Goethean Science

I can certainly relate to Holdrege’s frustration with the traditional scientific explanation. I also found it hard to examine specific questions and pieces in order to draw or support a conclusion. I always felt the need to become more involved with the unit/species as a whole. The explanation of abstraction with even greater abstraction makes the process difficult to follow.

I like the Goethean approach through delicate empiricism. The concept of participating in a conversation and interacting without any preconceived questions to answers allows for the unbiased observation leading to the answer. Using sensorial imagination and living understanding allows the observer to learn.

I’m not huge on nature and have not spent much time thinking about it. I am born and raised in NYC so I don’t consciously interact much with nature but I am exposed. I think the Goethean approach to examining would be a better approach for me. I have limited historical knowledge and no exact questions to answer. The observation leading to understanding would allow me to learn more about the plant, flower or tree.

Genetic Manipulation

I believe that genetic manipulation should cease at being utilized to assist those with disease prevention. I believe this is the only way to ensure that society provides the best for its people and keeps the playing field level. Genetic augmentations such as muscles, memory, height and sex selection is inertly dangerous because it will be used to create a superhuman. John Rawls states “it is in the interest of each to have greater nature assets” meaning that even by adding restrictions towards using genetic manipulation it will not be used in a morally responsible manner. John Rawls is an advocate of genetic manipulation but his statement shows that even the advocates know that society will always take advancements beyond their intended purpose.

Michael Sandel argues that even if a free market is available genetic manipulation is not acceptable. “In order to grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions largely lost from view – questions about the moral status of nature, and about the proper stance of human beings toward the given world.” I agree with Sandel regarding the “drive to mastery” but also believe there is an acceptable middle ground when it comes to our health. The challenge will be guiding society to utilize the advancements in a responsible and intended manner. When it comes to creating children we need to appreciate their natural identity and not mold them into a “perfect” being. It is the job of the parent to create that mold through parenting. “To appreciate children as gifts or blessings is not, of course, to be passive in the face of illness or disease.”

To support gene therapy to fight diseases is to be responsible. I feel that any other purpose designed to mold a human life is not acceptable. Whether that be to increase their physical or mental abilities or determine sex is a violation of nature and have the potential for dangerous results. What happens if the child is not what the parent “ordered”? Is it refundable? What happens to society if there are natural people and superhuman? Do they exist in harmony or does one have repercussions for the other, such as health insurance coverage?

Invisibility Cloak and Other Applications

I read an article about an invisibility cloak and was quite impressed with how the technology works. It was developed by a group from the University of Tokyo and essentially the material of the cloak allows for a digital camera located behind the fabric to record the images and display them on the material providing the appearance of transparency. This is termed “optical camouflage”.

It was more impressed to understand this technology as more than just magic tricks on the street. I actually saw how this cloak can be quite hazardous to the user. In NYC the user can be hit by traffic or run into by other pedestrians simply because they are not visible. I was also concerned about utilizing this technology for criminal purposes.

The article went on to show the benefits of the technology. The cockpit in aircraft could project the underside of the plane while landing allowing the pilots to have a transparent view of the runway and the landing gears. Cars could utilize the technology to eliminate blind spots and decrease the number of vehicle accidents. I am a large advocate of safety for our troops overseas and the example of hiding military vehicles would certainly increase their safety. I worry that if the “enemy” has the same technology we could be at a disadvantage but I believe that radar, heat scans and other new technologies could limit the “invisibility” of the vehicles.

This is an extraordinary new innovation and when utilized in a morally responsible manner benefit society greatly. As with all innovations without monitoring they can be used to influence society in a negative fashion.

Right to Privacy - Expoitation of the Sacrifice for Safety

After reading the two pieces Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains by Jay Stanley and Barry Steinhart and In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love (Some) Government Surveillance by James Stacey Taylor, I changed my thoughts regarding privacy. My thoughts about privacy were in line with Taylor’s in that I believed that those who had nothing to worry about or do nothing wrong have no reason to be concerned about being monitored. This also came with the requirement that the information captured could only be used in “morally permissible” ways meaning that there would have to be just cause to dig into my data.

My feelings are still in line with Taylor’s because I will sacrifice privacy for safety, to a degree. What I have learned is that motivation and interests make the term “morally permissible” impossible to achieve. New technology is created at a speed greater than law creation and once the door has been opened to allow data aggregation and surveillance, institutions will exploit those laws for their interests and find loop holes to conduct business at my expense. In a perfect world this data could only be aggregated and used by the government for the purpose of reasonable national security. They catch here is that only the government writes the rules around what is reasonable and the actions can not be monitored by an independent third party.

Stanley and Steinhardt explained that once corporation gain access to this data and surveillance it is utilized for their interest and the speed and methods at which this information is being gathered is alarming if not scary. To think that my internet activity and financial data can be sold off because a weak law was implemented that, against its purpose, allows the activity rather than restricts it appalls me.

