Technology = Progress?

In the article “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” Marx’s argument appears to be that yes, technology can lead to progress but an important question he poses is that where will this progress lead to? . The article focuses on the evolution of technology and how it was used to propel the people in the revolution and how it’s separation from social change. For this response, I want to focus on the question Marx poses at the end. I found it to be interesting because it appears to always be the assumption that if a country or a group of people are not up to par with technology then they are not progressive. However, this article provides an opportunity to question what is advancement and to think outside the box.
I am not implying that technology is bad but the assumption that technology in general is progress and that “… the rest will take care of it self” (pg 8) is something to be looked at. I thought it was a great a opportunity to look at today and see where technology has brought us. What is progressive? I want to look into something we al use in everyday life, something that probably every single person has is a cell phone. I personally am not attached to my telephone; I leave it everywhere. However, I, like almost everyone in class, know a person or persons who are forever tied to their telephone. So something that I notice, is when my friends and I are out eating , everything’s good for a while. Everyone’s talking and joking around. Then, it only takes one person to just check their phone and pretty soon everyone’s checking their phone. And then our conversations revolves around whom texted who what, what someone posted on facebook etc. Telephones have changed the way people socialize. I am not saying cell phones are bad but to be aware how it has changed or lives is interesting to me. Cell phone are important, my parents stress to me how I need to carry my phone and have the ability to make an emergency call, if an occasion should arise. But every year there is always something new coming out. Everything made simpler and easier are the ads for these new telephones. I don’t know how many IPhones have come out.
Something else, conversations can get awkward. We can all be talking in a group and laughing and then, someone gets a text and begins a furious conversation with the person on the other line. A word was created for this, which I learned my freshman year of college, it is called cupcaking. This is an example where technology affects how we live and the new terms that arise from new occasions that have been created by technology. I used a simple example but if a small device such as a cell phone can impact society this much, a larger technological advancement can affect more. So building on the idea that “…the rest will take care of itself” is that it’s not that it will take care of itself, rather it will adjust and the adjustment is not measurable. I thought this article was great opportunity to step out of the box, the idea that technology equals progress and look in. So judging a country or a group of people by their technological progress is questionable if we cannot look at ourselves and see what technology has actually advanced and changed. I just used the cell phone as an example.

A New Angle Reading Reaction #3

So much research, time and effort has led us to see the flaws in the education and institutions of science and technology in our society (not to single out scientific institutions because all institutions have there flaws). Women and people of color get lost in the STEM pipeline, engineering fields are designated male intellectual zones and Western methods of engineering education and practice dominate the field. Yes, we see the statistics and recognize the situation and are left wondering, "What now?"

However, there are pinpoints of light in the field of science, technology and society, because people are taking action to make a change. In the article, "Conclusions: Science, Technology and Multicultural Education," Hess examines practical ways to incorporate women and people of color into the institutions of science and technology. First Hess establishes that science and technology are not "socially" neutral forces impenetrable to change, but they can be affected and changed by the society which constructs them. Hess makes the point that "when the social body is diversified the content of science and technology changes as well as well as its communication and social structures." This belief opens up our minds to engage in different methods of doing engineering, or science. And if the model is "reconstructable" there is a way to include women and people of color instead of permitting their exclusion or trying to fit them into an already established mold.

One strategy is to incorporate social sciences and humanities with engineering. Is Hess saying, that we ought to construct classes in universities that combine engineering processes and learning with a broader multicultural perspective that also includes how science and technology affect society? Hmm what would be an appropriate title for a class such as this...perhaps Global Engineering? Yes! How exciting is it that our participation in this class allows us to engage in this new dialogue that includes engineering with a multicultural perspective?! It is true however that this class has a much stronger focus on societal implications of engineering than the engineering processes themselves, but still it is implementing the technique of incorporation.

In another article entitled, "A New Era," Loftus gives us an example of the Smith Picker Engineering Program that has embraced this multiculturalism and found that their presentation of engineering materials appeals to women. For example in a class entitled, "Continum Mechanics I" students study statistics and dynamics while including case studies such as the earthquake in Mexico in its historical and social context. The teacher explains that one learns better when the information is in context. And it appears that this learning style is much more appealing to women because it incorporates the interpersonal and relatable information that gives life to the stark presentation of math. Sue Rosser, dean of the liberal arts college of Georgia Institute of Technology, found that "research has shown that girls can solve an engineering problem as quickly as boys when it is embedded in a social context."

These techniques are a result of practical implementation of the information that has been gathering about women and people of color in STEM fields. First we have identified that it is possible to view science and technology through a new lens. Since science, technology and society influence one another, as society changes, the production of scientific and technical processes can change as well.

