I've come across social entrepreneurship being defined as a "'third way' – income-generating charities that did not depend wholly on public coffers but dealt with the increasing number of social problems that defied government solutions." [source]
Some random thoughts:
- Hong Kong's definition of social entrepreneurship is relatively narrow. This link to the government's funding projects shows that the government is only interested in poverty alleviation, help for the disabled and (gasp) heritage preservation. These are hugely crucial issues for sure, but it also leaves a lot untouched.
- Heropreneurship. I like this term a lot, because it describes a crazy new aspiration for high-achieving individuals - instead of becoming a just a regular CEO, high-income investment banker or the like, many now want to be social entrepreneur "rockstars". Walking in the shoes of those one's company is supposed to help is important advice.
- Social entrepreneurship awards, groups, media attention and so on. It's not that I don't feel that people should be awarded for their work, but the ego element can be too much. Exchanging, socialising with groups of likeminded people is important and often a source of energy and support when you feel burned out, but can sometimes feel like some kind of elitist club where everyone is patting each other on the back for being so virtuous. The media attention is also good for promoting your cause, but the other edge of the sword means the entrepreneur, not the people s/he is helping, is in the spotlight, again highlighting the heropreneurship syndrome.
- Funding. How does a business, whose main goal is to provide social impact, make enough money to attract investors? If the investors are not interested in returns, then isn't it practically a charity? And like a charity, when your funds run out, you have to go out asking for more. This model seems warped and totally against the idea of a social enterprise, which should be financially self-sustaining. Perhaps one can start with just one initial bundle, and aim to be self-sustaining from then on, but isn't the initial injection just philanthropy then? Can social businesses be kickstarted without philanthropy? The only solutions I can see, is that perhaps social start-ups can take a page out of the bootstrapping book, or take a look at the crowdfunding model (and deliver a small good/service that is of value to its funders - the "small" part is how it would be different from VC capital, since traditional VCs would want sizable returns) and other start-up models that don't involve VCs or angels. I really dislike that the start-up ecology is so centred around VC these days - there are so many other ways to start a business, and the idea that a valuation and/or capital raised is the holy grail is just so unsavoury to me. But that's another story for another day.
- There is a huge difference between a business that maximises profits by any and all means - exploitation, destruction etc. - then gives to charity, and a businesses that is for-profit and ensures that social benefit is integral to the process. The former is what a lot of huge corporations in our current model of capitalism think is fine to do, and the latter is what I would see as social entrepreneurship.
- The term "social entrepreneurship" has been overused. Like any overused term, we need to go back to the core of what it means and not try to drag in anything and everything vaguely related into it. We could give it another name, but wouldn't the same happen down the line?
Saturday, 11 June 2016
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Occupy Woes - What will happen to Hong Kong?
I haven't written on this blog in over two years, but now that Occupy Central has hit its one-month mark, I feel I should at least document my thoughts, since it is, after all, about my experiences in my birthplace.
The premise of all this is Hong Kong's supposed right to universal suffrage.
I started by looking, of course, at the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the original treaty signed in relation to the issue of Hong Kong's handover, which states:
(5) The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.
(6) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will retain the status of a free port and a separate customs territory.
(12) The above-stated basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong and the elaboration of them in Annex I to this Joint Declaration will be stipulated, in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and they will remain unchanged for 50 years*.
Since the Declaration says we need to follow the Basic Law, then, let's take a look at that:
Chapter 3, Article 39:
The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this Article.
So let's check out that Covenant:
Article 25:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives*;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine*periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage*and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
*emphasis added
In August 2014, the National People's Congress Standing Committee made the decision to "interpret" the Basic Law differently, so that instead of having "freely chosen representatives" as the International Covenant says, China will dictate the candidates from which we can choose. Not quite the same thing, is it? And basically, this sets a dangerous precedent of China just swooping in and changing the Basic Law as they wish. So much for the "life-style" of Hong Kong not changing.
Even before the August NPCSC decision, there was Occupy Central with Love and Peace, and Scholarism fighting heavily for true democracy, and the rest - the protests, the tear gas, the thugs - international news outfits have covered the rest.
For us living in Hong Kong and with roots here, all of this raises a lot of questions.
