TWC session 12

TWC session 12 marks the end of the module.

I would say my attitude about the world have changed, I myself have taken the use of technology a step further than what I usually do. Now I am using cloud technology. Everything in synchronisation real time any time any where. A simple drop of my document in my dropbox and it becomes available on my laptop, desktop, ipad and iphone. What beauty!

Session 12 also marks my final TWC presentation.

Our web report, was a research on Epidemic Management. *Highly compressed

To experts out there, I am really sorry for that oversimplified version of epidemic management, but what I wish to draw your attention to is really the future of epidemic management. The use of Game Theory, by following the works of Bruce Bueno De Mesquita.

The idea here is to use Game Theory to address conflicts which may result from negotiations when attempting to deal with epidemic outbreaks. For example, during the case of H1n1 when there was the shortage of vaccine, politicians are at a lost on how to address the situation. With game theory, the software will predict and project the likely outcome that is going to occur base on the following 4 factors in a negotiation:

1)What are their choices?
2)The Chances People are willing to take?
3)What are their principles and values?
4)What they belief about other people?

I understand the issue here is about the inequalities in life. The rich and famous, the most influential will get their desired outcome, throughout all negotiations. However, if you think about it, in real life, such factors cannot be eliminated, simply because we are dealing with something innate within all mankind. We do things to our self-interest. Instead of being concerned about the inequalities, shouldn't we place priorities to deal the issues that are a cause of concern or attempt to achieve equality which is never going to occur.

In Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. The moment we are born, the environment that we are in already subjects us to different advantage and disadvantage. Is there a solution? I don't foresee any in the future.

Nonethless, I am not putting my decisions in life under the control of a computer software. What I wish to achieve with Game Theory is to facilitate the negotiation, and recognise that inequalities cannot be eliminated. Skip the conflicts in negotiation, and get things done.

Here's a presentation by Mr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquitas:

TWC Session 11

Session 11 marks,the beginning of group presentations. To create a web report, on a subject and applying what we have learned in Technology and world change. Well, perhaps two presentations left an impression on me. First is the presentation on designer babies. Following is the presentation on space tourism.

The team presenting on the designer babies started off the presentation with a short skit.  A story of a mother-to-be trying to decide what's best for her kid. How each area of experts depict what is good and bad for the future of designer babies.

Similar to every technology available out there, over human progress entails a trade off that we cannot forgo. Each individial has a stake in how we progress and all humans are rational when it comes to decision making. The future of designer babies is restricted by the question of ethics. The playing of human genome to create the perfect human. Makes me wonder why society cannot accept the future of designer babies when we are already advocating Darwinism. Obtaining the best genes so that our future generation be better than before.

Surprisingly, I saw parallels between ethical issues of designers and the storyline of a famous Japanese Anime: Gundam Seed.



In this anime, mankind is divided over human genetic engineering, with normal humans known as 'Naturals' and the genetically altered humans known as Coordinators. The animation included the issues of racism, a vision of the future in a world fraught with talk of GM food and cloning providing food for thought on social issues surrounding the future of designer babies.

Indeed a creative and thoughtful piece by the Japanese. Would be fun to see the presentation done on Designer Babies to draw parallels between this sci-fi fiction and what is available in reality.

The next presentation that caught my attention, was the presentation on space tourism. First thing I told myself, why would anyone in the right mind want to travel out to space for a long period of time. Apart from anti gravity. I think, we pretty much have nothing to enjoy about. I raised the issue of muscle deterioration if one would to travel out to space for a long period of time. Now, that's the beauty of gravity. Guys, if you want to look built and ripped.

You need gravity. For the people who first travelled out to moon, the lack of gravity during the space travel caused them to be terribly weakened upon landing back on land. For space travel to be sustainable in the future. The space shift that we build must provide the means of maintaining gravity, perhaps through the use of centripetal force.

Travelling out to space has always been seen as throwing resources into space at achieving nothing. Space toursim can be the next "in" thing, but I feel that the team missed out on the opportunities on the progress that we can aim for if we start to colonise space. Then again, human progress is no different from an epidemic outbreak of disease. Earth will be destroyed soon enough, a spread of our population to other planets will probably destroy the whole solar system.

TWC 10

How far will human go with imagination?

I doubt we will ever see the edge of imagination as we use existing knowledge to further our demands satisfy our needs. The variety of approach to the future can be based on models, where we assess the varying factors that will affect what we hope to achieve and how we can avoid the pitfalls so that we can shorten the time required to achieve our goals. Nonethless, we must always expect the unexpected. Wildcard scenarios are bound to occur as we move along the line of progress.

