Glue Safety Messages Not Sticking

                Ian Urbina’s article, As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester, points out the poor working conditions in Royale Comfort Seating factories, and the politics that allow this to continue.

                Starting with the case of Sheri Farley, the article quickly dives into the problems caused companies putting profits above working conditions. Sheri Farley is one of many adults who can no longer support themselves because of permanent nerve damage. The cause has been linked to the nPB glue frequently used in furniture production for its fast drying qualities, high rate production, and low cost. While the article brings up multiple times how Royale Comfort Seating and others are trying to keep business local, this message and the resulting morale debate of unsafe work vs. no work are undermined by the continued apathy of the company towards recommendations to improve safety. Requests by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to improve air quality have resulted in ventilation that goes unmaintained, and demands for $18 respirators have been met with $0.90 dust masks previously noted as useless against the vapors by inspectors.

                Work related injury has historically been one of the big reasons behind unions in America. Poor conditions and hazardous jobs could lead to permanent debilitation and leave adults and parents with no future job opportunity on top of medical bills. The effort to get companies to support these unfortunate employees, and prevent future occurrences was an important step in improving the safety of citizens, and the American standard of living. While I can understand the conflict on spending money to swap to a safer and far less profitable glue, the reluctance to put in some money and effort to improving worker safety indicates to me the company and its managers lack concern for their workers, both from a morale and monetary perspective. Even if managers feel detached from responsibility to look for ways to affordably improve safety, the fact that American policies don’t provide a fiscal incentive for the company to get on top of problems its branches are causing stands as a problem in society.

                The article brings up an important issue in our society and makes an effort to bring the reasons behind both sides to the table; which I applaud it for. But I find several facts from the article about our country concerning or downright frustrating to know are true (like how small funding for protecting employees is compared to other government budgets.)

What We Want When Working

                The article, The #1 Feature of a Meaningless Job, by Adam Grant explores what most employees want from a job. It focuses on what jobs give employees a sense of purpose, the benefits of this, and possible ways for other fields to utilize these benefits.

                After supporting that most employees seek purpose from their work, Grant listed jobs, varying from teachers to firemen, which have been noted for a high degree of meaningfulness to workers. He notes how these jobs see more interaction between the worker and those who benefit than other jobs which, despite some having more opportunity for creativity and independence at work, are statistically found less meaningful to the workers. Of particular interest are the studies referenced, with one linking a employees sense of job meaningfulness to positive impacts on others, another pointing out how, in countries around the globe, most citizens describe activities that contribute to society as work.

                While it is hard to know how big a role an employee’s sense of purpose plays in their work, the examples cited definitely support the claim that work which benefits others is inspiring. Improved performance from radiologists simply from having a patient’s face linked to an x-ray and how meeting a single person who’s directly benefited from their work resulted in significant improvements in revenue (>150%) from university fundraisers. These examples demonstrate both the degree to which motivation improves work, and simple ways to foster this motivation.

                Grant furthermore noted his own experiment on motivation. He and his colleagues worked with salespeople on crafting their job and approach to work to be more motivating to them. He noted how coworkers and employers of these salespeople reported them as happier and more effective for at least six months after developing motivational skills. However, as positive as the author is towards his experiment, without a control group it’s hard to judge how much of this improvement is due to the actual benefits of this job crafting, and how much is due to the placebo effects of attending an hour and a half session on improving your work.

                Overall the article was informative and filled with supportive studies from other sources. With so many studies indicating the link between benefiting others and finding fulfillment in your work, I can definitely view increased interaction as a way to improve worker happiness, and with it a better society.

Work Times Work You

                David Cain’s article Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed, on his blog about being human, covers his observation on work hours in America compared to those abroad and how it affects society. Focused on why we have a 40 hour work week and its effects the article covers the economic benefits, social issues, and history of American work hours.

