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.

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.

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.

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.