Leaders of Society

Blog #8

9-25-14

Maria Kozdroy

Leaders of Society

Economic innovation is just as important to a society as is technological innovation.  Democracy and capitalism drive society’s economy with new technologies; however, not always in a particularly efficient way.  Private companies need to find ways to accommodate consumers’ needs and wants.  In chapter 7, Woodhouse explains several appliances he has at home that require repairs every few months, which seems to him to be taking away the company’s profit.  He states, “These problems with my upper-middle class stuff are puny compared with the problems facing those who do not have jobs, or who do not have the basics needed for a decent life.” What exactly is considered a “decent life?”  Perhaps, is a “decent life” one of being a leader or follower?  In this paper, I am going to argue that Woodhouse demeans the true meaning of the public.  Economy is directly related to buyers and consumers, and without both, society would not exist. 

When the term “the public” is used, it tends to be a generalization to refer to a group of people.  This connotation undermines the true significance “the public” has on a society in doing well economically.  In the course of this paper, the term “the public” will be used as a way to express consumers and their role to society.  One way in which the public has helped the economy grow is by democratic wholesaling, which is an intermediate of relying a message from a large company to a store.  If democratic wholesaling is properly demonstrated, it can change society culturally, environmentally, and economically.  Woodhouse uses the term “decent life,” which varies from person to person.  I believe that to have a decent life, one must be willing to accept challenges that society brings in order to survive with many occurring changes. 

Big companies indeed lead production of innovation and sales, yet the public is what makes these sales possible.  Woodhouse also mentions how “consumers’ tastes are shaped by what they see others wearing, by advertising, by price, by what they find on store shelves, and by other contingencies.”  I do not entirely agree with Woodhouse on this.  He makes all consumers sound as if each one is a follower of what they see others doing.  However, I believe that consumers are leaders, too.  Without leaders, society would fail, especially in terms of economy. 

Leaders keep society functioning.  The reason why unemployed individuals are said not to have a decent life may be because they cannot be a consumer, thus a benefit to an economy.  The only reason an economy can strive is by the individuals and companies, or leaders.  Additionally, CEOs are individuals of big companies as well are teachers, for example.  Teachers purchase clothes for themselves and much more, and in my eyes are needed just as much as CEOs are needed in society today. 

 

 

 

Well Established Goals are Needed

Blog #7

9-21-14

Maria Kozdroy

 

*Disclaimer: This blog post is to be used for class discussion and a response to reading.

 

Well Established Goals are Needed

            I agree with Woodhouse in Chapter 6, that a realistic, flexible plan accounting for the possible risks of innovation must first be established.  Intelligent trial and error combines these factors into one simple plan, with the goal of achieving satisfaction.  I would like exemplify the feasibleness of intelligent trial and error (ITE).  In this blog, I will argue that if ITE is present and followed accordingly, despite cost, then the life of an innovation will be a success for as long as the ITE guidelines are followed.

            First of all, in the field of science, technology, and society, understanding the importance of how representation from all people in society is necessary.  The realness of the product or new technology should be determined.  The recurring question of who deserves what is a major part in determining whether or not the technology will be successful amongst the majority of society.  However, to realize the possible answers to this questions, representation is needed.  Involvement of all people is needed, to understand whether innovation will cause more harm than good.  Perhaps if representation is kept reserved to low and middle class citizens, ITE cannot successfully prevail.  For example, let’s say a survey is mailed out to 90,000 people of a particular area.  If only 1/3 of the surveys are mailed back within a week, and of that 1/4 agrees with how the ideas presented in the survey will benefit them, then that is a sign that innovation shall not continue.  Realization of how a low percentage of people returned their surveys in a timely rapid manner and provided positive feedback, shows that some change must be taken before starting up with an innovation.

            On the other hand, let’s say the survey is a success, and the innovator decides to continue on with the project.  The plan must stay flexible and willing to change.  In a way, a backup plan is needed in addition to the ITE plan.  If society seems to hold a higher dislike of the innovation upon implementation, then an effective change must be put into effect as soon as possible.  In addition, the risks must be considered at all times.  The government poses that any risks must be determined before implementing.  A question to pose here, is if the innovation has low risks, and high potential costs to design, implement, and maintain, and half positive and negative results from the survey, should the innovation be carried out and without any further changes?  Despite the actual plan of innovation, many options must be laid out and clear cut decisions shall be drawn based upon the factors; in other words, would innovation continue if the potential product is risky, involves low costs, and is highly favorable? 

