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. 

April 8, 2014: The Need for Better Governance of Technology

Whistleblowers put their lives and the lives of their families at risk to bring attention to concerns pertinent to the well-being of the public. If a governing body for technology existed, then it is possible that the severity of consequences behind whistleblowing could be mitigated. This governing body could manifest out of the multitude of already existing science advisory boards and committees dedicated to understanding the progress of technological development.

A governing body could provide a place for whistleblowers to go to directly to express their claims and provide evidence for their concerns without being reprimanded. As it stands, people that have the courage to face their superiors and admit knowledge of a(n) error/defect/consequence that could potentially embarrass the entire company put themselves in a weak position within the company. More frequently than not, the courageous employee is encouraged to forget about what they know, like in the case of Michael DeKort, project manager for the Deepwater Project at Lockheed Martin (Greenwald, 2013). After this point, employees that still feel they have a responsibility to report the information they discovered usually face legal charges and allegations from the company they're exposing, such as Franz Gayl in his attempt to demonstrate the need for more robust military vehicles than the Humvee (Greenwald, 2013). With such severe repercussions for blowing the whistle on large corporations, it's no wonder that engineers and scientists generally keep their heads down and simply continue on with their work. Like Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". Having a governing body as the middleman to assist the employee could help provide more credibility to the employee's claim as well as provide protection for the employee against the company/institution they're exposing.

When investigating the ethical and societal impacts of nanotechnology, nuclear technology, and agribusiness, one comes across plenty of organizations recommending against the use of certain technologies, however no organizations or boards actually possess the power to bring action or consequence if companies/separate entities decide to act of their own accord. For example with nanotechnology, "only a handful of toxicological studies exist on engineered nanoparticles, but it appears that nanoparticles as a class are more toxic than versions of the same compound because of their mobility and increased reactivity" (Etcgroup, p. 13). Yet the same article states that the government and scientists only admitting after great hesitations the unique risks caused by nano-scale particles. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering released a statement saying "Until more is known about their environmental impact we are keen that the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes in the environment is avoided as far as possible. Specifically we recommend as a precautionary measure that factories and research laboratories treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they were hazardous waste streams and that the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited" (Etcgroup, p. 15). Despite the statements made by several committees and advisory boards, there is no entity that can exercise power over a company/institution for disregarding these recommendations or warnings. This ought to be remedied to provide better protection for society against large corporations that are wield too much freedom and power without restriction.

While whistleblowers are appreciated and are important to the protection of the general public against the unethical and harmful decisions of large corporations, there ought to be a better system in place to assist these employees and punish offending companies/institutions. Without a governing body for technology, companies can continue to act far beyond what is ethical/socially acceptable since it usually takes a significant allotment of time to realize that they have done something wrong. With a governing body for technology existing to protect the employees that have the courage to do the right thing, more engineers and scientists may be encouraged to stand up for what is right and voice their concerns when they see something going wrong.

References

ETC Group. "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies and 'The Little Bang Theory'". ETC Group. June 2005. Web. 4 April 2014.

War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Dir. Robert Greenwald. Brave New Foundation, 2013. Film. 

April 4, 2014: The Privileged Position of Science

As science and technology shrinks in scale and increases in complexity, a question is raised as to who really benefits from these high-tech advancements. The history of technology waves would suggest that major new technologies initially demean marginalized people and allow the wealthy to anticipate, manipulate, and prosper from technological bursts (Etcgroup, pg. 4). The reason for this is because people with financial means are able to sustain themselves, regardless of the success of the technological advancement, while the rest suffer. Nanotechnology and technological convergence in particular has the potential to bring about staggering societal effects and raise serious threats to human rights and our democracy. Technological convergence is defined as derivation of fundamental building blocks of all sciences from nano-engineered materials. The utilization of complex technology, such as nanotechnology, is inherently inclined to satisfy the rich and leave everyone else helpless.

Economically, nanotechnology has the ability to "topple commodity markets, disrupt trade and the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable workers who do not have the economic flexibility to respond to sudden demands for new skills or different raw materials" (Etcgroup, pg. 4). As mentioned in "The Accountability of Science and Engineering", though developments in technology have the ability to provide for and benefit the less fortunate, this is accomplished by destroying all competitors that are unable to financially support newer, more expensive machinery, laborers of higher skill level, and any other products needed to sustain the facility.