Already we can see a change of how progress is done, where we start to think about how our advancement can affect us by looking at the social context. We drivers of change such as climate change, society is looking into ways to progress, without affecting the nature. We are constantly assessing if the benefits of a particular change will outweigh the negative effects before moving ahead. However, as much as we hope to eliminate the negative effects, it seems to be the trade off that comes hand in hand with human progress.

As I mentioned earlier in my previous entry, technology is starting to integrate into our lives by providing that personal touch. Take a look at the new gaming world.

Ultimate Battlefield 3 Simulator



A real life simulator that will be a whole new level of gaming. All your 5 senses totally focused on the game. Apart from the basic senses that involve gaming, sight and sound, this time round, you will feel pain, you will taste your sweat. Ultimately, you will feel fear. There's no need to deny it, a player will be in the game, totally. We won't be that superman anymore where a simple restart will allow you to continue where you died. All it takes is to commercialise the above technology, and trust me, it will new toys that our kids will be playing with.

If you think that the world of matrix is not possible, think again.

TWC has really opened my eyes to the world in a whole new angle. What I was ignorant about previously is now part of my life. No regrets, for this module.

TWC Session 9

A sparked of idea can change the world. How often will we ever get this Eureka moments in our lifetime? Nobody ever knows. Nonetheless, with so many human brains working towards what each of us percieve to be a better future, something magical will eventually arise out of the chemical reactions within our body to shape our way of life.

The emerging technologies will go beyond our wildest dreams, but amist this fantasy, I feel the need to look into practicality. At times, innovation are there to satisfy vanity instead of practicality. Its as simple as asking yourself, what's the point of having the new innovation?

I drew my attention to an innovation of transparent batteries as seen in one of the readings. The reading mentioned the future of crystal clear handphones, simliar to that owned by Tony Stark in Iron Man 2. Is there really a need for crystal clear batteries? All I saw was a market to satisfy vanity of mankind and a chance for the creators to attempt to fill their pockets with big bucks. Then I look at the 6th sense technology presented by my classmate. Cool, but not practical. Again, vanity at work.

The future of technology is already starting to focus on giving that personal touch to each and every indvidual. Already, technology has seemlesly integrated into our lives to shape the way we live the way we decide. A simple Iphone 4S, can influence one whether to carry an umbrella or not.

As we move along, I believe eventually we will rely heavily on technology to aid in decision making. I took a look around the net and found the works of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. He created a software which relys on the economist concept of game theory to model human behaviour and gathering statistics to scientifically predict the future of the world. His prediction is based on political negotiations. Its is not guess work,its about systematically breaking down information and quanitfying each factor to deductively reach a conclusion.

Its pretty much looking into a magical crystal ball and hoping to get an answer out of it. This time, a reasonably accurate way. The idea brought across was the fact that Humans ourselves cannot manage the large influx of information around us.

Take an example of a 5 party negotiation, with everyone concerned about one another's decision. Withn a 5 party interaction, we need to factor in combination of 120 possiblities. If you can remember the math, its 5! = 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1 =120. Now if you increase the number of people involved within the negotiation to 10, then the possiblities will reach 3.6million. Isaac Newton onced mentioned, I can calculate the movements of the heavely bodies above us, but I can't calculate the madness of men. In this case what I believe is the fact that , Isaac Newton was confused by the in flow of information. If he was wondering that "it can't be done", he is definitely confused between " I don't know how to do it" versus "it can't be done."

The beauty with technology is the fact that technology can factor this huge amount of data. They don't get tired, they don't get hungry. They do not get emotionally stressed out about the amount of data required to be processed. The accuracy according to the CIA is 90%. Kudos to Math!

The world is moving so fast that decision making has to be fast, no more wishy washy solutions, got to be precise and fast. I saw the beauty of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's work, integrate this system into international governing bodies will help to solve political conflicts. Take a look at Copenhagen Summit. Each party is concerned about his own outcome, and will always wish to adopt a dominant strategy to the advantage of his country. Ultimately, a conflict of interest occurred and nothing was accomplished from the summit. Now, if we put Bruce's work into Copenhagen, a data will be simulated, an equilibrium will be established that will be beneficial or within the tolerance level of each party, we can skip the conflict altogether and strike a deal immediately. I saw the world in this direction. What about you? 

