In many ways, this course has been seriously helpful as a budding technoscientist. There are so many things I can praise this course for and only a few things I can criticize. Overall, I rated this course well in course evaluations, however there are a few problems with it. Luckily, the problems are super easy to fix, and they aren't with the course content. However, there are a few things that have been relatively ineffective. We can make this course better through a few minor changes.
First, this course has been extremely effective as a catalyst of productive thought and intelligent inquiry into how technology affects society. Our textbook, although criticized by many as simply Breyman selling his friend's book, has been extremely well written and generally really insightful. I never once picked it up and thought, "Why are we reading this garbage." Which is much more than can be said about other textbooks. However, it's more than just tolerable. It's actually good. I could go to it for clarity on specific topics. I could reference it in discussions. Woodhouse may be off in his own world from time to time but the bulk of the text is fantastic and the ideas and tools for thought are elegant and well described. That said, it is still a textbook. Even with the multitude of real-world examples and applications Woodhouse brings up, it still cannot deliver all of the content we need to make this course as helpful and as driven and moving as necessary. That's where the readings come in and we arrive at our first change.
The readings are overall very good, however they need some reworking on some topics. Articles and shorter pieces of media are king in today's society of taking in information as quick and as efficiently as possible. I think here we can draw from another portion of the course that I can absolutely praise. We should use more video and non-text media in the weekly at-home assignments. Any assigned reading above two pages simply did not get read. Do not throw 20 page papers at undergraduate students and expect them to even remotely tolerate them. As soon as undergrads see an academic paper and they see the page length, they tune out. Frankly, it is hard to blame them. There are so many other forms of media out there that are more pleasant to ingest. Why would they read a 20 page paper when they can watch a 10 minute video with diagrams to show them what they need to know and explain a topic. Offer supplemental readings and take some videos like the ones we watched in class, and assign those instead. In no way and at no time is it reasonable to expect undergraduates to read a research paper when they could simply type the topic into google and learn just as much or more in a much more enjoyable manor.
Back to praise, the readings that were not lengthy were generally very good. They are provocative and writing about them was not terribly hard after I became adjusted to the course and the type of writing expected. On top of that, my TA was so fantastic in communicating expectations that after about one grading period I had adjusted my reading and writing style to that which is expected of me for the course. For a course meant to teach good reading and writing skills alongside regular material, this is paramount. I personally feel I have become a better reader from taking this course. Granted that it is not due to the longer readings, which I will admit that I read very little of, for reasons described earlier.
I will move now to the most important part of my suggested reforms. Eliminate required in-class note-taking from the course. Required note-taking in class is pointless when the slides are distributed. I would get more out of lecture if I could just listen to Breyman, as he is a great speaker in my opinion, instead of having to clack away at my keyboard while I miss important points and examples which develop understanding outside of the readings. As for note-taking on readings, I believe it should also not be required, however on this I am willing to compromise. Notes from readings deliver the same content as do our blogs. However, they are very helpful to most who want to write better blogs, as they allow all the best points to be summarized, almost like an outline sometimes. So with that said, the notes should not be graded, but could be required. That is, people would turn them in, however the content of those notes should not be judged, because poor notes generally lead to a poor blog if there is a real issue and currently we are being hit twice for a problem that should only be punished once. We are hit once for the notes and then once for the blog made from the notes. Instead, just grade blogs and as a critique suggest better note-taking. This only subtracts from one grade but allows students who benefit from better note-taking to benefit while not infringing upon those who do fine without taking notes, but instead referencing the article itself. If any note-taking turn in is required, use a cloud-based platform like Evernote. That way note turn-in is as easy as typing your TA's email and hitting send. These specific critiques on the note-taking should be regarded as the most important issue I present.
The wikipedia project has been a positive learning experience overall, but only with immense effort from our TA to explain how we should be doing things. With higher clarity in the instructions, this exercise teaches research skills and good reading and writing techniques for research which is relevant to so many of us. Specifically, I would suggest better pruned resources, supplied by more than just one person and with more time. I would also suggest a more refined process to the workflow, articulating to students the phases required to process information into a summarized piece of media. For example, phase one might be dividing work among the group and two could be digesting and notating the research materials, summarizing and connecting with outside sources (read: googling the topics). This kind of a layout of the project would have made things less confusing and allowed more groups to deliver better results more of the time.
