Chapter 18- A More Personal March of Progress

Summary

Woodhouse uses the final chapter to reimagine the world as it is today by attacking the root of the the problems analyzed in the book: a collective insanity, with sanity being when one is able to understand and anticipate the effects of their actions. He points to how toxic chemicals are released and used widely without knowing their effects, how consumers "continue to purchase microwave popcorn in bags that release PFOAs into our dwelling spaces and bodies" (238), and how current civilizations steal precious resources with disregard for their availability for future generations. Finally he argues a “saner” technosocial future would be one that works for every single person, no ifs ands or buts. There would be basic housing, food, and shelter for everyone as technology works against the distribution problem; work hours would be cut for the overworked and given to the unemployed; undesired or miserable jobs would be split amongst the working population fairly, or provide ample benefit for the unfair work.

Analysis & Synthesis

At the beginning of the final chapter Woodhouse mentions current college students’ generation’s fascination with avatars, fantasy games, and futuristic/sci fi films, books, etc. He wonders "if such extraordinary phenomena may represent [their] intuition that something is missing in everyday life" (233). For me, it is that the world today is impersonal. In taking this class I have realized the many flaws Woodhouse described are rooted in the world not addressing human need and capacity. 

My improved technosocial future would be organized and governed by what the individual human, human society, and humanity need and are capable of on a basic level. This does not mean limiting what humans do or need to a basic level; rather, the pace and type of improvement would be comprehensible and manageable for each person. A society with this mindset and ruling would have thorough Intelligent Trial and Error, as each product would need to be directly addressed in terms of its social contexts and effects and only launched onto the market if it is what society needs or wants. An example would be for a new cereal; if there is already a chocolate kids’ cereal on the market, there is no need for another; if there is no heart-healthy kids’ cereal on the market but only 20% show they would purchase it in testing, it is not ready for the market. Of course there would need to be explicit guidelines for what constitutes a product as different from another and what in testing shows satisfactory need or desire. 

These types of regulations may not be so straight forward in the nitty gritty details but in current society there isn’t any. Guidelines within this mindset would be used for transportation (is it necessary to outsource this to China or would the local community or product benefit from local sourcing?), education, workplace environment (what do humans want and need to work happily at this type of task for however long they are asked to?), working hours, environmental protection, food standards, etc. throughout the global market. This would eliminate overconsumption as products focus on needs and universal desires, slow down the unmanageable pace of innovation too rapid, create more efficient working hours while providing more leisure time, and more. Progress would be entirely tied to human need, social effects, and humanity’s physical/emotional/learning capacities. Innovation would slowly work its way towards being solely beneficial.

Chapter 17- Something More than 24/7

Summary

The amount of leisure time for the average middle-class worker was preconceived to increase with the introduction of technologies that made work more efficient. Chapter 17 of Woodhouse describes how while technologies and activities related to leisure have become more abundant and integrated into daily life, the number of hours spent on leisure have significantly decreased. Woodhouse argues the innovations that made work and chores more efficient have resulted in higher expectations for workers, and a cultural focus on speed of production and constant improvement has led to longer hours. Longer hours, in turn, lead to sleep deprivation, fewer hours spent with family, and unhealthy stress levels. For further evidence of the shift, Woodhouse presents the leisure time of the working class of the late Middle Ages: in England, “about a third of the year; Spanish holidays amounted to about 5 months; and the French did even better in being guaranteed Sundays off all together with 90 other rest days and 38 holidays- 180 days in all!" (230).

Analysis & Synthesis

The long working hours incorporated into American living are the result of legacy thinking from the industrial revolution, where innovation pushed for more stuff faster. Innovations like the assembly line and transportation that allowed 9-5 shifts pulling everyone in and out of the growing cities provided. Now the American economy continues to thrive on this exhausting efficiency, and stuck within legacy thinking, Americans are pushed to work holidays, overnight, provide 24 hour business hours, told they have to be available 24/7" (229), and strive to climb the corporate ladder. The crisis this provides is "a form of relative deprivation… leisure time is steadily shrinking relative to the opportunities to 'spend' it" (228). 

I would argue this is a crisis because of what that leisure time consists of. Time with family not only provides fun and a deeper connection between family members but allows children to learn valuable knowledge, skills, traditions, and abilities of their working parents. This shapes them as a citizen and an innovator, provides a wider view of their world and makes them generally more capable. Other leisurely activities like going to the movies, reading, listening to music, making music, doing puzzles, exercising, going on vacation do the same for workers. They provide creative, statistical, physical, emotional, and rational insight into the world, oneself, and problem solving. Deep involvement and use of these types of activities have shown to fuel genius; all famous intellectual or creative mind has something other than what they are known for that they loved and spent much of their leisure time doing (Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, was an avid botanist and kept a greenhouse where he knew the latin names of every plant). Other activities like seeing friends, sleeping, and exercising provide the emotional and physical upkeep needed to sustain healthy brain and bodily function. Without that, humans can’t even make it to the office.

In staying at the office longer to gain an hour or two more of production, innovators and producers are losing so much more. Organizational models such as the Montessori schools accept this need for leisure and its benefits and have shown extremely positive results. The owners of Google were Montessori students and modeled their business after the Montessori system, and I doubt anyone could say Google is unproductive or inefficient. It doesn’t need to be a jump that far, but emphasis needs to be put on the value of leisure as a crucial and beneficial part of production and innovation. When America makes that shift and finds that careful balance of work time and leisure time, not only will it be the best producer, but its people will love to produce.

Chapter 16- A Destructive Legacy

Summary

Chapter 16 looks at the lack of thought put into military and weapon research and development by American citizens. Woodhouse explains the reason for the ignorance is a nation-wide attempt at "dealing with distant threats over which one has no control" (215). For those in control of the R&D, there are monetary incentives like salary and the act of creating jobs, and moral incentives that the R&D are repelling or defeating danger to citizens. However, Woodhouse’s main argument is that in order to think holistically about innovations in the sector, innovators must realize the downsides and complications that go along with these. First that the world is more complex than being able to defeat or deter enemies; that the development of weaponry makes the world more dangerous for everyone; third that the nature of warfare is constantly changing and weaponry simply cannot keep up; there always will be unintended consequences; someone must make the hard, sometimes catastrophic decisions; finally that humans are inevitably influenced by the potential of what they are given.

Analysis & Synthesis

The complications Woodhouse argues we must take into account when thinking about military research and development showcase the dangers of legacy thinking and technology as legislature. Legacy thinking, “ideas, assumptions, beliefs, values, and ways of thinking inherited from the past rather than thought through for oneself” (254), is why “military R&D is so uncontroversial” (211), the very reason that Woodhouse wrote this chapter. By following the strategies and designs of the past the United States continues to innovate slowly, unable to address the first flaw of R&D: the world being more complex than merely defeating or deterring enemies. In the same way this also leaves the U.S. with the third problem of R&D: the inability to keep up with the constantly and globally changing war environment. This is why even as the U.S. is not at war, there is development of "The F-35 Jet Fighter[, which] may be outdated by the time it is finally delivered starting in 2016 at a total program cost of roughly $400 billion, fifteen years after initial conception" (219).

The idea of technology as legislature says that “as laws (including governmental regulations and court rulings) constrain or encourage certain behaviors, so also with technologies” (256). The more the U.S. contributes to military innovation, the more dangerous technologies are used throughout the world. This is the third problem of R&D: it feeds a greater potential for harmful acts on a global scale, making the world a more dangerous place for everyone. The more direct correlation is the fifth problem: making the hard decisions. The literal legislature of R&D requires a human being make the difficult decisions to harm, control, or kill other human beings. Once they make the decision, the 3rd problem comes into play: unintended consequences. Unintended consequences inevitably legislate the political relations between countries, branches in government, the scientific and military communities, the public and political bodies. If something catastrophic happens someone must be to blame, and all other associated parties will be aggressively pointing fingers and taking action against the guilty. The final problem with R&D is the definition of technology as legislature: human beings are inevitably influenced by the potential of what is available to them. If more dangerous technology is made available, those in power are more likely to use it. 

