March 18, 2014: Political Innovation II – Internet Based Democracy

In Chapter 10 of The Future of Technological Civilization by Edward Woodhouse, it is suggested that an internet-based democracy is a radical but possible alternative to the current government. This idea is offered because the internet is accessible to everyone, therefore it would be possible to achieve a more democratic model in which more people's opinions and concerns can be voiced. I do not agree that an internet-based democracy could replace our current government, however I believe that the internet could be used as a tool with which to improve representation. By incorporating a system in which citizens are "called to serve" in an online governing body, one would be able to integrate many suggestions made by Woodhouse in past chapters and other sources to better our democratic system: random selection and Yarrusso's blank spaces.

Similar to jury duty, citizens could be randomly selected to be involved in an online governing body. Mathematically, random selection is the most effective method to achieve perfect representation in such a diverse country (Woodhouse, p. 114). This type of selection would guarantee a wide variety of education levels, occupations, ethnic backgrounds, and financial statuses would be represented rather than the "1%" representing us right now (Gummov, 2014). The advantage to having this system be organized through the internet is that representation from all 50 states could be easily achieved. Additionally, citizens would have the freedom to respond at their leisure in their own time zone (i.e. after work, after school). Naturally, some sort of restrictions would need to be enforced so that citizens still participate in these governing bodies in a timely manner, however that can be addressed as this system is develop further.

Assuming that a secure government website could be established, this randomly selected group of individuals could be given access to publish and view local, state, and national concerns. Yarrusso's suggestion of offering blank spaces for the public to argue pros and cons per issue would be essential to encouraging educated individuals to provide knowledge and perspective on: possible solutions and avenues to achieve those solutions. The reason why these blank spaces would be edited only by the randomly selected governing body is simply to force citizens to become educated and initiate arguments. However, the public would still have access to read all the information on the topics argued in real-time. Then, citizens that were not called to serve could become involved of their own volition if they notice an illegitimate argument or that a certain perspective has not yet been shared. "If you're an informed truth seeker, you'd be eager to give the public a clear, cogent argument justifying your position" (Yarrusso, 2014). Volunteers would be able to give their opinion from a constructive and passionate stance, whereas the selected citizens could lay the groundwork on the issue.

Random selection can be used to construct a governing body and guarantee fair representation of the country's diversity. The same randomly selected governing body of citizens could then present arguments on various topics of concern on a secure website. This would force people to become educated on important societal topics and would also encourage enthusiastic and passionate volunteers to become involved and improve representation. By incorporating these ideas, the nation would be able to utilize the internet as an effective tool to improve our democracy.

References

Gummov, Jodie. “Congress is Officially a Millionaire’s Club.” AlterNet, 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 3 March 2014.

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

Yarrusso, Carmen. "An Elegantly Simple Way to Revolutionize Government." Truthout, 8 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 March 2014.  

March 7, 2014: Drone Warfare

On March 7th, a guest speaker named Kathy Kelly came to the Science, Technology, and Society lecture block to discuss America's use of drones in the war taking place in Afghanistan. As an advocate for the Voices of Create Non-Violence, her arguments came from a humanitarian standpoint. While this perspective is important to consider, the effect that drone technology has had on America's international relations as well as the treatment of basic human rights must also be scrutinized. The development and integration of drones as a tactic in US warfare has resulted in numerous negative consequences because it has exacerbated our relationship with the Middle East and provided a technological blanket for the Obama administration to hide the truth from its own citizens.

Drone attacks have worsened our already crumbling relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan due to the growing number of unlawful killings occurring on their soil. Of the deaths in Pakistan caused by drones at the start of the Obama administration, only 2% were of their intended targets, high level terrorists. The remaining 98% consisted of low level militants, civilians, or unknown militants. About fifty civilians are murdered for every one high level target (Greenwald, 2013). When reflecting on the lecture lead by Kathy Kelly on drone usage in Afghanistan, she mentioned that these unpredictable and unwarranted attacks on innocent lives have created a significant amount of fear as well as resentment towards Americans. She also shared that the Taliban have targeted civilians purely under the suspicion of being a spies for US drones. Back in Pakistan, "Al Qaeda linked groups have killed dozens of local villages they accused of being spies for US drone strikes. Residents of Mir Ali told Amnesty that bodies are routinely seen dumped by the side of streets with written messages warning that anyone accused of spying for the US will meet the same fate" (Amnesty International, 2013). From these sources, one can gather that these Middle Eastern countries are growing weary and frustrated with Americans for forcing them to live in a state of constant fear, whether that fear be of US drones or of terrorist groups.

