Alternative Energy is a Viable Solution

In my last post, I posited that I think alternative energy sources and technoscientific innovation can play a major role in solving our energy crisis.  They are not the sole solutions, but we should not dismiss them as easily as the authors of The Energy Reader, Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner seem to have.

There are clearly a lot of barriers at present to using renewables.  Since lack of infrastructure is one of the primary challenges, we must commit to building the infrastructure required for them.  As I write this, the US Senate is voting on a bill that would approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.  So, clearly, the idea of building new energy infrastructure is already on the table.  Hopefully, we will choose to build infrastructure for renewables instead.

We can also expand renewable energy gathering in the form of micropower, as Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner mentioned.  We should use programs like Solarize Troy to empower homeowners to put solar panels on their houses.  Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner state that “algal biofuel needs just the right mix of sun, water, and nutrients and may be difficult to produce at industrial scales.”  While this is likely true, algal biofuel  could be used as a form of micropower in places where it grows easily.  For instance, Kibbutz Ketura in Southern Israel produces algae, so they could use it as a source of micropower.

Most of the possible location for large-scale hydropower are already in use, but what about small-scale hydropower production?  There may be places where there used to be hydropower (such as mills), but it is no longer there.  For instance, on this Poestenkill (a brook south of the RPI campus, in Troy), there used to be several mills powered by the water, but now the Mount Ida Hydroelectric Plant is the facility that uses it for power.  More could be built, and the same holds true for other locations.

Nuclear power is also a promising option.  At some point, we will have safer nuclear reactors.  I realize that people have been saying this for years and yet it has not happened, but I think that eventually it will.  There are still issues with nuclear power, but far fewer than with fossil fuels.

I also don’t think we should give up on the idea of technoscientific innovation helping.  It can’t provide all of the answers, but it can provide some.  Perhaps we will invent solar panels that don’t require such rare materials.  Perhaps we’ll find new ways of harnessing the sun’s energy.  Perhaps we’ll be able to harness energy from as yet unused sources, such as lightning.  And we will hopefully continue to find ways to use energy more efficiently, and perhaps to recapture energy that is currently being lost. 

Of course, we still need to reduce our energy usage and find a way to make sure population does not continue to increase exponentially, but I think that alternative energy sources and technoscientific innovation are a viable primary solution.

Is it true that transitioning to alternative energy sources will not solve the problem?

The authors of The Energy Reader, Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner, posit that our energy crisis cannot be solved merely, or even mostly, by transitioning to non-fossil fuel energy sources and by technoscientific innovation.  Their thesis is that no matter what we do, our growth makes relying on any current or yet-to-be-discovered energy sources impossible.  But is this truly the case?  Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner explain why alternative energy sources like renewables and nuclear have many issues that would make relying on them difficult – low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), intermittency, lack of infrastructure, difficulty with storage.  However, they did not provide sufficient evidence that these sources, combined with one another and with further innovation in both obtaining energy and using it efficiently, cannot provide the amount of energy that our world currently uses, or will use in the near future.  In order to be convinced that this is the case, I would need to hear about countries that had maxed out their usage of alternative energy sources and still could not use them to obtain 100% of their energy.  Of course, this does not mean that I am convinced that these sources (combined with innovations) can avert the crisis without drastic population reduction.  I believe that it remains to be seen.

At this point, I agree with Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner that continued exponential population growth is not feasible, but I think we can do more with alternative energy sources than they give us credit for.  I think that if we make appropriate changes in infrastructure and make more discoveries, we can serve the world’s energy needs for a while to come, even accounting for the fact that countries that currently do not use much energy (such as those in Africa) will most likely increase their energy usage.  It’s important to solve the population problem, but I think that alternative energy sources can buy us time to do that, and we are not necessarily destined for disaster.  Population is actually going down in many industrialized countries, so it is reasonable to guess that when currently nonindustrialized countries become industrialized, their populations will also decrease.  So it may be that the problem of population will in some sense solve itself.  Though, of course, we cannot assume that, and must apply the precautionary principle to the idea of choosing not to do anything active about overpopulation (and, in general, should apply to precautionary principle not only to projects we are considering starting, but also to continuing to do business as usual).

The Intersection of Environmental Justice with Race, Class, and Gender

In the documentary A Fierce Green Fire: The Battle for a Living Planet, civil rights activist James Farmer says, “If we do not save the environment, whatever we do in civil rights or the war on poverty will be of no meaning, because then we will have the equality of extinction.”  He makes a good point, but I think that environmental justice takes different forms depending on race, class, and gender, and that different categories of people are affected differently by environmental harm.

Around the middle of the film, we are told about a plan in 1982 to locate a hazardous landfill in Warren County, North Carolina.  At the time, the county was 75% black, yet had no black people on the County Commission.  This, to me, raises suspicion; was Warren County chosen as a location because the white people making the decision consciously or subconsciously valued black people less?  I think it is likely, though of course there is no way to prove it.  In any case, this was not an isolated occurrence.  Black people, and poor people, are often disproportionally affected by environmental hazards.

