For once I'm basing my blog off an article not on BBC, this time from National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070425-google-darfur.html
We are all well aware of the crisis in Darfur. This article reports that 200,000+ people have died and 2.5 million people have been displaced from their houses since 2003. Now Google Earth users can track the devastation. Users can track and see how many villages have been decimated and see what locations are at risk. The purpose of this is to create worldwide awareness and advocacy of the crisis in Darfur.
It is currently not in real time, but plans are underway to team up with google to focus on the danger zone so that Google Earth users can see what is going on in real time. This is to be called "All eyes on Darfur" and will be launched June 1. Of this, Ariela Blatter, director of Amnesty International's Crisis Prevention and Response Center in NYC says, "We know that the Sudanese government has been affected by satellite technology and changed their tactics accordingly. We want them to know that they're being watched, and we want them to be afraid." This artical also takes note that, ironically, Google Earth is not available to people in Sudan due to export controls and sactions retrict downloads of U.S. software in Sudan.
I think it's great that global awareness is being created. This is a complete example of partnering with technology to create an innovative and interactive campaign. However, disallowing resources like this that can save thousands of lives, is senseless. I understand wanting to have strict controls and sactions in Sudan. When you're dealing with people who are slaughtering thousands, there needs to be strict controls. However, you're dealing with technology that can help many people, something must be done. It is necessary for rules to be bent because the number 1 priority in this case should be saving lives.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Smoking & Ethics.
I was perusing through BBC News this morning as I often do and came across this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6559215.stm
Ireland has had a smoking ban inside pubs, clubs, and bars since March 2004. Northern Ireland will have one in place on April 30 and England will have one starting July 1. In Ireland, researchers studied participating bar workers lung function and exposure to smoke before the smoking ban and one year after. What they found was a 99% decrease in smoke exposure, dramatically improved lung function, and significant reduction in cough and phlegm production. Many advocates against the smoking ban contest there are only trace amounts of harmful carcinogens in second hand smoke. After this study, they still have not changed their stance. I find this interesting considering just after one year of the smoking ban, such dramatic results can be produced. To say that second hand smoke is not harmful sometimes seems to me as proposterous in this day when we have a wealth of knowledge proving its harmful effects.
The smoking ban also brings up an ethical issue. The article stated "People, including bar workers, should be given a choice of working or socialising in a smoke-free environment or a well-ventilated, designated smoking lounge." Workers should not be forced to be exposed to harmful second hand smoke. The previous exposure was shown to be about 40 hrs a week. I can't even imagine how much harm that must cause. In the last lecture, Dr. Shahi defined ethics as "doing the right thing and doing things right." All bar, restaurant, club, and pub workers have the right to good health. They should not be forced to breathe in harmful smoke day in and day out. It is not a stipulation for their profession. This smoking ban is doing the right thing and doing things right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6559215.stm
Ireland has had a smoking ban inside pubs, clubs, and bars since March 2004. Northern Ireland will have one in place on April 30 and England will have one starting July 1. In Ireland, researchers studied participating bar workers lung function and exposure to smoke before the smoking ban and one year after. What they found was a 99% decrease in smoke exposure, dramatically improved lung function, and significant reduction in cough and phlegm production. Many advocates against the smoking ban contest there are only trace amounts of harmful carcinogens in second hand smoke. After this study, they still have not changed their stance. I find this interesting considering just after one year of the smoking ban, such dramatic results can be produced. To say that second hand smoke is not harmful sometimes seems to me as proposterous in this day when we have a wealth of knowledge proving its harmful effects.