The protests have allegedly been bad for the economy, which is Hong Kong's raison d'etre - think about it - Hong Kong was colonised primarily for its potential as a trading port, and what a damn fine trading port we make. We're now home to Asia's most important stock exchange, one of the major logistics ports and our efficiency (which we love so much) has the economy to thank. Business is Hong Kong's heart, lungs, and often brains, but increasingly, the blood in this system has been the political framework and it would appear that we need a transfusion.
The premise of all this is Hong Kong's supposed right to universal suffrage.
I started by looking, of course, at the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the original treaty signed in relation to the issue of Hong Kong's handover, which states:
(5) The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.
(6) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will retain the status of a free port and a separate customs territory.
(12) The above-stated basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong and the elaboration of them in Annex I to this Joint Declaration will be stipulated, in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and they will remain unchanged for 50 years*.
Since the Declaration says we need to follow the Basic Law, then, let's take a look at that:
Chapter 3, Article 39:
The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this Article.
So let's check out that Covenant:
Article 25:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives*;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine*periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage*and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
*emphasis added
In August 2014, the National People's Congress Standing Committee made the decision to "interpret" the Basic Law differently, so that instead of having "freely chosen representatives" as the International Covenant says, China will dictate the candidates from which we can choose. Not quite the same thing, is it? And basically, this sets a dangerous precedent of China just swooping in and changing the Basic Law as they wish. So much for the "life-style" of Hong Kong not changing.
Even before the August NPCSC decision, there was Occupy Central with Love and Peace, and Scholarism fighting heavily for true democracy, and the rest - the protests, the tear gas, the thugs - international news outfits have covered the rest.
For us living in Hong Kong and with roots here, all of this raises a lot of questions.
The protests have allegedly been bad for the economy, which is Hong Kong's raison d'etre - think about it - Hong Kong was colonised primarily for its potential as a trading port, and what a damn fine trading port we make. We're now home to Asia's most important stock exchange, one of the major logistics ports and our efficiency (which we love so much) has the economy to thank. Business is Hong Kong's heart, lungs, and often brains, but increasingly, the blood in this system has been the political framework and it would appear that we need a transfusion.
Monday, 2 July 2012
How much is the truth worth?
I was not trained to be a journalist. I have hardly ever had to pound the pavement, sneak incriminating questions into interviews or go undercover for groundbreaking scoop.
I am a food writer. I write about food, the stories, people and culture behind that food, and maybe the odd 'newsy' story on organics or food prices, but I've never done anything as amazing as warzone reporting or as important as business or political commentary.
But the reporting the truth in media matters to me, just like, I think, it would matter to any other regular human being, or to modern society. Even if it's as trivial as whether the food at a particular restaurant was fresh, well-cooked and good value. (Perhaps that is too much to assume, in which case we are doomed and the world might as well end this year).
What is the point of reporting if it were not reported as seen?
The media model as we know it is rife with conflicts of interest. Between the financial reports on TV are advertisements of companies listed on the stock exchange, and between cartoons are junk food ads. You may have other examples, but the media business as it stands today seems the most incestuous of all industries. For a long time, media practitioners stood by ethical guidelines that meant that they would provide what is essentially the public service of reporting, and for the eyeballs interested in those reports, advertisers would pay. Note that they are just paying for the eyeballs, not the pens.
But times have changed. There are obvious things like advertorials, but they are usually ethically labelled "sponsored" or the like, but as media companies have grown, the importance of the business component of publications have too. And business involves financial transactions - both immediate and potential. It's the potential exchanges of money that is changing things. The networking, the ass-kissing, the handshaking. It's not like someone has paid you to advertise something now, but you'd better write about their businesses in a favourable light, else they won't come to you for advertising space.
Money is important in our world. I don't want to be all naive and flowerchild about it and say it's not. Even organisations originally set up do public good, such as reporting, have costs, and someone, somehow needs to cover them. Advertising has been our source since the day one, but like I said, the system is disgustingly flawed.
It's not helped by the fact that there is simply too great a supply of media in the world nowadays. Most blame the internet - stabbing bloggers is still the thing to do, seriously let's get over it - but to be honest, who invented this technology? Us, humans. Do writers Google things? Do they read blogs by "citizen journalists" or "amateurs"? You bet we do. So why are we blaming what we now rely on and take for granted? It's not going away any time soon, so we need to work out how to embrace this "new" world (that has been new for so long that it's now old to say it's new).
