Are You Smart Enough for the Smart Watch?

When I noticed the sudden wave of tech articles on Apple’s new gizmo, it felt as if I was at the cusp of a revolution.  The next big thing I should write an article on; the next big thing to wrap my mind around.  Maybe it was Tim Cook’s snazzy presentation cum video introduction to the Apple Watch.  It was almost as if Apple had succeeded in landing a man on Mars. 

In actual fact, smart watches have been around for some time, with Samsung, LG and Sony having blazed the trail with their own offerings that operate on Android.  Hell, it’s been around since the early 2000s, with PDA watches by brands like Fossil though it’s only been in recent years with the flourishing of smartphone technology that people have begun to sit up and take notice of this issue.  Come to think of it, I even remember those Primary school days where the coolest thing I witnessed was a boy on the school bus showing off his digital watch, which had a calculator attached to it.  Those were the days of not-so-smart smart-watches.

PDA Watch by Fossil

The Once-Uber-Cool Calculator Watch

I suppose one of the biggest reasons why people are only now taking smart watches seriously is simply because this time it’s Apple.  Time and again, Apple transformed the way we relate to technology, essentially redefining computers, phones, music devices, tablets and what not.  Time and again, critics had to eat their own words for lampooning newly launched Apple devices.  Apple has always had the last laugh – at least that was the case with the Mac, the Macbook, the iPod, iPod shuffle, the iPhone and the iPad.  Maybe the Apple Watch's next.

Will the Apple Watch transform our lives in any way?  Some say that it might encourage a culture of addiction to smart devices, a whole generation of distracted individuals who can never tear themselves away from their devices.  This distraction breeds anxiety, and moves us even further away from the deep connection and communication we need so badly.  It’ll force us to stay connected 24/7, we’ll never be able to switch off mentally, and work like balance will become an ever-distant dream.  And in the long term, maybe we’ll even lose our ability to communicate face-to-face in ways unmediated by smart technology.

Oh wait, except that that’s actually already happened.  Are we not already hopelessly addicted to our iPhones and iPads?  Just yesterday I was in church and I could easily see one-tenth of the congregation glued to their smart devices.  And as far as I could tell, they were scrolling through Facebook or Whatsapping, not checking their online bible or paying much attention to what was an excellent sermon on the spiritually empowering practice of being honest with ourselves and articulating our deepest yearnings to Jesus.  I couldn’t believe people would come all the way down to church just to surf their iPhones, in the comfort of their homes.  But I digress.

Arguably, most problems related to smart technology could be solved quite easily.  Sure, the smart devices encourage you to be distracted all the time.  But you could easily switch off the notifications.   Sure, smart devices make it too easy to constantly Google and read up on random things as soon as a question pops up in your mind.  But you could just as easily park aside that compulsion and just do it when you do get to your PC, where you can do a proper research on whatever piques your interest.  Sure, smart devices monitor you and constantly advice you on what you should do, but…ok, you get my point.  We could just say no.

Except we can’t.  We just can’t.  While we’ve evolved brains capable to developing these amazing forms of technology, we haven’t evolved the capacity to use it without being controlled by it.   Some futurists would say this is not the point – we live in the “Hybrid Age” or “Cyborg Age” – where technology is not separate thing but an intimate part of who we are, what we do and how we think.  Such a view, however, sidesteps the fact that much of the smart technology we have today were invented for needs that were arguably non-existent.  They did not grow organically out of a specific need the way, say, the invention of the light bulb was.

This isn’t disruptive technology.  It’s just technology for which we haven’t the ability to exercise control over.

Singapore's The Most Expensive Place to Live - Again??

Is Singapore Budget 2015 a step in the right direction?  If so, do you think too a little too late?

Click Here to Read up on the Singapore Budget.

Click Here to Read up on the Economist Report.

My Afterthoughts:

What I think I didn't really consider while making the video were the various constraints the government works under.  Frankly, it's easy to blame the government for making Singapore the playground of the rich at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans who find it increasingly hard to make a living.  

Yet, knowing how pragmatic the Singapore government is, it's quite unlikely they would have done it had they not seen, or at least perceived,  significant benefits accruing for Singaporean.  As of now, the government's pre-emptively clarified that social mobility will remain a key tenet of public policy, even as it seeks to be a magnet for global wealth.  Again, Singapore wants to have its cake and eat it too.  How Singapore will manage these diametrically opposed forces will remains to be seen ;-)  

I think time is not on their side though, given how local politics have turned against the ruling party in the last few years. 

Well, I suppose we'll wait and see.

My New York Times contribution on Civic Freedom in China

While Singapore and China are obviously two very different societies, they both share a philosophical commitment to the strong centralised leadership.  Fundamentally, my NY Times comment was directed at the instinctive approach most NY Times readers took, which was to evaluate China from the lens of the west.  While not finding excuses for the deeply authoritarian approach taken by leaders of both countries, I think finding tangible political solutions and working towards a more egalitarian and free society for all first requires looking at the world from the Other's point of view.

The gist of my New York Times Comment:

Mark Chia

 Singapore 3 days ago

Well the problem is from a Chinese point of view, or at least what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew claims it is in his recently published book "One Man's View of the World", it is said that a country can only prosper if there is a strong centralised authority. Mind you "Zhong Guo", the Chinese term for China, actually translates as "Central Kingdom". For centuries, the world was interpreted as a series of concentric circles with the Emperor at the centre. When the Emperor's power is unshaken, only then will there be true stability and prosperity for the nation. China may no longer be a monarchy, but having lived with the only system it ever knew for several thousand years, you can't expect things to change after less than a century since the CCP took power.

Why am I saying all this? I'm not finding excuses for the authoritarian approach of the Chinese leadership. But I think until we begin to understand how the political cosmology works in China, our response to the issue will be little more than a profound feeling of outrage mixed with helpless resignation. If Lee Kuan Yew was right, I wouldn't be surprised that from the Chinese leadership, nipping dissent in the bud comes from a wellspring of 'good' intentions. Well we all know where that leads us.

Click here to read the article.

Screenshot of NY Times article and my comment