The smoking ban also brings up an ethical issue. The article stated "People, including bar workers, should be given a choice of working or socialising in a smoke-free environment or a well-ventilated, designated smoking lounge." Workers should not be forced to be exposed to harmful second hand smoke. The previous exposure was shown to be about 40 hrs a week. I can't even imagine how much harm that must cause. In the last lecture, Dr. Shahi defined ethics as "doing the right thing and doing things right." All bar, restaurant, club, and pub workers have the right to good health. They should not be forced to breathe in harmful smoke day in and day out. It is not a stipulation for their profession. This smoking ban is doing the right thing and doing things right.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Public & Private
Many times it is hard for me to accept that the private sector can ever amount to much good, that is, in comparison with the public sector. It is well known that the primary driving force for the private sector has always been one thing: money. However, the more I thought about it i thought this: what if someone has a really innovative idea--an idea than can not only benefit thousands of people, but also make a profit. Moreover, what if the private sector can effectively and efficiently get done what the private does not. For example, the public sector oftentimes knows what needs to get done, has a brilliant plan of implementation, but the problem is the actual implementation. The public has to go through multiple steps such as, appealing to federal and local governments for approval and funds. It sometimes seems the public sector has to sell themselves and jump through hoops, just to get a plan approved by a committee or a bunch of bureaucrats holding all the resources and funds that have no know nothing about public health. Enter the private sector. They're not dependent on funding from the government, they're dependent on their own investments. And, at times, the private company is filled with professional in business and health who decide what and where funds should be spent. I guess the key when you're dealing with the private is ethics. What does the private sector value most: is it money or is it making a difference in lives while simultaneously making a profit. Afterall, if a pharmaceutical drug developed an HIV vaccine and found it only amounted to having cost $0.50 per person, would it be bad if they charged $1 or even $2 for it? Yes, that is a 100% to 200% profits, but its still inexpensive enough that most in the world can afford the vaccine, and for those that cannot it is cheap enough to be government subsidized.
It's just important to not be completely reliant on the private sector. The private and public sector both have its necessary uses and an integrated approach between the two can have dramatic effects.
It's just important to not be completely reliant on the private sector. The private and public sector both have its necessary uses and an integrated approach between the two can have dramatic effects.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Portugal's New Solar Plant
This post is based off the BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505221.stm
Portugal has now opened the most powerful solar power plant in the world, which creates enough energy to power 8000 homes. This translates to 30,000 tons of green house gases eliminated if fossil fuels were used for the same amount of power. It has created development and jobs in one of Portugal's poorer regions. Portugal is set to invest $10 billion in renewable energy and has a goal of 45% of it power consumption from renewable resources by 2010.
Imagine the impact if more countries had goals such as these and really had a vested interest in renewable resources. Moreover imagine the health impact of eliminating thousands of tons of green house gases. Clean sources such as wind and solar energy would have a particularly large impact in countries, such as China, that currently have a heavy reliance on coal. Investing in these sort of resources should be a goal for countries. Furthermore, there should be a partnership among countries working together to develop viable "green" energy sources, especially in developing countries--making sure that they do not make the same mistakes that the developed nations have done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505221.stm
Portugal has now opened the most powerful solar power plant in the world, which creates enough energy to power 8000 homes. This translates to 30,000 tons of green house gases eliminated if fossil fuels were used for the same amount of power. It has created development and jobs in one of Portugal's poorer regions. Portugal is set to invest $10 billion in renewable energy and has a goal of 45% of it power consumption from renewable resources by 2010.
Imagine the impact if more countries had goals such as these and really had a vested interest in renewable resources. Moreover imagine the health impact of eliminating thousands of tons of green house gases. Clean sources such as wind and solar energy would have a particularly large impact in countries, such as China, that currently have a heavy reliance on coal. Investing in these sort of resources should be a goal for countries. Furthermore, there should be a partnership among countries working together to develop viable "green" energy sources, especially in developing countries--making sure that they do not make the same mistakes that the developed nations have done.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Individual
Later today I will be presenting my individual oral report (my last powerpoint presentation in the semester. yeay!), which I hope all of you will enjoy. Since we are focusing and monitoring, surveillance, and preparedness this week, I chose an article that outlines some important aspects that must be met when setting up a successful global monitoring system, with the focus being on creating a "gold standard" in which to give global reports. Moreover when receiving data on other countries, it is necessary to question if any of the data is skewed or incorrect in any ways. My article noted that in countries like Oman and Honduras, there was over a 100% smear positive when testing for TB. Obviously having over 100% is not plausible. So why are statistics like this being reported on the WHO, a primary resource for researchers, governments, and people world wide. There needs to be an effort to make data viable and comparable so the right allocation of resources, aid, and interventions can be disseminated among various countries.
