Individual Report: Has technology been a boon or bane in the sport of swimming?

Specific innovation of interest

The Speedo LZR Racer Swimsuit was introduced in 2008 and was eventually banned in mid 2009. There was a huge controversy after the 2008 Beijing Olympics about how swimsuits were “helping” swimmers swim faster, thus resulting in numerous records being broken. The suit was introduced in February 2008, and by the end of the year, over 100 new records were set. Within 17 months of its release (till the suit was banned), more than 130 records had been broken by swimmers wearing the suit.

Although swimsuits have been around for a very long time, and full-body suits have also existed for a number of years, they were not subject to such scrutiny as the LZR Racer had. The LZR Racer was different from others because the technology used to construct the suit was much different from the usual.

Rationale for selecting this innovation

This technology was revolutionary because it caused people to look at swimsuits as the catalyst to record-breaking feats instead of an improvement of a swimmer’s skill. These suits became the focus at a competition, rather than the swimmer’s speed and strength he possessed – which resulted in the banning of the LZR Racer suit (among many others).

It has transformed the sport of swimming into something similar to F1 racing. To be able to win the Grand Prix, not only does the driver have to be good and have exceptional skill, but the car he’s driving also needs to be better than others – possessing technologies that others do not have.

Proposed approach to development of paper

-          Purpose of swimsuits in the past

-          New technology of swimsuits (LZR Racer)

-          What swimmers wearing the LZR Racer have achieved and the purpose of LZR Racer

-          How it has changed swimming as a sport

Week 4: “Now, are you gonna adapt to me?”

I found this week’s lesson both interesting and insightful.

Among Christians, there’s a common misconception that the theory of Evolution is completely false and contradicts the Gospel. However, although I do not believe Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, I do believe that every species does evolve to some extent, but solely to survive in the environment they’re in. The famous saying by Charles Darwin very aptly describes this situation: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change." This means that we have to be flexible and have the ability to adapt to changes happening around us to be able to survive; resisting change will not give us our desired results.

George Bernard Shaw, on the other hand, said something that at first glance may seem the complete opposite to Darwin’s opinion. Shaw said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Before one analyses this statement, it would seem like stubbornness and inflexibility (rather than flexibility in Darwin’s case) would be able to progress. However, studying it further, I realised that it’s not really stubbornness and inflexibility that would result in progress. In fact, it would do the exact opposite; stubbornness and inflexibility would bring humans nowhere. What it actually is is that only the subjects of change are different – the first being ourselves as individuals, and the latter being our environment. This means one has to create his own world so one can “adapt the world to himself”.

One other thing I found interesting was the Prof’s various Bird approaches when change occurs.

1.       Eagle Approach: When you see change and something happening, you make things happen.

2.       Ostrich Approach: When change occurs, you let things happen (and bury your head in the sand).

3.       Dodo Bird Approach: This person is unaware of change occurring and wonders what happened. (This explains why Dodo birds are extinct. We are unable to survive if we’re oblivious to everything that’s going on around us.)

It is important how we view change in today’s society. Everything is advancing and changing so quickly. If we are oblivious to it, or simply ignore and refuse to change ourselves, we’ll lose out as individuals. So, step out and change yourselves!

Personal Rating: 9/10

Week 3: Is Sustainability Possible?

Class began with a video: Story of Stuff – How Things Work, About Stuff. The video raised many issues. However, they largely revolved around excessive consumption. It began with USA’s overconsumption of natural resources. It was shown that although US is low on natural resources, they managed to consume about 30% of the world’s resources. Needless to say, US was and still is the biggest consumer in the planet. However, what shocked me was that if the whole world were to have the same consumption habits as the US, we would need 3 to 5 planets to survive. What is worse is that to satisfy consumption habits of first-world countries, these countries take from third-world countries which are rich in resources. As a result, third-world countries are unable to reach its potential growth expected of them considering the amount of resources they have. Thus, this explains the widening income gap among countries.

The second form of excessive consumption is in the form of consumerism. In the video, consumerism is represented by the “Golden Arrow”. This arrow is essential to the US economy. It keeps the linear production chain active. People depend on this link to be fed, to survive. How this happens is that, if Americans do not engage in consumerism, factory workers (who were forced to work there because of the US’ failure to protect the environment) do not get paid.