Overall, for a class attempting to teach new technoscientists to view technology differently from how literally every other course would have them look at it, this class accomplishes its goals with flying colors. I feel that this class has communicated different views of technology in so many articulate and sensical ways that have never been presented to the students by other sources. The actual content of the course needs very little work, but the student experience needs a good bit of help. I have outlined for you exactly how to fix the problems faced by students in the course. I really enjoyed the class and overall think it was a great experience and I hope this will help to shape an equally good, if not better, experience for people in the future.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Human Enhancement, or nah?
Humans have been enhancing themselves since the days of the cave men. For thousands of years, we have sought ways to be smarter, stronger, more fearsome, more deadly, more respected, more efficient, and so on. In the innovations along the way, we have created tools to do work for us, to help us do better work, and even tools to help us think better. Everything from cave paintings and spears, to computers and algorithms is a tool. Everything we equip ourselves with is a tool, even if we do not always think about it like that. Human enhancement, is no new prospect. Some might argue that enhancement can make us inhuman. However, in the frame of mind I have put forward, it is what makes us human. Using this mindset as a devil's advocate, we can critically view some proposed human enhancements.
First, let us look at smartphones as a human enhancement. The benefits of having this technology are astounding, when you break down what is really there in your pocket. All the information in the world is now accessible within a few taps, or even by verbal command. That kind of power is astounding to think about, yet it is a convenience we take for granted. On top of information, smartphones also facilitate instantaneous communication between any number of people anywhere in the world. At your fingertips is a direct line to any person you could desire to talk to. However, that capability comes at a cost; yet another thing we often overlook. As much control as we are awarded through the devices we use every day, we also relinquish some control we previously had. The platform is inherently connection based and the ability to connect to anything at will also comes with others being able to connect to you at any time. To some extent, this is a benefit, but it relinquishes control of your data. Every single thing you do on your phone is recorded and documented. There are ways to see some of the things they collect. For example, if you have an Android phone you can use a Google service to access your location data for the entirety of your time with your phone. Years and years of exactly where you were are logged and stored. Some people are bothered by this notion, but most of those people also still use their smartphone because they know the benefits outweigh the costs. However, their worries are not to be ignored. It is plain to see that this system lends itself to an authoritarian system of government and in the wrong situation, that data could be used very maliciously. Yet, we are prepared to hand over every conversation, every word we type, every phone call, every website and app, our location, and everything else collected on by our phones. We are prepared to hand all of that over to gain access to the connectivity it offers under the impression that the data collected will never be sold. Personally, I'm for this technology and do not mind having my data tracked, but in a different world with a different style of government, these innovations could make our lives very problematic.
Using the smartphone tradeoff to examine a new frontier for human enhancement, we can take a look at human augmentation. That is, the notion that we can put technology in or on ourselves to enhance our capabilities. An example of this would be bionic eyes, or HUD contacts. Another might be body-boosting nanobots that heal injuries and cure cancer. Right there, you can see just how beneficial these augmentations can be. However, we also know about these kinds of tradeoffs from the storytelling of Deus Ex. Many people believe in drawing the line before augmentation, and if you have ever played a Deus Ex game, you could see why they would think that. However, how different is giving control over our bodies from giving control of our data? How different is using this tool from using a shovel or a smartphone? We already make intense tradeoffs, and although yet again this innovation lends itself to a centralized system of government and power, it still could provide immense benefits; think Terminator or Billion Dollar Man. We might be able to step back and say now that we have drawn the line, but in the 1990's if someone had said that by 2015 all your data would be available to the government and to private corporations, maybe the line would have been drawn then. Personally, I might be for this technology for my own use, but I worry what it might entail for our children.
When these kinds of innovations happen gradually over time, people tend to allow things they would not have if they had seen the bigger picture. What is one small sacrifice for some more functionality? Not much until the Illuminati has all your data and Obama is looking at your dick pics. Hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes, and make the correct decisions regarding these new technologies.