                One of the first aspects the author brings up is how differently he spent his time on vacation abroad in comparison to at home after work. He observed that with more free time in vacations abroad he was spending less than he normally did and enjoyed free activities like nature walks and beaches. From this he’s hypothesized that the 40 hour work week in America plays a large role in promoting consumerism because “Suddenly I have a lot more money and a lot less time,” (David.) While it would be nice to see some studies backing his observations up, the time versus cost of activities he mentioned definitely supports the logic behind his article.

                In his discussion of social issues he points out that, while he could live happily off of far less than he makes, he doesn’t have the option to only work a portion of the work day, despite how “the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours” (David.) While with no citation it’s hard to verify that ratio, it is common knowledge that typical workers don’t spend most of their work day being fully productive.

                One thing I didn’t know about the forty hour work week was the fact that it originated in Britain in the 19^th century to protect workers. He points out the increase of production due to technology as a valid reason to reduce work hours (as we can produce more in less time) that hasn’t been used by businesses because of their reliance on people spending during their free time.

                The article was definitely an interesting read for someone who hasn’t considered why we work the hours we do, although it’s lack of studies leaves its observations in question. While the article’s reasoning is logical, it would still be unsurprising to find that 40 hour work weeks are currently common for other reasons and it’s hard to judge how much of our consumer culture is maintained through limited free time.

Science, Society, and Some Super Sneaky Alliteration

Do Artifacts Have Politics by Langdon Winner is an article on the relationship between engineering, science, and society in America. It uses historical examples to show how individuals have used science to influence society and how scientific developments have, deliberately or otherwise, shaped society.

To show how science has been used to influence society, the author references the construction projects of Robert Moses. Robert had overpasses on roads in Long Island New York constructed low enough that the public buses, widely used by poorer racial minorities, would be unable to use them.

                In discussing the part of engineers and construction workers, I find it hard to blame them for not noticing a concealed reason for their instructions and even if individuals had noticed why that height was being used, it’s unlikely they could have done much more than inconveniencing Robert with finding a replacement. While I could accept this as an example of why we should promote awareness of workers on public projects in relation to the public, I find it unfair to blame engineers in particular for not noticing buses they didn’t use wouldn’t fit and to assign them some sort of guilt or punishment for their involvement would implicate numerous other employment fields for managements decisions they didn’t make.

                In his writing on how science has influenced society, he notes the current business structure and the status of workers as an example of science building authority and society. The article points out how modern society is currently dependent on factories, work, and businesses due to how large scale our population has become and how this takes precedence of typical social morals. While I would agree that we are currently reliant on businesses and factory work to maintain our daily lives, I feel that it is important to consider how humanity was similarly dependent on morally dubious authority figures long before present technologies. Compared to spending your entire life in debt to whoever owned the land you farmed I don’t view modern industry as a net loss for society. It’s not a pinnacle of social reform and equality but the improved life span and (to my knowledge) standards of living are definite pluses in my book.

                Overall I found some of the historical examples from the article interesting. Unfortunately it failed to point out solutions to prevent the issues it raised and wasn’t establishing why it is was unintended consequences of science where responsible for the continuation of inequality in society.

Daddy, where does stuff come from?

                The Secret Life of Everything: Where Your Stuff Comes From by Brandon Keim is an article detailing the difficulty of tracking down the sources of production and delivery of common household items. It covers the author’s compilation on others research regarding delivery, supply lines and product complexity.

                In its discussion of final destinations for products Brandon notes how much easier it is to find where something is delivered compared to where it came from. Sensibly this is because stores already communicate what they have in order to sell it, although whether the difficulties the author encountered in finding where it came from are because the businesses are striving to hide all sources or just the result of whoever he asked being unsure where their products come from. For all his detail on the process of delivery in regards to mathematically maximizing the efficiency of their box placement for when it’s unloaded the author doesn’t express whether the delivery services where separate from companies or more compliant in sharing where the stuff they moved came from.

                The supply lines aspect focused on the complexity and control of delivery of car parts. To illustrate the difficulty of tracking every part of a product to its source he cites how Pietra Rivoli spent years of research to make their book, The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy. Of greater interest however is his information regarding a coffee company whose president was able to link him to the source of the beans from which their coffee was made, without knowing where products they bought from other sources like cups came from. To me this paints the picture of multiple companies who can account for their own products while having little clue regarding how the products they buy from others are made.

