Re: Chapter 18: Envisioning a Wiser Technofuture

After reading about and discussing several topics surrounding technology and its impacts on society, politics, economics, culture and various other aspects of humanity, it makes one ponder what these may look like for future generations to come. It seems as if some people still do not have an accurate perception due to being “seduced into not seeing a lot of what is right in front of one’s face” (Woodhouse.) Instead, people behave predictably as is expected of them. As technology evolves, the world has become less human than in previous generations. Chemicals are used that are not only harmful to the environment, but humans and animals as well. Designs are either implemented prematurely or as an afterthought which leads to harm; not help. With all of this destruction, shouldn’t innovation be used to create solutions that improve the environment and health of humans and animals? Or at least provide alternatives that don’t harm them? In the modern world, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems that the earth’s ecosystem is being ruined, resources are being depleted, and humans and animals are being injured and killed due to poor design, premature implementation or lack of knowledge.

Instead, society should consist of innovations that work for everyone, promote a world that stands up for those who can’t, and shares the benefits of a techno-scientific world. A world that promotes fairness. Although I disagree with Woodhouse that the world should be as equal as he implies, I do believe in a society in which people are rewarded fairly. One in which under the veil of ignorance, anyone would be born knowing that through helping others and using their skills and talents (not money) can reap rewards from work. For instance, the basics of food, water, and shelter would be a minimum standard provided by the government for those who need it, and the minimum wage would be true to its purpose. These would be the priorities of innovation; to reduce harm and provide for all, and then go from there.

Although this is a starting point, it is the beginning to create a better techno-science society. First start by reducing harm to the planet and those inhabiting it, and then create a world of fairness and equal opportunity. 

Source:
     Woodhouse Ch 18

Working Americans

The job shortage in the U.S. over the past few decades has had broader impacts on the economy and society than most Americans realize. Although it is widely known among U.S. citizens that there has been a decrease in jobs in the U.S. due to an increase in corporations sending jobs overseas; few may know the full implications of this. For those who have jobs, there has been an increasing expectation that employees work longer hours without any benefit or compensation. In addition, as working hours and the number of women in the work force have increased, so have the expectations and responsibilities of household work. Both of these can be attributed to an increase in technology with a decrease in company employment, as well as other societal factors.

While there has been a steady increase in U.S. productivity over recent decades, working wages have remained linear with no parallel increase to show for it. However, the top 1% has certainly seen the benefits of this increased productivity. “If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000” (source 1.) This truly depicts the unfair wages of the working class in the U.S. This can be described as a ‘speedup’ which is “an employer’s demand for accelerated output without necessary increased pay” (source 3.) In addition, workers have been increasingly putting in longer hours with an average of one in nine employees working 50+ hours a week. Employees are also working longer hours outside of one’s workplace. As technology has evolved, there has become an expectation that one be available or connected to their work after hours in ways such as e-mail or Skype. Although an employee may not physically be at work, they often are mentally; at home, on weekends and even on vacation.  Employers often expect employees to be accessible and responsive during these times which have also lead to work dramatically cutting into one’s personal time.  There should be a limit of this overworking that has greatly blurred the lines between work and leisure. All of these factors have led to sharp cuts into one’s leisure time; something Americans are already in need of.

As work has continuously cut into Americans personal time, so have the societal expectations that have raised household standards created by developing technology. As technology has steadily improved the efficiency of work - in and out of the workplace - it has also increased standards in those areas. Although women have now steadily and heavily entered the work force, there has been no decline in women’s housework (source 1.) For many Americans, this expectation has come through technologies such as dish washers, stoves, laundry machines, vacuums etc. that have made chores easier to do. Even though technology has made cooking and cleaning easier to do in a more efficient and timelier manner, it has also lead to a substantial increase in a women’s work around one’s house.

Both job and household work exemplify the increased overworking of Americans over the past few decades. Although one would expect companies to hire more workers or have less work due to jobs being sent overseas; it is quite the opposite. Americans are being overworked to a point that significantly impedes one’s personal life and free time. Not only has this increased workload taken over one’s workplace, but also one’s home and leisure time.

Sources:

1.       http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

2.       http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speed-up-american-workers-long-hours

3.       http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speedup

Re: No Innovation Without Representation?: “Human Enhancement”

With the pace and directions of techno-science, the next stage of human evolution seems to continue to be more imminent and different from what we (as humans) know. Humans have basic functions such as a pulsing heart or breathing that is essential to living. However, with enhancements humans can function more ‘optimally’, based on what one’s preferences or priorities are in life. These in turn could create an ever widening gap between the rich and poor; those who have access and can afford new technologies, and those who cannot.

As the chapter discusses enhancement in many ways, there are five main categories:

1.        Getting rid of inheritable diseases and defects that can be so devastating that the elimination would be desired by a huge majority of humanity.

2.       Assisting those who are handicapped to live a more functional life.

3.       Improving ordinary people’s performance such as better memory and health.

4.       Exacerbating the problem of winners vs. losers due to the marked advantage over others.

5.       Changing what it means to be human.

Within these categories, the first two are very simple to understand because most R&D is already heading in those directions such as genetic screening and assistive technologies. Genetic screening currently allows women -who can afford to - to genetically test fetuses for diseases. Surprisingly to my knowledge, an increasing amount of women are being tested as part of routine prenatal care. There have been various rumors about genetic testing, but I personally did not know that this technology was currently implemented and available. It is an interesting form of ‘natural selection’ that could possibly also lead to an increased gap between wealthy and poor for those who have access to afford this screening. In some ways, these women are choosing their child’s genetic makeup to a certain degree - preselecting ‘preferred’ genes and traits over others. Could this technology be developed or changed into something more that could possibly be harmful in the future? With the way science and technology is currently evolving, it certainly seems so; especially with the privatization of technology that allows the privileged initial access. This is one example of changing health from being a priority of one’s money to a priority of a child’s life. This privileged and prioritized portion of techno-science is what is most concerning. However, in this specific case of genetic testing, ridding people, populations and eventually generations of diseases is a beneficial thing that will valuable to all of humanity. The disease Tay-Sachs for instance has seen a 90% decline due to genetic screening, as well as declines with dysautonomia and sickle cell anemia. With these technologies, it is wonderful and astonishing that diseases are on their way to being eliminated. People (meaning the American public) need to be more aware of research available to them, but must also be provided with adequate and fair resources and opportunities.