First, let us look at smartphones as a human enhancement. The benefits of having this technology are astounding, when you break down what is really there in your pocket. All the information in the world is now accessible within a few taps, or even by verbal command. That kind of power is astounding to think about, yet it is a convenience we take for granted. On top of information, smartphones also facilitate instantaneous communication between any number of people anywhere in the world. At your fingertips is a direct line to any person you could desire to talk to. However, that capability comes at a cost; yet another thing we often overlook. As much control as we are awarded through the devices we use every day, we also relinquish some control we previously had. The platform is inherently connection based and the ability to connect to anything at will also comes with others being able to connect to you at any time. To some extent, this is a benefit, but it relinquishes control of your data. Every single thing you do on your phone is recorded and documented. There are ways to see some of the things they collect. For example, if you have an Android phone you can use a Google service to access your location data for the entirety of your time with your phone. Years and years of exactly where you were are logged and stored. Some people are bothered by this notion, but most of those people also still use their smartphone because they know the benefits outweigh the costs. However, their worries are not to be ignored. It is plain to see that this system lends itself to an authoritarian system of government and in the wrong situation, that data could be used very maliciously. Yet, we are prepared to hand over every conversation, every word we type, every phone call, every website and app, our location, and everything else collected on by our phones. We are prepared to hand all of that over to gain access to the connectivity it offers under the impression that the data collected will never be sold. Personally, I'm for this technology and do not mind having my data tracked, but in a different world with a different style of government, these innovations could make our lives very problematic.
Using the smartphone tradeoff to examine a new frontier for human enhancement, we can take a look at human augmentation. That is, the notion that we can put technology in or on ourselves to enhance our capabilities. An example of this would be bionic eyes, or HUD contacts. Another might be body-boosting nanobots that heal injuries and cure cancer. Right there, you can see just how beneficial these augmentations can be. However, we also know about these kinds of tradeoffs from the storytelling of Deus Ex. Many people believe in drawing the line before augmentation, and if you have ever played a Deus Ex game, you could see why they would think that. However, how different is giving control over our bodies from giving control of our data? How different is using this tool from using a shovel or a smartphone? We already make intense tradeoffs, and although yet again this innovation lends itself to a centralized system of government and power, it still could provide immense benefits; think Terminator or Billion Dollar Man. We might be able to step back and say now that we have drawn the line, but in the 1990's if someone had said that by 2015 all your data would be available to the government and to private corporations, maybe the line would have been drawn then. Personally, I might be for this technology for my own use, but I worry what it might entail for our children.
When these kinds of innovations happen gradually over time, people tend to allow things they would not have if they had seen the bigger picture. What is one small sacrifice for some more functionality? Not much until the Illuminati has all your data and Obama is looking at your dick pics. Hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes, and make the correct decisions regarding these new technologies.
Technology, Work, and Leisure
In a perfect world, there is no money. There is no higher or lower classes or castes. There are only people and there are things but their value is ambiguous. The value of people's time is priceless. This is the opposite of how human life is valued today, where time is worthless and lives are priced at $250,000. We would value, above all else, happiness, livelihood, and effort. The work done by one person, in any field, would be equal to any other. Those of us who chose to mop floors would have their time viewed as equal to those who write computer programs or manage manufacturing. There is no specific value to a profession, only to the person's time. This kind of a world is definitely considered "Utopian" by today's standards. We can't imagine a world without money or without a class system. We find it hard to believe that their could be anything besides what exists for us today. How would it happen? How could that be? It would require: A system where work is work for the good of society, not for a monetary value and a sense of togetherness between people, an educated populace with a lack of greediness or selfishness. It would deliver happy, healthy people with little-to-no poverty and an overwhelming notion that everything we do, we do for our own good.
Work and receive everything you need to be happy and healthy. Want to become a doctor? Do it. Want to become a computer programmer? Do it. Want to mop floors? Do it. All of these professions would make the same "salary." Not money, but goods and services required to be happy and healthy. We, as a society, will need a wide range of work done in order to function, just as we do today. But those who decide higher education is not for them will not be thrown to the wolves, and those who do choose to pursue an education will do so at no cost. What they are doing, in both cases, is extremely important to the infrastructure of this society. We need both students and janitors. There is no difference between the work done by one and the work done by the other, in value. Each will get a place to live, with adequate space. Firms can poll people for demand for products or services they oversee. But there is no profit to be made. They would only exist to produce for humanity. Those producers can then meet the demands of the people by putting to work the right amount of resources and work into a product or service. The people can choose what to produce. I won't pretend to know all the details, but it can be worked out.