            In conclusion, when carrying out with an innovation, many plans and routes to success should first be stated, and determined whether which cases will lead to continuation of ITE and which ways will lead to a halt.  Intelligent trial and error beholds much success, if only the right approach is taken.

Trials too slow to behold Error or vice versa

9-14-14

Blog #6

Maria Kozdroy

Disclaimer: This is to be used as a response to class readings and discussions.

Trials too slow to behold Error or vice versa

            Trial and error learning has been around a very long time.  You first learn about it as a kid in elementary school and most certainly will use it your whole life.  This way of learning becomes more crucial as you grow up.  When implementing new innovations into society, trial and error learning is greatly needed, with the means of hopefully finding out an appropriate pace that an innovation can enter society.  I believe that an innovation should be implemented as long as a good understanding of the disadvantages are understood.  Even though more may arise, the optimistic view should take precedence. 

            There are several parameters associated with implementation.  Many significant properties of how a society is run will first be shown through multiple trials of an innovation.  The society’s ability to “monitor, diagnose, and correct errors that inevitably occur in all human activities” will all be explored.  After that, what if all the results show that there are no problems with following measures?  Does that necessarily mean, full implementation is ready instantly?  Yes.  I believe that the risk should be taken.  If anything bad evolves from it more research and development will be needed, yet the innovation will continue its main reason of why it began being used in the first place.

Nanotechnology, geoengineering, and synthetic biology, all appear to have many strong promises to ameliorate society; however, still a number of problems associated with each.  All three of the technologies listed above have been worked on for quite a few years now, and are slowly being implemented into society, yet the change is not as “explosive” as desired.  And perhaps the innovators of these technologies want to speed up implementation, there just might be violent break outs over usage of these innovations and fall of human health.  How can an agreed upon promise ever be achieved?  For example, nanoparticles seem very convincing—super small particles that can help clean water to make healthier to drink.  Who wouldn’t start using them?  The problem is the health concerns that follow it.  If implemented in third world countries at this moment, more cases of mesothelioma or other related diseases possibly might arise.  However, if not implemented, death from unsafe water will continue.  Through trial, researchers have been learning the pros and cons to nanoparticles.  The error still beholds until the nanoparticles are used on a more widespread basis.  When will the error fully be discovered though?  Will it be too late?  No need to wait, help is needed as soon as possible.

            In conclusion, Woodhouse states the overall point is that, “An overly rapid pace can obscure defects in design and implementation of technological innovation, making it difficult to perceive accurately what is happening, difficult to propose and debate alterations, and difficult to implement ameliorative plans,” and an equally negative point of why innovation too slow is not beneficial either.  It is difficult to comprehend which is better, a slower or more rapid pace; both have their advantages and infamous disadvantages.  Will a balance between both ever exist?  Should society as a whole slow down to allow more time to develop?  Or should innovation quickly lead the way?

 

Sources:

 Chapter 5 of Woodhouse STS Text

http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/Why%20technology%20assessment2011.pdf

Confusion over Cost and Complexity

9-10-14
Maria Kozdroy
Confusion over Cost and Complexity


 Why not change the world by making one simple switch?  Sounds easy, right?  However, cost and ambitiousness are factors of why many do not change the world.  However, there are advanced technologies, which have high potentials to change the world, if only they would be implemented in more societies.  In chapter 4 of the Woodhouse text, he points at the fact that Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) and geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) tend to very uncommon all over the world, yet people living with them are generally happier due to the lower operating cost.  NGVs and GHPs both have many advantages and disadvantages, yet the cost of each is quite high compared to the non-energy efficient types, making potential buyers defer from purchasing either.  Additionally, experienced workers are needed to install GHPs—however, money and time are stopping people from taking on this high opportunity job becomes easier over time.  In this paper, I will argue that new technological innovations have the potential of entering and being accepted in society. The developers, makers, and companies, need to be determined enough to actually make a difference, than having only intellectuals know about the new technologies.

