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?