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?
