Intelligent Trial and Error, or Lack Thereof

In a cringe-inducing article, Ian Urbina of the New York Times takes us through the environment of workers exposed to extremely toxic and dangerous chemicals for pay.  That is, they work in factories making furniture.  However, the workers are the ones paying the real price to produce these goods.  Workers exposed to chemicals, like the nPB described in the article, surrender their bodies over for a measly hourly wage.  When they cried out for help and reached out to OSHA to fix conditions, they were ignored.  Workers in a position like this cannot afford to walk away, as they convince themselves that providing for their children and putting roof over their head is more important than the use of their body, and, in many cases, their lives.  We now look to see how Intelligent Trial and Error could have helped in their dilemma between work and well being.  Many parts of the Intelligent Trial and Error schematic are missing from the situation described by Urbina in the case of nPB in Carolinian furniture factories.  Since there are so many, we'll work methodically down the schematic presented to us in the textbook, starting with Effective Deliberation.

Effective Deliberation may be one of the parts most strongly present in the nPB debacle, although that does not say much.  The participants were absolutely informed as to how bad the work was and what exactly they were getting themselves into.  That does not make it their fault or dismiss liability from the company for their injury or death.  Although the discussion on dangerous and hazardous chemicals in the workplace harming workers was probably not started as early as it should have been, there is no reason to say that it was not brought up early enough to save some lives.  The diversity of the concerns were decently well represented, however that never allowed any real public decisions to be reached or implemented.  Overall, there is a looming knowledge of the problem and an even larger presence of apathy towards fixing the issue.

There is certainly no Fair Decision-Making Process as described under ITE present in the case of the workers affected by nPB.  The workers were not fairly represented, because if they had been, their voices and lives would be worth as much as the CEOs damning them to an early grave.  The process may be semi-transparent in that it is clear to see how decisions are made and reasoning behind the continued use of nPB.  That said, the burden of proof was absolutely placed on the workers who were slowly but surely turned victims.  The workers proved that nPB kills by demonstrating the act itself in a real human anatomic theatre.  With all the workers give up for their paycheck, none of their sacrifice could buy them the authority to decide their fate, as dictated by ITE.  They were sentenced to death under the "reason and logic" of profit over people.

 Going back in time to before all the despair caused by the nPB flumes coating workers lungs, we can examine the Prudence suggested by ITE.  There were obviously not enough, if any, sensible precautions taken to avoid harming workers with the chemical.  The suggested $18 gas masks would have been a good start, but apparently the lives of hundreds of workers is not worth the $1800 price tag to outfit the factory with simple respirators.  There was no erring on the side of caution or a very gradual scale up of the use of these chemicals.  They were implemented and as workers dropped like flied, they wheeled the old ones out and the new ones walked in, essentially getting tagged in by the corpses passing them in the reception area.  No flexibility was built into these factories as a foresight. We see complaints from companies that replacing the equipment would simply cost too much.  They obviously do not value the life spent to keep their factories running.

No Active Preparation for Learning from Experience was made by companies subjecting workers to the nPB fumes.  No one seems to understand why we need to stop using the glue, or rather they do understand but don't have the humanity to do what is right.  I don't call that recognition under any circumstance.  Although the chemical companies obviously ran tests on nPB, some even ceasing production, there doesn't seem to be any sort of recognition of the safety levels suggested from the testing.  What good is testing without learning from the results.  The companies certainly pay the price of settlements with these workers and their families to the tune of some half-million dollars paid out, although I don't believe they were set aside ahead of time as suggested by ITE's forth tenant.  The real tragedy here is no strong incentive for these businesses to do what is right.  When faced with the decision of profit or humanity, CEOs obviously can't make the correct and humane decision, so why are they not being coerced to the tune of government subsidy.  Perhaps the lack of OSHA funding described by Urbina explains the lack of learning from the dead.

Giving tenant number one a run for its money, the fifth and final guideline of ITE outlines a need for Appropriate Expertise.  Based on the amount of data and statistics used by Urbina, there are obviously experts at hand to analyze the situation, but unfortunately these experts may not be the kind  required to actually do something about the nPB.  You don't need tests to see what happens to the workers of companies like Royale.  The studies and substantial advisory assistance didn't stand a chance against good old southern greed.  There is no protection in place to protect against the conflicts of interest present in making the CEOs of these businesses choose between their careers and companies and their workers lives.  The kind of experts needed for that would be OSHA regulation that actually bans ALL risky chemicals like nPB, not just specific ones, forcing the CEOs to move to a more hazardous alternative.  Even past this, there has not been more than a few seeds of coverage from the media.  Urbina's article is the first and only time I, myself, have heard of these indecencies to human life.  Perhaps a more vocal mass-media presence would be more effective in helping free these workers and put these CEOs in jail, but if history serves to tell us anything there will be no justice here.