Furthermore, if the new nano-engineered material can be produced at a lower cost and outperform a conventional material, it is reasonable to expect that the nanomaterial will replace the conventional commodity (Etcgroup, pg. 4). This monopolizes the industry and gives an excess of power to those that have the resources to manipulate and create those nano-engineered materials. As raw materials are broken down to the nano-scale, a convergence of diverse technologies becomes possible. "As the Wall St. Journal puts it, 'companies that hold pioneering patents could potentially put up tolls on entire industries" (Etcgroup, pg. 7). The livelihoods of manual laborers and their families in our own country in addition to third world countries that provide us with raw materials would be put in jeopardy with the ability to simply spawn materials with nano-materials.

A long term goal of the US government is to eventually improve human performance in all aspects of daily life. If this aspiration is achieved, then the government risks the exacerbation of the already increasing rift between those who will be "improved" through technological convergence and those who will be left "unimproved" either by choice or lack of choice (Etcgroup, pg. 9). It is at this point that scientists, engineers, and political powers must seriously address who really benefits from extreme advancements of technology and whether those lives are worth more than the ones left behind.

References

ETC Group. "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies and 'The Little Bang Theory'". ETC Group. June 2005. Web. 4 April 2014. 

April 1, 2014: The Politics behind Technological Development

Politics can be defined as occurring wherever authority is exercised in ways that have great impact on public well-being. "Because engineering systematically and authoritatively reshapes the everyday material world, and thereby helps shape ways of life for billions of people, engineering is in some respects as important a political arena as electoral politics and representative government" (Woodhouse, p. 147). Sometimes the implementation of simple technologies, such as overpasses and private pools, can have strong political and social connotations that consequently provoke the public well-being. This then suggests that certain facets of non-governmental life, such as science and engineering, have a political element that should not be overlooked.

Technologies authoritatively help determine who gets what, when, and how, just as politics is characterized as the struggle for who gets what, when, and how (Woodhouse, p.148-150). Robert Moses, a prominent figure in the building of New York City's infrastructure, demonstrated the power of technology by the suggestive nature of the low overpasses constructed during the mid-twentieth century. Moses deliberately designed hundreds of overpasses to have a low clearance, which happens to be smaller than would allow a standardized public bus. (Ibo, p. 199).  Although the reasons for this design specification have been debated since Langdon Winner's article, "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Winner proposed that the motivation was to prevent the lower classes taking public transportation from having access to the public beaches. Biographer, Robert Caro, admitted that Moses demonstrated racial tendencies and pointed out that due to the specifications of these structures, "only people would could afford a car - and in Moses' days these were generally not Afro-American people - could easily access the beaches now" (Ibo, p. 199). Though Moses' intent for these overpasses have been doubted and debated, this example still demonstrates that people with the ability to influence the implementation of technology can do so with aspirations to induce social, and thus political, change.

The history behind the progression towards private pools, which are quite popular in the United States, illustrates the use of technology to influence social movements. Originally, municipal pools existed to keep the disgraceful youth, poor, and immigrants in a closed location, hidden from the public. These pools were used primarily for bathing, however after World War I, pools became a place for enjoyment and relaxation. Where initially pool usage was specific to just men or women on different days of the week, families were then encouraged to come as a whole to enjoy the water together. However, from this integration sprouted animosity and discrimination, as white people became very concerned that "the sexual atmosphere at a pool might promote racial mixing" (NPR, 2007). Following this point, pools were then racially segregated instead of by gender. Eventually, municipal pools were desegregated once more, however in retaliation white people began building private pools to enjoy swimming in their own space. In this example, the development of technology gave the people the power to induce social and political change as "Americans fought over where pools should be built, who should be allowed to use them, and how they should be used" (NPR, 2007).

Innovations in manufacturing, communication, and transportation technologies lead to fundamental changes in daily life every bit as significant as the effects of government legislation (Woodhouse, p.151). The implementation of technologies such as the overpass and private pools suggest that technological developments give people in control significant influence over social structure, and therefore politics. One must wonder that with the changes provoked by just these simple technologies, how much power and influence is given to those in control of more advanced science and engineering.