The US is not the only place where people of color are unfairly adversely affected by things like this.  It seems to be easier for companies to exploit or endanger people in developing countries (which are often non-white) than in developed ones (which are often white); those countries don’t have structures in place to resist that colonialism, and often have less strict regulations and labor laws.  However, companies certainly manage exploit and endanger people in developed countries, as well, and I am not sure of the extent of the disparity.  This was evidenced, to some extent, in the film Big Men; Kosmos was initially able to come in and profit from Ghanaian oil.  And would Dupont have been able to get away with what they did in Bhopal, India if they had done it in America instead?  I’m inclined to think not, although perhaps they would have, given how badly the Love Canal incident was handled.

Speaking of which, one thing I noticed while watching the Love Canal segment in A Fierce Green Fire was the phrasing used in the health department’s response to the health study the residents had done.  They dismissed it on the grounds of it having been “done by housewives with a vested interest.”  This derogatory use of the term "housewife" implies that they valued the study less because it had been done by women.

So, it seems clear that environmental justice issues intersect with issues of race, class, and gender.  One of the people featured in A Fierce Green Fire mentioned that Civil Rights and Environmental groups didn’t get together for a while, but hopefully now the intersections will be taken into account and the movements will join forces.  They will both be more powerful that way.

Different Judgments, Same Narrative

On page 95 of The Energy Reader,  authors Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner discuss the idea that there are two pervasive myths about the future in our society; the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse.

The first, they posit, is the idea that “human history… is a grand tale of human improvement” (Butler 95).  It is a belief that throughout human history, our species and the societies we create have been getting progressively better and better.  Humans used to be primitive and superstitious, this myth says, but then something changed and led us on the path to where we are now; civilized and have scientific knowledge that allows us to lead better lives and have a greater understanding of our world.  Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner further posit that the myth of progressed in predicated on the idea of limitlessness.  In the past, limits (such as that on the amount of energy available to us) gave way before us as we gain technological knowledge and skill, so the impending limits (on fossil fuel use, CO2 production, and population, to name a few) will give way as well as our knowledge increases, posit believers in the myth of progress. 

The myth of apocalypse, on the other hand, is a myth that “people once lived in harmony with their world, each other, and themselves, but that golden age ended with a disastrous wrong turning and things have gone downhill ever since.”  According to this myth, at some point, things changed and led us out of harmony and into a chaotic world where priorities are misplaced and people are frenzied and lonely.  Our society, posit believers in the myth of apocalypse, is on a collision course and will soon fail in an epic manner.

Neither of these myths are correct, say Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner.  Contrary to the tenets of the myth of progress, there truly are limits, and progress is not always good.  Also, our society did not actually change as radically over the centuries as believers of this myth think.  Progress is also not inevitable; when we run into limits, progress will slow down begin to move in the opposite direction.  On the other hand, our civilization will not crash and burn.  Yes, there will be famine and war, the authors say, and people will eventually be using technology of the level available before the industrial revolution, but society will remain intact.  Also, this regress will not happen immediately, but rather will take many decades.

What I find interesting is about these two myths is that in fact they are incredibly similar.  They have make different value judgments about what is right, and different beliefs about what is successful, but ultimately the narratives they describe are the same.  In both beliefs, life used to be simpler, people had less knowledge, and humans and nature had much closer interaction.  Then, something changed, and society became more complex, humanity conquered nature, we gained greater knowledge, our social mores changed, and individuals had greater opportunities.  And we are going to continue along this trajectory to its natural conclusion.

The disagreements, then, are about whether these things -- complexity, knowledge, dominion over nature, current social mores, and greater individual opportunity – are good or bad.  But neither belief questions whether these things are the case in the first place, and maybe that is the problem.  We tend to underestimate how advanced previous civilizations were, or, even when we recognize the complex of an ancient civilization, are surprised and consider it an anomaly.  But really, there were many complex ancient societies – and not just Western ones.  The Mayans, Egyptians, and Chinese come to mind.  As for dominion over nature, regardless of whether it’s good or bad, I don’t think we actually have it.  We may think we do, but massive destructive storms and impending climate change disprove that thought.  I recently watched a video that illustrated this fairly well – in a community meeting in Hawaii, several people of European descent argued for trying to divert a lava flow despite a poor track record of success with this technique, until native Hawaiians reminded them that lava doesn’t work that way – it’ll go wherever it goes and you can’t control it.

In conclusion, I think the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse, while seemingly opposites, actually share the same narrative as a premise.  I don’t think that this premise is accurate, however, which is why the myths’ predictions are not accurate. 

The Illusion of Limitlessness

In my last post, I discussed the phenomenon that brought us to our current state: the more energy was available to us, the more we used, and the more we grew to depend on having that level of energy.  But there is an additional, and, in my opinion, more dangerous, thing our energy usage patterns have taught us.  In addition to become accustomed to large amounts of energy, we also became accustomed to the fact that energy availability always increased.  As such, our societies and economies became based on the idea of growth.  On page 47 of The Energy Reader, its authors compared this practice to a global Ponzi scheme, and I think that comparison is accurate.

