innovation builds on the confluence of 4 Smarts: Smart people with Smart ideas have access to Smart money and Smart partnerships.’ I believe that this concept illustrates successful innovations quite accurately. I think if this concept could be adopted by more companies and in a sustainable way, the hope for a circular model of industrialisation can be achieved.

Furthermore, I believe that this concept is also very applicable to help poor countries escape poverty. They may not have much money, but I believe with if they are able to make use of the money they have and surprise the world with something revolutionary, it will bring them much success.

However, I do understand that to apply this concept to third world countries may be overly optimistic because they have many other pressing problems to deal with. More over, it may be challenging for them to risk investing in innovation when they have a practical and reliable traditional ways of earning a living. But, this is where economically advanced nations can come in to liaise and form ‘smart partnership’ with them to aid them in innovation and success. I believe that only when nations collaborate and help out one another, can success be truly accomplished.

Issues for Further Discussion (stuff you wish had been considered or given more air-time in class – and why)

One thing that I wished could have been given more airtime is the idea of the advantages of being backward. I was rather fascinated and surprised that this fact was pointed out in the article ‘Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries’.

The article analysed the history of industrialisation and raised an important note – that those who were left behind, actually do have an advantage when catching up. They do not need to face risk of the unknown, and would have the knowledge of present technology and can come up with ideas to improve on this technology. I wished we were given more time to discuss about this fact because I believed it would have been interesting to hear the others’ predictions of how present backward countries could catch up one day. 

Personal Ratings for Session (how you would rate the session on a scale of 0 to 10. Feel free to be as subjective as you like in your assessment)

At the beginning, we were asked a very simple question – what is the purpose of this course? How is Yali’s question related to the themes of the course? If we can use what we learnt to answer his question, can we then go beyond his question and resolve the issue of unequal rate of development of different societies? I believed this lesson started off at an important note because it brought me back to focus and allowed me to better direct my thoughts in this direction.

I enjoyed the individual presentations by students as they revealed new knowledge and technology that I was previously unaware of. The session made me feel, more than ever, the importance of sustainability, as well as innovation. I never thought that innovation was a key to becoming sustainable, but now, with that in mind, I think there is a stronger motivation to think out of the box and be more open to new ideas. I would rate this session an eight out of ten.