May 2: Envisioning a Wiser Technofuture

Surely in the present day we have the technology to truly make a difference for all the people in the world, yet there still exists large discrepancies in wealth and quality of life around the globe (Woodhouse, pg. 233). Though there are many outlets in the scientific community that have reached out to global communities to help issues such as needing food, clothes, shelter, and clean water, however due to circumstances on both sides it seems impossible to help everyone that certainly needs it.

A great example is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, to feed needy communities or communities in the middle of a drought or other natural disaster. Because of the uncertainty of potential side effects of ingesting GMOs, most people around the world reject them for not wanting to put potential toxins in their bodies, even though the use of GMOs would allow the entire world to be fed. It’s understandable for people to be wary of the side effects of GMOs, but the question still stands that if we have the technology to feed the world, why don’t we have the resources to make sure they are safe to eat over a lifetime?

I believe the main problem isn’t one of technology, but one of humanity. While there surely exists goodwill between people of the planet, it is not the primary motivator for outreach projects like this. As cynical as it sounds, money is what makes the world go round, and a company’s ability to profit off of a new technology is what makes these projects happen. In order to make goodwill projects like these more commonplace, it needs to be more profitable for corporations to want to invest money into research and development into good causes.

Greed is another aspect of humanity that concerns equality. Though the top 15 of the world is richer than the bottom 3 billion, you won’t find any of those fifteen people willing to give away large sums of money to needier folks. It would be a simple solution to just have the richest people give to the poorest, but at the same time that wouldn’t accomplish much; as the saying goes, it’s better to teach a man how to fish than to just give him a fish. What most of these money-starved communities need is a stable infrastructure to help build their economy to the point of self sufficiency. It remains to be seen if the greed and desire power of man will allow that to happen.

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

April 29: Technology, Life, Leisure

The problem with the modern working situation in adults stems from the adults prioritizing and balancing work and leisure. The modern working system definitely favors work as opposed to free time, as evidenced by the 40 hour work week, and relative lack of holidays and time off. What constitutes as ‘work’ though? What constitutes as ‘leisure time’? Does simply being at work count as working? If I am at work but not being productive, I am neither really working nor do I have free time, yet time passes nonetheless, and I have less total time to either be productive or to use free time as I like. It is more than likely that people spend their time the way they do because they either feel obligated to their routine or they simply don’t know there are any alternatives.

Some of this responsibility falls to the employer; for example, for most people it is nearly impossible to stay focused and productive for 8 straight hours 5 days a week, so shortening the work day would at the very least increase the amount of free time workers have, while possibly also driving up productivity.

If workers are unhappy with their division of work and leisure, ultimately the onus is on them to make the decision to change reassess their priorities. Nobody is responsible for making an individual work in a job that requires them to be available 40 hours a week. The individual decides factors like money and stability are more important to them than flexibility, therefore they show up to work every day. The struggle most people seem to have is a case of having their cake and eating it too; they want free time to enjoy with themselves and their families, but they also want money that allows them to use their free time effectively.

The onset of technology has definitely influenced the population in regards to time spent working versus free time (Woodhouse, pg. 225), however I don’t think it has moved the needle much in either direction. Nowadays people can work from home over business networks on their laptops, however many people also take personal calls and play games on their cell phones during the workday, while also having near unlimited access to the internet at all times of the day.

There are two extremes to the work/leisure balance, one being unemployed and choosing not to have any household responsibilities, while the other is working a job that requires 24/7 availability. It is important for each worker to find the right balance balance between the two, or at least be aware that there exists other options and careers that do strike the right balance that is more suitable for what they desire.

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

April 18: Military Research and Development

The problem with the unchecked advancement of military research and development is that there does not exist a good enough system to keep the military in check. The few who do make a stand against military “progress” are shamed by the majority as unpatriotic, and nobody in a post 9/11 United States of America wants to be publicly branded as un-American. As a result, the military never faces meaningful opposition and continues its march toward bigger and more destructive weapons all in the name of patriotism.

