fbpx
이름 or 단체명

허서윤

출신 학교

Seoul Global High School

SDGs 그룹

[Group 4] 10. 불평등 완화 11. 지속가능한 도시 12. 지속가능한 소비/생산

포럼 주제/소주제

Designing an Equal, Sustainable, and Economically Stable Domain / Analyzing Limitations, Benefits, and Future Prospects

초록

SDGs : Section 4

“Designing an Equal, Sustainable, and Economically Stable Domain: Analyzing Limitations, Benefits, and Future Prospects” is research focused on fixing the digital divide, building a more sustainable city, and promoting responsible production and consumption. To achieve its goals, the study defines topics such as inequality and sustainability and offers specific policies that benefit society, from claiming partnerships with tech companies to suggesting ethnic consumption. During this process, the study not only suggests new, effective policies, but the limitations, improvements, and benefits of the policies as well.

포럼발표
  • Doyeon
    김도연
    2021년 3월 21일 at 2:48 오전

    Overall, very well written and insightful! I have one question about your standpoint on inequality. You stated that inequality may not be necessary bad by providing the case of state A and state B yet your whole research paper revolves around ways to fix inequality. Is there a particular reason why you mentioned that inequality is not always negative? Currently, your addition of the case of state A and B is weakening your point, so in order to strengthen your paper, my advice is to give a rebuttal to this case (since your argument is that inequality should be solved). Great job!

    • huh?
      허서윤
      2021년 3월 22일 at 9:04 오전

      Thank you for pointing that out! The main reason why I provided the case of state A and state B was that I wanted to strengthen my point: inequality may not be necessarily bad. I knew that my idea may be controversial to some people, and wanted to make sure they understood my point of view. This also correlates to the reason why I decided to talk about the digital divide: it is a type of inequality that affects almost half of the globe (especially today) and is never positive. Sure, there might be some people who go after the conventional lifestyle and try to stay away from the technological world; however, they are definitely missing out on the opportunity to earn better information. I hope my response clears out your question. Again, thank you for sharing with me 🙂

  • essie
    이예슬
    2021년 3월 22일 at 11:39 오후

    Hello, 서윤. This is Yeseul from team Verde.

    First of all, I really liked the way you used mathematical definition of inequalities to explain how it’s more complicated in real life.
    Your introduction on inequalities very much reminded me of the book written by Michael Sandal, observing universities and educational inequality in economic point of view. Also it’s very interesting to mention happiness based on relationship of GDP and inequality.

    I also liked the idea of Youth program, however, I thought the domains were too focused on the youth, excluding the elderly who now make up a huge proportion on most of the MDCs. To meet the need of the city as you mentioned in the domain, including elderly and the marginalized is mandatory. I’d like to suggest to add volunteer works and jobs that can help elderly, for example, by creating jobs and volunteering works for media specialist in social welfare business. Also I want to note that activating job education for elderly is important as much as the youth education in an aging society for sustainable development because one day, the youth will be the elderly, and they will need the system to help them.

    I also want to point out that partnership between few authorized companies might lead to oligopoly, which is relatively less dangerous than monopoly but still, has a peril of paralyzing economic system. Do you have any suggestions to prevent oligopoly?

    이상으로, 베르데의 이예슬이었습니다. 감사합니다. 😉

    • huh?
      허서윤
      2021년 3월 25일 at 7:39 오전

      Ah, thank you Verde for pointing that out. Yes, although I stated that companies should hold partnerships for the sustainability of society, I also wrote towards the end that the government should prevent affiliated companies from transacting by themselves for the economic sphere. Thankfully, there are policies that work accordingly.

  • 에이프릴
    최윤하
    2021년 3월 24일 at 10:51 오후

    Hello, my name is Yoon Ha Choi and I am a mentor for this year’s online forum. Thank you for sharing your essay. It was interesting how you brought your own experiences in analyzing the problem of inequality. I was also impressed with how you introduced a fresh perspective to inequality, comparing it with its own mathematical definition. I had a question in relation to your solution to ethical consumption. Although you do mention ethical consumption is in the hands of the individuals, I was curious as to what might motivate individuals to consume ethically on their own? For example, if the quality of the coffee beans labeled as ‘fair trade’ is poorer than those that are not, what would motivate you from purchasing products of that specific brand, reasons other than your own conscience and morals? What kind of policies or movements could be implemented to prompt such consumer behavior?