In addition to, or perhaps because of, our being accustomed to energy increase, our lifestyle is based on a general idea of limitlessness. We consider an economy to be successful when it is growing.  We constantly consume resources as though they are endless.  As Barbara Kingsolver says in her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, we seem to be a people allergic to limits.  This is expressed in many ways, and exists to differing degrees in different countries.  The US, from my observations, seems to be more afflicted by the idea of limitlessness than other countries.  Politically, the US places more value on concepts of freedom than do other countries, especially Europe.  In some ways this is good, as when we value individual rights, but in some senses it exemplifies an idea that everyone deserves to be able to do whatever they want, without regard to the negative consequences others will suffer.  Economically, we certainly buy into the delusion of capitalism that you are entitled to whatever you can buy, and limited only by inability to monetarily afford something.

People are beginning to realize that we are running out of money and other resources, but their proposed solutions still follow the narrative of limitlessness.  Some people (as evidenced by the Unbridled Energy summit in Louisville Kentucky, discussed on page 34 in The Energy Reader), are striving to find ways to getting the most energy we can out of existing sources of hydrocarbon-based fuel.  Others put their faith (which The Energy Reader points out as, ironically, unscientific) in solutions based on science and technology.  The solutions are based on the idea that if we just invest more energy, expertise, and innovative skill into the problem, we will solve it.  The issue there (at least, if we agree with The Energy Reader’s argument) is that word “more” – a problem created by assumptions of abundance cannot be solved by yet more abundance.  The way to solve the problem, then (at least according to The Energy Reader, is first to accept that we are limited.

Energy Availability

While I’m familiar with many of the concepts in The Energy Reader, it is teaching me new perspectives.  I had not previously thought of the agricultural revolution, or the industrial revolution, in terms of energy.  The concept of energy slaves is an important one.  We know that our current lifestyle requires a lot of energy, but when we think of how it came to be that way, we usually think that it is solely because of scientific and technological progress.  But, reading this book, I am now seeing the role that easy access to energy played in these lifestyle changes, and in population booms as well.

The book also discusses some of the political effects of energy availability.  It comments on how, in the pre-Civil-War era, Northern abolitionists could afford to be such because their access to carbon made them, in contrast to their Southern compatriots, not dependent on agriculture – and thus not dependent on slave labor.

I hypothesize, then, that energy availability and lack thereof has greatly shaped history over the past 12,000 years, and especially the past few centuries.  Agriculture enabled the development of cities and of armies, for instance.  I hypothesize also that societies that had access to large amounts of energy also possessed power, and had military and technological advantages over those that did not.  I am interested in looking at history through the lens of energy availability and learning more about this.

The ideas presented in The Energy Reader are similar to those presented in Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.  In that book, the author also discusses the development of our current society, and frames things in terms of a cultural shift from “Leavers” to “Takers.”  He pins the impetus for this change on the development of agriculture.  However, after looking at this from the perspective of energy availability, maybe it was not a large cultural shift, but that people simply became Takers because now they had the ability to take that they had not previously had.

There were several lines in The Energy Reader that made me pause or stuck out to me as important, especially this one: “With the dawn of the fossil fuel age, the average person was able to command amounts of energy previously available only to kings and commanders of armies.”  This really brings into clear focus the reasons for the rapid societal and technological changes that had occurred within the past century, and especially the past few years.  And now, ironically, that power is endangering its own source.

Chapter 17 - Work and Leisure

Though I have only recently begun thinking about the cultural and structural systems of work in America, I’ve long thought that the cultural and structural systems of schooling are deeply problematic and unhealthy.  Work for its own sake is unhealthily glorified in the US.  I think that this may come from the culture of the Puritans and others who first settled America.  The narrative is that work is virtuous, and that it will lead to the American Dream.  In the Puritans’ situation this made sense; they were trying to farm and settle a new land, and their work enabled their endeavor to succeed.  However, this value of work ethic has morphed into something different in the current age. 

Work is necessary for many things to happen – for us to obtain food and shelter, to educate young people, and many other things.  But viewing work as a virtue for its own sake leads to a society where people devalue their health, relationships, well-being, and communities, and instead through themselves into work that may or may not need to actually be done.  I am not saying that we should be lazy and sit around watching TV all day – I think that would be very detrimental both to individuals and society.  Humans certainly should be doing things – and thinking and creating – but work as it is currently structured is probably not the best way.  Ironically, people are so overworked that when they finally have a moment of free time, they often only have the energy to sit and watch TV.

The phrase “free time” itself should alert us to the destructive and problematic nature of our current work structure.  Shouldn’t all of our time be “free?”  Who owns this time of ours?  And why are we okay with them owning it?

We are taught that work must be this way, and that it is somewhat expected that one will not particularly enjoy one’s work,  but that the work must be done in order to obtain money for food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment.  But what if there were a different way to obtain these things?  Maybe not Marxist communism, exactly, but some form of restructuring so that people had access to what they need and want in life, and freedom to pursue what they enjoy and feel is worthwhile, without the having to match one’s interests with the tasks that those who already have money value.

From what I have seen, it seems that most Americans, regardless of place on the socioeconomic scale, are struggling financially.  Even families with high incomes and large houses are struggling to make ends meet, because of increased expenditures such as university education and mortgages.  Why is this the case?  Are people compelled to spend so much that they are on always on the brink, regardless of how much money they have?  If so, is someone or something deliberately compelling them or has it happened by chance?  Either way, there is something clearly problematic about this.  In addition, it means that people are under constant stress, both in striving to make ends meet and in ensuring that they continue to do well in their jobs, because otherwise, their family will be in a lot of financial trouble.