In addition to damaging America's relationships abroad, the motivation to use drones in modern warfare have also created suspicion against the Obama administration in US citizens. As Steve Coll mentions in "Remote Control: Our drone delusion", the Fifth Amendment seems to have been conveniently forgotten over and over while military efforts in the Middle East escalate to terrifying heights. Families of victims and survivors of drone strikes receive barely enough compensation for their losses and have little to no chance of securing justice for being wrongly targeted (Amnesty International, 2013). Meanwhile, propaganda is consistently waved in the faces of Americans to convince them that the technological advances in drone development guarantee precision and accuracy over human beings. Truthful statistics about these machines have either been altered prior to release or hidden from the public, resulting in growing distrust towards the C.I.A. and the Obama administration.

Technological developments in US drones and their implementation in the Global War on Terrorism has resulted in growing resentment from Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as suspicion from American citizens. The ruthless nature with which drones have been used to "eliminate threats to national security" may have created more enemies than destroy them (Coll, 2013). Without a serious reassessment of this innovation and its utilization abroad, the United States are in a dangerous position to push the boundaries of both its citizens and global interactions.

References

Amnesty International. "Will I be Next? US Drone Strikes in Pakistan." Amnesty International Executive Summary. Amnesty International, 2013. Web. 5 March 2014.

Coll, Steve. "Remote Control: Our drone delusion." The New Yorker, 6 May 2013. Web. 7 March 2014.

Greenwald, Robert. "5 Myths Used to Justify Death By Drone and America's Assassination Policy." Alternet, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 6 March 2014.

Kelly, Kathy. "Voices of Creative Non-Violence." Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Darrin Communications Center, Troy, NY. 7 March 2014. Guest Lecture.

March 4, 2014 (Make-Up): Political Innovation – Companies that Exhibit Totalitarian Behaviors

The continued, unregulated growth of large corporations have led to the deterioration of our democratic government. As I mentioned in a previous blog, without a workplace democracy, companies are able steer technology and politics in a direction that best suits their needs to make copious amounts of money. This is done without thinking of the needs of the people. Through the help of our capitalist structure and corrupt government, corporations have been encouraged to exercise totalitarian behaviors in an attempt to control the market.

 Totalitarianism is defined by the centralized control by an authority possessing absolute power. Frank Shostak states that our modern banking system can be seen as one huge monopoly bank that is guided and coordinated by the central bank. Under this central bank, individual banks function without regulation and few external restrictions. As a result, there is an issue in which money can be 'generated out of thin air' and therefore induce significant damage our economy. In this kind of deregulated environment, banks have been able to collect more funds from the government. Political corruption has enabled the financial corruption of banking industries (Cole, 2013). Money is cascaded upon lobbyists to encourage politicians to remove regulations that hinder the banks from working as they wish. This centralized banking framework has demonstrated totalitarian behavior because it has significantly the impacted national economy through lack of discipline and political corruption (2008 crash).

The attempt for absolute control of companies is also demonstrated in the media industry. Six corporations (Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, Comcast, CBS) control roughly 90% of the media in the United States (akadjian, 2013). Because control of the media is spread amongst so few entities, corruption of one company is paramount to affecting the information that is passed along to the general public. "Money and corruption have seeped so far into our media system that people can with a straight face assert that scientists aren’t sure human carbon emissions are causing global warming" (Cole, 2013). The ability for the media to be so easily controlled, and therefore biased, by a select few results in the hindering of US citizens from being adequately educated about all kinds of issues. As a result, the general public has access to less viewpoints, and therefore are more inclined to make less educated decisions. These leads to decisions that fail to effectively represent the true perspectives and needs of all citizens.