TWC Session 8

Too many theories exist on how we consume energy but too little effort is made to put this theories into action. Surprising as it is, a small country like Singapore has been condemned over how our people consume energy. If the world is to consume like every Americans and Singaporean, our resources for energy will run out within 9years. The clock is ticking, to dooms day slightly faster thanks to us. Even as I type this blog entry. I am running on a 27 inch desktop screen. Seating inside the comfort of my air conditioned room, without the motivation of even switching off the aircon and turning on the fan. Am part of the condemned. =(

This session marks my presentation day. I decided to approach the topic of energy differently. I see the world as people constantly looking for more supplies of energy. Then I ask myself, is there other means of obtaining more energy rather than looking for more supply? My answer came with Natural Capitalism. The idea of this concept, when placed simply, is to look into the our demands for energy before looking into the supply. The argument of this concept, tries to bring off that the world actually has enough energy to sustain the rate at which we are consuming, in fact more, but, mankind is simply not smart enough to fully utilise the full potential of the energy. As a result, wastage.

This is clearly in line with what Prof mentioned within his presentation that man are not fully utilising our resources with current technology. Idea of the amount of energy, shining on the surface of the Earth for 1hour, is enough to power our society for probably a year! Amazing, isn't it?

Why haven't we harnessed this vast amount of power?
My answer: Incentive. People are simply incentive driven, the issue here is why me? Why not him? or her? Hardly anyone wants to move off from our comfort zone. I believe the day will come only when we finally run out of supply, then we will be quick to adapt to change due to a lack of choice.

I feel that this should be discussed further.

Impact Assessment: Robots at War

Executive summary

Although, still rare, robot are poised for a breakout in today’s modern warfare, rapidly becoming an importance piece of tomorrow’s arsenal. Among them Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), has emerged as the new Kings of the War. However, their proliferation in military arsenal has raised questions about the underlining values of UAVs. For the purpose of discussion, who are looking into Armed UAVs and the subject of war is solely on the war on terrorism. This paper seeks to answer the following questions, how has the use of UAV changed modern warfare? What are the ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of UAVs? What lies ahead of the future of UAV?

Introduction

War today, is waged against terrorism. Lives are continuously loss. To cope with the new threat, human ingenuity has developed the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). This technology is parallel to history of ideas brought about during the days of Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as Star Wars. A programme first initiated on March 23, 1983 under President Ronald Reagan where far-fetched ideas of the use of space-and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams and computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns – all under the central control of a supercomputer system.[1] The UAV is a step closer to an imagination brought about two decades back and like many others its breakthrough is not based on one technology, but technology of many forms coming together as one to create a grand masterpiece.

Present advantages

Previously, it matters who has got the ‘biggest stick’ and who is swinging it, with UAV, the equation has changed to wear the stick is being swing.  The UAVs have extended a soldier’s combat effectiveness, dealing fire power and combat effectiveness similar to that of fighter jet without having to be physically at the war front and extending the battlefield to the home front. Countries like America with greater combat advantage can minimize risk of soldiers dying on foreign soil by putting UAVs to deal with sticky issues on the field. These tasks are commonly known as the “Three D’s” – task that are Dull, Dirty and Dangerous

Reduction in military spending

Currently, UAVs are largely used for reconnaissance and strategic mission, its introduction into the arsenal has helped to cut down on military spending. As reports to puts it, these drones flying might seem expensive, however, they are merely a fraction of the cost of a manned fighter jet.  Take a look at the UAV Predator. One costs under 4.5million, compared to the price of a new F-35, America’s next generation fighter jet, which has yet to take flight, one can buy 30 Predators. [2] Furthermore, training a pilot to man a fighter jet is expensive. They need lots of equipment, pressure suits and oxygen supplies at high attitude. Take pilots out of the cockpit and the accounting cost of the mission change. There will be no need for pilots to fly expensive training missions to maintain flying skills, simulators can be used instead. [3] Time required to train a pilot to operate a UAV rather than fighter jet, is significantly shorter, hence a faster build-up of fighting force.

Saving lives

With a UAV, the pilot sits in a control room, communicating with others, including air-traffic control and commanders on the ground it is flying over- which could be on the other side of Earth. This sharing of intelligence allows ground soldiers to gain combat advantage, which in turns reduces their risk. Drawing our attention to the Iraq war, the drop in American casualties was largely with the help of the “unblinking stare” of drone operators where operators are assisted by object recognition software to more accurately determine friend or foe.[4] If the UAV gets shot down, the “cost of death” is merely 4.5million, a much favourable situation compared to a loss of life. When giving up blood for machines, as P.W. Singer puts it, there is no need to write a letter to its mother when the robot dies.

