With the most recent set of readings, (1, 2, 3), we have been presented with the problem of overconsumption. Things that contribute to the issue of overconsumption are things like wasted food, or excess chemicals from producing a product. These waste products end up polluting our ecosystem. Waste is so embedded in our culture as a society that, as consumers, we do not even see just how crucial creating tremendous amounts of waste is to our daily lives. Behind the scenes, we create some 32 times the weight of an average product in waste. That is, to obtain a one pound product, 32 pounds are expended and sent to landfills in order to facilitate fulfilling that need and getting that product to the consumer. Many of these wastes are due to the use of engineering processes that are not socially and environmentally responsible. To tackle the source of the problem, Woodhouse proposes reforms to education and even mentions RPI's very own STS program in the process. His changes have a proposed goal of teaching more Engineers to be more conscious of the environmental impact of their field and teaching them the best practices for reducing waste and creating a better product or better process to waste less. This is a great place to start, and now I'll be suggesting yet another reform, this time outside of education. With a standards system for what companies can actually claim for their products, we could produce an ecosystem of environmental certification that actually requires manufacturers to cut down on waste to achieve the certification. This, paired with a reason for companies to desire it, can create a positive change toward less waste.
Consumers do care, to some extent, to be more environmentally friendly. If they have the ability to buy a product that is more environmentally friendly, and there were some proof, it would sway many buyers in that products direction. This creates a labeling system that we know all to well today where products label themselves as "environmentally conscious" or something along those lines and slap a nice sticker on their product that they can justify one way or another. If there were a standard for what you can say about your product environmentally speaking then these labels could be done away with and replaced only where actually applicable. Standardizing these claims with heavy requirements and large-enough benefits will help facilitate an effort from corporations to create a product that actually is environmentally friendly, not just a product that claims to be.
If companies want these products to seem environmentally savvy with a nice certification of environmental consciousness then they have to work for it. The requirements would be determined by experts who can put a specific allowance of waste in the manufacturing process of the product and say exactly what is and what is not allowed to take place in the process. This also allows them to disallow harmful chemicals on top of regulating how much waste is produced. These sorts of requirements would ask a lot of the makers of a product, but in return would provide benefits like a standard consumer symbol that works such that consumers can make a quick decision to buy a product that is doing the right thing simply by seeing the logo and picking that one instead. If a company wants that over its competitors, they have got to play ball. If they do not, others can and will and they will be left as the bad apple. This could create a tool for consumers to use where they do not have to think or research, simply look for the logo and make the decision. Other benefits could include tax incentives or subsidies for the certification.
As Raptitute.com said in its fantastic article, "Your Lifestyle is Being Designed," the eight hour work day takes all the time consumers have our of their day and although we could do without many of the luxuries we decide to purchase every day, there are many products we must buy to go about our daily lives (which some can and should argue can also be fundamentally changed) and with these products there is not always time for a consumer to make an educated decision between work and trying to make the most of the time that's left over. This gives them a tool to make an informed decision at a glance without having to ask questions. There is nothing stopping a socially conscious standard as well for knowing whether human rights were sacrificed in the making of a product. The important part is that it be extremely stringent and make sure that the companies are working for the certification. It is also important that over time these requirements get stricter and stricter to move us towards a better less wasteful culture.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Deliberative Democracy in Action: Political Innovation II
In this weeks readings(1,2) we investigate deliberative democracy in action instead of in theory. We can use the toolkits we've discussed in class and apply them to these situations presented in the readings. These tools will help us get a different perspective on the problems we face and look for new solutions. First identifying problems in our own government, we can observe a tool being used to solve real-world problems just like ours and then look to take a similar mindset to reform our own government to better address our identified problems. Deliberative democracy and other interesting political innovations in the form of reforming government can better serve our governments providing bold and progressive legislature that is representative of the desires of the people, and better structuring the legislative branch to work for those same people.
