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.