【布莱克威尔哲学指南系列】技术哲学 575页

\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:31PageiACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:31PageiiBlackwellCompanionstoPhilosophyThisoutstandingstudentreferenceseriesoffersacomprehensiveandauthoritativesurveyofphilosophyasawhole.Writtenbytoday’sleadingphilosophers,eachvolumeprovideslucidandengagingcoverageofthekeyfigures,terms,topicsandproblemsofthefield.Takentogether,thevolumesprovidetheidealbasisforcourseuse,representinganunparalleledworkofreferenceforstudentsandspecialistsalike.Alreadypublishedintheseries:24.ACompaniontoPhilosophyinthe1.TheBlackwellCompaniontoPhilosophy,MiddleAgesSecondEditionEditedbyJorgeJ.E.GraciaandEditedbyNicholasBunninandEricTsui-JamesTimothyB.Noone2.ACompaniontoEthics25.ACompaniontoAfrican-AmericanEditedbyPeterSingerPhilosophy3.ACompaniontoAestheticsEditedbyTommyL.LottandJohnP.PittmanEditedbyDavidCooper26.ACompaniontoAppliedEthics4.ACompaniontoEpistemologyEditedbyR.G.FreyandChristopherEditedbyJonathanDancyandErnestSosaHeathWellman5.ACompaniontoContemporaryPolitical27.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofEducationPhilosophy(two-volumeset),SecondEditionEditedbyRandallCurrenEditedbyRobertE.GoodinandPhilipPettit28.ACompaniontoAfricanPhilosophy6.ACompaniontoPhilosophyofMindEditedbyKwasiWireduEditedbySamuelGuttenplan29.ACompaniontoHeidegger7.ACompaniontoMetaphysicsEditedbyHubertL.DreyfusandEditedbyJaegwonKimandErnestSosaMarkA.Wrathall8.ACompaniontoPhilosophyofLawand30.ACompaniontoRationalismLegalTheoryEditedbyAlanNelsonEditedbyDennisPatterson31.ACompaniontoAncientPhilosophy9.ACompaniontoPhilosophyofReligionEditedbyMaryLouiseGillandEditedbyPhilipL.QuinnandCharlesTaliaferroPierrePellegrin10.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofLanguage32.ACompaniontoPragmatismEditedbyBobHaleandCrispinWrightEditedbyJohnR.ShookandJosephMargolis11.ACompaniontoWorldPhilosophies33.ACompaniontoNietzscheEditedbyEliotDeutschandRonBontekoeEditedbyKeithAnsellPearson12.ACompaniontoContinentalPhilosophy34.ACompaniontoSocratesEditedbySimonCritchleyandEditedbySaraAhbel-RappeandWilliamSchroederRachanaKamtekar13.ACompaniontoFeministPhilosophy35.ACompaniontoPhenomenologyandEditedbyAlisonM.JaggarandExistentialismIrisMarionYoungEditedbyHubertL.Dreyfusand14.ACompaniontoCognitiveScienceMarkA.WrathallEditedbyWilliamBechtelandGeorgeGraham36.ACompaniontoKant15.ACompaniontoBioethicsEditedbyGrahamBirdEditedbyHelgaKuhseandPeterSinger37.ACompaniontoPlato16.ACompaniontothePhilosophersEditedbyHughH.BensonEditedbyRobertL.Arrington38.ACompaniontoDescartes17.ACompaniontoBusinessEthicsEditedbyJanetBroughtonandJohnCarrieroEditedbyRobertE.Frederick39.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofBiology18.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofScienceEditedbySahotraSarkarandAnyaPlutynskiEditedbyW.H.Newton-Smith40.ACompaniontoHume19.ACompaniontoEnvironmentalPhilosophyEditedbyElizabethS.RadcliffeEditedbyDaleJamieson41.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofHistory20.ACompaniontoAnalyticPhilosophyandHistoriographyEditedbyA.P.MartinichandDavidSosaEditedbyAviezerTucker21.ACompaniontoGenethics42.ACompaniontoAristotleEditedbyJustineBurleyandJohnHarrisEditedbyGeorgiosAnagnostopoulos22.ACompaniontoPhilosophicalLogic43.ACompaniontothePhilosophyEditedbyDaleJacquetteofTechnology23.ACompaniontoEarlyModernPhilosophyEditedbyJanKyrreBergOlsen,StigAndurEditedbyStevenNadlerPedersenandVincentF.Hendricks\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:31PageiiiACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJanKyrreBergOlsen,StigAndurPedersenandVincentF.HendricksAJohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.,Publication\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:31PageivThiseditionfirstpublished2009©2009BlackwellPublishingLtdBlackwellPublishingwasacquiredbyJohnWiley&SonsinFebruary2007.Blackwell’spublishingprogramhasbeenmergedwithWiley’sglobalScientific,Technical,andMedicalbusinesstoformWiley-Blackwell.RegisteredOfficeJohnWiley&SonsLtd,TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UKEditorialOffices350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148-5020,USA9600GarsingtonRoad,Oxford,OX42DQ,UKTheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UKFordetailsofourglobaleditorialoffices,forcustomerservices,andforinformationabouthowtoapplyforpermissiontoreusethecopyrightmaterialinthisbook,pleaseseeourwebsiteatwww.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.TherightofJanKyrreBergOlsen,StigAndurPedersen,andVincentF.HendrickstobeidentifiedastheauthoroftheeditorialmaterialinthisworkhasbeenassertedinaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,exceptaspermittedbytheUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,withoutthepriorpermissionofthepublisher.Wileyalsopublishesitsbooksinavarietyofelectronicformats.Somecontentthatappearsinprintmaynotbeavailableinelectronicbooks.Designationsusedbycompaniestodistinguishtheirproductsareoftenclaimedastrademarks.Allbrandnamesandproductnamesusedinthisbookaretradenames,servicemarks,trademarksorregisteredtrademarksoftheirrespectiveowners.Thepublisherisnotassociatedwithanyproductorvendormentionedinthisbook.Thispublicationisdesignedtoprovideaccurateandauthoritativeinformationinregardtothesubjectmattercovered.Itissoldontheunderstandingthatthepublisherisnotengagedinrenderingprofessionalservices.Ifprofessionaladviceorotherexpertassistanceisrequired,theservicesofacompetentprofessionalshouldbesought.LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataAcompaniontothephilosophyoftechnology/editedbyJanKyrreBergOlsen,StigAndurPedersen,andVincentF.Hendricks.p.cm.—(Blackwellcompanionstophilosophy)Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN978-1-4051-4601-2(hardcover:alk.paper)1.Technology–Philosophy.I.Olsen,JanKyrreBerg.II.Pedersen,StigAndur,1943–III.Hendricks,VincentF.IV.Title.V.Series.T14.C57452009601—dc222008044192AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.Setin10/12.5ptPhotinabyGraphicraftLimited,HongKongPrintedinSingaporebyFabulousPrintersPteLtd12009\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagevContentsNotesonContributorsxiIntroduction1PartIHistoryofTechnology51HistoryofTechnology7ThomasJ.Misa2DefinitionsofTechnology18RichardLi-Hua3WesternTechnology23KeldNielsen4ChineseTechnology28FrancescaBray5IslamicTechnology32ThomasF.Glick6JapaneseTechnology37DavidWittner7TechnologyandWar43BartHackerPartIITechnologyandScience498TechnologyandScience51DonIhde9ScienceandTechnology:PositivismandCritique61HansRadder10EngineeringScience66LouisL.Bucciarelliv\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32Pagevicontents11TechnologicalKnowledge70AnthonieW.M.MeijersandMarcJ.deVries12TheInterplaybetweenScienceandTechnology75BartGremmen13InstrumentsinScienceandTechnology78MiekeBoon14SocialConstructionofScience84HarryCollins15SocialConstructionofTechnology88WiebeE.Bijker16TheoryChangeandInstrumentation95JosephC.Pitt17BiologyandTechnology99KeekokLee18NuclearTechnologies104WilliamJ.Nuttall19EngineeringDesign112PeterKroes20Cybernetics118AndrewPickering21ChemistryandTechnology123HelgeS.KraghPartIIITechnologyandPhilosophy12922Introduction:PhilosophyandTechnology131ValDusek23SemioticsofTechnology141RobertE.Innis24CriticalTheoryofTechnology146AndrewFeenberg25Cyborgs154EvanSelinger26Simulation157EvanSelinger27Technologyas“AppliedScience”160RobertC.Scharff28TechnologicalArtifacts165Peter-PaulVerbeekandPieterE.Vermaasvi\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32Pageviicontents29TechnicalPractice172BartGremmen30TechnologicalPragmatism175LarryHickman31HermeneuticsandTechnologies180DonIhde32AnalyticPhilosophyofTechnology184MaartenFranssen33TechnologicalRationality189LorenzoC.Simpson34PhenomenologyandTechnology195IainThomson35Expertise202EvanSelinger36ImagingTechnologies205DonIhde37TheCritiqueofthePrecautionaryPrincipleandthePossibilityforan“EnlightenedDoomsaying”210Jean-PierreDupuy38TechnologyandMetaphysics214Jean-PierreDupuy39LargeTechnicalSystems218ErikvanderVleuten40SociotechnicalSystems223MaartenFranssenandPeterKroes41InformationTechnology227LucianoFloridiPartIVTechnologyandEnvironment23342TechnologyandEnvironment235MaryTiles43ThePrecautionaryPrinciple248AndyStirling44Boundary-work,PluralismandtheEnvironment263JozefKeulartz45GlobalWarming270SirJohnHoughtonvii\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32Pageviiicontents46TheReinventionofCO2asRefrigerantforBothHeatingandCooling276JanHurlen47EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology280MaryTiles48AgricultureandTechnology285JohnR.PorterandJesperRasmussen49TheBuiltEnvironment289ChristianIlliesPartVTechnologyandPolitics29550TechnologyandPolitics297EvanSelinger51TheIdeaofProgress303DanielSarewitz52TechnologyandPower308DanielSarewitz53TechnologyandCulture311LucienScubla54TechnologyManagement316RichardLi-Hua55TechnologyStrategy321RichardLi-Hua56TechnologyandGlobalization325DavidM.Kaplan57TechnologyTransfer329EvanSelinger58TechnologyandCapitalism333DavidM.Kaplan59ThePoliticsofGenderandTechnology338ElisabethK.Kelan60EuropeanPolitics,EconomyandTechnology342ErikJones61AsianPolitics,EconomyandTechnology347KeekokLee62USPolitics,EconomyandTechnology353DavidM.Hart63Energy,TechnologyandGeopolitics359JohnR.Fanchiviii\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PageixcontentsPartVITechnologyandEthics36564TechnologyandEthics:Overview367CarlMitchamandKatinkaWaelbers65AgricultureEthics384DavidM.Kaplan66ArchitectureEthics387WarwickA.Fox67BiomedicalEngineeringEthics392PhilipBrey68Bioethics397PaulB.Thomson69Biotechnology:PlantsandAnimals402BartGremmen70ComputerEthics406PhilipBrey71Consumerism412EdwardJ.Woodhouse72DevelopmentEthics416ThomasKesselring73EnergyEthics422KirstenHalsnæs74EngineeringEthics426ChristelleDidier75EnvironmentalEthics433ThomasSøbirkPetersen76FoodEthics439DavidM.Kaplan77FutureGenerations442JesperRyberg78Genethics445NilsHoltug79TechnologyandtheLaw449RichardSusskind80MediaEthics452DeniElliott81MedicalEthics455SørenHolmix\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32Pagexcontents82Nanoethics459JohnWeckert83NuclearEthics462KoosvanderBruggen84ReligionandTechnology466CarlMitcham85TechnologyandPersonalMoralResponsibility474JesperRyberg86Value-sensitiveDesign477JeroenvanderHovenandNoemiManders-HuitsPartVIITechnologyandtheFuture48187Technology,ProsperityandRisk483SvenOveHansson88WorldRiskSociety495UlrichBeck89RiskAnalysis500SvenOveHansson90ProsperityandtheFutureofTechnology502WilliamSimsBainbridge91ConvergingTechnologies508WilliamSimsBainbridge92Nanotechnology511AlfredNordmann93EnergyForecastTechnologies517JohnR.Fanchi94Biotechnology523JenniferKuzma95Transportation532JonathanL.Gifford96GlobalChallenges538JenniferKuzma97Chemicals546BruceE.Johansen98TheFutureofHumanity551NickBostromIndex558x\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagexiNotesonContributorsWilliamSimsBainbridge.Co-directorofHuman-CenteredComputingattheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF);part-timeProfessorofSociology,GeorgeMasonUniversity.UlrichBeck.ProfessorofSociology,UniversityofMunich;BritishJournalofSociology;VisitingCentennialProfessor,LondonSchoolofEconomicsandSciences.WiebeE.Bijker.ProfessorofTechnologyandSociety,MaastrichtUniversity.MiekeBoon.AssociateProfessor,PhilosophyDepartment,UniversityofTwente.NickBostrom.DirectoroftheFutureofHumanityInstitute,OxfordUniversity.FrancescaBray.SocialAnthropology,UniversityofEdinburgh.PhilipBrey.AssociateProfessorofPhilosophyofTechnologyandchairofthedepart-mentofphilosophy,UniversityofTwente;DirectoroftheCentreforPhilosophyofTechnologyandEngineeringScience(CEPTES).LouisL.Bucciarelli.ProfessoremeritusandformerdirectorofMIT’sTechnologyStudiesProgram.HarryCollins.DistinguishedResearchProfessor,CardiffUniversity.ChristelleDidier.AssistantProfessor,DepartmentofEthics,CatholicUniversityofLille.Jean-PierreDupuy.ProfessorofSocialandPoliticalPhilosophy,ÉcolePolytechnique,Paris;directorofresearch,CNRS(Philosophy),USA.ValDusek.ProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofNewHampshire.DeniElliott.PoynterJamisonChairinMediaEthicsandPressPolicy,UniversityofSouthFlorida;Professor,DepartmentofJournalismandMediaStudies,UniversityofSouthFlorida.JohnR.Fanchi.Professor,DepartmentofPetroleumEngineering,ColoradoSchoolofMines(nowatFanchiEnterprises,Houston,Texas).AndrewFeenberg.CanadaResearchChairinPhilosophyofTechnology,SchoolofCommunication,SimonFraserUniversity.xi\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagexiinotesoncontributorsLucianoFloridi.ProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofHertfordshire,whereheholdstheResearchChairinPhilosophyofInformationintheSchoolofHumanities,andFellowofStCrossCollege,UniversityofOxford.WarwickA.Fox.ReaderinEthics,CentreforProfessionalEthics,UniversityofCentralLancashire.MaartenFranssen.AssociateProfessor,SectionofPhilosophy,DelftUniversityofTechnology.JonathanL.Gifford.ProfessorofPublicPolicy,SchoolofPublicPolicy,GeorgeMasonUniversity;directoroftheMaster’sinTransportationPolicy,OperationsandLogistics.ThomasF.Glick.ProfessorofHistoryandGeography,BostonUniversity.BartGremmen.ProfessorofEthicalandSocialAspectsofGenomics,DirectoroftheCentreforMethodicalEthicsandTechnologyAssessment,WageningenUniversity.BartHacker.Curator,MilitaryTechnology,Smithsonian’sNationalMuseumofAmericanHistory.KirstenHalsnæs.SeniorResearchSpecialist,UNEPRisøCentreatRisø/DTU.SvenOveHansson.ProfessorofPhilosophyandheadofdepartment,PhilosophyandtheHistoryofTechnology,RoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm;editor-in-chiefofTheoria.DavidM.Hart.AssociateProfessor,SchoolofPublicPolicy,GeorgeMasonUniversity.LarryHickman.DirectoroftheCenterforDeweyStudies;ProfessorofPhilosophy,SouthernIllinoisUniversityCarbondale.SørenHolm.ProfessorialFellowinBioethics,CardiffLawSchool,CardiffUniversity;ProfessorII,MedicalEthics,SectionforMedicalEthics,UniversityofOslo.NilsHoltug.AssociateProfessorofPhilosophy,DirectoroftheCentrefortheStudyofEqualityandMulticulturalism,UniversityofCopenhagen.SirJohnHoughton.PresidentoftheJohnRayInitiative;HonoraryScientist,HadleyCentreforClimatePredictionandResearch.JanHurlen.Vice-President,SheccoTechnology.DonIhde.DistinguishedProfessorofPhilosophy,StonyBrookUniversity;DirectoroftheTechnoscienceResearchGroup,PhilosophyDepartment,StonyBrookUniversity.ChristianIllies.Professor,TechnicalUniversity,Eindhoven.RobertE.Innis.Professor,DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofMassachusetts,Lowell.BruceE.Johansen.FrederickW.KayserProfessorofCommunicationandNativeAmericanStudies,UniversityofNebraskaatOmaha.ErikJones.ProfessorofEuropeanStudies,SAISBolognaCenter,JohnsHopkinsUniversity.xii\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagexiiinotesoncontributorsDavidM.Kaplan.AssistantProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofNorthTexas.ElisabethK.Kelan.ResearchFellow,LehmanBrothersCentreforWomeninBusiness,LondonBusinessSchool.ThomasKesselring.DocentinEthics,InstitutSekundarstufel,PHBern.JozefKeulartz.AssociateProfessorofAppliedPhilosophy,WageningenUniversityandResearchCentre;SpecialChairforEnvironmentalPhilosophy,RadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.HelgeS.Kragh.ProfessorofHistoryofScienceandTechnology,StenoInstitute,UniversityofAarhus.PeterKroes.ProfessorinPhilosophyofTechnology,DepartmentofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,DelftUniversityofTechnology.JenniferKuzma.AssociateProfessor,CenterforScience,Technology,andPublicPolicy,HumphreyInstitute,UniversityofMinnesota.KeekokLee.HonoraryResearchFellow,SchoolofSocialSciences,UniversityofManchester.RichardLi-Hua.DirectorofChinaBusinessandTechnologyTransfer,NewcastleBusinessSchool,NorthumbriaUniversity.NoëmiManders-Huits.Juniorresearcher,DepartmentofPhilosophy,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,DelftUniversityofTechnology.AnthonieW.M.Meijers.ProfessorofPhilosophy,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,DelftUniversityofTechnology.ThomasJ.Misa.DirectoroftheUniversityofMinnesota’sCharlesBabbageInstitute;ERAChairintheHistoryofTechnology;facultymember,DepartmentofElectricalandComputerEngineering.CarlMitcham.ProfessorofLiberalArtsandInternationalStudies,ColoradoSchoolofMines.KeldNielsen.Associateprofessor,headofdepartment,StenoDepartmentforStudiesofScienceandScienceEducation,UniversityofAarhus.AlfredNordmann.ProfessorofPhilosophyandHistoryofScience,DarmstadtTechnicalUniversity;presidentoftheLichtenbergSociety.WilliamJ.Nuttall.UniversitySeniorLecturerinTechnologyPolicy,JudgeBusinessSchoolandCambridgeUniversityEngineeringDepartment.ThomasSøbirkPetersen.AssociateProfessorofPracticalPhilosophy,UniversityofRoskilde.AndrewPickering.ProfessorofSociology,DepartmentofSociologyandPhilosophy,UniversityofExeter.JosephC.Pitt.ProfessorofPhilosophy,VirginiaTech.xiii\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagexivnotesoncontributorsJohnR.Porter.Environment,ResourcesandTechnologyGroup,DepartmentofAgriculturalSciences,KVL.HansRadder.ProfessorofPhilosophyofScienceandTechnology,FacultyofPhilo-sophy,VUUniversity,Amsterdam.JesperRasmussen.Environment,ResourcesandTechnologyGroup,DepartmentofAgriculturalSciences,KVL.JesperRyberg.ProfessorofPracticalPhilosophy,UniversityofRoskilde.DanielSarewitz.ProfessorofScienceandSociety,DirectoroftheConsortiumforScience,Policy,andOutcomes,ArizonaStateUniversity.RobertC.Scharff.PhilosophyDepartment,UniversityofNewHampshire.LucienScubla.ResearcherinanthropologyatCREA,EcolePolytechnique,Paris.EvanSelinger.AssistantProfessor,DepartmentofPhilosophy,RochesterInstituteofTechnology.LorenzoCharlesSimpson.ProfessorofPhilosophy,StonyBrookUniversity/StateUniversityofNewYork.AndyStirling.ScienceDirector,SPRU(scienceandtechnologypolicyresearch),theUniversityofSussex;co-directorofthejointSPRU/InstituteforDevelopmentStudiesESRC-funded“STEPS”Centre(on“Social,TechnologicalandEnvironmentalPathwaystoSustainability”).RichardSusskind.HonoraryProfessorandEmeritusLawProfessoratGreshamCollege,London;ITadvisertotheLordChiefJusticeofEngland.IainThomson.AssociateProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofNewMexico.PaulB.Thomson.Professor,DepartmentofPhilosophy,MichiganStateUniversity.MaryTiles.ProfessorandChair,DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofHawaii.KoosvanderBruggen.FacultyofLaw,DepartmentofInternationalPublicLaw,LeidenUniversity.JeroenvanderHoven.ProfessorofEthicsandTechnology,DepartmentofPhilosophy,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,DelftUniversityofTechnology;Pro-fessorialFellow,CentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthics,AustralianNationalUniversity;ScientificDirector,3TUCentreforEthicsandTechnology.ErikvanderVleuten.UniversitairDocent,DepartmentofInnovationStudies,EindhovenUniversityofTechnology.Peter-PaulVerbeek.AssociateProfessorofPhilosophyandDirectoroftheMasterProgramPhilosophyofScience,Technology,andSociety,DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofTwente.PieterE.Vermaas.AssistantProfessor,DepartmentofPhilosophy,DelftUniversityofTechnology.xiv\n9781405146012_1_pre.qxd2/4/0916:32PagexvnotesoncontributorsMarcJ.deVries.AssistantProfessorofPhilosophyofTechnology,EindhovenUni-versityofTechnology;AffiliateProfessorofReformationalPhilosophy,DelftUniversityofTechnology.KatinkaWaelbers.DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofTwente.JohnWeckert.CentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthics,CharlesSturtUni-versity,Australia.LangdonWinner.ThomasPhelanChairofHumanitiesandSocialSciences,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute.DavidWittner.AssociateProfessorofEastAsianHistory,UticaCollege.EdwardJ.Woodhouse.DepartmentofScienceandTechnologyStudies,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute.xv\n9781405146012_4_000.qxd2/4/0916:26Page1IntroductionJANKYRREBERGOLSEN,STIGANDURPEDERSENANDVINCENTF.HENDRICKSNomajorreferenceworkonthephilosophyoftechnologyisinexistence.TheaimoftheCompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyisthustoprovideanup-to-datereviewofthephilosophyoftechnology,bringingitintoclosecontactwithcutting-edgetech-nologyandcontemporarytechnologypolicy.Thephilosophyoftechnologyishighlyinterdisciplinary:itconsistsofinsightsfromdifferentkindsoftechnologies,fromavarietyofepistemologicalapproaches,thehuman-ities,socialscience,naturalscience,sociology,psychology,engineeringsciences,dif-ferentphilosophicalschoolsofthought,i.e.pragmatism,analyticalphilosophy,andphenomenology.Thephilosophyoftechnologytakenasawholeisanunderstandingoftheconsequencesoftechnologicalimpactsrelatingtotheenvironment,thesocietyandhumanexistence.Thephilosophyoftechnologyisanewcomerinphilosophy.Asaconstitutedsubjectithasexistedforabouthalfacentury.Itisoneofthefastest-growingphilosophicaldisciplines.Itisalsoanintercontinentalphilosophicaldiscipline,drawinginspirationandbuildinglastingbridgesacrosstheunfortunatedividebetweenContinentalandanalyticstrandsofthoughtinphilosophy.ThisCompanionisintendedtobetheprimarynavigatorforunderstandingtechno-logyanditsvariousrolesinthemoderncomplexsociety.