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.