And this is a touch of what I will be discussing today. Enjoy!
And this is a touch of what I will be discussing today. Enjoy!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Star Wars, Robots, Ethics, and Health.
Since we are talking about technology and global health this week, this article popped up just at the right time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6425927.stm
It basically says that a robots ethical code is being drawn up in South Korea and will be instated later this year. This is to prevent abuse between humans and robots and robots and humans.
Being the huge Star Wars dork that I am, when I think robots, I think the two droids C-3PO and R2D2. Their versatility is boundless. They can speak and translate millions of languages and fix almost every sort of machinery. To think that this technology is at the cusp of emerging is truly exciting. When I think about robots from a health perspective I think of the medic droids used in Star Wars. Everything from Luke getting a new bionic hand to helping Padme give birth was done with medic droids. The BBC article said that "a recent government report forecast that robots would routinely carry out surgery by 2018." In 11 years I could be getting knee surgery by a robot. My doctor wouldn't run the risk of being contaminated with my blood, people could be delegated to other tasks to make a hospital run more efficiently, and the programmed function of the robot would make the surgury accurate. This report also noted the aging population of South Korea. Imagine the benefit for aging populations worldwide if they could receive adequate medical care from the comfort of their own homes. The risk of catching an additional infection while at the hospital would substantially decrease, there would be more beds available for emergency situations, and there would be no need to transport the elderly (especially those that would be particularly feeble) and run the risk of them falling while being transported from place to place.
The concept of robots being prevalent in society really does sound like something straight out of a sci-fi film, but when used ethically, there's so many benefits to be asertained. In this day when technology rapidly progresses, I think it is a good thing that ethical matters are brought at the forefront now, rather than later. As many of us in the public health sector believe, prevention is key to ensuring a healthy future.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Adieu 105.1 K-mozart...
A sad sad thing has happened for classical music fans in LA. K-mozart, which was formerly an excellent classical music station, has shut down. It baffles me that such a large metropolitan area can't sustain a radio station such as this. I suppose it can't compete with the mass market commercial radio stations anymore.
This led me to ponder what happens when corporations infiltrate the market of foreign countries. How many countless gems have been lost amidst McDonalds and Nike. It's not that I'm against globalization. I think being able to share and interact with other cultures is amazing. So much new knowledge and interesting facets about the lives of other people can be relayed in the blink of an eye, but what are we missing out on? Moreover, what are we taking away. Are we a generation that is trying to homogenize the people of the globe? And to what extent will the impact of this have on future generations of other countries. They say that "times change and people change". This is a very real prospect, but the real question is, where do you draw the line. There is no way to stop globalization and in many ways globalization adds a lot to society, such as creating global awareness of pressing needs in other countries, but I think it's absolutely pertinent to remember this: when we enter other countries we need to remember that we are guests of that country and we need to be courteous and respectful of the people and their culture. It doesn't matter if we're entrepreneurs or health workers, we need to be mindful of whose space we are encroaching on.
And going back to the travesty of my lack of K-Mozart, at least I can take solace in the last remaining FM classical music station in the Los Angeles area, KUSC.