In conclusion, nearly all of the 20 suggestions of ITE are not present here.  Any that are are not truly implemented.  Between the lack of incentives and protection against conflict of interest and the lack of actual action to protect the workers from the nPB fumes, such as the filters proposed in the article, we see that ITE could most likely improve the situation for Carolinian furniture factory workers.  Intelligent Trial and Error as a mental tool, or guide to a desired perspective would save lives and perhaps the souls of the CEOs and managers at Royale and other companies, although something tells me it is too late for them now.

GMOs, 2 Fast 2 Furious?

In an egregiously long paper, which specifies no author, GMOs and the many consequences of their existence and usage are discussed.  Through an incredibly detailed and sesquipedalian perspective, the anti-GMO argument is brought forth for all to slowly read; between highlighting words and clicking "Google This Word."  Despite the difficulties of consuming this media, the argument delivered by the author is still understandable.  The use of Genetically Modified Organisms is not to be waved off or played down.  Reading even one or two pages of this document makes it extremely clear that there is much more than Big Brother would like you to believe in the predicament of genetically modifying organisms, particularly crops for human consumption.

The "unintended" consequences of replacing natural crops with genetically modified crops are the kinds of things that you see on commercials for medication complication settlement claims.  There's just not enough testing being done here, and the victims are the ones being essentially forced to consume the products of these modifications.  Specifically, the ones who have no choice as to where they can eat, those living in and around poverty will be bearing the brunt of the effects of genetically modified crops.  If there are ways to combat the six transnational corporations who have such an iron grip on the industry, they exist through government intervention.  We read that Europe has been successful in their efforts to prevent planting of genetically modified crops through the requirement of additional testing to conclude that the modifications do not cause health and/or environmental problems.  In other words, the Europeans have brakes on their technological advancement vehicle, where the United States has had its brake lines cut by the legal corruption of lobbying present in Washington D.C. and only have steering and acceleration capabilities, although those are probably compromised as well.

In studies cited by the paper, we've seen indisputable evidence that GMOs cause a multitude of complications in health and in the environment, yet they still advance because there are no brakes on our vehicle here in the U.S. and other parts of the world where these crops are mainly planted.  Causing a three-fold increase in tumor production and other health complications in mice through independent study and the incredible problems presented by soil contamination through Monsanto's Bt toxin and other agritoxins is not enough to get the brakes checked.  Things like that can be overshadowed by money in the pockets of politicians and loopholes in the systems meant to protect people from the dangers of too-rapid innovation.  The brakes here are government intervention like that of the Europeans.  Without the pre-requisite of proof that these organisms aren't harming society, there is no measure to the harm that could already be on its way to our dinner tables, into the soils, and into the lives of those who till them.  The only thing stopping this aside from intervention is a full scale catastrophe within the view of American citizens, and the right media coverage, not tampered with by the mega-corporations who indirectly control the media.  You can see how that might be difficult to wish for, not to mention impossible to pull off.

Benefits stemming from the overly rapid pace of innovation in this case are, as mentioned, solely for the corporations.  The companies producing the seeds and requiring wasteful repurchasing every season and making money selling the needed toxic chemicals to grow these plants are the ones reaping benefits.  The harm, on the other hand, is placed solely on the farmers, both those who are now former farmers, replaced by machinery needed to accommodate these genetically modified crops, and those who are forced to pay more for less crop because no other seeds are available, thanks to Monsanto and company's monopoly.  The reality is that the companies force the farmers to lose more of their profit margin, simply because they have control and can make them, something which should be illegal.  The government intervention is so plainly necessary.  If the process was slowed down and the products were tested instead of simply giving control to these companies and allowing them to do as they please.

Normally trial and error testing is the way to combat too-fast innovation.  It allows society to fully test, with math to back confidence in an innovation, and understand the consequences presented by a new discovery or invention.  In this case, that testing is thrown to the wind and we advance full throttle.  The only question from here is "Where are we headed?"  And the only indications we've seen lead us to believe it is a one-way trip to Tumorville, where we're all dead because the only food available kills us and all because it was more lucrative to six CEOs than it was healthy for seven billion human beings and counting.