The tendency of corporations to adopt a totalitarian mindset has led to a government reform where the people's needs are not represented and therefore is not a true democracy. The capitalist structure as well as corrupt politicians have made it easy for these corporations to grow and monopolize certain industries and inhibit democratic decision making.

References

akadjian. "15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal world." Daily Kos. Daily Kos, 7 Dec. 2013. Web. 3 March 2013. 

Cole, Juan. "Top 10 Ways the US is the Most Corrupt Country in the World." Alternet. Alternet, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Shostak, Frank. "JPMorgan Chase and Central Banking". Ludwig von Mises Institute. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 18 May 2012. Web. 20 March 2014. 

March 4, 2014: Political Innovation – Reforming an Outdated Government Model

In Chapter 9 of The Future of Technological Civilization by Edward Woodhouse, the author makes a variety of suggestions to encourage the government to make better educated decisions related to technological and social development. I agree that our current government model is outdated and that incentives/routine assessments need to be introduced so that politicians can make better decisions for the public and so that enlightened citizens can have a stronger voice in this democracy.

I strongly agree that a key reason behind our stagnant government is that citizens frequently use the excuse that politicians are so corrupt that their positions are not worth becoming educated about. As a result, our nation is dominated by voluntarily ignorant citizens. I know plenty of people my age that adopt the veil of ignorance and refuse to learn about politics because of its complexity and how untrustworthy they believe government officials to be. In fact I would say that Chris Hedges’ article on our democracy’s masked totalitarianism is an example of an individual paranoid and angry of our government. Rather than make an effort to better understand specific politicians that are against the deterioration of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, he maliciously slanders the governing body as a whole and provides no other possible solutions to this problem besides a civilian uprising. It is due to this voluntary ignorance that the government never changes, because it's the same pool of people that vote and get involved year after year. "The wider the consultation and the more that authority is shared with those who have needs and insights bearing on the issues under consideration, the less likely that insiders can impose an unintelligent course of action" (Woodhouse p. 104). Australia has a very effective voting model by incorporating some type of consequence for people that choose not to vote. Like Woodhouse mentions, positive reinforcement tends to be much more powerful, therefore paying citizens for being involved in their government could be an excellent way to encourage everyone to be more involved as well as support the economy. Also, including a short exam prior to voting would ensure that the citizens voting are educated in some way about the current status of the nation, and therefore are making valuable and intelligent decisions. The government cannot make trustworthy decisions if the people don't put any trust in them first, which can be overcome by giving the people incentives to be educated and vote for officials that have the country's best interests at heart.

Politicians should be given incentives with either money or publicity to become more educated about the decisions they're making for our country. If politicians were financially rewarded for having the nation's best interests in mind then they would be less inclined to procure money through dishonest means. Incorporating a ranking system based on the values and societal plans of each government official would help weed through who can stay in office and therefore could help to collect a broader range of politicians from different backgrounds involved (Woodhouse, p. 115). This would prevent long-standing politicians who do not make significant contributions to society from using their wealth to greedily hold onto their positions. As a result, more positions in government would be open for fresh perspectives. Publicity or praise could be awarded to those individuals that express meaningful ideas and concern for both the everyday citizen and the nation as a whole, which would provide further motivation to these individuals to work hard so they don't let their people down.

In many different occupations, examinations and assessments are used to guarantee that practitioners are qualified to be considered experts in their respective field. Lawyers take the BAR exam, doctors take the MCATs, nurses take the NCLEX, and engineers take the FE exam. Politicians have such a strong influence on the direction of this nation that they should also be required to take some sort of assessment to ensure that they are educated about people they are meant to protect. Politicians with a certificate to demonstrate their knowledge about the economic, social, and technological status of the country would have more credibility in the eyes of the public and this would build more trust between citizens and government. Elizabeth Warren is a great example of an educated politician (a professor at multiple universities) whom is working to collaborate with other educated politicians from different political parties (Dailykos, 2013). This demonstrates that there is an effort being made by this group to gather as many perspectives as possible to have a plan of action that suits a larger majority of the population more of the time.