The relationships people would need to have would be so incredibly different from how we relate to each other today. There would be much more 'we' and nearly no 'I.' We would function for the good of everyone and there would need to be a universal acceptance of cooperation. Everyone in society works and devotes their energy into their profession for each and every other person's good as well as their own. That kind of mindset means that every person is kind and grateful to others around them. Think like how people tend to act towards those serving in the military. Everyone contributes for others. For example, a restaurant and its workers all serve food to people. Those people go to work and produce the grilles for cooking, the plates and silverware, the chairs, the building itself! And for all of that, they serve food in return, and their attitudes towards others would be that of those engaged in a mutually beneficial business deal. We would all immediately be friendly with everyone else because we are all working as one; in a large flowing mutually beneficial deal.
In this kind of a community people would have to labor less. There would be a job for every person willing to work. That means we all work less. The 40 hour work-week would never even be conceived. There would be no need to rush processes or be crazy efficient such as to treat people as capital. There can really be no deadlines because deadlines are scheduled for profit, mostly. We would not work on a time crunch, because time is valuable and precious and we all are entitled to our own time to live and be happy. We do not owe all of our time and emotional well being to some corporation to survive. We survive because we all deserve it.
This kind of Utopia does happen to have a name. It's Communism. It can work. But it has a lot of requirements that mostly involve people understanding the system and cooperating. We could have a society that binds together and helps others, instead of helping who can pay and turning away those who cannot. As humans we would be entitled to our own lives, not required to serve those with more only to receive less.
Work and receive everything you need to be happy and healthy. Want to become a doctor? Do it. Want to become a computer programmer? Do it. Want to mop floors? Do it. All of these professions would make the same "salary." Not money, but goods and services required to be happy and healthy. We, as a society, will need a wide range of work done in order to function, just as we do today. But those who decide higher education is not for them will not be thrown to the wolves, and those who do choose to pursue an education will do so at no cost. What they are doing, in both cases, is extremely important to the infrastructure of this society. We need both students and janitors. There is no difference between the work done by one and the work done by the other, in value. Each will get a place to live, with adequate space. Firms can poll people for demand for products or services they oversee. But there is no profit to be made. They would only exist to produce for humanity. Those producers can then meet the demands of the people by putting to work the right amount of resources and work into a product or service. The people can choose what to produce. I won't pretend to know all the details, but it can be worked out.
The relationships people would need to have would be so incredibly different from how we relate to each other today. There would be much more 'we' and nearly no 'I.' We would function for the good of everyone and there would need to be a universal acceptance of cooperation. Everyone in society works and devotes their energy into their profession for each and every other person's good as well as their own. That kind of mindset means that every person is kind and grateful to others around them. Think like how people tend to act towards those serving in the military. Everyone contributes for others. For example, a restaurant and its workers all serve food to people. Those people go to work and produce the grilles for cooking, the plates and silverware, the chairs, the building itself! And for all of that, they serve food in return, and their attitudes towards others would be that of those engaged in a mutually beneficial business deal. We would all immediately be friendly with everyone else because we are all working as one; in a large flowing mutually beneficial deal.
In this kind of a community people would have to labor less. There would be a job for every person willing to work. That means we all work less. The 40 hour work-week would never even be conceived. There would be no need to rush processes or be crazy efficient such as to treat people as capital. There can really be no deadlines because deadlines are scheduled for profit, mostly. We would not work on a time crunch, because time is valuable and precious and we all are entitled to our own time to live and be happy. We do not owe all of our time and emotional well being to some corporation to survive. We survive because we all deserve it.
