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.