Midterm essay

docx

School

Everett Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

302

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DoctorSnowJellyfish142

Allen 1 Hannah Allen 2-9-24 Envs 456 Midterm Essay Navigating Technological Power: Guardianship, Trust, and Societal Implications The quick development of technology has given its designers and operators tremendous power that alters society as a whole. The statement made by Langdon Winner, "Artifacts have politics," is in line with the general theme of this semester's readings, which examines the intricate relationship between societal structures and technological innovation. Our exploration of the course readings has given us a sophisticated grasp of the players influencing the technological landscape, from the historical perspective of the Green Revolution to the philosophical reflections of Langdon Winner. As we dive into the core of this discussion, we are faced with a crucial query: who has the ability to shape our technological future, and what are the consequences for those who have this power? Technology's designers and developers are not just convenience architects; they are arbiters of ethics, catalysts for change, and stewards of advancement. In order to fully understand the complex relationship between technological power and society, we will explore the ethical aspects of this power, as well as the risks associated with its concentration. Through the lens of course readings, we will navigate the complex landscape in which the decisions of a few have far-reaching consequences for human experience. We must critically consider who should have this authority and the possible repercussions when it is concentrated in particular areas as we explore this topic. Sheila Jasanoff's words serve as a point of reference for this essay: "Technologies are not neutral. They represent, reflect, and enforce the interests and priorities of those who create them." This sentiment encapsulates our investigation's underlying thesis, which is that those wielding technological power are active participants in the societal narrative rather than detached observers. The Objective is to unravel the dynamics of technological power, questioning its ethical foundations and exposing the risks associated with its concentration. In today's landscape, the concentration of technological power is exemplified by visionary figures who have become synonymous with groundbreaking innovation. Elon Musk, the enigmatic entrepreneur and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, is a modern-day Prometheus,

Allen 2 transforming the fields of electric vehicles and space exploration. Musk's influence extends beyond business ventures to transformative endeavors that touch society's very foundations. As we examine Musk's endeavors, it becomes clear that the decisions made by such technological titans have repercussions throughout societal structures, influencing energy policies, transportation systems, and the very fabric of human connectivity. The concentration of power in individual hands raises serious ethical concerns. Musk, like others of his ilk, becomes not only an innovator but also a societal influencer, his visions dictating the direction of technological progress. As Donna Haraway argues in her book "The Cyborg Manifesto," the fusion of technology and humanity blurs traditional boundaries, challenging established power structures and fostering new opportunities. Musk's work in artificial intelligence and neural interfaces not only advances technology, but also shapes our collective future.[Haraway, 1985]^ However, the path of innovation is fraught with unintended consequences, as demonstrated by Musk's ambitious Starlink project. In a notable incident, Musk's refusal to allow Ukraine to use Starlink internet services for a surprise attack on Russian forces in Crimea highlighted the geopolitical implications of private entities controlling global communication infrastructure. The fallout from this decision has prompted internal debate within the Pentagon, with some questioning the need for explicit terms in defense contracts that outline the potential wartime uses of services or products obtained from commercial vendors. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall stated that Musk's refusal raised concerns about the reliability of commercial systems during times of conflict, emphasizing the importance of assurances when relying on such technologies for operational purposes. [Source: AP News, "Elon Musk’s refusal to have Starlink support Ukraine attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon," Tara Copp, September 11, 2023] Similarly, nuclear technology provides a historical perspective on the concentration of power. The decisions made by a select few in the development and control of nuclear capabilities during the Cold War era reverberate through history. Perrow's concept of "Normal Accidents" serves as a lens through which we can see the inherent risks associated with concentrated technological power, as demonstrated by events such as the Chernobyl disaster. Perrow argues that normal accidents occur due to system complexity and interactions, resulting in unexpected and catastrophic outcomes. [Perrow, 1999] Decisions made in the corridors of power about nuclear technology have far-reaching consequences, crossing geopolitical boundaries and affecting the safety and well-being of whole populations. Examining these technological landscapes raises an important question: What happens when the fate of technological progress is in the hands of a few? The concentration of power in space exploration, artificial intelligence, and nuclear capabilities emphasizes the ethical imperative to