                While not a focus of the article, the difficulty of tracing the production of a computer was noted by the author as so difficult that “Even focusing on one part, a single display or chip, would be a daunting.” (Brandon.) I find this particularly interesting given computer manufacturing taking place almost entirely after vastly improved information storage and communication.

                Ultimately I found the article to be a well-structured summary of its author’s venture into the world of modern supply lines and an eye opener to the amount of information that is and isn’t out there. The greatest concern I found was regarding the difficulty in finding the source of any error in a product when finding the sources behind a t-shirt take years without trying to research individual sources for problems.

Class Discussion With Our New Overlords, the Teacher's Assistants

                The in class TA discussion was a refreshing twist from regular lectures with multiple speakers, student interaction, and more in depth discussion of reforms and developments. While I found the emphasis on preventing unintended consequences somewhat overboard, I strongly support increased communication between researchers and those who would want to use their product.

                Unintended consequences are a regrettable occurrence, but when combating them it is important to have realistic goals and methods. While preventing accidents and hazardous circumstances is important, you need to include focus on what happens when problems occur. Focusing on preventing problems has the difficulty of some people trying to work around rules to make more money and leaves me skeptical on what level of accident prevention is enough. At some point the cost to prevent possible accidents or issues outweighs the statistical occurrence of said problems, much like attempts to further reduce bug content in food. While I can support increased regulation and precautionary steps, at this point preventing businesses from abusing loopholes and shirking responsibility for deliberate hazards seems more prudent.

                On the other hand, communication between researchers and the public in which they work and/or work for would be a great way to improve products and promote public knowledge. Seatbelts were developed long before their widespread use in large part because they weren’t comfortable and public knowledge of the seatbelts protective capabilities was sketchy. Increased focus on communication could help call attention to issues like this faster so that problems that go unnoticed or ignored by those unaffected can be handled. As an example of fields already implementing this feedback from test audiences plays a large role in movie production and more to allow developers an outside look at their product. Even when they don’t make significant changes they still serve as excellent sources of data. Communication and information are cornerstones to the use of intelligent trial and error and I fully support widespread use of interaction between researchers, developers, and the public.

                While I felt like the discussion could have used more details and facts to go along with topics, I definitely enjoyed having multiple speakers and hearing viewpoints from other groups. One point to add for future discussions is that students would probably feel somewhat on the spot to openly dissent from the class viewpoint so actually asking for criticisms could promote more discussion of pros and cons instead of primarily pros.

On Voting in our sort of Democratic Democracy

The Infrastructure of American Democracy Is Dysfunctional by John Nichols focuses on issues with the current election process in relation to voting. It points out current issues with voting in America, the recommendations put forth by a commission under Obama, and what the author wants to see.

One of the main issues facing voter turnout today is the inconvenience of voting in America. While I have often criticized the Electoral College and first past the post system, under which you could theoretically “become president with only 22% of the popular vote” (CGP Grey) having not yet participated in voting I had no idea that voting is frequently an hours long process taking place on a work day and now feel I have a better understanding of why retired people vote in such larger margins. Another issue brought up is the inconsistencies in how states and cities run their vote. While I personally feel that having a one-size fits all isn’t necessarily the solution, streamlining and improving every cities voting process individual would take much more time and resources to develop.

The commission’s recommendations focused on improving the means by which people vote and allowing them to vote at earlier dates. While allowing people to vote at earlier dates is a step in the right direction, moving the official voting day to a non-work day would help make voting more convenient without confusion of finding when other days are available to vote. I’m unsure of the security of online voting but if it were well implemented I could definitely see it as an easier way for US citizens to vote.

The author expresses how he wants to see more public interest in voting through increasing social education regarding how and why to vote in addition to current plans to make the voting process simpler. While making voting easier to do will make people more interested in the political scene of America, the current system of counting votes through the Electoral College still makes it so that Americans who don’t live in swing states receive very little interest from political campaigns and candidates.

