Beach Haven

​I embrace new tech. That said, I think too often we can be tempted to dump ‘better’ legacy tech in favor of the latest and greatest. We are tempted to move to new tech because it’s new.  The old curmudgeon in me has made me more skeptical of shiny things or change for change’s sake. It seems I’m not alone. IEEE’s Gwendolyn Rak recently interviewed Rachel Plotnick who has been considering how buttons once replaced by touch screens are making a comeback.

Here’s the link to the full interview:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/touchscreens

“One of the biggest observations I made was that a lot of fears and fantasies around pushing buttons were the same 100 years ago as they are today. I expected to see this society that wildly transformed and used buttons in such a different way, but I saw these persistent anxieties over time about control and who gets to push the button, and also these pleasures around button pushing that we can use for advertising and to make technology simpler. That pendulum swing between fantasy and fear, pleasure and panic, and how those themes persisted over more than a century was what really interested me. I liked seeing the connections between the past and the present.”

Plotnik notes how touch screens are more visual than tactile. This can make user interfaces difficult for visually impaired. Button are purely tactile.

“If you look at gamers playing video games, they want to push a lot of buttons on those controls. And if you look at DJs and digital musicians, they have endless amounts of buttons and joysticks and dials to make music. There seems to be this kind of richness of the tactile experience that’s afforded by pushing buttons. They’re not perfect for every situation, but I think increasingly, we’re realizing the merit that the interface offers.”

Personally, I tend to be agnostic when it comes to human interface with machines, specifically my human interfaces. However, I have long worried about the risk of losing a screen causing a total loss of the device it controls. I also don’t like distractions while driving. Looking at a touch screen on a phone has caused way more accidents than the half second it takes to find the volume or tuning knob on a car dashboard. Once you touch an actual button there is no longer need to look at it while using it.

“I like the idea that people who are in the humanities studying these things from a long-term perspective can also speak to engineers trying to build these devices.” That is, if engineering departments take user-experience feedback into account. There are plenty of designers out there who feel they ‘know better’ than the people who receive the devices and software they are cranking out. I would argue that sometimes there is more in the field of design about keeping up with the Jones’ than listening to consumers.
​
For a number of years, I attended the Washington DC auto show. I did this not to look at the cars, but to check out the ‘infotainment’ systems (also known as head units) in the dashboards. In my role at NPR back then I was interested in how our over-the-air audio and metadata was being displayed in the menu system of each car. The trend setters were definitely de-buttanizing back then. I’m happy to hear in this interview that the opposite may be happening now. Maybe it’s ok that I held onto that large stereo system in our family room. As the saying goes, ‘everything old is new again’.

It’s been my experience that when people think about cool new software advancements, they rarely think about the impact on physical hardware and what it takes to support that hardware. In a recent IEEE article titled “Generative AI Has a Massive E-Waste Problem” Katherine Bourzac does note the increased requirements of water and electrical grid load. The focus of her article is not on this environmental impact, nor the need for more raw materials to build new servers. Rather, her focus is on the need for evermore capable hardware platforms to run the evermore sophisticated algorithms that search growing databases. Predictive AI ‘learns’ patterns from all sorts of information sources. This approach is known as a large language model or LLM. As we collectively speed up our upgrades, Bourzac notes that it could result in 2.5 million tons of waste increase of old machines we get rid of in the process.

The author reminds us that, “electronic waste contains toxic metals and other chemicals that can leach out into the environment and cause health problems.” She shares that a staggering 62 million tons of e-waste was produced worldwide in 2022 alone. That means our e-waste is growing five times as fast as our ability to recycle it. To make it worse, Bourzac was only considering studies associated with LLM models of AI. There are others as well.

Despite the fact that our machines and the chips that run them get more efficient over time, the volume of systems is still growing. Bourzac recommends ‘downcycling’, meaning repurposing servers for more simple tasks such as web hosting. That prolongs usage so long as the equipment continues to function. At some point though, it will still become waste. Large tech firms have announced ‘sustainability goals’, but these generally relate to carbon footprint and not so much about e-waste. 

Here's the link to the article:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/e-waste

I jog some days. When I do, generally I have something playing in my ears. This morning, among other things, I listened to one of my regular podcasts. It’s called Nature Podcast and is published by the scientific journal called Nature. This particular episode is titled Audio long read: So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it? The article was written by Max Kozlov and read by the podcast host Benjamin Thompson. What an interesting concept. Most journals, including Nature, are looking for scientific studies with some sort of positive correlation outcome. Something that has a new or novel conclusion. However, experience teaches that most scientific efforts result in a negative correlation, or null outcome, just like any other human endeavor. I’m reminded of how many failures the Edison company had coming up with a working filament for the lightbulb before finally getting one that worked. We now tell ourselves this famous story, but until there was a working light bulb, nobody had any interest in telling the story of all the other versions that didn’t work. Had they never gotten it write would there be any interest in the failure and likely death of the company? Even with success, are there articles that review each failure and speak to why they failed? I believe not. It seems like we just lump all the filament failures into a number to show how many times the experimenters in Edison’s employ failed as a tail about persistence paying off.

Kozlov points out, among other things, how journals are in the business of attracting readers. The article notes how there are some sites in cyber space where these negative results are published, but with few submissions and little readership. As I listened to the long read, I was reminded of several other famous arguments made in the past. For example, Robert Merton famously wrote on scientific norms in an attempt to explain what motivates scientists. Many have since argued that Mertonian norms depict an optimistic list and suggest counter norms that seem more realistic to the authors. One could make the argument that any set of norms ascribed are a function of the subjective preferences of the list constructor.

Another argument that came to my mind was that of the 'Matthew effect', an idea also coined by Robert Merton. This assertion touts that those who get published gain some sort of credibility which then makes their future findings more likely to be published. The idea is from the biblical book of Matthew when the statement in one of the parables asserts to him who have shall be given more, and to him who has not shall be taken away even that which he has. Now, of course, these New Testament ideas were not about scientific credibility, nonetheless Merton makes hay from the idea. Taking it a step further, Margaret Rossiter added a feminist perspective asserting that women in this predicament are even less likely to get published or recognized for their scientific research, dubbing her argument the 'Matilda effect'.

The Nature article shares several unintended consequences of this propensity to only publish positive findings and ignore null outcomes. In the environment of ‘publish or perish’ people who have null research outcomes are likely to drop efforts and not document them. There is a reinforcing relationship between readership levels and publication levels of negative findings. Also, there are likely missed opportunities in that some researchers might find inspiration in null findings to move the research in a different direction. These avenues could be missed if they don’t hear about the research. When such findings are not shared, others may also waste time by conducting the same failed research unawares. As with Nature, it seems to me there ought to be some way to encourage publication and consumption of null-finding research. 

Bibliography
​Bhattacharjee, Y. (2020, January). A World of Pain. National Geographic.

