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.)