While I found the article informative about the voting process in America, I found its failure to address issues with our election process concerning as I view the inaccuracies in our election process and representation to be a far more significant issue than inconsistent and inconvenient voting processes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k Cgp Grey Electoral College

Drone Deployment Delivers Dubiously Determined Death

                In class on March 7, our class had Kathy Kelly as a guest speaker on the war in Afghanistan, her efforts relating to refuge work and the use of drone technology by the US. Her discussion focused on people’s efforts to move past war, the unreliability of drones in war, and some exploration of why the US is at war.

                The discussion of drone technology, and its use in Afghanistan, was quite informative to me as I had very little clue beforehand the extent to which drones are being utilized. Given that we apparently have drone surveillance of most of the country and its neighbors, I’m left confused on what it is that our country is fighting for given that if there was a clear idea of who represents a threat our country should be able to locate them with this level of resource investment, and if who is a threat is unclear then having surveillance from the sky doesn’t seem to be a very reliable method for identifying new threats.

                While it’s easy to criticize the unreliability of drones in light of significant collateral damage and civilian casualties, it is important to consider what they are usually being used instead of. Historically speaking, bombs have been frequently used by the US as a means to cause significant damage to our enemies with low risk to our troops and relatively little use of resources. The use of bombs is quite possibly the largest cause of civilian death in our countries history and to my knowledge has been largely replaced by drones as a slightly more selective and notably more precise tool for delivering the horrors of war. In light of this, I’d say drones are a step forward that is currently not as bad as what was used before, and has room for significant improvement in regards to reducing collateral damage.

                During Kathy’s real-life examples of the scenarios where drones have killed civilians, I took particular interest in the one that featured statements from the people who made the call to fire upon a caravan. While there were people supporting the possibility that the targets of interest were not threats, they were in the minority and ultimately I think nobody in the discussion wanted to go home and have to explain why they left several American soldiers without cover fire. What I saw and discussed with Kathy after the lecture was the lack of a nonlethal means for the pilot to interact with targets of interest. Kathy expressed an interest in the possibility but stated she didn’t know whether people where researching nonlethal tools for military drones. My own research on the matter has indicated it would be very easy to apply nonlethal weapons to drones and that people are interested in using this with local law enforcement drones if we ever use them. But I was unable to find any discussion of applying nonlethal weapons to drones used around civilian areas in Afghanistan.

                                Her discussion on the war highlighted several of the moral ambiguities and purposes of our military effort.  From a humanitarian perspective, the political pretenses of restoring the peace shake under the fact or how much we are subsidizing the Taliban in order to supply our troops in Afghanistan. Why our military started paying the Taliban, I still don’t know, but having deployed the army, the US government has too much vested interest to withdraw so for the foreseeable future our government will probably continue to pay to use roads in Taliban territory.  Her discussion on American interest in profiting off of the oil in Afghanistan was concerning, but without further information I can’t judge how much economics influenced our decision to start this war.

                Overall the unclear enemy and morality of our military effort leaves me reminded of the Vietnam War. In the Vietnam War “Troops were sent on search and destroy missions and often it was difficult to tell enemy from civilian.” (John Green on The Cold War in Asia) while in Afghanistan, similar efforts without a clear army to defeat have been unfolding. While seek and destroy missions in war are not uncommon, the lack of a victory in sight and stated confusion in identifying enemies leaves me further concerned about our continued involvement in Afghanistan.

                The discussion itself was quite enjoyable to me, and while I failed to take advantage of her built in question time, I liked that she had it. Overall I enjoyed her presentment of new facts and how, while she was definitely against the war, she wasn’t trying to vilify any countries but rather explore their actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2IcmLkuhG0 (John Green)

The Truth of Venezuela.... maybe

                The article Venezuela's Deep Political Education Means Venezuelans Will Withstand Right-Wing Protests, by Kevin Zeese, and Margaret Flowers , reviews American action in Venezuela. The authors state what they see as the truth regarding democracy, economy, and more in Venezuela in order to clear up “falsehoods” (Kevin, and Margaret) of the opposition. While the truth is a valuable commodity, the articles clear bias against the American government and glorification of President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, makes it hard to distinguish which statements are facts and which are just them repeating things that supported their reconfirmation bias.