These are cyclical systems of harm and the buildup of harmful potential. Yet, these same systems can be seen in the public world of rapidly advancing technology. Technology as legislation is why “military innovation often drives civilian innovation” (211), and vice versa. It is both surprising and unsurprising based on this that "there is a sense in which you and I do not really understand weaponry and war" (217). As citizens in America we are part of weaponry and war on a daily basis, and it is a part of us, fueling the technologies we use every day and vice versa.

Chapter 15- No Retaliation Without Causation: Human Enhancement for People

Summary

Chapter 15 describes the 5 categories of human enhancement, how they have been used in the past and currently, and their future potential. First and second involve the least risk: enhancement to rid human DNA of inheritable diseases, and enhancement to assist the handicapped. The third type of enhancement is for improving ordinary performance in "relatively linear, modest, and predictable ways-- [for] better memory and better health" (198). Fourth is enhancements that would intensify the advantage of certain people over others, what Woodhouse calls “winners versus losers”. The final type of enhancement is about “changing what it means to be human” by melding human biology with technology, or transhumanism. Woodhouse argues that a lot of the violations of fairness, a lack of intelligent trial and error, and controversy seen for technologies in previous chapters can be seen in human enhancement technologies. He asks whether this technoscience will truly be for the people as they cry ‘no taxation without representation!’;  "If the American Revolution were occurring today, would forefront technoscientists be the allies or the adversaries of the common people?" (210)

Analysis & Synthesis

At the end of the chapter, Woodhouse describes human enhancement in society today as violating "many of the requirements for intelligent governance of technological innovation” (208), and that "the speed at which enhancements are proceeding clearly violates the requirements for intelligent trial-and-error learning from experience" (209). He argues these are the downfalls of this form of technoscience and asks the final question of whether they currently truly are “allies or the adversaries of the common people?” (210). I wanted to go through how exactly the enhancements embody these two faults and what those involved would need to do to keep them as a technology by the people, for the people.

I took Woodhouse’s claim of violation of intelligent governance in regard to Chapter 12 on the political activities of engineering, where politics is partially defined as “the struggle for who gets what, when, and how” (148). Here a lack of intelligent governance of basic technologies like cars, electricity and dams has led to pollution, controversy, public unrest, inefficiencies, dangers to citizens, and class division. Generally, any kind of “mild enhancement capacities tend to flow towards those already advantaged in money, education, militarization, or other attributes conducive to understanding, purchasing, and utilizing the new potentials" (204). While great funding and publicity go towards extra testing for the upper class’s pregnant women, sickle cell anemia remains mostly ignored; ”that it mostly afflicts African-Americans arguably is one reason for the slow progress" (200). The greatest need is not being addressed first, causing unfairness, controversy, and inefficiency. The answer to intelligent governance lies in "that limited resources can go to the highest priority needs rather than to the niftiest forefronts of innovation" (203). Energy and funding needs not to be aimed at military or biological prowess, but rather an ”alternative version of how widespread suffering theoretically could be erased" (208).

Under this governance, Woodhouse argues that ”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" (156). The way innovators can create effective technology that works with the pace of the human race is described in Chapter 6 as intelligent trial and error. A lack of this is clear in the controversy of military R&D for human enhancement, where fears of unintended consequences of nano science and terrorist intentions/capacities cause skepticism and mistrust from the public. Tax money is contributed toward projects without informing the public; any advancement or research in related technology inevitably feeds enhancement technology, such as immune system, neural pathway, image processing and other biomedical work. Implants and vitamin regimes are being advertised and used on a daily basis without knowing the long-term effects. People are potentially being put in danger for years in the future, and currently the public is working against attempts to implement enhancement technologies. Further R&D with intelligent trial and error would allow the public to be informed on the known and unknown consequences and current uses of enhancement innovations before being implemented into daily life, ridding them of the uncertainty and misguidance. In turn, this would allow the innovations to be more effective, supported, and desired.

All of the change must come from politics, as good versus bad innovation "depends in part on how those with greatest influence approach their tasks" (69). Fair and public-centered governance will produce and encourage intelligent trial and error as it seeks to create the most safe, effective products possible. All of this change is not easy, as described in previous posts in detail, because of pressures in all directions for innovators to do otherwise. Only when the U.S. has a new cycle that perpetually encourages this type of innovation would citizens be able to say human enhancement is an ally. Under current conditions, while it may offer certain benefits to certain people, it is currently perpetuating the harm and unfairness in the U.S.’s system of innovation— an adversary of the common people.

Chapter 14- Gentrification and Entropy: a Question of Fairness

Summary

In Chapter 14 Woodhouse describes unfairness as it exists within technoscience today. It is most prevalent in 3 ways. First, the distribution of funding, which is mainly towards causes that benefit the affluent. Second, the availability and usage of produced innovations, such as vaccines made available mainly to the most healthy part of the global population. Finally, in unforeseen consequences of innovations, like the pollution and health damages inflicted upon those who work with coal to generate energy. Woodhouse proposes the way to redistribute benefits and level the playing field for those who cannot access benefits is to reprioritize globally. There needs to be a refocusing on the public good rather than on profit, and innovations that look at the whole picture so as much of the population can benefit. 

Analysis & Synthesis

Looking at unfairness generally, from a moral standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to me why any innovation should ever focus on private cause. After all, if all innovation sought to improve the world for everyone in it, those private causes would benefit too. This separation and bias is something that has been deeply engrained in societies around the world for centuries. Most obviously seen in the use of slaves, there is a long-standing idea that some people are more deserving or in need than others. In my Public Internship course we studied gentrification, which is generally speaking the displacement of native people against their will. In the United States today it often refers to the process of a poor, predominantly black neighborhood rejuvenating itself via community gardens and other community-culture-building programs, and then eventually being driven out by the white upper class who move in to the now desired neighborhood. The new white population doesn’t see a problem with this on the idea that, if I can afford it, I deserve to have it, it’s not my fault they can no longer afford the high taxes!, which Woodhouse describes in technoscience as: ”the scientific community generally seems rather complacent about who gets what from science-- so long as funding keeps increasing for their labs, equipment, graduate students, technicians, postdocs, and conference travel" (186)— I’m doing valuable research, so I deserve to get valuable things from it, who cares about anyone else in the line. 

This brings up the most interesting question for me about fairness, at least within the U.S.’s cultural/economic/political system. Is it useless to try to change the system in a world of entropy? Would we cycle back into unfairness, disorder, no matter what? As described in previous entries and chapters, it’s the U.S.’s hierarchical system that allows for such unfairness, but the market that lets the country tick needs businesses to lose, a certain number of people to be unemployed, a limited number of people with higher education degrees in order for others to succeed. To allow the poor to afford technologies by lowering the price would require docking someone’s pay; to make it affordable by increasing low-income families’ pay would increase innovations’ prices. To put more money and time into sending vaccines and medicine overseas will cost the health of America’s citizens. It’s impossible for everybody to win. It’s inevitable; if you make the neighborhood nice, the rich will come. I don’t see a way within our current system to redistribute the wealth without costing someone. However, the only reason I say that is because I am exactly like the white-upper-class moving in to fixed neighborhoods: I work hard and pay taxes to my country, why shouldn’t my country’s focus be on taking care of me? It’s natural to worry about oneself, but it’s not helpful to just think about helping others. What will change things is thinking about oneself as one of those far less fortunate others.

Military Drones- Grounded and Activist Panel

Summary

On October 30th the play Grounded by George Brant showed at the Chapel and Cultural Center at RPI. It was a one-woman play that featured the life of a fighter pilot in the air force. She is a fierce, independent woman who loves flying and “the blue” more than anything. One day she meets the man of her dreams and becomes pregnant, forcing her to leave her job as a pilot for maternity leave. When she returns she is informed she will now be flying a Reaper drone from the ground rather than her jet. The job soon becomes consuming; even when off of work she cannot shake the feeling of always being watched, helpless, her world turning grey, like those she watches and hunts in the drone. She becomes paranoid and the lines are blurred between her work and her daily life until she sees the people she loves in her victims and cannot complete her missions. She is taken away from her family and work by the military for medical treatment.