I think we need to change the way work is structured, because I think there are better, healthier, and more meaningful ways for people to contribute to our world than the way we currently structure work.

Chapter 15 - Human Enhancement

A lot of interesting questions were raised in this chapter.  Woodhouse states that he doesn’t want humans to become something that isn’t human.  But where exactly is this line?  On page 206, he writes, “…if it became routine for people to live 150 years or more, I’d have to acknowledge that something pretty significant had changed.”  But hasn’t something pretty significant already changed, given that current life expectancy in the US is around 75 years?  At one point, humans used to live only around 30 years.

I am also uncomfortable with too much human enhancement, but it’s difficult to say why.  I’m concerned about what the effects on humanity and culture would be.  I’m thinking of stories like Gattacca, where parents choose their children’s genes, and children who are conceived accidentally become second-class citizens barred from many opportunities.  There is also much potential for people who are already rich and privileged to obtain human enhancements, while leaving others as they are, widening the already huge difference between “haves” and “have-nots.”  In fact, considering that we are currently unable to ensure that everyone has food and clean water, it’s certain that distribution of human enhancement would be unfair.

Also, what would enhancement do to the human experience?  Computers, cell phones, and the internet have restructured our lives in significant ways.  Many of these ways are positive, in that they allow us to communicate and coordinate more easily.  But other ways are negative – they encourage people to forsake face-to-face interaction, and they negatively affect people’s ability to focus (permanently, if the person is very young).  They cause people to dissociate with real life and with sensory stimuli.  I take a weekly 25-hour break from electronics as per the rules of the religion I’m part of, but most people to don’t have that sort of structure to align to (or worse, don’t even realize the detriments of being constantly connected to electronics).  Electronics are becoming more and more present in every moment of our lives, first with smartphones and now with Google Glass.  Soon, people may decide that they want implants, and I think that that would be very bad.  I think there is a great deal of value to the ability to interact with our environment without anything acting as an intermediary or distraction.

The situation, however, is different for those for whom an intermediary is necessary; that is, people with disabilities.  If a bionic eye or brain implant could help a blind person to see, I think that would be good.  However, my conviction on this makes me question my earlier conviction – have a simply selected an “appropriate” level of human ability (the one we are at right now) and declared that anything beyond that is not okay?  I’m not sure. 

Our lives have changed greatly in the millennia that homo sapiens has existed, to the point that someone from 10,000 BCE likely would not consider our current lifestyle as a human lifestyle according to how they understand it.  But I believe a line is crossed when we go from external things that affect our lives to things that are part of our physical bodies.  Because we can still choose to get away from our modern conveniences and go backpacking in the woods.  However, even so, our brains have been affected by the lifestyles we lead, so maybe we are already, for better or for worse, enhanced humans.

Chapter 14: Can Technoscientists Promote Fairness?

This chapter mostly discussed previously introduced concepts, but brought up some new insights as well.  Among these was the idea that researchers “may believe that the poor simply need more money so that they can afford the benefits of technoscience, they do not need different scientific research or technological R&D.”  I wish this idea had been fleshed out more fully.  I’d be interested in learning about examples of this.  In the area of product design, perhaps there should be more research focused on how to make certain things more cheaply.  Though I think this already happens, but it is done for the benefit of the company producing the product rather than for poor consumers.  A better angle to focus on, however, might be things that are necessary but very expensive, such a medical devices.  For instance, engineering students at Virginia Commonwealth University created a very cheap operating table, consisting of wooden boards nailed to a fairly simple movable frame.  The table was adjustable by hand, rather than with foot pedals and an electronic system.  This table was designed for use in a third-world country, but what if it was used here in America?  That change alone would probably significantly reduce health care costs, thus making health care accessible to far more people.

However, I don’t think that affluent patients would accept having operations on such simple tables.  Would the response to this be a stratification of patients and equipment, similar to ships with first class, second class, and steerage?  This would potentially spawn far more problems, including but not limited to the potential for neglecting the lowest stratum of patients (in terms of sanitation, time, and quality of care) and the reification and perhaps intensification of socioeconomic inequality.  Finding a different way to structure health care payment (such as publicly funded health care) would probably be a better way to solve health care inequality, but I want to find a way to make use of ideas such as the simple operating table, as well.  I believe there is potential to combine governmental/economic ideas such as publicly funded health care with technoscientific innovations such as the simple table to create solutions that are successful and do not create too many additional problems.  I hope technoscientific researchers, government officials, and others in relevant fields can work on creating these solutions.  I would like to be one of those people as well, though I haven’t yet decided what form that will take.

The next insight that I found intriguing was, “Technoscientists do not directly design economic opportunity structures… but their work has been crucial in changing the kinds of jobs available – a process in which some win and some lose.”  As with the quote I discussed above, I would be interested in learning about examples of this.  Perhaps Woodhouse is referring to the phenomenon of robots’ doing work that was previously done by humans, thus leaving those humans with fewer job prospects.  I am wondering if there are other phenomena to which Woodhouse is referring. 