“Technology”referstomanydifferentconceptsandphenomena,anditisthereforeimpossibletogiveaclear-cutdefinitionofwhatistobeunderstoodbytheterm.However,theCompanioncoversthemainfeaturesoftechnology,itshistoricaldevelopment,itsfuturepotentialsandrisks,etc.Withtheseambitionsinmind,theCompanionisorganizedinaccordancewiththefollowingsevenpillars,eachcoveringmajorareaswheretechnologyplaysacentralrole.Eachpartconsistsofseveralshortencyclopedia-likecasestudies,orspecializedchapters,describingallissuesthatadduptoactualproblemsandinsights,fleshingouthowfartechnologyhascomeinthisparticularareaorfield.IHistoryofTechnologyThispartdescribestechnologicaldevelopmentinWesterncultureaswellasinothercultures.ItbringsintofocusIslamictechnology,ChineseandotherdevelopedACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks1©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_000.qxd2/4/0916:26Page2introductiontechnologicalsocieties.Itisofparamountimportancetoseetheextenttowhichthesesocietiesbecamedependentuponvarioustechnologiesandwhatkindsoftechnologieswerepreferred.Thereisanintimatelinkbetweenoursocietiestodayandthechoicesmadeinthepast.IITechnologyandScienceThefocalpointofthispartisthecloseconnectionbetweentechnologyandscience–andtheirindependence.Amongotherthings,theoldandstill-presentissueoftech-nologyasappliedsciencewillbediscussed,thedifferencesbetweenepistemologiesandmethodologiesfleshedout.Theconnectionwiththepreviouspartisstraightforward;modernsciencegrewoutofasocietythatputmoreandmoreemphasisondevelopingtechnologiestopenetratethecoreofnature’ssecrets.IIITechnologyandPhilosophyThispartrevealsthestoryfromthefirstattemptstocreateanengineeringphilosophyoftechnologytothemoreinfluentialhumanisticphilosophyoftechnology,towardswhattodayislabeled“philosophyoftechnology.”IVTechnologyandEnvironmentTechnologyhashadatremendousimpactonnature.Technologieshavebeen,inthehandsofman,adestructivetool.Wearetodayfacingtheseverestconsequencesima-ginable.Asforecastsgo,itisonlygoingtogetworse.Rescueanddamagecontrolalsolieinourbesttechnologiesathand.Onlybydevelopingintricateinstrumentscanwedetectpollutionandbuildcomplexenoughmodelsoftheforthcomingdevelopmentscausedbyglobalwarming,globaldimmingandthegreenhouseeffects.Inthispart,management,scienceandtechnologyareintimatelyjoined.VTechnologyandPoliticsTechnologyishighlypolitical.Governments,themilitary,allhavehighhopesandexpectationsrelatedtotechnologicalinnovations.However,technologyisalsotakingcenterstageinordertosecuresafetyandprosperityforsociety.Thereforethepoliticalandeconomicdimensionsoftechnologyarestudiedinthispartwithinspecificcon-texts–“EuropeanPolitics,EconomyandTechnology”;“AsianPolitics,EconomyandTechnology”;“USPolitics,EconomyandTechnology”–wheredifferencesinpolicy-making,inadditiontodifferencesineconomicandculturalemphasisontechnology,standoutwithclarity.Thisisatangledwebthatpullsinissuesrelatedtoallthepre-viouspartsoftheCompanionandalsoextendstothenextpart.2\n9781405146012_4_000.qxd2/4/0916:26Page3introductionVITechnologyandEthicsThedevelopmentoftechnologyhasradicalizedclassicalethicalproblemsandraisednewones.Thispartfocusesontheresponsibilitiesandvaluesofengineers,scientists,policy-makersandothers.Alsoincludedareconsequencesoftechnologiesfortheenvironment.Ethicsandtechnologyconcerntechnologyinagriculture;withinstemcellresearch;inweaponsresearch,etc.VIITechnologyandtheFutureTechnologiesareundergoingconstantchanges,andtheyinfluenceallsidesofhumanlife.Inordertoassessnewdevelopmentsintechnologyitisnecessarytodiscusstheexpectationsforthefuturewithrespecttohumanprosperityandpossiblerisksinvolvedtherein.ThispartoftheCompaniondiscussestheextenttowhichnewtechnologiescontributetotherealizationofadesirablefutureorwhetheritwillbeharmfulorrisky.Somestepshavealreadybeentaken.Thepoliticaldecision-makersintheEUhavedrawnup“theLisbonstrategyforeconomic,socialandenvironmentalrenewal.”Hereacolossalemphasishasbeenputonthedevelopmentofenvironmentallyfriendlytechnologies–cleanertechnologies–thatcanmakeuseofalternativeenergysourceslikehydrogen.Anotherimportantareaisnanotechnology,withbothmilitaryandcivilianapplications.Philosophers,andotherscholarsworkingwithissuesrelatedtotechnology,oftendefinetechnologydifferently.Wecomefromdifferentculturesandthereforeempha-sizecertainthingsdifferently.Allexistingdefinitionsof“technology”restuponspecificschoolsofthought.However,for“technology”therecannotbeanysimpledefinitionpledgingallegiancetooneorotherschool.Thereare“metaphysical”complicationsthathavetobeovercome.ThestructureoftheCompanionwillguaranteethisdiversity.Defini-tionsarealwaysrelatedtothevaluesofatradition,ofaspecificgroupofthinkers,toaschoolofthought,andofcoursetowhoeverprovidesthedefinition.Theproblemisthat“technology”isnotone“thing”butacomplexofpractices,methods,hopes,inten-tions,goals,needsanddesires,besidesalltheactualtechnologiesinhand.Thelackofunityisinturnduetotheinterdisciplinarynatureoftechnologyandtechnologystudies.Asingledefinitionsimplycannotfathomthecomplexityoftechnologyinitsentirety.Insum,athoroughdefinitionof“technology”needsa“companion”–ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnology.Puttingthiscompaniontogetherwouldnothavebeenpossibleifitwasnotforalltheauthorsandpillareditorswhovividly,eruditelyandwithgreatexpertiseadvisedandcontributedontheway.Weshouldliketoextendourgratitudetoallourcontributors,thankRasmusRendsvigfortakingcareofthelogisticsintheassemblypartofthepro-cess,andfinallythankBlackwellPublishingandinparticularNickBelloriniandLizCremonafortakingonthisproject.3\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page5PartIHistoryofTechnologyACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page71HistoryofTechnologyTHOMASJ.MISAAgenerationago,beforethemuch-noted“empiricalturn”inphilosophy,itwasunlikelythatanassessmentofthephilosophyoftechnologywouldhaveprominentlyfeaturedthehistoryoftechnology.Putsimply,therewererelativelyfewcommonconcerns,sincehistoriansoftechnologyrarelyengagedinthesortofquestionsthatanimatedphilosophersoftechnology.ConsultingthepublishedvolumesofResearchinPhilosophyandTechnologyandTechnologyandCulturethreedecadesagosuggeststwodivergentscholarlycommunities,separatedbyresearchmethodsandbackgroundassumptions,andpursuinglargelyindependentinvestigations.Atthetime,historiansoftechnologywereinsistingontechnologybeinganontologicallyandepistemologic-allyseparatecategoryfromscience,andvigorouslyinsistingthattechnologyisnotmerelyappliedscience,whilephilosopherswerereadyandmorecomfortablewithsweepingnormativeassessmentsabouttheessentialcharacteristicsoftechnologyanditsimpactonsociety.Inthedebatesontechnologicaldeterminism,philosophersoftechnologyandhistoriansoftechnologywerenearlyasfarapartaspossible:whilehistoriansoftechnologyadamantlyrefutedanyandallclaimsoftechnologicaldeterminism,philo-sophersoftechnologywereasadisciplinethemostenthusiasticinexploringandembracingthenotionthattechnologydeterminessocialandculturalchangeandthattechnologydevelopsmoreorlessautonomouslyofsocialandculturalinfluences(Winner1977;Misa2004b).Inthisclimate,therewasnotsoverymuchthatthetwospecialistfieldsheldincommon.Inthelasttenyearsorso,however,therehasbeenincreasingmutualinterestinphilosophyandhistoryoftechnology(Achterhuis2001;Ihde2004).Ithasnotbeenthatahybriddisciplinesuchasthehistoryofphilosophyofsciencehasemerged,butratherthatsomehistoriansandsomephilosophershavediscoveredcommoninterestsandcommonconcerns.Theessaysinthisvolumearetestimonytothissharedmutualinterest,althoughtheindividualtopicstheyexploredonotreallyexhausttherangeofsharedtopicsandemergentthemes(seeMisaetal.2003).Thecommissionedessaysexaminetheculturalcontextsoftechnology,notablyinthespecificcontextsofJapan,Islam,ChinaandtheWest,aswellasexaminingtheproblemareasofdefiningtechno-logyandassessingmilitarytechnology.Theseessaysdevelopsomeofthesharedcon-cernsandconceptsthatareemergingbetweenthesetwofields.Accordingly,thisessaywillprovideasummaryoftheirmainfindingsbutalsoattemptawiderassessmentofACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks7©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page8thomasj.misathesesharedconcernsandemergingproblems.Ishalldosobyaccentingthreethemes:thechallengesofdefiningtheterm“technology”;thevariedconceptsandproblemsindefining“culture”aswellasitsrelationstoandinteractionswithtechnology;andtheissueoftechnologicaldeterminism,ascholarlyandpracticalproblemthat,forseveraldecades,hasmeritedphilosophicalreflectionandhistoricalanalysis.Definitionsof“Technology”Historiansoftechnologyhaveformanyyearspointedlyresistedgivingaprescriptivedefinitionoftheterm“technology.”Thisstance,somewhatparadoxically,reflectsthedisciplinarymaturityandconfidenceoftheirfield.Theyhavefrequentlyobservedthatnoscholarlyhistorianofarttodaywouldfeeltheleasttemptationtotrytodefine“art,”asifthatcomplexexpressionofhumancreativitycouldbepinneddownbyafewwell-chosenwords.Andsimilarly,asthenotedhistorianoftechnologyThomasHugheshaswritten(2004:2),“Definingtechnologyinitscomplexityisasdifficultasgraspingtheessenceofpolitics.Fewexperiencedpoliticiansandpoliticalscientistsattempttodefinepolitics.Fewexperiencedpractitioners,historians,andsocialscientiststrytoinclusivelydefinetechnology.”Mosthistorianswritingontechnologyhavedefinedthetermmostlybypresentinganddiscussingpertinentexamples.Manyhistoriansstudyingthetwentiethcenturyhavefocusedonlargetechnologicalsystems,suchaselectricity,industrialpro-duction,andtransportation,thatemergedintheearlydecadesandbecamemoreorlesspervasiveintheWestduringthesecondhalfofthatcentury.Otherhistoriansevenofthetwentiethcentury,however,wouldstronglyprefertoexaminetechnologiesfromtheperspectiveof“everydaylife”orfromauser’sper-spective.Evenwhatmightonthesurfacebeconsideredthesametechnologycanlookquitedifferentwhenviewed“fromabove”usingamanager’sorabusinessexecutive’sperspectiveor,alternately,“frombelow”usingaworker’soranindividualconsumer’sperspective.Often,theviewfromaboveleavestheimpressionoflargesystemsspread-ingmoreorlessuniformlyacrosstimeandspace–as,forinstance,mapsshowingtheincreasinggeographicalspreadofrailwaysandhighwaysorstatisticaltablesshowingtheincreasingpervasivenessofsuchelectricalconsumergoodsasirons,refrigeratorsandtelevisions.Conversely,locallysituatedstudiesofindividualtechnologies,some-timesinspiredbyconsumptionstudies,oftenfindsubstantialvariabilityinpatternsofuseandinthemeaningsthesetechnologieshaveforsubculturesthatformaroundthem.Asstudiesinspiredbytheproductive“userheuristic”haveshown,thereisagreatdealofcreativityandinventivenessthatisuncoveredwhenpayingcloseattentiontotheselocalprocesses(OudshoornandPinch2003;Hippel2005).FarmersinventednewusesforHenryFord’sclassicModelTautomobilewhenadaptingitforuseonthefarmasasourceofpower.Eventhewidelypopularinventionofemailwasatthestart“unplanned,unanticipated,andmostunsupported”bytheoriginaldesignersoftheInternet(Abbate1999:109).Japaneseteenagerscreatednewusesformobilepagersandcellphones,andcreatedanewcultureindoingso(Itoetal.2005).Manytimestheseactivities,notoriginallyconceivedbythesystemdesigners,canbetakenupbytheproducersofthesedevicesandsystemsandtransformedintoeconomicallylucra-tivemarketingstrategies.Thisfindingofsubstantialdiversityhasimplicationsbeyond8\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page9historyoftechnologymerelycomplicatinganytidydefinitionoftechnology;thisdiversity,especiallytheagencyofusersindivininganddefiningnewpurposesforacertaintechnologyandnewactiv-itiesaroundit,alsokeepsopenthequestionwhethertechnologiescanmeaningfullybesaidtohave“impact”onsocietyandculture.Normativeevaluationsoftechnology,then,cannotassumethatthemeaningsorconsequencesoftechnologycanbeeasilycomprehended;nor,aswasoncethecaseintheearlydaysofthetechnology-assessmentmovement,canthesecharacteristicsbepredictedfromthetechnology’s“hardware”characteristics.Indeed,allassessmentsoftechnologyneedtograpplewiththeseepis-temologicalandmethodologicalproblems.Indeed,recentresearchhasproductivelytreatedtheterm“technology”asanemer-gentandcontestedentity.Technologyisnotnearlyasoldaswecommonlythink,especiallyifwehaveinmindtheseveraltechnologicallymarkedhistoricalepochs,suchastheBronzeAgeortheIronAge.JacobBigelow,amedicaldoctorandHarvardpro-fessor,isoftencreditedwithcoiningtheterminhisbookElementsofTechnology(1829).“ThegeneralnameofTechnology,awordsufficientlyexpressive...isbeginningtoberevivedintheliteratureofpracticalmenatthepresentday,”hewrote(Bigelow1829/1831:iv–v).“Underthistitleitisattemptedtoinclude...anaccount...oftheprinciples,processes,andnomenclaturesofthemoreconspicuousarts,particularlythosewhichinvolveapplicationsofscience,andwhichmaybeconsidereduseful,bypromotingthebenefitofsociety,togetherwiththeemolumentofthosewhopursuethem.”Earlierthanthis,theterm“technology”inEnglish,aswellasitscognatesintheotherprincipalEuropeanlanguages,referredmostdirectlytothetreatisesandpublishedaccountsdescribingvarioustechnicalcrafts.Bigelow’sowncoinagedidnotimmedi-atelycatchon,however.HisspeechtotheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologymorethanthreedecadeslaterhelpedrecastthetermasanaggregateofindividualtoolsandtechniques,anagentofprogress,andanactiveforceinhistory.“Technology,”heassertedin1865,“inthepresentcenturyandalmostunderoureyes...hasadvancedwithgreaterstridesthananyotheragentofcivilization,andhasdonemorethananysciencetoenlargetheboundariesofprofitableknowledge,toextendthedominionofmankindovernature,toeconomizeandutilizebothlaborandtime,andthustoaddindefinitelytotheeffectiveandavailablelengthofhumanexistence”(Segal1985:quote81).FollowingBigelow’suse,“technology”gainedsomethingofitspresent-dayasso-ciationsinthenextseveraldecades.NumerousinstitutesandcollegesoftechnologyintheUnitedStatestookupthename:notonlytheflagshipofMIT(founded1861)butalsoothercolleges,schools,orinstitutesoftechnologysuchasStevens(1870),Georgia(1885),Clarkson(1896),Carnegie(1912),California(1921),Lawrence(1932),Illinois(1940)andRochester(1944).PolytechnicsinEurope,oftenmodeledonthepioneeringÉcolePolytechnique(foundedmuchearlier,in1794)inParis,providedbroadlysimilaredu-cationalopportunities.In1950,theIndiangovernmentfoundedKharagpurInstituteofTechnology,thefirstinanationalnetworkofseventechnicaluniversities.AsRuthOldenziel(1999)hasmadeclear,inthesesamedecades“technology”tookonadistinctlymale-orientedslant.Earliertermssuchas“theappliedarts”or“theindus-trialarts”couldbeassociatedequallywiththeproductsofwomen’sworkaswithmen’s;but“technology”after1865increasinglycametosignifymale-orientedmachinesandindustrialprocesses.Oldenzielseestheemergenceoftechnologyinthepersonificationofthe(male)engineerasaninstanceofthegender-codingofthemodernworld.Eric9\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page10thomasj.misaSchatzbergsituatestheriseof“technology”asakeywordinthewritingsofsocialcriticThorsteinVeblen,whodrewheavilyonthecontemporaryGermandiscoursearound“technik,”aswellasofthepopularhistorianCharlesBeard.“Technologymarchesinseven-leaguebootsfromoneruthless,revolutionaryconquesttoanother,tearingdownoldfactoriesandindustries,flingingupnewprocesseswithterrifyingrapidity,”inBeard’sarrestinganddeterministicimage(Schatzberg2006:509).AlsofollowingRaymondWilliams’smethodofkeywords,RonaldKline(2006)examinesoriginsof“informationtechnology”inthemanagement-sciencecommunityofthe1960sanditssubsequentspreadintothewiderdiscourse.Recently,theterm“technoscience”hasfoundfavorinthewritingsofsome,ifnotall,philosophersoftechnologyandhistoriansoftechnology.Advocatesofthetermmaintainthatthepractices,objectsandtheoriesofscienceandtechnology,eveniftheyoncewereseparateprofessionalcommunities,haveblurredtoapointatwhichtheysharemanyimportantfeatures–indeed,toapointatwhichtheirsimilaritiesoutweightheirdifferences.Thetermisnotmerelyarecognitionthatbiologiststodayfrequentlyenoughapplyforpatentsandcreatestart-upcompanies;italsodrawsattentiontohybridformsofknowledgeandpractices.