                When defending the democracy of Venezuela, the authors cite positive studies, and transition to attacking American actions as anti-democratic. While Jimmy Carter does hail the voting system in Venezuela as the best he’s seen yet, he doesn’t touch on the election process in the link. While I myself will agree that the American election system isn’t very Democratic, the article takes it one step further by stating Secretary of State John Kerry “has flown his anti-democracy flag” (Kevin, and Margaret) because he didn’t think the election was legitimate. As far as asserting that Venezuela is a healthy democracy goes, while Jimmy Carter’s statement has helped, it doesn’t cover the election process itself and the authors’ response to a politician’s skepticism of the election hardly leaves me confident in the reliability of their statements.

                The articles section regarding the economy focused highly on American sabotage and ends with the growing economy in light of oil exports. While the authors provide two sources for their section on American sabotage, one of these sources fails to provide any sources for its info and the other cited home pages that gave no clear indication of where I could find the info they were cited for. While it would not surprise me to learn that America has been denying trade to Venezuela, with the lack of support for the authors’ statements I find it prudent to remain skeptical. I wish they talked more about how it is Maduro has played a role in their economic growth with the discovery of oil because so far I’ve read little in the article about how Maduro is leading his country.

                Perhaps I’ve been a bit over critical of the authors’ article, and it would not surprise me to find most of their statements to be true, but even if their accusations are true I would have difficulty making this out amidst the anti-American imperialism rants that fill the article. Reconfirmation bias is a huge factor in psychology and when the authors are consistently bashing one side while praising the other, it is hard to tell what’s based on fact and what’s based on bias for a new observer.

Government Guns Get Good at Grim Rates

                The article, Cover-up? Army historian says report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun by Rowan Scarborough, explores the American militaries current regulation rifle. The author is highly critical, both of the guns performance and of the government’s response to criticisms. This article is part two to the article Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in rifle by the same author.

                The articles place a large degree of focus on the flaws of the current M4 rifle based on performance issues and user feedback. Performance issues under rapid fire and desert conditions along with range limitations paint the picture of a weapon ill-suited for its current use in Afghanistan. While I can definitely agree with the assessment that our current fir arm is not sufficiently adapted for our current war, it’s hard to ascertain the reliability of individual feedback on the gun. The article almost exclusively shares quotes from people with at least minor complaints about the gun, and the marines the Times interviewed about the weapon are stated to have loved the weapon, but the first things brought up about their interview are their issues with it. Other sources are clearly biased, like an employee for a company paid to research improvements whose improvements weren’t deemed applicable. While it goes into other individuals complaints about the weapon, reading through the comments you’ll find many people stating preferences and/or disdain for different guns, and with how widely used the M4 is, I wouldn’t be surprised to find someone with an even worse view of the gun than the “Put a flak jacket on the enemy and it’s virtually useless.” from Maj. General Robert Scales, an artillery officer. One section however focused, rather than on whether or not they thought the gun itself was good, on why the M4 is not suited for our current conflict. In light of this, I have difficulty judging whether the gun itself is notably subpar, although I find it easy to believe that the transition from urban to outdoors combat should have prompted a rethinking of the army’s standard armament.

                While government and company denial of issues with their policies or products isn’t uncommon, the length of time for which our army went without significant research into the issues with the M4, raises concerns. When field reports of tech failure go buried for almost a decade, it’s not hard to see that, when it comes to finding and solving issues, intelligent trial and error is not being applied. With how much military funding is being put out in the US we should be looking for ways to spend it more efficiently, rather than just being conservative in order to avoid transferring business and employment opportunities from an inefficient source.