References

Plunging into Public Pools’ Contentious Past. NPR. 26 May 2007. Web. 1 April 2014.

van de Poel, Ibo; Royakkers, Lamber. Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Web. 31 March 2014.

Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109.1 (1980): 121-136. Web. 1 April 2014.

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

March 28, 2014: The Accountability of Science and Engineering

With the exciting advancements in modern technology opening doors to greater scientific and engineering opportunities, it's easy for one to get lost in the research and development and forget about how that work is actually being applied to society. "Many biology students these days see the genetic engineering of existing life forms and the creation of new ones as the cutting edge of the field. Whether they are competing in science fairs or carrying out experiments, they have little time for debate surrounding dual-use research; they are simply plowing ahead" (Garrett, p. 36-37). What these biology students overlook is the significant economic, social, and political impact that their research can have on the world. Scientists and engineers ought to be more aware and practice more responsibility in order to maintain an ethical and progressive mindset in their work environments, where progressive is defined as making progress toward better conditions. Only this way can technologists hope to direct (or redirect) their research and protect against 'dual-use research of concern' (DURC) or unethical practices.

As mentioned by Garrett above, practitioners of science and engineering become blinded by the cutting edge of technology and willingly submit to the veil of ignorance placed over them by their employers. As a result, these practitioners never question the application of their work once it leaves their lab, they simply move on to the next task. Martha Crouch was the lead of a research team in plant molecular biology when she realized the veil of ignorance that covered the eyes of her colleagues. This discovery motivated her to uncover the effect her research had on society, only to discover that botanical research is as disruptive to social and ecological systems as any human practice yet devised, including war (Crouch, 1991). Research such as high-yielding crops do not necessarily solve world hunger, but rather create more opportunities for bankers and multinational corporations to grow and prosper. High-yielding crops require certain kinds of plantations, which must be maintained by specialized skilled labor and use specific fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that only wealthy farmers can afford. She realized that the way she was applying her passion for nature was actually undercutting Third World economies through the production of more uniform oil plants. She has since cut ties with her previous employers to raise awareness on her concerns regarding the use of her work and technology to harm others. Her efforts to bring her misguided/misapplied research to the attention of other scientists actually yielded a great deal of feedback, which demonstrates the magnitude of people in technological positions that have chosen to hide behind the veil and wait for a whistleblower to save them.

History has shown accounts in which whistleblowers were not present to prevent drastic misuse of technology. These include Fritz Haber's discovery on how to mass-produce ammonia as well as Einstein's revolutionary theories of relativity, gravity, mass, and energy (Garrett, p. 31-32). Haber's research eventually contributed to the creation for German chemical weapons during World War I. Einstein's work led to the atom bomb and nuclear energy, which has since still been abused and developed in such a way that there exists an excess of nuclear waste that scientists do not know how to properly dispose (Meador, 2013). J. Craig Venter carried out significant research on synthetic biology and was the first to construct nucleotides (Garrett, p. 28). During this effort, he took the initiative to commission a large analysis of the implications of synthetic genomics on public health and national security. Although the legislative and government bodies are slow to react to his concerns, the important message to draw is that governing entities cannot act without information. As the creator of a new type of technology, Venter is holding himself accountable and taking steps to understand the potential consequences of this biological development. He states himself that, "There's not a single aspect of human life that doesn't have the potential to be totally transformed by these technologies in the future" (Garrett, p. 29). His understanding of the conceivable ramifications is an important step to helping protect society as a whole.

Scientists and engineers must make the effort to take responsibility for the work they do and not allow themselves to be enticed by the shear concept of developing of technology such that they forget to consider the effect of their work after fruition. If our technological leaders do not exercise caution over their own work, there will be little to no protection against society for the potential consequences.

References

Crouch, Martha. “Confessions of a Botanist.” New Internationalist Magazine. March 1991. Web. 28 March 2014.

Garrett, Laurie. “Biology’s Brave New World: The Promise and Perils of the Synbio Revolution.” Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. (2013): 28-46. Web. 27 March 2014.