(Assuch,theappealtohybridityisanimportantaspectoftheanti-essentialismthatischaracteristicofmuchrecenttechnologystudies.)Withatoneofcaution,BarryBarnes(2005:155)writesof“nearconsensusonthepredominanceoftechnoscienceassomethingcharacteristicparticularlyofrecenttimes.”PhilosopheroftechnologyDonIhde’sInstrumentalRealism(1991)presentedanextendedanalysisofLatour’sScienceinAction(1987),inwhich“technoscience”was1definedandpopularized.And,similarly,RuthCowan’sSocialHistoryofAmericanTechnology(1997)takesup“technoscience”inherfinalchapter,usingtheexamplesofhybridcorn,penicillinandthebirth-controlpill.Overall,historiansconceptualizetechnologyascontingent,constructedandcontested.ProblemsofCultureInmakingtheirassessmentofthe“anthropologicalvariety”oftechnology(seeLi-Hua),theessaysofthissectionattempttoidentifyanddescribethecorequalitiesthatcanbeassociatedwithIslamic,Chinese,JapaneseandWesterntechnology.Theseessaysutilizethefamiliarmethodofdefiningbyexampleanddiscussion,andthereismuchtobelearnedfromtherichempiricaldiversitythatsuchanoverviewprovides.Itisworthmarkingattheonset,allthesame,thateachoftheseessaystakesupamore-or-lessboundedandnon-problematicanalysisoftheassigned“culture.”Thisisespeciallythecase,somewhatparadoxically,whentheessaysexamineinstancesofthetransferoftechnologybetweenregionsorcultures.Eventheideaofatechnological“dialogue”betweendifferentcultures(usedtogoodeffectbyArnoldPacey[1990])canstillcarrytheassumptionthatthereexistsafundamental,identifiableandmore-or-lessessentialcoretotheculture(s)underexamination.Recently,anthropologistsandsocialtheoristshavepreferredtojettisonsuchessentialistconceptionsofculture,andtopreferperform-ativeones.Here,thereisnostablecoretoagivenculture–i.e.itsessentialfeatures–thatisconstantacrosstimeandthenthatmight“change”underonesetofcircumstancesoranother.Aperformativeviewpostulatesthatculturesarecontinuallyre-createdand10\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page11historyoftechnologyperformed,sothatchangescanbesmallandincrementaland/orlargeanddramatic.Performativeconceptionsofculturearealsohelpfulinidentifyingculturalhybridities,whereculturalproductionstakeupandincorporatenovelelementswhichmayhavetheiroriginsin“foreign”borrowingsbutalsowith“domestic”innovations.Onthesurface,Japanmightseemareasonablecandidateforanessentialistunder-standing,owingtoitsgeographicseparationandstrongculturalidentity.Whatwemighttodayconsidertobe“quintessentiallyJapanese”cameratherlatetoJapan.AsDavidWittnershows,Japanformanycenturiesreceivedtransfersand/orengagedintech-nologicaldialoguewithChinaandKorea,thesourcesofwet-fieldagriculture,ofthebasictechniquesofworkingbronzeandiron,aswellasofweaving,silk,paperandmore.Wittnersuggeststhat,beginningintheeighthcentury,Japanesewoodworking,print-ing,metalworkingandothercraftsdivergedfromChinesepractices.TheriseofurbancentersofinnovationinthelateHeianperiod(794–1185)ledtodistinctiveJapanesepracticesinjointlesscarpentry,aswellasinstandardizedinteriorspacessignifiedbyuniform-sizedtatamimats.Metal-basedmilitaryinnovationscametotheforeduringtheWarringStatesperiod(1467–1568),notablyinthefieldsofsword-makingandgunmanufacture.Twoprototypically“Western”technologiesthatwereintroducedintoJapaninthemid-sixteenthcenturyprovideanaptwayofassessingJapan’sremarkabletechnolo-gicalsophistication.GunpowderweaponsarrivedinJapanin1543afteraPortugueseshipwaswreckedoffthecoast.IthappenedthatthePortuguesesurvivorslandedonthesmallislandofTanegashima,thatthisislandwasrichinironoreandconsequentlyalsoinmetalworkingskills,andthatitslocallordcommandedoneofhisartisanstomakeacopyofaPortuguesegun,achievedinshortorder,andthatthisregionofJapanwaswellconnectedtothemainlandthroughtradeandtributaryrelations(seeLidin2002).TheresultwasthatwithinthreedecadesJapanwasmakingverylargenumbersofthesemuskets,withspeciallymodifiedfiring-lockmechanismsandextraattentiontoeffectivewaterproofing.Muskets,numberinginthemanythousands,playedadecisiveroleinthebattleofNagashino(1875),aturning-pointinJapan’spolit-icalhistorythatledtotheconsolidationofpowerbytheTokugawashogunate(1600–1868).Abattlein1600isbelievedtohavefeatured20,000muskets.Western-stylemechanicalclocksarrivedinJapanin1551,introducedbyJesuitmissionaries.InhisessayWittnerrightlystressestheunprecedentedmechanicalcom-plexityofthemechanicalclock,andperceptivelysuggeststhatitsmasterybyJapaneseartisansformsanimportantresourceforJapan’slaterindustrialprowesswithmech-anizedreelingmachinesandlooms.ItalsoshouldbeemphasizedthatJapaneseartisansinventedanentirelydistinctivetypeofclock,whichmarriedthemechanicalregular-ityofitsinteriorclockworkmechanismwithseveralingeniousschemesforrelatingthismechanicallyuniformtimetotheseasonallyvaryinghoursthattypifiedJapanesecon-ceptsoftime.ThereweresixequalunitsofJapanesetimebetweenlocalsunriseandsunset,andalsosixunitsbetweenlocalsunsetandsunrise,thelengthofwhichthenvariedbytheseason.Todeviseclocks,includingautomaticbell-strikingones,thatwouldvarytheeffectivelengthofthehourseemsacompellinginstanceofathoroughly“hybrid”technology,andcertainlynotmerelyanadaptationortransferofaWesternone.Japanpersistedwithitsdistinctive,non-Westerntime-keepingsystemuntil1873,whenduringthemodernizationoftheMeijiera(1868–1912)thecountryconverted11\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page12thomasj.misatoaWesterncalendarandWesterntimepracticesamidagreatnumberofotherWestern-inspiredinstitutionalchanges.Indeed,itmaybethatthedevelopmentof“Japanese”identitywasaculturalresponsetothecomingofmodernity(Caldararo2003:465).ThetechnologicalandculturalvariabilityoneconfrontsinexaminingChinaandIslamisevenmuchgreater.AsThomasGlickpointsout,the“Islamictechnology”hesurveysisreallythetechnologicalandscientificknowledgecharacteristicoftheclassicIslamicArabcivilization.Atitspeakintheeighthcentury,andcontinuinguntil1492,thepoliticalandculturalinfluenceofIslamicArabsextendedthroughNorthAfricaandintopresent-daySpain.ThisiswhyonefindsIslamictechnologyineasternSpainintheformofso-calledPersian-styleqanatirrigationtechniquesaswellaswater-raisingnoria.Fromthethirteenthcentury,gunpowderweapons,too,weresubjecttoawide-ranginggeographicaltransferprocessastheMongolstransportedthisChinesetechnologywestwardwithdevastatingeffects.Glickappropriatelysituateshisdiscus-sionofIslamictechnologyinthecontextofwidercontinent-scaleflowsofknowledgeandtechniques,includingthemovementwestwardoftheIndianstyleofagriculture(involvinga“distinctiveroster”ofcitrusfruits,rice,sugarcaneandcotton)andthediffusiontotheIslamicworldofGreekastronomyandIndianastronomicaltablesandinstruments.OneculturallydistinctivesetofpracticesinvolvedthecomputationofspecialtablestoidentifythedirectionofMeccaaswellasaccuratetimekeepingtomarkoutthefivedailyprayertimes.Yet,asGlick(1996)andothershaverecentlysuggested,“Islamic”technologymayalsobemoreofa“hybrid”thanabriefoverviewisabletoconvey.ThespecificformsofirrigationinmedievalValencia,forinstance,mayreflectNorthAfricaninfluencesandmodelsasmuchasArabones.ComparedwiththeessaysonJapanandIslam,FrancescaBray’sessayonChinesetechnologyiscertainlylessaffectedbyanysortofessentialistassumptionsaboutthecoreofChina’stechnologyorculture.Asananthropologistherself,BrayoffersanessaythatatonceisclosetoChineseassessmentsoftechnologyandsituatesitselfsquarelyinthecontextofhistoriographicdebatesonChina.Sheisaskingthequestions“WhatdoweknowaboutChina?,”“WhatdotheChineseknowaboutChina?”and“HowhavethetensionsandcompetitionsoftheColdWarinfluencedhowweconceptualizeChina?”OneconsequenceofthepoliticalclimateoftheColdWar,withitslong-standingobses-sionwithunderstandingandconceptualizingthesupposedlytechnology-drivenpro-cessofindustrialization,wastheframingandpersistenceofthe“Needhamquestion.”JosephNeedham,theeminentBritishscholar,posedthequestionwhy,givenChina’ssuperiorattainmentsinscienceandtechnology–havinginventedgunpowder,thecompass,movable-typeprinting,allwellinadvanceofthemedievalWest–didChinanotalsoexperiencealarge-scaletransformationofitssocietyandeconomy,whichweintheWestlabelasourownscientificrevolutionorindustrialrevolution.Characteristically,however,BrayspendsmuchmoretimeonwhatChinesepeoplethoughtabouttheirownrelationstotheWest,ratherthanattemptingtoanswertheNeedhamquestion.Acrossmostoftheentirenineteenthcentury,Chinawashard-pressedbytheWesternpowers.Followingtheexperienceof“humiliatingdefeats”intheOpiumWars(1840–2,1856–60)andthelossofsovereigntyattendingtheforcedsigningofthe“unequaltreaties”withtheWesternpowers,theChineseattemptedahome-grownmodernizationknownas“self-strengthening.”Despitesomesuccessessuchasthe12\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page13historyoftechnologyJiangnanArsenalinShanghai,theeffortstobuildupChina’seconomyandtechno-logicallevelaswellasachieveaproductiveaccommodationbetween“WesternartifactsandChinesespirit,”theoverallresultsweredisappointing.Japan,freshfromitsownWestern-inspiredmodernization,invadedChinain1894andforcedadditionalterritorialconcessions.Giventhesesetbacks,itwasdifficultforChinesepeopletoseeandappre-ciatetheirowntechnologicalheritage;insteadtheyconceptualized“technology”asaforeign,Westernconstruct.TechnocraticChineseadvocatesofeconomicdevelopmentinthe1930s,accordingtoBray,strovetoemulateWesternmodels.FormuchoftheorthodoxMaoistperiod(1949–78),Chinaoscillatedbetweengrandattemptsatforced-draftindustrializationandtheupheavalsoftheCulturalRevolution,withitsanti-technocraticslogan“BetterRedthanExpert.”Morerecently,asBraynotes,scholarsofChinahaveentirelyshiftedawayfromthecomparativeNeedhamquestionsandinsteadtreatedChinaonitsowntermsratherthanasareflectionoftheWest.DilemmasofDeterminismDiscussionofthecommonconcernsofphilosophersoftechnologyandhistoriansoftechnologymustincludementionof“technologicaldeterminism.”Asnotedabove,philosophersandhistorianshavenotseeneyetoeyewhenexaminingtheproblemofwhether,ifandhowtechnologybringsaboutsocialandculturalchanges.Intheirmoreorlessessentialisticframingoftheproblemagenerationago,philosophersoftech-nologywereamongthemostenthusiasticproponentsofthenotionoftechnologyasastrongandcompellingforceforchangeinhistory,whilehistoriansoftechnologytookgreatpainstoattackanyandallformsoftechnological-deterministarguments(SmithandMarx1994).Differencesintheanalytical“scale”atwhichscholarsconducttheirstudieshelpaccountfortheseexplanatorydifferences(Edwards2003;Misa2004b).ThecasesofmilitarytechnologyandWesterntechnology,whichareoftencitedaslead-ingexamplesinassessmentsofthepoweroftechnology,offerrichmaterialtoexploreandassessthedilemmasofdeterministaccountsoftechnology.BartHackerframeshisessayon“TechnologyandWar”inaninteractiveframework.“Theinterplayofmilitaryinstitutionsandchangingtechnologyhasregularlymadehistory,”hemaintains.Hisessaypresentsarichlytexturedaccount,overaverylongspanofhumanhistory,oftheseinteractions.Hismodelisthatmilitaryinstitutionsarebothkeysitesoftechnicalinnovationandcriticalvectorsthattransportandtrans-formtechnicalinnovations.HefindstheriseoforganizedarmiesintheNearEast,inMesopotamiaandinEgyptinthefourthmillenniumbcetobeakeyturning-pointthat“decisivelydividedprehistoryfromcivilization.”Compositebowsandhorse-drawnchariotscontributedtotheeffectivenessoftheemergingarmies,butthesecomplexandexpensivetechnologiesrequireddeeppockets;thusthenewtechnologiesinthiswaydependedonthestate’scapabilityofmobilizingextensiveresources.Theseearlystatesclearlytookformthroughthedeploymentofmilitarytechnologies,whilethesetech-nologieswerethemselvesproductsofstateinitiative.Hackeralsoprovidesadetailedaccountoftheriseoffeudalismasasocial,economicandpoliticalform–arisingfirstontheIranianfrontier–anditsrelationtothe(againexpensive)technologiesoflargegrain-fedwarhorses.Feudalism,withits“centersof13\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page14thomasj.misalocalmilitarypowerthatregularlythreatenedcentralcontrol,”wascertainlynottheidealoptionforacentralpowerwishingtoretaincontroloveritslands,butinHacker’sestimationitwasasocialandeconomicarrangementnecessarytofieldthewar-winningmilitarytechnologyofthetime.OneclassictechnologicalinterpretationoffeudalismthatHackerdoesnotciteinthisessayisthatofLynnWhite(1962).Whitefamouslyarguedthathorsestirrups,heavyplows,andmechanicalpowerwerecrucialtotheriseoffeudalisminEurope.Evenwithmanyscholarlycriticismsovertheyears,White’soverallinterpretationretainsremarkablepersistenceamongnon-specialists(forarecentassessment,seeRoland2003).Asetof“revolutions”relatedtomilitarytechnologiesroundsoutHacker’streatment.Gunpowderweapons,inventedinChinainthelatethirteenthcentury,haddramaticconsequencesforthestatesthatembracedthem.Notonlyweregunsusefulinclaim-ingterritoriesfromlesser-armedfoes;thesizableexpensesrequiredtofieldanarmywithnumerousguns(aswellasprocuringtheextremelycostlygunpowder)alsoworkedtocentralizebothpoliticalandeconomicpower.Thesechanges–clearlyrelatedtotechnologybutcertainlynotcausedbytechnology–weremostevidentintheclassicearly-modern“gunpowderempires”oftheOttomansintheNearEast,theSafavidsinIran,andtheMogulsinIndia.IntensecompetitionbetweenrivalstatesinEurope,withnoneofthemabletoconsolidatepoweroverthecontinent,ledtoaperiodofvigorousinstitutionalandtechnologicalinnovation.Theresulting“militaryrevolution,”Hackerwrites,“maywellhavebeenthekeyfactorthatdisruptedintheWest’sfavortheroughparityintechnology,economy,andpolitythatprevaileduntilthe15thcenturyamongcivilizedcommunitiesallacrosstheOldWorld.”Byaround1900,inthewakeofmilitary,scientificandindustrialrevolutions,theWest’smilitarycapabilitieswould“achieveanalmostuncontestedhegemonyovermostoftheworld.”Asnotedabove,themodernizationsembodiedinChina’s“selfstrengthening”aswellasinJapan’sMeijirestorationwereconstructedaroundtheadoptionofWesternweaponsandWesternmodelsformilitaryinstitutions.AsHackerconcludes,“inthelate19thand20thcenturies,allarmiesbecameWesterninorgan-ization,inequipment,andinspirit.”If“allarmiesbecameWestern,”thenmightitbethecasethatKeldNielsen’sessayonWesterntechnologydescribestheparadigmtowardwhichtheworldisconforming?NielsenhimselfsuggeststhatWesterntechnologyhasbecomemoreorlesspervasive,andcanbe“foundonallcontinents.”TherearenumerouswaysinwhichWesternandnon-Westerntechnologiessharesignificantcharacteristics,butitisNielsen’sambitiontoidentifyanumberof“unique”characteristicsthattypifyWesterntechnologies.Theseinclude,insomewhatcompressedform,theabilitytoextractmechanicalenergyfromfossilfuels;thecreationofintegratedsystemsofmassproductionlinkingrawmaterials,productionandconsumers;thespreadofuniformtechnicalstandards;theabilitytomanufacturetoolsandproductstoincreasingmechanicalprecision;themobilizationoflargecapitalandfinancing;thedeploymentofscientificknowledge;andacommit-menttocontinuous“renewal”throughresearchanddevelopment.Nielsenalsoallowsthattheseimmensetechnologicalcapabilitieshavemadeitpossibleforhumanstoaltertheworld’sclimateorevendestroyitspopulation.Assuch,Nielsen’slistofuniqueWesterncharacteristicsisanadmirableonetohaveidentifiedbutadifficultonetodefend.OnepossibledefensewouldbetoassertthatWestern14\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page15historyoftechnologytechnologyistypifiedbythepackageofthesecharacteristics,takentogether,andoper-atingonalargeand/orpervasivescale–andnotbythecharacteristicstakenindi-vidually.Certainlythereisameaningfuldifferenceinthetechnologicalcapacitiesof,say,Switzerlandandofmostofthecountriesinsub-SaharanAfrica,asmeasuredinphonelinesorInternetconnectionspercapita,accesstopatentsandtechnology,andagencyindealingwiththeglobaleconomy.Luxembourghas199phonelinesper100inhabitants;Angolahas1.5.MapsoftheglobalInternet,aswellascompositephotosoftheEarthduringnight-timehours,alsoindicatethatAfricaasacontinentisincom-parativetermsliterally“off”theelectricityandinformationnetworks.TheendoftheColdWarandtheriseofglobalizationhasfurtherblurredlinesmarkingoffthe“West”andmadeitmoredifficulttodefendtheconceptof“Westerntechnology.”AWesterncomputermightbedesignedinSiliconValley(safelyintheWest),butsoftwareisincreasinglywrittenbyprogrammersinIndiaandChina,withmanycomponentsofpersonalcomputersmanufacturedinTaiwan,HongKong,Chinaandotherformerly“FarEastern”countries.AccordingtotheBaselActionNetwork,nofewerthan500largecontainers(40feetinlength)arriveeachmonthintheportofLagos,Nigeria,packedwithobsoletecomputersandotherelectronicequipment.WhileLagoshasanactivemarketinrecyclingthesecomponents,uptothree-quartersoftheshippedmaterialisunusabletrash,ineffectbeingdumpedinAfricaowingtocheapglobal2shipping.Apartfromtheobviousmoralissues,thereisapuzzleinthisexampleconcerningwhatis“Western”aboutthesecomputers,andwhethertheyarestillfairlyconsideredtobe“Western”whenmanufacturedinaChinesetownandthen,somemonthslater,disposedofinAfrica.Notes1.Latour’sdefinitionoftechnoscience(1987:174–5)ispartoftheexpositionofhisworld-viewandmethod,anditisnoteasytosummarizebriefly.Therelevantpassagereads:“Toremindusofthisimportantdistinction[theJanus-likequalityofscience-in-the-makingcomparedwithready-madescience],Iwillusethewordtechnosciencefromnowon,todescribealltheelementstiedtothescientificcontentsnomatterhowdirty,unexpectedorforeigntheyseem,andtheexpression‘scienceandtechnology,’inquotationmarks,todesignatewhatiskeptoftechnoscienceonceallthetrialsofresponsibilityhavebeensettled.Themore‘scienceandtechnology’hasanesotericcontentthefurthertheyextendoutside.Thus,‘scienceandtechnology’isonlyasub-setwhichseemstotakeprecedenceonlybecauseofanopticalillusion.”2.(21December2007).ReferencesandFurtherReadingAbbate,J.(1999).InventingtheInternet(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Achterhuis,H.(2001).AmericanPhilosophyofTechnology:TheEmpiricalTurn(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Adas,M.(2006).DominancebyDesign:TechnologicalImperativesandAmerica’sCivilizingMission(Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPress).15\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page16thomasj.misaBarnes,B.(2005).“ElusiveMemoriesofTechnoscience,”PerspectivesonScience,13(2):142–65.Beniger,J.R.(1989).TheControlRevolution:TechnologicalandEconomicOriginsoftheInformationSociety(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Bigelow,J.(1831).ElementsofTechnology,2ndedn(Boston,Mass.:Hilliard,Gray,Little&Wilkins).Originallypublished1829.Bijker,W.andLaw,J.(eds)(1992).ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety:StudiesinSociotechnicalChange.(Cambridge,Mass./London:MITPress).Bijker,W.,Pinch,T.andHughes,T.(eds)(1987).TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Brenner,N.(2004).NewStateSpaces:UrbanGovernanceandtheRescalingofStatehood.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Caldararo,N.(2003).“TheConceptoftheSustainableEconomyandthePromiseofJapan’sTransformation,”AnthropologicalQuarterly,76(3):463–78.Clancey,G.(2006).EarthquakeNation:TheCulturalPoliticsofJapaneseSeismicity,1868–1930(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Cowan,R.S.(1997).SocialHistoryofAmericanTechnology(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Edwards,P.N.(2003).“InfrastructureandModernity:Force,Time,andSocialOrganizationintheHistoryofSociotechnicalSystems,”inT.Misaetal.(eds)(2003),ModernityandTechno-logy(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.185–225.Fischer,C.S.(1992).AmericaCalling:ASocialHistoryoftheTelephoneto1940(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Glick,T.F.(1996).IrrigationandHydraulicTechnology:MedievalSpainandItsLegacy(Aldershot:Variorum).Hippel,E.von.(2005).DemocratizingInnovation(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Hughes,T.P.(2004).Human-builtWorld:HowtoThinkaboutTechnologyandCulture(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Ihde,D.(1991).InstrumentalRealism:TheInterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Ihde,D.(2004).“HasthePhilosophyofTechnologyArrived?AState-of-the-ArtReview,”PhilosophyofScience,71:117–31.Ito,M.,Okabe,D.andMatsuda,M.(eds)(2005).Personal,Portable,Pedestrian:MobilePhonesinJapaneseLife(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Kline,R.R.(2000).ConsumersintheCountry:TechnologyandSocialChangeinRuralAmerica(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Kline,R.R.(2006).“Cybernetics,ManagementScience,andTechnologyPolicy:TheEmergenceof‘InformationTechnology’asaKeyword,1948–1985,”TechnologyandCulture,47(3):513–35.Kline,R.andPinch,T.(1996).“UsersasAgentsofTechnologicalChange:TheSocialConstruc-tionoftheAutomobileintheRuralUnitedStates,”TechnologyandCulture,37:763–95.Latour,B.