                While I felt the article relied too much on biased sources, it raise some important facts and concerns for Americans and their loved ones in the military. If the US government is this slow to react to changes in war, how can we be confident when lives aren't at risk?

Caution! The Floor is Wet

In human history, new developments have been a mixed bag of benefits and hazards. Often times, hazards haven’t been accounted for until long after signs of them appear. The article Six Reasons Why We Need Precaution, by Peter Montague, focuses on the possible benefits of increased government efforts to prevent potential risks and promote safer alternatives, in the pursuit of new technology. Additionally, it explores the benefits of cautionary philosophy in managing businesses and supporting environmental movements.

With increased regulation, our country could cut down on spending for damage control and better protect its citizens when new and old tech show issues that are hazardous to society. One method the author promotes shifting the burden of proof to those who benefit from an activity rather than potential victims as a means to increase response times when possible risks are uncertain. While companies have to pass initial tests for their products, continuing to maintain that level of responsibility on the producer would help dissuade misconduct and allow for faster government intervention in the case that issues with the product emerge. The biggest issue with this method is its reliance on government management and the possibility of safe new products being dropped on fickle publicity alone, but the benefits are enough that it’s worth looking into.

While many may view the government promoting environmentally friendlier options as interfering too much with the free market, funding already is and should be used in regards to the economy and the environment. This option would fulfill both by promoting environmentally friendly businesses and products, as well as putting more money in consumers’ hands to spend on products they desire. It has been successfully implemented before and is worth further research on what products would be the best to promote and how they can be optimized before funding their use and sale to citizens.

As far as managing businesses go, increased government regulation would help protect society, but the article fails to establish how much spending is worthwhile and where to use it. Given the growing gap in the distribution of wealth, and the increasing influence of businesses on politics, government regulation of businesses is an important topic. It’s just that, without further examples of how and why current systems aren’t working, it’s hard to determine if the plans he recommends have accounted for current issues in the system.

The article’s varied plans for handling different issues in today’s society came across as well structured and most were surprisingly feasible. Furthermore, for many of the ideas for reform the author addressed possible benefits to society, the environment, and the economy.

The Birth, Death, and Rebirth of the American Hybrid Engine

                Cars are a large part of American history and our present way of life. They are an affordable mode of private transportation capable of both speed and utility. The hybrid engine is an innovation currently used to save on gas and reduce our carbon footprint. Development of the hybrid engine that preceded our current model was completed in 1974 and was functionally a success, but hybrids were not widely available on the market until the 1990s.

                The article Present at Creation, hosted by Gardner Business Media, focuses on the initial developers of the hybrid engine in America and the project’s end. Starting as an interest in electric power and thermodynamics, their interest in the project grew when they saw it as a means to alternate future fuel sources. Once they got a patent, they got some support from people interested in protecting the environment, but ultimately the hybrid car was dismissed by local and foreign manufacturers. Not much info on the engine’s dismissal is given besides manufacturers calling it too expensive and complicated.

                Ultimately hybrid cars didn’t pick back up until Toyota released the Prius, once again leaving American manufacturers to race to compete with successful new foreign models. While I don’t know about changes in manufacturing cost, given the similarity of these cars engine to the one complete almost 20 years earlier, it’s easy to guess that manufacturers hadn’t put much of that time into developing the hybrid engine further.

                Change is frequently shunned by those it affects as many people would rather avoid risks. Ultimately the incident with the hybrid car is quite comparable to American car companies’ initial reaction to smaller foreign vehicles. Having pioneered car manufacturing and been successful with their current models, the Ford Company (and others) dismissed the rising popularity of smaller cars until they saw significant drops in profit. This reluctance to change their product reflects on the legacy thinking that has led to the stagnation of efforts by companies to improve the environmental footprints of their products at the possible expense of profits.

                While I found the development of the hybrid engine interesting, the lack of detail regarding the end of interest after its development leads me to wonder how much independent effort manufacturers put into seeing if they could use it before dismissing it.