The current US government model is in serious need of reform. If citizens were given positive reinforcement for voting, then there would be involvement and control given to more educated voices. Through incentivizing politicians with financial awards and publicity for their knowledge and consideration of the nation needs, government officials that are truly compassionate for the people can be given a voice and the power-hungry can be removed from office. Citizens could use rankings and assessments to make informed voting decisions and promote trust and a better understanding of politicians. The people need to have a stronger presence to support government officials that have the best interests of the nation in mind.

References

Hedges, Chris. “Are We Witnessing the Last Gasp of American Democracy?” Alternet 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 March 2014.

“15 Things Everyone Would Know if There Were a Liberal Media” DailyKos 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 2 March 2014.

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

February 28, 2014: Technological-Economic Innovation II – Workplace Democracy

It is ideal for the government to withhold significant control over the steering of technology because, theoretically, the government should have the people's best interests in mind and the development of technology should be directed to improve the well-being of people. However, the absence of workplace democracies in the corporate environment have led to the surrender of technological/political steering from the government to industrial enterprises.  Without improved representation, companies will continue to act on the money-making interests of a select few and simultaneously endanger its employees and its country.

Democracy is needed in the workplace to improve employee representation across all working classes. Employees could be involved in teams to discuss technological equipment that would assist the workers rather than replace them. This would boost morale overall as well as motivate those volunteers who worked to ensure their peers were represented amongst the higher tiers of the company (Woodhouse, p.98). If employees take more ownership of the company they work for, they would be more inclined to care about the (technological, social, environmental) direction of the organization. As Upton Sinclair once stated, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". The involvement of more minds when making monumental decisions would prevent groupthink, which is the chameleon like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers (Lofgren, 2014). Teams constructed with employees of various departments, technical backgrounds, and skill levels could create the atmosphere necessary to promote healthier work environments and eventually control the steering of the company in a more democratic way.

If democracy is not integrated effectively into the work environment, then the country will be forced to succumb to the needs and wants of monopolistic corporations. As it stands, our politics are now governed by the ultra-rich and mega corporations that have no allegiance to local politics and produce a culture infused with a self-righteous coldness that takes delight in the suffering of others (Giroux, 2014). In some of these corporations, the physical well-being of their employees are put at risk daily by the refusal of higher management to allocate money for creating a more safe work place (Woodhouse, p.94). On a national level, since the abolishing of the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution, citizens have been exposed to the spying of the National Security Agency (Hedges, 2014). Companies in Silicon Valley (Lofgren, 2014) have been a key component to the success of the NSA to snoop and scan through what used to be our private property. The country is at risk on both an individual and national level of being abused and taken advantage of if large corporations are allowed to continue throwing money to politicians to control the steering of technology.

Workplace democracy is paramount to controlling the steering of corporations in a direction which better represents and better supports the needs of the people. It can be used to broaden the minds of narrow-thinking higher administration and shed light on the true interests of the employees both as individuals and US citizens. Without it, America will continue racing down a path where economics drives politics (Giroux, 2014) and the welfare of the people is not considered.

References

Giroux, Henry. "Resisting the Neoliberal Revolution." Moyers & Company. Public Affairs Television, Inc., 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

Hedges, Chris. "Are We Witnessing the Last Gasp of American Democracy?" Alternet. Alternet, 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 March 2014.

Lofgren, Mike. "Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State." Moyers & Company. Public Affairs Television, Inc., 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

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

February 25, 2014: Potential Economic Innovation

All corporations are in the business of making money. Regardless of the product or idea marketed to the public, the number one priority for big businesses is to maximize profit margins for shareholders and executives. While this ethical repercussions of this truth are open to debate, the real problem with these corporations is the free reign they have over the market and economy, and the seeming lack of control the government has over them, especially regarding regulations. Due to the lack of government regulations, these corporations are often left operating until they “regulate” themselves, which generally happens when a highly preventable catastrophe occurs due to negligence on the part of the corporation.