In addition, category three aims toward modest enhancements for ordinary and everyday life improvement. Middle and upper-middle class Americans often have basic standards and regimes for health. These include vitamins, minerals, exercise, dental care, a balanced diet and medication among other things. These all contribute to a higher quality and prolonged life due to better maintaining one’s body. The herbal, vitamin and nutraceuticals corporations have become a $500 billion industry worldwide. In addition, there has been a steady increase in gym attendance, ‘health’ food purchases and other commodities and regimes that better one’s well-being. “These are all the early stages of science-enables supplementation” in which more and more scientific R&D is being used in products for the public. In one sense, this is great to have more products based off scientific research available to the general public, but how will research be skewed to trick the public as the consumer? This is a large problem that some ‘health’ foods have already come across through false labeling and advertising which the consumer becomes a victim of. Overall, this path of increased scientific R&D for daily life enhancements targets the average American and is beneficial to the wellbeing of the public as a whole.

On the other hand, categories four and five are directed towards more controversial issues such as winners vs. losers, and trans-humanism. “If physical and cognitive enhancements a good more extreme than those discussed” earlier, then a small minority of early adopters could use their newfound abilities to out-compete others. These enhancements could easily further the gap between the privileged and unprivileged or wealthy and poor through unbalanced distribution to those who can access and afford new technology. “Even mild enhancement capacities tend to flow toward those already advantaged in money, education, militarization, or other attributes conducive to understanding, purchasing, and utilizing the new potentials.” Even a simple increase in memory could easily leave everyone else behind, or militaries with enhanced soldiers could easily be victorious over other armies without such technology. How will these techno-science innovations fully impact our future? In regards to military use, part of it is the prioritization and effectiveness of resources - including money, materials and research - used. If one army has 10,000 cars, whereas the other has 1,000 tanks, there is an important difference in the effectiveness in each that is shown through quality over quantity. As these tech-science innovations steadily increase, it is quite possible that even interventions in the human brain and body are likely to appear as well. Scientists understand the body more and more each day, and as they do, more human capacities are transformed through technology which is leading to trans-humanism - a new stage of the evolution of humans.  Some trans-humanists even go as far as to ask “Why be human when you can be something better?”  This is a radical question to pose, but is in line with the “combination of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and computer technology” that can enable “mind, body, and machine to become one.” Overall, these trans-humanists believe in the expansion of techno-science to increase ones lifespan, and meld the human mind with machine.  As these scientific innovations and research combine with technology, there is no doubt that humans capabilities will be drastically affected, changed and enhanced in the future.

Altogether these categories target key elements of human enhancement through techno-science. Whether it is to increase the well-being and life of those who truly need it (the disabled or impaired) and select undesired traits to remove diseases, improve one’s daily life or radically enhance human’s abilities, there are significant changes ahead. 

Sources:

                Woodhouse Chapter 15

"Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed" Blog Response

One article that highly bothered me while reading it was “Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed” due to the correlation between this article and the potential it has to be describing my future.  I am in a stage of my life where I am forming my future and deciding who I want to be.  I don’t want to live life in a pre-designed cycle, repeating each day as the same with no spontaneity, fun, excitement or true worth. After traveling to Japan as a Student Ambassador, I saw firsthand the variance in cultures that exist in the world and how different people’s lives and values are. There is so much more to the world than most people - especially Americans - realize. Living in Japan for a month made me realize that I want to travel the world and get out of my comfort zone, explore new cultures, live differently and see the world. In addition, it made me want to go to college out of state; somewhere I hadn't been yet, with different people, culture and atmosphere; outside of what I knew. College is an opportunity and time to learn not only in an educational setting to prepare me for my career, but to learn who I am and who I want to be. This article made me rethink all of these various aspects of my life, and reevaluate where I am in relation to where I want to be.

As the author of this article discussed his life, how it was on vacation versus at home while working made me think about what I want my life to be. What is truly important to you in life? Is it money? Is it happiness? I want to live life in a way that makes no regrets, my life, not a pre-designed cycle. The author goes on to describe how he has more free time while on vacation, and spends less money - even in more expensive countries. Why is that? While one has a steady income, they then know that money will eventually “grow back” soon, unlike while on vacation where money is not quite a “renewable resource.” In addition, while on vacation one has more free time compared to when working. “It seems I got much more for my dollar when I was traveling. Why?” If one is working full time - 40hrs a week - and has responsibilities at home to take care of; then his/her free time is automatically significantly reduced. Therefore, one is much more likely to spend money during available free time to make it “worth it.” This unnecessary spending has been embedded into the culture of Americans (and in the authors case, Canadians too.) It seems if one has less time, the more money he/she spends, but when there is more time, he/she spends less money. What does that seem to say about money buying happiness? It’s quite contradictory at that point to truly believe that money can make one’s life truly happy.