This led me to ponder what happens when corporations infiltrate the market of foreign countries. How many countless gems have been lost amidst McDonalds and Nike. It's not that I'm against globalization. I think being able to share and interact with other cultures is amazing. So much new knowledge and interesting facets about the lives of other people can be relayed in the blink of an eye, but what are we missing out on? Moreover, what are we taking away. Are we a generation that is trying to homogenize the people of the globe? And to what extent will the impact of this have on future generations of other countries. They say that "times change and people change". This is a very real prospect, but the real question is, where do you draw the line. There is no way to stop globalization and in many ways globalization adds a lot to society, such as creating global awareness of pressing needs in other countries, but I think it's absolutely pertinent to remember this: when we enter other countries we need to remember that we are guests of that country and we need to be courteous and respectful of the people and their culture. It doesn't matter if we're entrepreneurs or health workers, we need to be mindful of whose space we are encroaching on.
And going back to the travesty of my lack of K-Mozart, at least I can take solace in the last remaining FM classical music station in the Los Angeles area, KUSC.
Monday, February 19, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
I'm really glad Dr. Shahi suggested that those who haven't yet seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to watch it. That movie does a good job at relaying the potential impact global warming may have on the entire earth. Moreover, he clearly illustrates how pressing the matter is. When seeing a movie that is this moving and well done, it really makes me wonder what it would've been like had Al Gore won the presidency (like he was suppose to).
The environment has a tremendous impact on the health of the population. I suppose it's too late to think about "what if's". We may never know how much the deterioration of the environment impacted the strength in hurricane Katrina, but what we do know is that the effects of global warming are becoming something very tangible to any person. Earlier last week I made a presentation in Dr. Palmer's class, PM 566: China, a country in transition. The article I made my presentation on was regarding projections of the impact of air pollution under various energy scenarios in Shanghai, China for the years 2010 and 2020. Under these energy scenarios the situation with the most stringent environmental rules prevented the most deaths, diseases, and hospital visits. And the preventable numbers all ascended accordingly with how stringent the environmental rules were.
I would just like to close with this final article (yes, once again from BBC. I tend to frequent that site often). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6315885.stm This article reports that by 2070, Sydney can become unhospitable to be lived in. To me, that is frightening. Especially since Australia and the US are the only 2 industrialized nations who did not sign Kyoto.
The environment has a tremendous impact on the health of the population. I suppose it's too late to think about "what if's". We may never know how much the deterioration of the environment impacted the strength in hurricane Katrina, but what we do know is that the effects of global warming are becoming something very tangible to any person. Earlier last week I made a presentation in Dr. Palmer's class, PM 566: China, a country in transition. The article I made my presentation on was regarding projections of the impact of air pollution under various energy scenarios in Shanghai, China for the years 2010 and 2020. Under these energy scenarios the situation with the most stringent environmental rules prevented the most deaths, diseases, and hospital visits. And the preventable numbers all ascended accordingly with how stringent the environmental rules were.
I would just like to close with this final article (yes, once again from BBC. I tend to frequent that site often). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6315885.stm This article reports that by 2070, Sydney can become unhospitable to be lived in. To me, that is frightening. Especially since Australia and the US are the only 2 industrialized nations who did not sign Kyoto.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Chad, the next Darfur?
This post is based after reading this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6362597.stm
We all know that fighting has been occuring in Chad's neighbor, Darfur. Now Oxfam is saying that Chad is poised to become the next Darfur, with violence continually escalating. According to the article 120,000+ people have been displaced from their homes because of inter-ethnic fighting. Chad already has thousands of refugees from neighboring country Sudan. It cannot sustain all these refugees and violence within its own country. The UN security coucil is considering sending in a peace keeping force, which the Chadian president whole heartedly is in favor of.
What I don't understand is the "considering" aspect. I don't see why there is a need to consider, what must be done is immediate action. People are dying, being forced from their homes, villages are beng burned down. When lives are being threatened, there is no need for deliberation. I remember when the crisis in Darfur was occuring the US and the UN were wasting time on technicalities like whether or not it was a "genocide". I don't even know if they ever got that settled, but that wasn't the pressing matter. The pressing matter was that thousands of people were dying, and still are dying and that needs to be stopped. How are the poor and the people in this country ever supposed to improve their economy if they can't even have a stable place to live. How is Africa, one of the most povery stricken regions in the world, suppose to take itself out of extreme poverty (which is one of the MDGs) if there is no stability. Countries need to stop spending so much time saying we're "thinking" about sending aid, we're "going" to send aid, we're "defining" the situation and just quickly and efficiently do it.