Perhaps more technoscientific innovation means more jobs in technoscientific research.  That is, when a topic is explored and researched, scientists gain awareness of new directions in which to delve further into the topic, thus theoretically creating new jobs in scientific research.  However, as far as I am aware, while this may create new potential jobs, it does not actually cause there to be a larger number of jobs, most likely due to limited funding.  However, if the funding were unlimited (or far less limited than it currently is) and there were therefore jobs available in every possible area of scientific inquiry, what effect would that have on society?  There were be no limit to the number of people who could become scientists, so I think that far more would.  Additionally, students would be encouraged to go into science, perhaps through more resources being directed toward science education.  If the demand were high enough (and the barrier for attending college were lowered either by increased financial aid or generally decreased tuition), perhaps many people who would otherwise be working in menial jobs would become scientists.  This would both enable those people to find greater fulfillment, and would also lead to more scientific research.  But where would this money come from?  Well, John Maynard Keynes said that the economy can be stimulated when the government pays people to work, even if they’re only digging holes in the ground.  So perhaps, the fact that so many people were employed would provide the money to pay them.

I’m not sure how well this would work or whether it’s even  a good idea (with  so many scientists, the need to be careful with technoscientific innovation would be even greater!), but it is one potential way to do things differently, as well as a potential interpretation of Woodhouse’s statement (though I don’t think this is what he was referring to).

In addition to noticing these insights the text, another concept occurred to me as I was reading the chapter.  As admirable and good as it is to want to help disadvantaged people in the world, I think there’s something imperialist about people (especially white people) raised in relative wealth going into another country and trying to fix things for the poor people who live there (and the same concept probably applies within America as well).  It smacks of Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden,” and presumes that white Americans know better how to fix the problems in an unfamiliar environment better than the people who actually live with those problems and in that environment.  In some ways, it takes the ability of those people to fix the problems themselves.  However, those people often don’t have the resources to fix the problems on their own.  I’m not sure what the role of Americans should be.  Maybe it could be to provide resources, training, and supplemental help in a way that empowers people to heal and improve their own communities and countries. 

Materialism: is it really so bad?

Chapter 11 was about overconsumption.  But what defines “over” consumption, anyway?  Materialism certainly seems like a negative trait in a person, country, or community, but is it?  Woodhouse quotes David Orr, who mentions that one of the factors that has contributed to American materialism and overconsumption is “the extraordinary bounty of North America.”  I think this is a very interesting insight.  However, is it morally incorrect to take or appreciate all of the bounty that one can obtain?  If you are taking it from others, that is a problem, but if not, is it immoral?  I don’t think so.

What does overconsumption really mean, and why is it so problematic?  When it negatively affects the environment (such as when it depletes resources), that is not good.  When people are taking things away from others (or driving up prices so that others cannot afford those things), that is not good.  Perhaps it is also not good to have a mindset of trying to obtain all that one can, as it can make one prone to doing the above bad things.  Perhaps it can also cause one to devalue things like family and community, and can erode their values.  On a societal level, is it possible that materialism caused many of the inequalities and problems that we now face?

On the other hand, if one has abundance and bounty, is it a sin to appreciate and take all that one is offered?  Is there something noble in refusing something just for the sake of refusing it?  If the refusal does not mean that the thing goes to someone else, in a way it scorns those who have less.  There may be value in teaching oneself to be satisfied with less, as this is a necessary skill, but if one has the good fortune not to need to develop this skill, I believe one should take advantage of and appreciate what one has.

That being said, the reality is that overconsumption often does cause real problems, and a cultural shift away from it may be very good.  How can we cause that to happen?  There are certain troubling tendencies related to this in American culture.  For one, people are adverse to owning or buying things that are old.  People will buy a replacement for something old (often spending a lot of money to do so) simply because that thing is old, not because it is broken.  I find this to be incredibly wasteful, and also demonstrating a lack of appreciation for what one has.  In a sense, this is the opposite of what I said in the previous paragraph, but perhaps it is not.  Perhaps what I am opposed to in both instances is a lack appreciation for what one has or is offered. 

Engineering as a Political Activity (Chapter 12)

This chapter offered an interesting perspective; that is, the idea that things can be political without relating to elected and appointed government officials.  I agree with Woodhouse that engineering and technoscientific innovation are forms of politics.  As Woodhouse says, the decisions engineers make often affect our daily lives far more than do the decisions of elected officials.

One of my classmates mentions in her blog, sts-blog.tumblr.com, that Woodhouse seems to present two conflicting ideas; one that technoscientific innovation shapes society and political decision-making, and the other that the reverse is true.  However, I don't think that this is a contradiction; I think that both affect one another.  Government (both legislature and bureaucracy), business, technoscience, social movements, consumers, and culture all affect one another.  I think this course has been teaching us about the interplay and interconnectedness of all of those factors.

I think it's an interesting and good idea to conceptualize engineering as a political activity, because then we can better analyze engineering decisions.  Also, it implies accountability on the part of engineers, and that is a good thing.  That is, when we say that engineers make political decisions, we are telling them that they are responsible for the decisions that they make in innovation.

However, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the most accurate analogy.  I think Woodhouse's military analogy works better, particularly with respect to accountability.  Both engineers and military officers struggle with the dilemma of choosing whether to follow orders they don't agree with (or, unfortunately, may not even ask themselves whether or not they agree), though I daresay private sector engineers have less at stake as they can't be court-martialed.