Psychologically disconnected

Over the decade, a fighter pilot’s combat efficiency depends on his hand eye condition, his ability to focus on the task ahead and to deal with the emotional highs and lows, even when a plane besides it get shot down. All these take a toll out of individuals. With UAV taking the frontline, being a robot, it does not get sick, or suffer from emotional highs and lows like humans. The “fear” factor has not been removed. They do not get hungry, they do not care if the UAV next to it gets shot down, for it is just metal, making UAV an ideal employee.

Humans being the weakest link

It is normally assumed that aerospace and defence technology can advance indefinitely, with the funds as the limiting factor of progress. However, today we have reached a point of significant limits imposed largely on human physiology. Human physiology does not progress to match technological advances, and it is unlikely to do so in the future. Pilots in manned fighter jets are required to operate close to physiological limits to obtain maximum manoeuvrability, because their planes can fly in complete safety under load conditions, far beyond what the unprotected human body can tolerate. The high manoeuvrability and agility performance of modern combat aircraft subject the pilots to maximum physical stress that may correspond to 7 to 9 times the normal gravitational force.  This high G manoeuvres will “starve” the brain and eyes of oxygen. Resulting in tunnel vision, grey-out vision followed by black out. Common during the 70s, pilots in the F-16 would black-out instantaneously without warning[5]. To cope with the physical stress, pilots are now equipped with Anti-G suits increasing cost of military spending. Certainly UAV, being unmanned, would be more favourable for the future due to the lower cost. With pilot’s physiology weakness removed from the equation, maybe then, the performance potential of modern combat aircraft of the third and fourth generation can be fully exploited. This would allow for greater future improvements of aerospace defence technology.

Present Issues

Achilles’ heel of UAV

Weakness of a UAV can be narrowed down into two points. Firstly, the time required between operator input and the command being carried out by the UAV. The pilot is constantly working on a delay, hence, making UAV unsuited for “dogfights” when going toe to toe with a fighter jet.[6] Secondly, the breaking of communication link between the UAV and operator. Data connection is the backbone of all strategic missions with the UAV. For the UAV to crash all that is required is for a foe to disrupt communication or for the UAV to fly out of range. Already, strong military countries such as Russia and China are capable of doing so. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, UAVs are very susceptible to electromagnetic interference. With UAV systems going offline, combat effective range is degraded.[7]

The current proposed solution, according to Dan Isaac, a drone expert at Spain’s Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology, a government research agency in Madrid, he and others say, is to build systems which enable an operator to reconnect with a lost drone via an intermediate transmission of another nearby aircraft to “bridge” connections. However, such electronic countermeasures have failed with current technology.

Collateral Damage

Apart from communication breakdown possibility, distance, in exchange for the operator’s safety will affect an operator’s decision to authorised fire. The operator’s judgement is limited to the image feed together with the object recognition of the software and other technologies from the UAV. Decisions made on authorising fire may differ on the ground and behind a computer screen. Often, it is noted that such decisions results in civilian casualties.

For instance, on July 2011, an American drone circling above Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area, zeroed in on a gathering of village men, some of whom were armed, and unleashed three missiles in quick succession. It turned out to be a meeting to settle a dispute over a chromite mine. Most of the 40 or so killed were civilians. [8]

Discussion and Analysis

Providing Autonomy

In view of this weakness, experts are debating over the issue of providing autonomy to UAVs as a backup plan when communications are cut and the UAV has to “fight blind”. The autonomy includes the ability to decide when the use of lethal force. To achieve this, Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta is trying to create artificial conscience by developing a set of rules of engagement for the use of lethal force that follows the rules of ethics.[9] This technology is definitely within since algorithm in programmes allows aircrafts to engage in autopilot from one destination to another. Likewise the flight of a UAV can occur in two clicks. Then again the question of accountability starts to arise, who is responsible if a vital algorithm fails to distinguish between a passenger bus and a military vehicle? Unlike humans, it may be unfazed by the confusion and pandemonium at a war front, it may still make mistakes on wrong, or ambiguous conditions of a battlefield. Drawing back to the case of flight 655 that occurred during 1985, Aegis, a semi-automated system used by the US  navy to distinguish military from civilian vehicles have failed to identify an Iran Air Airbus A300 from an Iran F-14[10] and got shot down. Clearly, technology itself is having as much problem as it is for humans.