We all know that fighting has been occuring in Chad's neighbor, Darfur. Now Oxfam is saying that Chad is poised to become the next Darfur, with violence continually escalating. According to the article 120,000+ people have been displaced from their homes because of inter-ethnic fighting. Chad already has thousands of refugees from neighboring country Sudan. It cannot sustain all these refugees and violence within its own country. The UN security coucil is considering sending in a peace keeping force, which the Chadian president whole heartedly is in favor of.
What I don't understand is the "considering" aspect. I don't see why there is a need to consider, what must be done is immediate action. People are dying, being forced from their homes, villages are beng burned down. When lives are being threatened, there is no need for deliberation. I remember when the crisis in Darfur was occuring the US and the UN were wasting time on technicalities like whether or not it was a "genocide". I don't even know if they ever got that settled, but that wasn't the pressing matter. The pressing matter was that thousands of people were dying, and still are dying and that needs to be stopped. How are the poor and the people in this country ever supposed to improve their economy if they can't even have a stable place to live. How is Africa, one of the most povery stricken regions in the world, suppose to take itself out of extreme poverty (which is one of the MDGs) if there is no stability. Countries need to stop spending so much time saying we're "thinking" about sending aid, we're "going" to send aid, we're "defining" the situation and just quickly and efficiently do it.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
the Grameen Foundation
I remember when it was announced that Muhammad Yunus won the nobel peace prize for 2006. One thing that I like about the nobel peace prize, is that they try to choose people that aren't as well known. Not that the Grameen foundation isn't a successful and well known organization, but just not as visible on the popular front. For example, common top contenders were also U2's Bono and Bill Gates. While they do many good things for many people, I like the idea of bringing someone else's organization and name to the forefront. In terms of Yunus the truth was, I still really did not know much about the Grameen Bank. I read the blurb about Yunus, but that paragraph long description gave no real insight into what was going on.
Our discussion last week in conjunction with the video for this weeks lecture proved to be much more informative. What the foundation is doing makes perfect sense. What astonishes me is that, this wasn't really prevalent before. I looked up Grameen Bank on wikipedia.org and under criticism it said, "Sudhirendar Sharma, a development analyst, claims that it has 'landed poor communities in a perpetual debt-trap,' and that its ultimate benefit goes to the corporations that sell capital goods and infrastructure to the borrowers. Former Finance Minister of Bangladesh, Saifur Rahman, commented that giving the poor some money does not make them well off. They are suceptible when larger corporations take over." Yes, these people are in debt, but as stated in the wikipedia article the loans are interest free, the repayment period is arbitrarily long, and the borrower is covered under life insurance free of cost. Not exactly what I'd call a "debt trap". I think it gives people a chance to get out of their poverty stricken state and gives them the opportunity to use their talents to flourish. How are people suppose to get out of their debt state if they can't make enough to buy food? Normal banks won't lend them money and it leaves them some choices as to just barely make it, make a dishonest living in crime or other such ways, or borrow money from a loan shark that would charge exorbitant interest rates. I'm sure not everyone is successful after getting their loan, but it seems to have helped a lot of people. These people at least deserve a chance, and this foundation seems to be giving it to them. Moreover their rural telephone programme not only is profitable for the villagers, but it helps bring a wealth of new resources available to these people.