(1987).ScienceinAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineersthroughSociety(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Lidin,O.G.(2002).Tanegashima:TheArrivalofEuropeinJapan(Copenhagen:NIASPress).Misa,T.J.(2004a).LeonardototheInternet:TechnologyandCulturefromtheRenaissancetothePresent(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Misa,T.J.(2004b).“BeyondLinearModels:Science,Technology,andProcessesofChange,”inK.Grandinetal.(eds)(2004),TheScience–IndustryNexus:History,Policy,Implications(SagamoreBeach,Mass.:ScienceHistory/WatsonPublishing),pp.257–76.Misa,T.,Brey,P.andFeenberg,A.(eds)(2003).ModernityandTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Oldenziel,R.(1999).MakingTechnologyMasculine:Men,Women,andModernMachinesinAmerica,1870–1945(Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress).16\n9781405146012_4_001.qxd2/4/0916:26Page17historyoftechnologyOudshoorn,N.andPinch,T.(eds)(2003).HowUsersMatter:TheCo-constructionofUsersandTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Pacey,A.(1990).TechnologyinWorldCivilization:AThousand-yearHistory(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Roland,A.(2003).“OnceMoreintotheStirrups:LynnWhiteJr.,MedievalTechnologyandSocialChange,”TechnologyandCulture,44(3):574–85.Schatzberg,E.(2006).“TechnikComestoAmerica:ChangingMeaningsofTechnologybefore1930,”TechnologyandCulture,47(3):486–512.Schot,J.(2003).“TheContestedRiseofaModernistTechnologyPolitics,”inT.Misa,P.BreyandA.Feenberg(eds)(2003),ModernityandTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.257–78.Segal,H.P.(1985).TechnologicalUtopianisminAmericanCulture(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Smith,M.R.andMarx,L.(eds)(1994).DoesTechnologyDriveHistory?(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Staudenmaier,J.M.(1990).“RecentTrendsintheHistoryofTechnology,”AmericanHistoricalReview,95:715–25.Verbeek,P.-P.(2005).WhatThingsDo:PhilosophicalReflectionsonTechnology,Agency,andDesign(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).Winner,L.(1977).AutonomousTechnology:Technics-out-of-controlasaThemeinPoliticalThought(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).17\n9781405146012_4_002.qxd2/4/0913:20Page182DefinitionsofTechnologyRICHARDLI-HUAOwingtoanthropologicaldiversity,theattempttodefinetechnologyseemsquitechal-lenging.Peoplemayhavedifferentinterpretationsastheyarepositioneddifferently.ThisremindsmeoftheChineseparableoftheblindmenandtheelephant.Megantz(2002)furtherelaboratesintheprefacetohisbookTechnologyManage-ment:DevelopingandImplementingEffectiveLicensingProgramsthattechnologyisawonderful,amazing,alwayschangingbagoftricksthathelpshumanbeingstolivehealthier,happier(however,thesecouldtakeplaceinotherwayaround)andmorefulfillinglives.Toascientist,technologyistheendproductofone’sresearch.Toanengineer,technologyisatoolorprocessthatcanbeemployedtobuildbetterprod-uctsorsolvetechnicalproblems.Toanattorney,technologyisintellectualpropertytobeprotectedandguarded.Toabusinessexecutive,technologymaybethemostimportant,yetleastunderstood,companyasset.Technologyisviewedascompetitiveadvantageagainstrivals.Technologymeansstatepowertobothdevelopinganddevelopedcountries.Tech-nologyisregardedasastrategicinstrumentinachievingeconomictargetsandinthecreationofwealthandprosperityinthedevelopingcountries,whiletechnologyistakenasanimportantvehicletogetlargeprofitsinthedevelopedcountries.Theeffectiveuseoftechnologyisperhapsthemostimportantissuefacedbybothdevelop-inganddevelopedcountries,andwillundoubtedlybecomeevenmorecriticalinyearstocome.Theword“technology”usuallyconjuresupmanydifferentimagesandgenerallyreferstowhathasbeendescribedasthe“high-tech,”orhigh-technology,industries.Ithastobeunderstoodthatlimitingtechnologytohigh-techindustriessuchascom-puters,superconductivity,chips,geneticengineering,robotics,magneticrailwaysandsoonfocusesexcessiveattentiononwhatthemediaconsidernewsworthy(Gaynor1996).However,limitingtechnologytoscience,engineeringandmathematicsalsolosessightofothersupportingtechnologies.Actually,technologyincludesmorethanmachines,processesandinventions.Traditionally,itmightconcentratemoreonhardware;however,inthesedays,moreonsoftsideaswell.Therearemanymanifestationsoftechnology;someareverysimple,whileothersareverycomplex.18ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_002.qxd2/4/0913:20Page19definitionsoftechnologyWhatIsTechnology?Butwhatexactlyismeantbytheterm“technology”?AccordingtoDeanandLeMaster(1995,p.19),technologyisdefinedas“firm-specificinformationconcerningcharacter-isticsandperformancepropertiesofproductionprocessesandproductdesign.”WhileContractorandSagafi-Nejad(1981)describetechnologysimplyas“abundleofinforma-tion,rightsandservices,”Maskus(2004,p.9)definestechnologyas“theinformationnecessarytoachieveacertainproductionoutcomefromaparticularmeanofcombiningorprocessingselectedinputs.”However,Maskus(2004)solelydistinguishesbetweenembodiedanddisembodiedtechnology,whereasKediaandBhagat(1988)recommendamoredetailedclassificationintoprocess-,product-andperson-embodiedtechnology.Technologyrepresentsthecombinationofhumanunderstandingofnaturallawsandphenomenaaccumulatedsinceancienttimestomakethingsthatfulfillourneedsanddesiresorthatperformcertainfunctions(Karatsu1990).Inotherwords,technologyhastocreatethingsthatbenefithumanbeings.Miles(1995)definestechnologyasthemeansbywhichweapplyourunderstandingofthenaturalworldtothesolutionofpracticalproblems.Itisacombinationof“hardware”(buildings,plantandequipment)and“software”(skills,knowledge,experience,togetherwithsuitableorganizationalandinstitutionalarrangement).TheUNConferenceonTradeandDevelopment(UNCTAD)hasprovidedthefollow-ingdefinition:Technologyisboughtandsoldascapitalgoodsincludingmachineryandproductivesys-tems,humanlabourusuallyskilledmanpower,managementandspecialisedscientists.Informationofbothtechnicalandcommercialcharacter,includingthatwhichisreadilyavailable,andthatsubjecttoproprietaryrightsandrestrictions.However,accordingtothisthesis,technologycannotmerelybeconsideredasapro-ductionfactor,anditisnotsociallyneutral(Mnaas1990).Itseemsmucheasierforunderstanding“technology”toconsidertheconceptof“technology”asconsistingoffourcloselyinterlinkedelements:namely,technique,knowledge(normallybeingcon-sideredas“technology”),theorganizationoftheproduction,andtheproduct.How-ever,knowledgedoesnotmakesenseiftheorganizationoftherelevantproductiongoeswithoutproducingmeaningfulproduct.Therefore,technologymustbeapplied,testifiedandmaintained,whichimpliesademandforafurtherinputofasuitablerangeofhumanresourcesandskills.However,itshouldbenoticedthatitisthislatterinputthatisattherootofthedifficultyintransferringtechnologiesbetweendifferentenvironments.Neverthelessthemodernviewemphasizesthecoherenceoftechnologyandknowledge,andpointsoutthattechnologytransferisnotachievablewithoutknowledgetransferasknowledgeisakeytocontrollingtechnologyasawhole(Li-Hua2004);someevenuse“technology”interchangeablywith“know-how.”Knowledgeiscloselyrelatedtotechnologysincethepuredisposaloftechnologyisnotsufficientforasuccessfulimplementation.Inthemajorityofthecases,especiallyincomplextechnology,knowledge,inparticulartacitknowledge,isrequiredforasuccessfulinternationaltechnologytransfer.19\n9781405146012_4_002.qxd2/4/0913:20Page20richardli-huaTechniquecoverstheinstrumentsoflabor(machineryandtools),materialsandthewaytheyarebroughtintofunctionbylaborintheworkingprocess.Bothsocialdynamic(workingprocess)andsocialcontradictions(e.g.betweenmachineryandlabor)areinherentinthiselementofthetechnologyasineachofthesubconcepts.Knowledgeconsistsofthreeprincipalcategories:appliedscience,skillsandintuition.Theweightingbetweenthesecategoriesofknowledgeischanginghistorically,butineverycaseanadequatecombinationoftypesofknowledgemustbepresent.Knowledgeisthe“keytocontrol”overtechnologyasawhole,whichcanbeseenbothatmicro-level(Taylorism)andathigherlevelsofsocialaggregation(technologicaldependency)(Mnaas1990).However,itishelpfulforunderstandingthatknowledgehasrecentlybeenclassifiedasexplicitknowledgeandtacitknowledge.Techniqueandknowledgemustbeorganizedbeforetheycanbringabouteffectiveresults.Organizationisthereforeanintegralpartoftechnology.Organizationofawork-ingprocessoftechniqueandknowledgeintoaproductmayhavetechnicalcauses,butmostlytheactualchoiceoforganizationwillrestwidelyonsocial-economiccausesandreflectthegeneralsocialstructureofsociety.Product.Theultimatepurposeofbringingtechnique,knowledgeandorganizationtogetherisofcoursetoobtainaproduct.Withoutincludingthisgoal,itisinfactdifficulttounderstandtheotherthreeelementsproperly.Itseemsnaturaltoincludetheproductinacomprehensivetechnologyconcept,notleastbecauseinpracticethechoiceofproductoftenprecedesthechoiceofthetechnique,knowledgeandorganizationbywhichitisgoingtobeproduced.RosenbergandFrischtak(1985)pointedoutthatthespecificityoftechnologyhascloselinkswiththenatureoftheinputstoitsproductionandoftheresultingout-puts.Inmostadvancedcountries,atleast60percentofresearchanddevelopmentexpendituresareondevelopment,namelyexpendituretodevelopspecificproductsorproductionprocesses.Itisimportanttohavethisdissectingoftechnologyandtohaveadistinctionbetweentechnologyandknowledge.Knowledgeisafluidmixofframedexperience,values,contextualinformationandexpertinsightthatprovidesaframe-workforevaluatingandincorporatingnewexperiencesandinformation.Itconsistsoftruth,beliefs,perspectives,concepts,judgments,expectation,methodologies,know-how;andexistsindifferentformssuchastacit,explicit,symbolic,embodied,en-brainedanden-culturedknowledge.ExplicitKnowledgeandTacitKnowledgeKnowledgeisincreasinglybeingrecognizedasavitalorganizationalresourcethatgivesmarketleverageandcompetitiveadvantage(NonakaandTakeuchi1995;Leonard-Barton1995).Inparticular,knowledgehasbecomeasubstancetobe“managed”initsmostliteralsense.Polanyi(1967)consideredhumanknowledgebystartingfromthefactthatweknowmorethanwecantell.Ingeneral,knowledgeconsistsoftwocomponents,namelyexplicitandtacit.Technicalknowledgeconsistsofthesetwocomponents,“explicit”and“tacit”;however,thegreatertheextenttowhichatechnologyexistsintheformofthesofter,lessphysicalresources,thegreatertheproportionoftacitknowledgeitcontains.Tacitknowledge,owingtoitsnon-codifiablenature,hastobetransferredthrough20\n9781405146012_4_002.qxd2/4/0913:20Page21definitionsoftechnologyTable2.1Featuresoftacitknowledgeandexplicitknowledge(NonakaandTakeuchi,1995)TacitknowledgeExplicitknowledgeSubjectiveObjectiveKnowledgeofexperience(body)Knowledgeofrationality(mind)Simultaneousknowledge(hereandnow)Sequentialknowledge(thereandthen)Analogyknowledge(practice)Digitalknowledge(theory)“intimatehumaninteractions”(Tsang1997).Inthemeantime,ithastoberecognizedthattacitknowledgeisthekeytodeliveringthemostcompetitiveadvantage,anditisthispartthatcompetitorshavedifficultiesinreplicating.Tacitknowledgetransferisoftenintentionallyblockedbecausepeopleunderstandthesignificanceoftacitknowledge.NonakaandTakeuchi(1995)describesomedistinctionsbetweentacitandexplicitknowledge,whichareshowninTable2.1.Featuresgenerallyassociatedwiththemoretacitaspectsofknowledgeareshownontheleft,whilethecorrespondingqualitiesrelatedtoexplicitknowledgeareshownontheright.Knowledgeofexperiencetendstobetacit,physicalandsubjective,whileknowledgeofrationalitytendstobeexplicit,metaphysicalandobjective.Tacitknowledgeiscreated“hereandnow”inaspecific,practicalcontext,whileexplicitknowledgeisaboutpasteventsorobjects“thereandthen.”Table2.1showsthefeaturesofexplicitandtacitknowledge.Havingclarifiedthedistinctivefeaturesbetweentechnologyandknowledge,andbetweenexplicitknowledgeandtacitknowledge,itisnowmorehelpfulinthisdiscussiontoreflexthecurrentdebateonwhyChina’stechnologystrategyofgettingtechnologybygivingupitsmarketpartlyfailed.Inthelasttwenty-eightyearsofeconomicreform,Chinahasachievedtremendoussuccessandseenthemostremarkableperiodofeco-nomicgrowthinmoderntimes,andwillcontinuetodoso.However,thedebateisgoingonthattheforeignbrandssellwellintheChinesemarketandforeigncompaniesarestrongcompetitorsagainstlocalfirms,andtosomeextentChinahasnotreallyobtainedcoretechnologyinthecarmanufacturingindustry.Ithastoberecognizedthatthisthesisisnotinapositiontoprovideappropriateanswerstothesequestions.However,bearinginmindthatknowledgeisakeytocontrollingtechnologyasawhole,techno-logytransferdoesnottakeplacewithoutknowledgetransfer.Intermsoftechnologyimportortechnologytransfer,whatChinahasobtainedinprincipleisthe“hard”ware,suchasmachinery,equipment,operationalmanual,specificationanddrawing,–notthe“soft”side,whichconsistsoftacitknowledge,includingmanagementexpertiseandtechnicalknow-howandknow-why.ReferencesandFurtherReadingContractor,F.J.andSagafi-Nejad,T.(1981).“InternationalTechnologyTransfer:MajorIssuesandPolicyResponse,”JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies,12(2):113–35.Availableat:http://jstor.com21\n9781405146012_4_002.qxd2/4/0913:20Page22richardli-huaDean,C.C.andLeMaster,J.(1995).“BarrierstoInternationalTechnologyTransfer,”BusinessForum,20(1):19–23.Availableat:http://search.epnet.comGaynor,G.H.(1996).ManagementofTechnology:Description,Scope,andImplication(Columbus,Ohio:McGraw-Hill).Karatsu,H.(1990).“RightTechnology:TransferringTechnologyThatIsNeeded,”Intersect,October,pp.10–13.Kedia,B.L.andBhagat,R.S.(1988).“CulturalConstraintsonTransferofTechnologyacrossNations:ImplicationsforResearchinInternationalandComparativeManagement,”JournalofAcademyofManagementReview,13(4):559–71.Availableat:http://search.epnet.comLeonard-Barton,D.(1995).WellspringsofKnowledge:BuildingandSustainingtheResourcesofInnovation(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Li-Hua,R.(2004).TechnologyandKnowledgeTransferinChina(Aldershot/Burlington,Vt.:AshgatePublishing).Maskus,K.E.(2004).“EncouragingInternationalTechnologyTransfer,”IssuePaper,no.7.Availableat:http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/CS_Maskus.pdfMegantz,B.(2002).TechnologyManagement:DevelopingandImplementingEffectiveLicensingPrograms(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Miles,D.(1995)ConstructiveChange,ManagingInternationalTechnologyTransfer,Inter-nationalLabourOffice,Geneva.Mnaas,C.(1990).TechnologyTransferintheDevelopingCountries.(London:MacmillanPress).Nonaka,I.andTakeuchi,H.(1995).TheKnowledge-creatingCompany:HowJapaneseCompaniesCreatetheDynamicsofInnovation(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Polanyi,M.(1967).TheTacitDimension(London:Routledge&KeganPaul).Rosenberg,N.andFrischtak,C.(1985).InternationalTechnologyTransferConcept,MeasuresandComparisons(NewYork:Praeger).Tsang,E.W.K.(1997).“ChoiceofInternationalTechnologyTransferMode:AResource-basedView,”ManagementInternationalReview,37(2):151.22\n9781405146012_4_003.qxd2/4/0913:22Page233WesternTechnologyKELDNIELSONByWesterntechnologyishereunderstoodalargesetofparticulartechnologiesandtechnologicalpracticeswhichmainlyhavetheirrootsininventionsanddevelopmentsinEuropeandNorthAmerica.Inparticular,sincetheSecondWorldWar,mostofthesetechnologicalpracticeshavespread,sothat“Western”technologycannowbefoundonallcontinents.TechnologyhasbeenanintegralpartofthedevelopmentofmodernWesterncivilizationandthewayWesternmodesofbehaviorandproductionhavereachedallpartsoftheEarth.Westerntechnologieshavebeenattheheartofthechangefromarural-agriculturaleconomytoanurban-industrialonethatmanycountriesorregionshaveundergoneduringthepast200years.Itisnotpossibletodistinguishclearlybetweenfeaturesoftechnologyandtechno-logicalpracticeswhichareclearly“Western”andthosewhichhavebeendevelopedinnon-Westerncultures.SomeofthecharacteristicsofWesterntechnologyoutlinedbelowarecommontotechnologiesofmanydifferentcultures–includingcultureswhicharenowextinct–whilesomeareparticulartoWesterntechnologyandmakeitstandoutasremarkableamongtheaccomplishmentsofmankind.Infact,someofthecharacteristicsoftechnologywhichareoftenthoughtofasuniquetoWesterntechnologyaregeneralfeaturesfoundinthetechnologyofothercultures,too.Examplesofsuchfeaturesare:theabilityoftechnologytochangetheconditionsoflifebyprovidingbetteroreasieracquisitionoffood,moresafetyandbetterlivingconditions;theimportanceofsourcesofenergy,oftransport,ofstorageandofotherarrangementsofinfrastructure,andthecloseconnectionbetweenthewealthofasocietyanditsuseofsuitabletechnologies;theapplicationoftechnologybythepowerfultomaintaintheirwealthandpositionincludinglarge-scaletechnologicalinitiativesbyrulersorgovernments;thesymbolicuseoftechnologyinthedemonstrationofpowerandcontrolorofreligiousauthority;thecompetitionandoftenco-existenceofdifferenttypesortechnology;andtheuseoftechnologyindefense,attackandconquest.Eventhecloseinteractionbetweenthetechnological,thesocialandtheculturalspheres,whichissoapparentinmodernWesternsociety,appearstobeadistinctfeatureoftechnologyinotherculturesandsocieties,too.Butothercharacteristicsseemtobeuniquetoarecentand“Western”development.AmongthemoststrikingfeaturesparticulartoWesterntechnologyare:theabilitytoACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks23©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_003.qxd2/4/0913:22Page24keldnielsonextractmechanicalenergyfromfossilfuelthroughinventionslikethesteamengineandtheinternalcombustionengine;massproductionthroughtheintegrationoftheextractionofrawmaterialswithtransportsystems,productionfacilitiesandsophisti-catedsystemsofdistributionofwarestomassesofconsumers;thewidespreaduseoftechnologicalstandardsandunifiedmeasuringsystems;apermanentincreaseinmechanicalprecisionintool-makingandmanufacture;anintimateandactiverelationtocapitalandinvestments;theuseofscientificknowledgeinthedevelopmentofproductsandproductionmethods;andthehighprioritygiventorenewalthroughinvestmentsinresearchanddevelopment.Aspecifically“Western”resultofthewide-spreaduseoftechnologyisalsothecapacitytodisturbEarth’sclimateandeco-systemsonaglobalscale,andthepowertoeradicatemost–ifnotall–ofmankindthroughtheuseofnuclearorbiologicalweapons.ItisanopenquestionatwhattimeinhistorythedevelopmentoftechnologyintheWestbecameuniquerelativetotechnologicalscenariosincontemporarycultures.TheMiddleAges(sixthtofourteenthcenturies)areoftenidentifiedastheperiodduringwhichwefindthecultural,economicandpoliticaloriginsofwhatlaterbecamemodernWesternsociety.ButtechnologicallyimportantdevelopmentsduringtheMiddleAgeslikethefar-reachingimprovementofagriculturaltechniquesbroughtaboutbytheuseofthenewheavyplow,anintensifieduseofwaterpower,orthebuildingofeverlargercathedralsaredifferencesinquantityratherthaninessenceincomparisonwithothergreattechnologicalcultures.Othersignificantmedievaltechnologicalinnovationslikethespinningwheel,paper,Arabicnumerals,thecompass,gunsandgunpowderwereimportedintomedievalEuropefromoutside.Outstandinglocalinventionswerethehorsecollar(ninthcentury),spectacles(thirteenthcentury)andtheweight-drivenmechan-icalclock(thirteenthcentury).Seeninhindsight,themostimportantdevelopmentwithregardtothetechnologyoftheWestwasthegrowthofalargenumberofautonomousorsemi-autonomouscitiescateringtotradeandhandicraftproduction.Hereskilledtradedevelopedwithnoveltieslikeguilds,mastercraftsmen,journeymenandapprentices.Also,newmodesofproductioninvolvingmanystepsanddivisionoflaborwereper-fected,forexampleinthewoolanddyingindustries.Bankingsystemsemerged,makingiteasiertodirecttheflowofmoneytowardtrade,buildingandproduction,andtherisingtradingcompaniesstartedtousedouble-entrybookkeeping.TheRenaissance(roughlyfifteenthtoseventeenthcenturies),however,sawnoveltieswhich,alsoinaglobalperspective,wereremarkable.OnewasJohannesGutenberg’sdevelopmentaround1450ofprintingwithmovabletype.Asomewhatsimilartech-niquehadmuchearlierbeenusedinKoreabutapparentlywithoutthesignificantimpactonculturalandtechnicaldevelopmentthatcanbetracedinEurope.Highlyimportantfortheadvanceoftechnologywasthesubsequentuseofprintedbookstospreadtech-nicalknowledge.Duringthesixteenthcenturyanewgenreofbooksappearedthatgavedetailedinformationaboutmachinesandtechnologicalprocesses,oftenaccompaniedbydiagramsandotherillustrations.Thismadeitpossibletoaccumulateanddisseminateknowledgeaboutspecifictechnologicaldetailsandcreatedahithertounknownknow-ledgebasefortheworkofengineersandothertechnologists.Italsomadeitpossibletocollect,preserveanddisseminategeographicalknowledgeandotherknowledgeaboutnatureinasystematicandcumulativemanner,thuspavingthewayfortheboominknowledgeandinvestigativemethodsknownasthescientificrevolution.24\n9781405146012_4_003.qxd2/4/0913:22Page25westerntechnologyAnothergloballysignificantoccurrencewastheEuropeanexpansionacrosstheoceans,ledbyPortugueseandSpanishtradersandsailors,andsoonfollowedbytheDutchandtheEnglish.Onthetechnicalside,thiswasmadepossiblebythedevelop-mentofthefull-riggedship,armedwithguns,andthedesignofnewastronomicalmethodsofnavigationthroughtheworkofPortugueseastronomers.ThismarksaveryearlyexampleoftheextraordinaryabilityofWesterntechnologytoembodyscientificknowledgeandtospreadacrosstheglobe.Alsothegrantingofprivilegestousecertaininventionsortechniquesinmanu-factureorbuilding,whichlatergrewintothepracticeofissuingpatentstoprotecttheownersoftechnologicalnovelties,beganinthefifteenthcentury.DuringtheRenaissancemanytechnologicalimprovementsappearedgraduallyinminingtechniques,intheextractionandprocessingofmetals,inthedesignanduseoffirearms,infortification,inthedesignanduseofships,andintheconstructionofharbors,canalsandbridges.Manydevelopmentsweretiedtothemilitarygrowthoftheeverstrongernationalstateswhichduringtheseventeenthcenturyinvestedinenormousstandingarmies.OtherdevelopmentsaccompaniedtherapidlygrowinginternationalcommercewhichtowardtheendofthecenturyfoundanewhubintheNetherlands.TheDutchRepublicbecamethecenterofaworldwidetradingandpro-cessingnetworkbasedonimprovementsinshippingandinnovationslikecommodityexchangesandastockexchange.DuringtheeighteenthcenturycraftsmenlikeThomasNewcomenandJamesWattinventedandimprovedthesteamengine,whichmadeitpossibletoconvertaccumu-latedsolarenergyintheformofwood,coaloroiltomechanicalmotion.Alaterdevelopmentledtosteamturbines,internalcombustionenginesandjetenginesthathavethesamefunction.Beforetheappearanceofsuchheat-engines,thechiefenergysourcehadbeenthemusclepowerofmenoranimals,expensivebecausetheymustbefed,puttingastrainonfoodsupply.Alsothenaturalenergysources–waterorwind–wereforallpracticalpurposeslimited.Waterpowerwastiedtospecificlocationsandcouldnotbegeographicallydistributedinlargeamounts.Windpowerextractedthroughwindmillswasuneveninoutputandhighlycapital-consuming.Withthenewenginesandplentyofcheapfossilfuel,Westerntechnologybrokethisotherwiseuniversalconstraintonthemagnitudeoftechnologicalactivities.Duringthenineteenthcenturytheheat-engineswereattheheartofmomentoustechnologicaldevelopments.Productioninfactoriesorotherplants,combinedwithrailwaytransportandocean-goingsteamships,madepossibletheriseoftheUSandsomeEuropeancountriesasindustrializedpowersofproductiononaworldscale.ThesechangeshadcertainuniqueWesterntechnologicalfeatures.Manyofthenewmachines,includingthesteamengines,wereself-actinginthesensethatbuilt-incontrolmechanisms,likeJamesWatt’sfeedbackregulator,managedtheiroperationbyturningvalves,liftingleversorreleasingtriggers.Duringthefirsthalfofthenine-teenthcenturyanumberofmachinesweredevelopedwhich,likethemechanicalloom,throughself-regulationcouldperformoperationspreviouslyonlymasteredbyskilledlabor.Significantly,themachinescouldbesupervisedbyunskilledworkmen,cheapertoemployandeasiertocontrolinthechangedproductionenvironments.Themanufactureofthenewmachineswasmadepossiblethroughimprovementsof“machinesformakingmachines”likedrillingmachines,lathes,millingmachines25\n9781405146012_4_003.qxd2/4/0913:22Page26keldnielsonandmoreprecisemeasurementinstruments.SuggestionsofacommonstandardforscrewthreadsliketheoneproposedbyJosephWhitworthin1841wasalsopartofamovetowardmoreprecisionandmoreuniformity.AneedformoresystematictechnologicalknowledgewasmetinEuropeandtheUSbytheestablishmentofspecificvocationalschoolsandengineeringcollegesinlargenumbers.Bythemiddleofthecenturyathird,butrelated,strandofdevelopmentledtoasystem,firstinrifleproduction,bywhichonepartofamechanicaldevicecouldbemanufacturedwithsuchprecisionthatwithoutindividualfittingitcouldbereplacedbyasimilarpartfromanothersimilarmechanicaldevice.Beforethis,everypart–eventhescrews–ofmechanicaldeviceswereproducedandfittedtogetherindividuallyandcouldnotwithoutfurtherfilingorgrindingfitintoanothersimilardevice.Thenewsystembecameknownas“theAmericansystemofManufacture.”Inthe1860sitwasintroducedinthemanufactureofSingersewingmachinesandMcCormickfarmingmachinery,andhighprecisionandinterchangeabilityarenowessentialtoallmodernformsofmassproduction.Afurthersignificantstepinthesamedirectionwastheintro-ductionofassembly-lineproductionbytheFordautomobileworksin1914.Athirdstepwastheintroductionofrobotsinproductionplantsfromthelate1970s.TheJapaneseperfectionofcarproductionduringthe1950sandonwards,nowreferredtoas“leanmanufacture,”isemblematicofthismotiontowardrationalandsystematicoptimization.Butleanmanufactureisalsoareminderthatthedevelopmentof“Western”technologyisnolongerconfinedtotheWest.ArecurringthemeinthescientificandtechnologicaldebateoftheEnlightenmentwasthevisionofmakingscienceusefulthroughtheapplicationofscientificresultsinthedevelopmentofnewtechnology.Duringtheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesmanyindividualscientistswereemployedasadvisersortroubleshootersintechnicalprojects,butasystematicandeffectivewayofinvolvingsciencewasnotfound.Thenowadaysverystronginteractionbetweenscienceandtechnologyfounditsfirstefficientworkingmodeinthechemicalindustryofthenineteenthcentury.From1855onwards,university-trainedchemistsdiscoveredwaystoproducedyessyntheticallyfortextiles–inthebeginningaccidentally,latersystematically.Suchdyeshadbeenproducedonanorganicbasisforcenturies,butnowagrowingrangeofcolorscouldbemanufacturedinchemicalfactoriesatgreatlyreducedprices.Araceamongthechemicalproducerssetin,andsoonGermancompaniesledtheway.Duringthesecondhalfofthecenturytheykepttheirleadbyemployinguniversity-trainedchemistsingrowingnumbersandlettingthemworkinroomsthatwerefittedoutlikeuniversitylaboratories;theindustrialresearchanddevelopmentlaboratoryhadbeeninvented.Averylargepartofthetechnologicalbreakthroughsofthelasthundredyearshavetheirorigininthenownumerousresearchanddevelopmentlaboratories.Somearefundeddirectlybygovernmentagencies,othersbythelargecompaniesthemselves,whetherdealinginelectronics,drugs,weapons,oranyotherkindofadvancedtechnology.Towardtheendofthenineteenthcenturytheadventof“modernity”coincidedwiththeappearanceofnewamazingtechnologieslikethetelephone,electricalenergydis-tribution,radio,cars,fastturbine-drivenships,andaeroplanes.Atthehospitals,novelscience-basedmedicaltechnologieslikeX-rays,electrocardiographsandnewdrugswereintroduced,togetherwithnewconceptsaboutthebacteriologicalorviraloriginofmanydiseases.Science,technologyandprogressseemedtobetruecompanions.Butduring26\n9781405146012_4_003.qxd2/4/0913:22Page27westerntechnologytheFirstWorldWaradvancedtechnologyclearlydemonstrateditsdarksidethroughthedevastatinguseofpoisonousgas,machineguns,improvedartillery,submarines,radiotelephones,andaeroplanes.DuringtheSecondWorldWarallpartiesusedscientistsonamassivescaletoinventandimproveweaponsanddefensivemeasures;nuclearbombs,jetfighters,ballisticrockets,radar,sulphurdrugsandpenicillinbeingamongthemostfamous.Thesuccessofscience-likeresearchtodevelopandperfectnewtechnologiesformilitarypurposessetthestageforthemassivetechnologicalresearchanddevelopmentintheUSaftertheSecondWorldWar,leadingtosuch–militaryandcivilian–devicesassolidstateelectronics,CNC(computerizednumericalcontrol)machines,thedigitalcomputer,theInternetandnuclearenergy.Technologicaldevel-opmentprojectsfundedbyvariousAmericandefensebudgetshavehadatremendousinfluenceonthewayWesterntechnologyhasdevelopedduringthepastfiftyyears.Atthebeginningofthethirdmillennium,peopleinclosecontactwithWesterntechnologylivetheirlivessurroundedby,andindependenceon,anumberoflargetechnologicalsystems.Incities,systemsofdrinkingwater,sewage,gassupply,trans-port,andelectricitysupplyexistsidebysidewithinformationsystemsliketelephone,radio,televisionandtheInternet.Lessconspicuous,butnotlessimportant,areothersystemsthatkeeptrackoftheweather,monitorpollution,overseebanktransactionsandtheuseofcreditcards,conveyinformationaboutcurrencyandstockexchanges,monitorairtrafficandsurveytheairspace,andsoon.Thesystemsinteract,mainlybecausetheydependonelectricityastheirultimateenergysource,andbecausetheydependonconnectedcomputersformonitoringandregulation.Atthesametime,inter-nationalairtrafficspanstheglobe,carsmovepeopleandgoodsaroundonenormousroadsystems,andshipssailtheoceanstransportingrawmaterialsandfinishedgoodsfromproducertomarketineverincreasingamounts.Themostcharacteristictraitsofmoderntechnologyseemtobeitsscale,itsper-vasiveness,itscomplexity,anditsabilitytochangeconstantly.ThemodernWesternstyleofliving,healthandwelfarewouldbeunthinkablewithoutWesterntechnology.ButWesterntechnologyalsohasseveredownsides.Previously,itspervasivenessandcapabilitytospantheglobecreatedthebackgroundforacomprehensiveandruinousslavetrade.Later,Westernimperialismwasmuchassistedbytelegraphs,steamships,efficientrifles,andrailways.ItmadeeconomicandhumanexploitationpossibleandgaverisetoadisagreeablefeelingofWesternculturalsupremacy.And,althoughwarisnotarecentactivityinspiredby,ormadepossibleby,Westerntechnology,modern“total”war,inwhichciviliansoftensuffermorethanthecombatants,is.OnegreatchallengecreatedbythenowgloballydistributedWesterntechnologyistheenormouseconomicdisparitiesbetweenthevariouspartsoftheglobe,mostofwhichnowsharethesameinformationsystemsandhaveaccesstothesameinformation,butnotatalltothesamewealthandstandardsofliving.Anotherdauntingchallengeisthethreateningclimaticchangesbroughtaboutprincipallybytheintensiveuseoffossilfuelstopowertransportandproduction.27\n9781405146012_4_004.qxd2/4/0913:20Page284ChineseTechnologyFRANCESCABRAYInthisbriefessayIaddresstwoissues:howconceptsoftechnologyinitsmodernsensehaveaffectedtheexperienceofbeingChineseandhowtechnologicalpracticesandmean-ingsinChinamightinflectourownwaysofthinkingabouttechnology.IntheNovumorganumof1620,FrancisBaconnotedthat“Printing,gunpowderandthecompasshavechangedthewholefaceandstateofthingsthroughouttheworld...insomuchthatnoempire,nosect,nostarseemstohaveexertedgreaterpowerandinfluenceinhumanaffairsthanthesemechanicaldiscoveries”(1.129).KarlMarx,inhisEconomicNotebooksof1861–3,putitslightlydifferently:theywere“thethreegreatinventionswhichusheredinbourgeoissociety.Gunpowderblewuptheknightlyclass,thecompassdiscoveredtheworldmarketandfoundedthecolonies,andtheprintingpresswastheinstrumentofProtestantismandtheregenerationofscience”(Marx1861).Inhisencylopedicresearchonscienceandtechnologyinpre-modernChina,JosephNeedhamdocumentedtheChineseoriginsofallthesetechnologiesbutwasthenfacedwiththechallengeofexplainingwhytheyfailedtotransformChinesesocietyastheyhadrevolutionizedtheWest.UntilrecentlybothChineseandWesternideasabouttech-nologyinChinawereroutinelyframedintermsoftheso-called“Needhamquestion”:GiventhatChinasurpassedEuropeinmanytechnicaldomainsuntilwellintothemedievalperiod,whydidimperialChinesecivilizationnotgenerateitsownscientificorindus-trialrevolution?Whydiditachievesomuchinearlytimes,thenloseitsviriledrivetoinnovateandsinkintovulnerablestagnation?Throughoutthecolonialperiodandthroughtothepresentday,perceptionsoftechnologicalsuperiorityhaveplayedakeyroleinconstructingideologiesofWesterndominance,andinshapingnationalself-images(Adas1989).TheChinesefirsthadtheirnosesrubbedinthetechnicalineptitudeoftheircivilizationduringthefirstOpiumWarof1840–2,whentheirdefenseswerepulverizedbyBritishwarships.Thiswasthefirstofmanyhumiliatingdefeatsbywell-armedWesternpowers;theQinggovernmentwasforcedatgunpointtocedetreaty-portsandland,grantaccesstomissionaries,andopenitsmarketstoWesternindustrialcommodities.From1860thegovernmentadoptedaninnovativebutshakypolicyof“self-strengthening,”hopingtorestoreChinesewealthandpowerthroughtheselectiveadoptionofWesternlegalandadministrativeinstitu-tionsandthedevelopmentofstrategictechnologies.ForeignexpertswerebroughtintoeducateandtrainChineseengineers,toconstructplant,andtodesignandmanage28ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_004.qxd2/4/0913:20Page29chinesetechnologyprojectsforbuildingrailways,telegraphlinesand,aboveall,armaments.TheJiangnanArsenal,foundedinShanghaiin1865toproducefirearms,artilleryandwarships,wasthemostfamousoftheseventures.Despitesomesignalachievements,by1894ChinawasstilltoopoorlyarmedandorganizedtowithstandawhirlwindinvasionbytheJapanese(Waley-Cohen1999).AstheysignedawayTaiwanandthenortheasternpro-vincesintheTreatyofShimonoseki,theChineseaskedthemselveswhytheyhadfailedtomodernizewhentheJapanese,anothersupposedlyinferiorOrientalnation,hadsucceededsospectacularly.Whereastheself-strengtheningmovementhadproposedanaccommodationbetween“WesternartifactsandChinesespirit,”reformersandrevolutionariesnowfeltthatChinesetraditionswereincompatiblewithmodernityandmustberuthlesslydiscarded.ThroughthelastyearsofempireandthetroubleddecadesoftheRepublic(1911–49),manyChinesetookatechnocraticviewofthefuture.Science,technologyandtechnicalexpertisecould–andmust–beimportedascatalystsformodernization.However,Chinawasbelievedtolackanyindigenousintellectualormaterialtraditionstoaidthisessentialprocess.Needham’sworkplayedafundamentalroleinchallengingthisassumption.Althoughitisnotatacticthatappealsparticularlytohistoriansoftech-nologytoday,Needham’slonglistofkeyChinesetechnicalinventions(e.g.thecrossbowtriggerandtheblastfurnace)whichpredatedtheirappearanceintheWesteffectivelychallengedtheviewthatChinahadhistoricallylacked“real”technologicalskillsorunderstanding.Needham’sfindingsbegantoappearinprintintheearly1950s.ThecommunistgovernmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,establishedin1949,warmlywelcomedNeedham’sdocumentationofwhattheyidentifiedastheskillsandingenuityoftheworkingmassesofancientChina(alsomanifestinthestunningartifactsexcavatedbyarcheologistsduringthe1960sand1970s).Deniedanyaidbytheanti-communistWesternpowers,atfirstthenewregimereliedupontheSovietUniontofollowacon-ventionaltechnocraticpathofdevelopment.ButaftertheSino-Sovietsplitofthelate1950sMao’sregimewasthrownontoitsownresources,consistingprincipallyofanenormouslaborpool.Thestateenvisioneda“self-reliant”futurebuiltwithtechnologythattheChineseworkersandpeasantswouldcreateforthemselves,applyingnativetechnicalskills(andtheindigenousinventivetraditionssoopportunelydemonstratedbyNeedham)toadaptWesternmodels,thuscreatinginfrastructureandmachinessuitedtoChinesematerialandpoliticalneedsandconditions.ThedestructiveexcessesoftheGreatLeapForwardandtheCulturalRevolutionareundeniable;however,thevillageandshop-floortechnicalprojectsoftheperioddidmobilizepopularparticipationintechnicalproblem-solving,andmassmobilizationbuiltbasicinfrastructure(Sigurdson1980;Wagner1997).SuchresourcesunderpinnedthereturntoatechnocraticmodelthatswiftlyfollowedMao’sdeath:theFourModernizations(Agriculture;Industry;ScienceandTechnology;NationalDefense)andtheeconomicreformslaunchedin1978(Volti1982;SimonandGoldman1989).OnesloganoftheCulturalRevolutionwas“BetterRedthanExpert”–technologicalknowledgewasonlyconsideredvaluableifitwaslocallygroundedandservedthepeople.Since1978officialpolicyhasmarriedtechnocraticandentrepreneurialvalues,sustainingthreedecadesofsteadyeconomicgrowthandexpansionofeducationandR&D.Technology,someadvanced,somelessso,hasbeenimportedunderstateauspices,29\n9781405146012_4_004.qxd2/4/0913:20Page30francescabrayandjoint-venturecompanies–over216,000in1997(Volti2002:11)–havebeenestab-lishedtodevelopexpertise.Technologytransferhasnotalwaysproceededsmoothly,especiallywherethehandofthestatehasweighedheavily,butinthelastfewyearsgreaterfreedomforjointventures,moreopennesstoforeignparticipation,closerlinkstoHongKong,TaiwananddiasporaChineseaseffectiveconduitsofexpertiseandinputs,aswellasnewapproachestodevelopinginternalandinternationalcollabora-tionsbetweenstate,universitiesandcorporationsseemtohavepaidrichdividends.AlthoughWesternersstillprefertothinkoftheChineseascopyingratherthaninno-vating,Chinaisrapidlyemergingasagloballeaderinseveralbranchesoftechnoscience,includingbiotechnologyandnanotechnology.In1930sChina,theterm“technology”denotedamaterialmanifestationofWesternsuperioritywhichChinaneededbutcouldnotcreateforitself.Duringtheself-reliancecampaignsofthe1960s,thetermcarriedmaterial,politicalandethicalconnotationsthatwouldhavebeenquitealientomostAmericansoftheperiod,ifperhapsdimlyrecognizabletoScandinavians.TodaybasicmisunderstandingsbetweenaChineseandanAmericanoverwhattheterm“technology”signifieswouldbeunlikely,buttherehasbeenonebigchange:theChinesepost-colonialmalaiseiscured.NowmostyoungChinesebelieve,perhapsevenmoreconfidentlythanAmericans,thattheirnationwillplayacentralroleinbuildingthefuture.Anintriguingparalleltothisresurgenceofnationaltechnologicalconfidencecanbeobservedinthedomainoftechnologystudies.Untilrecently,theChinesehistoricalexperiencewasusuallyconsideredinterestingasacaseoffailure–inthetermsofBertrandGille,a“blockedsystem.”MarxsawChinaasaoncegreatcivilizationwhichintrinsi-callylackedhistoricaldynamism.NeedhamarguedthatarichChinesetraditionofscientificandtechnicaldynamismculminatedintheSongdynasty(960–1279)butfalteredafter1400.HetendedtoattributethistotheConfucianpreferencefororderandstabilitytypicaloflate-imperialbureaucrats(Needham1967).ChineseMarxisthistoriansalsoblamedimperialinstitutionsandafeudalmodeofproductionforsmotheringwhattheycalledsproutsofcapitalism,elementsoftechnicalandeconomicdynamismduringthelateempirewhichmightotherwisehavetriggeredradicalchange.OtherWesternscholars,inspiredbyMarkElvin’shighlyinfluentialconceptofinvolution(Elvin1973),havesoughtsociotechnical,demographicorinstitutionalexplanationsforChina’sfailuretofollowthepathofEurope.Fromthisperspective,China’shistoryislessvaluableinitsowntermsthanastheWest’sOther.Morerecently,how-ever,criticalhistorianshaveturnedthetables(Sivin1982).Insteadoftryingtoexplainasupposedfailure(tofollowthetrajectoryoftheWest),theyaskwhatChinawasatanyparticularhistoricalmomentinitsownterms.Theythenareledtoaskinamoreanthropologicalveinwhichtechnologicaldomainswereofparticularsignificanceinthathistoricalcontext,andwhatkindsofwork,socialorsymbolicaswellasmaterialandeconomic,theyperformed.Thisisprovinganexcitingandrevealingexercise.Examplesinclude:therelationbetweenthedesignofbells,kingshipandcosmology(Falkenhausen1994);technicalchangesthatsupportedtheemergenceofnewculturalelites(Kuhn1987);howtechnologiesweredeployedtomarkandmaintaingenderdifferenceintimesofsocialchange(Bray1997);evolvingtraditionsofmass-production–fromtheritualbronzesoftheancientShangtotheexport-porcelainsoftheeighteenthcentury–andtheirshiftingimpactuponaestheticsandgovernance(Ledderose2000);andphilosophies30\n9781405146012_4_004.qxd2/4/0913:20Page31chinesetechnologyofhumanmaterialaction(Schäfer2005).Justasthefeministcritiquehastransformedtechnologystudiesandundermineditsmasternarratives,so,too,criticalstudiesoftech-nologyinnon-Westernsocieties,ofwhichChinaoffersaparticularlyrichspan,promisestimulatingnewperspectivesonthenatureandmeaningoftechnology.