Post 22

In this post I will argue that for a wiser technofuture to be possible, education needs to change, innovation needs to slow, and overall unintended consequences need to be reduced. It should be no surprise to anyone that education is probably the most important thing to ensure a better future. If the education is poor, future generations will suffer, and as a result, the overall growth of the world will stagnate and lead to job loss and a broken system. Similarly, if innovation continues on its current pace or speeds up even more, then inequalities between various peoples will continue and social, political, and religious issues will continue to divide people and nations. Also, if the innovations produced continue to have numerous unintended consequences, more problems will develop and society will continue on its current path.

Education is key to understanding how the world works. Without receiving a good education, it is very unlikely that you will succeed or do well in this world. But, what about the kids who are not doing so well in life despite attending school? This means that the education system is flawed and it needs thoughtful change. In this rapidly changing world where people of different origins and diverse backgrounds are coming into contact and interaction, it is important that schools teach about various cultures so at the very least, a mutual respect or understanding is there between future generations.  In society today, we often see white children picking on Muslim children for their religious coverings or beliefs and mutual respect is almost nonexistent. However, these issues go beyond just our children because adults discriminate against cultures or peoples they do not understand, so the problem is actually more serious.

Many consumers and people in general have noticed that innovation, especially technological, has been increasing at a rapid rate. At one point, just a few years ago, smartphone buyers were able to say that the phone they bought 2 years ago is still the best on the market. Nowadays, a newer, more powerful smartphone is released every 6 months or so, which leads to overconsumption and growing frustration amongst buyers. As futurist Ray Kurzweil states, "We won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21^st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). Just think about how much things have changed in the past 10 years—wireless internet, smart phones, Facebook and Twitter—and then try to imagine how vastly different things will be in 2021, or even 2100” (1).

If the pace of innovation is slowed or stagnated at the current rate, perhaps more trial and error testing would prevent unintended consequences that result from the fast pace of technological innovation. For example, the “antenna gate” of the iPhone 4 could have been prevented with more trial and error testing. “Antenna gate” was the name given to iPhone 4 users who reported that signal strength of the phone was reduced when touching the lower left edge of the phone, bridging one of the two locations which separates the two antennas, resulting in dropped calls in some areas with lower signal reception (2).

Sources

"Big Idea: Technology Grows Exponentially | Big Think." Big Think. 26 Mar. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://bigthink.com/think-tank/big-idea-technology-grows-exponentially>.

"IPhone 4." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4#Antenna

Post 21

In this post I will argue that the R&D of technology has led to an imbalance in work life and leisure life and creates health problems. Those who work understand that employers require workers to be flexible with their schedules. This often means working from home (for those who have remote access or are given a “work” computer) and working crazy hours. But, what is more alarming is that despite increased hours and expected flexibility, wages have not really increased over the years. In fact, wage growth is virtually absent compared to the past. As James Pethokoukis writes, “Not so good was take-home pay. Where is the wage growth? Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by just 3 cents to $24.57, meaning that over the year earnings have risen by just 2.0%, barely above inflation” (1). This means that workers are not being compensated for an increase in work hours with a raise in pay.

More and more workers are given laptops to allow mobility and flexibility, and this has translated to an expectation amongst employers that they will work from home and off site. Many times, this encourages workers to continue into late hours of the night when they should relax and spend time with family. When people feel tired of work they then “relax” by watching TV, catching up on the latest social media, or texting friends and family. This means more exposure to electronics and increased “screen time”. The obvious health issues such as tired and dry eyes, inability to sleep and sore thumbs and hands is a direct result of this imbalanced lifestyle that we have come to know in America. According to Woodhouse, “Employees in the U.S. work many more hours than do their counterparts in most European countries” (3).

The invention of the smartphone has also caused many unintended consequences for its users. For example, many employers now expect their employees to use their smartphones, or company smartphones to keep up with email and other work related activities. Which means that an escape from technology and “screen time” is harder and harder with the research and development of technology. Part of the problem is that we are usually sitting when using things like laptops, tablets and smartphones, which leads to a lack of physical activity. Therefore, in some aspects, increased use of technology is feeding obesity.

Sources

"October Employment Report: Jobs Are Up, but Wages Are Going Nowhere." AEI. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://www.aei.org/publication/raise-another-jobs-report-wage-growth-nowhere-found/>.

O'Connor, Chad. "Screen Time Rules, for the Adult Set." Boston.com. The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://www.boston.com/business/blogs/global-business-hub/2013/09/screen_time_rul.html>.

