Author: Bilal Kathrada

In Star Trek, doctors diagnosed their patients by scanning them with a non-intrusive medical scanner called a “Medical Tricorder”. These amazing devices could diagnose any illness within seconds, and what’s more, they could also tell if you had a concussion or a fracture, all without blood tests, CT scans or X-rays. At the time when the series was launched in 1966, the idea must have seemed absurd and far-fetched, but fast-forward just over half a century to 2017, and it is no longer science fiction. Medical scanners are now a reality. Scientists in the US have developed DxtER, which is a medical scanner that can diagnose a number of conditions like diabetes, urinary tract infection, sleep apnoea, stroke, tuberculosis, and pneumonia – just by scanning the patient. It is easy to use, and requires no medical skills. All you do is scan a person, and a few minutes later out comes the diagnosis. DxtER is one of many medical scanning devices that are about to hit the market soon, ushering in a new age when people will become their own doctors and diagnose themselves without having to go to the doctor. As if that’s not enough, University of California San Francisco has developed a robotic pharmacy that is capable of dispensing medication automatically, without human intervention. The pharmacy has already dispensed nearly 350000 doses, and without a single error. One does not need to be a computer scientist to see how these two amazing developments will soon work together, and also incorporate other cutting-edge technologies. For example, in the near future your medical scanner will diagnose you, and send a prescription to the robotic pharmacy which will dispense your medication and conveniently deliver it to you via an autonomous drone. Easy peasy. While this will be a huge convenience and a massive cost-saver for the consumers, it raises questions about the relevance of doctors and pharmacists in the future. While it’s unlikely that doctors will become totally irrelevant, a lot of what they do today will be done by machines in the future. Maybe your future doctor will be a technical person, rather than a medical one. There was a time when becoming a doctor was almost a guarantee of a prosperous career, but that is not so certain anymore. Things are changing fast, and many existing careers will cease to exist within a decade or two. The challenge is: how do we prepare our kids for such an uncertain future? While it’s difficult to determine what the future holds, we can draw conclusions from current trends. In a LinkedIn study, it was shown that nearly 70% of current jobs relate to technology in some form or the other, be it coding, technical support or big data analysis. This is a strong indication that the people in the most advantageous position now and in the future will be those who possess computer science skills. It makes perfect sense then, that to “future-proof” our kids, we need to equip them with computer science skills no matter what field they plan to get into. But then the question is: does our education system provide kids with computer science skills? If not, then how are they going to compete in tomorrow’s global job market?

The Amazon Go concept store in Seattle is one of its kind in the world. The store has no cashiers or cash registers. Customers simply walk in, pick their items and walk out. How exactly does a business operate if customers don’t pay for their goods? Actually, Amazon Go customers do pay for the goods, but not in the traditional way. Amazon Go works like this: to enter the store, you hold up your phone to a scanner, which scans a unique bar code on the Amazon Go app. Once inside, you can shop around like you would at any normal store. Except that, when you pick up an item, it is “magically” added to your bill. If you return that item to the shelf, it is removed from your bill. When you are done shopping, you simply walk out of the store. Special sensors pick up that you are leaving, and the total is charged to your credit card. No queues, no fuss, super convenient. The store is hugely popular, and Amazon is already planning to open more GO stores in other major cities in the US. Other retailers like Walmart are also jumping on the trend. Why wouldn’t they? When you consider the overall benefits to the business and its customers, there is every reason why the system will soon gain widespread adoption. Businesses will not only save millions on cashier salaries, but they will also be able to remain open 24 hours a day. Customers will benefit from a streamlined, queue-less shopping experience. Who wouldn’t want that? There is, however, a downside to all this, which is the looming question of cashier jobs. When this concept takes off on a large scale, thousands of cashiers will undoubtedly lose their jobs. Invariably, many people are blaming technology for the job losses, using this example as a warning of worse things to come. But who is really responsible for the job losses? Is it the technology, or is it the customers? The technology was developed in response to a pressing need in bustling cities, which was for a fast, smooth and efficient shopping experience; and that is what Amazon brought to the table. Technology was simply the enabler. Can we then blame technology? Let’s consider another example. Online banking has made our lives a whole lot more convenient. The trouble is, because there is seldom any need to go into a branch anymore, many banks downsized and closed dozens of branches, leaving hundreds of tellers jobless. Who is to blame for this – online banking technology, or us, the bank clients who are “guilty” of using online banking? If we feel bad for the tellers, then are we prepared to give up online banking and bank at a branch? Similarly, when the Jacquard loom was invented in the early 1800s, clothing was commoditised, and millions of common people could now afford to dress in clothing that was previously only available to the rich. But this came at a price: thousands of weavers lost their jobs almost overnight. But no one really cared about the weavers, because it made economic sense. Does technology cause job losses? In a way, it does. But putting the blame squarely on technology is counter-productive because the underlying assertion is that progress and innovation are inherently bad. There are other contributing factors, and we as a human race need to approach the problem holistically. Otherwise, we will be trying to solve the right problem in the wrong way.