Reading a deep-dive article about pain studies in the January 2020 issue of National Geographic, I noticed two instances describing how virtual reality (VR) was used to counteract pain successfully.

In the first, a patient is awake during surgery. A picture shows the person on a gurney with a surgeon hovered over him. Metal probes are sticking out of the man’s midsection. His face is covered with a VR headset. The note next to the picture describes how the patient plays a VR game called SnowWorld. The note further explains that during the procedure “he had one stabilizing pin removed from his pelvis” (Bhattacharjee, 2020, p. 49) with and another without the VR. The study “suggests VR could decrease the need for general anesthesia, reducing risk and cost”. 

In the other example, a chronic pain sufferer “watches a mesmerizing motion of jellyfish on a virtual reality headset” (Bhattacharjee, 2020, p. 61). This approach was said to help regulate “body responses to pain, improving mood, and reducing anxiety”.

VR displays at different media conferences I’ve attended for decades now, have been all about transporting a user into other worlds, be they natural like viewing ocean creatures or man-made like a video game. That’s been the base intent all along. I might argue it is likely that VR creators did not consider the pain-reduction potential of this particular technology. Mood modification is a part of the approach of most media. For example, music can pump up or relax the listener. Movies can evoke fear, excitement, sadness, or romance. Media as a form of escapism has a long history, but escaping pain might be a new take on the specific tech of VR.

Bibliography
​Vifell, A. C., & Soneryd, L. (2013). Organizing Matters: How 'the Social Dimension' Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 104-113.

Review by Michael Beach

The authors examine sociality in sustainability projects from a specific framework of their own design. “We argue that the way sustainability projects are organized will affect how the social dimension is taken into consideration” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 104). They describe projects based on three dimensions they call pillars: economic, ecological, and social. They note how organizations often have set project group forms and structures so reflection on whether those set social forms meet project requirements of the task at hand “is a rare phenomenon” (Ibid.). The authors assert that “a practice cannot be fully sustainable until all three dimensions are fulfilled” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 106) meaning the three pillars, but they don’t really define the dimensions beyond their basic titles.

In order to examine the social dimension, they examine two case studies in Sweden: The Action Plan 2010 to Increase Organic Consumption and Production of Food Products and A Safe Radiation Environment. The first is a non-governmental campaign by The Ecological Forum to encourage increased ecological food production and a varied agricultural landscape. The second is a government response by The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority to public opposition to increasing 3G cellular services throughout the country of Sweden. Yes, this is about 3G cellular, but remember this study is from 2013.

The authors assume tasks associated with the two case studies are organized into projects, and that the sociality of groups working on the projects are reflected in the group ‘mind-set’. They examine how such mind-sets are defined and incorporated into project teams. The forms of mind-set they define are: open or narrow framing, action orientation, participation, and lastly knowledge gathering and production. The authors spend several pages defining in their own way what they mean for each of these dimensions. The paper then reviews each of the four dimensions are they are exhibited in the two specific cases.

Open/Narrow Framing - In the food production case, certain farming approaches were excluded as they became politically charged in Sweden. As a result, some specific groups advocating these farming approaches were also excluded. This leads the authors of this paper to put the effort more on the side of narrow project scope definition. There was no definition of ‘sustainable’ given as part of the project charter which made this part of the process more on the open side. In the radiation case, social sustainability was never specifically addressed. The points to be addressed by the project were given in a very specific list. The list related to already ongoing projects, so the authors consider that project as operating in a narrower frame.

Action Orientation - This question is couched by contrasting what might be done as opposed to encouragement to do what has already been decided to be done. In the food case, there had been several failed projects previous to this one. The steering group of the first version of this project resigned as a result. The new project focused on moving forward to finish the original plan, so clearly a desire to take some measurable action as a project group and not just encourage others to act. The action, though, was to complete previous decisions, so not necessarily action to come up with new approaches. In the radiation project, the group in charge, called the SSI, came up with a clear project plan that included tasks. Before they even involved other groups, they had an idea of what needed to get done.

Participation - As mentioned above, there were a number of organizations that participated in the agricultural project, but some specific ones with agendas that seemed to be too entrenched on politically hot issues in Sweden at the time were excluded. There was a steering group that headed the project with representation from more than one concerned organization involved in the related topics of encouraging increased food production at all levels. In addition, there were synthesis groups used to gather relevant knowledge. No socially focused group was created as the goal was to find equilibrium between food supply and demand. When the first steering group felt as if they could not meet the goals they dissolved. The second group did not change the focus, but sought to complete the original approach. They felt like the most extreme views were getting in the way of the first steering committee and decided to take out group members with those views to allow progress. In the radiation case, all the participants were officials at SSI so they invited some additional actors with a wide range of perspectives to join the conversation. The idea was to create an approach as “a forum for tuning the suggested measures or new or re-formulated objectives” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 110).

Knowledge Production - In the agriculture example, content was produced by the six synthesis groups on various topics. The group indicated a need for some statistics to help inform decisions. As it turned out, industry organizations were skeptical the data could be produced. The second steering committee took the synthesis group reports, tacked them onto the end of the steering committee plan as appendices, then stuck to their own plan. Knowledge was a highly contested issue in the radiation case. Trust in information from specific organizations was deemed suspect by some committee members. The group organized sub-groups to participate in brainstorming sessions on specific topics, noting problems and potential solutions. Later ideas were distilled to more realistic approaches. Since the goal was to reduce or control radiation, in the end, social issues raised were simply declared as out of scope.
​
The paper’s conclusions are helpful if one adopts the specific three sustainability dimensions and the four frames as the authors describe them. It’s one way to try to account for the aimed-for social dimension of the two projects reviewed. It could be more helpful for project teams, such as those involved in the agriculture and radiation projects in Sweden, to include some similar framework in their own up-front project planning. Even if such a project team chooses to ignore social factors on their decisions, at least they would be doing so consciously.

 

In a church talk late last year I had an assignment to share something from fall 2021 general conference that particularly touched me. (Yes, I know this is now 2022. I originally wrote this entry a year ago and I’m just now getting it uploaded.) God speaks in all languages. By languages I don’t just mean English or Spanish. I also mean the languages of our thought process. For example, some think in the language of the arts, or of administration, or of science, or of any of the many ‘ologies’ of study. Each discipline of thought has its own language and way of understanding. So too is the language of the gospel, but truth shows up in each of these may disciplines. God speaks to me in several languages, but one of the languages he uses at times is math. The talk by Elder Clark G. Gilbert is an obvious choice as he used math explicitly in his talk about “The Parable of the Slope”.  As true principles turn up over and over again in every discipline, I managed to see math in other talks at conference as well. Since we all think in different languages I believe that is why we have been encouraged to “liken the scriptures unto ourselves.”