Does UAV contravene to the rules of war?

Currently, humans are in the operational loop when it comes to management of robots. They play a supervisory role with authority to fire lying entirely on the pilot of the UAV. The pilot themselves must be accountable and aware of rule of engagement. Each attack must be proportionate within its right of self-defence. There is no set of international laws governing the use of a UAV. It is understood as a weapon, its usage is not lawful outside combat zones. The UAV’s role is no different from a pilot dropping a missile from his aircraft. International laws are at this stage only applicable. One such law is the law that applies to any other weapon or weapon system. If armed with conventional munitions, the law applicable to firing of a sniper rifle applies to the firing of a weapon from an armed UAV.[11]

Given its ability to strike from high above, a conflicting argument has risen with UAV being widely used for “targeted assassinations”. Usually it will circle the sky and wait for the impending target. How is the hunted able to react in the name of self-defence? Is this justified or extrajudicial when there is no moral equivalence? Furthermore, would this make justice boil down to Thrasymachus slogan of “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” More importantly, such killings, will it result in vengeance and end up a never ending war against terrorism? After all, as Mahatma Gandhi puts it, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”

Bugsplat

Moral implications as mentioned earlier are starting to be a sticky issue. Already, the creation of UAV itself is starting to dehumanise people, in a subtle manner. The codename for a successful hit on a target is called “bugsplat”. As inferred by the codename, a more common understanding would be the regard of targets, in this case terrorist, as bugs. By regarding targets as “bugs”, the use of the UAV has already disregarded the rights of a terrorist by making them less human. The indirect discrimination will take away their individuality. It may be assumed that operators behind the UAV will start to see the death of a terrorist as a death of a bug rather than a human being. Such disregard can be worsened (hypothetically), especially since the operator is distanced from the front line, and insulated from risk. Probability of an operator behaving differently behind the controls as moral hazard is bound to increase. After all, sitting behind a set of control will start to make war appear all too easy.

We certainly do not want the case where the use of UAV becomes a World Cyber Games affair, where UAV is just a mere “playstation” fun going on between a UAV operator and a terrorist. War is not common as people understand the perils that he has to go through, once engaged, hence we are deterred into waging one, the psychology disconnection is a slippery slope down the future of “Gees War is so easy.”

The Future of UAV

Going Unmanned

The future of aerospace is moving towards a new arms race of unmanned aviation technology. Already the F-35 fighter jet is expected to be the last manned fighter acquired by the US. Although it is considered as the fifth generation technology, the astounding cost of operating them and supporting them is a jaw-dropping $1 trillion dollars. Its cost may appear justified by the intentions to make it effective against air defence of sophisticated enemy, such as China.  Compare that amount to the number of heavy duty UAVs such as Reapers and Predators that a country can own. To make it more convincing, compare the need for a fighter jet to carry a pilot with a survival kit, versus the UAV which requires none, the latter appears more attractive.

Growing smaller

Grabbing the headlines today are the large Reapers and Predators, but the future of UAV maybe surprisingly small. One example is the RQ-11B Raven. Portable enough to fit into a backpack, weighing only 2kg, less than the weight of 4 Ipad 2, it works as a pair of flying binoculars providing surveillance. Complemented with global positioning system and instant video feed from the Raven, the operator is capable of calling down artillery fire with precision. For added accuracy, Raven can also mark targets with a laser illuminator. Small is now the new big, definitely, a worthy addition to the combat load.

Fear for the small sized UAVs will appear daunting as ever as the US has currently working on miniaturised UAVs to work as miniature bombers mounted to grenade sized weapons. It has come to my attention that instead of conventional war doctrines of having a larger fighting force to “harass” a smaller fighting force, strategies have changed with expectation of one soldier to deal enough firepower capable of holding a platoon of soldiers, and the UAV is bringing us closer to that expectation, even if the size is getting smaller.

Better Communication

Knowing that the constrain lies heavily on the inability to maintain strong communication with the UAV. The focal point will largely be the need for new forms of communication networks away from the conventional such as the radios, away from 3G, away from Wifi, possibly a new form of radio connection. Nonetheless I believe society would be open to the idea of autonomy provided to the UAV upon loss of connection perhaps only in the form of autopilot to abort mission and return to home base rather than having the autonomy to authorise fire. Such authority may seem a little too much to be bargained for.