Deliberative democracy has shown results where the current U.S government has failed to come up with a solution. Obama has recently appointed a "blue ribbon commission" to study the federal deficit. These blue ribbon commissions are commonly seen as an admission defeat, since they have not come up with much to show in the past. It's simply a way for the government, in this case a president, to say, "Well, we can't fix this, so study it or whatever." It's a way to appear to be doing something but not actually do anything. This type of bureaucracy is exactly what leads us to desire implementations of deliberative democracy in the first place. Deliberative democracy can generate the bold and concise legislation that is needed in these cases and it would be a defined process with a timeline and once it was done we could move on. Things would get done. We can change them later if we need to but it's better to make an educated decision and be done and move on than it is to do nothing. In a small portion of China these things are being deliberated on already. The coastal region of Zeguo, population 120,000, uses deliberative democracy to deliver a bold and credible piece of legislation that comes from the people annually to decide the budget. These decisions are overseen by a panel of experts to offer their knowledge, fielding questions for the decision makers. The people have proven that deliberative democracy works. They even implemented wind-powered energy solutions that cost more but provide a more sustainable source of energy. The people make an educated and intelligent decision, even when they know it will cost more in taxes. These are exactly the decisions that the usual representative democracy we have cannot seem to make efficiently. This method of decision making allows people the chance to do the right thing in a collective of their peers. All that is needed is a resource of knowledge and a deadline and the people produce real results. This tool is a great way to create a real process to make decisions. It's something that can work and actually takes deliberative democracy out of the "New England Town Hall" style methods we recall when we hear the name. Looking through the conceptual filters provided by our political innovations we can see from a different perspective and better the political systems of today; learning from the past and applying ideas in the present for a better future.
Things like the example from China show that deliberative democracy works, so why not try going larger scale with our own government. We can now apply our observed tool to a different situation. An example of this could be to get rid of a state-level two-tiered house and senate and replace them with a single assembly that has the same amount of delegates. These elected delegates would then represent a smaller fraction of the state. This kind of division allows a representative to represent the needs of a smaller group of people, whose voices can actually be heard. The delegate can manage 300,000 people instead of 1 Million on a state-level. That's a 70% reduction! The lowest level of elected official would be 5% of the current 1 Million in the example in the second reading. This kind of representation gives people more power to make their own decision. The candidates for these positions could be deliberated on by a smaller group of people, reducing the need for big-spending on campaigns. That takes the money out of politics; something that so desperately needs to happen. The U.S. is falling apart from the corruption and spending on these electoral campaigns. If there wasn't a pay-to-win philosophy to elect officials, we might not have such a terrible time getting things done in Washington. The people who are there are the people that actually produce results and want to be there. not just whoever payed the most for the seat. It also cuts out lobbyists, another thing we need to implement from our theoretical toolkit of political innovation. These things could be implemented today and we could see real results. No more "mass parties that field partisan candidates who compete to represent millions of people presumed to have the same interests are, after all, relics of the early industrial age of mass production.”
These political innovations can help our country do away with clunky old government and come in with new, maybe even digital, forms of dealing with the legislative branch, assuming we even stick with the checks and balances style government we see now. These political innovations can be applied as tools to gut the slow pay-to-win government we hate and replace it with a system that better represents the people. On a smaller scale, we can use these conceptual tools to better see ways to tackle tough problems. No more standing around and waiting for people who don't actually represent anyone talk about things they don't understand.
Deliberative democracy has shown results where the current U.S government has failed to come up with a solution. Obama has recently appointed a "blue ribbon commission" to study the federal deficit. These blue ribbon commissions are commonly seen as an admission defeat, since they have not come up with much to show in the past. It's simply a way for the government, in this case a president, to say, "Well, we can't fix this, so study it or whatever." It's a way to appear to be doing something but not actually do anything. This type of bureaucracy is exactly what leads us to desire implementations of deliberative democracy in the first place. Deliberative democracy can generate the bold and concise legislation that is needed in these cases and it would be a defined process with a timeline and once it was done we could move on. Things would get done. We can change them later if we need to but it's better to make an educated decision and be done and move on than it is to do nothing. In a small portion of China these things are being deliberated on already. The coastal region of Zeguo, population 120,000, uses deliberative democracy to deliver a bold and credible piece of legislation that comes from the people annually to decide the budget. These decisions are overseen by a panel of experts to offer their knowledge, fielding questions for the decision makers. The people have proven that deliberative democracy works. They even implemented wind-powered energy solutions that cost more but provide a more sustainable source of energy. The people make an educated and intelligent decision, even when they know it will cost more in taxes. These are exactly the decisions that the usual representative democracy we have cannot seem to make efficiently. This method of decision making allows people the chance to do the right thing in a collective of their peers. All that is needed is a resource of knowledge and a deadline and the people produce real results. This tool is a great way to create a real process to make decisions. It's something that can work and actually takes deliberative democracy out of the "New England Town Hall" style methods we recall when we hear the name. Looking through the conceptual filters provided by our political innovations we can see from a different perspective and better the political systems of today; learning from the past and applying ideas in the present for a better future.