At this point, life then becomes a game of buying products for psychological reasons, rather than usefulness. “You can manipulate consumers into wanting, and therefore buying, your products. It’s a game.” This is according to Lucy Hughes, co-creator of “The Nag Factor.” When people are then spending money on their free time, activities such as reading, walking, writing, meditating, knitting or other wholesome activities seems less “productive” because they come at no cost. Why is that? According to Parkinson’s Law, the more time one has been given to do something, the longer it will take him/her to do it. The same goes for money, “the more we make, the more we spend.” This is a lifestyle that has been designed. Corporations don’t cut shifts as technology advances; rather keep shifts to ensure people are being consumers with their free time. When people get raises, they often increase their standard of living. It’s an interesting cycle to ponder the way in which it has been designed, whom it has been designed by, and who it is designed for.

So how does this fit with your life? It made me think about mine, and still does. I wonder where I fit in this cycle as I’m going through school and entering this designed world. How can I get to live a happy life that doesn't depend on buying free time to stay happy? Prioritization and self-initiation seem important in designing my own life. These are important points to remember as we (this STSH class) continue through college and begin to enter the working world. 

Green Economy Blog Response

Most Americans are aware of the current environmental state of earth and the necessity for change for the future. However, “the risk of catastrophic climate change itself is not enough” for most people to change their lifestyle. Common sense ecological-economic concepts would be hard to sell that would need a huge amount of popular support. A majority of Americans over consume products and are considerably ignorant about the environmental costs of their actions such as the non-re-usability of products. Companies such as Ecovative make a conscious effort to positively impact the world through helpful environmental change. For those who don’t know, Ecovative is a company started by previous RPI students who make packaging materials from mushrooms that biodegrades as a substitute for Styrofoam, which sits in landfills for years. Even small changes such as these can make a large impact as everyone’s effort from manufacturing to consumption add up to make a difference.

In addition, if a product was manufactured or sold in the U.S., then it should come with reduced packaging, be manufactured without toxic or hazardous materials, be a proportion of recycled materials to keep pace with supply of recyclable materials, be recyclable, reusable and/or compostable, be returnable at the end of its life-cycle, be manufactured with renewable energy and provide a label with country of origin. This list of improved manufacturing procedures is extensive to reduce a product’s environmental impact over the course of its life-cycle, but is important to mention. Although this list creates what one might call perfection, it is necessary to see all of the required steps. Each step makes a difference, and can be slowly implemented or added to create this “perfect” environmentally friendly life-cycle. This will take time and effort at both the end of manufacturer and consumer, but through the effort of both, can have increasingly positive changes on the earth’s environment. 

The Link Between Genes and Traits

 A majority of the world’s population believes that one being gay is a choice; but is often highly looked down upon due to religious and political views. However, there has been scientific research and evidence towards a possible correlation of a “gay gene” in males to their sexual orientation. When this topic was brought up in class during Friday’s (4/4) discussion, it highly interested me.  It raises the question once again about those who can afford a choice in genetic make up to “enhance” humans (based on one’s preference and viewpoint of what enhanced is), who has control over this research and what that line is to cross or not when it comes to nanotechnology and scientific research.

There is the first debate of if one was to choose what genes or not to “choose” which would “enhance” them based on desired traits. However, if genes are then chosen, one would not be unique but a creation of said “perfection” with the most “desired” traits. From the same perspective, if there is also a link to genetic makeup and autism, would one choose to remove/change that gene so that their child would not have autism? All of these traits would also be based on one’s personal preference which would vary, but still create controversy in changing who someone is. There is then also the debate of who has control over this research. Who then regulates what can be done with the Xq28 gene that was found to be possibly linked with gay men who share this genetic signature and genes linked to other traits? The general public must be informed, debate and choose how research and scientific findings of this sort must be handled based on the possible future impact of society and ones rights. In addition, is this a line that was crossed in research? If someone was to view being gay as negative or positive, could they choose to remove or add that gene? All of these questions bring up large controversies in nanobiotechnology that affects the future of humanity and requires large debate, research and regulation to maintain each human’s basic rights. 

**This is a tough topic to write about, which is why I chose to include so many air quotes (“”) as a way of implying what could be one’s personal viewpoint of preference, not to mean these would be universal or even majority. This is a sensitive topic I do not want to offend anyone, but am trying to write and respond as a neutral viewpoint in a response to these issues that I find interesting in regards to scientific research with a large social impact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

The Impacts of Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is used to manipulate matter on a molecular scale of atoms and molecules that can change a material’s properties and characteristics dramatically on the macro scale. Due to nanotechnologies bottom-up approach, it has the potential to be the building blocks for all matter, living and nonliving. For example, carbon in the form of graphite is soft and malleable; however, on the nano-scale it is stronger than steel and six times lighter. As the atomic precision of nanotechnology is used as an art and science to build complex and practical devices, there has been an increasing amount of investment into this new technology.  It is an up and coming science that is starting to be used as a political force with dramatic impacts on the economy, environment and people’s health.

Due to these quantum changes from nanotechnology, there have also been drastic changes economically, environmentally and health wise. This also means that bottom-up manufacturing is possible; which could ultimately reduce the quantity of raw materials that are necessary and in demand. This bottom-up process could mean that nanotechnology could take over the market based on its ability to be applied to any manufactured good. This would drastically affect every aspect of manufacturing around the world.  Workers who do not have economic flexibility or “wiggle room” would have a more difficult time adjusting and responding to the sudden demand for new skills or different raw materials. In addition, nanotechnology has the potential to “ultimately displace market shares, supply chains and jobs in nearly every industry” which would mean enormous changes around the globe. These impacts would ultimately affect each social and economic class. However, the wealthy would be able to “ride the wave” and those who can’t stay on top of technology would get washed away. Often scientists think that new technology will positively impact the general public, making medication more affordable to those who need it, reducing hunger, providing sanitary water; but has it really? With all the technology currently “available” these problems would already be on a path to being solved; except they’re not. Instead, those who can afford new technologies, the rich, get access to them; not the people who truly need technology to live with basic human needs such as food and water. The wealthy has more control over these technologies than necessary, and more than most are aware of.