On the Inequality of the World

The section Science Policies for Reducing Social Inequities by Edward Woodhouse and Daniel Sarewitz offers a critical look at some fields where technological developments and science research are clearly biased in favor of developed countries. The topics vary from medical development to military might, and while they raise some good points, their ideas and expectations for scientific research are quite extreme as true equality is hard to define and achieve, even for individual towns, let alone the world.

Medical research and development is largely viewed as a boon to all of society. However, the text brings sharp criticism of the favoritism paid to those who can pay more for services. Citing prior studies they bring up how it’s estimated that only 10% of medical research went towards problems compromising 90% of the global burden of disease in 1999. While these are drastic numbers some issues come up when you realize malnutrition, car accidents, and living condition risks, are counted for the global burden of disease, significant factors that would contribute to the 90% burden without being subjects of great merit for medical research. While it is true that more funding and interest goes from developed countries towards issues faced by developed countries, this is hardly a specific issue of technological injustice. Raising awareness and public support for global responsibility in general seems more directed at the issues behind this imbalance in service.

The use of technological advancements to further military advantages, while unfortunate, is no less stoppable than the existence of wars around the globe. Our own country is participating in war and has a history of vested interest in being able to both defend ourselves and our foreign interests. This is sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, but an aspect of our country (and others) that’s probably here to stay. While technological development has given us a larger advantage over a significant portion of the world than in our past, blaming our wars and conflicts on technological advantage is frequently a, what if, endeavor that’s hard to support. While I agree that slowing down our military development would probably benefit us and that the degree to which military development holds political sway is terrifying, the issue of too much funding for the military has more to do with political and economic interest than technological development.

I found the section overly critical of technological developments as cause of inequality. While the book is about negative issues caused by technology, labeling it as a cause of strife in issues that are motivated by economics and politics while executed using technological tools, feels like scapegoating to me and undermines the credibility of other sections critical of technology.

Computer AI Here to Say Hi

                With the development of increasingly advanced computers and robots, many scientists are exploring possible applications of robots for private and public concerns. The article Close Engagements with Artificial Companions, by Sherry Tuckle, explores the possible purposes and benefits of robots tailored to replicate human interaction.

                Emotional investment in objects is hardly a new occurrence and while it would be weird to see someone talking to a tv screen, people already “talk” to various devices that have voice commands.  A robot that responded to human interaction would simply take this exchange one step further; providing personal feedback developed for the user instead of a rudimentary service. While some people debate robots’ ability to replicate human emotion, this is a moot point given that we can already successfully simulate human emotion in movies and tv shows.

                The article placed a lot of emphasis on the advantage of a controlled simulated relationship against possibly sour relationships with other people. While some people would genuinely prefer a well simulated relationship, for the control, safety, and novelty of it, the price of advanced AI’s makes this a very narrow market.

The article raises little argument regarding who would pay for these robots and without marketability, even if the technology existed it wouldn’t have much impact or use. All things considered the development of robots as privately owned “friends” seems like a low priority for technological development, at least until robots are as marketable as cars are at present.

                The development and research of robots ability to read human emotion and behavior and respond does however serve numerous interests in the current future of robots and artificial intelligences. When programing a robot’s decision making, it is important to consider how the robot will respond to people. While being to tell people apart from other things is important, being able to identify emotion would allow robots in public use to identify who needs help and judge how others view its actions.

                Overall, the article raises up an interesting topic, but provides little detail on how it would be implemented and who would be able to pay for it. While developments in robotics will have a significant impact on the future, private use of robots with an AI sufficient for these won’t be available to most consumers. With little application in public facilities and a miniscule market for private use, artificial robot companions seem like a topic for another time.

Reading Online (Non class musings)

                My personal feelings towards the web’s effect on reading are mainly positive. Rather than perusing libraries and bookstores for new books from old favorites and the occasional untested author’s story that caught my eye, I can browse through stories at my own discretion with ease and no longer have to pay to sate my desire for a nice story.

                While the way I read hasn't changed to much I do find myself willing to pick up a story on less criteria and deliberation than before and more willing to walk away when an author pushed to many “buttons” (although a high school student probably has higher literary standards than a 5^th grader.)