It's time to rethink the media model. Remember, proper reporting is a skill and a talent, just like being a carpenter or a chef - and there are differences in quality that correlate directly to the skills and talent of the person/people producing the media. But the question is, how much are people willing to pay for it? Only a fool would buy a newspaper if they could read an identical piece of news for free on the internet, but what if it was a much more informative report? Perhaps much better written? Or with a core promise to serve the reader and not the advertiser?
How many of you are interested in "old fashioned", honest, unbiased, deep reporting, and how much are you willing to pay for it?
If we continue down this path of ass-kissing reporting, in the end, it's the readers who lose. Never again will you have good, clean information. Never again will your stock purchase be the result of your analysis of good data, because data with integrity can no longer be reported to you.
I'm going to propose a radical idea. Pay for good reporting and ditch the sh*tty versions. In a capitalist society (thank goodness we still have one in Hong Kong), consumer demand dictates everything. If you keep reading dumb news, that's what you'll get. We all suffer from information overload nowadays, but how much of that is rubbish?
Publishers rely on your eyeballs for income. Sure, the paper price, or cable TV subscription, but your eyeballs also secure good advertising dollars, which funds good reporting. When you read rubbish instead of the good stuff, the good stuff loses eyeballs, readership lowers, advertisers pay less. The good stuff gets hidden behind paywalls because that's how publishers think they need to recoup revenue. And so you resort to reading more rubbish. Bad cycle.
My solutions:
1. Read/watch/listen only to quality media.
2. Treat media with the same respect you do art.
Point 2 might sound a bit scary, but like artists, writers and perhaps whole publications, need patrons. People who believe in the skills, talent and craft of the media makers and are willing to fund them just for that, in order to provide the world with all the news and commentary that is worthy and fit to print.
I don't think we need to live in an ideal world for that to happen, but then again, maybe I'm being idealistic.
I am a food writer. I write about food, the stories, people and culture behind that food, and maybe the odd 'newsy' story on organics or food prices, but I've never done anything as amazing as warzone reporting or as important as business or political commentary.
But the reporting the truth in media matters to me, just like, I think, it would matter to any other regular human being, or to modern society. Even if it's as trivial as whether the food at a particular restaurant was fresh, well-cooked and good value. (Perhaps that is too much to assume, in which case we are doomed and the world might as well end this year).
What is the point of reporting if it were not reported as seen?
The media model as we know it is rife with conflicts of interest. Between the financial reports on TV are advertisements of companies listed on the stock exchange, and between cartoons are junk food ads. You may have other examples, but the media business as it stands today seems the most incestuous of all industries. For a long time, media practitioners stood by ethical guidelines that meant that they would provide what is essentially the public service of reporting, and for the eyeballs interested in those reports, advertisers would pay. Note that they are just paying for the eyeballs, not the pens.
But times have changed. There are obvious things like advertorials, but they are usually ethically labelled "sponsored" or the like, but as media companies have grown, the importance of the business component of publications have too. And business involves financial transactions - both immediate and potential. It's the potential exchanges of money that is changing things. The networking, the ass-kissing, the handshaking. It's not like someone has paid you to advertise something now, but you'd better write about their businesses in a favourable light, else they won't come to you for advertising space.
Money is important in our world. I don't want to be all naive and flowerchild about it and say it's not. Even organisations originally set up do public good, such as reporting, have costs, and someone, somehow needs to cover them. Advertising has been our source since the day one, but like I said, the system is disgustingly flawed.
It's not helped by the fact that there is simply too great a supply of media in the world nowadays. Most blame the internet - stabbing bloggers is still the thing to do, seriously let's get over it - but to be honest, who invented this technology? Us, humans. Do writers Google things? Do they read blogs by "citizen journalists" or "amateurs"? You bet we do. So why are we blaming what we now rely on and take for granted? It's not going away any time soon, so we need to work out how to embrace this "new" world (that has been new for so long that it's now old to say it's new).
It's time to rethink the media model. Remember, proper reporting is a skill and a talent, just like being a carpenter or a chef - and there are differences in quality that correlate directly to the skills and talent of the person/people producing the media. But the question is, how much are people willing to pay for it? Only a fool would buy a newspaper if they could read an identical piece of news for free on the internet, but what if it was a much more informative report? Perhaps much better written? Or with a core promise to serve the reader and not the advertiser?