“The grab for patents of nano- scale products and processes could mean mega-monopolies on the basic elements that are building blocks of the entire natural world.” This is because of the world being controlled by privatization of science where democracy and human rights are being eroded. This would have enormous negative impacts on the rest of the world’s population. Again, those who can’t “afford” to keep up with this new nanotechnology. Thus far in nanotechnology, mostly fortune 500 companies and governments such as the US, Japan and parts of Europe have invested into the research and development of this new technology. This could mean corporate and governmental control over living and nonliving matter through engineering and technology.

All of these aspects of nanotechnology bring up a large problem of who is ultimately in charge; who decides what line there is to cross when creating life; what that line is and how the general public is involved in these decisions. If these technologies “enhance” human performance through choice and manipulation of genes and characteristics, what will happen to the unimproved? This will only increase the gap between those who can afford these technologies and those who can’t; the rich and poor; the “improved” and the “unimproved.” Since nanobiotechnology has the potential to create rapid synthesizing genomes such as small pox, who has the power to decide how to utilize this new technology and research? “But what are nanobio’s new life forms, especially those that are designed to function autonomously in the environment, prove difficult to control or contain?” Thus far, the general public has not been involved or informed, which is the first crucial step to take. In addition, these new technologies are primarily controlled by the creator which rises concern for the creator’s knowledge and intention with each invention.  All of these concerns bring awareness to the need for information and regulation. The public must know what is being done if there are to be greater impacts past the scientists or researchers use (such as economically within a country or use of taxes through the government.) Also, regulation for research must be implemented to create a basis and need for discovery, use, technology and research as a whole. Last of all, power must be decided for who creates the regulations, has say over what the “line” that can’t be crossed in terms of manipulating, creating or altering life is. 

Voting in America

There are several ways in which democracy and representation in American could be greatly improved to hold true to the statement “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as stated in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. One area, in which several Americans see an opportunity for improvement, is through the current voting system.

According to “The Infrastructure of American Democracy is Dysfunctional” not even 55% of U.S. citizens in the eligible voting age vote in the presidential elections. If just over half of Americans are taking the opportunity of democracy to vote for those who represent their country nationally, then it seems prudent that most citizens would not be satisfied with issues that are addressed.

In addition, when “every voter in every state has a roughly equal chance to cast a ballot in a timely manner” then votes among each state, race, age, status etc. will also even out to represent every citizen in every state respectfully. This is necessary to have fair representation of each state, proportional to the population. In order for an American citizen to know that his/her vote truly counts, each person must also have an equal opportunity to vote. If voters in Florida are standing in line for hours to vote, then it is discouraging people from wanting to vote. In addition, there is no universal system to register teenagers prior to their 18th birthday. This in turn, creates difficulty for those 18-24 to vote, especially when in college or for those who turn 18 close to Election Day. These issues require an improvement in the current voting system to increase representation of all Americans through an increase in voters.

Overall, it is known that “United States makes it hard to vote” for several reasons. The fact that citizens cannot register onsite creates difficulties for those turning 18. This creates a lack of voters in the 18-24 age range. In addition, Election Day does not take place on a weekend, nor is Election Day a holiday. These factors alone make voting especially difficult for those who work and are unable to make it to the polls on time. All of these factors influence why there is a lack of voters in America. By modernizing voting, several of these factors to improve democracy and representation in American can be improved through improving the current voting system.

References:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178057/infrastructure-american-democracy-dysfunctional?rel=emailNation&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin101395.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a1-presidential.jpg

The Mess of the U.S.

Please read the post below as a comment, I'm really sorry, my blog posts keep highlighting themselves white with pink text.

The Cost of Congress

Coming into this week, we had several readings that dealt with and discussed the various aspects to the U.S. government, and social/economic classes. I'd like to tie this article in with my post from last week.

To start off, let's throw some numbers around. It's astonishing to me that the U.S.'s law makers on Capital Hill are all worth at least $1,000,000 in addition to the 534 members of congress who average a net worth of over $1,000,000 as well from 2012 statistics, which is an increase from the previous year! So while the middle classes median line is reducing, the 1% has seen an increase in income. Why do they need more money while the average american - and majority too might I add - is struggling to keep up? From 1998 to 2008, the median income went from $33,400 to $33,000 (not the most significant decrease for ten years, but with inflation and the market, makes a large difference, whereas the top 1% saw a 33% increase!

This completely relates to our discussion and readings about representation. How are these law makers and politicians representing the majority? Is this true democracy? I think not. They pay to benefit themselves, not the majority. The middle class is the majority being 79% of our country. It seems as if the government is in it for the money, pay and you'll get what you want. Large corporations are the most popularly invested into by the government employees. It's a cycle of money, where everyone in D.C. wants to win.

To add in a few definitions for clarification, I decided to do some research on Democracy and Representation. Here are my findings, thanks to www.merriam-webster.com.

