When we have to solve an on-going problem within any human group, the sophisticated individuals tended to give technological solutions. Even when the problem is say, so and so has a bad temper, we would refer that person to a psychiatrist, who would give pills or procedures sanctioned by “science.” These “technologies” are easy to sell, both as an idea to investors and for people to take actions. However, many technological interventions have little effects on solving the issues. Some effects can be justified by Hawthorne effect: meaning that people undergoing process change will work harder, giving a misconception that the intervention is positive.

Culture, which I am examining closely, is something I feel is a more fundamental and longer term than technological intervention. For one, technological intervention is like taking a jab, injecting some foreign bodies into a system, and hopefully changing its properties for the better. But cultural intervention is self-help, empowering members of the group to help each other. Much like one-time technological solutions, I feel that the rise of the professionals since the 50s is coming to dusk. Many nations have achieved a highly standardized education system that consistently churns out professionals of all kinds. I last heard earlier this year that it is good money giving professional lecture in China. And these tasks are easy for most university professors. Professional training appeared to be easily replicable. Supply of professionals will continue to rise. Meaning that they will cost less in the future.

Industrialized countries will feel the greatest pressure from China, where professional services will be the cheapest. Currently, the lack of English-fluent Chinese professionals makes their cost look high. When I last check for translation and accounts auditing services in China, firms with native English sales representatives charged more than Singapore and nearly as much as the U.S. But in truth, if you can speak Mandarin, the same workers whom they manage cost less than a third of that price. With such a sharp drop in price of professional services, is this the end of the western dominance in wealth?

Despite the importance of professionals in our economy, professionals are not very useful working alone. Much like how native English speakers can capitalize on language differences to mark up prices in China, different types of professionals working as group can develop premium solutions. In today’s industrial environment, particularly the new media, premium solutions have to come often.

When people are working together, there ought to be cordial social environment in place to guide social discourses and to agree on actions. I deem this the role of culture. Let's say I entered a restaurant and waited a long time before someone showed me to the table, I would be slightly upset. If the waiter comes with a grim face not paying attention to me when taking orders, I would be a bit more upset. If my mood had been good, I might have asked the waiter how was his day and get to know a bit more of him. But I would not. I merely ordered my food and ignored his presence. There are teahouses in the old China and drinking bars in the west that serve the purpose of exchanging information. I believed that the environment in both premises must have been cordial. Otherwise, people will not stay for long, less talking to strangers. There are other places, such as in MacDonalds, where you do not expect customers to make friends.

Culture, thus, is not very distant from us. Neither is it some forces acting in our heads. It is how we act with others in our daily life. Culture in one restaurant may be different from culture in say the bus stop, even when the people in both places are the same. However, I do notice that if generally, the people in a society is friendly, you can find the people establishing more friendly premises. Or that its members would design more places to be guests friendly.

I think that the greatest hurdle presenting a country developing into the knowledge economy, such as Singapore, is to develop places supporting the right culture. Knowledge work, much more than production work, requires professionals to work together. Therefore, groups attempting knowledge work need to undo some of the expired cultural paradigm in production work. In production work, dominant paradigms include as cheap as possible, as fast as possible, and low to no error. These, Singapore have done so well in the past twenty or thirty years. However, we may have to let them go, and just respect the choices that people make.

If you are a researcher, one of the words you least wanted to hear is to “justify” your investigation. How do you “justify” the future? Some smart scientists can consistently conjure new buzzwords and believable future scenarios and numbers that the investigation will bring. The future vision is at best a wild guess to amuse the uninitiated. And I have no such talent in seering. Scientists themselves believed only in peer-review, which is crosschecking your work with other experts. When a culture overly demands justification, science becomes too hierarchical, too dominated by short term studies, and by the grey beards who had long proven themselves times again until their words become too religious to quest.

There are cultures that encourage knowledge sharing. In modding communities, works are examined by the more experienced modders. Modders are friendly to one another. And users trust that the mods they are downloading have no viruses. In a community that such trusts and cordiality cannot be established, the community is partially crippled at the least if not unfunctionable.

Cultural change is of course not easy, and somewhat unpredictable. I am also not sure if a society can maintain two conflicting culture, one on efficiency and the other on risk taking. People who adopt the opposing mindset will fall into conflicts. The process requires time and conflict resolution. In this sense, their future is not made by technologies, but rather, people craft it with their own hands.