Reading Response #2-- Hierarchies in STEM

Reading Response #2

Mariel Emanuel

ES:410

In the piece “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” authors Bilimoria & Stewart discuss some of the experiences of members of the LGBT community in STEM fields. I think this piece is very interesting because it highlights some of the consequences of lack of diversity within STEM fields. In the study they found that queers students generally “felt invisible both in science contexts and in queer discourses (which often ignore science)” (Bilimoria & Stewart). This is an interesting case that deserves to be looked at because it demonstrates how the lack of intersection of diverse discourses is creating hierarchies of information and affecting the STEM knowledge being produced.

Throughout the formation of STEM fields certain types of knowledge have been prioritized and valued over others. In turn we see the subtle implementation of hierarchies within the STEM fields. This is a problem because not surprisingly the STEM perspective is usually viewed as more important than the humanitarian perspective within the STEM paradigm. This ranking of knowledge is negatively affecting the information/products being produced because it is inevitably separating one type of knowledge from the other when in fact the most beneficial way to approach issues would involve the implementation of an assortment of perspectives.

Our society far too often views human as separate from technology when in reality the two are completely interconnected and the two perspectives should never be evaluated without the other alongside. Same idea applies to the separation of STEM fields from humanities. Putting the two at odds with each other furthers hierarchies and hinders citizens from recognizing the connection between the two fields.

In Faulkner’s piece she calls out STEM for fields for adopting dualisms and hierarchies. I think that this is very interesting because it is the implementation of these dualisms and hierarchies that puts technology at odds with the human and STEM at odds with the Humanities. I enjoyed Faulkner’s articles very much because she is very critical of the role of gender in STEM fields. It is so important to look at the intrinsic qualities that get attached to engineers based on their gender because this highlights some of the innate biases within the field. Since STEM work was created under a patriarchal framework the perspective of the woman has time after time been neglected. Even though we have made huge strides towards increasingly gender equality in STEM fields—the foundation of STEM was built upon dualisms and hierarchies which still subtly linger.

The remnants of patriarchy that still remain in the field are evidently part of the reason why members of the LGBT community felt that there unique perspective was “invisible”. This feeling of neglect is a direct consequence of the lack of diversity in engineering which only facilitates the continual perpetuation of hierarchies. In my opinion in order to successfully confront the current problems with diversity and STEM fields we must tackle the biases inherent within the foundation of the field first.

In order to successfully confront these inherent biases we must focus on how to increase diversity within the field and how to create an atmosphere in which various/diverse perspectives can peacefully co-exist without one being valued over the other. Issues of race and gender cannot be ignored and must taken into consideration when creating new scientific knowledge.

Fashionable Progress

I like change. I like getting rid of stuff and clutter. I try not to have stuff and clutter in the first place, but it just accumulates like dust. I had never considered this may be part of a governmental pan to increase spending and national morale. I never thought my love for shopping was something that I was provoked to enjoy by my society.

After watching “The Story of Stuff” (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) This quote from “retail analysis” Victor Lebow after World War II from the “Story of Stuff” left me gawking at the screen: “our enormously productive economy. . . demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption. . . we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerated rate”.

I see this in the world around me.

I also think this coincides with L. Marx’s (1987), “Does improved technology mean progress?”. Why are we, as a society, so consumed by consumerism? The NEED for progress, and the need to buy the new compliment each other. We need to ask ourselves WHY : ”when the introduction of some new labor-saving technology is proposed, it is useful to ask what the purpose of this new technology is. Only by questioning the assumption that innovation represents progress can we being to judge its worth” (Marx, 11).

I was particularly hurt with Annie Leonard’s theory of fashion. She asserted that the flux of styles: when skinny heels are in and chunky heels are out and when chunky heels are in and skinny heels are out, is a sure way to know who is IN and who is OUT. The progression of styles and NEW.

But this is not necessarily fashion-- the way people choose to style themselves with clothing-- but more a reflection of the economic system where it is possible to make money off of clothing by trying to get everyone to want the latest, greatest, newest shirt, short and shoes.

However, this severely thrashes what style is all about. Style is about wearing chunky heels, even if they are out. The person who wears skinny heels just because they are in is not fashionable at all.

Vintage is in. Flea market finds and garage sell digs are fiend by many a fashion bloggers and aspiring fashionistas. This promotes recycling-- it is cool to say you found something truly unique at the Goodwill.

But companies are getting wise to this shift and trying to sell garments that look washed and worn but only because of the factory process it went through.

Perhaps, if everyone was concerned with defining his or her own style, we could help the world and reduce mindless consumerism.