Fairness: Social Justice and Technology

In a very well written and engaging paper, Freeman Dyson dives into familiar and easy to understand examples of how technology and social justice intermingle.  Writing first about how a movement in the technology of home appliances displaced an entire workforce.  Although, it was more than a workforce, really, an entire class of people.  These new-age appliances may not have filled the entire role of the servant class, however they bridged the gap enough to make the provider(s) of a home be able to also handle the maintenance and operation of the home.  This sounds great at first, but as I said before, the gap was only bridged, not closed.  There is still much that needs to be done, and just because the stove is electric doesn't mean the food cooks itself.  This leads to the women of the these homes becoming constrained, as Dyson describes.  The women of the 1920's were more free than those of the 1950's.  Though we have since changed how things are done in most cases, this shift is still a great observation and a lot can be learned from it.  Going back farther, we explore that the invention of the printing press stripped many of nuns of their freedom, though it did give others access to education in many ways.  These examples of how technology drives ethics and shifts in social climate help give proof of concept for a much grander (and more positive) shift that is currently still held only in Dyson's dreams; a shift where technology provides for humanity, rather equally.

Dyson describes his hopes and even a means to achieve them.  His means, unfortunately, are exactly what are to be expected from the aspirations of the 1990's and early 2000's.  Technology, now, is not all it was promised to be back then (even if I have become more than I was promised to be).  It has fallen short of Dyson's expectations so far and his dreams are no where in sight from our current perspective; that is, his dreams as a whole.  However, there are some aspects of technology that have come to fruition with resemblance of Dyson's thoughts.  The easiest to point out is the Internet.  We have achieved an extremely widespread mesh of devices through the primitive means of copper, fiber, and radio which Dyson insinuated were not quite up to the task of connecting the world.  It is true that the connection today is still not up to snuff with our friend Freeman's vision, but on a positive and hopeful note, his dreams are directly being researched at this moment by the capitalist powers-that-be.  We see balloon and satellite internet as the solution to connecting those with the poorest chances of fitting eligibility for connection to the current networking scheme, which is still generally driven as a payment-dependent distribution of service though the tyrannical Internet Service Providers (ISPs) we know in our decade.  On a negative view, these same providers of connection actively work against an open and free Internet every day by throwing money at politicians to allow them to cap speeds and provide more bandwidth to the highest bidder and near-none to the lowest; something that does not fit into Dyson's vision or any definition of social justice.  Aside from the fight against ISPs the idea of a mesh network above the clouds connecting the world is absolutely a possibility and a goal for many.

Unfortunately, we fall short of the other technological expectations, with no real breakthroughs in sight for "energy trees," although his proposed effects of these trees appear to be sound.  So why have these ideas not been realized?  Why, besides perhaps a naturally slower pace for technological progress, have we not achieved similar world to Dyson's proposed solar-driven Earth?  I would say it is less the pace of technological development in itself, but rather a lack of driving force for these developments.  Until now, nearly 20 years later, these kinds of ideas of liquid fuels from solar energy have been unheard of.  Never have I heard of these ideas under any sort of development.  Although some would argue they seem Utopian and far-fetched, it is more likely that the ideas derive less profit than others for the cost of their development.  How do you sell energy trees?  Even if you could, there is simply no straight forward way to develop them.  They cannot take the same development paths as products we see receiving the coveted R&D work-hours today; smartphones, cloud services, etc.  They take the shadowy route similar to that of curing diseases.  We all hear cries for help and funding for cures to cancers of all kinds, diabetes, and many other conditions, but if they were receiving any sort of real donations, the commercials would be unnecessary.  This, coupled with a Google search, proves to be true.  The amount of money raised for researching and curing diseases pales in comparison to the for-sale product research and for-death military research being conducted.