Science, Technology and Society Textbook

Post 20

In this post I will argue that the R&D in weaponry has made warfare more lethal and the consequences of warfare go beyond death. It is no secret that in the last decade, a major shift in weaponry has occurred, and as a result warfare has changed. Before, soldiers would fight hand-to-hand and be on the battlefield out in the open. If we look back at the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, soldiers would literally line up in front of each other and shoot without cover. Since then, we have seen many changes in how soldiers fight. In the Vietnam War, we saw a change to guerilla tactics and fighting behind cover. Similarly, in the Gulf War and early stages of the War on Terror, these tactics were used. However, in recent years, heavy investment in weaponry R&D has lead to the introduction of sophisticated fighter jets, bombers, and even drones.

The onset of fighter jets, bombers, and drones in warfare has led to more casualties and in fact, most of the increase is probably due to the high number of civilians caught in the crosshairs. Fighter jets, bombers, and drones were created with the purpose to protect soldiers by reducing the number of ground troops and “destroying targets with high accuracy and efficiency”. The “high efficiency” case is possibly true, however, “high accuracy” can be debated. After all, what good are drones if they cause so much unnecessary damage in terms of human lives and destruction of homes?

The development of the atomic bomb is in many ways similar to the push for drones and mechanized warfare. The theory behind it is that less human lives would be lost, less actual warfare, and thus more money saved. But, history tells us otherwise. Hiroshima and Fukushima were complete disasters because they wiped out entire cities taking innocent people, homes, and essentially a whole generation in Japan. The effects have been more lasting because of the radiation that remains from the bombs in certain places. The bomb in general has taken terrorism to a new level and has many unintended consequences.

Through smarter trial and error learning and testing, hopefully R&D in weaponry can limit the extent of harm caused to innocent people and actually serve its purpose of developing smarter and more accurate tools of warfare. Many of the unintended consequences that have occurred from R&D in weaponry should and could have been prevented.

Sources

"Atomic Bomb." HISTORY. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/atomic-bomb>.

Post 19

In this post I will argue that transhumanism has many benefits, however it can be controversial and cause unrest amongst various communities and religions. By definition, according to the Woodhouse text, it is, “aiming for a future when human capacities are so transformed that as to constitute a new stage of the species’ evolution” (206). Obviously, there are varying opinions on how far this thought should be implemented. For example, there are the radicals who believe that death itself should become obsolete for humans but others are satisfied with the prospect of disease-free humans.

Ray Kurzweil, inventor of speech recognition software, believes that we are not far from a future where artificial intelligence will be superior to a human brain. He also believes that through a combination of nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and computer technology, the mind, body, and machine will become one. In many aspects, this satisfies the radicals’ view of transhumanism. This would mean that there would be fewer deficiencies and more capabilities in every “human”. What these ideas and estimates of when artificial intelligence will surpass humans frightens many religious conservatives and luddites. As Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, puts it: "This affirmation of human potential is offered as an alternative to customary injunctions against playing God, messing with nature, tampering with our human essence, or displaying punishable hubris" (NPR). Meaning that transhumanism would lead to serious gaps between cultures in terms of radical transhumanists and others who are not se keen.

Recently, I read an article on NPR that spoke about transhumanism and whether or not science should/could end humanity, as we know it. Adam Frank, author of the article writes, “Well, more than human. We become the next step in evolution — and that will mean humanity, as we know it, will come to an end. What comes next will be a new post-human era” (NPR). However, the real question is, even under the most optimistic scenario where a post-human transformation is available to everyone regardless of race, creed or economic status, is it still a good idea? Is actively developing technologies to put us at a lower intellectual level to future post-human beings ethical? What would be the unintended consequences of doing this? Would humans become extinct due to evolution? All these questions raise valid points and before humans set out to develop the transhumanist theory, extensive trial and error testing should be done.

Sources

Frank, Adam. "Should Science End Humankind?" NPR. NPR, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/11/17/364619831/should-science-end-humankind>.

Science, Technology and Society Textbook 

Post 18

In this post I will argue that technoscientists should and can do more to help the less fortunate. This includes poorer nations and individuals who are suffering from inequity in every aspect of their lives. Instead of wasting millions of dollars on making the latest game system, why not invest millions of dollars in a developing country or third world country to help facilitate economic growth and improve the quality of life for the people?

It is no secret that the US government spends the most money on military might than any other country in the world. World military expenditure in 2012 is estimated to have reached $1.756 trillion and the USA is responsible for 39 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the China (9.5% of world share), Russia (5.2%), UK (3.5%) and Japan (3.4%). Although for most of 2000’s the US was in a war against terrorists in the Middle East, it does not justify the Pentagon's total appropriation for war from 2001-2011 in current dollars, which was $1.4 trillion. The Department of Defense was also allocated additional funds for its "base" budget that approximately totals another $836 billion. You may ask what difference would one twenty fifth of the ten-year war budget create? Well, only $30 billion per year is needed to end world hunger, so in theory, we could end one of the world’s greatest issues and still have money left over every year.