I guess this is still buying but maybe in a better way.

We all make decisions about what we wear every single day. Even thinking that you don’t care what you wear and just put on whatever, is an example of how you choose to show yourself to the world.

A way to decrease the wastefulness and overwhelmingness of trying to keep up with a trend is by focusing more on our individuality and try to find ways to express this in the most unique way possible. Individuals need to define their own trends.

So then, instead of going to the closest big brand store that churns out the same “unique” shirt-- people may find themselves looking for clothes that were once worn in another time and place.

Stuff is the byproduct of progress.

Ever Changing Viewpoints. Reading Reaction #3

One thing I found very interesting in the article Educating the Engineer of 2020, was the thought about a Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering being considered an “‘engineer in training’ degree” and the Master of Science would be a “professional” degree in engineering. This is interesting to read in a structured plan for what Engineering Education should become because as we have seen in many of the articles over the quarter, as we go up in the education-hierarchy system, we see fewer women and people of color in the educational track for higher learning in the sciences, and it is those degrees that will elevate people to achieve ‘professional’ status. Without these Masters degrees, this large group of people is again being marginalized, even though they were able to achieve a Bachelors’ of Science. As Hess notes in the concluding notes of the Chapter 9 titled Conclusions: Science, Technology, and Multicultural Education,
“postsecondary science and technology education is an important pressure point because it is a gatekeeper to many highly paid professions. As I have shown in this book, science and technology are also sites for the reproduction of an ideology that values some groups and cultures over others” (Hess, page 3).
On another focus of the readings, one thing that has recently been bothering me about some of the engineering students in the program here at Cal Poly is the resistance to general education. The classes are seen as a ‘waste of time’ and classes that won’t actually affect their lives. However, we see that in the article The Engineer of 2020, “It is appropriate that engineers are educated to understand and appreciate history, philosophy, culture, and the arts, along with the creative elements of all of these disciplines”(Chapter 3: Aspirations for the Engineer of 2020, The Engineer of 2010). This idea is drastically different from the mindset of what many people believe will help them at the present, and the classes graduating in the five years before and after this graduation year will be considered the ‘Engineers of 2020’—who many of which do not appreciate these fields of study. After studying what some of the original and most influential philosophers thought of life and the sciences, it is interesting to see the change from the high value of a well rounded, knowledgeable person, to the focus of how good you are at seeing the problem and solving it in the most efficient manner. The origins of the basis of the science and mathematical systems we use today were produced by people who were highly knowledgeable of many different aspects of education- they were often collectively philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, scientists, and inventors. Typically the people who are considered most influential today are those that are highly specialized in one particular subject. Hess also touches on this need in the article published in 1995, stating that:
“an initial strategy is to begin to think about integrating a social science or humanities requirement into the science and engineering major in a manner that goes beyond standard distribution requirements to take a certain number of humanities and social science courses. For example, majors in technical fields could be required to take a course on the historical, social, cultural, or ethical aspects of biology, engineering, or one of the sciences” (Hess, page 3).
The ideas that engineering can improve life is a great driving force for why I am still involved in the field, and every day I see ways, that eventually with my training, I will change lives. I think that the article The Engineer of 2020 has a number of inspiring ambitions for the world and for engineering’s place in society. As it says,
“Engineering, through its role in the creation and implementation of technology, has been a key force in the improvement of our economic well-being, health, and quality of life. Three hundred years ago the average life span was 37 years, the primary effort of the majority of humans was focused on provisioning their tables, and the threat of sudden demise due to disease was a lurking reality (Kagan et al., 2001). Today, human life expectancy is approaching 80 years in many parts of the world as fundamental advances in medicine and technology have greatly suppressed the occurrence of and mortality rates for previously fatal diseases and the efforts of humankind are focused largely on enhanced quality of life (Central Intelligence Agency, 2001)” (Chapter 3: Aspirations for the Engineer of 2020, The Engineer of 2020).
This excerpt alone speaks to the wonders that engineering provides for a society, and it refreshes and reminds us of the human aspect and impact engineering has. I like the thought that things will get better, and though we always have to keep in mind the ideas for the need of better, more well rounded, outside the box ideas, we know that we are slowly getting there.