Meador, Ron. "Two nuclear-waste-disposal reports raise doubts this problem can be solved." MinnPost. 03 Dec. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

March 25, 2014: (Make-Up) Overconsumption

In today’s society overconsumption is rampant. While the need for using as many resources as we do is open to debate, the negative effect from overproduction and waste is not. When hundreds of billions of pounds of waste are being generated each year (Woodhouse, p. 131), landfills begin to fill up too quickly, as harmful chemicals are released into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. If society is going to continue to generate and consume on such a large scale, it is imperative to figure out a way to manufacture products and services that produce less waste and are reusable once the initial life cycle has ended.

While the USA has made strides towards a greener society through government programs instituted by President Obama (Breyman, 2008), the US is no longer a self-sustaining economy, where even products “Made in the U.S.A.” still have components from countries all over the world. In the article The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From” the author goes on a search to find where Toyotas are actually made. Although the official production facility is in Kentucky, the author concedes that it was impossible for him to trace back the origin of every single component that goes in to the car (Keim, 2013). This practice is commonplace for many different products, and it’s reasonable to conclude that if corporations are trying to hide where all these components originate from, they are also trying to hide how the manufacturing plants operate in these foreign countries, specifically how much waste they produce and the plants harmful effects on the environment.

One only has to look as far as China to see how poorly or unregulated environmental policies affect the surrounding areas. Due to China’s lower standards for factories to operate, smog has taken over many major cities. In 2014, the air quality in Beijing was so poor the Chinese government raised their smog alert to the second highest level for the first time, indicating record breaking levels of poisonous smog - up to 20 times the level the World Health Organization (Ross, 2014) - considers safe being inhaled by all of Beijing’s citizens. The reason for all this smog are the factories that create the tiny plastic pieces that go into products “Made in the U.S.A.”.

The saddest part about this crisis is that it seems most of the technology for a change to a greener economy already exist, yet due to legacy and greed by both corporations and politicians, no significant changes have occurred. It is our duty as consumers to make sure we use renewable energy and greener technology as best we can, while discontinuing support for companies and products that unquestionably damage the environment.

References

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

Breyman, Steve. “Notes on a Green Economy”. Counterpunch. 9 Dec. 2008. Web. 2 April 2014.

Keim, Brandon. “The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From”. Nautil. 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 2 April 2014.

Ross, Philip. “Beijing Air Pollution Alert Raised to ‘Orange’ For First Time After Smog Levels Become Hazardous”. International Business Times. 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 1 April 2014. 

March 25, 2014: Does Engineering Promote Overconsumption?

At what point do luxuries become necessities? Do we just have to have the latest iPad release? Corporations feed off of our consumerist society by creating endless supplies for endless demands of new and trivial gadgets. Predictably, this leads to enormous amounts of waste along every step of a product’s life cycle, from manufacturing and production to throwing it away when it breaks or becomes obsolete. It has been estimated that for every 100 pounds manufactured, 3200 pounds of waste are created in the production process alone (Woodhouse, p.132). So what is the solution to this dilemma? Does the responsibility fall to the engineers who design these products to create a more green production cycle that creates less waste, or is the onus on the consumers to finally decide that no, they don’t actually need the latest iPad Air, the old one works just fine. The obvious answer is obviously more complex than picking one group or the other, but while the engineering world is starting to make progress in both the corporate and academic world regarding a less wasteful (and more profitable) production cycle, human greed and need for consumption seem to be more difficult problems for us to master.

There are a lot of factors that go into our culture of waste, but I think it all stems back to one philosophical belief of modern consumerism: The more money we have, the more willing we become to spend it. Based on this philosophy, it’s easy to see how life can quickly become filled with unnecessary luxuries, just for the sake of having them. Another problem, one article argues, is that the 9-5 work week creates tired workers who want nothing more than instant gratification in what little free time is available (Raptitude, 2014). What do tired people with extra money do to relieve stress and reward themselves? For most people, the answer is spending money, making them consumer, which brings us back to the root of the original waste problem.

Changing the consumerist mindset of an entire society is no small task, particularly now that most things in society have become connected on a global scale. Consumerism also has tangible benefits, because spending money creates more demand, which in turn creates more jobs, which helps the economy as a whole. It’s easy to see how cutting back on spending on a large scale could be potentially disastrous for the economy, however at the rate we as a society buy things up, waste is only going to continue to pile up, faster than engineering can counter it with new innovations and procedures, and an impotent world of waste has a much bleaker outlook than a down economy in the long run.