The following day a panel of war activists from Women Against War and Know Drones spoke of their experiences with Hancock Air National Guard in Syracuse, where they have protested the use of drones. They experienced many injustices by military members, police, and court justices who felt personally offended by their statements and exercise of the first amendment. All members agreed drones were dangerously inaccurate, causing more civilian deaths than necessary, fueling war and hatred of the United States, and morally unjust as the victims have no chance to retaliate or defend themselves. They hope to gain more membership and spread awareness of the victims through the Drone Quilt Project, which shows each victim of the drones with a square on a quilt.

Analysis & Synthesis

In listening to both the play and the panel I have come to believe military drones are a perfect example of an innovation with a lack of intelligent trial-and-error. In Grounded, the main character’s madness displayed a lack of understanding of possible issues from the operating side. If the mental effects of operating drones had been studied and shown to cause paranoia, a sort of digitally-induced form of PTSD, measures would have been put in place to prevent it. When the pilot was taken away her commander told her they had been watching her and she had been showing “warning signs”. While this shows some kind of testing or knowledge of the effects she experienced, it does not show an intelligent approach that sought to catch her condition early or address it in use of the innovation. 

The activists’ cause also shows a lack of intelligent trial and error; very few people know a lot about drones, but it is regarded as highly controversial, and is still used despite the controversy. The activists’ argued about the long-term effects the hatred of other countries caused by U.S. drone activity, including attacks on U.S. citizens. Never were citizens given the choice to implement drones, they were put into use and now citizens are at risk whether they want to be or not. 

Military drones are generally accepted as highly inaccurate, the activists sited a 49:1 civilian death to suspect ratio. If the results are truly that inaccurate, more testing and adjustment should have been done to catch and change the drones to be more accurate.

More intelligent trial and error for drones would have brought a better, more effective innovation for use in military missions, but also more support and understanding for the public. The current flaws in military drones including their negative effects on military pilots, their lack of accuracy, their sudden implementation and long term effects create distrust, personal and national emotional damage, and fear. However, drones are successful in that they give us a fast, cheap, and risk-of-death-free hand in fighting national enemies. I believe their R&D was far too military-focused when a more holistic and nationally-focused approach, intelligent trial-and-error, would have yielded better results for everyone in the U.S. and our soldiers out of it.

Chapter 12- Design, Innovation, Architecture

Summary

In Chapter 12 Woodhouse describes the question of engineers as politicians and their work as a political force around the world. Engineering can be viewed as highly political under the assumptions that politics is “the struggle for who gets what, when, and how” (148) and that it “occurs wherever there is authority to act in ways that have public consequences” (148). In which case, Woodhouse argues they are simultaneously like legislators, bureaucrats and military officers. Like legislators engineering practice “establish[es] a framework for public order that will endure over many generations" (151), and it could be said the morphing of their innovations within society and the market act as legislators’ debates and discussions. Like bureaucrats and military officers it could be said that they are merely hired hands; while they decide the technical details, like how a mission is carried out, they do not determine the project itself. Finally Woodhouse argues that in the political world of engineers, the political allies are those who purchase and implement those innovations, and those who believe the world was better off without their innovations are their opponents. He ends saying engineers work as a whole has “contributed to a pace of innovation that pretty clearly is ill-suited to the relatively slow pace of human learning and adaptation" (156). He argues that to progress, we must be ready and willing to learn and adapt what engineers give us, not just shoot it down or use it as we are told.

Analysis & Synthesis

I came into RPI as an Architecture major because I wanted a more technical form of art that would allow me to make social change. Buildings literally shape how people live, but subconsciously they can change workers’ efficiency, mood, desire to interact with each other, sense of tiredness, etc. I switched to Design, Innovation, and Society because my classes were full of technical analyses, legal requirements, and so on. Design, Innovation and Society more directly approaches the effect design, technology, innovation have on, well, society. It is most often a dual degree with Mechanical Engineering. Woodhouse’s commentary on engineers’ political aspect sounds a lot like the DIS curriculum, which leads me to believe that DIS gives engineers the political, systematic and self awareness that engineers need to design in a way that is more like the legislators side of things. DIS allows engineers to design so their innovations are the result and in response to a conversation with society, rather than with their boss or project constraints.

The businesses engineers work for shape daily life by deciding the flow of goods and the durability of them, environmental quality and damage, quality and availability of entertainment, of things like food, medicine, and daily household technologies. Friendships are shaped by media, technology like the internet as well as video and voice communication, transportation and how much free time jobs allow for. Romantic relationships have significantly been changed by modern contraception. It would appear that "production,  communication, construction, transport, and consumption technologies sometimes are more definitive than law in shaping social life" (150). So what do engineers get to do? 

Well, coalitions of corporate executives "decide a nation's industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, market structure, resource allocation" (157). They may decide a town needs a bridge, but I learned from my experience with architecture that all those technical details really add up. If it’s a rainbow colored, sleek and modern, heavy exposed steel, solar generating, it will make a huge impact on how many people use it and how they use it. Just having a single window in a room drastically changes our perception and enjoyment of the space.  If the pieces are innovative, if a couple gets to have safe sex, if a brother is able to Skype his sister in the army, if people enjoy using their mobile phones for things other than phone calls, there will be a drastic difference in how people experience their world and each other. It is inevitable. All engineers need is the ability to see this in every detail they decide on. DIS requires engineers take courses like this one so they see this.

Synthetic Biology- Take a Risk To the Rescue?

Summary

Craig J. Venter was the first to create a lifeform sheerly out of biological data; he created a bacterial cell based off of viral DNA that was able to move, eat, and replicate. This was in 2010, but synthetic biology where life is created or modified is not new. It has played a role throughout history and continues to change the daily lives of people on Earth. In Biology’s Brave New World, Laurie Garrett tells Venter’s story as well as those of other advances and uses of synthetic biology and biotechnology. She displays the many dangers of it through the story of H5N1, a synthetically advanced influenza virus that quickly got out of hand. Focusing on political lack of preparation, miscommunication, and WHO’s inability to respond effectively to the situation, she argues that while innovation using synthetic biology is promising and could be used for the greater good, there are a lot of systematic changes that need to be addressed first. Otherwise, unintentional or overlooked problems could be deadly.

Analysis & Synthesis

The first time I can remember encountering synthetic biology was with a research project in 7th grade. I chose animal testing as my topic and ran into an article about the first successfully cloned sheep, Dolly. The article shared the scientists opinions in veneration of cloning as a useful technology to understand more about DNA as well as to allow for more controlled and reliable testing. The author also added data on mutations and deformities that often occur in cloning, as well as how expensive it is. 

I was intrigued by how contradictory the innovation and its uses were; clones would reduce the need for gathering or breeding more animals from the wild for the cruelty of testing, but also create life solely for the purpose of cruelty and killing. After reading Biology’s Brave New World I feel no less torn, and I am afraid it will come down to a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation, due to our inability to reform the political systems that would regulate and control biological innovation. Humanity needs to be able to regulate and control these innovations because they would intrinsically “have a life of their own” (31).

There are many reasons within the string of cause and effect that made H5N1 a danger, which each exemplify the World’s incapability on different levels. When WHO learned of H5N1’s evolution to something dangerous in U.S. labs, they discovered it had been altered the same way in places around the world. The disease originally only passed on by direct contact with birds, with a 69% fatality rate, was altered into "a form of H5N1 that could spread through the air from one mammal to another" (32). Here is the first example of a major problem: a lack of documentation and communication from innovators and laboratories around the world. WHO wasn’t informed by other countries that they had made the virus deadly until labs in the United States informed them. How could WHO possibly make the right arrangements to control possible outbreak if they don’t even know where the virus is at any given point, or how much of it is being created? 