How many of you are interested in "old fashioned", honest, unbiased, deep reporting, and how much are you willing to pay for it?
If we continue down this path of ass-kissing reporting, in the end, it's the readers who lose. Never again will you have good, clean information. Never again will your stock purchase be the result of your analysis of good data, because data with integrity can no longer be reported to you.
I'm going to propose a radical idea. Pay for good reporting and ditch the sh*tty versions. In a capitalist society (thank goodness we still have one in Hong Kong), consumer demand dictates everything. If you keep reading dumb news, that's what you'll get. We all suffer from information overload nowadays, but how much of that is rubbish?
Publishers rely on your eyeballs for income. Sure, the paper price, or cable TV subscription, but your eyeballs also secure good advertising dollars, which funds good reporting. When you read rubbish instead of the good stuff, the good stuff loses eyeballs, readership lowers, advertisers pay less. The good stuff gets hidden behind paywalls because that's how publishers think they need to recoup revenue. And so you resort to reading more rubbish. Bad cycle.
My solutions:
1. Read/watch/listen only to quality media.
2. Treat media with the same respect you do art.
Point 2 might sound a bit scary, but like artists, writers and perhaps whole publications, need patrons. People who believe in the skills, talent and craft of the media makers and are willing to fund them just for that, in order to provide the world with all the news and commentary that is worthy and fit to print.
I don't think we need to live in an ideal world for that to happen, but then again, maybe I'm being idealistic.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Chinglish, The Broadway Musical - The Funny Truth
 |
| Chinglish |
 |
| From the Chinglish Facebook Page |
The one point that I can't get out of my head is how they totally nailed the traditional Chinese view of marriage. When Wilmes professes his love for Jennifer Lim, the female lead (pictured above in my crappy photo of the play's programme), and suggests they divorce their respective spouses to get married, Lim talks about qingyi 情義. She says that she doesn't love her husband, and actually scoffs at the idea, but she will never divorce him because of qingyi. This is a word that doesn't really have a direct English translation, perhaps because the idea doesn't exist culturally in the Anglo world (per the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). The closest I can think of is loyalty, but it's more like loyalty, along with love, which doesn't have to be romantic at all. It's funny because in Hong Kong triad movies they talk about this yi all the time. People brought up the Chinese "way" generally know this and put it in practice (hello nepotism - well, that's the bad part anyway) but we hardly ever talk about it. This qingyi is also seen between the English teacher and the mayor, who ends up being taken in by authorities on accusations of corruption.
To me, the way that it was presented makes it a sort of wake-up call. Even though its main impact on Americans (I suppose) was that they got an "inside" look into what China is really like (and the play did a very good job of that), I believe the play was a rather introspective experience for anyone brought up immersed in Chinese culture and with some first-hand experience of the Mainland. It was very exciting to see that the writer's observations, experience and analysis of China were so real and detailed (or perhaps just similar to my own?), and that he brought them to life, and to a wider audience, on stage. I've spoken to many an outsider who thinks that if they understand guanxi they know all about business in China; Chinglish would have been a great, harmless way to tell them "yeah, right".
Monday, 5 March 2012
Marriage, some connotations and realities in Hong Kong
In the past few weeks, there have been a few articles in The New York Times and The Atlantic that have floated into my Twitter feed about marriage. There is a nice round-up of links here in The Atlantic. They talk about how single motherhood is "the new normal", a preferred choice, how it might be an indication of class divide, and how men's roles are changing within the family (fathers heading up PTAs for example).
It seems strangely appropriate that I've come across these articles today as my dear cousin has just announced his engagement (I knew via Facebook before I was told by his parents, how 2012), and the past Chinese New Year, I've been asked about a hundred times when it's my "turn to give out red packets". (Traditionally, only married people give out red packets, the singletons - supposedly children - are always on the receiving end. Although, when you get to "a certain age" and are still single, you are gradually expected to give out red packets).
It seems strangely appropriate that I've come across these articles today as my dear cousin has just announced his engagement (I knew via Facebook before I was told by his parents, how 2012), and the past Chinese New Year, I've been asked about a hundred times when it's my "turn to give out red packets". (Traditionally, only married people give out red packets, the singletons - supposedly children - are always on the receiving end. Although, when you get to "a certain age" and are still single, you are gradually expected to give out red packets).
