Friday, 14 August 2015

Pope Francis: Technology + greed = disaster



A superficial review of Laudato Si’ could lead the reader to think that Pope Francis is a Luddite. He has very critical things to say about technology, especially when it is connected to greed.
The goal of technology, he argues, should not be to increasingly replace human work with machines in order to save money and make more profit. Like Pope John Paul II, Francis holds work in high esteem. “Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment.”
But Francis begins his examination of technology by acknowledging in chapter 3 of his encyclical that we are the beneficiaries of two centuries of technological advances. “Technology has remedied countless evils that used to harm and limit human beings,” he writes. But he notes that the power that comes from technology can be used by those with knowledge and economic resources to dominate humanity and the entire world.
“We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the twentieth century,” he explains, “or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons available for modern warfare.”

Quoting Romano Guardini, he notes that there is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means “an increase of ‘progress’ itself” but in reality “contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.” Sadly, Pope Francis argues, “our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”
Francis is especially critical of an undifferentiated and one-dimensional technocratic paradigm where the world (including human beings and material objects) is seen as something formless, completely open to manipulation. The goal is to extract everything possible from things while ignoring the reality in front of us.
This leads economists, financiers and experts in technology to accept the idea of unlimited growth “based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.”
In short, Francis does not think that technological products are neutral. Rather “they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups.”
Francis saves his harshest words for economic interests who “accept every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings.” They show “no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations. Their behavior shows that for them maximizing profits is enough.”
In Francis’ mind, this is the cause of our current economic and environmental crisis. What is needed is a broader vision where “technology is directed primarily to resolving people’s concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering.” Technology must serve humanity, not the market.
“Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age,” he affirms, “but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.”
“Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble,” Francis believes. Rather than being a cooperator with God in the work of creation, quoting John Paul II he says, “man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature.”
For Francis, “the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity.” Humanity “cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships” including our relationships with others and God.
At the heart of this crisis of modernity is a culture of relativism, but Francis, unlike his predecessors, believes that “practical relativism typical of our age is even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism.” In practical relativism, human beings “place themselves at the center” and “give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.”
He is not surprised to see the culture of relativism, “which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests,” going hand and hand with “the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power.”
The result is “the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.” He condemns the “use and throw away” logic that “generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary.”
In the later chapters of Laudato Si’ he will lay out his response to the environmental crisis, but even in chapter three he shows his support for an economy that favors productive diversity and small scale producers. “For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world’s peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing.”
But he recognizes that small farmers and producers are threatened by economies of scale and by the difficulty they face in linking to regional and global markets because the infrastructure for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses.
He calls for government support of such small producers. “To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,” he asserts, “restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power.” He finds calls for “economic freedom” to be bogus when “real conditions bar many people from actual access to it.”
One might think that Francis is anti-business, but in fact he thinks “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.”
Francis’ words about domineering technology, a single-minded focus on profit, and practical relativism are prophetic and challenging. They fly in the face of many American cultural presuppositions. Pope Francis does not believe that technology and the market will magically provide the solution to social and environmental issues, rather they are part of the problem.
On the other hand, he believes that technology can and should be used to improve the lot of humanity and that business people are called to a noble vocation that is in service to the common good.
This is the third of a series of columns on the chapters of Laudato Si’. The first chapter was examined in “Pope Francis: 'Facts are more important than ideas.'”