The second major problem occurred when the virus was released from a laboratory in Egypt. A building in Cairo was broken into and destroyed as part of a political rebellion and the vials of the deadly virus went missing. Here is a major lack of necessary security for something that could be devastating for the human race, as well as a lack of communication. I’m sure whoever had the vials didn’t know what they were or what they could have possibly unleashed unto themselves and the rest of the world. The government would need to supply ample evidence and information to the public so in this kind of a situation citizens would be able to recognize something deadly and its implications. Of course, this kind of information being available would cause a new myriad of problems, such as information being taken and used by bioterrorists or for other biowarfare, as well as controlling public feedback and possibly panic at the knowledge that these dangerous things exist and their circumstances (whose hands their in, their use, etc.). 

If WHO and the political systems they interact with were able to adapt to solve a world problem flawlessly, wouldn’t we have systematically ended world hunger, wiped out other diseases, have less fear and uncertainty about the current Ebola spread? Biotechnology has a lot to offer, but synthetic biological innovations aren’t something humanity can afford any error on in terms of control and emergency response. I believe it is impossible for the global political system to adapt to be able to effectively and efficiently respond to possible problems as seen with H5N1; there will not be an “okay, you can start now” moment for implementing biotechnology. In the end, if synthetic biology is to be officially implemented, it will be on a case by case basis, where the possible or necessary benefits to humanity outweigh the risks. For example, if it is to create a bacteria or virus that would allow us to defeat something already wiping humanity out.

The problem and scary part is, there currently isn’t anything official preventing scientists from creating something deadly. The genetic engineering of existing life and the creation of new lifeforms is seen "as the cutting edge of the field.” (37) Those involved vary in background and experience, and “whether they are competing in science fairs or carrying out experiments, they have little time for debates surrounding dual-use research; they are simply plowing ahead" (37). Younger generations are getting involved on a recreational and casual level, starting with competitions held by MIT started in 2004 asking college and high school students to create new life forms. Machines are available that allow anyone to sequence a genome at home in less than 24 hours; companies can be hired to do the same. There remains no information security. Genetic codes can be hidden in videos, tweets, posts, anything, directing the viewer to a place online with the code that just needs to be put in a printer or DNA sequence. I feel the only way for politics and our social structure to be able to handle these innovations with a life of their own is to somehow give ourselves this same adapting, aggressive life of our own.

Chapter 11- To Consume Mindfulness or Mindfully Consume?

Summary

Chapter 11 focuses on overconsumption, the "extraordinary inefficiencies"(134) of the U.S. consumer market, from production to the market to the consumer. Woodhouse argues that the engineering field, and therefore the engineers that fuel it, is responsible for making the changes to be more ethically, socially, and environmentally mindful to reduce the harmful inefficiencies currently in place. He believes the market system is currently set up to encourage engineers to be wasteful and ignorant, with a heavy focus on adding variety, causing change rather than improvement. He argues engineering curriculums cannot continue to be technical and theoretical- new engineers must be looking at current problems at the cutting edge of the field from a holistic and sociological perspective. Woodhouse argues universities must make engineers that are willing and capable of challenging the norms and values of the system they are being put into in order to stop the harm currently being caused to our society, economy and our planet.

Analysis and Synthesis

At first, I was very upset with the way Woodhouse began this chapter, claiming "U.S. consumers use more per capita than people living anywhere else on the planet" (131). He proceeds to list what exactly U.S. consumers produce as a result of this consuming: 3.5 billion lbs of carpet in landfills, 25 billion lbs CO2, 6 billion lbs polystyrene, 28 billion lbs of food, 300 billion lbs chemicals for manufacturing and processing, 700 bil lbs hazardous waste in chemical production. However, his next statement is that "95 percent of these amounts occur before a product ever gets into the household"- American consumers are hidden from seeing or knowing this because of "consumer culture" (131). So is it fair to say that each of us consumer more per capita, when really it is just huge corporations and industry producing it before we even touch it? Is it our fault as consumers that we do not see or know these things? What exactly is our consumer culture and how is it blindsiding us from the truth about what we purchase? Woodhouse went on from there to talk about the engineers' side of things, behind the scenes, but I want to explore our responsibility as consumers as we receive and are effected by engineered products.

The Problems: 
1) Vagueness and Ignorance
Responses to numbers stated above differ, from "it's entropy, so whatever", to enacting Industrial Ecology- clean production and an environmentally friendly system that "can cure problems while contributing to business profitably" (132). Woodhouse claims this spectrum stems from everyone having a different view on what is too much. He points to David Orr, who claims our consumer culture subjects consumers to and involves them in technological cleverness, the dreamland of the original bounty of north america at its discovery, seductive advertising, entrapment by easy credit, prices that do not reflect products' real costs, political corruption, all of which cause overconsumption.
2) Your Endangered Personal and Global Environment 
Most people in developed countries have been hearing about this thing called climate change, and overconsumption contributes to it. These are what Woodhouse calls "destabilizing ecological effects" of overconsumption, and they include atmospheric changes, oceanic changes and harm to ocean life, he increase of human habitation at the expense of ecosystems and unsustainable depletion of natural resources, and the endangerment and extinction of animal species due to all of the above. However, if that isn't enough to motivate you to do the research and make decisions on your purchases, these kind of things can happen close to home. Feel like you're spending too many hours at work, at the expense of your personal health, neighborhood culture, recreational time, family life, love life? Should these things really be Are you in the pits of debt because of impulse buying, or purchasing more than you need? Should your personal security, the security of your loved ones, and your daily happiness really be jeopardized because that commercial or that neighbor told you those things were worth it, in the long run? 

What Can I do?: 
Well, first you, as a consumer, can admit that you contribute and are part of all of this. As Woodhouse jeers, if you get all riled up hearing Orr's list, then you must admit that very feeling is because it has become part of the culture and way of life you value. 
1)My suggestion is to them come up with your own personal definition of what is too much. Write it down, put it in bold and/or bright colors, hang it on your fridge, your trash can, make it the header on your grocery or other shopping list. Do it again, but for your ideal company. If you were to start your own company of any sort, what would be 'too much'? How would you handle your waste? What would your production goals and policies be? Then, do some good old fashioned research. Look into the companies and brands you love-- what are people saying about them? What is their mission statement? Can they provide evidence of what happens to their products when consumers dispose of them? Is there record of their waste disposal during production, by the company or by other sources? What accreditation do they have, and by whom? Get as much information as you possibly can, and decide what brands you use are consistent with your definition of 'too much'.

While there isn't much that you can do in terms of your current debt, make sure you're making choices based on what you want. 
2) Ask yourself: Did you want a new fridge, a new car, a new puppy, before you saw that advertisement or your friend's fridge/car/puppy? Could you say your life was truly unhappy or felt unfulfilled before you thought of getting one? Do you want to stay with this job or take on one with less hours to live the lifestyle you want? Do you really need all that extra income, fancy dinners, the new iphone, if it means you get more vacation days, more hours at home? Consider what you need, what you can afford, and the negative effects that purchasing or working will cause on your life. If you still feel it is worth it, follow the steps in step 1. Also consider if your company is consistent with the definition of 'too much' you made for the company you would start. Is the company you're working for doing things you want to support?

Taking the time to make informed, hard decisions in order to increase efficiency and awareness is important. By cutting down the number of products you use and contribute to to what is necessary and what you personally believe in, consumers can help slow down the production treadmill, decrease the number of harmful products, and have a more efficient and enjoyable life. It is not enough for engineers to do all of the work; consumers cannot merely consume mindfulness, they must consume mindfully in order to truly accomplish these things. While products shape consumers lives from cradle to grave, consumers can just as powerfully and systematically shape products from cradle to grave.

