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.
No comments:
Post a Comment