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Hongkongers are dogs; and some observations on Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong media
All over my Facebook News Feed tonight is this video of someone repeatedly saying "Hongkongers are dogs" and "Hongkongers are bastards".
This guy is supposed to be a professor from Peking University. I guess each part of the world has their fair share of barking academics, but China is probably the only place where someone like this wouldn't get fired.
If he has half a brain he'd know that by stirring this stuff up he'd get himself seen, read etc. all over the interwebs - and guess what, we all fell for it. (Fuelling the "us and them" mentality - how creative). Maybe it was the channel's idea. The broadcaster that aired it is V1, which I'd never heard of. A quick check told me that they're a "new media" company - the conspiracy theoriest in me thinks they're just looking for a way to boost their ratings and visibility in the crowded internet news market.
Anyway, the bottom video, "reported" in that highly sensationalised manner typical of Hong Kong news (now that is something to talk sh*t about) shows a Hong Kong man shouting at a Mainland Chinese family for eating on the MTR. The shouting is indeed very rude, but you'll notice that about a third of the way through, the man explains to the MTR staff that he had tried telling them to stop eating before he went bezerk. Now, whether that's true is up to your interpretation - but it's funny that that never even came up in the arguments. If anyone has a longer video to share, it would be great to get a backstory.
I hope this isn't China's way of getting back at us because of that survey data that came out the other day about Hongkongers not identifying themselves as being "Chinese".
The Year of the Dragon will be the 15th year Hong Kong's been handed back to China. That's 35 years till we're no longer "one country two systems". Mounting fear, tensions, uncertainties are not surprising, but not exactly the best kinds of things to ring in the new year with, hey?
This guy is supposed to be a professor from Peking University. I guess each part of the world has their fair share of barking academics, but China is probably the only place where someone like this wouldn't get fired.
If he has half a brain he'd know that by stirring this stuff up he'd get himself seen, read etc. all over the interwebs - and guess what, we all fell for it. (Fuelling the "us and them" mentality - how creative). Maybe it was the channel's idea. The broadcaster that aired it is V1, which I'd never heard of. A quick check told me that they're a "new media" company - the conspiracy theoriest in me thinks they're just looking for a way to boost their ratings and visibility in the crowded internet news market.
Anyway, the bottom video, "reported" in that highly sensationalised manner typical of Hong Kong news (now that is something to talk sh*t about) shows a Hong Kong man shouting at a Mainland Chinese family for eating on the MTR. The shouting is indeed very rude, but you'll notice that about a third of the way through, the man explains to the MTR staff that he had tried telling them to stop eating before he went bezerk. Now, whether that's true is up to your interpretation - but it's funny that that never even came up in the arguments. If anyone has a longer video to share, it would be great to get a backstory.
I hope this isn't China's way of getting back at us because of that survey data that came out the other day about Hongkongers not identifying themselves as being "Chinese".
The Year of the Dragon will be the 15th year Hong Kong's been handed back to China. That's 35 years till we're no longer "one country two systems". Mounting fear, tensions, uncertainties are not surprising, but not exactly the best kinds of things to ring in the new year with, hey?
Saturday, 3 December 2011
TEDxHong Kong 2011
 |
| "Eco-Warrior" Willie Smits on his DeforestAction project, using a combination of satellites and students to help track illegal deforestation activities in Borneo |
TED grew into TEDx, the 'x' denoting independently organised events that are intended to give a "TED-like experience", and since then, Hong Kong has seen all sorts of TEDx's, including TEDxWanchai, TEDxYouth@Hong Kong, TEDxVictoriaHarbour, several TEDxPearlRivers and another TEDxHong Kong last year.
The second TEDxHong Kong was held yesterday (Friday 2 Dec 2011) and was called "Forever 2011", which included speakers talking about such diverse topics as sustainability, human regenerative engineering, generational use of technology, Hongkong-ness, gender equality, child psychology, accounting (uhuh!) and cryonics.
I volunteered to live tweet for the organisers (using the @TEDxHongKong handle) for the afternoon/evening so I could go check it out, as I'd never been to a TED or TEDx event before.
The afternoon consisted of an ambitious programme of 15 speakers - Eric Schuldenfrei, Yat Siu, Douglas Young, Samantha Hung, John Hung, Katrien Jacobs, Mok Ho-Yan, Louise Porter, Ravi Mantha, Aubrey de Grey, Max More, Alex Backer, Gary Biddle, Willie Smits and Glenn Frommer.
