Engineering for the Sake of Engineering

Why do we build? Why do we engineer projects that alter the beauty and brilliance of nature? Nature, that which has provided the bosom from which humanity has suckled for eons. We do it in the name of progress. But what is progress? Does progress mean increasing the ease in which humanity lives their lives? This definition may hold true in many cases, but not in all. Where the Pyramids at Giza progress? Was the Great Wall of China progress? Was the White Sea Canal progress? At what point do the price paid in human lives and the cost to the environment keep progress from being defined as such? At which point do historians stop to describing these large engineering feats as progress and start defining them as disasters?

Some of the most impressive engineering feats in the world were constructed at great cost to human life and caused irreparable environmental damage. We can think of classically famous events such as the invention of the atomic bomb, Chernobyl, or the draining of the Aerial Sea. Even in the safety conscience world of today, projects such as mineral mining and constructing of roadways have dramatic impacts on human life and migratory patterns of animals. In 2002, China alone had 7,000 deaths from coal mining. I'm showing you this number to showcase the fact that even things we take for granted, such as coal, has very profound effects. While 7,000 deaths is not small number, it pales in comparison to the death toll recorded in some of the engineering projects of the Soviets.

The most striking example of a project that took little regard for human life and environmental impacts in its definition of progress was the White Sea Canal. Built with the intent of allowing sea faring vessels from the White Sea to travel directly to the Baltic Sea, the result was a canal frozen 6 months out of the year that was too shallow for large ships. The project was ordered because it was impressive in size and scope, not because it would save money or make the lives of the people easier. During construction of this monumental engineering project an average of 10,000 people died every month, for a grand total of 200,000 dead workers. No natural disaster in recorded history has had a death toll so high. Was this project considered progress by the families of those people who died?

When does engineering happen for the sake of engineering and not for the sake of progress? It happens when decision makers apply technocratic methods to situations in which local context must be considered. For some, engineering progress personified by machine-line efficiency; this was the case with the Soviet Union. For others it is about craft and design; such as in Great Britain. While both of these are on appropriate ends of the spectrum, what must always be taken into account is the impact of engineering; on both nature and humanity. Progress in engineering is not always bigger and more complex solutions, sometimes the simple answer in a local context is better for everyone.

References:

1. China Reports Fewer Coal Mine Deaths in 2009. Daily News & Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_china-reports-fewer-coal-mine-deaths-in-2009_1347723

2. Graham, Loren. (1993). Ghost of the Executed Engineer.