The talk I referred to in my talk was the shortest of them. It was President Nelson’s welcome to conference. He said, “I invite you to listen for three things during this conference: pure truth, the pure doctrine of Christ, and pure revelation.” Where is the math in that? Again President Nelson, “Contrary to the doubts of some, there really is such a thing as right and wrong. There really is absolute truth—eternal truth.” Do you hear the math now?

In electrical engineering we often use tools called “truth tables” and “statistical analysis”. In the last quote above both are referred to. A truth table is a list of several independent variables, typically discreet variables such as true/false, on/off, 1/0, yes/no, +5V/-5V, etc. When each input variable is “true” or its equivalent, then the output (dependent variable) is also true. A discreet variable has a limited number of potential values. In the case of electrical truth tables each discreet variable is limited to two states. President Nelson noted two specific examples, right/wrong, truth/error. The idea of error is implied since if there is absolute truth, then anything else is not.  Here is an example of a gospel version of an electrical truth table. If the Book of Mormon is true scripture then Joseph Smith is a true prophet since God would not reveal scripture to a false prophet. If both the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His true church since a true prophet would not be the means to establish a false church. You see how that logic form works?

Then what about statistical analysis?  Where was that in the talk? Well, that comes from another form of dependent variable. Instead of discreet variables that have a limited number of values, continuous variables have an infinite number of values between two extremes. Each extreme is referred to as an absolute. There’s that word President Nelson used. The example I used speaking in church was the amount of food I planned on eating at Thanksgiving. One absolute could be zero. I might choose to eat nothing. Well that certainly wasn’t going to happen. The other absolute would be the maximum capacity of my old-man stomach. Between these two absolutes is an infinite quantity of potential food amounts I could consume. I’ll get to where this part fits the gospel in a minute.

I’ve heard people say that Heaven is like the top of a mountain. Any path to the top is ok so long as the goal is the same. I remember many years ago when Adam Savage, one of the hosts on the TV show Myth Busters often wore a shirt that said, “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” In the field of Philosophy of Science a prominent practitioner named Thomas Kuhn coined the idea of scientific paradigms. To Kuhn our current paradigm explaining what we see in nature stands so long as it seems to answer our questions. Eventually we raise questions our current paradigm does not explain. Then, some smart person comes up with another paradigm that does explain our questions and that becomes our new truth until we find more questions the new paradigm does not explain. Each change in paradigm is called a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. For Kuhn, then, we are not considering truth, or even if the new paradigm brings us closer to truth; only that it seems to answer the questions we have today. A paradigm is a story we tell ourselves, an agreed upon context. 

Are we not blessed with the combination God has given us, the combination of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost? One could argue the scriptures are simply a form of paradigm, but that idea leaves out direct revelation through the Holy Ghost that testifies of truth to each of us in the language God knows we will understand.

So what do the scriptures tell us about truth? Here are a few samples:

• “Straight is the gate and narrow the way”
• “That no man shall come unto the Father but by me, or by my word”
• “I am the way, the truth, and the light”

Many truths or one truth? Many paths or one path? May ways or one way? Truth, the path, is measured as a discreet variable. There is only one absolute truth, one path. Our alignment (our variableness) with that discreet truth is continuous.  We may wander in the space between true and false. Our understanding of truth could be represented as a percent of the whole. Do we have all truth today? No. “We believe all God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” All the gospel we have received is true so the truth of the gospel is 100%. Our understanding individually is between 0% and 100%, and the total truth received through the gospel so far is also between 0% and 100%.
In Star Wars, one of the famous sayings of Yoda was, “do or do not, there is no try.” Does that jive with the scriptures? Such a phrase seems like an attempt to change our performance or understanding from a continuous variable to a discreet variable. In other words, if we fall short by even a little, it is the same as if we have failed completely. Such a philosophy is tempting, but in the world of discreet variables, it is false because it leaves out repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ. Do we fail to make 100%? Yes, all the time. What are we to do then in gospel terms? When we repent, the grace of Savior moves us from the continuous variable space between truth and error to the discreet of absolute truth. The atonement makes us holy. To be made holy means to be made whole, or complete, or sacred. In every case we fall short on our own, but are made whole through the power that comes from His sacrifice. As with Elder Gilbert’s talk, the trajectory or slope matters, not a particular position along the slope. So using Yoda’s vernacular, alone we ‘do not’. Only with the Savior can we ‘do’.

Pres Nelson stresses this paradigmatic shift from Yoda’s absolutes of self pass/fail to the gospel’s absolutes of fail alone, pass with the Savior. In his talk he said, “There has never been a time in the history of the world when knowledge of our Savior is more personally vital and relevant to every human soul.”
​
So there you have it. Math in what seemed initially to me as a simple welcome-to-conference talk of only about five minutes. As I thought about it, the talk for me had much more depth than it at first appeared.

Bibliography
Hwang, Bon-Gang, and Wei Jian Ng. 2013. "Project Management Knowledge and Skills for Green Construction: Overcoming Challenges." IEEE Engineering Management Review (IEEE) 41 (2): 87-103.
 
In the world of the project management industry a long-standing question exists. How much knowledge about the technical aspects of the specific project is necessary for the project manager to have? Another way of asking this is, can anyone with project management skills tackle any project in an industry where they have little to no experience? On one hand, project team members are the subject-matter experts (SMEs) and so the project manager should be able to rely on their perspectives. At the same time, perhaps team members have incentives to be less than forthcoming in areas of a project where they hold some responsibility for outcomes. In that case one could argue that a Project Manager (PM) might act as their own SME instead of blindly trusting team input. The compromise scenario is in between where shared expertise can lead to better decision making, as in two heads are better than one. In the reviewed article the authors attempt to help answer this expertise tension by examining a specific kind of project that requires a great deal of specific technical knowledge, that of green construction.

Construction in general is a technical endeavor, but green projects add a layer of technical requirements that inevitably add complexity and cost. Not all construction companies have the knowhow to fulfill these additional requirements such as building designs that include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.

In examining PM roles in green construction projects, the authors considered ways to score individual PM performance in terms of “social skills, decision-making skills, problem-handling skills, ability to recognize opportunities, and management of changes as key personal attributes affecting project success” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 87). They compared scores in these and other areas with experience in the specific project industry wondering if these PM competency scores might correlate in some way.
​
Among other results, the authors note relative importance among PM skills and techniques. As one might guess, their findings were mixed. They looked at 39 knowledge and skill areas in a pre-survey questionnaire. The result was ranking then selecting the top 20 “for the main survey” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 93). They then invited construction companies in Singapore to evaluate various PM performance experiences. “Ultimately, a total of 52 completed survey questionnaires were received, tabulated and analyzed” (Ibid.). Beyond the surveys, their industry literature review “revealed that the project managers may face challenges such as higher costs on green construction projects and that there are elevated risks due to different forms of project delivery and lengthy planning and approval process for new green technologies and materials” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 99). Their primary conclusion of the survey analysis was “that there are specific knowledge areas that should be strengthened in order to effectively manage green construction projects” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 100). The data showed that increased knowledge of the PM did not replace the need for SMEs, but performance increased when a given PM was not completely reliant on team SME perspectives. There is project outcomes benefit to industry specialization in project management.