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAdas,M.(1989).MachinesastheMeasureofMen:Science,Technology,andIdeologiesofWesternDominance(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress).Bray,F.(1997).TechnologyandGender:FabricsofPowerinLateImperialChina(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Elvin,M.(1973).ThePatternoftheChinesePast(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress).Falkenhausen,L.von(1994).SuspendedMusic:ChimeBellsintheCultureofBronzeAgeChina(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Kim,L.andNelson,R.R.(eds)(2000).Technology,LearningandInnovation:ExperiencesofNewlyIndustrializingEconomies(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Kuhn,D.(1987).DieSong-Dynastie(960bis1279):eineneueGesellschaftimSpiegelihrerKultur(Weinheim:ActaHumaniorumVCH).Ledderose,L.(2000).TenThousandThings:ModuleandMassProductioninChineseArt(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Marx,K.(1861).“DivisionofLabourandMechanicalWorkshop,”EconomicNotebooks,ch.35,http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/economic/ch35.htmNeedham,J.(1967).ClerksandCraftsmeninChinaandtheWest(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Needham,J.(ed.)(1954).ScienceandCivilisationinChina(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Schäfer,D.(2005).“TheCongruenceofKnowledgeandAction:TheTiangongkaiwuandItsAuthorSongYingxing,”inHans-UlrichVogel,ChristineMoll-MurataandSongJianze(eds),ChineseHandicraftRegulationsoftheQingDynasty:TheoryandApplication(Munich:Iudicum),pp.35–60.Sigurdson,J.(1980).TechnologyandScienceinthePeople’sRepublicofChina:AnIntroduction(NewYork:PergamonPress).Simon,D.M.andGoldman,M.(eds)(1989).ScienceandTechnologyinPost-MaoChina(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityCouncilonEastAsianStudies).Sivin,N.(1982/1995).“WhytheScientificRevolutionDidNotTakePlaceinChina–orDidn’tIt?”,ChineseScience5:45–66,reprintedinSivin(1995)ScienceinAncientChina:ResearchesandReflections(Aldershot:Variorum).Volti,R.(1982).Technology,Politics,andSocietyinChina(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress).Volti,R.(2002).TechnologyTransferandEastAsianEconomicTransformation(Washington,D.C.:AmericanHistoricalAssociation/SocietyfortheHistoryofTechnology).Wagner,D.B.(1997).TheTraditionalChineseIronIndustryandItsModernFate(Richmond,Sussex:Curzon/NordicInstituteofAsianStudies).Waley-Cohen,J.(1999).TheSextantsofBeijing:GlobalCurrentsinChineseHistory(NewYork:Norton).31\n9781405146012_4_005.qxd2/4/0913:21Page325IslamicTechnologyTHOMASF.GLICKBythetimetheArabshadconqueredagreatbandofterritoryfromSpaintonorthernIndia(711–13),theyhadfallenheirtothescientificandtechnologicalloreofancientChina,India,PersiaandRome.AwaveoftechnologyemanatingfromChinaandIndiarolledacrosstheIslamicworldoftheeighthandninthcenturiesad.ApackageofChinesemanufacturingtechnologiesassociatedwiththevertical,gearedwatermillequippedwithcamsarrivedtowardtheendoftheeighth-centurymovement.Thepackageincludedmanufactureofproductsthatrequiredmacerationbeforetheycouldbefinishedbyhand:paper,sugar,andfullingandrelatedindustries.Theverticalmillcouldalsobeusedtomillwheatandhuskrice.PaperfirstappearedintheIslamicworldinSamarkandaroundad757,itsarrivalcoincidingwiththefirstIndianastronom-icaltables,theastronomicalwritingsofal-Battani,Indiannumerals,andthebegin-ningofthegreatmovementoftranslationofGreek,PersianandIndianscienceandphilosophyintoArabic.Theenormoussizeofthetranslationmovementwasitselfanepiphenomenonofpaper,withoutwhichitcouldnothaveattainedsuchvastpro-portions,whileastronomicaltablesandIndiannumerals(forcommercialtransactions)werealsoassociatedwithpaper.Thediffusionofpaperpresupposedtheconcomitantdiffusionofthechemistryassociatedwithbothpaper-makingandtheproductionofinksthatcouldbeusedonit.“IndianAgriculture”Inthesameperiod,theIndianso-calledstyleofagriculture(filahahindiyya)diffusedfromIndiawestward.Thismovementincludedadistinctiverosterofmonsooncrops–rice,sugarcane,OldWorldcotton,watermelon,andcitrusofallkinds,towhichtheartichokeandeggplantwereaddedinPersia–thatcouldonlybegrownunderirriga-tionintheMediterraneanbasinwherethegrowingseasonwasplaguedbydrought.Therefore,alongwiththecropscametechniquesrequiredtoirrigatethem,mostofwhichwereseeminglyofPersianorigin:theqanat(filtrationgallery)andthenoria,genericallycalledthePersianWheel,althoughitisimprobablethatitwasinventedthere.BothtechniqueshadbeguntheirdiffusionbeforetheArabconquests:theRomansknewaboutqanatsandbuiltgalleriesalloverNorthAfrica.TheArabsvastlyintensified32ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_005.qxd2/4/0913:21Page33islamictechnologytheuseofthetechnique:easternSpainisemblematicbyvirtueofaprofusionofverysmallqanats,someasshortas3meters–backyardirrigationsystemsthatanypeas-antcouldbuild.Therearetwotypesofnoria(fromArabicna’ura,“togroan”).Thefirstisthecur-rentwheelthatliftswaterfromriversorirrigationcanalsbytheforceofthewateralone.Theywerelargeinsizeandrequirednogearing.Itisthefirstknownself-actingmachine.Thesecondistheshort-shafted,gearedwheel,movedbyanimalpower.IndesignitisaninvertedVitruvianwheel,whichconvertsthehorizontalmotionofawheelrotatedbyanox,acameloradonkeytoverticalbyengagingthegearsonapotgarlandwheelonwhichanendlesschainofpotsfellandrose,dumpingwaterintoacanaloraholding-tank.ThedevicewasusedinlittoralmarshlandsoftheMediterraneantodrainwaterloggedlandforagriculture;indrierareasitwasthebasisofsmallirrigationsystems.Thenoriamadeitpossibleforasinglehouseholdtopro-ducesurplusforthemarket.TheIndianstyleofagriculture,codifiedinagronomicaltreatisessuchasIbnal-Wahshiyya’sKitabal-filahaal-Nabatiyya(NabateanAgriculture)andtheworksoftheAndalusíagronomicalschool(IbnBassal,Ibnal-‘Awwam,Ibnal-Wafid,etc.),wasacompilationofpeasantloreoverlaidwiththeGreeknotionoffourcounterbalancingqualities(hot,cold,moist,dry).Soilswerewatered,ordressedwithfertilizerormarl,inordertobalancethequalities.Theresultwasafinelytunedagriculturalsystemthattookadvantageofmicroregionaldifferencesinsoilandwater.Normsthatregulatedthedistributionofwaterandtheadministrationofirrigationcanalsobeconsideredastechnologies.Inthissense,institutionaldetailssuchasthespecificorderofirrigation(fromthebeginningofacanaltotheend,orviceversa)arepartofthesametechnologicalpackageasthematerialelementsofanirrigationsystem:thetappingofwaterviaqanatsordiversiondams,aswellasthemeansoftransport(canals),storage(tanksandreservoirs)anddivision(bydivisorsofgivenproportions)ofwater.Notonlythenormsgoverningallocation(waterrights),butalsopracticalhydraulicknow-how(surveyingcanalroutes,levelingcanals,andconstructionofgalleriesandcanals)andhorticulturalknow-how(understandingthewaterrequire-mentsofdifferentcrops),aretechniques,inthattheyaremechanismsofresourceutilizationinthesamemannerasphysicalstructures.Vertical(Vitruvian)andhorizontalwatermills–simpler,ungearedstructures,wherecurrent-drivenwater-paddlesareattacheddirectlytothemovableor“runner”mill-stoneabove–hadappearedvirtuallysimultaneouslyintheMediterraneanbasin,theMiddleEastandChinasometimebetween100bcandad100.BothwereknownintheIslamicworld,alongwithadistinctivethirdtype,genericallyknownasarubamills.Theseareofthehorizontalvariety,butthewaterisdeliveredunderpressurefromacylindricalwater-tower.Thisisawayofmillinginsemi-aridconditionswithascantwatersupply.Themigrationofartisanswastheprimaryconduitfortransmissionoftheseideas:ChineseprisonersweresaidtohavebroughtpapertechnologytoBukhara.PersianlusterwarepottersmigratedtoMálagainthelaterthirteenthcentury,fleeingtheMongols.Lusterwarerequiredupdraftkilns,whichwereintroducedconcomitantly.ThePersianloom,withenoughheddlestoreproducethecomplexpatternscharacteristicofPersiantextiles,likewisearrivedinal-AndaluswithPersianmigrants.Migrantsare33\n9781405146012_4_005.qxd2/4/0913:21Page34thomasf.glicktypicallyrisk-takersandthuslessweddedtothetraditionalpracticesofthedifferentcrafts.PracticalAstronomy,SurveyingandTime-keepingMedievalMuslimsdevelopedanapproachtoastronomythatwasbasedonGreekastronomicaltheory(especiallyPtolemy’sAlmagest),Indianastronomicaltables,andtheastrolabe,anobservationaltoolthatperformedavarietyoftasksincludingfindingthetimeofthedayoryearorofacelestialevent,ordetermininglatitude.Findingtheqibla(thedirectionofMecca)astronomicallygaverisetoaspecificbodyoftables.Anastrolabe,orasimplifiedversionofone,couldbeusedinnavigationtodeterminethealtitudesofthesun,themoon,thepolestarorothercelestialbodies.Arabshipcap-tains,however,preferredasimplerinstrument,awoodenblockandknottedstringcalledthekamal,whichwasusedtotakecelestialaltitudes.InthemedievalIslamicworldtherewasawell-definedscienceofastronomicaltime-keepingcalled‘ilmal-miqat.Itwasused,first,todeterminethefivedailycanon-icalhoursofprayer.Amuezzincoulddothiswithanastrolabe,oraprofessionalastronomercalledamuwaqqitcouldbehired.Atthepopularlevel,thehoursofnightcouldbedeterminedbyanybodywhoknewsomeastrologybylookingatthelunarmansions;indaytime,bymeasuringthelengthofone’sownshadow–andthereweretwentyormoremethodsofhowtodothis.Atthelearnedlevel,scholarslikeal-Khwarizmiwroteprayer-tablesforeachlatitude.Muezzinswereenjoinedtouseastronomicaltablesfordeterminingprayertimesandtheastrolabeforfindingtheqibla(thedirectionofMecca).Therulesofsurveyingareafellunderthebroadscienceofmeasurementcalled‘ilmal-misaha,andthatoflevelingfieldsandirrigationcanalspartof‘ilmal-mizan(“thescienceofthebalance”).Inordertoascertainthegradientoftherouteofanirrigationcanal,variouskindsoflevelwereused.Theseweredescribedintreatisesdevotedto‘ilmal-mizan(“thescienceofthebalance”).Onlarge-scale,government-directedcanalprojects,asintheTigrisandEuphratesbasin,laborcostswerefiguredbycalculatingthevolumeofthecanalalgebraically.Levelinginstrumentsrangedfromtheverysimple,likeaplateorpipefilledwithwateroralargeA-levelwithplumbbob,tosophisticatedinstrumentsliketheastrolabeandthequadrant,andgeometry.Buildersmeasuredtheperpendicularwithsimilarlysimpleordifficultmethods,rangingfromaplumbbob,aplumbbobandquadrant,oragnomon.GunpowderandFirearmsGunpowderwasaserendipitousinventionofChinesealchemistswhileexperimentingwithmixturesofsulfurandsaltpeterinanattempttomakegold.Theoldestsurvivingrecipedatesfromad800,andbythethirteenthcenturytheyhaddevelopedfragmentationbombsandkindsofexplosiveprojectiles.TheMongolstransmittedthetechnologywest-ward,andgunpowderrecipesappearinHasanal-Rammah’sKitabalfurusiyawa’l-munasb34\n9781405146012_4_005.qxd2/4/0913:21Page35islamictechnologyal-harbiya(TreatiseonHorsemanshipandStratagemsofWar),writtenin1280.MuslimsintroducedartilleryintoNasridGranada,where“ironpelletsthatwereshotwithfire”wereusedinanattackonElche.Intheseventeenthcentury,MuslimexilesfromSpain(thencalledMoriscos)introducedadvancedweaponstechnologyintoOttomanNorthAfrica,whereIbrahimibnAhmadibnGhanimal-AndalusiwroteaninfluentialartillerymanualbasedbroadlyonLuisCollado’sPláticaManualdeartillería(1592):Kitabal-izzwa’l-manafilil-mujahidinfisabilillab’il-madafi(Thebookinwhichoneseekstriumphandadvantagewhenfightingagainsttheinfidelwithmilitarystores).ItwasapreceptofOttomanjurisprudencethatinfidelsmustbeopposedwiththeirownweapons.Suchanideologymakesintelligiblethedemandforforeignmilitarytechnology.PhilosophyofTechnologyThereisadebateamonghistoriansofIslamictechnologyoverthemeaningofthemechanicalarts(hiyal),particularlywithrespecttothebuildingofelaboratemodelsofclevermachinery(mechanicalclocksandthelike)asinal-Jazari’sthirteenth-centuryCompendiumofTheoryandUsefulPracticeintheMechanicalArts(al-Jami’baynal-‘ilmwa’l-‘amalfisina’atal-hiyal),wherehiyal(singularhila)means“artifices”or“devices.”Jazari’sdefinitionoftechnologyisaman-madedevicethatperformsactionscontrarytothenaturalforcesofnature,hisexamplebeingthelever.Hispatronhadpraisedhimformakingmodelsandbringingthemforthfrompotentiality(theoreticalprinciples)intoactuality(practicalapplications).Eachhilagivespalpableformtoaspecificconceptofphysics,accordingtoal-FarabiandothermedievalMuslimphilosophers,followingAristotle’sMechanicalProblems.IbnKhaldun,thegreatfourteenth-centurypolymath,expoundedaphilosophyofthecrafttradesinsomedetail,mixingAristotelianexplanationwithhistheoryoftheriseandfallofdynasties.IntheMuqaddimah,hestatesthat,first,crafts–whichareconcernedwithbothactionandthought–havetobelearned.Thatis,thereisamentalcomponentoftechnology(‘ilm)thatinformsthemasteringofaspecificcraftpractice(‘amal).Oncemastered,suchskillsbecomerutinaryandareperformedbyhabit:“Ahabitisafirmlyrootedqualityacquiredbydoingacertainactionandrepeatingittimeaftertime,untiltheformof[thataction]isfirmlyfixed.”Craftsaremainlylearnedbyobservation,andtheskillsanapprenticeacquiresareowingnotonlytothequalityofteachingbutalsotothe“habit”oftheteacher.Itisinthemindthatcraftskillsaretransformedfrompotentialityintoactuality(alludingtothiswell-knownAristoteliannotion).HethenunitesAristotle’sconstructionoftechnologywithhisownviewsontheenvironmentalinput.Theskilllevelincraftsisalsoafunctionofthelocusofdemand:sedentary,urbancivilizationpushesthetransformationofthoseskillsfrompotential-itytoreality.Thatiswhythequalityofurbancraftsmanshipisbetterthanthatofruralcraftsmenbecauseinthecountrysidetheprimaryconcernissurvival.AsmallBedouinsettlementrequiresonlythesimplestofcrafts:there,youwillfindacarpenter,ablacksmith,atailor,abutcher,oraweaver.Buttheirperformanceisimperfectandunderdevelopedwithrespecttothesamecraftsinanurbansetting.Thenheworksinhisdynasticcyclehypothesis:craftsaresorootedincitiesthat,evenwhenthosecitieslosetheirwealthwithdynasticdecline,thecraftskillslearned35\n9781405146012_4_005.qxd2/4/0913:21Page36thomasf.glickandtransmittedtherearestillsubstantiallyhigherthanthosefoundincitiesofnewfoundation.Theexampleisal-Andalus,which,eventhoughreducedtothekingdomofGranada,retainedcraftskillsunequaledinanyotherMuslimMediterraneanpolity.Whenacityisnearingsenility,craftskillsfinallydiminish.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBarceló,M.(2004)“TheMissingWater-Mill:AQuestionofTechnologicalDiffusionintheHighMiddleAges,”inM.BarcelóandF.Sigaut(eds),TheMakingofFeudalAgriculture?(Leiden:Brill).Bloom,J.(2001).PaperbeforePrint:TheHistoryandImpactofPaperintheIslamicWorld(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress).Glick,T.F.(1995).“MoriscosandMarranosasAgentsofTechnologicalDiffusion,”HistoryofTechnology,17:113–25.Glick,T.F.(2005).IslamicandChristianSpainintheEarlyMiddleAges,2ndedn(Leiden:Brill).Glick,T.F.andKirchner,H.(2000).“HydraulicSystemsandTechnologiesofIslamicSpain:HistoryandArcheology,”inP.Squatriti(ed.),WorkingwithWaterinMedievalEurope:TechnologyandResource-use(Leiden:Brill),pp.267–329.IbnKhaldun(1958).TheMuqaddimah:AnIntroductiontoHistory,trans.F.Rosenthal,3vols(NewYork:Pantheon).Saliba,G.(1985).“TheFunctionofMechanicalDevicesinMedievalIslamicSociety,”AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences,pp.141–51.Schioler,T.(1973).RomanandIslamicWaterLiftingWheels(Copenhagen:OdenseUniversityPress).Watson,A.(1983).AgriculturalInnovationintheEarlyIslamicWorld:TheDiffusionofCropsandFarmingTechniques,900–1100(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).36\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page376JapaneseTechnologyDAVIDWITTNERMuchofJapan’stechnologicalhistorycanbedescribedasadialogue.FromtheearliesttimesthisdialoguetookplacebetweenJapananditsEastAsianneighbors,inparticularChinaandKorea.LateritwasanexchangebetweenJapanandWesternvisitors.Inthemid-nineteenthcenturyandbeyond,thegovernmentandtheprivatesectorfosteredincreasedtranslationofforeigntechnicalknowledgeintoJapan.Regardlessoftheera,therewasalsoaninternaldiscourseinwhichabsorbedandindigenoustechnologiesweretransformedtosuitlocalresources,needsandsensibilities.ThereisclearevidenceoftechnologicalinteractionwithChinaandKoreasinceatleasttheJ¯omonperiod(c.10,000bce–300bce)withtheintroductionofwetfieldagricul-tureinthefourthcenturybce.Japanfirstreceivedironandthenbronzeimplements–primarilyweapons,agriculturalimplementsandceremonialobjects–fromKoreaandChinathroughouttheYayoiperiod(c.300bce–300ce).DistinctivelyJapaneseweaponryfoundatarcheologicalsitesindicatesthattheJapanesebeganworkingwithironandbronzebasedoncontinentalinteraction.AvarietyofceremonialobjectsincludingbronzemirrorsandglassbeadswerealsoimportedandlatermanufacturedinlateYayoiJapan.Perhapsanunfaircharacterization,muchofJapan’shistoryoftech-nologyuntiltheseventhoreighthcenturyreadsmorelikealistofreceivedinnovationsfromthecontinentincludingirrigationtechniques,plows,weaving,brewing,sericul-tureandpaper-making.BeginningwiththeNaraperiod(710–94),however,wecanseegreaterindigen-ousdevelopmentoftechnologies.DivergencefromtheChinesemodelisespeciallynotableinwoodworking,textiles,ceramics,printing,paper-making,agricultureandmetalworking.Muchofwhatweknowoftechnologyfromthiseracomeseitherfromtheartifacts,suchastemplerooftilesoractualeighth-centurybuildings,orfromatenth-centurytext,Engishiki,whichprovidesinformationonworkshopsinthecapitalthatspecializedincraftssuchaspaper-making,silkweaving,metalworking,woodworking,andsake-brewing.BeyondtheEngishikiandavarietyofillustratedscrollsdepictingcraftsmenatworkknownasshokuninzushiki-e,ourknowledgeoftechnologicaldevelopmentsduringthelateHeian(794–1185),Kamakura(1185–1333)andMuromachi(1338–1573)erasismixed.DuringtheHeianeratherewasagradualbreakdownofthetraditionalpolit-icalsystemwhich,overthecourseofseveralcenturies,ledtothecountrybeingdividedACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks37©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page38davidwittnerintosemi-autonomousholdingsknownassh¯oen.Craftsproduction,too,becamecom-partmentalizedassh¯oenevolvedintoprivateestates.Crafttraditionsweretransmittedorally,becausemostcraftsmenwereilliterate,andthroughaprotectiveapprenticeshipsystemthatwaslargelyhereditary.Asinearliereras,beyondillustratedscrollsandafewwrittenrecords,muchofourknowledgeoftechnologicalchangeanddevelopmentfromthistimecomesfromtheartifactsthemselves.AccompanyingthegrowthofprivatecentersofpoliticalpowerinmedievalJapan,cameanincreaseinthenumberofurbancenterswhoseinhabitantswereprimarilywarriors,artisansandmerchants.Whilethereweresometechnologicalimprovementsinthecountrysiderelatedtoagriculture,thegreatestareaofchangewasinthecitieswheredemandsforluxuryitems,consumergoods,andweaponsdroveinnovation.ManyartifactsandtechniquesthatarenowconsideredquintessentiallyJapaneseweredevelopedatthistime.Inwoodworking,Japanesecarpentersdevelopedcomplexsystemsofjoinerythatrequirednomechanicalfasteners.Therewasalsosomestan-dardizationofinteriorspacewiththeincreaseduseoftatamimatsofuniformsize.Theseinnovationscanbeseenthroughreligiousandseculararchitecture.Therewerealsodevelopmentsinceramicsandtextiles.Potters,silk-reelers,cotton-spinnersandweaversmovedtheircrafts,originallybasedonChinesetechniques,indirectionsthatincreas-inglydivergedfromcontinentalmethods.DuringthelatterhalfoftheMuromachiera,knowastheSengokuorWarringStatesera(1467–1568),therewassignificantinnovationinmetalworking,especiallyasrelatedtothemilitary.Swordsmithsrefinedtechniquesforforgingbladesthatexhibitedthebestqualitiesofhardandsoftsteel.Craftsmenworkinginbronzeandfinemetalsrefinedthetechniquesforproducingswordandweaponappurtenancessuchastsuba(swordguards)andmenuki(decorativepiecesonasword’sgrip).Manyofthesetechniqueswerequicklytranslatedintomoremundanefieldsofdailyironworkingorintothedecorativearts.Beginninginthemid-sixteenthcentury,Japanenteredaperiodofheightenedtech-nologicalactivity.StimulatedbyincreasedtradewithChinaandthearrivalofthePortuguese,aseriesofnewtechnologieswereinternalizedbyJapanesecraftsmen.Aidedbyimportedtechnicalmanuals,Japanesecraftsmenmadesignificantimprovementstoindigenouspracticesinpaper-making–whichfurtherdrovetheproductionofindigen-ousmanuals–metalworking,weaving,shipbuildingandnavigation.Europeansalsobroughtknowledgeofoptics,newtechniquesforglass-making,andimprovedtechniquesforamalgamationandmining.HavingperhapsagreaterimpactonJapan’sfuturetechno-logicaldevelopmentweretwoimportedartifacts:firearmsandthemechanicalclock.EuropeanfirearmsfirstarrivedonJapan’sshoresin1543withthePortuguese.Quickly,Japanesemetalworkersreverse-engineeredtheseearlymatchlocks.Inthecourseofseveraldecades,firearmsandlightartilleryplayedanimportantroleinJapan’spolit-icalunification.Japanesefirearmsdevelopmentisagoodexampleoftechnologicaldialogue.CraftsmenlearneddirectlyfromWesternsources,eithertheartifactsortheforeignersthemselves.Theymodifiedtheabsorbedtechnologies,forexamplereversingthelockmechanismandprotectingthepowdertrayfrommoisture.And,althoughfirearmstechnologieswereeventuallymonopolizedbythebakufu,craftsmenalsopro-ducedmanualswithwhichtodisseminatethetechnology.DespitethedecisiveroleplayedbyfirearmsinJapan’spoliticalhistory,mechanicalclocks,introducedin1551,areinmanywaysmoresignificantforthehistoryof38\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page39japanesetechnologyJapanesetechnology.Inordertoreproduceamechanicalclock,Japanesecraftsmenwererequiredtoworkwithagreaterdegreeofprecisionandatpreviouslyunknownlevelsofcomplexity.Precisiongearmanufacture,springs,bearingsandaxles/shaftsfosteredtherefinementofmetalworkingandcastingtechniquesthatwouldhaveapplicationbeyondclock-makingandcraftindustries.Overthecourseofthenextcentury,manyofthetechniquesdevelopedbyclock-makersfoundtheirwayintoavarietyofapplica-tions.Automata,mechanicaldolls,weretheTokugawaera(1603–1868)heirtotheclock-maker’sart.Gears,bearingsandshafts(drivenanddriving)werealsoreproducedonalargerscaleandinwoodforavarietyofagriculturalapplicationssuchaspumps,waterwheelsandrollingmills.Thezaguri,agear-orbelt-drivensilk-reelingmachine,wasalsoabeneficiaryofthistechnologicaldialogue.Eventually,thesedevelopmentsweretoformpartoftheknowledgebasethatwouldhelpdriveJapan’snineteenth-centuryprogramofindustrialization.In1639theeraofexpandedcontactwiththeWestcametoaclose.Withtheexcep-tionofaDutchtradefactoryonDeshimaIslandinNagasakiharbor,andinformationobtainedfromChinaviaKorea,theTokugawabakufuwaslargelysuccessfulinregulat-ingcontactwiththeWestuntilthemid-nineteenthcentury.Nonetheless,Japancon-tinuedtoreceiveandabsorbavarietyofthingsfromtheChinesemainlandincludingbooksonagriculture,technology,medicineandmathematics.ThemostcelebratedwasaMingdynastytext,TianGongKaiWu,renderedinJapaneseasTenk¯okaibutsu(DevelopmentoftheWorksofNature),whichcontainedinformationonagricultureandavarietyofcraft,miningandmanufacturingtechniques.Thesignificanceofthisandothermanualswasthattheyextendedthetechnologicaldialogue.Techniquesdescribedforonefieldwereoftenadaptedtoothers.Forexample,earlybell-castingtechniquesbecamethebasisforTokugawa-eracannonfoundries,inmuchthesamewaythatgearsmovedfromclock-makingtoagriculturalandtextilemachinery.ThenatureoftheTokugawapoliticalsystemhadprofoundeffectsonthecontinueddevelopmentofJapanesetechnology.Thecountrywasdividedintoaseriesofsemi-autonomousdomainsthatrespondedtotheauthorityoftheTokugawashogunbutviedwitheachothereconomically.Atmostlevels,thiscreatedabarriertothedis-seminationoftechnologicalinformation,yetitalsonurturedahighdegreeofcraftspecializationasartisanswithinthevariousdomainssoughttocreatenewregionalproductsforagrowingmarket.Throughsystematicexperimentation,Tokugawacraftsmencultivatedatraditionthatrecognizedthevalueofincrementalinnovation.Alwayslookingforadditionalsourcesofincome,domainlords(daimy¯o)supportedthegrowthoflocalindustry.Asaresult,crafttechnologiesspreadthroughoutthecountryonarelativelyevenbasis.Craftdistinctionwasseenthroughtechniqueandattentiontocertaintypesofdetail.Despitetheproliferationofcrafttechnologiesthroughoutthecountryandwellbeyondtheconfinesofcities,manyTokugawatechnologieswereguardedwithinasystemofhereditaryapprenticeship.Familiesmaintainedcontrolofthetechnologiesandtechniquesbywhichtheycreateduniqueandspecializedgoods.Theirmethodswerelabor-intensive,andtechnicalinnovationswithinmostcraftindustriestendedtobelabor-intensiveaswell.BecauseJapanhadastablepopulationthroughouttheTokugawaera,andlittleinthewayofanexportmarket,therewasnoincentivetoincreaselevelsofproduction.Similaritiescanbeseeninagriculturaltechnologies39\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page40davidwittnerwhereanamplesupplyoflaborinhibitedthedevelopmentoflabor-savingdevices.Therewasalsoasystemofruralcraftby-employment,drivenbythesporadicallylaborintensivenatureofJapanesefarming.Farmfamiliessupplementedtheirincomethroughcottageindustriessuchassericultureandsilk-reeling.Sericultureisalwayslaborintensive,butevenmoresointheJapanesecase.Entirefamilieswoulddedicatecountlesshourstowardensuringthehealthandwell-beingofsilkworms.AbsolutededicationtothemostminutedetailpreventedJapanfromexperiencingthesilkwormpebrínevirusthatdevastatedEurope’ssilkwormcropinthemid-nineteenthcentury.Anamplesupplyoflaborandpossibleconcernsoverproductqualityalsopreventedtherapiddisseminationofthemoreefficientzagurisilk-reelingmachineintomanyareasofthecountry.Althoughknown,water-poweredreelingmachineswereevenlesspopular.YetTokugawatechnologywasfarfromstagnant.Economicgrowthandthedevelopmentofamarketeconomydrovemerchantsandcraftsmen,atthebehestofdaimy¯o,tobringagreatervarietyofproductstomarket.Thisinturngaverisetoincrementalinnovations,newmachines,techniquesandtools.Simultaneously,theriseofcommercialagricultureatthebeginningoftheeighteenthcenturyledtothepro-liferationofagriculturalmanualswhich,throughillustrationsandsimplifiedtext,dis-cussednewtechniques,tools,andmethodsbywhichtoprocessagriculturalproducts.ImprovementsinprintingalsohelpedspreadtechnicalcraftmanualsthroughoutJapan.Technicalknowledgeofthetimewasnotlimitedtocraftsandagriculture.Rangaku,or“Dutch-learning,”gainedinpopularitythroughouttheerawiththeeducatedclasses.Alternatelysuppressedorfindingfavorwiththebakufu,RangakuscholarsprovidedJapanwithabasicknowledgeofEuropeanscience,medicineandtechnologyinnoparticularorder.Foraboutacenturyfollowing1720,WesternknowledgeflowedintoJapan.Scholarsactivelytranslatedandpublishedbooksonanatomy,physics,chemistryandelectricity,tonamejustafewareas.Aswithothertechnicaldialogue,WesternknowledgefoundnewapplicationsonceabsorbedintoJapan.PhysicianHanaokaSeish¯o,forexample,combinedWesternandChinesemedicinetoperformprobablytheworld’sfirstsurgeryusinggeneralanesthesia.AsthetenorofWesternvisitorstoJapanesewatersroseinthemid-nineteenthcentury,so,too,didtheimportanceofRangaku.CaughtinthedebateofwhethertoopenJapantoforeignintercourseorremainclosed,Rangakuscholarsweremarshaledtothedefenseofthestate.Earlyinitiativesweretakenbydaimy¯ofromdomainsthatweretraditionallyhostiletoTokugawaauthority.Regardless,theiractionspushedJapantowardindustrialmodernizationalongWesternlines.Basedonthetransla-tionofan1826Dutchbookoncannon-casting,samurai-scholarsbuiltandoperatedreverberatoryand,later,blastfurnaceswiththeultimategoalofproducingmodern,Western-styleartillery.Soon,ironandcoalmines,shipyardsandtextilemillsfollowedinthewakeofRangakuknowledge.TheopeningofJapanin1854signaledtheendofRangaku,althoughtheschooloflearningprovidedanessentialingredientforJapan’srapidindustrialmodernizationinthedecadestofollow.ThefinalyearsoftheTokugawabakufuusheredinsignificantchangesforJapanesetechnology.Atfirst,attemptstomodernizeJapaneseindustryanddefensesweremadebythecombinedeffortsoftraditionalcraftsmen,wholackedWesternscientific40\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page41japanesetechnologyandtechnicalknowledge,andsamurai-scholars,wholackedtechnicalability.Follow-ing1854,however,foreignengineers,mechanicsandadventurersmadetheirwaytoJapan,firstintheemployoftheTokugawagovernmentorvariousdomains,andlateroftheMeijigovernment.DuringtheMeijiera(1868–1912),JapanunderwentindustrialmodernizationalongWesternlines.ThefirsttwodecadescanbeconsideredaperiodoftechnologicalandscientifictutelageinwhichJapanesetechnologists,entre-preneursandengineersexperimentedtheirwaythroughtheearlystagesofmodern-ization.Theperiodfollowing1886isoftenconsideredJapan’sindustrialrevolution,inwhichtechniques–technologiesandorganization–internalizedduringthefirstdecadesoftheMeijieracametofruition.TheMeijieraperhapsbestexemplifiesJapan’stechnologicaldialogue.Thegovern-mentsimultaneouslyimportedtechnologies,eitherintheformofforeignartifactsorengineers;createdinstitutionsofhigherandtechnicaleducation;andindigenizedforeignknowledgebyhybridizingtechnologiesinsomeinstancesandbythedirectlicensingofWesterntechnologiesinothers.Bycastingitsnetwidely,Japanwasabletoattainindustrialmodernizationandahighdegreeoftechnologicalindependenceinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.Inaneraofhighimperialism,Japanwasspurredbysloganssuchas“RichNation,StrongArmy,”Thistranslatedintothedevelopmentofexportindustries,suchassilk-reeling,andheavyindustries,suchasshipbuildingandeventuallyanironworks,fornationaldefenseandnation-building.Japan’svictoriesoverChinaintheSino-JapaneseWar(1894–5)andRussiaintheRusso-JapaneseWar(1904–5)furtherstimulatedthetechnologicaldialogue.TheFirstWorldWarprovidedbothaneconomicboomandastimulusforindustrialdevelopment.Asaresultofthewar,andbeingcutofffromGermanscienceandtechnology,thegovernmentandprivateindustrycreatedtheInstituteforPhysicalandChemicalResearch,knownbyitsabbreviatednameRiken,in1917.BasedinpartonthesuccessofRikenandcooperationbetweenthegovernmentandtheprivatesector,heavyindustry–mostnotablychemicals,shipbuild-ing,opticsandaviation–grewsubstantiallythroughoutthe1920sand1930s.ThesuccessofJapan’sprogramofindustrialmodernizationcarrieditintoandthroughtheSecondWorldWar.InthepostwareraJapancontinuedtofollowthepatternoftechnologicaldevelop-mentthathassustaineditsincetheearliesttimes.WiththesupportofgovernmentagenciessuchastheMinistryofInternationalTradeandIndustry(MITI,established1949)andtheScienceandTechnologyAgency(established1956),Japanfollowedacoordinatedpolicyoftechnologicalabsorptionandindustrialdevelopment.Amongstotherthings,theseagenciesfacilitatedthelicensinganddisseminationofforeigntech-nologiesinJapan.Asinearliereras,Japaneseindustriesmodifiedforeigntechnologies.Oftenthroughaseriesofincrementalinnovations,suchasminiaturizationorartifactrecombination,Japaneseengineerscreatedandpatentedindigenousvariantsofformerlyforeigntechnologies.Throughoutthemodernera,Japanesecorporations,engineersandentrepreneurshaveaconsistentrecordofinnovationthatcomplementsforeignachievement.SomeJapaneseinnovationswerebasedonforeignknowledge,othersweremorethoroughlyindigenousdevelopments.ExamplesincludethefirstfullyautomaticpowerloominventedbyToyodaSakichiin1903,KSMagneticSteelin1917byHondaK¯otar¯o,Yagi41\n9781405146012_4_006.qxd2/4/0913:22Page42davidwittnerHidetsugu’stelevisionantennain1926,Sony’sintroductionofthefirstvideotaperecordersforthehomemarketin1963,andtheSonyWalkmanin1978.Morerecently,SonyhasbeenresponsibleformuchofthepioneeringworkinHighDefinitiontelevi-sion;Japaneseautomotiveengineersledthewayinonboardnavigationsystems.BecauseoftheclosetiesbetweenmajorJapanesecorporationsandsmallandmedium-sizeenterprises(SMEs)thatserveassubcontractors,technologiesoriginallyintroducedatthehighestlevelsofJapaneseindustryarerapidlydisseminatedthrough-outthecountry.Japanesecorporationsalsotendtoinvestasignificantportionoftheirprofitsinresearchanddevelopment(R&D).Specificallytheylooktofindinnovativenewapplicationsforexistingforeignandindigenoustechnologies.Althoughthetrendhaschangedsomewhatinthelastdecade,muchR&Dinvestmenthasbeeninappliedtechnologyratherthaninbasicresearch.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAikens,M.C.andTakayasu,H.(1982).ThePrehistoryofJapan:StudiesinArchaeology(NewYork:AcademicPress).Farris,W.W.(1985).Population,Disease,andLandinEarlyJapan:645–900(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Farris,W.W.(2006).Japan’sMedievalPopulation:Famine,Fertility,andWarfareinaTransform-ativeAge(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress).Low,M.F.(1996).“JapaneseScienceandTechnologybeforePerry:StagnationorDevelopment?”,Asia-PacificMagazine,2:33–7.Low,M.(ed.)(2005).BuildingaModernJapan:Science,Technology,andMedicineintheMeijiEraandBeyond(NewYork:Palgrave).Morris,D.(1999).“LandandSociety,”inD.H.ShivelyandW.H.McCullough(eds),CambridgeHistoryofJapan,Vol.2(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),pp.183–235.Morris-Suzuki,T.(1994).TheTechnologicalTransformationofJapan:FromtheSeventeenthtotheTwenty-firstCentury(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Okazaki,Takashi(1993).“JapanandtheContinent,”trans.J.Goodwin,inD.M.Brown(ed.),CambridgeHistoryofJapan,Vol.1(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),pp.268–316.Pauer,E.(ed.)(1995).PapersoftheHistoryofIndustryandTechnologyinJapan,3vols(Marburg:FördervereinMarburgerJapan-Reihe).Smith,T.C.(1988).NativeSourcesofJapaneseIndustrialization,1750–1920(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Toby,R.P.(1984).StateandDiplomacyinEarlyModernJapan:AsiaandtheDevelopmentoftheTokugawaBakufu(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress).Wittner,D.G.(2007).TechnologyandtheCultureofProgressinMeijiJapan(London:Routledge).42\n9781405146012_4_007.qxd2/4/0913:52Page437TechnologyandWarBARTHACKERTheinterplayofmilitaryinstitutionsandchangingtechnologyhasregularlymadehistory.Militaryinstitutions,likeothersocialinstitutions,organizemajorareasofvalues,attitudesandinterestsintheserviceofcriticalsocialneeds.Unlikemostsocialinstitutions,however,militaryinstitutionsappearonlyinstateornear-statesocieties.Armieswerecloselylinkedwiththeoriginofcivilization,mayinfacthavebeenaneces-sary,ifnotsufficient,causeforthetransitiontostateorganizationandcivilizedlife.Causeornot,militaryinstitutionsremainveryclosetothecoreofcomplexsocieties.Throughouthistory,militarytechnologicalinnovationhasledthroughmilitaryreorgan-izationtosignificantsocietalchange.Bythesametoken,socialchangehasregularlyreshapedtechnology.Fundamentalshiftsinmilitarytechnologyandinstitutionsmaywellserveasusefulbenchmarksfororganizingastudyofgeneralhistorythataddressesdeeperstructuresofstabilityandchangeinadditiontomoresuperficialpatternsofeventandpersonality.ThroughmostoftheNeolithicera,archeologyprovidesfewhintsofarmedforcesororganizedwarfareanywhereinEurasia.Neolithicsitesrarelyshowsignsoffortification,althoughwallsbecamethehallmarkofthecitiesthatdefinecivilization.Specializedweaponslikewiseseemtohavebeenunknown.Thefirstdistinctweapontechnologyemergedwithmetallurgyinthetransittocivilization.Otherthanornaments,theearliestbronzeartifactsareclearlyweapons,notmerelyhuntingtoolsthatmightdoubleasman-killers.Wallsandweaponswerethephysicalmanifestationsofasocialinvention,thearmy.TheNearEasterninventionofarmiesduringthefourthmillen-niumbcemarkedthefirstandgreatestmilitaryrevolution.Itprovidedrulerswiththemeanstoorganizecoerciveforce,tocontrolanddirecttheeffortsofdisparateindi-vidualstowardcollectivegoals,topromotethedisciplinedordernecessarytocivilizedlife.Whenwarfarebecameacorporateactivityofhierarchicallyorganizedstate-sponsoredarmedforces,warriorsgavewaytosoldiers,whomarchedonfootandfoughtinformationarmedwithmace,ax,sword,spearandshield.Cooperationanddisciplinematteredatleastasmuchasindividualprowessorcourage.Armiesbecamethebedrockuponwhicharosechiefdoms,states,kingdomsandempires.Developingarmiesandrisingstateswenthandinhand.Militaryforce,howevermodest,wastheindispensablepreludetobuildingstates;growingstates,inturn,yieldedresourcesforenlargedarmies.Armiesdecisivelydividedprehistoryfromcivilization.