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.