In several articles National Geographic authors describe various topics connected with slavery and the ship known as the Clotilda. This particular ship is noted because it was the last ship to bring enslaved people from Africa to the United States. The final voyage was after a law was past that made it illegal to bring new slaves to this country, though the law at that point did not make slavery itself illegal. The ship owners and crew were obviously aware they were breaking the law because they offloaded their cargo in clandestine ways. As soon as they did, they sailed her up a river where they burned and sank the ship.

The series of articles includes depictions of the technology of the ship Clotilda itself. There is a series of maps (another form of technical knowledge) depicting slave-ship routes and numbers of enslaved people forced along each of the routes between Africa and various parts of North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. For example, the map shows how mainland North America received 307,000 slaves directly. At the same time over 4 million were taken to the Caribbean, many later were moved into North America, or the products they created directly benefited North American people. The map shows around 3.8 million were sent to mainland South America, with perhaps similar North American benefit. One other bit of technology I’d like to mention is the use of modern underwater tools to find and document the final whereabouts of the Clotilda. Underwater archaeology was not really possible to any extent even in the early part my lifetime. Here we are today with sophisticated imaging to find anomalies that we can then directly approach and explore in the water environment.

Archives and media are other forms of communication technology here. Sales of humans were documented, but so were the aftermath events to the people who were Clotilda victims. This issue of the National Geographic magazine describes the lives of some of them after emancipation, and their efforts to settle a new town that still exists today. Africatown, AL still has buildings built by its founders, many of whom were Clotilda survivors and their descendants.

As one who studies societal effects of technology and technological effects by social issues, I’m reminded by this series of stories how human aims drive technical development for well or ill. Acts of both evil and good were facilitated by and inspired creation of specific forms of technology. These kinds of stories remind me why the ideas of technological determinism are relegated to former thought, and themes of co-production are more generally accepted. Specific technical expression is not inevitable, but influenced. Social choice is not driven by technical advances, but both change each other. For example, despite all our access to online texts, when we lost electrical power in our home this past winter my hands and eyes turned to hard-copy. When I spend long hours in a car my ears turn to the same content through hands-free connectivity. These options and their use came to be by choice and the inspiration of necessity. None of that technical expression was inevitable.

Bibliography
Bourne, Joel K. 2020. "Cruel Commerce." National Geographic, February: 52.
—. 2020. "Saving Africatown." National Geographic, February: 61-65.
Brasted, Chelsea. 2020. "Owning the Past." National Geographic, February: 66-67.
Diouf, Sylviane. 2020. "Journey of No Return." National Geographic, February: 53-55.
 

Bissonnette, Andréanne. 2020. ""Caged Women": Migration, Mobility and Access to Health Services in Texas and Arizona." Journal of Borderlands Studies 1-22.
 
Andréanne Bissonnette described to us the concept of the ‘golden cage’. It’s a zone from the US and Mexico border internal within the first 100 miles inside the US side of the border. Within that zone there are numerous checkpoints. Within the golden cage, presumed migrants can be stopped and questioned without probable cause. If a migrant attempts to leave the zone they risk running the checkpoints, yet healthcare is essentially impossible for them within the area.
 
Bissonnette also pointed out that healthcare is difficult outside the golden cage for a host of reasons. Many lack of insurance. Fear of accessing healthcare, lack of language skills, and fear of having their immigration status checked at a clinic are examples of difficulties. Many immigrants are often unaware of where to access medical care. They may believe they need insurance for COVID vaccine.
 
Location matters. There are different laws from one state to another. Despite what laws exist in a given state, application of laws varies among locations within a state. Hesitancy by migrants to access healthcare could cause them to wait until a health issue becomes acute, putting increased strain on trauma centers and emergency rooms in locations with high migrant populations.
 
One area of a conversation I attended with Bissonnette was about how healthcare might encourage circular migration. On either side of a border different types of healthcare are available. For example, some medicines may require a prescription on one side and not the other. If an immigrant has a US social security number (their own or one they have assumed) they may be able to better access some aspects of healthcare on the US side of the border. With or without it, there may be better access on the Mexican side to other types of healthcare. An immigrant may be motivated to live closer to the border if they have healthcare needs that would be better addressed on the Mexican side.
 
I’d like to combine the ideas of healthcare and circular migration to question the concept of the golden cage. In class I shared my experience working in a high-end hotel while an undergraduate student. Much of the housekeeping and janitorial staff at the time were Hispanic. One day the US immigration services (‘la migra’) showed up at the hotel in force. They went through the hotel checking identification for Hispanic staff. This was well outside the golden cage region so they must have had some sort of warrant based on previous investigation, or at least one would hope that was the case. I saw the officers load about a dozen young male Hispanics into a large van waiting outside the hotel about an hour after they first entered the building. I had been friends with many of those taken away, often practicing speaking Spanish with them.
 
Several weeks passed, then suddenly these same employees were back working at the hotel in the same jobs they had been taken from. I asked several of them what had happened. Their answers were all the same. The US immigration officers had transported them back to Mexico City. From there they used their own money to visit family for a few weeks, then made the same journey they previously had in crossing the border into the US and back to the hotel. Management at the hotel allowed them to resume their jobs using the same documentation previously on file with Human Resources. One could question that management ethic, yet it is likely not unique to this specific employer. Clearly this was a circular migration. The original migration to the US was economic-based. The migration back to Mexico was forced. The return to the US was again economic. They were obviously not limited in mobility by the idea of the golden cage.
 
How about healthcare? The hotel did offer health insurance to full-time employees. I have no idea if any of these young men were full-time or part-time, but with whatever documentation offered to the hotel that was good enough for employment, one would presume the same documentation was good enough for the employer to provide the insurance benefit. It’s clear this same documentation was not good enough for immigration service officers. At the same time, one could imagine that young healthy people with no healthcare mandate as we have today might simply opt out of health insurance, perceiving no need as so many other young people do.
 
Given this experience, it’s clear there are reasons for circular migration that are completely unrelated to healthcare. In fact, healthcare in my example likely played no part of migration in either direction, and may have had nothing to do with the thoughts of these migrants.
 
In the case of these particular young immigrants, the checkpoints of the golden cage were basically meaningless. They were able to easily circumvent them at least twice. The fact that so many who cross the border illegally end up in literally every part of the US is itself evidence that checkpoints are not effective in containing migrants within the 100-mile zone. In this sense, perhaps healthcare does act as some incentive for migrants who feel a need to access clinics south of the border. Mobility may be possible for longer distances from the border, but likely becomes more difficult as distance from the border increases. If this is true, the golden cage might be less about being ‘trapped’ by check points and more about the cost and time required to voluntarily engage in circular migration for healthcare purposes, or any other motivation.
 
