Post 13

Many people would agree that most technologies that are made public should undergo intensive trial and error and the inventors should focus more on the possible consequences. In this post I am going to argue that a key issue in the emergence of products and inventions is the lack of trial and error, which leads to commercialization and misuse.

Although it is nearly impossible to predict all the unintended consequences a new product or invention will have upon release, a majority of them can be prevented with thorough trial and error learning and science for science’s sake. Keeping business and money out of a new drug, invention, or idea is important, especially in the early stages to prevent commercialization and premature marketing of a product before it is complete. An example of this is exemplified well by the energy drink “Cocaine”, a high-energy drink containing three and a half times the amount of caffeine as Red Bull. It was pulled from U.S. shelves in 2007, after the FDA declared that its producers, Redux Beverages, were "illegally marketing their drink as an alternative to street drugs" (www.dailyfinance.com). Perhaps if this product was released with a more appropriate name or proposed to the government beforehand, this problem would not have occurred.

Another product that produced unintended consequences due to little to no trial and error learning was the “Agent Orange” pesticide used in the Vietnam War. It was a powerful herbicide used from 1961 to 1971 and was designed to cut through Vietnam's thick canopy of foliage to reveal enemy troops beneath. “While it succeeded, the price was high: exposure proved deadly to humans, causing cancers, birth defects and a slew of other disorders. Some 21 million gallons of it were dumped on Vietnam, resulting in hundreds of thousands of injuries and birth defects to Vietnamese citizens. U.S. veterans faced exposure too; they received a $180 million settlement from its manufacturers in 1984” (www.content.time.com). In other words, this herbicide was effective, but the danger to human life was far too great to continue using it. Unfortunately the product’s unintended consequences were realized far too late and many suffered as a resulted.        

            If inventors or scientists spent an extra month or so on additional testing and ensuring the product was safe, would consumers and everyone else potentially affected by the release of the product complain? After all, safety and health should come first and often when a company sees potential in something they release too early and as a result serious consequences for the company or even general population can arise. It is imperative that comprehensive trial and error learning and testing occurs.

Sources

http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/top-25-biggest-product-flops-of-all-time/#!fullscreen&slide=982926

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1991915_1991909_1991756,00.html 

Post 12

I am sure that most citizens of their respective countries could agree that a major portion of the population is not represented in government. Even in a country where the Constitution attempted to give a voice to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, or economic standing, many are still not equally represented. How can our democracy represent the general public better?

One proposal that Woodhouse suggests in Chapter 10 is to create a so-called “Internet-Based Democracy”. This means that all voting and decision-making would occur through the Internet. This would also mean that the citizens could interact with the elected officials on local and national issues through some forum or similar tool. The basic advantages of creating an Internet-Based Democracy are that people will not have to leave the comfort of their homes to vote or debate on issues. The adoption of the Internet in democracy would force the government to keep its citizens up to date on matters and thus hold them more accountable.

But an Internet democracy cannot be left open without some form of moderation or supervision. Otherwise, during voting sensitive information could be compromised and election results altered. Another reason why moderation would be necessary is because a few individuals would misuse this platform for posting inappropriate media or irrelevant material when perhaps an important discussion on a local community’s taxes is being discussed. A moderator would probably have to review most if not all posts before they are published for everyone to see. A moderator would also have to be compensated by either the government or the people he or she “regulates”. Ideally, this person would probably hold some degree or at least interest in computer science and be willing to work practically full-time.

Another possible complication with Internet democracy would be that certain comments would be repeated, especially with a system that would account for “time published”. People would repeat or contribute ideas that are now clearly in the past. Again, the need for a moderator is evident in this system. But, each moderator should try and avoid bias when “allowing comments to be published”. If there is bias, then another whole side of the argument could be ignored and lead to rash and irrational decisions. Internet Democracy has many positive aspects and could possibly be the future of how government is run. But, there are many obstacles such as security, equal accessibility, repetition and stealing others’ thoughts that might hinder this idea. 

Post 11

In an ideal world, many would agree that government should serve the country based on personal motivation and not by how much money they are given. Many of citizens could agree that most politicians in office right now are after the money and power, rather than looking out for the interests of the people they represent and the government they serve. How can current politics change so it returns to its original purpose? What needs to be done to satisfy the citizens?

 One of the biggest problems with US government and politics is reelection. Politicians who win a seat or a race are never content and immediately begin fundraising for the next election although it is at least more than two years away. When politicians focus on reelection, they completely neglect the true duties of being a part of government. Often times, at the end of a politician’s term, nothing was accomplished and the situation was the same as it was two, four, or even six years ago. Sometimes, this makes me wonder if politicians really have any idea on issues that society faces.