Our discussion last week in conjunction with the video for this weeks lecture proved to be much more informative. What the foundation is doing makes perfect sense. What astonishes me is that, this wasn't really prevalent before. I looked up Grameen Bank on wikipedia.org and under criticism it said, "Sudhirendar Sharma, a development analyst, claims that it has 'landed poor communities in a perpetual debt-trap,' and that its ultimate benefit goes to the corporations that sell capital goods and infrastructure to the borrowers. Former Finance Minister of Bangladesh, Saifur Rahman, commented that giving the poor some money does not make them well off. They are suceptible when larger corporations take over." Yes, these people are in debt, but as stated in the wikipedia article the loans are interest free, the repayment period is arbitrarily long, and the borrower is covered under life insurance free of cost. Not exactly what I'd call a "debt trap". I think it gives people a chance to get out of their poverty stricken state and gives them the opportunity to use their talents to flourish. How are people suppose to get out of their debt state if they can't make enough to buy food? Normal banks won't lend them money and it leaves them some choices as to just barely make it, make a dishonest living in crime or other such ways, or borrow money from a loan shark that would charge exorbitant interest rates. I'm sure not everyone is successful after getting their loan, but it seems to have helped a lot of people. These people at least deserve a chance, and this foundation seems to be giving it to them. Moreover their rural telephone programme not only is profitable for the villagers, but it helps bring a wealth of new resources available to these people.
Monday, January 29, 2007
H5N1
First off, I hope everyone enjoyed the presentation Kat and I did. As you can tell, Kat is the flu expert and loves the subject. Its always fun working with someone so passionate. It was an interesting subject to research on. It was also quite frightening given the death toll from the 1918 flu.
Thank you for your remarks, and I will definitely use the recommedations to improve upon the next presentation I give to the class.
Continuing on with the bird flu. As I was perusing through bbc, I noticed they have an article that it is now in Hungary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6310029.stm and Japan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6305029.stm
On the site there is also a concise FAQ about avian flu: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3422839.stm I really like how this provided a brief overview of the flu, how its spread, and what is being done. I think it is a good example of creating public awareness without creating a panic (which is similar to one of the questions Kat and I asked last week). Its really nice to see all this information compounded onto a huge news source with various links that include numerous questions from readers answered (i.e. can my labrador get infected?) and numerous maps depicting where birdflu has spread and which countries have human cases. To be honest, if I knew about this site when I was doing my part of the project, it would've made it a lot easier (although WHO also offers a great place to look up bird flu). Moreover, having an article on Avian flu pop up while random people worldwide are perusing through headlines, grabs readers' attention. I think that awareness of the issue will help preparedness and in the event of an outbreak, cause less panic.
On a lighter note, I found this article to be comedic (for studybreaks): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6309159.stm
Thank you for your remarks, and I will definitely use the recommedations to improve upon the next presentation I give to the class.
Continuing on with the bird flu. As I was perusing through bbc, I noticed they have an article that it is now in Hungary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6310029.stm and Japan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6305029.stm
On the site there is also a concise FAQ about avian flu: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3422839.stm I really like how this provided a brief overview of the flu, how its spread, and what is being done. I think it is a good example of creating public awareness without creating a panic (which is similar to one of the questions Kat and I asked last week). Its really nice to see all this information compounded onto a huge news source with various links that include numerous questions from readers answered (i.e. can my labrador get infected?) and numerous maps depicting where birdflu has spread and which countries have human cases. To be honest, if I knew about this site when I was doing my part of the project, it would've made it a lot easier (although WHO also offers a great place to look up bird flu). Moreover, having an article on Avian flu pop up while random people worldwide are perusing through headlines, grabs readers' attention. I think that awareness of the issue will help preparedness and in the event of an outbreak, cause less panic.