 Due to the lack of advertising advanced technological innovations, such as NGVs and GHPs, not many middle class people know about them and how they can change society in a positive way.  The lack of advertisement is most likely why there is a lack in selling of such products.  And sometimes, one might spot a commercial of a Hybrid vehicle, yet have no idea of why the car is different from standard gasoline-powered cars.  Thus, not even consider switching vehicles, and realize how with one purchase can change the environment.  The significance of new technology needs to be well explained in order for change to spread throughout the world, or else innovation will continue to move on slowly. 

 More ways to convince the public to buy such products and accept the higher cost is to provide statistics on lower operating cost, but explain the consequences for later generations if no additional change happens soon.  An example of this is the drastic climate change near the equator that has resulted from factories in North America, and other continents.  The people by the equator have not contributed to this problem nearly as much as other societies have, and now have to adapt to these drastic changes.  Going back to the main topic, changing to GHPs and NGVs now can most likely improve the climate and the living conditions for people of later decades.

 The price never should never make one reject the opportunity to buy an innovation that has many pros and benefits in the long run.  Companies of these innovations need to clearly present facts to the public of how their product is beneficial to society, the environment, and the consumer. 

Should Inequity Exist?

Inequity, Blog #4

Maria Kozdroy

9-8-14

*Please note, this is to be used as a response to class readings and discussion.

In this blog post I am going to argue that technological inequity can be removed, if determination and willingness is present. 

Should Inequity exist?

                Why does inequity exist?  There are many answers one can answer  this question with.  According to Edward Woodhouse and Daniel Sarewitz, “Another reason for expecting scientific inquiry to sometimes lead to increased inequity is that knowledge-intensive innovation is prized for economic growth,” (3).  Many economies thrive on people’s finance.  If you’re not working hard, you’re not bringing business to the economy, as simple as that.  However, with the increasing number of poor societies in the world, is it possible to ever change them to resemble more like the sophisticated society I live in.  Water pollution control places and sewers are taken for granted here , yet there are many people that have jobs dedicated to watching over, maintaining, and fixing them, when the time comes.  I believe inequity can be stopped if the poorer societies are given new water and sanitary innovations and learn wisely how to manage them.

                In our STS textbook, Professor Woodhouse mentions yes private sectors can go into poorer  societies and provide them with new infrastructure at a low cost, yet, that does not mean they will be taken care of and maintained.  Is funding the ultimate problem in poorer societies?  Yes, it is a major concern; and donations too will not necessarily be enough.  However, companies, such as Water for the People, has begun educating  people in these poorer societies how to manage cleaning and handling them.  Why not encourage people to be determined enough to start a newly based economy, offering jobs to individuals  willing to watch the supplies coming into the area and maintain control of the newly implemented systems.  Not only will these societies be more sanitary, but it will also create more jobs.  Will the company that is sponsoring this project ever receive a monetary incentive from starting up this new economy?  The company will surely gain a better reputation and hopefully more stocks will be invested in this company, giving rise to a higher market capitalization.  Thus,  growing successfully in an economic sense.

                Another question that was raised in the readings is how should water and sanitation human rights be distributed.  The society I live in there seems to be an equal distribution of these rights already as a result of paying for the water and sanitation services, yet in other societies, people struggle paying for them..  The only way they will ever become fairly distributed human rights, is if companies are willing to invest a little with a small portion too coming from the poorer society to demonstrate that they are willing to maintain it and desire to really want help, and a portion from government.  If a company purchases water and sanitation stations, they will feel “better” morally and hopefully economically in the overall outcome.  It may take years, but in due time, it should all be worth it.  This proposal may sound a bit foolish to some, yet I would invest in it.  In an economy like this nowadays, it may not seem worth it, but on a more personal level I would do it. 

                In conclusion, innovations that help societies sufficiently run should be implemented with the determination that they will successfully be managed to last and begin to prosper.  There are many pros and cons to this projected idea, yet hopefully the pros will take precedence.  