            Everyone around the world can agree that without energy, nothing can be accomplished. Every machine, including cars, boats, factories, and robots need some energy source or fuel to perform its task. Also, all these things are directly related to a country’s economy. Think about it, without fuel, boats or trucks could not be transport important goods cheaply and efficiently. Hence, if there is an energy crisis coming in the near future because fossil fuels and non-renewable energy sources are beginning to run out, why is there not more R&D here? Instead of investing time and money in things like the newest iPhone or best-tasting chips, why not try and develop energy sources for the future?

Sources

Shah, Anup. "World Military Spending." - Global Issues. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending>.

"Economic Cost Summary | Costs of War." Economic Cost Summary | Costs of War. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary>.

"The Cost to End World Hunger - The Borgen Project." The Borgen Project RSS2. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/>.

Post 17

In this post I will argue that scientists do not have as much freedom and control to develop and innovate as American society has come to believe and offer potential solutions. Although it is evident that technology and science influence almost every cornerstone of our lives, scientists are not solely responsible. The companies and corporations that hire scientists have a purpose to make money; often at regardless of the toll it may take on their employees and environment. Similarly, the idea of green chemistry is not given importance over maximizing profit. Many times the general public will incorrectly blame scientists for lack of effort to implement green chemistry.

In our society, it is easy to see why companies hire scientists who think like they do. It is important for a company to make money and many times it costs a scientist to abandon his or her personal interests or goals in order to impress his or her employers. Or in many cases, even keep their job if it means using brown chemistry because it is cheaper for the company. As Woodhouse writes, “… it would be a serious mistake to suppose that the scientists are merely the handmaidens in this relationship” (172). However, Woodhouse argues that if scientists knew about green chemistry in the 20^th century, why did no one pursue this goal? I believe that this goes back to the idea of profit over conservation of the environment. Also, the pressure from the media, conservationists and government laws was not there to push for smarter decisions, allowing them to continue science how they wanted.

The concept of unintended consequences is related to the decisions that scientists or companies make as well. Besides the impact on the environment, many countries from which raw materials arrive are affected because when there is material waste, it is usually sent back to these places. In many ways, allowing corporate CEOs to determine what their scientists and engineers develop and innovate creates unintended consequences because a majority of CEOs do not have a background in science or technology, but rather business (sound familiar?). A potential solution would be create committees that are consist of scientists and engineers that act as a sort of “checks and balances” to the decisions the CEO or head scientist or engineer makes. Perhaps this would reduce unintended consequences and shift the focus of R&D to helping poorer nations and their problems instead of developing the best leather for seats in our cars.

Sources

Science, Technology and Society Textbook

Post 16

In this post I will argue that drones create extreme inequity to the nations who cannot afford them and to the people who suffer from their lethality. A drone is “an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers” (http://www.merriam-webster.com). Basically, a drone does not require a human to be inside it or even near it, meaning that its pilot can be thousands of miles away, controlling it with a joystick, just like in a video game. In many ways, the onset of drones in warfare has changed how war occurs or is fought. Drones offer protection to the soldiers because they can either scout ahead and/or destroy a target without human proximity or assistance.

Another way in which warfare has changed is that soldiers rarely face each other in a firefight. Nowadays, tactical instruments are used such as robots and drones that seek out and destroy a target or suspect. But, how accurate are drones in reality? Yes, one could argue that drones have eliminated many of the terrorists on the “Most Wanted” list. But how many unintended consequences have there been? From the presentation on drones on Friday, October 31, 2014, I remember one of the speakers saying that many innocent civilians die because of their proximity to the intended target. This leads to a change in mentality that is not healthy for any human being. After killing with a drone, many pilots have been known to describe their targets as “bugs” that can be squashed. This creates a sense of false dominance just because one person possesses the ability to kill others from a drone.

Besides the obvious shifts in mental attitude towards other human beings, the use of drone technology contributes to inequity across the world. Countries like the USA and Israel are developing thousands of drones but countries that cannot afford them would stand no chance in technological warfare. Also, those who are affected by drone warfare, often times cannot fight back because they do not have the weaponry to “take them down” or launch drone attacks of their own. The USA can argue all they want that human lives are being saved through the use of drones, but what about the innocent people who die in the Middle East from drone attacks meant for terrorists?

Sources

"Drone." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 7 Nov. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone>.

Drone panel presentation at RPI.