One possible solution to this is to create an educational program for potential candidates that would include lessons on current problems and proposed solutions. This program would be mandatory for all those seeking to become a politician or representative. An amendment to the requirements of becoming senator or representative would be appropriate and perhaps one month of training would suffice. This would create a more effective government and ensure that some positive work was done during a term.

Another solution, as Woodhouse suggests, would be to pay legislators and politicians for doing their job well. This solution is analogous to the CEO pay proposal and would work similarly. If a bill was passed that would somehow reduce carbon emissions, the legislators and/or the local politicians would receive compensation of sorts. Or similarly, if taxes were lowered in a state, then the governor would be compensated. Although this pay system may further monetize government, it still would warrant some good work.

Our government needs serious evolution and the sooner it begins, the better for all concerned. Many countries look up to our model of government as ideal, and if we cannot even tackle basic issues such as unemployment, what makes us better than a corrupt nation?

Post 10

Many would agree that companies and humans in general could do a better job of preserving and protecting the environment. There are many obvious benefits, which include natural resources, diversity of life, and a cleaner future. Many would also agree that often we give second preference about these things when money is involved. Most companies would probably want to make a profit rather than invest money in “green” technologies for the future. But what if a system was created that would promote business and a cleaner environment?

This idea seems unlikely to be passed in the near future in government due to bipartisanship and arrogance of both Democrats and Republicans to compromise and actually get something done in the House and Senate. However, companies can take it upon themselves to put in place a reward/consequence system. The system would ensure that employees and/or CEOs are rewarded for making decisions or innovating in a way that does not negatively affect the environment. On the other hand, if a decision is made that negatively impacts the environment, employees or CEOs could face pay cuts or receive no bonuses.

Another option would be to offer a greater workplace democracy as Woodhouse outlines in Chapter 8. Basically, if CEOs allowed workers to have a greater say in the day-to-day operations and big decisions of the company, disastrous events could be prevented. Most people understand and would agree that Microsoft’s attempt to provide competition to Apple and Samsung in the smartphone market did not work out. If Microsoft had perhaps listened to the employees before they entered the smartphone business maybe the company would not have had a hard fall and as a result their reputation suffered. To this day, many consumers are skeptical of mobile devices that run a Microsoft operating system, which is a direct result of failure to consult with company employees.

A combination of compensation and workplace democracy would bring about significant changes in corporate America and help preserve the environment. If the government could create some regulation or laws for this, it would further benefit all parties concerned. In fact, the government could give a tax break for potentially “responsible” companies, CEOs, and employees. Another reason why getting the government to create a law or agency that monitors companies’ activities is so that when companies are given a tax break, they are required to donate a certain percentage of the extra money they keep to a charity or similar foundation. This would greatly help the poverty situation across the world and address the wealth divide that we face as a world today.

Post 9

Sometimes when a disastrous event occurs, people forget about the facts and succumb to the hysteria of the media and others around them. This potentially leads to further complication of the issue and creates more frustration among the people affected. One of Carl Hart’s main points of his talk on Tuesday at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was to advise those in attendance to think differently and not “believe the hype”. I believe this statement is true to a certain extent; however, there are situations where this ideology should not be taken literally.

For example, Hart explained how a majority of drugs are not as harmful as believed. Hart said that marijuana is not as addictive as nicotine, tobacco, or methamphetamine. It is definitely important that he brought this topic to the audience’s attention, but there are some unintended consequences from this kind of talk. From discussion period on Friday a classmate spoke about an uncle who had a drug abuse problem and only recently due to repeated pleas from the family stopped using them. My classmate believes that if his uncle had heard this talk, his uncle would be tempted to start using drugs again. Obviously that would be a huge misunderstanding between what the speaker intended to convey to the audience and what the uncle understood.

Another issue I have with the “looseness” of the talk was that Hart implied that drugs should be decriminalized, or at the very least reduce the consequences of being caught with “illegal amounts” of a drug. Yes, I understand that most drugs are not as harmful as the government and media portray them as, however if drugs were decriminalized this would probably lead to more overdosing because larger amounts of a drug would be acceptable. Instead of being busted for 5 grams of cocaine (example), it could be that up to 8 grams is legal. I understand that some may argue that the government has kept these strict laws on drugs so more money can be collected for something Hart considers, “about the equivalent of traffic violations” (http://www.drcarlhart.com). But, it is no myth that any chemical in a certain dosage or amount has negative health effects on the human body and mind.

Overall I found Hart’s talk to be refreshing and gave me a different perspective in to the drug world. I agreed with most of his points, however all within certain parameters. Hart seemed to believe in a complete overhaul of current drug policy and promote decriminalization of drugs. Although there is work to be done in this area, complete overhaul is not needed but rather a simple change in perception.