SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING - For Economic and Social Development

Hi pvhramani - being also from a developing nation I have to agree with you.

I sometimes feel that our lower education system and policy might be failing us.

Last week I was looking at new educational material that will be presented to schools (grade 1 to 9). Some of the material is however inadequate or not the full truth and it will result in a void.

The pooh pooh comes naturally but it must be seen as educating in clear communication. For example how are CR4 to know what atmosphere a question is about if it is not stated.

Hi Hendrik

Greetings!

1. That Economic Development of any nation is dependent on the way Science/ Technology/ Engineering are developed and used in any nation MUST be FIRST expressed with the THRUST that is needed

2. This should be further corroborated by the examples of the relation between Developments in Science/ Technology/ Engineering and Economic Development.

3. While doing so every nation (the young students, mainly) MUST also try to learn the HISTORY of these material developments

When younger generation in every nation come to know the realities (especially the great disparities between the Developed and the Under Developed), their "spirits" would be kindled, and even less than mediocre people (as claimed by so-called MARKS system about which younger people like ragavan lament) would come up with Engineered Solutions to problems

But all these would only make us "probe" more on the Definitions of Science, Technology, Engineering ... and relate these to a nation's Economic development ... so that every nation could have systems that are NEEDED LOCALLY

Best wishes

pvhramani

I think that you are right to question the adequacy of developing world education systems, but even solving this problem may not level the playing field. Another advantage that the developed world has is that, for their children, advanced technology is so cheap that they are not afraid to destroy it.

Because of this, by the time their students reach higher education, many of them have had the luxury of taking apart a piece of expensive equipment such as a computer, a pump motor, etc to see how it works. Much learning takes place even if they are not successful in putting it back together.

This kind of hands-on experience is an important adjunct to formal learning, and gives students in developed countries not only a degree of practical experience, but a level of fearlessness about technology. The developed world thus benefits greatly from the quality of its junk.

The solution? Take home boat loads of first world junk for your kids to play with. They'll probably even pay you to take it. Maybe your kids will make something useful out of it, but even if they don't they will get over their uneasiness.

In my line of work I deal often with scientists and engineers from developing nations. My experience is that in many cases they are better than their counterparts in the developed world in terms of mathematical and scientific knowledge, but they are deathly afraid of picking up a screwdriver.

"...but they are deathly afraid of picking up a screwdriver..."

Right, because in their milleu, if you break the only one you have, there'll be no replacing it. But at the same time, I've seen much discussion (not here, elsewhere) about how ahead of our current level of 'tinkering' 3rd world nations are. Didn't used to be so, we used to have people who made careers out of 'tinkering' - fixing what's broke, or reutilizing it for some other purpose. Now, we just scrap what's broke and get a new one. And never even consider that something could be used for a different purpose... But in many parts of the world that are considered (arrogantly, in my estimation) backward, recycling, reusing, repairing, etc. is considered important.

Hi Hendrik,

You wrote

<Last week I was looking at new educational material that will be presented to schools (grade 1 to 9). Some of the material is however inadequate or not the full truth and it will result in a void.>

I have come upon an initiative by MIT university that may be of assistance to you and all of the world's education and engineering community. This link will bring you to the university's almost complete curriculum presented course by course. I realize that this may not be presentable to 9th grade students, however it is surely a resource that levels the playing field throughout the world. Everyone now has access to the best, in presented learning material, in almost every discipline. I assume that you are an educator, so maybe through this up to date resource you can judge the quality of programs by comparison to the best that we have to offer. This is the link

http://ocw.mit.edu

Jasbond

I am no economist, but I think there may be a flaw in the assertion that economic well being is dependent on the purchasing power of the TOTAL population. This seems to be a re-phrasing of the commonly held belief that 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. This belief is so 'self evident' that it has not really been subject to a close examination. It seems a bit like the long unquestioned belief that all children need high self-esteem to learn. It sounds so good that it must be true, but we now see that it may actually be self-doubt, frustration and embarrassment that causes students to make the extra effort that results in real learning.

At least in the developed world, I think that there is now clear evidence that this belief that an economy is best understood in its totality is not strictly true. It turns out that concentrating on boosting the total (GNP) can lead to policies and programs that are actually harmful to most of the population. Wealth tends to become concentrated at the top, and judging by the recent 'asset bubbles' in Japan and the US, this wealth is often not wisely invested. Instead of better science, technology and improved infrastructure, the money is used to bid up the price of pre-existing assets.

This may not be the case in the developing world, where growing economies need vast infusions of cash to build infrastructure, adopt modern production methods, and provide education and health care for their populations. But I think there may be a warning message here. While those with the best new ideas may become wealthy, those with the most wealth may not have the best new ideas.