     Representation:
F          A person or group that speaks or acts for or in support of another person or group
            One that represents as
T                 A statement or account made to influence opinion or action, an incidental or collateral statement                    of fact on the faith of which a contract is entered into
                   A usually formal statement made against something or to effect a change
T          The act or action of representing: the state of being represented
F                The act of fact of one person standing for another so as to have the rights and                                      obligations of the person represented, the substitution of an individual or class in place of a                      person
T                The action of representing or the fact of being represented esp in a legislative body

     Democracy:
T          A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
T          A country ruled by democracy
F          An organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally, and has equal rights
F          A government by the people, especially: rule of the majority, a government in which the                         supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a             system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
T          A political unit has a democratic government
F          The common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
T          The absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

In regards to these definitions, there are areas in which our government 'represents' a democracy, and others where there are large gaps. I marked next to each definition my perspective of how the U.S. government relates to these positions (True/False.) Although they are partly true, it is the larger issues that are false. Yes, one does not inherit being President, but one could inherit his/her fathers/mothers name or wealth which adds favor to them. In addition, it is the problem that our democracy does not accurately and wholly represent the majority as shown in bold above. It's about the wealthy and powerful, maintaining that power, not representing the majority, being vested in the people or maintaining equality.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Minimum Wage and the American Economic Classes

One thing that stuck out the most to me during Friday’s lecture was when Professor Breyman mentioned minimum wage. It astonished me that when minimum wage was first instated, that the purpose was for two adults who were working full time at minimum wage and 40hrs/week, could support a family of four. Today’s federal minimum wage being $7.25/hr which would be $15,080/yr for one person, or $30,160 for a family of four with two adults working full time. By today’s standards, the poverty line is $23,550. Surprisingly, this means that today’s minimum wage holds true the purpose of the minimum wage. Honestly, I did not expect this to be true when calculating it out. It's hard to believe that $23,550 is suppose to efficiently support a family of four. Due to these statistics, this got me interested in the other economic classes in the U.S.  

The following was found: 

Upper Classes:

                $250,000+                            1%

                $150,000+                            5%

Middle Classes:

                $100,000+                          Upper Middle (33%)

                $50,054                              Median (50% mark)

                $32,500 - $60,000              Lower Middle

                $23,050 - $32,500              Bottom Middle - Working Class

Poverty Line:

                $18,000 - $23,050              Lowest 15%

It is obvious from this data that the middle class is by far the largest, being 79% of the American economic society. In addition, it has the most hierarchies within the class.  With this being the largest area of the American working class, it also relates back to Woodhouse’s Chapter Eight: Technological-Economical Innovations II when discussing democracy in the workplace. If workers were to function was “representatives” of people otherwise excluded from a business firm’s technological-economic decision making, how would they be fairly represented? I see today in the federal government that representative do not accurately represent what the people want or stand for. As stated in "Henry Giroux on resisting the Neoliberal Revolution" “economics drives politics” and those with wealth have power. So based on these economic statistics, and this week’s articles, I wonder how can the poverty and median line be moved up and these individuals be better represented, both in the work force, and the government?

References:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/henry-giroux-on-resisting-the-neoliberal-revolution/

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

Ethics in the Market and How They "Regulate Themselves"

I found the article depicting various markets “regulating themselves” to be very eye-opening to the fact that “morality isn’t built into markets.” It is very true, and here are some examples from this article that relate to this.

As it starts out, 85 people - the top 0.00000001% - own as much as the poorest 3.5 BILLION people. That’s astonishing! Then on top of that, to note that these high levels of inequality corrode the democratic process because these people use their wealth to influence the political process to create laws and regulations that benefit them, the rich over everyone else, those who are not in the top 0.00000001% and especially not the poorest.  For example, when running for president, or any government elected official position, one must campaign to be elected. However, those campaigns are expensive. Thus, those who support these campaigns financially essentially just bought themselves influence in the government through that campaigning and potentially elected official. This is something that it seems most people who vote and have a partial awareness around of the government and how it works, seems aware of, but don’t know what to do about it, or can’t do anything about it. This problem then gets brushed under the rug, because those who pay for it gain them influence, or else the system must be changed.

Another incident that most of the American population became aware of is the Bangladesh garment factory collapse. The majority of Americans are aware that goods sold in the United States, are often not produced or manufactured here, thus the low prices. However when this incident happened, it was all over the news, creating awareness in American citizens of the conditions that these workers are in. When it’s not our workers (American citizens) who are in danger, how apt are American consumers going to change the conditions in which goods are produced and manufactured?

Today’s society also seems to have an abundance of waste type disasters, such as oil spills, radiation exposure and toxic waste. All of these have extremely harsh impacts on the environment, something humans seem incapable of truly preserving. Oil spills destroy oceanic life in an unnatural way and are spread across the globe due to currents. Not only do these have major impacts on the environment and humans, but also costs an astronomical amount of money to “contain” or fix. In addition, although there are regulations that revolve around these types of disasters, not all of them are full proof as shown in this article. The containment of radiation is sometime not enough, or as well done as it should be. The link below shows an innovative way in which nuclear waste could be stored. It makes one think, why aren’t more innovations such as this being implemented to solve these various market place and regulation problems?

Overall, this article well depicted the lack of knowledge that the general public has about various markets and regulations. Not only does it inform the reader via text, but the images add a very compelling component to addressing this problem.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/making-nuclear-power-safer/handling-nuclear-waste/infographic-dry-cask-cooling-pool-nuclear-waste.html#share

Ways to Consider Technology.. and Life

After today's in class discussion, it made me realize that various aspects that go into 'steering' technology, and not even just technology, but people's decisions in general. The space vs. oceanic exploration discussion brought up good observations about the reasoning behind each exploration, or lack thereof. Not only do people do things for money, but for interest and curiosity, self-interest and reward, and status. Cancer research brings money in addition to self-interest for doing what is right and helping others. Space exploration on the other hand, costs a lot of money to do, but creates a status for the country (generally speaking) which accomplishes or discovers the most. This is part of what brought about the space race. But why do some things take precedence over others? That’s a subjective question that alters from person to person.