The biggest example of this in recent times is the BP oil spill in 2010 off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico that caused 11 deaths and 4.9 million barrels of oil to be spilled in the gulf (akadijan, 2014), while having a huge impact on both the environment and the economy as a result of multiple oversights in catastrophe prevention as well as the general ineffectiveness of regulations in the oil drilling industry. The direct cost of the spill was estimated to be in the range of $37-$90 billion dollars including cleanup2, however the cost the spill had on the environment, as well as markets dependent on the sea life in the gulf are estimated to be even greater. Had BP been more tightly scrutinized over the construction and operations of the oil rig, however, this disaster could have easily been minimized or even altogether preventable.

Corporate taxes generate around 11% of the federal government’s income in a fiscal year (National Priorities Project). Therein lies the conflict of interest: The same body charged with regulating these large corporations and potentially stymieing profits also happens to benefit from letting these corporations cut corners in safety protocols and allowing them to increase profits in any way possible, no matter the environmental or economic cost that will inevitable come down the road. The government needs to take the moral high ground and decide to clamp down on large corporations to heed regulations and laws more strictly, at the cost of losing money.

The unchecked freedom that corporations exercise, while championed by some capitalists who wish for a completely free market, can lead to disasters as corporations grow bolder and more brazen in their disregard for safety regulations in search of a higher profit margin. One would hope that the environment and the stability of the economy for the common people is more important than profit margins for owners and shareholders, however it appears there is no room for morality in either the government or the corporate world.

References

akadjian. “25 Images of Markets ‘Regulating Themselves’.” DailyKos. Kos Media, LLC, 3 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

Hoffman, Carl. “Investigative Report: How the BP Oil Rig Blowout Happened.” Popular Mechanics. Popular Mechanics, 2 Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.

National Priorities Project. “Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From: Federal Budget 101.” National Priorities Project. National Priorities, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

February 21, 2014: More Intelligent Trial and Error

Trial and Error is the main method humanity uses to progress in all areas of life. A new idea is implemented, feedback is acquired from the results, and the idea is changed to better fit the results in a repeating cycle until satisfactory progress is made. While this process works out in most cases, there are a few questions worth asking ourselves regarding the “tried and true” method: Is this process efficient enough, and what are the repercussions of the “errors” accumulated through repetition? At what point do we avoid certain “errors” due to their unacceptability? The concept of intelligent trial and error addresses these questions and works to avoid any unacceptable errors (Woodhouse, p.69).

When preventative measures aren’t taken in the design process, catastrophic events become much more likely to happen. Rather than investigate further the harmful potential of large nuclear reactors, the world went ahead and built them anyway, with the motivation being not to fall behind other countries in harnessing nuclear power. In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor had a meltdown released radioactive particles all across the Soviet Union Europe. Without proper safety protocols, a meltdown was bound to happen eventually, whether it was at Chernobyl or another reactor. Had governments determined a large scale meltdown was unacceptable before the actual construction, perhaps it could have been avoided, but it is exactly this thought process of believing failure will not happen as opposed to take precautions to prevent large scale catastrophes that hamstrings the current trial and error process.

The key concept of intelligent trial and error is the precautionary principle. Rather than making an attempt and living with the consequences of a trial, precaution is used in intelligent test design to designate any possible errors, and parse out any potentially catastrophic errors before the testing stage2. A good example of the precautionary principle used in intelligent trial and error is the american ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) in aerosol sprays in 1978. Without any concrete evidence that CFC’s were damaging the ozone layer, the EPA and congress worked to phase out CFC’s in everyday use long before it was the assumption of its ozone destructive properties was verified, saving us from ourselves by not doing irreparable damage to the ozone layer.

By using a more intelligent trial and error process, ideas and technologies are more able to keep their flexibility through methods such as phasing and making prudent decisions. Being able to analyze the pitfalls of regular trial and error in order to minimize its shortcomings, the learning process can become much more productive and safe for humanity.

References

“Precautionary Principle – FAQs”.  Science & Environmental Health Network. Science & Environmental Health Network, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

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