Chapter 10- Geezers with iPads in the U.S. Senate

Summary

In this Chapter, Woodhouse goes into one grander solution to the problems with the U.S.'s current democracy discussed in Chapter 9: an Internet-Based democracy where every single adult citizen would have the means to have themselves heard on every decision the government makes. The basic outline is a discussion center completely online where forums and meetings can be held; each citizen gains authority by getting involved in discussions and gain ranking and credibility based on traits like thoughtfulness, speaking skills, ability to keep discussion on track, and knowledge base. Mediators would be chosen based on high ranking and expertise in the topic area for the discussion they are mediating. He also discusses a better face-to-face system where the population of the world is broken into levels, beginning with a group of about 10 neighbors or friends. They discuss issues and send one person up to the next level, forming a new group of 10, and so on, until the 500 groups that each send one person to a final group, which makes the decision. This way everyone who is able to vote has a say and He argues that with one or both of these, while far from flawless, will be a democracy far closer to our original intention of "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Analysis & Synthesis

One of the biggest advantages I see to Woodhouse's internet democracy is the potential to draw in younger voters. Most of the college-age people I talk to about politics are interested in it sheerly because of the effect politics has on our daily lives. The registering and voting process, the head figures, the campaigns, the obvious unfairness and name-games...all of that is taboo and inhibits my friends from getting involved. The internet democracy sweeps that away. It makes the complex and formal process of getting involved simple by putting it in a format young voters are familiar with (Woodhouse describes the format being similar to those of Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia). The conflicts and meetings are no longer far away. Having your say doesn't involve years of law school and campaigning, signing a petition that goes who-knows-where in the mail or email, going through formal voting, or spending money to join protests or marches; it's literal, physical, and there's no hoaxes. Once you're in a discussion, it's your voice directly into the conversation, and that's it. There's no head figures other than the moderator, who doesn't have a higher say than you. Finally, a systematic change that will bring young voters forward, because clearly even having a campaign that reaches out to the problems the younger population faces isn't enough.

Currently most U.S. politicians are white, male, and in their mid-40s. The majority of voters that participate in the elections are over the age of 50. Even if these decision makers keep up to date with technology, the majority of their lifetimes are not and will not be shaped by the technology being released and incorporated into our lives. This is crucial, because "the cardinal rule of social science is that people's thoughts and behaviors are shaped substantially by their circumstances" (121). Should those who did not get a cell phone until their 30's decide cell phone usage laws? Should those who used dial-up internet their adult life make decisions on wifi policies and rights laws? I believe the young voters (18-30) who are going to be dealing with the ramifications for decades longer than those in power and have spent their whole lives involved in the new technology should have the spotlight in those decisions. The speed of innovation has been a major topic of the reading for this course, and in order to make up-to-date and fully informed decisions that allow us to keep up with the technology we need to get out of legacy thinking. Parents want to shape a good world for their children, but what about children shaping the world for themselves? In general I would say people (at least parents) want to make decisions that leave the world a better place for the following generations, but maybe the best way to do that is creating a system that allows each generation to shape the world in its own best interest, according to their own circumstances. After all, wouldn't you rather make your own decision than have someone else make it for you?

Chapter 9- People Help the People

Summary

Chapter 9 is about changes that need to be made to government in order to truly progress into better innovation and more beneficial technoscience. Woodhouse argues that we CANNOT progress without changing the government and that there are little ways we can make changes, each of which have their own pros and cons. These mainly include dealing with the problems facing our representatives and our interaction with them. Congressmen are all rich, white people and thus we are misrepresenting the population; the population is uneducated and uninvolved and thus vote ignorantly or not at all; elected officials are afraid to make the hard public decisions because of the unavoidable consequences in either direction. Our model of Democracy is merely an image of what it can be; we need to seize the opportunity and potential and make changes, because no change is worse than a change with some negative effects.

Analysis & Synthesis

There was one main quotation by Woodhouse that stood out to me: "desirability of modernizing government to induce elected officials to make harder choices, sooner, as often as public needs and technological pace require" (109). This is the optimal Democracy Woodhouse is working towards with his possible solutions. So, I wanted to look at his main proposals and compare them to the democracy described in this quotation.

Woodhouse’s first proposal was for that of a ranking system for the United States’ congressmen. The rankings could convey power and the responsibility/purpose of the representative in a simple, comprehensive way. This would allow the public to comprehend and have access to this knowledge more easily. Currently chairs in Congress are given by seniority. The higher ranking Congressmen, knowledgeable officials or those who were more effective problem solvers, would get the higher authority. The problems with this, as Woodhouse describes, is in discerning what exactly makes someone more knowledgeable/ a better problem solver, as well as in corruption of the rating system, as legislators persuaded by selfish interest could gain rank by appealing specifically to a group or groups of people rather than the good of the whole. However, the positives come in the required transparency and breaking of the re-election system that keeps the same people in the chairs. By dropping the lowest ranking every cycle, we would weed out poor legislators and keep input fresh. With such an easy to understand and public system, news casts/ papers would surely cover lowest/highest ranking. Thus, politicians would have to be aware that every move is watched on a grand-scheme basis, and could jeopardize their ranking. This transparency would obligate these elected officials to make noticeable changes that the majority wants in order to get higher ranking. The urgent choices and problems required by the public and our technology-riddled daily lives would be at the front, allowing for decisions to be paced with them.

The second possible improvement was some sort of required education of officials before they are officially placed in positions of power. Woodhouse describes this as being some sort of experiences, visiting sites having to do with the type of decisions they would be making, for example the worst/best jails, prisons, schools, neighborhoods, organizations, etc. The problems seen here are once again a judgement call, this time on what was qualified/studied “enough" to be put in position. The other problem is this type of information gain and organization of visits, times, where to go, etc. requires an institution and other infrastructure that would oversee all of this. Also, of course, this would be susceptible to corruption in terms of discerning all of the who, what, where, how. However, as technology and social issues are integral to all aspects of the United States daily function, this holistic insight would highlight what needed to be done, prioritized, and the pace at which to do so. Officials would have to be aware of it and thus take it into consideration.

Woodhouse’s final idea was that of paid incentives for congressmen. Currently the representatives’ main increases in salary “are undesirable for the rest of us: outright bribery, misallocation of campaign funds, favors from wealthy people (such as trips on yachts), speeches to the National Association of Business or equivalent groups willing to pay honoraria of $50,000 or so (bribe in disguise), or continue working part-time in their law practices. All these activities DETRACT from actually serving as a representative of the public doing the public's business" (115). The idea is for each problem solved, the official would receive a bonus, the more successful or important the change made, the larger the bonus. It’s the exact same scenario he proposed for getting CEO’s to be more honest and socially motivated. Of course, this is extremely prone to corruption- whenever there is the distribution of money, the discretion is at those who have such money, in this case…other government officials. Still, in terms of this ideal Democracy where decisions are in time with public need and technology’s pace, technological and urgent public problems are very all-encompassing. Thus, they would result in higher bonuses when solved. As with ranking, this would also push them to do it sooner because they would want as many bonuses as possible. Even as policies take years to be put into practice, the system could reward them for setting them in place to begin with.

Overall, these proposals are riddled with flaws, but so is our current system, and I believe making these changes is necessary and important. All of the problems Woodhouse describes, the discrepancies and lack of understanding comes from a corrupt, confusing government that is not trusted by the citizenry. So, my question would be, how can we make and enforce these changes from within the public sector? Instead of the change being made by this undesirable government and its representatives, how could we build it from the ground up, or set up a system for the people of America to run it? Is that even possible? I believe that is the best and only way for this change to be effective and sustainable.

Carl Hart on How The Connection Between Cocaine and Racism Started from the Bottom

The Carl L. Hart article linked below was written for The Nation and discusses the historical connection between black men and cocaine usage. He argues that this standing connection has always caused inexcusable harm to black men and has allowed racism to stand in our drug laws and enforcement of them. Hart believes we cannot hide behind the excuse of ignorance anymore; the damage of this racism needs to end, and it cannot do so until we change our policies.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178158/how-myth-negro-cocaine-fiend-helped-shape-american-drug-policy#

The idea of the “Negro Cocaine ‘Fiends’” began in the South and induced fear into the public, which was constantly washed in media where “crack was portrayed as producing uniquely addictive, unpredictable and deadly effects associated with blacks”. Supposedly crack (not powder cocaine, associated w/use by rich white men) made black people randomly aggressive, murderous, accurate, killing machines. This continued into the 1980s where “problems to crack were described as being prevalent in ‘poor’, ‘urban’ or ‘troubled’ neighborhoods, ‘inner cities’ and ‘ghettos,’ terms that were codes for ‘blacks’ and other undesired people”, as blatant racist terms/slang were unacceptable. By 1968 the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts passed, giving harsher penalties (100:1) for crack than powder cocaine, and resulting in 85% of sentenced men being black, despite the majority of users were and are white. Currently these policies stand, and money is poured more into law enforcement in poor communities rather than the job opportunities and area rehab they need. Blacks may not be lynched anymore but they receive continuous damage in unnecessary killings (like that of an unarmed Bronx teenager chased and shot by police who thought he possessed drugs), diminished opportunities via frequency of imprisonment (1/3 of black boys born today will spend time in prison). 

