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.