January 28 - The Future of Technological Civilization Chapter 1 and "Pinto Madness"

Reading Chapter 1 of The Future of Technological Civilization by Edward Woodhouse raised a number of bothersome ideas for me, such as why don't the "people and organizations most responsible for technological innovation conceivably...steer their efforts in ways that bring genuine progress"? When considering the comments on the number of impoverished people now and a century ago, or cognitive impairments due to lack of protein, or global warming, it is maddening to think of how frequently these issues get pushed to the back burner for more shallow and immediate satisfaction. "One must infer that something is missing in the transmission of, say, Vitamin A capsules to Africa and South Asia, where childhood blindness and malnutrition are worst". With the resources available these days, the only conclusion to be drawn as to the lack of progress on this matter is social. Consider: an aggravated American pushes to raise awareness of this issue through foundations and fundraisers and philanthropy, however if there is little reaction from the general public, the efforts of this individual go to nothing. This person could then either give up on this effort to help those less fortunate or pile all possible resources together to continue further. Should this individual be unsuccessful here, he/she could be left in severe debt with little support from past allies, in other words - the eccentric humanitarian that nobody wishes to pay attention to. Consider another scenario in which a different individual profits off of the exploitation of other people's misfortune - such as Greg Mortenson, who was recently revealed to have largely misrepresented the supposed "memoirs" described in "Three Cups of Tea", a novel that inspired many people through his alleged feats and accomplishments to build schools all over the Middle East.

I would consider reliable supplies of clean water for many more people as well as efforts to reduce greenhouse effects and detoxify the the planet as forms of progress. It has a utilitarian drive in that these efforts are important forms of progress because they benefit most, if not all, living organisms. Life as we know it would cease to exist without clean water or a healthy earth to live on. Articles like "Pinto Madness" don't surprise me, and perhaps that is more telling and discouraging than anything else. Cars of the particular model that Ford was selling were very high in demand - therefore I can understand why these explosives on wheels were kept on the market for about seven years before any changes to the design were made, however at what cost? I recall a friend from Denmark commenting on how when an American is wronged, he/she always wants to bring a lawyer or official representative to prove that he/she is correct. Well, when large corporations pull scenarios like this over our eyes, I can't say that I really blame them. Granted - the legal system is exploited far too often for individual gain, however if Ford were to manufacture cars with such poor factors of safety, the company would undoubtedly suffer financially for wronging its' consumers.

It would seem that the exploitation of consumers over technology have created an overbearing, overcomplicated legal system - however if companies continue to be as greedy and cutthroat then it's every person for themselves.

Works Cited
Dowie, Mark. "Pinto Madness." Mother Jones September/October 1977. Web. 28 January 2014 <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness>

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

January 24 - "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?" and "March of the Robots"

"Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?" by Leo Marx
"March of the Robots"

The article by Leo Marx particularly interested me due to the depth at which he described the origin of the "skeptical, even negative, view of technological innovation as in index of social progress". I had never considered the suggestion that the shift from Jefferson and Franklin’s viewpoint of technology as a form of social and political liberation to the idea that technology is needed to fulfill society’s thirst for more as the cause for this skepticism. More often I had a more simple opinion similar to that of Thoreau’s belief that men were becoming “the tools of their tools” and that new inventions are “improved means to unimproved ends”. I was overwhelmed by the realization that, while some science and technology is further developed and sought after for the benefit of mankind as Jefferson would have liked, many individuals working in some form of research capacity perform this research for superficial reasons. I've dabbled in both research and industrial venues and have come across quite a few professors (personally and through the grape vine) that push their undergraduate and graduate students to write grants and publish papers only for the purpose of notoriety and money. These are by far the most frustrating professors to work for since they could care less about you, the individual, when the attainment of further awards and honors are at stake.

I recall a coworker that was able to turn around work at lightning speeds, and while his customers were always happy to receive their nice and neat package of processed data several days early, he became a notorious engineer in our department through the methods he decided to conduct his work. He’d use archaic and outdated machinery because they were never used and he could always get his hands on them. In the meantime, all the rest of us had to stay and wait in line to perform our work, but in the end I firmly believe that the technology we chose to rely on were more sophisticated and reliable. What it came down to was that he was exploiting technology so that he would never have to tell the customer “no”. However in an industry in which the data we present and the conclusions we arrive at have human lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake, I think it considerably more wise to be patient in order to ensure that the customer is receiving completely reliable and well thought out information for the benefit of the company and the consumers.In any case, I do feel shocked that the push for further developing science and technology has never crossed my mind to have political benefits. Social, yes, in terms of cancer research and the investigation in alternative energy solutions, however even in these fields I’m sure there are overhanging mists of greed to fuel people to work harder.

With regard to the “March of the Robots” article, this fear of giving robots the capability to “make their own decisions” is not new. Within the few decades, the media has exploded with the concept of our creations turning against us like in “I, Robot”, Transformers, and The Matrix. Like what Marx mentioned in his article, the excuse for the development of technology is to protect its’ respective nation. Only by creating more powerful and destructive equipment can any country survive – NOT by peace treaties or agreements between nations. It’s a very discouraging reality with a bleak and potentially dangerous future.