This kind of Utopia does happen to have a name. It's Communism. It can work. But it has a lot of requirements that mostly involve people understanding the system and cooperating. We could have a society that binds together and helps others, instead of helping who can pay and turning away those who cannot. As humans we would be entitled to our own lives, not required to serve those with more only to receive less.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Nanotechnology as a Supervillian
Nanotechnology is coming and it's a tidal wave. The discovery which acts as the earthquake has yet to take place but all around the world are the miniature tremors that indicate the coming tectonic shift that will change life as we know it. Many, as suggested in the "Tiny Primer on Nano-Scale Technologies," will see this coming technology as an exciting and overwhelmingly good event, as many of us at RPI are inclined to believe. However, in the context of this analogy, we would be zealous cultists claiming that the wave will lift us to heaven instead of crush us under the force of its waves, as on-lookers stare; judging us for our ridiculous beliefs. We must look away from our privilege if we want to analyze this coming event. The technology will bring changes, and harsh ones. Perhaps more harsh than others like it have brought in the past, which says a lot as we glance back in history to the effects of technologies like the combustion engine, crop harvesting equipment, and the internet, just to name a few. These effects will not be evenly spread over society, according to history. Many who are not so privileged will carry the burden while the wealthy and white benefit. The burdens may include further displacement of jobs, health impacts for those working with new materials, and perhaps the most scary, impacts we cannot predict. We can mitigate, or perhaps even prevent, these unfortunate outcomes, but "we" won't.
The coming technological storm may, to us, seem like a storm of puppies and rainbows, and on a scientific level we know how interesting and absolutely genius some of this stuff will be, but we are the ones who will be consuming the end products from this technology, not seeing its externalized costs. This is just as it is now with current production methods and costs to those less fortunate than us. From the new nanotech, we will see a reduction in use of natural, fibrous materials and an increase in synthetics. This will displace farmers growing cotton, or hemp, or other materials. We also will likely see a reduction in recycling for a time, this kind of thing could have impacts on the waste business, and the people working in it. Maybe we could see nearly all blue collar jobs displaced, if we are simply feeding materials into machines to make buildings, furniture, and just about everything else. We don't need construction workers if it can be done with the press of a button instead. These people cannot just pick up some other job, specifically, they cannot just become white collar workers. That is not how they are trained and it is almost definitely not how they desire to live, although it may be how the technology reforms society. We will see a need for more data analysts, more programmers than ever, more nanoscientists, and accompanying technicians. In the long run, this is no big deal, but in the short run, it is detrimental to the living and well being of people all over the globe and right here in our own country. On top of displacement, we could also see serious impacts on health and treatment of workers. Take nPB as an example. The glue killed everyone that ever worked with it, and nanotechnology could do just as much or worse to those working with it, for all we know.
That is just the problem. We do not know how nanotechnology will affect society. Most of its impacts are very hard or impossible to predict at all, let alone with any accuracy. These things could be like the nano-carbon Buckyballs, or "Unluckyballs" that are harmful to the atmosphere. We have no idea what is going to be coming our way with this technology, because we do not know what we are making yet with it. However, we do have tools to mitigate and prevent these bad things from happening. Remember ITE? It is guidelines like ITE that will help us to be cautious in what we adopt, looking at how exactly it will affect the population, the Earth, specific demographics. With the proper watchful demeanor towards these technologies, we can phase in the ones we know are good, gradually transition to the ones that will be problematic, and block the ones that will only bring ruin. Granted, this is easier said than done, but we will have a better time if we are watching where we are going. An ice hockey coach tells their players, "Keep your head up." Instead of looking down at the puck, the player is to watch where they are going and what is going on around them. This is how we have to be with nanotech. Those entrusted with developing it need to be watching what is going on, not just on the thing they are doing.
Even though we know how to mitigate and prevent these problems, even if only to some extent, those in charge will not take these precautions. The capitalist machine will churn out the new technology, monotize it, and profit without a single care for the external costs and for the detrimental effects of their work. As we talked about before, we have to educate the people engineering these technologies to do the right thing and do what they know is best when they are faced with terrible decisions. Management is not changing, so engineers are going to have to shoulder the burden if we are to mitigate any damage at all. So, even if we can mitigate and prevent damage, do not expect corporations to do the right thing. Instead, expect government to facilitate the corporations doing the wrong thing. Nanotechnology can be a superhero, but unless we shape it correctly, it will be a supervillian instead; with laser eyes and jet packs and tentacles and the whole package.
