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>.