Allen 3 examine the motivations, values, and responsibilities of those in charge of innovation, challenging the notion that technology creators and controllers are not only architects of progress, but also architects of societal transformation. The concentration of technological power in the hands of a select few raises critical questions about who should wield such influence and whether existing power structures, particularly government entities, are reliable guardians of technological progress. In determining who we want to have this power, the conversation inevitably turns to the role of government agencies and the inherent complexities of societal trust in their stewardship. While government agencies frequently act as regulatory bodies and decision-makers in the technological domain, societal trust in these entities is a complex issue. Skepticism has grown in response to recent historical events, governmental overreach, and the possibility of technological capabilities being misused. Edward Snowden's revelations about mass surveillance programs highlight the delicate balance between security and individual privacy. Such incidents undermine public trust in the government's ability to responsibly manage and deploy advanced technologies without jeopardizing civil liberties. [Source: Reuters, "U.S. court rules mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal," August 2020] Furthermore, the intersection of technology and politics has become a breeding ground for disinformation, manipulation, and possible abuse of power. The rise of algorithmic decision- making, artificial intelligence in governance, and the use of technology in electoral processes have raised questions about the impartiality and ethical considerations of government-driven technological initiatives. The distrust in these contexts stems not only from the possibility of intentional misuse, but also from unintended consequences caused by systemic biases embedded in technological systems. An illustrative example of the unintended consequences of biased technological systems can be observed in healthcare. A study by researchers at Emory University and the University of Hawaii revealed that forehead thermometers, commonly used in healthcare settings, may not be as accurate in reading temperatures for Black hospitalized patients compared to oral thermometers. The chances of a forehead thermometer detecting fevers in Black patients were 26% lower than oral thermometers. This discrepancy, albeit seemingly small, raises concerns about the potential consequences, as fevers going undetected could lead to delays in antibiotics and medical care, particularly for Black patients. Such instances highlight the real-world implications of biases in technological applications, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny and inclusive practices in technological governance. [Source: NPR, "Forehead thermometer readings may not be as accurate for Black patients, study finds," September 8, 2022] As we navigate the terrain of power dynamics and societal trust, it is critical to consider alternative models and frameworks for technological governance. The discussion may include

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Allen 4 proposals for decentralized and participatory decision-making structures that prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. Examining case studies of initiatives in which communities actively shape technological policies may provide insights into fostering a more collaborative and trustworthy approach to technological advancement. In conclusion, the study of technological power dynamics and their societal implications reveals a complex landscape rife with opportunities and challenges. The concentration of power in the hands of technological titans such as Elon Musk, as well as the nuanced relationship between government entities and societal trust, highlight the importance of thoughtful reflection on technology governance. As we consider who should lead technological innovation, it becomes clear that a balance must be struck between visionary leaders, governmental bodies, and active community participation. The revelations from Edward Snowden's expose on mass surveillance programs serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance required to ensure that technological advancements benefit the common good while not infringing on individual liberties. The examination of biases in technological systems, as demonstrated by disparities in temperature readings for Black patients, emphasizes the importance of addressing inherent inequities in technology design and deployment. The consequences of such biases go beyond mere technological inefficiencies, influencing healthcare outcomes and potentially perpetuating systemic disparities. As we navigate the future terrain of technological power, we must foster governance frameworks that are inclusive, transparent, and accountable. The discussion should go beyond traditional paradigms, incorporating diverse perspectives and actively engaging communities in decision-making processes. Only through such collaborative efforts can we hope to mitigate the unintended consequences and ethical quandaries that arise in the wake of technological advancements. Power, ethics, and societal impact are all intricately woven into the grand tapestry of technological progress. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that this tapestry represents the values of equity, justice, and shared prosperity. As we stand at the edge of an ever-changing technological landscape, the decisions we make today will shape the contours of a future in which innovation aligns with humanity's aspirations.

Allen 5 Works Cited: 1. Klein, E. (2023, March 12). Opinion | This Changes Everything. The New York Times . Link 2. Sarewitz, D. (2003, September 8). Scientizing the Soul: Research as a Substitute for Moral Discourse in Modern Society. BA Festival of Science, Salford, UK . 3. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (pp. 17–50). MIT Press. 4. Schwarz, Michiel, and Michael Thompson. “Recognizing and Analyzing the Inchoate.” (and following chapters) In Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice , 1–38. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1990. 5. Johnson, S. (2021, April 27). How Humanity Gave Itself an Extra Life. The New York Times . Link 6. Winner, L. (1986). Part I: A Philosophy of Technology. In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (pp. 3–60). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7. Kaplan, S. (2021, October 12). A recipe for fighting climate change and feeding the world. Washington Post . Link 8. Woodhouse, E. J. (2006). Nanoscience, Green Chemistry, and the Privileged Position of Science. In S. Frickel & K. Moore (Eds.), The new political sociology of science institutions, networks, and power . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 9. Johnson, S. (2023, March 15). The Brilliant Inventor Who Made Two of History’s Biggest Mistakes. The New York Times . Link 10. Jasanoff, S. (Book Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 in the context of the course). 11. O’Brien, M. (2000). Goal: Replace Risk Assessment with Alternatives Assessment. In Making better environmental decisions: An alternative to risk assessment (pp. 3–16). MIT Press. 12. Doezema, Tess. “Skepticism About Biotechnology Isn’t Anti-Science.” Slate , April 26, 2017. Link 13. Winner, L. (1986). Chapter 8: On not hitting the tar-baby. In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (pp. 138–154). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 14. Sampat, B. (2020, July 16). Whose Drugs Are These? Issues in Science and Technology, 36(4) . Link 15. Buranyi, S. (2020, December 17). Opinion | Big Pharma Is Fooling Us. The New York Times . Link 16. Parthasarathy, S. (2018). Use the patent system to regulate gene editing. Nature, 562(7728) , 486–488. Link 17. AP News. (September 11, 2023). SpaceX founder Elon Musk’s refusal to allow Ukraine to use Starlink internet services. Link 18. Perrow, C. (1999). Introduction and chapter 1: Normal accident at Three Mile Island. In Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Allen 6 19. Jasanoff (Chapter 4, 5). 20. NPR. (September 8, 2022). Forehead thermometer readings may not be as accurate for Black patients, study finds. Link

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Midterm essay

Related Documents