More specifically to the Precautionary Principle however, I think there is a need for this. One might argue that technology moving too slowly is a bad thing (and in some respects I agree such as alternative energy forms.) But in most cases, such as the Pinto car, technology needs to slow down and take more of an assessment of the implications and impacts that it has. Nanotechnology and Geoengineering are great, in the short term, but what about thousands of years from now? If the Precautionary Principle was applied to these prior to execution, there could be a better way to solve these preexisting problems. In addition, many areas of technology and research apply the Precautionary Principle, but maybe not in the most effective ways, or as much as it should be applied. In one way, maybe the environment would be more highly thought of as a concern that people address if there was an economic (or some other form of) reward. These incentives, whether personal or physical, would have a large impact on the implementation of the Precautionary Principle, if executed correctly.

This is a little bit of a tangent from this topic, but I was watching the Olympics today and saw an interview of Sarah Burke's parents. Sarah Burke was a super pipe skier who died from hitting her head skiing in the X games at the age of 29 in 2010. Her passion was skiing, and her dream was to have her event in the Olympics. Now, it is. Although she can't be here to participate in it, her mom was asked if she regretted letting her ski and pursuing her dreams. Her response, was no. She wouldn't want to take that away from her. From this, it made me realize that people make decisions, learn from their mistakes and take on trial and error. It might not be in the most systematic way such as with the formality of technology, but rather that each decision is based off of some sort of pursuit or desire. So just remember, live to fulfill your life, make the decisions that make you happy and if you die trying, you know you lived a full and good life doing what you love. Have no regrets.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/sarah-burke-driving-force-behind-ski-halfpipe-taken-too-soon

A Response to "Why Technology Assessment?"

This article informed the reader about the progress of technology that people (citizens of countries who frequently use and develop technologies) often aren't aware of, or think about consciously as these technologies are implemented into their life and society. Nanotechnology, Geo-engineering and Synthetic Biology all sound extraordinarily impressive, and complex; which they are. However, citizens (defined above) who do not directly design, build or work with these technologies are unaware of their full impacts. Countries and companies tend to keep a “clean” reputation by hiding the negative side effects about technologies that they design and use. It makes me wonder, who decides what technologies are appropriate for what uses, and why does this person (or group of people) have the authority to make this decision? That brings up the point of regulation and testing for social, economic and environmental impacts and how societies should be involved in these. For example, the majority of citizens would not know that Geo-engineering lower’s the Earth’s temperature to reduce greenhouse gases, which will eventually decrease light reaching Earth. The general population of technologically advanced countries should be better informed about the impacts - both positive and negative - that are results of these technologies.  

Cars... Technology... Money...

Maybe it's the fact that I'm not very interested in cars or don't know an extensive amount about how they run. But I do know that these two articles for this Friday's class (2/7) were very hard to delve into for me. Maybe it was the cars, maybe it was the acronyms, or maybe it was both. Either way, I couldn't connect with what was going on.

I would like to note however from "Innovation Too Slow" that money and power does tend to sway innovation. Who can pay for the technology often becomes the targeted market, even if someone else needs it more. Do the thousands of people who die from Dengue Fever not matter? Shouldn't ones intentions be about helping others, not themselves? Sometime I wonder how selfish people truly are in this world, and this pretty much sums it up for a grand total. This also goes back to last week's discussion. It's a truly unfortunate event and circumstances that life saving research and technology are even done based on the consumer's 'ability to pay.'

Homelessness

While reading "Chapter 3: Challenge #2: Unfairness" various problems that we (U.S. citizens) have here, domestically, occurred to me. Primarily, the issue of homelessness. This has been an increasing issue that has been 'dealt' with in a multitude of ways, past and present, to try and solve. However, the most interesting (and common sense) method that I have heard of to try and reduce the number of homeless people on the streets, is in Ohio. I saw this on the news, and decided to do some follow up research.

In the state of Ohio, they are reducing the number of homeless, and helping them get on track in several ways. They have several programs that help find housing, permanent housing even, and then give support in finding jobs to become independent. This is an interesting way to do it, and smart, because in fact it is often cheaper to provide housing and assistance for a homeless person, than for them to do something to land them in prison, in addition to medical costs from emergency rooms. This will save their state funds, as well as help their citizens. Smart.

The last link provided also explains how housing homeless in rentals is cheaper than those going through temporary homeless shelters. It's a unique problem to study with how it is handled, and makes me wonder that, if permanent housing is cheaper and a better solution for the homeless, than why is it not being implemented? I'd like to know others views on this problem and solution as well.

On the other hand, Hawaii is sending homeless 'home' via a one-way ticket. This was stated to not be for thousands of people, but rather a hundred or so to help them get back to a support unit on the mainland. I thought this was a very unique and interesting idea. It makes me wonder how people got to Hawaii and became homeless, but also, once someone 'returns' it poses the question, then what? There was brief mention about Hawaii also offering support for those returning home, but it seems it would be difficult for a state to do outside of their own region.

These are just some thoughts I had come across that posed some new questions regarding problems - abd solutions - within our own country. Although we are a first world country, we still have a lot of work to do so that our society is 'fair' as well.

References:
http://www.cohhio.org/programs/ssi_2011
http://development.ohio.gov/cs/cs_homelesscrp.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/hawaii-return-to-home-homeless_n_3653498.html
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-studies-prove-housing-cheaper-homelessness-0

What is Fair?

The definition(s) of fair according to Merriam Webster Dictionary (online).

     note: A few definitions were not included due to course content and relevancy to subject matter.