One related point, as many migrant workers have some documentation, valid or not, which allows them to work, they can also share their earnings as remittances to family in their home country. That may also mean they manage a bank account that allows them to transfer money. In the case of my former hotel associates, having a bank account would have facilitated accessing funds from within Mexico needed to return to the US. That same money and documentation, one could presume, could permit them to access healthcare outside the golden cage. This particular community was close knit. Most were bilingual. It’s very likely they shared information with each other on how and where they could best access healthcare if needed. The bilingual skill was not true for all of them, and there are plenty examples of migrants who don’t speak English, but I wonder how strong the language impact is. So long as some of the community can research on behalf of others, the language barrier may be less impactful. In the case of long-term migrant residents where their children grow up in the US, children become the interpreter on behalf of their non-English-speaking parents. I have seen this over the years where fairly young migrants must help their parents navigate a number of services. This can reverse family dynamics by reversing family roles.
 
My conclusion is the idea of a golden cage may be less impactful than Bissonnette’s research suggests. It’s true my logic is based on anecdotal experience and may be lacking, but the experience is real and not isolated.

Foucault, Michel. 2008. ""Panopticism" from Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts (Indiana University Press) 2 (1): 1-12.
 
​One of Foucault’s central arguments about the motivation for a panopticon is that a facility (prison, hospital, school, etc.) could be open to the public for random ‘inspection’. Proponents suggest this approach could counter the risk of a ‘Potemkin village’. One obvious counter is the practicality of actual inspection. All of those environments are intended to be secure either from or for those inside.

Foucault’s work was published in 1975. Technology has changed dramatically since then. Although the physical domains he spoke about remain, much of security is more about the virtual domain today. Many government and financial institutions stress the need to monitor (surveil?) in a global version of a virtual panopticon. We all now wonder, who is watching us through online technology, or when, or how? Are we at risk of violence from the other ‘inmates’? Will someone enter our virtual ‘hospital room’ to hold our ‘treatment’ hostage?

It seems as if one could make the argument that in our current state-of-the-art, all the same arguments for and against the physical panopticon exist. Those in power can justify ever-increasing levels of intrusion in the name of security. Those out to take advantage of the vulnerable constantly look for ways around the system. Most of us are less versed about the technological means and must make a decision between varying levels of security, access to services, and freedom. Another direction could be to opt out of online life. Like the Potemkin village, that is becoming less and less an option. As physical businesses become ever more virtual (or at least hybrid physical/virtual) our ability to remain ‘old-school’ (offline) continues to decrease. Pandemics also discourage use of cash in favor of a third-party account.

Ihde, Don. 2009. "A Phenomenology of Technics." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 76-97. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

In Don Ihde’s work A Phenomenology of Technics, he proposes three specific variants describing the relationship of humans with the world by way of technology. One central argumentative claim Ihde proposes is that humans have no relationship with the world except in relation with technology.

If interaction with the world involves anything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body, and one considers everything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body as technology, then Ihde has a point. He seems to contend that anything manipulated in order to shield one from the elements, or extend natural human ability is technology. There could be an argument made against such an assumption in that a natural part of humans is an intellect that leads to the creation of shielding or ability-extending devices.

Ihde claims that as technology becomes less demanding, less interactive, then it becomes a lesser part of human life. What about when we are not using more demanding tech? What about any tech at all when not viewed as separate from who or where we are? Could the human-technology-world relationship variants include another where the parentheses encompasses all three? Is there a time when people don’t view the world through tech or as tech, but rather humans and tech and the world are all wrapped into one, not separate? If people see themselves immersed in both technology and the world, they perhaps see themselves as integrated with both (like a fish in water?). In this view, whatever shape the tech and the world have become in a person’s individual life, the relationships are not separate. For example, a person is hiking the Appalachian Trail and simultaneously checking their position on a GPS map (or paper map for that matter). In some ways the person is experiencing nature through the hiking clothes, the trail, the map, the GPS, and the smart phone with the map and GPS. At the same time, they are out in nature, and taking in the sights, sounds, smells, and textures.  Does that mean that the person has a relationship with the natural world and the socially-constructed world separately at the same time?

Vallor, Shannon. 2015. "Moral Deskilling and Upskilling in a New Machine Age: Reflection on the Ambiguous Future of Character." Philosophy of Technology (28): 107-124.

Shannon Vallor links the use of automation through technology with a loss of ‘traditional’ moral values in the form of moral deskilling. I wonder if really the phenomenon is less about moral deskilling, and more about moral reskilling. Does an adjustment of morals exist with any technology, not just those described as ‘new’ or ‘automation’? Here is what I mean. There exists an argument from the likes of popular personality Mike Rowe which says that working with one’s hands is just as valuable as working with one’s mind (https://www.mikeroweworks.org/). This version of the Vallor argument is about equal value. For Rowe, value is linked to individual pay, but also a kind of mindset, a work ethic. I’ve heard a more snobbish version of the argument pro and con intellectual (or information-based) professions or the craft trades in which people take the position that one is more noble or important than the other.

The question that Vallor brings to the fore a number of times throughout the article is about what technology does with us, not just what it does for us. She argues in favor of a technomoral in that technology and character are not separate spheres. Whether one takes either the extreme position of one work ethic is more important than others, or the Mike Rowe position that the ethics are different but equally important, both of these perspectives is an agreement with Vallor on the co-shaping influence of a technomoral. Can differing technomorals coexist in society? To Vallor’s point, that would depend on how one defines society. 
​

Light, Andrew. 2009. "Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective." Chap. 30 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 452-467. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

What is Included in Philosophy?

In his article, Andrew Light focuses on the philosophical niche of environmentalism. His main argument is that philosophy should take a role informing activists, policy makers, and the public at large on ecological issues. “If we talk only to each other about value theory, we have failed…” (p. 453). To support this strong statement, Light argues from the specific perspective of ecology. Can such a normative pronouncement be generalized to other niche areas of philosophy, or even to philosophy in general?

In order to plead support for philosophical activism, Andrew Light examines the specific controversy of ecological restoration. The controversy is a normative should question. Should humanity invest in projects intended to restore ecosystems that have been changed through human activity? He examines positions by philosophers such as Robert Elliot and Eric Katz who are against any restorative attempts on several grounds; we have neither obligation nor ability, and any attempts yield artifacts not nature.