Soviet Education and EWB-USA

Throughout this course, I find myself very interested in the engineering education of other countries. As an engineering in the United States, I wonder how alike or how different my education is from, say, a Soviet engineer in the mid 1900s (approximately 1930-1965). The U.S. curriculum allows for specialization, but it also heavily targets broad categories, such as the humanities. To me, it is perfectly clear why Soviet engineers lacked the innovation to move their country forward in technological advancements. In the Ghost of the Executed Engineering, chapter 4, the author makes a bold statement that resonates and directly correlates with the fall of the soviet union: “..engineering students in the Soviet Union received a stunted and narrow education; it was intellectually impoverish, politically tendentious, socially unaware, and ethically lame”. This brings now to the concept of technocracy, where over half of the political leaders had received an engineering education. When I think of a politician, and thought is heavily influenced by the fact that I live in the U.S., I think of a well-rounded individual who could have a technical background, but above all, is knowledgeable in the different forms of government. The Soviet Union engineers received a grand total of three courses outside their specified technology, and these three courses were all based on communist theory. Even the course labeled as political economy only focus on one specific form of economy, communist! How then did the Soviet Union expect for growth when their brightest minds were enclosed to such a narrow curriculum? We see the disaster of Chernobyl, not because these engineers were incapable of noticing such a danger, but because they were never taught basic environmental engineering issues and human factors, especially in the category of safety, that could have prevented such a disaster.

After reading about these engineers, it is obvious that organizations such as EWB-USA need to be in place. Aside from these engineers using their extensive engineering knowledge, they are practicing all the other courses and practices they learn when becoming an engineer in the U.S. Although some engineers hate to admit it, it is crucial for our education to take courses like political economy, public speaking, and ethnic studies, even if it means we spend less time in our engineering courses. I agree that not every engineer will work in such an organization like EWB, but I’m sure each engineer will be faced with at least one instance when the knowledge learned in the non-engineering courses might be handy. EWB’s vision is “a world in which the communities we serve have the capacity to sustainably meet their basic human needs, and that our members have enriched global perspectives through the innovative professional educational opportunities that the EWB-USA program provides”. In this vision, I see the key words ‘global perspectives’, which most engineers would not consider as part of their engineering education, yet it is so crucial to obtain such perspectives. We have read about engineers that did not have these opportunities, whose education was so narrow they were not called mechanical engineers. Instead, they were called ‘ball bearing for paper mills engineers’. It is without say that as engineers who want to make a difference, we must focus on the outside courses with such vigor as we do with our engineering courses. This is why I think organizations such as EWB-USA encompass true engineers at its finest.

Engineers Without Borders, http://www.ewb-usa.org/
Graham, Loren. The Ghost of the Executed Engineer. Chapter 4: Technocracy, Soviet Style

Increasing Our Outreach To Society

Although many programs and steps are being taken to better our society through engineering, I am prompted to question whether engineers are directly asking communities what they need and would what better their lives. I feel as though their is a invisible barrier between people of society and engineers. Time after time I have heard of many engineering projects that fall short of what the population is really in need of. In the last decade new engineering programs are being created in order to change this problem and make a better outreach to society. Even though these programs are the newest invention of outreach to those in need, there are some flaws that could be changed that I would like to bring attention to.

Servicing the community during college courses in the United States has become one of the new ways to make the outreach. Schools are now expecting “for students not only to have a background in mathematics and science but also to have the skills to effectively communicate in a group and work with colleagues from across academic disciplines.”(Selingo) These high expectations push students to become more of a well rounded person that can coexist and serve society better than other engineers have been able to. Its great to here of the steps being put into place to better our engineers, yet the extent to which they communicate with society is questionable. Are we able to trust and hold these engineers accountable for communicating directly with our community? In order to make the change that we need for society to function in a way that is most convenient, engineers need to take action in surveys and questioners within our cities in order to find out what the people believe we need most. Our way of life could dramatically change if we the people begin making the decisions that our local cities carry out in our regional planning.

Engineers Without Borders is one of the closest programs that Cal Poly has put into place that amounts to the EPIC program that many campuses such as Purdue have engaged in. Along with EPIC, Engineering Without Borders teaches its students to better serve the community by “creating a more stable and prosperous world by addressing people's basic human needs by providing necessities such as clean water, power, sanitation and education.”(Engineers) This is a great program that is able to make an outreach to communities with help across the world. There are many positive attributes to this program, yet I feel that there are all some downsides. Engineering Without Borders is a only a club on campus, which I feel only allows its potential to be partially reached. I believe that the goals which push this club to make change would better serve the community if it were put into a curriculum for classroom credit. Our school would be better serving communities around the world if it became a necessity for engineering majors because it would allow students to have a better understanding of communication with society without having to go out of their way to join a club. This course would become one of the first for targeting the increase of help among the community for engineers at Cal Poly.

Engineers Without Borders Website http://www.ewb-usa.org/

Selingo (2006), “May I Help You?” (html), http://www.prism-magazine.org/summer06/feature_service.cf.