References

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

“Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed”. Raptitude.com. Web. 26 March 2014.

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.

February 11 - Rapid Technological Innovation

In The Future of Technological Civilization, Woodhouse mentions engineering commentator Edward Wenk's opinion on the rate of technological innovation: "The swift pace of technological change no longer matches the response time of human affairs; technical prowess may exceed the pace of social skills, especially our ability to anticipate second-order consequences and take crisis-avoidance measures". It would appear that technological innovation has become a runaway train - sometimes racing past social and political issues and rarely slowing down enough to address them. Tracing my steps back to literature covered earlier in the semester, it would appear that society has fallen prey to legacy thinking with the concept of technocratic progress at its heart. Progress for the sake of progress has been adopted as both the motivation and the goal propelling the rate of technological innovation. Speedy innovation can positively effect society, like in the case of developing medicine for complex diseases, however the repercussions to ignorant and premature advancements in technology seem to significantly outweigh the benefits, like in the case of developments in nuclear technology. Methods to monitor the rates at which technology develops seem feasible yet complicated to organize and assemble.

In some aspects a fast rate of innovation is helpful, such as the significant developments made in the effectiveness of AIDS medication. According to the FDA, the first drug to treat AIDS was released in 1981. "By the end of 2012, some 9.7 million people in poorer and middle-income countries had access to such AIDS drugs, an increase of nearly 20 percent in a year" (Kelland). This is an excellent example of rapid technological innovation supporting global issues where human lives are at stake. However, a significant contender to the positive aspects of fast development would be the world-wide race to develop nuclear technologies. The United States was in such a hurry to order large-scale reactors that they were designed without attaining significant knowledge from experimenting with small reactors first (Woodhouse). This nation is still suffering from the ignorant rush into producing nuclear wastes, as is detailed in an article by Ron Meador. In fact, this example sheds some perspective on how technological development can move too fast and too slow at the same time: Government officials during the US/USSR nuclear debacle poured tens of thousands of dollars within two decades to develop the technology, however fifty years later, the country is still trying to formulate effective methods to dispose of the waste created. What's particularly alarming about Meador's article is the suggestion that the complexity of disposal technology is proving to be too much of an investment for both government and private corporations, therefore stunting progress in this effort.

In an effort to monitor the rate at which certain technologies are developed, Woodhouse suggests a number of possible solutions such as imposing tax penalties for especially destructive or anti-social innovations. This seems like a feasible yet difficult option as this would necessitate the development of some kind of advisory board/association to review and analyze each innovation for destructive qualities. There exists such an expansive range of expertise for various technologies that the council would also have to be broken down into technology type (biological, nanotechnology, environmental). Additionally the members of this council would have to prove that they are significantly concerned with the interests of the society they are governing. Another complication in this board would be determining the anti-social consequences of a technology. Trends in social declines or hindrances can only be seen over a period of time, which could be costly and cause sponsors of the development to lose interest. An educated conjecture could be used to predict the social impact of a technology, however one doesn't really know how something could effect the people until it is implemented.

Though there are certainly benefits to rapid technological innovation, as evidenced by the speedy development of significant AIDS medication, there can also be detrimental aftereffects when technology progresses beyond the control/capability of mankind's knowledge. This is illustrated in the difficulties our nation is facing in regards to proper nuclear waste disposal. Though there are options to mitigate or regulate the rate at which technology advances, they require a significant range and depth of knowledge and can result in expensive and/or vague decisions based on conjecture. It would appear that the people will simply have to trust those that have the power and resources to advance their innovations so quickly to also think far enough ahead to consider detrimental and dangerous consequences.

Works Cited

Kelland, Kate. "Global Rate of HIV Infection, AIDS-Related Deaths Dramatically Reduced: UN."  Huffington Post. 23 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 February 2014

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/global-rate-of-hiv-infection_n_3974248.html>

Meador, Ron. "Two nuclear-waste-disposal reports raise doubts this problem can be solved." MinnPost. 03 Dec. 2013. Web. 10 February 2014

<http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/12/two-nuclear-waste-disposal-reports-raise-doubts-problem-can-be-solved>

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. "HIV/AIDS Activities: Timeline/History". U.S. Food and Drugs Association. 2012. Web. 11 February 2014