Light argues in favor of what he calls ‘benevolent restoration’ on a number of grounds. He notes how even an imperfect restoration can free nature to grow and replace itself where man starts the process. Without any effort by humans, nature often cannot replace itself in damaged areas except with maybe something completely different than what once was. He calls this catalyst approach ‘intermediate communication’. Light further points to how such attempts at restoration tend to restore a culture of nature, if not nature itself. This last point seems similar to Bruno Latour’s position that when a human actor and a technological actant join, it can result in something entirely different than either inter-actor would create on its own. Light calls this interaction “firsthand exposure… to the actual consequences of human domination of nature” (p. 464).
​

This line of reason by Light is persuasive to one who may already be inclined to support ecological issues, but doesn’t actually make the case of why philosophy should do more than contemplate. For example, is sharing philosophical perspective with activists, policy makers, and the public more akin to scientific communications than philosophy?

Feenberg, Andrew. 2005. "Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview." Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (1): 47-64.

Andrew Feenberg concludes that Critical Theory of Technology is “the argument of our time” (p. 63). How can the philosophy of technology “join together… potentiality and actuality – norms and facts – in a way no other disciplines can rival” (Ibid.)?

That’s a strong claim. Feenberg seems to be saying that other disciplines do not have the ability to synthesize both theoretical and empirical approaches as well as not just the philosophy of technology, but the specific version of philosophy of technology known as Critical Theory. Perhaps a key focal point to his description of this approach is in the idea of recontextualization. Criticism (analysis) of technology leads to decontextualization. Try as we humans might, we are not able to fully separate technology from its context. The result is a redefinition of context. Feenberg claims these attempts tend to minimize social constraints, but not fully eliminate them. In an attempt to redefine social context, risk still exists that social and political decisions are biased due to unequal power.
​
Is that really what happens? This line of reasoning seems to answer the theoretical portion of Feenberg’s conclusion. What of the empirical? He notes how “technical advances break down the barriers between spheres of activity” (p.62). Although he advocates critical theory of technology, it’s not clear that there are no other approaches that are able to reconcile “many apparently conflicting strands of reflection on technology” as he claims (Ibid.).

Peletz, Steve. 2021. "Citizen Science: Helping Marine Biologists Push for Larger MPAs."
Alert Diver, 37 ed.:14-16
https://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=58549&i=693521&p=15&ver=html5.

The publisher of this magazine is Divers Alert Network (DAN). The organization specializes in helping injured SCUBA divers globally. As a PADI certified Dive Master the digital version comes to me each quarter. I tend to read several articles per edition. This time my eye was captured by this posting on divers as citizen scientists. I think it grabbed me because in my academic studies I have reviewed a number of writings on the topic.

The idea of doing citizen science while diving may be attractive to divers who have perhaps done plenty of sight-seeing dives, and are interested in blowing bubbles with more purpose. To be of use, though, one should work with some sort of program. With science, it’s all about data consistency and integrity. Some form of technology will inevitably be used beyond basic SCUBA gear, even if it is as simple as a way count fish types and numbers. The work may also involve some sort of sophisticated device.

Scientists may be mixed about enlisting the help of non-scientists. It takes more work on the part of the scientific organization. Participants need at least some information about what they are to be doing and why. Because the citizen participants may vary with each dive that makes for a lot of briefings. Scientists also wonder if the data they gather from their temporary assistants will be accurate. Despite these misgivings, some scientists see involving non-scientists as a plus. More people involved means more support for their efforts. Work can get done quicker than with fewer trained people. Involving citizens may also inspire future scientists as well.

I agree with some scientists that involving general citizenry takes more effort. In the case of SCUBA diving however, the participants are at least partially trained in that they already have the skills needed to work in the environment. I also argue that avoiding use of non-scientists to collect data is short sighted. An individual project may be more controlled, but it will take longer and cost more. The reluctance to use non-scientists includes an underlying assumption that the untrained citizen can’t be successful in tasks unless they have all the background information a fully trained scientist does.
​
For this periodical I’ve included a link in the reference above. I hope it works for readers. The early part of the document includes strong language against republication, so I am not including my normal pdf copy as I have with other article reviews. If you want to read it and have difficulty downloading it, put a note in the comments section and I’ll see what I can do.

Latour, Bruno. 2009. "A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans: Following Daedalus's Labryrinth." Chap. 11 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 156-167. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Bruno Latour is a seminal author in the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) as the architect of a set of ideas that have come to be known as actor-network theory (ANT). This excerpt was originally a portion of chapter 6 of one of his published books titled Pandora’s Hope. One of the base tenets of ANT is that anyone, or anything, or any group can be considered an actor (or more precisely an actant) in a network supporting a technological system. The more actors/actants in a supportive system, the more accepted the system is. Eventually, a heavily supported system is no longer scrutinized. It fades into the background as a nested system or ‘black box’ that nobody questions anymore.

This particular piece is focused on the idea of technical mediation, or ways in which one node in an ANT network influences another. Interference is a mediation when agent 1 enlists agent 2, and together they become agent 3. For example, a person enlists a gun, and together they become a killer. Composition is a mediation where an actor’s goal becomes interrupted by some obstacle, they seize another agent and return to the original goal (overcomes the obstacle). Folding of time and space is another mediation for Latour. In this example goals are redefined by nonhuman actants. A speed bump slows us down in a parking lot, not so much because we don’t want to injure a pedestrian, rather we don’t want to injure our car. The designers and builders of the speed bump are not present at the time when we cross the so-called ‘sleeping policeman’, yet use of technology by them in the present adjusts (mediates) our action with the technology of the car and the parking lot. The speed bump and the technology to create the speed bump are nested black boxes to the larger system of transportation through cars and roads. The last mediation is about crossing the boundary between signs and things. A change in technology is used to modify behavior, and behavior modifies the technology. Parking lot speed signs and painted crosswalks are intended to serve the same purpose as a speed bump. If a parking lot owner decides the technology of speed limit signs and painted lines do not invoke the behavioral change of slowing down, then the behavior inspires the addition of a speed bump, which in turn modifies the behavior of not slowing down.

The biggest critique of Latour and ANT has been his emphasis on actors, and ignoring of non-actors. If a person, thing, or group does not directly affect a technological decision, then they are effectively ignored. In the speed bump example, what of those who never drive? What of those who ride bicycles or walk? What of those who pay no taxes to fund the road or parking lot? For Latour they are not considered, but tax payers who don’t drive are also not considered since they have no direct impact on the technology. Despite this, the technology has some impact on them since they pay taxes, though any one person’s taxes are not directly attributed to the individual project of the speed bump.
​
The basic concept of mediation is a large one in philosophy, including to the specific branch of philosophy of technology. Are technological artifacts a result of societal values? Are societal values shaped by the technology available to a given society? Do society and technology ‘co-construct’? Is there an intent within a specific artifactual device? Is the device neutral, and the intent only lies within the person or society creating or employing the device? These are basic concerns of philosophy.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Brey, Philip. 2009. "Philosophy of Technology Meets Social Constructivism: A Shopper's Guide." Chap. 7 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 98-111. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, and Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
In his ‘Shopper’s Guide’ approach to spelling out ways social constructivism could compliment the philosophy of technology, Philip Brey offers at least a partial answer to Langdon Winner. The latter had judged in previous writings that if one were to open the proverbial black box of Bruno Latour, one would find no tangible additions to philosophy by social constructivists. Winner argued this was because social constructivism harbored definitions that are too narrow in scope. To Brey, social constructivism does examine areas Winner claimed it was ignoring.