  “Since the discovery of fire and the wheel man’s brain has not stopped coming up with innovations aimed at easing life”   Your smartphone is about to get smarter than you’ve ever imagined. A few weeks ago, Google demonstrated their new artificially intelligent personal assistant, called Google Assistant, for Android devices which is truly remarkable because it can make calls on your behalf. I don’t mean it will just dial out for you; I mean this thing will actually engage in a conversation with the person at the other end. “The dinosaurs of old are ready to be challenged by businesses that have evolved and are hungry” – Jim Tomaney In the demo, Google Assistant was asked to make a salon appointment. What came next was mind-boggling. It called the salon and spoke to the receptionist in a completely natural, human-like voice. It even dropped a casual “mmm-hmm” into the conversation. So convincing was it that the receptionist did not even realise she was talking to a machine. Equally fascinating are some of the advancements being made in the medical field. One group of scientists in Melbourne are aiming to transform the lives of people with physical disabilities through a tiny brain implant called a stentrode, which will allow people to control devices with their minds. Yes, you read that correctly: mind control. People who are paralysed or who have had limbs amputated will get artificial, “cybernetic” limbs, which they will control with their minds. All they will have to do is to think about walking, and the limbs will obey, just like normal limbs. No doubt, technology is transforming our lives in ways we’ve never imagined. But for all the positive impact it has made, technology does pose some serious problems and challenges. Cybercrime, hacking, online fraud, phishing, cyber-bullying and child pornography are some of the more problematic examples. Then there are the seemingly less serious, though more insidious dangers of technology, like the fact that technology can be a major distraction which, at best, reduces productivity and at worst, risks lives, such as taking a call or texting while driving. AI is here to stay and enterprises must embrace this tech to thrive Mankind’s high-speed rush into new technological frontiers certainly has its benefits and its dangers, but to survive and thrive in this tech-crazy world, it is essential to keep a couple of things in mind. First, there is no need to be surprised or alarmed. New innovations and developments almost always bring new problems and challenges. This is nothing new. Consider this: Plastic was one of the most amazing inventions of the 20th century, but today, just over 120 years since its invention, it is proving to be a huge challenge to our environment. Does this mean that we should “throw out the baby with the bathwater” and undermine the immense benefits of plastic? Certainly not, and the same is true for technology. The second thing to bear in mind is that technology is here to stay, and it’s not going away. The sooner we come to terms with this, the better. We need to overcome our fears, embrace technology and become its masters. Beyond that, we have to pro-actively identify risks and opportunities, and find effective solutions. After all, do we really have a choice?

  “Unlike other technologies, there is something very specific about smartphones. It represents a life connected to entertainment, social media, gaming, and incessant texting” – Dr. Richard Freed By Opening the Door to Cell Phones, Are Schools Also Feeding an Addiction? French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced a nationwide ban of cellphones at schools. Was this a wise move? Is this a well-thought-out strategy? French parents and teachers’ unions are dubious. They say the decision lacks logic and pragmatism. What makes this situation particularly tricky is that children will actually be allowed to bring their phones to school, but not allowed to use them. Naturally, teachers want to know how the ban will actually be enforced. Will we force children to “check in” their phones every morning, or will we leave the phones with them, and simply trust them to “do the right thing”? Perhaps an idea might be to put the phones into lockers. If so, do schools have enough lockers? And then, who’s checking to see that the phones are actually going into the lockers? Maybe security guards carefully monitoring students via a network of security cameras? What about the bathrooms? Then there’s the question of wearable devices. I’m not sure if the French authorities are aware that you can interact with your smart phone using a smart watch, even if it’s safely locked up inside a locker. Should smart watches then be included in the ban? Will there be a daily pat-down for smart watches? That sounds like fun. Then there are more subtle nuances such as what actually constitutes usage of a cellphone. If a child pulls out a phone to check the time, or to check a message from a parent, is this tantamount to a violation? Does she deserve detention for this? It’s not clear how the French authorities will deal with these logistical challenges, but one thing is certainly very clear: the ban comes into effect in September this year, and they currently don’t have a clue. PROS AND CONS Of course, schools have very compelling reasons for banning cellphones. They are dealing with really serious issues relating to cellphones that are not just detrimental to the learning and teaching process, but also pose a risk to children’s physical, emotional and mental health – risks that come from spending too much of time slouched in front of a tiny screen. Let’s face it: this is not a French problem, but a problem of global proportions, affecting every country and every culture. Teachers everywhere are struggling to get any teaching done because learners are constantly distracted by their ringing, buzzing, chiming pocket devices. Children rudely text each other while the teachers are talking. “Cellphones could provide valuable access to information and alert learners and teachers to potential danger, but could also serve as a hindrance to learning” – education activist Hendrick Makaneta. Then there are serious issues like pornography and cyberbullying. According to global statistics, children as young as 10 years old are exposed to internet porn, and this is no doubt a cause for alarm. Ultimately, the question shouldn’t be whether or not cellphones should be banned, but whether banning them will deal with these problems effectively. Are children going to be more motivated to learn, and are porn and cyberbullying going to go away? Or are we just running away from the real problem?