I'm not going to summarise each one as my eyes are threatening to fall out like a couple of dry raisins, and plenty of others will be covering the event (21cb.net for one), so I'll just be totally unscientific about it and talk about a few that stood out for me (and so I'll remember what I want to read up on later...)
Dr. Louise Porter
The author of "Children are people too" discussed how we (laymen adults) generally view children - stubborn and disruptive on purpose etc. and says it's basically ageism. (If we applied those beliefs to different races, it would definitely be seen as racism, which she showed in sample sentences). One of her main points was that children, just like teens and adults, have needs that need to be met. Instead of using the hardline, reward-and-punishment approach to them, we should look at their behaviour - say, tantrums- as an expression of need, and treat it accordingly. If you, an adult, is unhappy about something, the last thing you want is to be put in a corner, or a chair facing a wall, right? Yet we do that to children in the name of discipline. When they do something good, we give them a reward - game time, candy - then children will be conditioned into doing things for an actual reward, rather than joy. Dr. Porter suggests we should genuinely celebrate achievements with children, through vernacular that we already know and use as adults - "congratulations", "I'm so proud of you".
On a personal level, I found this insight amazing, because my parents would never, ever, have said anything like that, and I sort of blame it on Asian culture. The Confucian ideas that imply or even encourage power struggles between parents and children. Children are always expected to be respectful - that wouldn't be a problem if parents (or older people in general) were also expected to reciprocate, regardless of age. Ageism, I would argue, it ingrained in Chinese or Confucian-influenced cultures. I'm curious as to how well Dr. Porter's views would sit with my parents and grandparents!
Dr. Aubrey de Grey
Dr. de Grey is Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation, charity that "works to develop, promote and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies which comprehensively address the disabilities and diseases of aging". He is a biomedical gerontologist, gerontology being the study of aging (I don't think I'd even seen this word before this talk). His approach to aging is akin to engineering, he says, and in his presentation, he talked about how your body can be "maintained", like a car, and thus kept biologically young. This differs from geriatrics, as that treats the ailments that come with old age just like ailments of those who are younger, focusing on treating symptoms.
In his mile-a-minute speech, he cited stem cell research, for example, as a way of "regeneration" - replacing parts in your body, rejuvenating them, rather than let them degenerate as a result of the damages done by metabolism (like wear and tear), so that at the choronological age of 90, you might have the body of a 60-year-old.
Dr. de Grey mentioned some excuses that people would give him about why they couldn't accept this concept of regeneration; one of which was, "I won't be around long enough" for things to be invented/discovered to save each part of their body, and the response to that was simple - "do you have children?" then "do you want your children to live healthier?".
On the subject of "health", he also concluded that with regeneration, he only wants people to live healthier, and that longevity would simply be a nice side-effect.
Ravi Matha
The medical writer started by suggesting that the "human body is a pond", in which there's heaps of bacteria. He goes on to debunk myths about antibacterials, antibiotics etc. and questions why we spend so many resources on making 'sexy' antibiotics for treating symptoms and not spend more on finding out the root cause of illnesses. Incredibly entertaining, yet he uses his time to explain an astounding number of facts and figures. He proves that logic and skepticism doesn't have to sound radical or dry.
Katrien Jacobs
"People's Pornography" is the name of Jacobs's book, and that was the topic of her talk, which was about eroticism as activism, and how pornography in Mainland China is in fact a socio-political act against censorship and other social taboos. She gave various examples eg. DIY porn, the rise of VPN use because of Japanese porn star Sola Aoi's Twitter account, and of course Ai Wei Wei's "One Tiger, Eight Breasts" project that inspired some Chinese to courageously air their thoughts about censorship. And yes, as @crocophant duly noted, her PowerPoint contained porn.
Some great talks and topics, with ideas definitely worth spreading, or at least worth further reading. Speakers aside, the event itself was only okay. I want to say that everyone was really into the spirit of TED, with dreams, positive attitudes, no weird ulterior motives and so on, but that wasn't always the case. Oh, and the lack of WiFi, ticketing (HK$350 a ticket...) - here I go again, blah blah blah, who cares what I think. So, that's all from me, folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)