    • huh?
      허서윤
      2021년 3월 25일 at 7:35 오전

      Hi! First of all, thank you so much for reading this excerpt and sharing your thoughts with us. I’ll go on by answering your question. Although fair trade seems to rely on one’s conscience, I believe that it can be arranged more systematically through firms. There are many theories in behavioral economics that support consumer behavior, including the nudge effect, framing effect, etc. Since firms go after profit, they would be able to arrange firm activities that can increase demand for a certain good. For example, the firm can use the nudge effect to “nudge” the consumers into consuming a good, or they can also use copycat psychology by advertising the well online. By the means of policies, however, I do not think that policies would be effective; if there are policies that force consumers into buying certain goods, I am afraid that that would lead to communism.

  • hshin
    신한나
    2021년 3월 27일 at 4:42 오후

    Hello Irene, I am Kristin from Team STICKS. Thank you for sharing your logically developed assertion on the Digital Divide.

    You allowed the audience to quickly understand that the concept of inequality is different in all circumstances (whatever that may be), and you lead on to introducing the problem.

    You continue to highlight the importance of authority, which in this case was the government. So now we know that two governmental policies should be made. 1) students should be provided with technological aid and 2) jobs for digital literacy. However, even as you have stated, there are too many limitations.

    For the first potential solution, the cost was the problem, and simply making the government cooperate with technology companies by giving some incentive in return is not as easy as it sounds. After all, the point of recognizing a limitation is to combat any confounding variable that may hinder a particular agenda. There are so many NGOs, campaigns, and activists for various problems that are trying to receive recognition by the government and are failing to do so- not because they are in any way not impactful or what they are proposing is inefficient, but because the government does not just give out money that easily. The only reason campaigns or companies try to connect with the government is primarily because of the economic power. Although this proposal is potentially feasible, many people need to be aware and support providing digital aid for students. What if this causes an increase in tax rate IF the second part of the plan (to prevent limitations such as cost) does not work out? If there is backlash in the plan, this may be just a big minus for the majority. So, once citizens’ voices have grown, companies can receive support because now they are powerful enough for the government to hear and make a change.

    Governments indeed act upon what is best for how citizens perceive the government, rather than what is efficient for citizens and the society as a whole, which is a pervasive case and, unfortunately, is probably what most governments are like today. These governments strive for recognition. The government of a country has a political stance on most issues, and if this aligns with the citizens, it would not be formidable to supply a more extensive power and support the stance of what is thought as best for all. I have to mention a case that took place in Indonesia. A site was nominated as a World Heritage site by the Indonesian government because it was able to contribute to the development of technology and arts, acting as an example that shows human activity history- the first mine in Indonesia due to Dutch colonization. All of this sounds and looks so lovely, and the purpose was precisely that: to bring in tourism, in other words, money. The irony here was that mining had to stop in order to attract tourists. So what even was the point in doing all of this? What was the Indonesian government’s purpose? Probably what was seen as good, with no deep root to “purpose.” So, all things considered, how can your presentation propose a governmental policy that would have the government cooperate, including a detailed step-by-step procedure of how the government would compromise with companies (of technology, in this case)?

    On to the second proposed government policy: creating jobs for digital literacy. I remember that you proposed this because there was a problem existing regarding the government’s intentions to improve spheres rather than the citizens’ wants. Furthermore, this was the reason why I was confused. In my opinion, the most plausible way for the government to give power to companies or citizens was if they agreed to citizens’ wants (as I believe I clearly stated previously), but this was directly contrasted. It felt as if because the government does not give citizens recognition, we will give up and try to start our own thing until they decide to support us. However, creating jobs for digital literacy would also involve the government if you think about it. So much has to be considered when creating new jobs, and I am assuming you would know better than myself how all of this works as you have studied economics. Jobs require incentives because no labor is free, and that is just more money and more people that have to be dealt with responsibility and respect. I like the idea of how youths would lead out plans because they are the future of our world, but then you point out the limitation of these youths’ academic professions.

