Tuesday, April 29, 2014

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:

Friday, April 18, 2014

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

Sunday, April 6, 2014

"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.


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.