Philip Brey offers generalized descriptions of the ‘strong’ and ‘mild’ approaches of research (his shopper's guide). He agrees that the strict adherence to the symmetry principle in the strong program can inhibit some, but not all, philosophical supporting research. He claims the philosophy of technology is too abstract. It does not examine any particular technology or its impacts. Testable arguments within the philosophy of technology are often not supported by empirical evidence, he notes. Experiments and data derived through social constructivist research, Brey argues, can help philosophers of technology construct more realistic theories.

​For Brey, artifacts are socially shaped, but also embody a script that can influence outcomes. Social constructivism, he argues, allows normative and evaluative philosophical analyses of technology and its impacts not otherwise possible. He does temper his argument stating, “these approaches, if valid, do suggest new directions for the philosophy of technology” (p. 108). Brey had suggested throughout the article that the proverbial black box was not empty as Winner suggested, but was filling up as social constructivist research expanded, and rigid adherence to the symmetry principle was vacillating. One could argue that this idea of adjustment to the symmetry principle results in something other than social constructivism. Brey weakens his argument by adding the caveat “if valid” to his closing statement.

​The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Anyone who knows me also knows that I’m not some sort of radical tree-hugger. At the same time, anyone who knows me also knows I’ve spent a lot of time in the wilds of this world, and I care about the planet. I do believe that God gave Adam and Eve and their descendants (us) a stewardship to take care of this world. There are many people who take political positions on both extremes of what we used to call conservation. Some would either seek to push us into paths that would have a strong negative impact on human life and livelihood through an overly restrictive approach. Others seek deeper exploitation with little-to-no restriction. In the midst of such heated polemics, I’m always happy to see good ideas that are neither irrationally restrictive, nor blatantly exploitative. I like practical ideas that are actually put into use.

While we were visiting relatives over the holidays this past year, my father-in-law decided I would be a target for his efforts to ‘spring clean’. For Christmas he gave me a stack of his National Geographic magazines, yes the printed variety. I’m already up to my eyeballs in reading between work, school, church, and even the occasional pleasure-read. Having yet another reading pile wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. On the other hand, I have respect for this particular brand, even if their TV channel seems less and less to mission. Last month I randomly pulled one out, and unlike the TV version, I was not disappointed.

The edition is from March of 2020. There is good story variety in this particular publication. Rather than add to anyone else’s paper pile, I’ll include a link to the online version of this specific edition. Then anyone can follow up if they have a mind to, and we won’t need to ship around a re-gift.

The main headline is an evocative assertion: “The End of Trash”. Although that statement seems unlikely, the focus is on ideas related to a circular economy with a growing emphasis on turning our waste into something useful. Although not completely circular, the idea of generating power through incineration is also not a new one. Since plastics are derived from petroleum products one could argue this approach is not that different from other electric generation plants burning carbon-based fuels. While that may be true, modern burning approaches do seem to produce fewer emissions then in the past. Using stored petroleum in the form of plastics can also reduce pumping demand. It does require transport, but so does every other form of energy in some way. Even wind or solar require manufacture and physical shipment for installation. In my opinion, nothing people do is truly neutral.

One interesting approach to trash incineration documented in the story is in Copenhagen, Denmark (my wife’s people) where they built a year-round skiing complex to hide the entire incinerator and the large pile of trash awaiting its demise. If we ever visit that town I will certainly be making some turns on the roof-top.

Here is a link to the edition:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/march-2020
​
Here is a link to the specific story on trash and the circular economy:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/how-a-circular-economy-could-save-the-world-feature

Jonas, Hans. 2009. "Technology and Responsibility." In Readings in thye Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 173-184. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Hans Jonas looks closely in this article at how technological change drifts inherently toward a Utopian set of actions. Utopian could be thought of in the sense that people effect change to make things ‘better’. One has to ask - what does better mean? Jonas specifically asks - what force (or insight, or value-knowledge) represents the future in the present? How one views a future that ‘ought to be’ reflects one’s technological decisions today.
​
Like others who examine ‘modern technology’, Hans Jonas makes the case that the pace and potential lasting effects (positive or negative) have outstripped our ability to adjust ethical wisdom. Former technological change was slow enough that we could examine potential outcomes through an ethical lens, and that ethical lens could be adjusted as societies gained technological knowledge. The knowledge we lack about new ethics is more urgently needed, he suggests, but wisdom is not gained urgently. The ethic of thou shalt not kill only exists because of our capacity to kill. Our capacity now has global implications both for humanity and for nature, though one can also argue that these are not independent of each other. Jonas notes how our capacity to bring about irreversible effects has likewise grown.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Winner, Langdon. 1993. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." Science, Technology, & Human Values (Sage Publications, Inc.) 18 (3): 362-378.

Empty? Full? Something in Between?

In this article, Langdon Winner champions the need to look more closely at technical artifacts, the varieties of technical knowledge, and social actors. He views these research focus areas as black boxes much as Bruno Latour describes the concept in actor-network theory (ANT). He notes how constructivism also helps us consider these as well as the “interpretive flexibility of technical artifacts” (p. 366). Winner describes this sort of constructivist research as a narrow understanding of society in terms of ‘environment’ or ‘context’ that influences technology choices made. As helpful as this approach is, Winner argues that the narrowness of this perspective disregards important questions.

For Winner, the constructivist approach is a backward looking perspective with focus on technological origin and adoption. While constructivists note how context influences technology choice, it’s proponents often leave out social consequences that result once a technical choice is made. Constructivism tends to adhere to Latour’s concept of networks. By considering only those identified as actors who directly influence a given technology, groups considered ‘irrelevant’ are simply left out. ANT in particular notes dynamics of immediate needs, interests, problems, and solutions. While perhaps partially fulfilling some or all of those societal concerns, Winner notes the same technology often erodes community such as modern communications that can encourage human isolation.
​
By concentrating current and past interaction of technology and society, Winner points out, constructivism is essentially ignoring judgement (political, moral) of social use of artifacts. Temporally, he says, this is looking only at the present and the past with no thought toward potential futures. For Winner, this is a partial view that leaves empty the ‘black box’ constructivists claim to be opening up for examination. Couldn’t one argue instead that such an approach is not looking at an empty box, but perhaps conducting a partial inspection of the contents?