The coming technological storm may, to us, seem like a storm of puppies and rainbows, and on a scientific level we know how interesting and absolutely genius some of this stuff will be, but we are the ones who will be consuming the end products from this technology, not seeing its externalized costs. This is just as it is now with current production methods and costs to those less fortunate than us. From the new nanotech, we will see a reduction in use of natural, fibrous materials and an increase in synthetics. This will displace farmers growing cotton, or hemp, or other materials. We also will likely see a reduction in recycling for a time, this kind of thing could have impacts on the waste business, and the people working in it. Maybe we could see nearly all blue collar jobs displaced, if we are simply feeding materials into machines to make buildings, furniture, and just about everything else. We don't need construction workers if it can be done with the press of a button instead. These people cannot just pick up some other job, specifically, they cannot just become white collar workers. That is not how they are trained and it is almost definitely not how they desire to live, although it may be how the technology reforms society. We will see a need for more data analysts, more programmers than ever, more nanoscientists, and accompanying technicians. In the long run, this is no big deal, but in the short run, it is detrimental to the living and well being of people all over the globe and right here in our own country. On top of displacement, we could also see serious impacts on health and treatment of workers. Take nPB as an example. The glue killed everyone that ever worked with it, and nanotechnology could do just as much or worse to those working with it, for all we know.
That is just the problem. We do not know how nanotechnology will affect society. Most of its impacts are very hard or impossible to predict at all, let alone with any accuracy. These things could be like the nano-carbon Buckyballs, or "Unluckyballs" that are harmful to the atmosphere. We have no idea what is going to be coming our way with this technology, because we do not know what we are making yet with it. However, we do have tools to mitigate and prevent these bad things from happening. Remember ITE? It is guidelines like ITE that will help us to be cautious in what we adopt, looking at how exactly it will affect the population, the Earth, specific demographics. With the proper watchful demeanor towards these technologies, we can phase in the ones we know are good, gradually transition to the ones that will be problematic, and block the ones that will only bring ruin. Granted, this is easier said than done, but we will have a better time if we are watching where we are going. An ice hockey coach tells their players, "Keep your head up." Instead of looking down at the puck, the player is to watch where they are going and what is going on around them. This is how we have to be with nanotech. Those entrusted with developing it need to be watching what is going on, not just on the thing they are doing.
Even though we know how to mitigate and prevent these problems, even if only to some extent, those in charge will not take these precautions. The capitalist machine will churn out the new technology, monotize it, and profit without a single care for the external costs and for the detrimental effects of their work. As we talked about before, we have to educate the people engineering these technologies to do the right thing and do what they know is best when they are faced with terrible decisions. Management is not changing, so engineers are going to have to shoulder the burden if we are to mitigate any damage at all. So, even if we can mitigate and prevent damage, do not expect corporations to do the right thing. Instead, expect government to facilitate the corporations doing the wrong thing. Nanotechnology can be a superhero, but unless we shape it correctly, it will be a supervillian instead; with laser eyes and jet packs and tentacles and the whole package.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Engineer's Dilemma
Historically, efficiency has always butted heads with responsible action. We see this in what is probably the most striking example, using efficient, but polluting, chemicals or using more natural, less polluting substances to accomplish the same thing. One might be faster or require less materials or funding, most likely externalizing a cost, but an externalized cost is still a cost to someone, somewhere, or something. How can we be efficient, whilst still being responsible and selfless in our endeavors. Perhaps an engineer in a corporation is the one implementing this corporately selfish, but efficient, methodology. Where do you draw the line between valuing your job and what is best for the companies, and then in turn your, success, and the professional responsibility you have as an engineer to do the right thing. Through reformation of the values of those who might put the engineers in this tight position, we could abolish the dilemma from ever starting. There are multiple ways this could happen, however unlikely to succeed they may be. First, is through a sense of internationalism, or environmentalism. Second, is a radical change to the system we live in where corporations are accountable for the externalized costs they put on the Earth and its inhabitants. Through this change, the dilemma can be a thing of the past.
Our first suggestion, instilling a sense of internationalism, or environmentalism in the minds of all those who put these engineers in such a position as to choose between company and the rest of the world, is a bit far-fetched but would still solve our problem. If everyone felt less faithful to themselves and their personal success and more about the success of Earth and humanity as a global entity, we would not be in the position we are today where engineers' consciences are tested. Instead, the others who have already decided on doing the "wrong" thing for the good of the company, would decide to do the right thing. This, in a way, externalizes the dilemma to management. However, before instructing engineers, these things are generally known in the first place, and thus they experience a similar dilemma already, they just make the wrong choice a good chunk of the time. If management did better in their dilemma, engineers would not be put in the bind they, all too often, are put in.