References:
http://www.ehow.com/info_7968958_investing-stocks-benefit-company.html

Chapter 3 of STS textbook by Edward Woodhouse

"Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities" article by Edward Woodhouse and Daniel Sarewitz

The infamous or Famous Internet

Blog #2, 9-4-14

Maria Kozdroy

*Please note, this is to be used as a response to class readings and discussion.

In this post, I am going to argue that the Internet can be harmful to children’s minds no matter what way they may be using it for.

 

            What do you use the internet for?  Educational reasons, social reasons, leisure reasons, etc.?  But the real question is, does the internet make individuals smarter or stupider?  According to Woodhouse, “Unintended outcomes of course vary greatly in severity and in the number of people affected.”  I agree with this statement. I believe that there are many positive benefits that come from children using the internet on a day to day basis, while there too are several negative effects that can affect the child’s morale of making wise decisions. 

 First of all the way, the definition of “smart” according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is very good at learning or thinking about things, mentally alert.  “Stupid” on the other hand, is defined as not intelligent, not sensible or logical.

All those memes and online games children and teenagers play and view online can be considered junk food for their brains.  The human mind is the most powerful machine of them all in my opinion, and it can hold an enormous amount of information.  The best way to keep one’s mind healthy is to put good in.  Really, how are video games helping children improve their mind’s ability to learn more and hold more information.  Let’s explore.

          American author and journalist, David Wolman, agrees that the internet can be used to help humans and hinder humans’ minds.  He states, “On the contrary: The explosion of knowledge represented by the Internet and abetted by all sorts of digital technologies makes us more productive and gives us the opportunity to become smarter, not dumber.”  There’s thousands of news articles online and resources available nowadays that should be taken advantage of.  However, in most cases, it is easier to search for a game online to play, and easily start playing it.  Mr. Wolman also mentions, “To be sure, there is plenty of evidence that ignorance and irrationalism are rampant.”  How can society change these tendencies of kids and teens to use the internet in a more resourceful way?  Is there really a solution to this problem? Many educational websites exist, it is just a matter of time that a kid will understand the true significance of it.

            Parents are encouraged to put parental controls on what their children view and at what times can their children use the internet during the day.  Contrarily, the passion some kids have in online games may make them want to go to school to study video game design.  As the famous proverb goes, follow your dreams and passion.  For others, online games can spark ideas for some children to consider getting in a fight or robbery.  Along the same lines, one kid may read an article on how drugs are affecting high school students, and may feel the impulse to try something they may not feel is wrong until afterward.

            In addition, one thing I personally feel when reading an internet news article, is a sense of dizziness, same with internet games.  The fast moving adventure games with flashy colors such as Skullgirls, do too affect me in the same way.

            Overall, the internet is a major source of all information around the world.  There are both pros and cons to children using the internet.  It is up to society, in my eyes, to provide a good example of the practical, beneficial uses of the internet.

 

 

Works Cited:

Woodhouse STS Class Text

http://archive.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay

Is it Really Worth it?

9-4-14

Maria Kozdroy
Blog #3


This blog contains a few thoughts of mine that I just wanted to put out there.  This is not part of the required 5 blogs, yet one to just pose the question of "is it really worth it?" to the reader.

*Please note, this is to be used as a response to class readings and discussion.

Is it really worth it?

                “You should set your A/C to 75, a satisfactory standard number when not in use, to save energy.”  You probably have heard this line several times.  Air conditioning units are slowly changing our environment, not in a necessarily good way though.  Should government ban all A/C units from being run?  Is it simply best to limit the use of them, destroy them completely, invent new types of technologies, etc.?

                First of all, A/C units cost a good amount of money already to run.  However, there’s alternative ways to cool homes available today, for an even higher cost.  What should we do now, before it is too late?

                One simple alternative is to try to survive without it.  Look what technology has done to some people, we rely on it very much.  What will happen that day when the electricity stops working for an extended period of time, or the day the internet goes down?  We must not rely on them as much as we do; rather, try living without these so called “necessities.”

                Ask yourself, do I really need to turn the A/C on to survive?  Yes, it is enjoyable but try living without it.  It will reduce the cost per summer you pay to have it running, while giving a reason to enjoy the summer heat!  You know to keep all those house appliances running, we need to work for that.  Is your labor worth money to run the A/C unit, think about it?