Something else that was discussed in the lecture was that although we are moving gradually moving towards a sustainable society, at present, societies are at a dilemma whether to conserve the environment and sacrifice economic development, or to sacrifice the environment for economic development. However, I believe that in either option, we’ll have to sacrifice both environment and economic development; the difference is to what extent we have to sacrifice each. If we choose Option 1, which is to conserve the environment and sacrifice economic development, we’ll not be able to protect the environment because of the lack of capital in the long run. Protecting the environment requires new technology to be introduced, however if there is a lack of capital, new technology cannot be implemented, hence leading to environmental degradation. The same can be said of Option 2 (sacrifice environment for economic development).

In Karishma’s presentation, she raised an issue for discussion: Should companies act environmentally sustainably even though that would negatively impact their profits?

Here’s my take on this. Society is slowly moving to a sustainable one. People are increasingly becoming more aware of how the environment is being affected by industrialisation. Although helping the environment may lead to lower profitability of the company, in the long run, it may actually be a benefit. What happens is that in the future, other companies will see that it is indeed wiser to be environmentally-friendly instead of searching for resources as these resources start to dwindle and become scarce and prices of these resources increase. In the long run, the more sustainability-driven company will win because they have had a longer time to experiment and find more ways of how to be sustainable. And considering the shift towards a more sustainable one, the benefit may be twice as much.

In the report Sustainability for Tomorrow’s Consumer: The Business Case for Sustainability, the same reasoning can be used in Pg 6. It says “Companies that take the lead on sustainability will be market makers rather than market takers.” If companies start embarking on sustainable methods of production before others, they may make losses initially, but in the end when consumers are aware of the benefits of sustainable methods of production, these companies will be able to benefit from having found successful ways of achieving them.

Followers are only able to be as good as those they follow, never better; but leaders are the ones that break new grounds.

Personal Rating: 8/10

Week 2: Technology, Development and The Chicken or Egg Theory

Leaders’ decisions have a huge impact on the development of the country – affecting social, political, economic and technological areas within the country. Take China for example. As discussed in class, Admiral Cheng Ho’s pride and his unwillingness to learn from others during his travel abroad resulted in China falling from a leading country in the world to one of slow economic growth. They were probably a rising star or a dominant society in the past, but due to Admiral Cheng’s short-sightedness, China had become a falling star not long after.

What’s important and essential is not the just the potential of the community to grow, such as raw materials and various resources, but the attitude of the community is what matters. As long as communities have the right attitude and mindset, they will be able to grow and develop; even if the community may be a dominant one already, there’s still a possibility for them to be a rising star as well.

There are many ways technology has changed the world, in both good and bad ways. It has changed the way we socialise and communicate with others; changed the political scene in many countries, with the help of media; affected religion and our beliefs. Culture has not been left untouched. The degradation of our culture may or may not have been affected by technology. But we have definitely tried using technology to retain our culture. Technology has become an integral part of our lives that permeates in every area of our individual lives, community and world.

It can be seen that technology has brought about development, but it's because of development that technology has rapidly changed and will change our lives, forevermore.

Personal rating: 7/10

Week 1: Staring at Technology in the face

I’ve always had this thwarted, myopic view of technology. Yes, I know it has changed the world in ways that words cannot describe; it’s revolutionary. Yet, despite the advancements in technology getting faster and faster; as newer and better gadgets and devices are introduced to the world, I’ve never appreciated the convenience and power brought about with the possession of these products. Maybe I’m stubborn and refuse to accept technology, choosing instead to live in the Stone Age.

But when I really sit down and think about it, everything around me is a part of technology. Everything is what it is because of technological advances. Everything IS technology. Even the most basic part of everyday life like pencil or paper was created by technology.

I owned my first mobile phone fairly recently, when I was close to 17 years of age. I would say I got my mobile phone fairly recently seeing as my friends had gotten theirs when they were only 12 years old! Nowadays, mobile phones are the most basic gadgets. Almost everyone has a mobile phone. Hard drives with extremely large amounts of space (i.e. 1TB, 5TB) are being introduced to the market within a couple of months after one is out. Technology is advancing in so many different ways, yet there are some like me, who choose to live in the Stone Age just because we are not “techies”.

Then again, technology is not all about gadgets and cars, or even the latest toy which is voice activated. Technology is about science too. Cloning is now possible. Test tube babies are a common sight. Scientists are trying to create life from just a single cell – creating a cell which can have emotions and respond to changes around them.

People are afraid of robots, machines, artificial life taking over the human race. But what we do not realise is that most of us have willingly allowed machines to take over our lives. Our electronic devices remind us of appointments. Important numbers and documents are stored in them. Slowly, little by little, humans are using less of our brains and relying on our electronic devices. We’ve so willingly done so because of convenience-sake. But how much have we really thought about the consequences of us doing so? Even worse, are we still able to think for ourselves without these seeking answers from our electronic devices?