This connects to Drake’s (Aubrey Drake Graham) song “Started From the Bottom”, which celebrates him and his friends success in becoming famous and highlights Carl Hart’s argument of the current state of things and the stigma that it won’t change. Drake describes his poor community and lifestyle in the first verse, working night shifts, his aggressive and unhappy family dynamic: 

“I done kept it real from the jump

Living at my mama's house we'd argue every mornin'

Nigga, I was trying to get it on my own

Working all night, traffic on the way home

And my uncle calling me like ‘Where ya at?

I gave you the keys told ya bring it right back’

Nigga, I just think it's funny how it goes

Now I'm on the road, half a million for a show”

All of this he describes as the “bottom”, the chorus of the song being:

“Started from the bottom now we’re here

Started from the bottom now the whole team here, nigga” x4

He highlights the current view of others that were in his situation, the poor black boys who are unable to believe that he started out poor and moved up:

“Boys tell stories about the man

Say I never struggled, wasn’t hungry, yeah, I doubt it”

He became rich and famous of his own accord, starting from the bottom. It wasn’t a result of better circumstances for him as a black man. He figured it out and could show anyone how to do it.

“I could turn your boy into the man

There ain’t really much I hear that’s poppin’ off without us, nigga

We just want the credit where it’s due”

It’s the same for every black man, and that carries through even in his good fortune. It all began at "the bottom", and won’t change with black men becoming famous like him. Just because he's famous now, nothing is different about his past.

“Story stays the same I never changed it”

“Story stay the same through the money and the fame

‘Cause we…

Started from the bottom now we’re here”

It won’t change because, as Hart exposed, they’re all starting from “the bottom”, those poor neighborhoods with the same terrible racist circumstances.

Chapter 8- Technical Economic Innovations 2

Summary

Woodhouse lays out the format and problems with the hierarchy and authoritarian nature of most businesses in the modern world in this chapter. He argues that the market playing field should be equal between employees, executives, the government and social organizations or associations. This can be done through an auction mechanism, which raise funds, automatically set market priorities, allow new innovators to decide when/if to progress, and account for exceptions for high-priority innovations, valuable innovations and smaller innovations that needn't be put through the system. In his terms, consumers and innovators need to consider, "is technological society in greater trouble because of a shortage of innovations, or because of lack of attention to those that do occur?" (101) Then the system can take time and effort into making a new, more thorough system of addressing innovations.

Analysis & Synthesis

I feel that there will always be the ongoing struggle with technology of how it redefines our roles in society. Woodhouse highlighted this struggle throughout this chapter, focusing on how our current system often progresses to the disadvantage of employees. His first example was that of environmental solutions. There have been many suggestions to executives to implement more environmentally friendly practices, to which they respond with the threat to our jobs or employment opportunities to pick up the cost. This prevents progression, harms employee relations and shoots down any opportunity given to environmental organizations. Woodhouse's approach to this solution was twofold: first, that "the tax rate might be increased every few years until it became obvious that the contest between business and other social interests became more equal" (97), and having employees act as consumer representatives, the hope being "if it were known that workers had a share in decision making, environmental organizations or other groups might as workers to speak on their behalf" (97). I have two questions in response. First, we have been trying to make tax changes for a very long time, and in recent political battles the discussion of raising taxes as well as enacting tax raises have been implemented. See Occupy Wall Street. This is clearly not a simple or easy answer; consumers will complain or revolt until it is changed. Woodhouse gave the example of how "Spanish workers still have the right to vote to hire and fire their bosses", and that he "wonders why that simple idea has not become better known and more widely tried" (98). It would not surprise me if businesses put conditions into place that would allow workers to technically have a say, but would limit them to which decisions they could make, or what exactly they could say, how they could say it, etc. I don't think it would be an effective system, at least with the general tendencies of the business market right now. Somehow we need to break this "trend toward fewer employees per cracker or car [that] has been in place for a century, with no end in sight." (99)

Our current system catches us in this vicious cycle of authoritarianism based on profit incentives and ideas of power & dominance, which I described in my previous blog post. Still, I wonder if we could ideally implement Woodhouse's system, with employees holding comparable power and say to executives. Wouldn't this also be a self-feeding and driving system? Better pay, input into what goes on in the company would make employees enthusiastic about their work and the growth of their company. Consumers would know more about the products they are seeing and what goes on behind it, encouraging them to purchase the products of companies with these policies and fair treatment. Employees would purchase their company's products out of pride and support for their hard work. Thus, the economy would be stimulated from within and on fair and powerful principles that would allow for change via personality and the input of the citizenry the company is involved in. Executives would learn from employees and be held accountable for the effects their decisions make, and would only become wiser and more responsible. In this ideal world, our economy would thrive and reflect the culture and drive of its consumers and workers, citizens would have a healthy, clear view of products and would be able to make change through what they do every day.

Chapter 7- Potential Economic Innovations

Summary

Chapter 7 looks into how to better motivate executives to benefit our economic system holistically, rather than a few people. The change needs to come from the higher-ups that are currently getting most of the benefit. The author's main argument was the specific types of problems that occur and where the solution lies, rather than what exactly the solutions were. For example, cheap products that break over and over result in more repairs and replacements for customers, as well as more employee time. While the original product is cheap, these costs end up eliminating any profit the company would have made, as well as causing burdens for the consumer and decreasing their likelihood of purchasing from the company again. Cheaper products also come with more environmental and societal costs, like pollution and cruelly low wages, due to executives not wanting to make the investment that would cost them personally. Woodhouse argues the solution lies in the hands of executives and the creation of a double-check system, where a network of groups would govern major changes and approve ones that executives made. This way the changes could be viewed holistically and assured to be generally beneficial.

Analysis & Synthesis

Throughout this chapter I was caught by all the vagueness and confusing missing links in the world's current innovation infrastructure. Woodhouse wants to eliminate things like the number of repairs and replacements and employee time spent on such things. He argues that no move has currently been made because "no one knows just how well businesses eventually could perform" (82), but "a process of improvement could be launched without knowing the eventual level of achievement" (83). The problem is that executives and economists aren't going to make those moves unless they have proof or clear promise of improvement. The system operates on profit incentives, and if that isn't laid out for them, of course they won't take it. He lists off general changes he wishes to see:

• Induce executives to combine drive for profit w/service to customers
• Better employee service
• Better service to general public
• Reduced toxins
• "toxics could not have become an environmental horror story without the initiatives taken using corporate executives' discretionary authority" (85)
• Better safety in product
• Reduced pollution
• Business executives that make a system that provides good prices, durable products, safety, fair employment, job opportunities, fair treatment, opportunities for employee advancement

All of these are fine and well and wonderful, and his solution of a consulting/accounting system makes a lot of political and logistical sense. However, I believe the problem is in our natural tendencies and behaviors as humans. Is there anything really wrong or unnatural about hierarchical, dominant or selfishly motivated behavior? Are these behaviors what needs to be changed to effectively better our economic system? Those behaviors are what allowed us to live in the wild as well as successfully survive and build society. The problems come in when the behaviors are used at the expense of others or in a corrupt or harmful way. Behaviors that are profitable need to be consistent with socially positive norms. In other words, the system needs to be reorganized so that maybe not the cheapest, but cheap manufacturing "induces farmers, factory managers, retailers, and others to adapt their behaviors" (89) so as to bring about those changes. In the chapter, Woodhouse used the example of making textile substitutions for cotton, a highly environmentally damaging crop in production and the amount of water and electricity needed to care for it. If the clothing was stylish, or comfortable, if celebrities endorsed it, if it was advertised well, or if it was cheaper than cotton clothing, consumers would buy it. It wouldn't matter that cotton was the tradition. Then, more companies would use the cotton substitutes as sales increased and cotton would slowly be weeded out or at least thinned out within the system. This could be done with anything if it follows the same profit incentives to slowly add in the changes Woodhouse sees as benefiting the system.