Marcuse, Herbert. 2009. "The New Forms of Control." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 34-42. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This article was shared in the aggregate referenced book, but is really the first chapter of a book written by Harbert Marcuse titled One-Dimensional Man. In the Marcuse reading The New Forms of Control, he argues, among other things, that use of mass media is one technological mechanism intended to align inner-dimension personal needs with outer-dimension societal (repressive) needs. The higher the personal level of indoctrination, the more the standards of priority align. Marcuse uses this idea of a societal need to indoctrinate as an implication of the two-dimensional person. ‘Society’ uses technology such as mass media to bring individual needs toward a goal of mimesis. When that societal goal is reached, the individual is now really one-dimensional. There is no longer any difference between personal or societal needs as expressed through technology adoption.

Marcuse wrote this in 1964. Mass media then was quite different from today. Television and radio broadcast channels, as well as newspapers and magazines, were essentially the communication technologies of the day. Marcuse focuses primarily on broadcast media, rightfully for the time in that these were the primary information and entertainment sources of most people, at least in many western cultures. Since then media have fractionalized considerably. One can make the argument that narrowcast two-way media is having the opposite effect as Marcuse depicts. As people have ever more choices, and increasing control over the sources they rely on for information, the number of ‘societies’ available through technical means has grown. Membership in any one society or culture has decreased. Many people even find themselves in multiple cultures simultaneously. Mistrust grows by way of technology in those cultures (societies) to which one chooses not to belong. Maybe this still makes each person one-dimensional as Marcuse implies. Does it also mean each ever-more-specialized society now adjusts its needs to match individuals in order to have enough ‘membership’ in order to exist? Is it the society that becomes more one-dimensional?

The attachment is of the specific reference above, but is the entire work. This article only reviews chapter 1. 

Heidegger, Martin. 2009. "The Question Concerning Technology." In Readings in the Philosophy          of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 9-24. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto,                      Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

In this seminal article on the topic of the philosophy of technology, Martin Heidegger seeks to define the essence of technology. He approaches this subject through a series of interconnected vocabulary. The essence, he says, is enframing which he defines as a destining or revealing. Other words in the circular argument include calling-forth, ordering, unconcealment, and setting-upon. In one sense, nature is a resource, a standing-reserve. Heidegger speaks further of a danger to ‘man’. If one is not careful, he says, humankind becomes a force of ordering up nature’s standing-reserve. If, then, man is only in the role of ordering up reserves in order to unconceal (reveal) technology, then man also becomes a standing-reserve in the destining of nature as technology. This risk Heidegger defines as danger, but notes that in that very danger man can find the saving power of recognizing the true essence of technology. To Heidegger, the highest dignity of man is in keeping watch over unconcealment of all nature and technology coming to presence.

Martin Heidegger is a foundational author in this branch of philosophy. All subsequent practitioners are forced to address his ideas. Historically, his works were published in the early 20th century. Heideggarians are forced to also consider his role in the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany. His arguments help to see technology beyond the simple ideas of technology-as-applied-science, or as human attempts to alter the natural world. For Heidegger, there is a difference between technology that sets nature in order such as subsistence farming, and technology that sets-upon nature such as coal mining. The former simply uses nature more or less as it is to benefit man. The latter increases nature, or changes natural processes. In the coal example, the sun changes energy into coal. Man then extracts the coal, distributes it, and then removes the heat to create other kinds of energy such as electricity. That energy is further distributed, and is again converted into heat, or mechanical energy for yet other uses, and so on.

One weakness of Heidegger’s argument is its circularity. Often he uses words to define other words in a chain which eventually is used to help define the words he used to start the definition chain. Some of this struggle comes from his use of Greek words that he explains in his original text written in German, then later translated into English for the version this review is concerned with. 

The posted pdf version of this article is from a source different from the opening reference.

Guldi, Jo. 2019. "Parliament's Debates About Infrastructure: An Exercise in Using Dynamic Topic Models to Sythesize Historical Change." Edited by Suzanne Moon. Technology and Cuture: The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology (Johns Hokins University Press) 60 (1): 1-33.

Reviewed by Michael Beach

This article looks at data generated through text mining of debates held in British Parliament regarding social infrastructure from 1800 through 1890 with the specific intent to “test the usefulness of text-mining methods” (p.3) for a specific microhistory and for synthesized macrohistorical trends. The study links infrastructure words with specific project types, and also shows how evolving infrastructure terms show government priority shifts over time. Guldi intends to show how the data can “reveal new tensions and turning points that characterized the uptake of infrastructure” (Ibid.) over time.

Historians have long debated the usefulness of looking at a microhistory and extrapolating trends in macrohistory, or how such trends can be read into individual microhistorical events. One example shared based on the word association data was the amount of infrastructure debate investment Parliament put toward piers and dredging in the River Shannon. As expected there was more attention to major needs on River Thames, but what is surprising was how such a lesser-known body of water like River Shannon attracted so much attention. For example it is mentioned considerably more than work destined for the Nile, Clyde, Trent and Severn rivers, all of which the author notes as having more significant economic value.

The data tables offered are persuasive in terms of how computer-based datamining can quickly find these historical shifts not easily captured otherwise. Guldi ultimately concludes that micro- and macrohistories complement each other. This larger conclusion seems more opinion than can be synthesized from the arguments made through the word-association data. Historians of technology are the specific intended audience, but historians in general may find such a computer-based tool helpful in other areas of research. 

​ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS: EXPLORING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
By Andreas Ziegler and Jazmin Seijas Nogareda
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, Second Quarter, June 2013, p. 72-86
 
The authors seek to explore causal effects of adoption of environmental management systems (EMS), voluntary environmental programs (VEP), and a specific VEP known as Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), specifically asking if such measures could be ‘reversely affected’ by environmental product or process innovation. An empirical literature review is also referenced. Ultimately the data seems to indicate some ambiguity to the question.
 
The paper offers a series of hypotheses related to the main question, then shows data collected through ‘econometric analysis’ of primarily German companies with ISO-14001 certification. The data is examined in order to understand simple and complex correlations, if any, encourage adoption of EMS and VEP if proven advantageous. Those most interested in such a question would include strategic planners at manufacturing companies, and regulatory bodies who may see motivation to encourage adoption though tax incentives.
 
The paper offers insights from literature review and specific data. The number of companies in the survey constitutes a large subset of the German economy. The authors themselves, however, note how the relationships among their chosen variables are complex, and limiting the variables further could mask actual causation. The authors are asking the right questions even if they cannot definitively point to specific causal relationships. From the perspective a scholar in the field of Science, Technology and Society (STS), the ideas directly relate to sociological interaction of policy (public and private), economic factorial influence on technological development, and a perceived need for scientific investigation into the specifics of environmental impact of process and policy implementation. 

For the mid-term this semester we selected two topics from among six. I wrote these in reverse order. The first to appear was actually the second I wrote, and was rushed in the process. I think it shows.