    Moreover, to solve this problem, NGOs should give progressional helping hands. So, how would this work? They are NGOs, there is no governmental power, and how would these professionals that are in NGOs give out free labor? All of these ideas are expanded upon but seem to lack elaboration.

    Examples cannot be the solution to these fundamental problems that all have too many limitations. Essentially, this makes me conclude with the question of a big HOW? How would all of these recognized limitations be combated? Are there any specific procedures that could you could explain that would prevent these kinds of situations?

    Please take no offense; your presentation was reasonably articulate and exciting.

    Anticipating a constructive debate 🙂

    • huh?
      허서윤
      2021년 3월 28일 at 4:58 오후

      Hi, Kristin! Wow, that is a long comment. Thank you so much for sharing! And no, I’m not offended at all. Please do not worry. :).
      So your first concern was correlated to the cost of the policy. In my essay, I have stated that the policies in solving the digital divide- such including cooperating with technological companies and subsidizing them in return- has its limitations in cost. Before I answer your concern, I would like to assert that we NEED technological devices to solve the digital divide, which means that cooperating with technological companies is inevitable. Now back to your question. You said that subsidizing companies would lead to negative effects, such including an increase in tax rates. However, I think what you are missing is not all subsidies lead to drastic negative effects. For example, although the government had to sacrifice monetary devices to make Obamacare come true, it helped the vitality of the people as a whole. Similarly, the digital divide is an important task that governments need to take interest and provide solutions. What I want to say is that these policies are crucial and serves for much positivity in both short and long terms, positive enough to complement the negative effects as well. I also want to point out that my example of subsidizing the companies-lowering the inheritance rate- may not always lead to negative consequences, for, according to OECD, inheritance taxes only take 1.3% of the taxes government receive. Wouldn’t it be better to benefit half the world’s population by sacrificing 1.3% of tax revenue? In fact, I believe almost all policies need approximately that amount or more when providing the country.
      Next, your second opinion was that you felt as if the government does not support the citizens enough, for the government is “selecting” non-governmental groups. However, I want you to know that I have written this essay in the government’s point of view. The whole point of this competition is creating policies for the good of the society. In real life, however, I assure you that the government and the non-governmental groups cooperate in coequality.
      Lastly, your third concern was that creating jobs means that the country needs more incentives, leading to more money. The reason why I suggested creating jobs correlated to the digital divide is because many countries, such as Korea, are struggling due to the lack of jobs. I felt that the country would benefit as a whole by solving the digital divide AND the problem with lack of jobs. Furthermore, these jobs include “interns,” which means that it involves students as well. If creating jobs become too much of a burden, increasing the number of interns may be a complement to your concern.

      Again, thank you so much for sharing your opinion! It was a joy to read them 🙂

  • sujk
    권수정
    2021년 3월 28일 at 9:22 오후

    Hi Irene! I am Jennifer Kwon from Seoul International School, part of group 4. I really liked how you connected the concept of the Digital Age and that society should start “handing the key to the youths.” The two seem to have a great correlation as the current and younger generations are growing up in a rapidly developing society in technical terms. However, when mentioning the limitations of such, I realized that you did admit that there is the continuation of using books. Because there are certain values and learnings that come from physical copies, would solely relying on technology be somewhat risky or should the pathway of focusing on technology continue?

    • huh?
      허서윤
      2021년 3월 28일 at 11:47 오후

      Hi Jennifer! Thank you for reading my essay! Right, about the soft copies, I confessed my concern in that it might be risky to solely depend on technology. Althougg I believe that technology can benefit the sustainability of society, I also think that banning hard copies would be an issue. If I was the policy-maker, I would definitely try to solve the digital divide and support necessary amount of hard copies at the same time 🙁

글쓰기