On a lighter note, I found this article to be comedic (for studybreaks): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6309159.stm
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Globalization
In the video for week 2 there was a particularly interesting one on globalization. In the beginning, it mentioned how droves of people protest and are against sweat shop labor in other countries and so on and so forth. Its funny because for a while I always thought of myself to be one of those people. About a year ago I saw a piece on one of those news shows (like 20/20 or Dateline..I can't recall exactly which one it was) on how people in places like Sri Lanka and Vietnam where all the big factories are going think all of us are, to put it bluntly, stupid. As noted in this video, yes these factories are only paying the workers far less than what any factory workers in the US would receive. Practically dollars a day. However, in comparing the amount that they would have earned in another factory, this is apparently far more. So in a sense, these factories coming in these poor countries is a good thing. Because these foreign factories are paying more than the ones established in the region, it drives up the overall rates of factory workers in all factories. This is definitely good. However, I still am a bit uncomfortable with this. The rates begin to grow, and the foreign factories leave so they can set up shop in another country with cheaper rate. Thus, the thousands of employees that big companies like Nike employs all of a sudden find themselves without a job. Conversely, the corporation has now moved in a more poor region and thus helps build the new country up economically. I can see the pros and cons of both sides, but I think there needs to be some sort of ethical stipulation to these corporations before they come in and set up shop. They need to not only guarantee the better wages in respect to the country's wages, but also other benefits (i.e. health and at the very least a good severance package when the company closes to allow these people to go on until they could find another job).
This is also leads me to think about, as Americans we always complain about outsourcing -- all our jobs are going overseas. The truth is, America can no longer be a country of factories. We need to, as Dr. Shahi has stated, evolve and be innovative. If we are to survive as a global power, we need to put more money into our schools, ensure that every child has a good education. America's elementary school system is failing in many states. If we don't encourage the young minds of our nation, we have no hope but to fall fast and hard.
This is also leads me to think about, as Americans we always complain about outsourcing -- all our jobs are going overseas. The truth is, America can no longer be a country of factories. We need to, as Dr. Shahi has stated, evolve and be innovative. If we are to survive as a global power, we need to put more money into our schools, ensure that every child has a good education. America's elementary school system is failing in many states. If we don't encourage the young minds of our nation, we have no hope but to fall fast and hard.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Hans Rosling's presentation
video: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=hans_rosling&flashEnabled=1
Having watched this video a number of things jump to mind. First off, the manner in which it is presented. This is a dynamic speaker whose enthusiasm grabs your attention. Moreover, the presentation itself helps keep you visually stimulated as well as informed in regards to the subject being presented. In essence, the presentation was not only informative, but a great way of promoting Gapminder (http://www.gapminder.org/).
In terms of the the topic being presented. These trends regarding wealth and life expectancies clearly represent the disparities that exist between countries. Moreover, he emphasizes the differences that exist within regions. What I found very interesting is how he noted in each region, there is a range from countries that are poor to countries that are rich and how to develop a program for the whole region when there are so many variations within the region. In other words, a region is not equal, so can an intervention be successful for the rich if you are tailoring it for the poor? This makes sense because it is clear to anyone that the rich have a completely different mindset than the poor.
That being said, it makes me wonder how do you design an intervention for all these subgroups? For each region, the intervention must be socially and economically relevant, thus suggesting highly specialized interventions. Certainly a daunting task. However, I feel that working with the already local health organizations, and hopefully establishing an efficient process, big change can occur.
Having watched this video a number of things jump to mind. First off, the manner in which it is presented. This is a dynamic speaker whose enthusiasm grabs your attention. Moreover, the presentation itself helps keep you visually stimulated as well as informed in regards to the subject being presented. In essence, the presentation was not only informative, but a great way of promoting Gapminder (http://www.gapminder.org/).
In terms of the the topic being presented. These trends regarding wealth and life expectancies clearly represent the disparities that exist between countries. Moreover, he emphasizes the differences that exist within regions. What I found very interesting is how he noted in each region, there is a range from countries that are poor to countries that are rich and how to develop a program for the whole region when there are so many variations within the region. In other words, a region is not equal, so can an intervention be successful for the rich if you are tailoring it for the poor? This makes sense because it is clear to anyone that the rich have a completely different mindset than the poor.
That being said, it makes me wonder how do you design an intervention for all these subgroups? For each region, the intervention must be socially and economically relevant, thus suggesting highly specialized interventions. Certainly a daunting task. However, I feel that working with the already local health organizations, and hopefully establishing an efficient process, big change can occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
