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.