Things like the example from China show that deliberative democracy works, so why not try going larger scale with our own government. We can now apply our observed tool to a different situation. An example of this could be to get rid of a state-level two-tiered house and senate and replace them with a single assembly that has the same amount of delegates. These elected delegates would then represent a smaller fraction of the state. This kind of division allows a representative to represent the needs of a smaller group of people, whose voices can actually be heard. The delegate can manage 300,000 people instead of 1 Million on a state-level. That's a 70% reduction! The lowest level of elected official would be 5% of the current 1 Million in the example in the second reading. This kind of representation gives people more power to make their own decision. The candidates for these positions could be deliberated on by a smaller group of people, reducing the need for big-spending on campaigns. That takes the money out of politics; something that so desperately needs to happen. The U.S. is falling apart from the corruption and spending on these electoral campaigns. If there wasn't a pay-to-win philosophy to elect officials, we might not have such a terrible time getting things done in Washington. The people who are there are the people that actually produce results and want to be there. not just whoever payed the most for the seat. It also cuts out lobbyists, another thing we need to implement from our theoretical toolkit of political innovation. These things could be implemented today and we could see real results. No more "mass parties that field partisan candidates who compete to represent millions of people presumed to have the same interests are, after all, relics of the early industrial age of mass production.”
These political innovations can help our country do away with clunky old government and come in with new, maybe even digital, forms of dealing with the legislative branch, assuming we even stick with the checks and balances style government we see now. These political innovations can be applied as tools to gut the slow pay-to-win government we hate and replace it with a system that better represents the people. On a smaller scale, we can use these conceptual tools to better see ways to tackle tough problems. No more standing around and waiting for people who don't actually represent anyone talk about things they don't understand.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Economic Innovations (Part II)
Since beginning this semester's journey through Science, Technology, and Society this week's blog post really serves as a sort of mid-term assessment. We look back at the problems we have encountered all semester, separating the real ones from the ones we've recently been faced with on House Of Cards Season Three, and we apply our newly acquired toolkit of economic innovations to make honest attempts to solve the problems we face in today's society. Recently President Underwood has suggested throwing entitlements out the window, to provide funding for government subsidized jobs. Actually, wait that's HoC again. In reality, we have other equally complex issues. I will discuss the problem of toxic chemicals such as nPB deteriorating the very workers that use it. The problem of nPB could be easily solved with the economic innovations we have explored; particularly worker cooperatives.
The worker cooperative is the concept that all employees of a company, no matter how small or low a part they play, should have equal representation in the company's decision making process. The system works on a one-person-one-vote principle which allows the equal representation of laborers among white collar paper pushers among CEO's. We've seen this innovation work over multiple periods of time, both old and new. Although, it's an understatement to say it works, rather we should say that it can be a catalyst for success. Without the representation awarded under the worker cooperative concept, money takes precedence over health; profits win out over humanity, and dividends eclipse the livelihood of workers and their families. We see the worker cooperative solve these problems; or rather we see that by nature, the worker cooperative never instigates these issues to begin with.
Cooperation, instead of corporation, can make all the difference for those at the mercy of a capitalist market. Under capitalism, you pay, or you get nothing; connecting that to corporations, if you're out of a job, you lose everything. These workers can be so driven to terrible work upon hard times that their safety is placed on the back burner in exchange for a roof over their head. Roofs, however, cannot do very much for the dead, as we see in the story of nPB. nPB is a nasty chemical adhesive that drys quickly but emits neurotoxic fumes that ravages the nervous system, transforming it into useless tissue. The workers, faced with the threat of losing all they have worked so hard to earn, choose to work in terrible conditions forced by the managers and big-wigs of these companies; who take home the dirty money generated by sacrificing the lives of workers. The worker cooperative concept removes multiple factors causing the bind faced by the workers. With a worker cooperative, the CEOs aren't allowed to pull in profit while others suffer because workers have just as much of a say in what chemicals are used as the CEO and managers do. No worker in their right mind would vote to use a chemical that kills them. Through this internal participatory budgeting, nPB would no longer be used. The workers could choose to put money into accumulating a stock which would allow use of slower-to-dry water-based chemicals. They could, as a collective, choose to lose out on one batch-worth of profit for the company to allow for a slower drying period. Other than this, the company could choose to increase the environmental standards experienced by workers, increasing their quality of life, and surely the quality of their work. The worker cooperative takes care of all of these issues without the need for government intervention, all while keeping CEO salary roughly below 3 times the worker salary, allowing for a shared wealth and a shared prosperity.
Technology cannot only be found in microcontrollers and printed circuit boards. We can also find it in political innovation, but political innovation doesn't need to be the limit. We can further spread technology into economic processes allowing for innovations driving the progression of humanity in a lucrative and fair way. We see that the worker cooperative never allows the nPB debacle to start in the first place, saving lives and profits alike. In today's top-down work environment, we give greed the opportunity to oppress humanity, and according to history, greed will win out, given this opportunity. Through economic innovation, workplaces and many other undesirable technological outcomes could be avoided. Do not let technology oppress workers when workers can wield technology and take their economic livelihood into their own hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)