Fair (adj.):

     1. Agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable

     2. Treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

     3. Not too harsh or critical

  Full Definition:

     1. Pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality.

     2. Superficially pleasing: specious "she trusted his fair promises"

     3. Not stormy or foul

     4. Ample "a fair estate"

     5. Marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism "a very fair person            to do business with"

     6. Conforming with the established rules" allowed

     7. Open to legitimate pursuit, attack or ridicule "fair game"

     8.  Promising, likely

     9. Sufficient but not ample: adequate "a fair understanding of the work"

     10. Moderately numerous, large, or significant "takes a fair amount of time"

     11. Being such to the utmost: utter "a fair treat to watch him"

After being asked in class on Tuesday what "fair" means to me, I honestly didn't know. I thought of things that I thought were fair, what constitutes something as fair, or how our society and the world define it. Even after all of that, and the class discussion, I'm still not sure how to answer these questions.

I began trying to look for answers, and thus searched what the definition of fair is. According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, there are a multitude of answers. Our language uses the word fair in a variety of contexts in which it all means something different. It is such a relative and subjective word, that it becomes difficult to define.

On the topic of unfairness and how it relates to society - specifically water availability and sanitation - I want to analyze how these definitions do (or don't) relate to this topic, and others in our world like it. Due to this topic being so controversial, I have found it difficult to even formulate my own opinion, one that I can stick by and have no mental hardship with. By simply focusing on the first three definitions, they are all still subjective and open to interpretation. However, I feel that these best define what fair is in the most open and broad sense, but still clearly defining it. 

Is it right that not everyone has access to clean water and sanitation? 

  No, as defined by article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care an necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." As water is a necessity for life, and clean water and sanitation for a healthy life, these are things that should be granted to every individual.

Does availability of clean water and sanitation favor some over others? 

   Yes, unfortunately, although those in first and second world countries have access to water and plumbing, those whom live in third world countries do not. It is not fair  that these people do not have access to it based on location. The location also often has various other factors such as socioeconomic implications. Should those who are fortunate enough to live in those areas help those who are less fortunate? One must always remember when considering problems of this sort, that ones location is often not something they control. I did not choose to be born in the U.S., but rather that is outside of my control.

Is it harsh that some people have access to clean water and sanitation? 

   Yes, in the meaning that harsh is cruel and unfair. This also relates back up to what I have said above.

When considering these questions, I always seem to go back to putting things on a level playing field. One deserves what they work for, that I do believe. The guy who does less work than I does not deserve the promotion. However, what constitutes if one deserves clean water or sanitation - necessities to life? That I'll leave up to you.

"Fair." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair>.

Week Two: My Response to "A Response to Nicholas Carr's 'Is Google Making Us Stupoid?'"

The evolution of technology - and Google's role in-particular - is an interesting debate. As I was reading Carr's article, I kept thinking about how ironic his article is as he argued that people are becoming more accustomed to skimming articles, getting easily distracted, and prefer shorter articles, or those that are broken up into pages. It is interesting how this article was broken up into three pages, just as Carr was discussing how people lose focus on long articles (such as his.) Although Carr's article was not very deep in context, it was quite lengthy and made a variety of points that were not always concise with each other. That is why I enjoyed this article more. This author was concise with his points and demonstrated them clearly. He also pointed out that the internet creates and mimics the way that humans truly think and engage - through discussion with others. Although the internet has shorter articles, humans are use to spur of the moment interaction, where one must think off the top of their head the opinion and the discussion is constantly changing. He claims that books "ignore the natural ways that humans learn through oral interaction and in a group." It is a more natural and rapid form of thinking. Thus, Google doesn't make us stupid. It simply allows us to communicate through a more natural means with one another.

Week Two: A Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

The article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr brings up interesting points in the way that technology has evolved over time, and the impacts that it has made on the human brain. As technology has progressed, it has changed the way in which humans think. Not necessarily diminishing our ability to think, but altering the way in which we receive, process and give information. While responding to this article, I would like to note that in these contexts of reading and writing, one must also understand the audience and subjects, those who are truly affected and discussed by Carr. As writing came into practice among cultures, the wealthy classes were the only ones who were educated to be able to read and write. Now, on a similar (more global) scale, first and second world countries would be the most widely used population to refer to as they have the education and access to literature and the internet. These cultures more primarily use written word as a means of communication, whereas a third world country may rely more on verbal information and communication. In addition, due to cultural differences between a first and third world countries, their outlook and the affect by sources and technology such as Google will be vastly different. 

When writing was first being put into practice, Socrates was concerned with people forgetting more information. Instead of relying on memory, would writing become a substitution for knowledge people use to have in their heads? As writing came into practice, passing information and stories down through generations could be permanently stored - somewhere other than the human brain. Would writing then cause us to "cease to exercise the brain and become forgetful?" As history goes, that is not necessarily true. Granted, it might be more difficult for us [as humans] to remember things upon hearing them once. But who knows for sure? When your grandpa tells you a story about his childhood, do you remember it in entirety the first time? Probably not. This may have been true thousands of years ago, before writing was widely practiced, and verbal communication was the primary use of communication through communities, and from generation to generation. 

As technology has progressed over time, it has affected and influenced both written and verbal communication. People use to dive into books, reading them cover to cover, pondering the context, plot and purpose of it. Now people "control f" to find what they're looking for in an article or reading. Does this truly make people less smart? Or does it mean the way they process information has changed? I have to say that I have never been a huge reader, and I'm picky about the books that I read (hence, I go to RPI.) But that's okay because not all of us have to love reading. For me, online short articles are convenient. I find what I need and what I want in a timely manner. But for those who enjoy the depth and time of a book, why let technology change your life or reading style? That's a personal choice. We all (meaning Americans) have the freedom to choose what we read. So why does Carr allow this change to influence his life so heavily? Especially when he enjoys reading good literature? He states that "what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation." But why let it? He has the capacity to not go on the Net, but instead read books, the newspaper etc. It seems that Carr is allowing the internet to play an uncomfortably large influential role in his life. 