This chapter connects to and builds on other concepts; who is accountable for what?  And what is accountability, really?  I'm not sure that this chapter brought much new material to the table; I feel that we have already learned and discussed the concepts in this chapter.

However, there were two concepts that I found new and interesting.  One was that farming technologies have "inexorably reduced the number of persons who could continue farming as a way of life."  I hadn't thought about it that way before, and I'm grateful for the new perspective.  This is yet more support for the organic/local/sustainable farming movement.

The other thing I found intriguing was the sentence, "Most generally, engineers as a whole have contributed to a pace of innovation that pretty clearly is ill-suited to the relatively slow pace of human learning and adaptation."  While this is a concept that Woodhouse has alluded to previously, he usually raises it a question.  This is the first time he has stated it this clearly and directly.  It's a very thought-provoking idea.  When I think about it, I am not sure whether I agree, and yet it resonates with me.  While I've often thought that modern life is too fast-paced, I didn't really connect that to the fast pace of innovation.  I'd also never thought of human learning and adaption as slow-paced.  I suppose the prevailing view is that it isn't, and perhaps that's the problem.  Perhaps we are all having a hard time feeling caught up with all of the new technologies in our lives.  Come to think of it, technology is much, much faster paced now than in pretty much any other period of human history, to my knowledge.  And each technological innovation changes our lives in significant ways.  As Woodhouse mentioned, the prevalence of cars completely changed our built environment, which in turn greatly restricts people's ability to get around without cars (thus reinforcing the system).  And a little more than 100 years ago, we did not even have cars; that's how quickly life has changed.  In addition, cell phones and the internet have both greatly changed the way humans interact with one another, and how they interact.  The internet's organizational power has enabled people with similar interests and backgrounds to connect, share ideas, and meet up.  But the internet has also isolated people.  Perhaps the fast pace of innovation is why so many people in the developed world are lonely, disaffected, or depressed.

I think it would be interesting to further explore the effects of techoscientific innovation and change on society, and explore ways to utilize this potential.

Economic Innovation

I don’t really like the Democratic wholesalers idea.  Who gets to decide what’s best?  Does everyone in the country vote?  If it does, what if I don’t like the outcome?  Woodhouse gives the example of only buying polyester rather than cotton.  But what if I do my own research, and decide that I like cotton better than polyester?  I can vote, but if I lose, I can’t buy cotton.  And what about people who don’t just have a preference, but a need for a specific thing?  For instance, what about someone who is allergic to polyester?

I’m also not sure how it would work.  Not all commerce is done through wholesalers.  Would it become illegal to sell things without going through Democratic Wholesalers?  That idea makes me uncomfortable.  What if Democratic Wholesalers were to become corrupt?  I don’t like giving one group that much power.  Though it’s true that there are many entities in our current world that have a lot of power.

It’s interesting to consider what would happen were this system implemented.  I think people would become much more informed about the products they buy, since they need to vote on them.  Though maybe not, since people aren’t terribly informed about the political issues on which the currently vote.  I think a black market might emerge for the products that Democratic Wholesalers won’t buy.  It would be interesting to see what that would look like.  Because it would be illegal, advertising might be difficult (though maybe not, given the internet).

That said, I understand why it’s important to rethink our economic system.  I don’t think the heavy-handed Democratic Wholesalers idea is a good one, but maybe there could be another way.  The market system does not seem to be very effective at creating outcomes that are good for society, health, and the environment, since decisions are mostly made at the top, rather than coming from the bottom up.  Maybe there could be a modified Democratic Wholesalers system, wherein Democratic Wholesalers makes most of the decisions, but consumers still have freedom to deviate.  Maybe Democratic Wholesalers could choose what products were featured most prominently on store shelves, or gives discounts to certain products, while still allowing other products to be in the store.

Trial and Error

I’m wondering how trial and error might be done.  Professor Woodhouse mentions nuclear reactors, saying “The industry was inflexible, in part because billions of dollars had to be expended before a reactor generated a single kilowatt of electricity.”  Given that, how could more trial and error have been done?

My instinct here is to say that it could not, but I realize that that is legacy thinking and that people instinctively defend the way things already are.  So, how could the industry be more flexible and allow for trial and error?

I’m not sure.  Maybe smaller reactors?  Woodhouse mentions this.  Or what about making one reactor, and testing it?  Perhaps there should have been tests done to see what happens when there is no electricity, with many people on hand to deal with the damage.  The issue with that is that the test itself would have been very dangerous, but I think that only betrays how dangerous the reactors are.  Maybe there could have been simulations.  But honestly, I’m not sure that the problem with the Fukoshima reactors was that there hadn’t been effective trial and error.  I think the problems could have been predicted, but people didn’t think through things well enough.  It seems to me that people rarely do.

I think Woodhouse makes a good point about flexibility.  When a technology is inflexible, it’s difficult to change things when we discover that things are going badly.

A concern I have about the idea of trial-and-error is that I don’t think we necessarily know how something is going to go until we do it.  How can we fix this?  Instead of going to something large-scale right away, we can increase the scale little by little, testing to see whether it’s working.