Canada a new technology hotbed? If so, we need to commit to it



Khanjan Desai is the founder of Neverfrost, a nanotechnology startup based in Waterloo, Ont.
On May 9, The Globe and Mail published Canadians can innovate, but we’re not equipped to win, by former Research In Motion co-CEO Jim Balsillie. This is part of a series responding to and expanding on that essay.
Founding a startup is incredibly hard, and if there is anything you can leverage to increase your odds of success, do it.
This was the advice given to us during our time at Y Combinator, the U.S. seed fund, last summer when we were trying to decide whether to keep Neverfrost in Silicon Valley or return to Waterloo, Ont. We eventually decided to come back to Canada, but not for the reasons you might imagine.
It doesn’t frost in California. If we were going to commercialize an anti-frost innovation, we would have to be in a place where we could run field tests locally and be able to regularly interact with our customers to learn from their experiences. It’s a practical reason. But if Silicon Valley had the same frigid conditions as Canada, we would have stayed, without a doubt.
Silicon Valley is superior to any startup ecosystem in Canada. That’s a fact. Access to top-tier capital, world-class advisers and internationally vetted talent (especially for software startups) is second to none. Gaining access to such resources is a proven way of increasing the odds of success, and Canada is lagging.
When we made the decision to return, we had to accept the advantages and disadvantages of being in Canada, but it didn’t take long to notice the differences: The investor landscape is conservative, top talent prefer to emigrate to the larger pond down south, many entrepreneurs and investors are dreaming too small and government grants are great for slow death, but not rapid success.
However, we also saw a glimmer of hope in the ecosystem. We met angel investors who wouldn’t quibble over terms and instead focused on the vision and metrics of a startup. We met venture capitalists who were pushing founders to dream of creating multibillion-dollar companies, not short-term exit plans. We met entrepreneurs bold enough to persuade talented individuals to move their lives from Silicon Valley to join startups in Waterloo. They are an exciting subsegment of our startup ecosystem that are leading by example.
Supporting startups through this change are forward-thinking programs such as the Creative Destruction Lab at the University of Toronto and Velocity at the University of Waterloo. Velocity offers entrepreneurs an environment in which they can experiment with their startup in the early stages. For startups further along, the Creative Destruction Lab offers the strategic and tactical advice necessary to build a rapidly scalable business – this advice comes from extremely successful entrepreneurs who’ve been there and done it themselves.
The bad news? This small portion of the ecosystem alone isn’t going to solve the problem. We all (founders, investors, advisers, government granting bodies and support programs) need to think bigger. We also need to give up on trying to chase down the software successes of Silicon Valley. Just give up – it’s not going happen. This is not to discredit software opportunities; there are going to be many new innovations and successes there. But the end goal should be about making Canada the centre of gravity for another ecosystem.
In the words of Wayne Gretzky, we need to skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
The hardware opportunity has already become mainstream, and other ecosystems have already pounced on it, but Canada isn’t far behind. We are creating companies to solve complex problems in the health-medical and wearable-technology spaces, and applying complex nanotechnologies to revolutionize conventional markets.
Nanotechnology engineering graduates from the University of Waterloo are now starting companies at the same pace as any other program at the university, and a venture fund for innovations exclusively in the quantum domain was just created in Waterloo. Wearable-technology and machine-learning startups are booming, with the University of Toronto alumni leading the charge, and we’re just getting started. The Creative Destruction Lab is launching a separate stream to support machine-learning startups and Velocity recently launched the Velocity Foundry program to house startups that build physical products.
If Canada is going to become the hotbed for wearable technology or create a Quantum Valley in the Waterloo region, we need to commit to it. It’s much better to be extremely good at one thing than be mediocre at many things. We need founders who will think about building world-changing companies all the way to an initial public offering, not bank on small exits. We need investors who will stop quibbling over minute terms, but will instead fund deep-science ideas in addition to Internet and mobile startups. They also need to invest in bold founders earlier than they currently do. And we need government granting bodies to focus their funding on bold ideas that can be rapidly commercialized, not tax credits that lead to a slow death.
Putting Canada on the map as the hotbed for deep-science startups will also help us reduce the brain drain that currently plagues our country. To prevent top-tier talent from fleeing to greener pastures, we need to build world-leading companies here at home. Retaining that talent will, in turn, lead to the creation of more world-changing opportunities here, as those employees go on to found other startups.
Isn’t it about time we developed a new identity for Canada besides the land of hockey, maple syrup and poutine?

We're still ignoring the impact of technology on our economy



I have begun to realise there is probably little point in writing to newspapers regarding the impact of technology on the whole economic scene.