Chapter 6- More Intelligent Trial and Error

Summary

In Chapter 6 Woodhouse discusses the idea of risk in innovations. He presents the two forms of dealing with risk: the Precautionary Principle and Intelligent Trial and Error. The Precautionary Principle allows us to decrease the harm done by a product even if the inventors do not know the likelihood of it, whereas Intelligent Trial and Error allows innovators to pinpoint potential problems and their probability and stop them before it enters the market. He argues the key to success is maintaining flexibility in innovation. The general process for products starts at a high flexibility in the design state and slowly decreases through testing, etc. By the time the product is sent out it has little or no flexibility to change or account for any problems. By implementing strategies like phase-ins and tackling multiple approaches to one problem at once, as innovators we can intentionally add flexibility, decrease risk, and cope with problems that occur gracefully. He concludes by discussing the potential problems we already have in place that prevent us from seeking this approaches, mainly our Legacy Thinking and stubbornness.

Analysis & Synthesis

Woodhouse began by stating that good versus bad innovation "depends in part on how those with greatest influence approach their tasks" (69). I was convinced the chapter was going to highlight the poor decisions of leaders of corporations. However, throughout this chapter Woodhouse focused on examples of how inflexible our society is. In terms of the Precautionary Principle, which he explained as based on how we do not need to know the likelihood of something to know if it is a fatal risk, he described our insurance systems. Homeowners know that there's a possibility that the house may burn down or flood, which is enough to put the safety of insurance in place (70). This is an inflexible process in that "precautions will not prevent problems, but can make them less costly" (71). The Precautionary Principle does not decrease risk in any way, it just lessens its harsh effects. A similar case extends to manufacturing. Originally, government officials would have to go to court to prove pesticides unsafe. The government instead employed a law so "manufacturers are now required to demonstrate prior to marketing that their products do not pose 'an unreasonable risk'" (71). Once again, the pesticides themselves have not been made any more flexible during their process so as to eliminate more risks. Instead, they are merely required to show they are not catastrophic. Here, as Woodhouse provided in the beginning, the bad innovation is in the hands of the head honchos who decide what "unreasonable risk" is.

Once an innovation is out in the world the consumers ingest it to a point that screeches any available flexibility to a halt. This is a time sensitive matter. Woodhouse's main example was cell phones. This really drove the point of our society's inflexibility in for me. What if cell phones were found to cause brain cancer? (72) I know many people who would just keep using them. After all, how can the thousands of people and systems that rely on cell phones be expected to magically disintegrate this technology from our daily lives? It's simply impossible to even fathom how the world's technological systems could make that change. I truly believe that as consumers we have been brainwashed into this mindset by an inflexible society. Consumers take successful or popular innovations and drive them into the background, the framework, of our daily lives. What if vacuums were suddenly deadly risks to us? Or refrigerators? I have a strong feeling that the people effected would do what this system has trained us to: sit and wait for a new innovation to come and save us.

Chapter 4- Pros and Cons and In-betweens

Chapter 4- Challenge 3: Innovation Too Slow

Summary

Woodhouse talks about our motivation as a society to implement new technologies in Chapter 4. There are many perspectives he highlights. First is the general population, who find it "easier to perceive bad things happening than good things not happening” (45)—we see this obviously with online customer reviews. More posts are written about a product for cons or problems than satisfactory or positive experiences. If people are satisfied, they're less likely to go on and write a review. Next he goes into the view of the head of biomed corporations who control whether a vaccine is researched, publicized, and where it is sent. Their motivations are highly political and personal, often with profit motives or incentives put in place by the business model. He ends with a view of car purchasers and home ownership contradictions, and how our motivations as homebuyers are often nonsensical or have to do with an infrastructure that discourages us from inputing new technology.

Analysis & Synthesis

Dengue fever is extremely deadly and at risk to some 2.5 billion people, according to Woodhouse. It is officially considered a neglected illness by World Health Organization, which couldn't be more obvious. I've heard about it all of 2 or 3 times in my life. It feels unfair, how little society motivates us to learn about these issues in the world and how little information is made available. The unfairness continues when people in charge of vaccines for these types of diseases make decisions “based partly on whether there is likely to be a paying clientele”(46) and they find “it more profitable to emphasize drugs for curing disease rather than drugs for prevention” (46). I find this infuriating, frankly. Drugs for curing diseases get so much hype but prevention is worth a million cures! I think we need to start implementing systems and rethinking the current medical system to drive doctors and research groups towards prevention, awareness, and more open sources of information about personal health and disease. Profit incentives are understandable and feed on a very human attribute, but we need to use them to our advantage to progress and create good in the world.

The exact same thing needs to be done for Green Housing. The product Woodhouse spoke most about in this chapter was Geothermal Heat Pumps, which take hot or cool air and pull them up from the ground and use it to heat buildings. These are ideal for schools as parks and parking lots provide plenty of underground space to bury the pumps and tubes. GHPs are extremely efficient and while requiring a larger installation cost, have a largely lower utility cost compared to electric heating and AC, and are much friendlier to the environment than natural gas when installed correctly. However, there is a huge lack of experienced contractors available due to lack of educational opportunities. The part that really irritates me is that banks do not taking utility costs into account and thus do not home owners to borrow the extra $10,000-$25,000 to install the GHP system. Homeowners are virtually shut out unless they have excellent academic standing and the motivation for a greener home. They would have to develop this motivation on their own and do their research to even know about GHPs.

Essentially, the point of this chapter is“just because people have needs, and just because technoscientists have the techniques to help meet those needs, does not mean that economic, political, cultural, and other barriers will not interfere” (54). This is exactly, why people still buy Victorian homes despite their lack of energy or spacial efficiency. Our motivations come from outside the market: because we have always wanted one, or it’s “in” to own one in the neighborhood we're buying in, or because we grew up in one. That is why we will buy crappy homes in the new market. The market and our society simply isn't adapting to motivate people to make this shift, and even those who want to are shot down for their efforts. This is no way to create a sustainable, progressive economy for innovations.

Chapter 3- Toilets as Social Justice

Chapter 3- Challenge #2: Unfairness

Summary

Chapter 3 highlighted the accessibility of water and sanitation throughout the world, focusing on the struggles of the lower class people of Mumbai, India. He raised many questions about how to address circumstances like those in Mumbai, which are far from an acceptable standard of living. He looked at what exactly the situation is, highlighting accessibility to resources, unfair social systems in place within the poor communities and the classes above them, the political corruption and the sewage and water systems currently in place. It's not just a question of how bad the circumstances are, but "how might one figure out what is fair, what is socially just?" (35). It's not just a question of accessibility. We need to consider social factors, political factors, and environmental factors. It's a question of making a new system that will sustain itself and propel itself forward into a better standard of living.

When it comes to fairness, we all have a clear idea of what is fair for everyone to have. The hard part comes in when deciding exactly how much that is, under what circumstances should someone get what amount of anything, and who is going to continue to decide that. In Woodhouse's words, "by what criteria would you propose to determine who deserves what?” (43).

Analysis & Synthesis

The U.N. made a goal to reduce the percent of its population without access to sanitation and water by half. This seems like a modest goal, which “suggests the problem must be widespread and difficult to solve" (36), because we all know how it goes, "politicians tend to over-promise”(36). This is the stem of the lack of action towards better water and sanitation. These shiny promises create huge disconnection between technosocial innovation and the public. We expect it to happen so we wait...and wait...and wait...And nothing gets done. Then the promises made next time are lower and lower until a new person steps in. It's a vicious cycle.