"While those with the best new ideas may become wealthy, those with the most wealth may not have the best new ideas."

Concur! In fact, I think there is a very good case to be made that those with the most must realize they have the most to lose, and therefore become the most conservative elements of whatever society they are members. Conversely, those with little or nothing to lose have the most to gain, and therefore will be or become the greatest entreprenurial spirits of that society.

Science (research) and engineering (application) must serve to better a society, else why pursue them?

Hi johnfotl

You are correct in stating that the "western intellectual economic paradigm" of talking in terms of GDP and GNP "could lead to policies and programs that are actually harmful to most of the population."

This writer specifically mentions about purchasing power of the total population. This is different from GDP and GNP. To elaborate further, please look at this dilapidated shanty of a poor family in a village about 35 km from the City of Bangalore, India:

The GDP based per capita of Bangalore City is about US $2, 000; but the actual Purcahsing Power (PP) of this poor family is not even US $150! In fact this writer is working at this village toward creating Sustainable Development to increase the PP of such people to at least US $900, and it is suggested that you visit the bolg comments:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4149/APIX-Pilot-Plant-Design-Project-Recycling-Wastes-Mission-and-Goals#coments

It is visualized that many such poor people are in such dilapidated conditions mainly because of the indiscriminate introduction of alien Technologies, which do not consider local resources and local manpower as Available Resources. For example, in this village where the writer is attempting to develop a First pilot Plant for Sustainability Engineering, the biggest resources are the so-called weeds (reed grasses and shrub plants), which grow naturally to an extent of about 60 tons per annum per ha. But, the existing (state of the art) technologies encourage destroying these (or clearing these) to bring in alien materials, thereby destroying the environment as well as tending toward long term economic disasters too.

It is on the basis of such experiences that this writer has initiated various action plans, and a new Discussion theme has also been begun:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19305#newcomments

Best wishes

pvhramani

Hi Pvhramani,

I don't think we have any disagreement here, and if I have said something that was so unclear in its wording that you think there is a disagreement, or that was so arrogant because of my ignorance of the true conditions in your country, then I am sorry and will try to say what I believe in less pompous and ambiguous terms.

As you say the purchasing power of this family is less that $0.50 per day. I have been poor, I have been broke, I have been homeless, and I have gone hungry, but I cannot even begin to imagine what such grinding poverty would be like. But I do see clearly that giving this poor family a box of old computers or any other such technology to play with would be of no value. These suggestions were directed toward the more privileged segments of your society, the students of higher education and young engineers, who despite excellent formal education, may still be at some disadvantage because they don't have the opportunity to tear things apart to see how they work.

I understand from what little information I have about your country, that there is a powerful move underway to encourage the introduction of western scientifically modified seeds to 'increase' production, and that this movement is often destructive of established local farming economies. These new crop strains are not necessarily suited to the natural rainfall patterns, and require additional purchases of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. So the farmers must now borrow money to buy the seeds themselves, rather than saving some from the previous years crop. And these new crops replace the existing native strains, distorting the local ecology in ways that can't really be predicted in advance.

To my way of thinking, this is precisely the type of scheme designed to 'raise the GNP', without regard to its impact on real people, that is the problem with economic models based entirely on the total cash economy. The people who sell the seeds and fertilizer, the people who make the loans to the farmers, and the farmers who have land that just happens to be suited to the new crop varieties will make money, but perhaps everyone else will suffer. On paper it will look like things are better, but on the street things will look worse.

The type of home grown technology shown in your new discussion is brilliant. You should be able to provide a local source of valuable products that would otherwise only be available from outside of the community, at a prohibitive cost. This should create paying jobs for the local people, marketable products to sell both within and outside the community, and some degree of wealth where there in now poverty, all by exploiting resources that are there for the taking. Good Luck

Hello johnfotl

At no point did this writer wish to take your comments and observations as being arrogant. But, instead, the positive thinking in your idea that "considering GDP as yardstick for development is bound to be wrong" HAS been appreciated.

While thanking you for your positive sentiments on the small efforts being put in by us, toward creating Sustainable Development through our systems of Sustainability Engineering, it is also wished that members like you could contribute TECHNICAL inputs or other "brain power" inputs, whatever those could be. And, in the works being undertaken, our idea is NOT to have any doles or "give-aways", but instead all our works would be such as to self sustain through MARKET DRIVEN Competition.

Further, while we do consider that alien materials and technologies have adverse impact, LOCAL MARKET NEEDS cannot be sidestepped.

With best wishes

pvhramani