Flight Endurance

The role of reconnaissance requires the UAV to remain operational for as long as possible. Already the record flight for an unmanned solar-power aircraft Zephyr has clocked a duration of 14 days and 24 minutes. [12] However, outlook of an armed UAV will be more to the possibility of aerial refuelling rather than the use of solar power. For combat purposes, UAVs will have the fighting edge at night under the shroud of the night sky. This renders solar power, an unsuitable source to maintain flight endurance. The extra fuel meant the possibility of greater payload upon take-off as the maximum take-off weight is maintained by carrying less fuel and topping up once airborne.

---

[1] http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp

[2] Robots At War: The New Battlefield by P.W. Singer, The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol 33, No.1 (Winter, 2009) pp. 30-48

[3] When pilots are grounded by P.M.  http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/unmanned_aviation

[4] Attack of the drone, military technology: Smaller and smarter unmanned aircraft are transforming spying and redefining the idea of air power http://www.economist.com/node/14299496

[5] Pilot Life Support Systems Gianvanni, Paolo, Quaranta, Paolo, 1 Nov 2005, Military Technology, MLTY 26 Volume 29; Issue 11; ISSN 07223226. Copyright © 2005 Proquest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

[6] Ethical dilemma Hargreaves, Ben, Professional Engineering pg 21; Oct 20, 2010 ABI/INFORM Complete

[7] http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065927725 Jane Defence Weekly: Radio Interference in Iraq Hampers US UAV operations by Nathan Hodge

[8] http://www.economist.com/node/21524916 Drones in Pakistan: Out of the blue, A growing controversy over the use of unmanned aerial strikes

[9] http://www.economist.com/node/9028041 Robot Wars: An attempt to build an ethical robotic soldier

[10] Fatal Flight 655; Iran Airbus disaster, 10 July 1988, The Sunday Times ST © 1988 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved.

[11] Chapter 4, Civilian Intelligence Agencies and the Use of Armed Drones, by Ian Henderson

[12] http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/longest_flight The longest flight, A new record for solar-powered aviation.

TWC session 7

I would say living in Singapore hasn't made me very aware about agriculture. Its pretty much how we are brought up, an urban forest, not much land for agriculture. Althought there is agriculture going on within Singapore, it is simply not enough to feed everyone living here. The lesson touched on Green Revolution. This is a life changer probably for my parents thanks to Dr. Norman Borlaug. His central role in the green revolution is credited with increasing agricultural yields and saving millions from starvation.

Human ingenuity doesn't stop here, ideas are still ongoing. What happens when we run out of land with our population crowding our our environment? The answer, vertical farming. Something we didn't really discuss. The perception in class was, trying to have better yield crops, trying to manage the land available more efficiently, stretching current resources by more than its current capacity by reducing wastage. We should consider, vertical farming. This idea can be found in an Economist article about vertical farming. Like how is it possible to pack homes and limited space in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and Manhattan, we can expand agriculture land vertically.

The idea, as raised in the Economist, is to fill floor upon floor of orchards and fields to produce crops all year round, creating more farmable land out of thin air and into city areas, this could well possibly slash carbon footprints by cutting down on transport cost to deliver food over distances. This is a probablity to solving problems such as land for cultivation being unevenly distributed, with much of it suitable for growing selected crops.

Furthermore, according to Dr Despommier, the father of vertical farming, the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides can be at the minimal through indoor controlled environment. Soil erosion will not be a problem because food can be grown hydroponically.

The technology already exist, The glasshouse industry is experienced in growing crops indoors, the only limitation is the need for artificial lighting. Without it, the result will be uneven crop growth closest to the windows. Although in 2010, the need for artifical light was a price to pay for vertical farming, recent technology has sprung up in green buildings to provide lighting by redirecting sunlight indoors. Just less than a year, man's ingenuity has solved this limitation.

Makes me wonder, what happens if vertical farming starts to come into our lives in full swing, I can imagine a skyscraper, with vertical farming occuring on the top. A supermarket below selling fresh greens everyday to consumers like you and me. Maybe agriculture can become an industry, self sustainable within Singapore itself. Wouldn't it be amazing as it would bring price of food down due to less time and less parties involve during the food process.

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, we need to increase production by 70% by 2050 if we wish to feed a population of 9.1billion. This figure would pretty much not be a challenge with a combination of vertical farming, higher crop yields and other current technologies.