Last week I attended the Rose Café event led by professor Garrick Blalock. The conversation centered on why we don’t always take the best solution (indicative of technological progress) and instead choose to remain with what we have at the current moment. One of the points that was touched on at the beginning of the presentation was : if we can all agree that driving a Prius or a Tesla is more environmentally friendly than our more conventional cars, then why aren’t we all driving a Prius or a Tesla? Student’s responses ranged from the cars being too expensive to them not being aesthetically appealing. Responses to the Prius/Tesla example made me reflect and realize that the underlying principle as to why we don’t all purchase these cars can be applied to other examples in life where we don’t pick the best technological solution.

Another example with the same underlying principle was later presented. It involved cooking in Uganda. The problem with the conventional way of cooking is that it is not efficient and produces a lot of smoke which can negatively impact health. A new cleaner (produces less smoke) and more efficient stove was introduced but it wasn’t really adopted by all because it was either too expensive or not as practical as the conventional “stoves”. I’m a person that thinks that health is one of the biggest priorities in life so when I heard this I just thought that it was interesting how much of an influence economics and practicality can have to make someone put their life at risk.

Overall, i thought the presentation was eye opening because it made me view decisions in life in a whole new perspective. I’ve even begun to look more closely at why I’m making the decisions I’m making and if the best solution to a problem is actually a feasible option for me.