Seven years ago, I began to draw attention to the possibility of technology being the overwhelming influence on economic turmoil in the 21st century and the Irish Independent had the courage and commitment to freedom of speech to allow this divergent opinion be heard.
I consider newspapers the best and only avenue for a nonentity to express an argument which apparently terrorises the political and economic establishment to such a degree that they are unable to challenge the logic and their only defence is to ignore the argument being made.
The media in general has been badly served by economic commentators since the 2008 crash. There is a universal refusal to consider, much less discuss the impact of technology. The 21st century is personified by the genius of invention and innovation, which has taken economics onto an entirely new plateau of achievement and success.
The parameters which governed economic activity throughout history have crumbled; the laws of supply/demand and production/employment have been reversed.
Everyone knows the "Greek solution" is unworkable and doomed to failure, as discussed in your editorial (Irish Independent, August 12) yet it proceeds.
Chinese stock markets are in turmoil as growth there is halved in three years and destined to shrink further (the world is not big enough to consume all China can produce). Predictions of Wall Street collapse from eminent US economists grow louder by the day.
Baxter, an industrial robot which can replace human labour in small/medium output facilities, is available at less than $25,000, and dairy farming faces disaster due to milk oversupply exacerbated by the lunatic removal of quotas.
We have catastrophically misjudged the last seven years as a "recession", whereas it is a gigantic leap forward to a new economic era of abundance with greatly reduced dependence on human labour.
We resort to debt to try and sustain/resurrect growth and employment through bailouts, repayment restructuring and quantitative easing (banks provided the debt a decade ago) in a desperate attempt to pretend modern technology never happened. But it has happened.
Padraic Neary, Tubbercurry, Co Sligo
The Irish are migrants too
For once, I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by Zoe Lawlor in her incisive critique of the Irish media's recent coverage of the ongoing refugee crisis in the Mediterranean (Letters, Irish Independent, August 13).
Ms Lawlor goes right to the heart of the issue by forcefully condemning a media language that "dehumanises" these desperate people, and she articulates the outrage of Irish citizens at the callous use of terms like "migrants" about people who are desperately fleeing persecution in their chaotic and war-torn homelands. This is not merely offensive, but demeans the valiant efforts of our wonderful navy, which is rescuing people from certain death on a daily basis.
This is all the more pertinent when this human tragedy is often spun as one of simple economic migration. Imagine the media storm if a commentator used this template in a revisionist commentary on the million-and-a-half Irish men, women and children who fled starvation in the Great Famine of the 19th century.
Or to bring a contemporary face to Irish economic migration, the estimated 50,000 illegal Irish in America, none of whom fled the murder, torture or rape which would surely have been the fate of those vulnerable people who risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean.
Dr Kevin McCarthy, Kinsale, Co Cork
Humanitarian platitudes
Zoe Lawlor rightly points out that refugees and economic migrants trying to enter Europe are first and foremost human beings.
But I'm disappointed that leading lights such as President Michael D Higgins, former president Mary Robinson, and columnist Liz O'Donnell, who have all said that these people should be welcomed, have not had the honesty or courage to propose concrete figures on how many they think we should take in over the next year, five years, etc.
Do they want some restrictions or no restrictions? Generalised humanitarian platitudes sound nice, but are not very useful.
P Davis, Dublin 17
Rural areas are forgotten
I read the successful Garda unit set up to deal with criminal gangs is to be disbanded. It is the rural areas suffering most from these gangs. Whatever the Government might say, this would seem further evidence it does not give a damn about rural areas, with the closure of hospitals, post offices, garda stations, etc.
David Kelly, Crumlin, Dublin 12
Give Labour some credit
Quite a lot of Irish voters have refused to accept the Labour Party's input into the Government's successes in recent times. They complain of broken promises, etc.
They seem to forget the Labour Party didn't win the last election and had about a third of the seats Fine Gael won, and therefore couldn't deliver on some of its promises.
However, the impact the party has achieved must be seen in light of the fact that things could have been a lot worse if it wasn't in Government, particularly regarding social welfare, children's allowances, free travel for the elderly and free television allowances.
Certainly, the Government has got a number of things badly wrong, but look where our country is now - on the road to recovery.
Think of these things when you're casting your vote and close your ears to those shouting the loudest.
Name and address with Editor
Dáil gender quota a bad idea
Daithi McCarthaigh (Letters, Irish Independent, August 11) makes an impassioned plea in favour of forcing the electorate to elect at least 50pc of the next Dáil solely on the basis of their being women.
Of course, there is no mention of a minimum level of male representation. Such an idea would be misogynistic at best, and woman-hating at worst.
However, the most egregious inaccuracy is Mr MacCarthaigh's statement that: "Men bring passion. Women bring reason." Two of the greatest firebrands of the current Dáil (if not the greatest) are Mary Lou McDonald and Clare Daly.
Leave the electorate to decide who they want to lead them, and let the electorate bear the consequences.