As the internet has made finding information easily, providing it at our fingertips, people still have control. One observation I have made is with younger generations. I find it rarer to find children with a book in hand - whether at a restaurant, at home or in the car - but rather with an iPad or some other piece of technology. It seems that with younger generations reading as a pass-time has dissipated because they are being brought into a world of technology. But this too can be changed and monitored through parental control. Technology does play a large and influential role in people’s lives; because they allow it to. 

In addition, Carr also brings up the point of machines, and how evolved they have become. The analogy to a clock was a most interesting one. Although the clock "disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences" it did not make us stupid, but rather altered the way we oriented ourselves around time. Technology is a truly powerful source. What if the internet or technology becomes smarter than those who program it? Will we lose control as a population? Should we allow it to become so integrated into our self as a human that we become high speed data processing machines? Are we machines? No. Should we be machines? No. WHY would someone want to be a machine?? What about ones individuality and personality, not that of a machine? These are several complex questions that came to mind as I read through this article. Although they do not all have answers, and are more complex than we may perceive, technology is on the brink of these possibilities. 

Overall, this article made a variety of points and intrigued me significantly. Although I do have several questions and opinions that have spurred from reading this article, I want to be clear on where I stand in this response. Technology is a compilation of thousands of years of evolution that has had a significant impact on society and the world today; whether or not we like it. Google has made reading and finding information convenient because it truly is at ones fingertips. It's a growing and changing world where people have the choice of how much "content" they want their brain to be filled with or distracted by. However, it is always ones choice how involved they allow technology to be in their life. If you don't like it's involvement in your life - change it. 

I forgot to do this in the beginning of the week, after creating my blog. However, the primary reason that I chose to use Blogger, is due to the convenience of it being associated with my Google account. Thus, there is one less username and password for me to remember, and it is easily accessible for me. Also, it has a straight forward user interface, which is good for me, as someone who does not like to deal with complexity of computers. In addition, this blog allows for versatility within the layout of the blog which is nice for personalizing. Hence, I chose this blog primarily due to the ease of use.

The Era of Robots - A Response to "March of Robots"

As technology has shifted and advanced, it's uses have changed drastically. Robots are now widely used in armies as a means of replacing soldiers on foreign soil to exploring unknown territory. They can weigh a few grams, to a couple tons, depending on the purpose of the UAV or UGV (unmanned aerial vehicle and unmanned ground vehicle.) However, the most interesting features of these robots are the integration of biomimicry into their design. These robots have the ability to run, jump, hop, swim, fly or crawl; exploring land, sea and air. Some climb over terrain such as steep rocky areas, whereas others swim through the ocean, or fly through the air. As these 'creatures' are able to explore the earth and it's surroundings without direct human interaction or control, it brings up the concern of the actions that they perform. Some people believe that without a human directly controlling the robot while in the physical territory, it may increase the number of attacks. This is belief that armies with "robots may be more inclined to launch attacks" strengthens the notion of "in the loop" vs. "on the loop." While if one is "in the loop" that human or soldier is directly in the area of action and decides whether or not to take action based on their experience. On the other hand, if one is "on the loop" than they are watching what the robot sees, but not experiencing it first hand. This distinction is important due to the atmosphere of which these decisions are being made. Although with this, soldiers are not being placed on foreign soil which makes situations and politics more tricky. Either way, a human should always be the one to decide to attack or not, never should this decision be made by a robot. If robots are the ones being placed in such territory, would war one day end up being robots fighting each other, controlled by a human thousands of miles away? This question truly makes me wonder how technology will continue to change societies and cultures through advancements; especially in the realms of war.

A Response to "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?"

Although there has been a long time fundamental belief that technology demonstrates the progress of a society or culture; that is not always necessarily true. There is a give and take that comes with the advancement of technology. As technology advanced with mass manufacturing, it began to take precedence over the quality of life in America. Although other societies were optimistic about Western technology, it was often times a mislead and one sided perception. As technology grew, social and political beliefs became secondary in society. Over time, how would this role reversal affect and change the culture of this society? It eventually became evident that scientific and technological progress became the main goal and focus over society and culture in America. Thomas Jefferson often saw how the happiness of people would be affected by the technological advancement, and wanted to leave the industries and factories in Europe to maintain quality of life over cost and economics. Others, however, saw the machine and technological progression as beneficial and very satisfactory as a progression of the time. This meaning that technological innovation is a sufficient cause of an accumulation of progress.  These two opposing views became controversial as mass manufacturing, due to technological advancement, became a growing industry in society. In one form, those in power, and who possessed authority in economics, social, political and intellectual ways, expected the profits that were generated to be brought back to them. That way, their power and property would be maintained. This shift to mass production was a rapid rate of change for technological innovation, as well as it's effects on social progress. These times became marked as the "Age of Machinery" due to the domination by physical machines, as well as the mechanical thinking of the era. Many people also thought of this age, or shift, to be harmless, yet how harmless was it truly? Although mass production made previous luxuries to be available to the general population, machines replaced workers, and the profits went to the 'guys upstairs.' In addition, there became "worshipful attitude of Americans" towards technology, such as the railroad. In a country that is founded on religious values and freedom, it is interesting that man-made objects became so admired. As time progressed through the technological age, there was a shift in the belief of the meaning of technological improvement. From the view of freedom from political domination, to the belief that innovations in technology are a sufficient base for progress. This shift in the attitudes reflected the American attitude of quantity over quality. This compromised the quality of life for workers, for the availability of goods to the general population through mass production. This may be viewed as progression to some, as technology itself advanced, or, as regression to others, due to changing societal values.

This post is a response to “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” by Leo Marx.