I suppose that Woodhouse would say that if we can’t effectively use trial and error for something, we should err on the side of caution and not do it.  I do agree with the precautionary principle, but I don’t know if it should apply here.  Are there situations in which it makes sense to do something even when we can’t effectively try it out (or we can’t try it out enough to get a lot of information)?  I think there might, but I think those situations should be the exception, not the rule.  In general, I think there should be more trial and error done.  However, I think a lot of problems are caused not by a lack of knowledge about the harmful effects of something, but about people not caring (or not caring enough to fix them).  Would trial and error have made a difference in the case of the Ford Pinto?  Ford already knew what the problems were, and did not care.  Of course, if they had cared, trial and error would still have saved lives.

Atrazine, the Pinto, and Companies that Fight for What isn't Right

A friend of mine recently showed me an article about a pesticide containing a chemical called atrazine, and the company that makes it.  Tyrone Hayes, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has been doing research on atrazine, and has found that it causes hermaphroditism in frogs.  Theorizing that it could potentially have similar effects on humans, Hayes has been battling with Syngenta.  The company, instead of acknowledging the problems with atrazine and searching for safer alternatives, has launched campaigns to discredit Hayes and his work.

The situation described bears unmistakable resemblance to that described in the 1977 article Pinto Madness.  Syngenta tries to deflect attention from the problems with its product, as did Ford.  The methods aren’t identical; whereas Ford tried to direct focus away from the problems with the Pinto by blaming drivers and roads, Syngenta tries to call into question the research and data analysis methods of Hayes and other researchers.  Both call for more studies, so that they can postpone the consequences.  Both have been sued, and both choose to weather the negative attention rather than change something.  They both use the argument that the economy will be negatively affected if their product is taken off the market.

Of course, in the case of the Pinto, changing things would not have been difficult.  Small, cheap safety features could have been added that would have done a lot to reduce the number of cars that were going up in flame.  For Syngenta, though, it doesn’t seem that there is an alternative.  Additionally, Syngenta claims that without atrazine, corn production in the US would fall drastically, so it is necessary that atrazine remain in use.  More frighteningly, it was found that Syngenta’s communications manager had written in her journal that they shouldn’t phase out atrazine until they’d found out more about paraquat, another Syngenta product that could potentially be even more harmful than atrazine.  She also wrote that the atrazine controversy focused people’s attention away from Syngenta’s other products.

Why do companies go to such great lengths and expenses to keep from being regulated?  Either of these companies could be on the leading edge of safe technological innovation, but instead they choose not only to lag behind, but to firmly entrench their feet.  Maybe they think that this is the most cost-effective strategy.  I’m not sure it is, though – they’re competing with many other companies, but they could distinguish themselves by being safe or being environmentally friendly.  Though they may have a mindset that regulation and environmental/safety concerns are fundamentally anti-business.

Also, it’s easier just to stay on the current track.  To redefine their priorities and values would mean a complete overhaul of the whole way that the companies function.  There would be more variables to take into account.  The company would have to clearly outline how decisions were to be made, something that would be difficult to do.  It wouldn’t be easy to prioritize both health and profits; when the two come into conflict, how does the company decide how to proceed?  If they deprioritize profits, the company might go bankrupt.  Perhaps the executives of these companies feel that they have no choice if they want their company to continue to exist.

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t they welcome regulation?  With regulation, they can turn to safer practices without worrying that their competition is using more profitable ones.  Maybe they distrust regulation, since it takes power away from them.  Maybe their resistance to regulation is on principle.

And yet, the company spends so much time, energy, and money on resisting regulation, when they could be putting that money into R&D.  Although I think my above reasons are plausible, I think there might be something else going on.  I think it may be that at some level they realize that no matter how safe and environmentally friendly they make their products, cars will always be dangerous and pesticides always harmful.  Eventually, people will move in some other direction, such as trains (rather than cars) and organic farming (rather than pesticide use).  They don’t want that day to come, so they want to slow progress toward this as much as possible.  But is it working?  The harmful effects of pesticides only help environmentalists and proponents of organic farming gain traction.

I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but I think that it’s a combination of legacy thinking, an insistence on the idea that a company cannot be profitable if it is mindful of safety and environmental concerns, and a harmful prioritization of money over any other concerns.

What does the environmental movement think about this?  It seems that it focuses on encouraging organic farming, but not so much on safer pesticides.  Maybe they feel this approach is more effective, or that it is better to promote an ideal solution than an intermediate one.  But is it?  Shouldn’t the goal be to mitigate as much harm as possible?  This isn’t the only case where this thinking occurs; the environmental movement is against hydrofracturing (commonly known as fracking), despite it being a method for extracting natural gas, which is a less harmful energy source than petroleum.  Does the environmental movement often prioritize what feels “natural” (such as organic farming) over technologies (such as non-harmful pesticides) that could benefit the environment more?  Is there a tension between these ideals?  If there is, maybe that causes the environmental movement not to pressure the EPA for regulation that would lead to safer pesticides, and that is part of the problem.

What is a consumer supposed to make of these things?  Can we trust companies to have our best interests in mind?  It does not seem like we can.  But how widespread is this perception, and what effect does it have on the companies?  It doesn’t seem like it is very widespread.  Companies can do things to affect their images, such advertising campaigns touting the company’s commitment to safety and environmental well-being.  But how does a company prove that they are actually delivering?  Advertisements for specific safety features in cars can probably be believed, since we know that the company actually put that feature in the car.  Vague statements about the prioritization of safety, on the other hand, are less believable. 