I firmly believe that my data and information can be gathered and utilized for my, and only my, best interest. Cell phone GPS, genetic privacy, RFID, the Patriot Act, TIA and CAPS II are all good technology when utilized in the appropriate manner. Having them used in the appropriate manner is impossible because of self interests and lack of monitoring. The identification of the exploitation makes me want to go to a place where I can’t be monitored. My private life is just that. My safety is a government issue. My information solely mine and those who house my financial information or I pay a fee to utilize their technology have an obligation to me to keep our interaction between us and no one else.

I am certainly more conscious of my situation after these readings and I may start to adjust my behavior as a response. It will not be an adjustment towards obeying laws, it will be an adjustment towards hiding my identity.

Information Age - Change to Warfare

Being from a military family (and this is my blog so I will be opinionated) I believe the most significant consequence of the information revolution is the changes in warfare. I think it is a great a power tool to be able to collaborate on informative software to expand knowledge but what good is knowledge if you’re not free?

Max Boot wrote a story indentifying the relevant changes to warfare and draws to the conclusion that our traditional military powerhouse will not be a factor in coming conflicts. Technology and use of technology will drive the conflict and the eventual winner.

Every piece of human delivered military machinery and artillery has a weakness that can exposed and over time will be exposed. Asymmetric threats make our response to innovation critical to the mission and safety of our troops. We must continue to create technology to protect our troops (armor, drones, radar, artillery and stealth developments). If the US does not stay ahead of the curve our current technology will be rendered inferior and the potential for negative consequences and appearance of weakness will grow.

Globalization Impact

One of the most important changes we have experienced through globalization is the reduction of trading barriers (such as tariffs) between countries that limit trade. Whether or not it is a good or bad experience remains to be argued.

Free trade creates jobs, lowers the cost of production and increases demand of products. Without tariffs in place certain geographic locations have advantages to producing goods for consumption in other geographic areas. This creates a profit if the good is produced and therefore creates jobs. Because the certain geographic areas have a lower standard of wage the cost of production is cheaper and the consumer benefits through lower product cost. Lower product cost increases quantity demanded. Free trade also allows the US to trade our goods to other countries and through our various technology innovations the US is generally able to produce most goods more efficiently than other countries.

Free trade has a downside as well. The first aspect is the exploitation of workers. Stiglitz stated that in a perfect free market there would be consistency of wages for unskilled labor. This is not the case in today’s capitalism. Worker in economically poor countries still have lower wages that US employees. In contradiction to an earlier mentioned ‘pro’ of globalization being the creation of jobs this lower wage decreases jobs in the US because increased wages would lead to increased production cost and an increase in market price. A consumer is driven to acquire the best product at the cheapest price. Another negative of free trade is the cause of political complications with the country’s interests. Is it better to produce good that increase GDP and pollution or reduce pollution and promote goods that reduce the dependency on other country imports?

From either side of the argument it is noted that reduced trading barriers increases the influence of technology and culture from other parts of the world that would not be possible with trade barriers in place. The economic benefits can be argued.

Martin Heidegger's Poiesis - Explained to a Child

Poiesis alos called bringing forth is how things are made or come to be. Take for example the LEGO castle that sits in your room. At first this was a pile of pieces but in order to become a castle you had to physically put the pieces together. That is one example of how things come to be when made by a person. Nature also has the ability to make things. When a bee visits a flower the pollen from that flower sticks to the bee. When the bee visits another flower some of that pollen falls off and pollinates the new flower allowing it to make seeds and fruit.

Poiesis is how things are made. Either by a person or nature.

New Ethics Regarding Technology

“Take, for instance, as the first major change in the inherited picture, the critical vulnerability of nature to man’s technological intervention – unsuspected before it began to show itself in damage already done.” – Hans Jonas Page 125

I picked this passage from the Hans Jonas article because I found it extraordinary that in 1973 (and even prior to that) philosophers already observed and identified the effects of technology on nature, well before the population began to administer rules and laws to address the behavior causing these effects on nature. To have the foresight to detect damages and forecast additional damages in the future is a remarkable skill. The warning to the population not only brought forward attention to the subject matter but also provided ample reaction time to successfully adopt laws regarding the behavior before the behavior caused irreversible damage.

I believe that if not for these types of early warnings and pleas for change the population may not have acknowledge the damages until it was too late. The ideology that stood true in 1973 remains true in 2009.

Andrew Feenberg's Constructivism

Andrew Feenberg argued that democracy can transform technology and I like to believe that is true. I want to believe that my interests and values can change technology and will be considered in the development of new technology. I want to believe that I have a voice that will be heard and respected.