It is things like this that Dyson fails to address.  How do we achieve these things, in very specific detail?  Many times it is who, not how, that is relevant.  Who will be overseeing these balloon/satellite networks if they are ever to be deployed?  Who does this genome research and by whom is it funded?  Dyson understands to some extent the ends, but his ends do not exactly match up very well with current means to developing technology.  His yearning of social progress and a desire for equality, equity, and basic human rights is simply not shared whatsoever by those funding development; rich, old, white, male investors.  As these desired technologies develop at a more relaxed pace, starving for funding, we will see just how close to his mark Dyson's perception of social justice via technology is.  We have seen social justice be affected by technology in the past, but not in such a positive way as he hopes for, and not to the benefit of women and/or the poor; two severely underrepresented groups of people affected by technology.  The benefits experienced by the servant class of England were certainly not intended consequences, I can assure you.  In order to progress your desired technology faster, you must monetize it with reasonable payoff for required investment.  At the moment, we are just not close enough to see rapid work done towards this by way of Capitalism.  Perhaps clean energy will come as water levels truly begin to rise and eschew the wealthy from their waterfront estates.  Until then, Dyson will be let down by our money-driven system of "progress."

Unintended Consequences

In an article posted on The Atlantic, Nicholas Carr gives a narrow perspective on all the negative impacts of trusting computing and technology with knowledge, over human beings.  He really shows his age and disconnection from the issues he discusses when he puts the term "exponential growth" in quotations as if he does not believe Moore's Law holds true.  Although the specific example used by Carr is pretty compelling, it does not detail the larger picture.  The article should be titled "Pilots and a few other positions are having this specific problem where they forget how to do their job," but that is not as nice and I know that not many would read it, myself most likely included.  I understand that what Carr outlines as the major problem here is where specific high-risk positions have problems generated from the technology replacing the workers in the workplace.  Those workers become, mostly, data interpreters instead of what their previous position was, like a pilot in Carr's example.  However, Carr seems to imply through his writing that he believes this to be a more universal problem than it actually is.  Instead of addressing this as an overarching issue, this specific interaction of technology with pilots should be addressed by the respective governing bodies of the professions affected; most likely by more software to prevent the rash and newly de-skilled actions of panicking pilots.

Carr gives a classic "look how old I am, technology is the devil" sort of view on how technology is stripping away "who we are."  What Carr fails to understand is that the way technology is evolving, it is not "stripping away who we are", it is literally doing exactly as he details when he describes the systems flying the planes and driving cars.  The software is turning something we as people do as a skill into something we do not do; something we do not have to think about or cognitively process in our lives.  It turns a skilled labor into an unskilled labor.  It turns the need for a skilled laborer into the need for an unskilled laborer.  Carr fills a five gallon bucket with ten gallons of previously required water and then is extremely surprised when the excess five gallons of water spill everywhere, "Look at all the water we are wasting with these new buckets!"  As this is happening, gallons upon gallons are being saved by using the software to do the skilled work more efficiently.

Carr says, "...when we automate an activity, we hamper our ability to translate information into knowledge" and he misses the point.  Technology is changing how society works.  Creating more jobs for computing-oriented programming and design, and removing other types of skilled labor.  Technology, and indirectly its manufacturers, are not making skilled laborers dumb, it is making them unskilled laborers.  During the transition, we lose the skill of those who are already supplanted in their previously skilled roles, unless they take that skill elsewhere.  They get the short end of the stick, as more and more kids are trained to fill the newly needed skill-oriented programming roles of computing, instead of the previously needed roles of pilot and stock-broker, used as examples by Carr.

These replacements are something that can be generally predicted (most likely by software), however the ability to actually save the wasted brain power of replaced laborers may not be so easily done; especially in a Capitalist environment where doing so is most likely not profitable.  As Carr says, learning is inefficient and requires time that corporations simply don't have in the budget.  The undesirable consequence of wasted labor (not even addressing the lost jobs from technological improvement), is certainly a byproduct of technological progress.  If it was possible to automate the jobs of these people being displaced, and simply place them elsewhere and have them perform a new skilled task for the same money, it would be done, but new training is not cheap and might require as much as a new degree.

What I am saying is not that I have a better solution to preserving the wasted skills of the labors of these formerly required skilled workers, short of retraining them for new positions, or the much more desirable but not currently possible collective thought solution.  I will leave that task up to those much smarter than myself.  I simply state that we are not rotting because technology helps us drive our cars, lift heavy things, heat our homes, and many other things that free up our time for more intellectual (or perhaps just different in the case of a well-trained skilled labor) pursuits.  Carr asks, albeit rhetorically, "Who needs humans anyway" and the answer, even if he was not looking for one, is that with time, no one will.  The moment we can safely and truly upload our consciousness to the cloud and we stop being human beings is the moment no one needs humans anymore.  That day could be coming, and it will be faster than expected.  When it does, people like Carr would exclaim that we lose who we are, but who we are is more than what we do presently and who we are as society is a hell of a lot more than how we exist presently.