Why did people continue to buy the Pinto, despite the danger involved?  In The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance by Russell Roberts, the author argues that individuals deserve the autonomy to make their own decisions.  Adults, Roberts argues, should be allowed to weigh the risks and benefits themselves and choose a low price over safety.  But this assumes that customers were fully aware of the problems with the Pinto.  Were they?  How much of what was happening behind the scenes was known to potential buyers?  How much information does a consumer need to have in order for it to be a responsible decision to allow them to make the choice?  That is, they are adults, but if they're under a false impression that something is safe, it's not the same kind of choice.  Also, do we want a society in which everything is dangerous and individuals need to make those decisions?  A consumer in such a society can never relax and simply purchase something; they must always worry that what they are purchasing is dangerous.  A lack of regulation leads to a lack of security.  Some people argue that regulation restricts freedom, but I think that the opposite is true.

At this point, consumers do not have much information, and do not have many choices.  I think that what we need is more regulation, more information, and more innovation.  I do not know how we should go about achieving these outcomes, but an awareness of the problems is an important first step.

Why do we use toxic products?

The other day, a friend of mine sent me an article about thieves who had stolen metal from a contaminated power plant and sold it to a scrap metal yard.  The metal from the plant contains a carcinogenic chemical, and the thieves were hosed down after their arrest.  An employee who had his clothes taken from him and was sent home in what was essentially a hazmat suit was worried about bringing home the toxins to his three young children.

The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of the products we regularly interact with contain carcinogens, as well.  The plastic in the computer I am typing on and possible flame retardant in the clothes I am wearing are off-gassing harmful chemicals into the air I am breathing.  And, of course, the bus I am riding on is spewing plenty of nasty chemicals out of its tailpipe.

So, why are we so careful in the one instance and yet so careless in the other?  My guess is that in this particular case, the chemical from the power plant might have a strong immediate effect.  On the other hand, off-gassing toxins from ordinary household items won’t kill you right away; they’ll build up in your system over many years and potentially cause cancer and other ill effects.  In short, they’re easier to ignore.

When a company makes a defective product, consumers will often file a lawsuit against the company.  However, if someone gets cancer from the accumulated effects of a lifetime of toxic products, they can’t say that any single company caused it.  Thus, they wouldn’t win the case, and the companies aren’t forced to change.

But what about government regulations?  This one puzzles me.  There are consumer safety lobbying groups, but from the results (or lack thereof) I infer that this issue isn’t a priority of theirs.  Why?

I think that people resist believing that commonly used goods contain (and off-gas) so many harmful chemicals.  This is surprising, considering how many harmful production practices we’ve caught and stopped over the years – such as muckrakers’ reports of early-20^th-century meat-packing plants.  But I think people believe we have now reached an age where such things are behind us.  People look back at history and marvel at the actions of those in the past, and often believe that they took those actions because they were in the past.  That is to say, I think that many people believe that we are in an era not only of greater technoscientific knowledge, but also of greater morality.  I theorize that this may be one of the reasons why people are unwilling to believe that companies could still be manufacturing toxic products.

Also, I think it’s difficult to believe that it is so pervasive.  Even though I know about this both from our textbook and, in more depth, from the book Cradle to Cradle, it’s still difficult to internalize.  It feels as though, if this is as pervasive a problem as it’s presented as, someone would have done something about it.  Or, at least, more people would be talking about it.  But I think that one major thing is that most people are not aware of it.  People have heard of lead and asbestos, but how many people have heard of BPA, phthalates, or parabens?  Not many.

In the text, Professor Woodhouse implies that it is mostly legacy thinking that causes the problem of toxic products – what he terms Brown Chemistry.  However, I think it is more about lack of awareness than anything else.  What can be done about this?  PSA campaigns, perhaps?  Or we can find out how lead and asbestos were brought to people’s attention, and copy those methods.  Social media and traditional media (such as TV) could also be ways to make people more aware.

The other problem, I think, is that because the problem is pervasive, it seems unsolvable, at least by someone whose career does not involve solving these problems.  The average person can’t simply stop buying all conventionally made products and switch over to solely environmentally friendly and healthy products, at least without great effort and intention.  When someone walks into the stores they normally shop at, they find conventional products.  Given this, I think people find it easier to ignore the problem than to acknowledge and think about the fact that they and their loved ones are ingesting toxic chemicals on a daily basis.  It’s too stressful a thing to think about, and people have enough on their minds.  Similarly, I think many people know by know about the horrid working conditions of the people in China and other places who create iPhones and other toys of the developed world, but people are at a loss as to what to actually do about it, and so they block it out.

If more companies created environmentally friendly and non-toxic products, advertised them and made them more available, I think people would buy them, especially if they were informed of the dangers of conventional products.  Some companies are already doing this, such as Ecovative Design, a company started by RPI alumni that grows packaging from mushrooms.  Hopefully we will see more of this in the future.  Also, if there were a list of environmentally friendly and healthy brands and products, or perhaps a website where people could search in different categories, it would make it easier.  In addition, public policy needs to change and regulations need to be put in place, perhaps by raising awareness among consumer advocates and by instituting a system by which companies can benefit from creating healthy products.  I am interested to read what Professor Woodhouse’s suggestions are for fixing this problem.