Other vicious cycles are in place within the areas with poor access that prevent them from developing and progressing. Women and girl children walk miles a day to get water, keeping the girls out of school for their necessary labor, which slows their social and economic development. They cannot improve their lifestyle if they cannot get educated and get jobs, and so they are stuck their whole lives.

I was severely shocked by the danger that lack of sanitation puts onto these women. When there are no bathrooms available, people take it into their own means to dispose of their waste in public areas, sides of roads, railroad tracks, bushes, etc. With this lack of privacy, women are regularly molested, to the point where they decrease their food intake to avoid taking the risk. No human should ever be forced to compromise their health even further to compromise their safety.

What also surprised me was how much people's health is being compromised and yet nothing is being done about it. With people defecating in public areas and being pressed into tiny urban spaces germs have spread extremely rapidly, with  “cholera cases increasing by some 500 percent” over the past 20 years (39). Why, then, would the more well-off people do something to help these people if it would help keep themselves healthy?

In terms of what's being done, many organizations “are attempting to raise necessary funds, muster expertise, organize residents of poor communities, and encourage city officials to tackle the challenge more vigorously” (41). This sentence made me hopeful, because it’s NOT just an institutional problem, it’s not JUST an accessibility problem, it’s all of the above and all of the above is necessary to improve people's lives. It's about making utilities "more responsive to a diversity of needs through enhanced public scrutiny of administrative and financial actions”(41)—THIS is social problem solving, this is progressive, this is sustainable, this is toilets as social justice.

Chapter 2- Land mines, Car Crashes and Corn

Chapter 2- Challenge 1: Unintended Consequences

Summary

In this second chapter Woodhouse discusses the many examples and ways that innovation can go wrong. He discusses how poorly prepared we are for even the simplest, most common problems that can be life threatening, like cars running out of gas, or supplying soldiers with the right kind of vehicle to protect them from landmines. He highlights how very afraid we are of things going wrong, and how we support government control to make us feel like we're being protected, but in reality it doesn't do anything. We cannot fight the complex forces of our politics and economy. Right now our innovation process is far from fool-proof, and many things are overlooked or simply not put any effort into.

Analysis & Synthesis

We have learned growing up that when you fall down you get back up, and that falling time and time again is what allows you to get stronger, more aware, so you fall less and less. This pattern is nonexistent in many corporation's head leaders, and we live a life of ignorance is bliss. Despite falling and falling, "many facets of sociotechnical life proceed as if those in authority expect everything to work out fine. Time after time, they appear not to anticipate unanticipated consequences", or appear to not anticipate the severity of such consequences or the effect they'll have down the line. One major example Woodhouse gave was that of PSD. Even now, "U.S. military officials still are not giving soldiers returning from combat sufficient psychological support to head off long-term post traumatic stress disorder -- despite the fact that what once was known as "shell shock" has been recognized for a century and understood for decades.” (21)

This devastation gets even simpler than that. We all know the feeling of zoning out in the car, driving down the highway, thinking of a loved one or getting lost in the song that's playing, and these daily little things “could impair any driver's attention to fuel supply. Might one expect that automotive engineers and manufacturers would anticipate on a statistical basis what some fraction of individual drivers will not foresee?”(22) It's something we all experience and has put people in life threatening situations, dying of heat or freezing or girls getting stuck on a road at night and getting raped or kidnapped or killed. We have failed to account for even the smallest things that are deadly or life threatening and yet we have GPS and radio and phone chargers and cars that call when you get in an accident, but the air bag doesn’t deploy when you get hit from behind! Thousands of drivers die or get severe brain damage from being shot through their windshield when rear-ended. This could easily be fixed and save so many people.

What can we do as citizens? Well, the most common way consumers interact with the market is to “ support 'government intervention' to reduce the severity of economic downturns."(24) However, this can work to the disadvantage of consumers simply by lack of awareness. For example, subsidies. Subsidies on produce and products like milk allow it to be cheaper in the store and keep farmers in their jobs. This gives the false impression to consumers that it is cheap and affordable but actually, the farmers are losing money, and where does that money come from to keep them in business to supply our groceries? Consumers need to be more aware of the market and how it works, and understand how to work with it, even when it is against our nature. Naturally, we welcome the positive consequences, but  “most people consider it unwise to passively accept the negative [unintended consequences]” (24). Maybe it is time to accept that "don't fix it if it ain't broke" attitude when it comes to the market.

Chapter 1- Asking the Right Questions

Chapter 1- Introduction

Summary

Woodhouse begins the analysis of Science, Technology, and Society by a general discussion of the world we live in. He lays out how technology and innovation in the 21st century seems amazing compared to the previous century, everything from communication, weaponry, food availability and quality, to new ice cream flavors. All of these would seem incredible to someone from the 1940's, and now not only are they available but available to all classes. Then he goes into a deeper analysis of how these technologies are being used, and more importantly, where they're not. While we live in a world full of available resources, intellectual and physical, we have governing rules like politics, racism, religious and gender biases, personal priorities, that impede their accessibility and use. He highlights the basic needs that are not met for billions of people: water, safety, food. Finally, the chapter ends with his thesis that "at a higher level of generality, this book asks: What would be required to guide science and technology toward better fulfilling more humans’ needs more of the time? How might those with influence build upon what is wondrous about science and helpful about technology?” (6). The rest of the chapter gives brief paragraphs on the topics of each following chapter.

Analysis and Synthesis

The chapter began hopefully, declaring how “the best spirit of global understanding can feel incredibly uplifting as people in diverse cultures discover that other humans are not so different from themselves” (2). Our new communication, travel, and education innovations have been crossing borders in so many ways to allow for deeper understanding. This is taken very seriously and considered a truly beneficial part of our lives; I have always been encouraged to save my money and travel, find out about my heritage in Europe, study abroad, all of which would allow me to gain knowledge I could not have gotten with a text book and photographs. Of course, I cannot ignore the negative consequences that come with this, via terrorism and missiles and spy programs. However, even when we wage war, we are not waring clans that know nothing about each other except whatever happens when we meet to fight at our borders. The people we fight are people who supply your city with resources, people who have relatives that are citizens, they're the family of your best friends who are exchange students. This sort of global understanding is incredible, and allows people to make better decisions about whether or not to wage war, whether or not to join the military, or support political moves. Even in the face of terror or violence, it is something to value and I believe in the future may help eliminate physical violence all together.

The second main discussion in the Introduction was about the capability of technology to induce progress, but it does not always. The way Woodhouse related this to everyone was “the extent to which you now accept the technocratic belief that scientific knowledge and technological innovation translate automatically into greater freedom and a better way of life.” (2) When people think of new technology, they think about it making life easier, and this is true for a lot of innovations like the cell phone and biomedicine. However it doesn't always translate. For example, “almost everyone would share the goal of stopping children’s suffering— and yet it persists decade after decade” (2). A shared goal and value simply isn’t enough to bring action in our world of political and social boundaries. When the system does allow for action, it doesn't filter what innovations are necessary or whether their benefits are lesser than their damages. For example, scientists concerned about climate change were interested in adding iron into our water supplies to help refract some of the solar glare. “Oceanographers and ecologists reacted with horror to the possible secondary and tertiary effects on complex food chains, but U.S. law does not cover actions by non-U.S.-flagged vessels on the high seas, and the international Law of the Oceans does not cover iron, a natural substance.” (5) Woodhouse is clearly emphasizing just how complex a system one is entering when at the front of innovation; there is little room for error.

After making these points Woodhouse poses a question that I would like to address. He asks, “would you count reliable supplies of clean water for many more people a form of real progress?”(3) Personally, of course that would be progress, but it depends on at what cost we are able to do it. I counter with a series of questions of my own: Where is this water coming from? Are we able to supply it because we’re learning to use water more efficiently, more sparingly? Or is it because we found a new highly pollutant-filled method of extracting it from yet another Earth source that will inevitably make things worse in the end, or put different problems unto our citizens?