The structure of the military is also to blame, as unlike most branches of the government, they do not directly have to answer to the people. Military generals are not elected, they are promoted from within, and once the higher ups reach their position, nobody else in the army has the authority to tell them no - the only person who has that power is the president. So despite the fact that 300 civilians in other countries have been killed by drone strikes in the past 5 years (Ahemed, 2013) few if no people have actually answered for it.

Self defense is another reason why there seems to be little backlash against military innovation. Because other countries do not release information regarding their own military power and innovation, a cold war still rages on with countries continuing to develop weaponry under the guise of defense against an outside attack.

While there are many negative aspects to military research and development, the fact of the matter is many civilian technologies today have come from military innovations. These kinds of innovation occur at such a rate due to the financial support allocated for military programs, such as DARPA.

Woodhouse comments on the lack of interrogation/investigation over weaponry research and development, however it feels as though the American public, at this point in time, has become jaded and desensitized to these topics. With the nation’s current involvement in wars abroad, Americans are becoming more and more outspoken about why our nation has been so involved in the affairs of other cultures. It’s far more pleasant for citizens to argue over “football teams, clothing styles, political candidates” (Woodhouse, pg. 216) etc. because there is a direct and tangible connection to these topics. People could have an opinion military research and development, however they likely would not see the outcome of that technology for decades since oftentimes, technological development is either classified or is not released to the public for long periods of time.

In conclusion, it is not the budget that is the issue with military research and development, but rather the allocation of that money and the lack of supervision and a system of checks and balances to control where the money goes. Perhaps by creating an electoral system much like the government within the military will give the people a louder voice in how the money is used.

References

Ahmed, Munir and Abbot, Sebastian. “Drone Deaths: 3 Percent Of People Killed By U.S. Strikes Since 2008 Were Civilians, Pakistan Reports”. The World Post. 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 April 2014.

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

April 15: “Human” Enhancement

There should exist some type of universal legislation to limit the direction and depth of exploration in certain venues of technology. This legislation should consider ethics, impact on society (national and abroad), and feedback from the general public. In this way, questions about human enhancements can be assessed using all the above mentioned factors. The concept of human enhancement has been taking very seriously by certain groups of people to such a degree that a cultural/intellectual movement has formed called transhumanism. While enhancement can have a number of positive aspects such as ridding society of terrible inheritable diseases, transhumanism reaches an irresponsible and exceedingly biased extreme that neglects a huge percentage the of human population.

In previous blogs, the concept of further exacerbating the already large divide between the rich and the poor has been mentioned and applied to other forms of developing technology. Transhumanism would directly continue to give more power and more advantage to those with financial ability versus those that could truly benefit from such enhancement. Bill McKibben is of the opinion that if this movement was successful, it would create a very significant genetic divide (Transhumanism, 2012).

The fact that there exists such a controversy over the morality of transhumanism dictates that it would not be an ideal direction for mankind. Even the Vatican made a statement saying that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral" (Transhumanism, 2012). Consider that throughout history, religion has been a huge reoccurring factor in the start of wars such as the Crusades. Should the aspirations of transhumanism see fruition, one could only imagine the uproar from multiple religious movements throughout the world.

Genetic enhancement could also introduce further complexity in terms of governance. If individuals exist that possess either super natural abilities or biologically altered DNA, there would have to be a revamped set of assessments, laws, and grading criteria's to test these 'posthumans'. Otherwise if all human begins were compared on the same scale, there would always be a curve in favor of those with genetic alterations.

An excellent point made by Stuart Newman is that "cloning and germline genetic engineering and animals are error prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic development" (Transhumanism, 2012). Therefore, there would be unacceptable risks in the development of these embryos and a huge margin of opportunity for disastrous outcomes such as mutated embryos. The lack of an ethical route to genetic manipulation is also a significant concern in terms of achieving the goal of creating 'posthumans'.

The concepts introduced by transhumanism provokes many ethical, religious, legal, and practical boundaries so much so that one must come to the conclusion that it is not a fit movement that will benefit the majority of society. Legislation ought to be introduced to prevent significant developments in this type of research and provide a barrier for the human race against other harmful types of technology.

"Transhumanism". Wikipedia. June 2012. Web. 15 April 2014.