10 Healthcare Technology Disruptors To Watch (All Led By Women)



Many women cite their company’s outdated maternity leave policies, lack of flexible work arrangements or salaries that are inadequate to cover the costs of childcare as their main reasons for exiting the tech industry. But not all sectors of tech are experiencing a female exodus. Women seem to be flourishing in healthcare technology. A studyrecently released by XX in Health, a national organization fostering female leadership in healthcare, found that women make up 78% of the healthcare workforce, and that firms with female leadership yield greater returns for investors.
 “Not only have we seen an increase in female leadership in the Health Tech industry, but there has been an increase in technologies aimed at helping women,” said Ann Fyfe, President and CEO of Fogarty Institute for Innovation (FII).  Founded by cardiovascular surgeon Thomas Fogarty to spearhead innovation in medical technology, FII had two of their female CEOs recognized by Forbes in the “30 Under 30” list for shaping healthcare in 2013 and 2014: Surbhi Sarna, co-founder and CEO of InPress, and Jessie Becker, co-founder and CEO of InPress Technologies.
Given the above, investors may want to keep an eye on some of these women-led healthcare tech disruptors. Here are ten to watch in 2015:
Wellthie - This healthcare tech company, based in New York City, is making it easier for consumers and small businesses to explore their health insurance options in a simple way. It is led by female CEO, Sally Poblete, an 18 year veteran of the health insurance industry. The make-up of Wellthie’s leadership team is 75% female.
Naia Health – This San Francisco-based health startup was created by entrepreneur and visionary, Janica Alvarez, to save parents time and worry by providing the world’s first smart breast pump. The new technology was invented when Janica had her first child, and quickly learned how frustrating the experience of pumping was.
Caremerge is an award-winning healthcare tech company based in Chicago that is revolutionizing care coordination and communication for seniors by providing a HIPAA-compliant web-based and mobile platform that allows family members to communicate in real time with doctors and health care providers caring for their loved ones. Women make up 70% of their workforce, and their entire leadership team is female.
Humetrix has developed health risk appraisals, chronic care management software, and consumer-friendly mobile device-based solutions that gives consumers their own health IT systems.  President and CEO Dr. Bettina Experton is also known for transforming Medicare’s Blue Button text file into a user-friendly iBlueButton app, which allows VA members to download their medical information from anywhere.
Cohero Health is developing an Apple Watch app so asthmatics can better track their medication protocol adherence and lung function. The company currently makes a medical device that captures important respiratory performance metrics that sync with its AsthmaHero mobile app.  The New York-based healthcare tech company is led by CEO Melissa Manice.  Manice is not only the founder and CEO of the company, but also the inventor of the product.
Force Therapeutics, based in New York City, is a recovery platform that enables patients and providers to help support post-acute rehab.  The company employs 50% women and is led by founder and female CEO Bronwyn Spira, an entrepreneur and 20-year veteran with clinical and managerial experience in several healthcare settings.
Flextronics is a $26 billion a year company with a strong footprint in biotech and 200,000 employees in 30 countries.  The company is led by Jeannine Sargent, President of Innovation and New Ventures at Flextronics.
Maven Clinic offers a tele-health platform that creates video appointments with healthcare providers for convenient quality care with a more human experience.  A majority of the providers are women who offer counseling around pre-natal, postpartum and pediatric care.  CEO Katherine Ryder, a former early stage investor with Index Ventures in London, noticed the gender discrepancy in the current landscape of healthcare, as well as a lack of female executives in the space. Maven Clinic was designed to fill this void.
AbilTo (pronounced “able to”) is a digital behavioral change therapy company that partners with health plans to offer behavioral change therapy programs over the phone and/or by secure video.  The C-suite is comprised largely of women and 80% of the corporate leadership is women.
MMJ Labs was founded by CEO Dr. Amy Baxter, the award-winning inventor of Buzzy, a drug-free, palm-sized needle pain blocker for both adults and children aged 4 and above.  Buzzy is FDA cleared to control pain from injections, IVs, phlebotomy and cosmetic injections, as well as for relief of musculoskeletal pain from a variety of conditions.

Are farmers held back by impediments to emerging technology?



Farmers are being asked if they are getting maximum benefit from technology and if not, why not.
Agriculture innovation is to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry.
The terms of reference include emerging technology and its relevance to the primary sector.
This could result in examining technology from remote monitoring and drones to farm chemicals.
Chair of the House of Representative Agriculture and Industry committee, Rowan Ramsey, also wants to know if there impediments to implementing emerging technology.
"It raises these questions about whether government are responsive enough, whether research organisations are plugged in enough, whether we have regulations which are holding back adoption of new technology or whether there are things that we are missing," he said.
The Liberal Party backbencher, who owns a farm in South Australia, argued that Australian primary producers operated in a high-cost environment and therefore, to remain competitive, more technology had to be adopted.
"We are going to have to keep doing that to make sure that we remain profitable in what is a pretty tough market," Mr Ramsay said.
The committee will take submissions until September 25.