                That being said, I am concerned about online stories effect on the professional creation and sale of literature. With so many stories being added to free online sites, selling stories could easily become more difficult for dedicated authors. However people have told stories since the foundation of language and the possible loss of profit from it will hardly stop people from making and distributing stories.

Is Google Making People Worse at Titles?

                Is Google Making Us Stupid by Nicholas Carr is an article critical of the possible effects of the internet. Contrary to the titles implications, rather than seeing a person’s opinion on the impacts of search engines like Google on our memory the article actual focuses on the author sense of deterioration in their reading ability that they believe is due to web browsing.

                While what all contributed to his loss of dedicated reading habits is hard to pin down (doing something as part of a job has been shown to reduce your joy from the activity itself) and his independent survey on the matter hardly reliable from a statistical standpoint, the study of online research habits provides significant credence to his assessment that his skim reading has been caused at least in part by online browsing. Unfortunately the link didn't lead directly to info on the study and the article itself only included a couple statements on reading habits with little context or comparisons to draw in depth conclusions from.

                Overall the article seemed less about bringing interesting, important or overlooked facts to the surface and more like he was just trying to rally support to his personal dilemma. Many of the statements he made to support his negative outlook on the webs influence are general psychological truths that don’t paint a compelling picture of the internet having a negative influence. Citing changes in writing with different mediums or the fact that how we view/describe the world around us influences how we think are hardly cases specific to the internet and little actual depth on these topics is offered past how he feels about the internet in relation to them.

                Ultimately I would have preferred if more of the article was based on the exploration of studies or facts on the matter, rather than the opinions of several individuals he found that agreed with his sentimentality on the loss of the good old ways the face of change.

On the other hand, the response by Trent Batson shares some of my doubt in the degree to which Nicholas Carr believes the internet has negatively impacted his reading. Although I disagree with Batson's treatment of Carr’s concerns as completely illegitimate.

Batson’s article focuses on how skim reading numerous sources is closer to “real” life group discussion and while his logic is sound on that front, his response seems to frequently ignore Carr’s concerns or deny that concern is reasonable rather than provide advice on getting back/maintaining old reading habits (because many people who read aren't looking for a forum of back and forth exchanges.)

On the Development of Robots for the Military

                Leading the world in military spending and development, the decisions of America will have a huge bearing on the wars of tomorrow. While the further development of remote systems is a certainty, it’s important to look into the benefits and flaws of these systems both from how the weapon works and how the operator works in order to better plan our study and understanding of what needs to be done to minimize the risks.

                Historically the use of robots in the military has primarily been beneficial to the preservation of lives, with purposes such as scouting out landmines that represent a risk both to soldiers and civilians, defending against missiles and performing reconnaissance in hazardous scenarios. But recent years have seen an upswing in the development and use of robots as remote controlled weapons.

Currently these systems rely on a humans input before they shoot which has a mixture of benefits and risks. One of the greatest benefits, asides from the lack of necessity to risk a soldier’s life, is the reduction in stress a remote soldier goes through while deciding on a course of action. Under life or death scenarios, stress can easily lead to an increase in mistakes that cause injury or death to civilians or place their comrades at risk. A con to remote warfare is that indirect killing doesn’t register or process the same way that directly killing someone does in our brain (Psychologist Kevin Dutton) which could lead to making it “easier” for soldier’s to decide to kill when alternatives are available. While under some circumstances being able to make a “necessary” kill without as much moral dilemma and delay could be beneficial, without further study into this key decision making difference, we further doubts on the entire process

One large concern regarding this development is the possibility of completely autonomous robots. While many missile defense systems are autonomous the risks of a robot designed to shoot people being ran autonomously is a major global concern. Many current military robots with automatic targeting systems could easily be changed from human operated to automatic. The military benefits of this are miniscule and the difficulty of and AI program capable of telling friends from foes with even moderate accuracy and speed means that the likely hood of automatic anti-personal robots being used any time soon by the military should be low.