The second suggestion I have put forth, is more reasonable in ends, but means are still questionable as to whether their are truly possible. Even if this suggestion can never be achieved to its fullest extent, even a partial implementation could relieve the engineers enough to call the dilemma history. If there was a system, perhaps implemented by a universally governing body, such as the U.N. or something similar, that would hold corporations accountable for their externalized costs, then the once efficient thing to do now costs more than the once costly thing to do. We can now force responsible inefficiency into the actions of corporations. These corporations, if they want access to the markets they can sell their goods in, must conform to an analysis of externalized costs. For example, if a mining company takes advantage of its workers, subjecting them to dangerous conditions needlessly and/or paying them too little, we can hold the company accountable. "Well, Acme, I can see you are using slave labor to produce your goods, so therefore, until you address that problem your goods cannot be sold to any nation's consumers on this long list of countries." Only through true accountability can the pressure be turned onto the companies creating problems in the first place. If a company is doing something highly environmentally dangerous, they can be stopped. Though, the costs associated with this sort of system would surely be grand, they are worth the lives of all seven billion human beings on this earth. Currently, continuing on this track, we will see the Earth destroyed and its inhabitants with it. So what cost is too much for the survival of humanity? Do not put this burden on the engineers, when it could be put on the management who maliciously bestows the dilemma currently on the engineers.
Through changes to the way we treat corporations, we can remove the dilemma engineers face every single day designing the next generation of products. If we cannot have good people, we certainly can have corporations that do not run amuck throughout the Earth, ravaging her people and her bounties. Instead, we can hold responsible these people who make decisions neglecting the costs they burden others with.
Our first suggestion, instilling a sense of internationalism, or environmentalism in the minds of all those who put these engineers in such a position as to choose between company and the rest of the world, is a bit far-fetched but would still solve our problem. If everyone felt less faithful to themselves and their personal success and more about the success of Earth and humanity as a global entity, we would not be in the position we are today where engineers' consciences are tested. Instead, the others who have already decided on doing the "wrong" thing for the good of the company, would decide to do the right thing. This, in a way, externalizes the dilemma to management. However, before instructing engineers, these things are generally known in the first place, and thus they experience a similar dilemma already, they just make the wrong choice a good chunk of the time. If management did better in their dilemma, engineers would not be put in the bind they, all too often, are put in.
The second suggestion I have put forth, is more reasonable in ends, but means are still questionable as to whether their are truly possible. Even if this suggestion can never be achieved to its fullest extent, even a partial implementation could relieve the engineers enough to call the dilemma history. If there was a system, perhaps implemented by a universally governing body, such as the U.N. or something similar, that would hold corporations accountable for their externalized costs, then the once efficient thing to do now costs more than the once costly thing to do. We can now force responsible inefficiency into the actions of corporations. These corporations, if they want access to the markets they can sell their goods in, must conform to an analysis of externalized costs. For example, if a mining company takes advantage of its workers, subjecting them to dangerous conditions needlessly and/or paying them too little, we can hold the company accountable. "Well, Acme, I can see you are using slave labor to produce your goods, so therefore, until you address that problem your goods cannot be sold to any nation's consumers on this long list of countries." Only through true accountability can the pressure be turned onto the companies creating problems in the first place. If a company is doing something highly environmentally dangerous, they can be stopped. Though, the costs associated with this sort of system would surely be grand, they are worth the lives of all seven billion human beings on this earth. Currently, continuing on this track, we will see the Earth destroyed and its inhabitants with it. So what cost is too much for the survival of humanity? Do not put this burden on the engineers, when it could be put on the management who maliciously bestows the dilemma currently on the engineers.
Through changes to the way we treat corporations, we can remove the dilemma engineers face every single day designing the next generation of products. If we cannot have good people, we certainly can have corporations that do not run amuck throughout the Earth, ravaging her people and her bounties. Instead, we can hold responsible these people who make decisions neglecting the costs they burden others with.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Overconsumption: Engineering Conscientiously
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)