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Google Project Fi: Little Things Mean Big Changes In Mobile Services; For The Better



Lost in the alphabet soup that is Google’s new  holding company is one of its many experiments in changing the business rules for network services while nudging the technology in a direction that ultimately benefits consumers. No, not Fiber, although it’s a fantastic broadband disruptor for those that can get it, but Project Fi, Google’s mobile service. After arriving with great fanfare this spring, Fi has slipped under the radar because of Google’s slow, by-invitation rollout, its very limited phone support (one!) and the fact Google hasn’t publicized the service like its more sexy Project X experiments like Glass, Loon and Self-Driving Cars. Indeed, the individual pieces that make Fi appealing aren’t unique, but collectively they are trendsetting and could herald welcome changes in how we all use and pay for phones and wireless service.
At its core, Fi is just another MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) that combines Sprint and T-Mobile LTE networks into a hybrid that automatically uses the best available signal. But Fi takes the concept one step further by incorporating WiFi calling, what carriers term voice over WiFi (VoWiFi). In areas with no or very weak cell coverage, but strong WiFi signals the phone automatically switches over. Unlike OTT services such as WhatsApp or Viber, VoWiFi uses the native phone number, dialer and SMS client (Android Messenger or Hangouts in this case), but as with OTT, WiFi activity doesn’t cost you by counting towards Fi data usage.
The Fi meta-network is a great idea and well implemented, but not without limitations. Like all VoWiFi services, call handoff only works one way, from WiFi to LTE. According to an Ericsson white paper, handoff from calls initiated on LTE isn’t currently possible, but specifications are under development to support bi-directionality. Another issue with all VoWiFi implementations is the uncontrolled nature of most public WiFi networks that complicates the decision about if and when phones should automatically switch from cell to WiFi. Some carriers and large enterprises deploying WiFi for fixed mobile convergence (FMC) telephony systems opt for trusted WiFi access gateways (so-called TWAGs): hardware devices that combine features of an enterprise WiFi controller and carrier evolved Packet Data LTE gateway (ePDG, a bridge device providing secure delivery of mobile packet services over untrusted networks). Like WiFi controllers, TWAGs aggregate traffic from multiple APs, authenticate the hotspot and build a secure tunnel to the carrier’s core network, apply some QoS traffic shaping, authenticate devices and collect usage statistics.
While secure and reliable, TWAGs are an added hardware and management expense Google obviously wanted to avoid. Instead, Fi uses a combination of Android’s WiFi Assistant app and a database of known, vetted and reliable public hotspots to set up automatic connections. Remembering how insecure public WiFi can be, Google completes the setup by establishing a VPN from the phone to its core network that protects all voice and data communications. The problem with Google’s approach is the seemingly manual nature, although the company hasn’t offered details on how hotspots are vetted nor a public process for submitting WiFi networks for inclusion in the trusted Fi ecosystem. Lacking a known hotspot Fi phones default to cellular, even if it’s not LTE. Of course, resourceful users can for WiFi calling by putting the phone into airplane mode (which disables all radios), manually re-enabling WiFi and connecting to an available network. All the VoWiFi features work, even on a protected network, but the process is sufficiently inconvenient that few users will bother.
The other problem with Fi is a dearth of device choice: channeling Henry Ford, Google’s initial implementation allows you to use any phone you want as long as it’s a Nexus 6. Now, the Nexus 6 is a great flagship phone, particularly if you like screen real estate, but with a giant 6-inch screen and footprint slightly larger than an iPhone 6 Plus, it’s not for everyone. This limitation will surely abate, as Google is expected to introduce two new Nexus models this fall and Fi’s technical requirements are no different than WiFi calling services available from other carriers where T-Mobile offers 18 different devices.

Pete Hines: No idea what time Fallout Shelter will release on Android



So Fallout Shelter is scheduled to make its highly anticipated debut on Android devices today. And as expect, Android owners are anxious to finally get their hands on Bethesda's new, free-to-play mobile game inspired by the Fallout franchise.
With such an eagerly anticipated game, Pete Hines, Bethesda's VP of Marketing and PR, is undoubtedly being hit up for information on what time the game will release. He doesn't know folks.
Taking to Twitter, Hines, who is practically the go-to-guy for all news Bethesda on Twitter revealed he has no idea what time Fallout Shelter will be available for Android, and urged gamers to show some patience.
Wishful thinking Pete. Android owners have been waiting for nearly two months as they saw Bethesda's first foray into the mobile space release first on iOS devices only. For months now, Android owners have been waiting to step into the shows of an Overseer and guide their very own Vault to survival.
Barring any unexpected problems, Fallout Shelter will release on Android today. Accompanying the release will be a new update that adds Mr. Handy, Deathclaws, and Molerats.