In the future I would like to see technology produced at its current rate of progression and I do not want to delay advancements while we sit in think tanks and discuss the affects. I want consideration for my interests in the initial design. It is a touchy area because once technology is created it becomes more difficult to change without being ceased. I want the innovators to know that they stand to lose a great deal of money if they do not consider the majority of the people. We have proven in the past that we are a nation of great resolve and when we rebel our mark is left.

technology as a 'Life Form'

I do agree that we can understand technology as a ‘life form’ because many innovations “that we like to think of as mere tools or instruments now function as virtual members of our society”. Langdon stated that “humans and inanimate objects are linked in various kinds of relationships”. He provided the example of the phone answering machine that handles some of the responsibilities previously assigned to full-time secretaries. The point is that technology social, cultural and political effects.

Another example of technology becoming a ‘life form’ was the el cortito tool used in agriculture. The physical tool has a very small handle. The tool has a secondary function because of the size it requires the worker to bend over or get on their knees to utilize the tool which in effect acts as an identifier of who is working and how is not. Because workers are bent over it is easier to survey a field and identify the employees not working because they are standing.

The computer was an excellent example of how technology is a ‘form of life’. Computers today have roles, responsibilities and actions that were previously assigned to humans. They process transactions, manage business data, formulate calculations and can even assess risk. They can also monitor employee production acting in a supervisor role.

The iPhone is a newer innovation that has taken on a ‘life for’. It changes relationships between humans. In lieu of asking questions when we do not know the answer we can google the answer. In lieu of asking for directions when we are lost we can utilize the GPS to find our way. We can make phone calls while traveling to receive family updates instead of receiving them at the dinner table. It can serve as the role of an administrative assistant providing phone messages, work calendars and work updates via e-mail. The were odd at first but as more humans utilized them they have now become part of our daily routine.

Langdon Winners cautions us to monitor how new technology to identify the how it will change the economy and effect our environment. What negative impacts will it have on our culture.

Techonolgy and Historical Change

I always believed that technology was an influence of history but after reading The Shock of the Old: Production by David Edgerton and History as Technological Change by Rosalind Williams I was surprised to learn how much of an impact history and society have on technology. It was also refreshing to see Rosalind Williams’ perspective and explanation of the Human Habitat.

Edgerton shows examples of how certain innovations had impacts on trades and production throughout history. He also showed examples of how some products are still in use and have not been drastically altered by innovation. Singer produced 90% of the sewing machines in 1905 and even today is still producing the same machines. “in April 2002, thread operated Singers decorated with stickers celebrating 150 years of Singer machines were on sale alongside white goods, next to an internet café”. Edgerton used examples of products (automobiles) and industries (Farming, Agriculture. Mass Production and Service Industries) to show innovation was introduced and utilized differently by different societies. One of the main points given through these examples was that society impacts technology because technology is dependent on people utilize it.

Williams introduced a term called the “Human Habitat” which also showed how historical change does not equate to technological change. Williams asked that the reader identify technology as meaning change. The consensus by most is that change is “relentless and inevitable” but Williams presents a challenge that change lacks a purpose and an end. ‘Progress has a story line; change does not”. Without progress no innovation will alter how humans relate and interact and therefore not be part of any change in history.

Historical change is much more complex than the introduction to new technology. Humans must have a use for the technology in their lives in order for the technology to be justified. There must be an influence on how humans relate and interact with each other. That creates a historical change. The introduction of the tractor in the 1920’s had very little impact in the Soviet Union and therefore did not result in a historical change.

The Automatic Professor Machine

Langdon Winner's presentation entitled "The Automatic Professor Machine" depicted a company promoting automated education via an excessive technology platform going as far as to propose users' brains connect directly to the database for information downloads. I interpret Langdon’s main point to be that we need to evaluate the intentions, actions and consequences of new technology. By presenting this excessive approach to a good concept we were forced to witness how an individual or company motivated by control and money can take a good concept and create a negative solution.

The concept of downloading information to accelerate a process and providing that product via seamless integration within global coverage is that intent of any business that sells any product. A company must posses the best product at the lowest cost and have that product accessible to its consumers in order to be profitable. I’m not writing this because I like school and I would much rather prefer to be given the “injection” and be done with school.

The problem is the product we are talking about is education. By using downloads we take away an individual’s perspective and ability to internalize the information. Education is learning how to think. If we all have the same amount of data and it was derived from the same source we will all apply that data in the same manner. Who’s going to think outside of the box to develop new products and medicines that will enhance our lives? What would differentiate us from our peers?

The last question I had was who is regulating the data that is being downloaded? If we do not know how to think and apply the information we hold then what prevents “the company” from applying data that has specific designs to promote their bottom line or even control our thought process? From the outset we could see that this company is less than reputable and motivated by money and control (everything must be privatized). I wouldn’t leave them in my apartment alone, forget about my brain.

My Blog

This will be my philosophy blog