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks43©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_007.qxd2/4/0913:52Page44barthackerMesopotamiancity-statesappearfirsttohavecrossedthemilitarydivide,followedcloselybythekingdomofEgyptandsoonbymanyothers.Anewweapon,thecompositebow,joinedthearmoryinthemid-thirdmillenniumbce.Thismechanicalinnovationconvertedarcheryfromanannoyanceonthebattlefieldtoapotentiallydecisivearmofgreatrangeandpower.Compositebowsdemandedmuchtimeandskilltomanu-facture,makingthemverycostly,buttheirrevolutionaryimplicationsappearobvious,asthefirstgreatempiresintheNearEastcoincidedwiththeirspread.Whencivilizedmilitarytechniquesspreadtothehinterlands,anewdynamicevolvedastheunionofhorse-drawnchariotandcompositebowinthemid-secondmillenniumbcefosteredanothermilitarytransformation.Armiesbuiltaroundrelativelysmallnumbersofchariot-bornebowmensweptallbeforethem;onsuitableterraintheyappearedallbutinvincible.ChariotarmiesattackedcivilizedcenterseverywhereinEurasia.RelativelyfragilestatesintheeasternMediterraneanandsouthAsiacollapsedundertheassault,MycenaeanGreeceandVedicIndiarisingontheruins.Furthereast,BronzeAgecharioteersmayalsohavefoundedthefirstChinesestate,longidentifiedwiththeShangdynasty.Chariotsthemselvesbecamepotentsymbolsofpower,widelyadoptedeveninlandswheretheyservedlittlepracticalpurpose.Bythelatesecondmillenniumbce,elementsofstillotherradicalchangesinmilitarytechnologyandorganizationbegantocoalesce.Cheapirondisplacedcostlybronzeasthepreferredmetalforweaponsandarmor.Lowerequipmentcostsswelledthepoten-tialnumbersofmen-at-arms,dullingtheonce-decisiveedgeenjoyedbyaristocraticcharioteers.Whenironbecamecommon,infantryreasserteditselfonthebattlefieldandremainedthecoreofstatearmiesforthenextthousandyearsandmore.Thespreadofirontechnologycoincidedwithanotherwaveofinternalupheavalsandbarbarianinvasions,exemplifiedintheGreekdarkages.Thedemiseofchariotryonlytemporarilyinterruptedthehorse’smilitarycareer.Bytheninthcenturybce,afterEurasiansteppedwellershadlearnedhowtodrawthebowfromhorseback,mountedarchersbecamethearbitersofbattle.Equestriantechniquesspreadmostwidelyonthefringesofcivilizedsociety.Thelifelongassociationofsteppepastoralistswithhorsesgavethemaninherentandoftendecisivetacticaladvantageoversedentaryfarmersforthenexttwomillennia.Withthiscavalryrevolutionbeganthelongerawhenanimal-herdingnomadsregu-larlythreatened,andperiodicallyconquered,theircivilizedneighbors.Civilizedsocietiescouldnormallyoffsetthetacticaladvantagesofsteppehorsemenorotherinvaderswithlargerpopulationsandgreaterresources.Bythefirstmillen-niumbce,growingeconomiescouldsupportstandingarmies.Pioneeredbytheneo-Assyrianempireearlyinthemillennium,thenimprovedbythePersians,standingarmiesofevenafewthousandmengreatlyreinforcedcentralpowerandbecamethebasisforevengreaterempires.Standingarmiesalsohelpedshieldcivilizedsocietiesfromoutsideattack,althoughraidersconstantlyprobedthebordersandtheirnumbersmightquicklyswellintofull-scaleassaultatsignsofweaknessordisorganization.Forcenturies,heavycavalryarmedwithcompositebowsprovedamosteffectivecountertonomadraiding.Essentialtothissuccesswerethelarge,grain-fedhorsesfirstbredalongtheIraniansteppefrontierlateinthefirstmillenniumbce.Biggerandstrongerthangrass-eatingsteppeponies,theycouldcarryridersarmoredagainstnomadweapons,yetmovequicklyenoughtoblockmostincursions.Theresulttendedtowardstandoffbecausethegreathorseslackedthestaminaforlongpursuitandcouldnotflourishon44\n9781405146012_4_007.qxd2/4/0913:52Page45technologyandwarthesteppe’smeagerforage.Heavycavalrywasalsoexpensive.Civilizedsocietiescouldnotmatchtheintegralplaceofhorseandhorsemanshipinpastoraleconomyandsocietythatmadecavalryastraightforwardexpressionofsteppeculture.Creating,trainingandmaintainingspecial-purposecavalryabsorbedsubstantialresources;howtomeetthecostsofsuchforcesbecameaproblemforeverystatethatadoptedthem,andthecostsmightbemorethaneconomic.Feudalism,theanswerpioneeredontheIranianfrontier,createdcentersoflocalmilitarypowerthatregularlythreatenedcentralauthority.Despitesuchproblems,heavycavalryprovidedaneffectivedefenseindepthagainststepperaiding.ByzantiumandChinaadoptedtheirownversionswithoutthefeudaltrappings;theymaintainedacentralized,tax-supportedforcetodealonlywithseriousincursions.Asthesecondmillenniumcebegan,thelogisticdemandsofamillion-manarmyhelpedprodSungChinatowardanincipientindustrialrevolution.Militarytechnologicalinnovationalsoflourishedunderofficialauspices.Gunpowdermadeitsfirstappearanceinthehistoricalrecordatthebeginningoftheeleventhcentury,thefirsttruefirearmstowardtheendofthethirteenth.BothspreadrapidlyfromChinathroughoutthecivilizedworld.Gunpowderweaponsrenderedmuchexistingfortificationobsolescent.EverywhereinEurasiaduringthemid-secondmillenniumce,greatgunsseemedtoinspiremilitaryimaginationstoafargreaterdegreethandidsmallarms.Artilleryimprovedrapidly,thougheveryincreaseinpowermeantheavier,clumsierandcostlierguns.Intheattackanddefenseoffixedpositions,suchshortcomingsmatteredlessthantheenormousweightbiggunscouldthrow,andtheirgreatexpensemeantthatcentralgovernmentsordinarilyenjoyednear-monopoliesontheiruse.ThroughoutmostofEurasia,gunsweakenedallformsofresistancetocentralauthority.Gunpowderempires–OttomanintheNearEast,SafavidinIran,MogulinIndia,and,inpart,MinginChina–consolidatedpoweracrosstheancientbandofAsiancivilization,whilelesserempiresspreadontheperiphery,insoutheastAsia,inJapanandinRussia.OnlyinthewesternreachesofEurasiadidtheimperialimpulsefail,thoughjustbarely.EconomicallyinnovativeandintenselycompetitiveEuropeanstateshadtheresourcestomaintainstrongarmedforcesandthemotivationtokeepthemwellpracticed.ThatnoindividualstatematchedthepoweroftheHabsburgEmpireanditsalliesmatteredlittle.Becausetheempirerarelyenjoyedfreedomtoconcentrateonasingleopponent,smallerstatescoulddeployforceswellabletoresistimperialaggran-dizement.Thepatternofinterstatemilitarycompetitionthatcreatedthestandoffper-sistedandintensified,withfar-reachingconsequences,notleastamongthemthemodernnation-state.Europeanarmedforcessteadilyexpanded,weaponsandtacticsimproved,andorganizationandcoordinationgrewmoresophisticated,incontrasttotherelativestagnationthatovertookmilitaryinstitutionsinlandswhereempirehadbecomefirmlyestablished.TheseearlymodernEuropeaninnovationsthatMichaelRobertstermed“themilitaryrevolution”maywellhavebeenthekeyfactorthatdisruptedintheWest’sfavortheroughparityintechnology,economyandpolitythatprevaileduntilthefifteenthcenturyamongcivilizedcommunitiesallacrosstheOldWorld.Initially,theWestenjoyedonlyamodestadvantage,limitedlargelytotheheavygunsofocean-goingsailingships,acombinationthatfaroutclassedanythingthenafloat.WesternenclavesflourishedundershipbornegunsalongthecoastsofAfricaandAsia,andevenexpandedsporadicallyinIndia,butelsewhereWesternforcescouldmake45\n9781405146012_4_007.qxd2/4/0913:52Page46barthackerlittleheadwayagainsteitherthevigorousnewgunpowderempiresincivilization’sclassiccentersortherelativelyweakerstatesofAfricaandSoutheastAsia.Beforethenineteenthcentury,onlyPetrineRussiasystematicallysoughttoemulateWesternarmsandmilitaryorganization.Europefeltthelimitsofpowerevenintheless-developedworld.Foesequippedwithneolithicweaponsdoubtlessfacilitatedthemid-second-millenniumEuropeanconquestsinMexicoandPeru,asitdidthelaterconquestofwarlikechiefdomsinthePacific,thoughsuchvictoriesmayhaveowedasmuchtoEurasiandiseasesastoEuropeanarms.Despiteterriblelosses,NativeAmericanssur-vivedtheinitialonslaughtandlearnedhowtofightback.TheirsuccessinkeepingEuropeancolonizationlargelyconfinedtothecontinentalfringesforcenturiesowedmuchtoskillfuladaptationsoffirearmsandequallyskillfulmanipulationofrivalEuropeanstomaintainsourcesofsupply.Westernfirearmsprovednolessattractiveinsub-SaharanAfrica,wheretheybecamemajorfactorsineighteenth-andnineteenth-centurystate-building.Theyexertedadegreeoffascinationevenintheoldcentersofcivilization,thoughotheraspectsofWesterncultureseldomheldmuchappeal.Butnotuntilwellintothenineteenthcentury,aftermilitary,scientificandindus-trialrevolutionshadworkedtheirtransformations,didWesternarmsachieveanalmostuncontestedhegemonyovermostoftheworld.OnlythendidWesternmilitaryinstitutionsbecomethemodelforallothers.Bytheearlytwentiethcentury,thelastoftheoldempireshadpassedawayortransformedthemselves–aprocessthatbeganinvariablywiththeadoptionofWesternweaponsandtheWesternizationoftheirmilitaryinstitutions.Ottomanreform,Manchuself-strengtheningandMeijirestorationareonlythebest-knowninstances.Inthelatenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,allarmiesbecameWesterninorganization,inequipmentandinspirit.Themostrecentrevolutioninmilitaryaffairs,assuchtransformationshavelatelycometobecalled,hastakentheformofinformationcontrol,basedontheextraordinarydevelopmentofelectronicsduringthelasthalfofthetwentiethcentury,ledbyradiocommunication,electroniccomputing,andorbitalsatellites.ReferencesandFurtherReadingCarneiro,RobertL.(1970).“ATheoryoftheOriginoftheState,”Science,169:733–8.Chase,Kenneth(2003).Firearms:AGlobalHistoryto1700(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Drews,Robert(1993).TheEndoftheBronzeAge:ChangesinWarfareandtheCatastropheca.1200BC(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress).Drews,Robert(2004).EarlyRiders:TheBeginningsofMountedWarfareinAsiaandEurope(London:Routledge).Fields,NicandDelf,Brian(2006).BronzeAgeWarChariots(Oxford:Osprey).Hacker,BartonC.(1994).“MilitaryInstitutions,Weapons,andSocialChange:TowardaNewHistoryofMilitaryTechnology,”TechnologyandCulture,35:768–834.Hacker,BartonC.(1997).“MilitaryTechnologyandWorldHistory:AReconnaissance,”HistoryTeacher,30:461–87.Hacker,BartonC.(2005).“TheMachinesofWar:WesternMilitaryTechnology1850–2000,”HistoryandTechnology,21:255–300.Hacker,BartonC.andVining,Margaret(2006).AmericanMilitaryTechnology(Westport,Conn.:GreenwoodPress).46\n9781405146012_4_007.qxd2/4/0913:52Page47technologyandwarHall,BertS.(1997).WeaponsandWarfareinRenaissanceEurope:Gunpowder,Technology,andTactics(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).McNeill,WilliamH.(1983).ThePursuitofPower:Technology,ArmedForce,andSocietysinceAD1000(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Miller,Robertetal.(1986).“ExperimentalApproachestoAncientNearEasternArchery,”WorldArchaeology,18:178–95.Parker,Geoffrey(1988).TheMilitaryRevolution:MilitaryInnovationandtheRiseoftheWest,1500–1800,2ndedn(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Yadin,Yigael(1963).TheArtofWarfareinBiblicalLands:IntheLightofArchaeologicalStudy,trans.M.Pearlman,2vols(NewYork:McGraw-Hill).47\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page49PartIITechnologyandScienceACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page518TechnologyandScienceDONIHDEThetermtechnosciencehascomeintovogueinthelasttwodecades.Itsuggestsasortofhybridcombiningoftechnologyandscience,andhasbeenusedbymanyofthebest-knownScienceandTechnologyStudieswritersrangingfromBrunoLatourtoDonnaHarawayandothers.Suchahybridizationstandsincontrasttoanolderusagewhichsuggestednotonlydistinctdifferencesbetweenscienceandtechnology,butalsoaclearrelationofdependenceoftechnologyuponscience,asintheoncepopularusageof“appliedscience”referringtomostengineeringinitsmodernsense.Thisusageprevailedwellintothetwentiethcenturyandstillexistsasatitleforsomeprograms,buthasincreas-inglybeencalledintoquestion.Areweundergoingamajorshiftinthetermsoftheoncemasternarrativewhichbothcharacterizedanddistinguishedtechnologyandscience?PaulForman,intellectualhistorianandcuratorofMedicineandScienceattheSmithsonianInstitution,thinksso.InarecentspecialissueofHistoryandTechnology(vol.23,2007),hearguedthatintellectuallytherewasa“primacyofscienceinmodernity”andthatthisshiftedtoaprimacyof“technologyinpostmodernity,”butthatthisshiftwasnotrecognizeduntilrecentlybyhistoriansowingtotheirownideology.PartofForman’sthesisisthatthewatershedfortheshiftwasroughly1980,andwithahistorian’sscrupulousfoot-noting–424ofthem!–heshowshow,inmodernity,itwaspresumedthatsciencewastheprimarysourceofideas,theoriesandpracticeswhichbothdefineditas“prior”totechnologyandalsodistinctfromit.Theshift,ofcourse,begantobeglimpsedwellbefore1980;andFormanrecognizes,forexample,theprescientroleplayedbyMartinHeideggerinthemid-twentiethcentury.Heidegger’sfamous“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology”(1954)raisesthequestionabouttheontologicalpriorityoftechnologyoverscience.Inhisconvolutedway,Heideggerclaimed:Chronologicallyspeaking,modernphysicalsciencebeginsintheseventeenthcentury.Incontrast,machine-powertechnologydevelopsonlyinthesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcentury.Butmoderntechnology,whichforchronologicalreckoningisthelater,is,fromthepointofviewoftheessenceholdingswaywithinit,thehistoricallyearlier.(1977:23)ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks51©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page52donihdeAndHeideggerearlyonalsopointsoutthatscienceitselfusesandisdependentupontechnologies:Itissaidthatmoderntechnologyissomethingincomparablydifferentfromallearlytechnologiesbecauseitisbasedonmodernphysicsasanexactscience.Meanwhile,wehavecometoseethatthereverseholdstrueaswell:Modernphysics,asexperimental,isdependentupontechnicalapparatusandupontheprogressinbuildingtechnologicalapparatus.(1977:14)WhileinsomesenseHeideggerisprescientconcerningtechnoscience,inanother–inhisviewthatthereisasharpdisjunctionbetweenmodernandpre-moderntechno-logies–heremainsundertheperspectiveoftheprimacyofscienceinmodernity.Clearly,inanthropological–historicalterms,technologiesasusedbyhumanspredatemodernhumans(Homosapiens)sinceevenourpremodernancestorsusedtechnologiesformorethanamillionyearspriortoourownevolutionaryemergence.Butwhatofscience?Ifthemodernistmasternarrativeistobebelieved,thiswouldmakesciencemuch“later”thantechnologyinadifferentsense.Themodernistnarrativeplacesscience,aswithHeidegger,intheseventeenthcenturyand,additionally,originatinglargelyinaWesternorEuropeancontextintheEurocentricnarrative.ButaEurocentricinterpretationofscienceisequallyaninventionofmodernityand,aswiththeprimacyofscienceovertechnology,istodayunderseverecriticism.ItsEurocentrism,however,wasnotalwaystakenforgrantedeveninourownhistory.Asearlyasthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury,FrancisBaconclaimedthattheinventionswhichmostbenefitedprogress,andthusmodernity,werepaper-making,gunpowder,themagneticcompassandthemovable-typeprintingpress.ButhealsorecognizedthattheinventorsweretheChinese,who“completelychangedtheworld’sappearance...anddisplayed[thebiggest]influenceuponhumanprogress”(1623).Thus,atthebeginningofearlymodernity,whatlaterbecamethoughttobedominantlyaWesternandEuropeansciencewasnot.JosephNeedham,muchlater,continuedtochronicleChinesetech-nology,buthealsoclaimedthatthisinventivenessdiedoutanddidnotdevelopintotheWestern,theoreticalsciencewhichbecametheidealoflatemodernity.IfFormanisright,thentheinversionofprimacy–sciencewithmodernityandtechnologywithpostmodernity–posesasetofquestionswhicharisewithrespecttotechnologyandscienceandwhichbegintotakedifferentshapescontemporarily.Onesetofagreementswouldnowseemtohold:thesciencesareinstrumentallyembodied.Buttheyaresoembodiedindifferentwaysinthedifferentsciences.Whilethepositivistprogramearlierinthetwentiethcenturyincludedahopeforaunifiedscience,ultimatelyrelatedbacktophysicsasfoundational,itisclearinapostmodernerathatsuchaprogramnolongerispossible.Differentsciencesexhibitdifferentscienceculturesandpractices.Forexample,inastronomy,observation–untilwhatistodaycalledthenewastronomy–hadalwaysbeenlimitedtowhatcouldbeseenwithinthelimitsofopticallight.Indeed,untilearlymodernitythelimitstoopticallightwerealsolimitsofwhathumanscouldthemselvesseewithintheirlimitedandrelativeperceptualspectrumofhumanvision.Withearlymodernityandtheinventionoflensedopticalinstruments–telescopes–astronomerscouldbegintoobservephenomenaneverseenbefore.52\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page53technologyandscienceMagnificationandresolutionbegantoallowwhatwaspreviouslyimperceptibletobeperceived–butwithinthefamiliarlimitsofopticalvision.Galileo,havinglearnedoftheDutchinventionofatelescopebyHansLippershey,wentontobuildsomehundredofhisown,improvingfromtheDutch3xtonearly30xtelescopes–whichturnouttobethelimitofmagnificationalpowerwithoutchromaticdistortion.Anditwaswithhisowntelescopesthathemadetheobservationslaunchingearlymodernastronomy(phasesofVenus,satellitesofJupiter,etc.).IsaacNewton’slaterimprovementwithreflectingtelescopesexpandeduponthemagnificational-resolutioncapacityofopticalobservation;and,fromNewtontothetwentiethcentury,improvementcontinuedontothelaterverylargearrayoflighttelescopestoday–followingtheusualtechno-logicaltrajectoryof“more-is-better”butstillremainingwithinthelimitsofthelightspectrum.Today’sastronomyhasnowhadthebenefitofsomefourcenturiesofopticaltelescopy.The“newastronomy,”however,opensthefullknownelectromagneticspectrumtoobservation,beginningwiththeaccidentaldiscoveryofradioastronomyearlyinthetwentiethcentury,andleadingtodaytothediversevarietyofEMStelescopeswhichcanexploretherangefromgammatoradiowaves.Thus,astronomy,nowoutfittedwithnewinstruments,“smart”adaptiveoptics,verylargearrays,etc.,illustratesonestyleofinstrumentallyembodiedscience–atechnoscience.Ofcourseastronomy,withtheveryrecentexceptionsofprobestosolarsystembodies(Moon,Mars,Venus,asteroids),remainslargelya“receptive”science,dependentuponinstrumentationwhichcandetectandreceiveemissions.Contemporarybiologydisplaysaquitedifferentinstrumentarrayand,accordingtoEvelynFox-Keller,alsoadifferentscientificculture.Shecitesherownexperience,comingfrommathematicalphysicsintomicrobiology,andtakesaccountofthedis-tinctiveinstrumentalcultureinherMakingSenseofLife(2002).Here,particularlywiththedevelopmentofbiotechnology,instrumentationisfarmoreinterventionalthanintheastronomycase.Microscopicinstrumentationcanbeandoftenisinter-ventionalinstyle:“gene-splicing”andothertechniquesofbiotechnology,whilestillintheirinfancy,areclearlypartoftheinterventionaltrajectoryofbiologicalinstru-mentation.Yet,inbothdisciplines,thesciencesinvolvedaretodayhighlyinstrument-alizedandcouldnotprogresssuccessfullywithoutconstantimprovementsupontherespectiveinstrumentaltrajectories.So,minimalistically,onemayconcludethatthesciencesaretechnologically,instrumentallyembodied.Butthestylesofembodimentdiffer,andperhapsthelastofthescientificdisciplinestomoveintosuchtechnicalembodimentismathematics,whichonlycontemporarilyhascometorelymoreandmoreuponthecomputationalmachinerynowincommonuse.IsabelStengershasseen,perhapsmoreclearlythanmany,theimaginativepossibilitiesofsuchaninstrument-allyembodiedmathematics,hintedatinherTheInventionofModernScience(2000).Sheglimpsesthenewstylesofanalysiswhichbecomepossiblethroughcomputersimulation,modelingandtomographicalprocesseswhichareonlynowcomingintopreliminarymaturity.Inabroadsense,ofcourse,historians,anthropologistsandarcheologistshavealwaysknownthattechnologiesare“older”thanscienceifscienceisconceivedofasitwasbythemodernistnotionofsciencepropagatedbymodernphilosophyofscience.TheStoneAgetoolkitgoesallthewaybacktoHomoerectusandbeyond.Butothersofttechnologies,suchasnets,fiber,bambooandwood,alsomustgobackintotheprehistoric–premodern53\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page54donihdehuman.Woodenspear-shaftsdated400,000bphaveoccasionallybeendiscovered,butsuchdiscoveriesarerarecomparedtoAcheuleanhandaxesof1,000,000+bp.Thehistoricalcommonplace,“Scienceowesmoretothesteamenginethanthesteamenginetoscience,”whichpointstothehistoricalfactthatthequestionswhichledtothediscoveryofthelawsofthermodynamicscamefromquestionsofenergylossinearlysteamengines,notfromobservationsofnature,ispartofthispre-Formanshifttopost-modernity’sprimacyoftechnologyoverscience.Sohowandwhydidmodernityholdsotenaciouslytotheprimacyofscience?Partoftheanswerrelatestothequestion:Whointerpretsscience?Andwithrespecttothetwentiethcenturyitisarguablythecasethatphilosophersofsciencetendedtopre-vail.Hereseveralgeneralizationsdoseemtoholdup:first,theparadigmordominantscienceforefrontedbyphilosophersofscienceinthetwentiethcenturywasphysics–particularlymathematicalphysics–anditsnearestrelations.Earlier,onecouldarguethatastronomyandcosmologyoccupiedmuchofearlymodernity’sinterpreta-tion,butevenherethecaveatisthatthecentralinterestofphilosophersofscienceremainedthelawsofmotionandtheirgeneralizationintouniversality,thus,physics.Thegiantsofearly-twentieth-centuryphilosophyofsciencewerePierreDuhem,JulesHenriPoincaréandErnstMach,allthemselvesmathematician-philosophersandalldecreeingthemathematical“essence”ofphysics.Thus,theimageofsciencewhichemergedfromthissetofinterpreterswasasciencewhichwasahistorical,acultural,“mathematical”ortheoreticalandcontext-free.Bythetimeofpositivismandlogicalempiricism,mostofthatimageofsciencewasretainedaswasthecentralityoftheory-bias,althoughonecouldaddaweightingtologicalandpropositionalfociitotheearliermathematizationemphasis,alongwithconcernswithobservationforverificationpurposes.Programssuchastheunificationofscienceandtheproliferationofpositivistphilosophyofscienceintheuniversitiesarewell-recognizedpartsofthispartofthehistoryofthephilosophyofsciencetothemid-twentiethcentury.RudolphCarnap,HansReichenbach,HerbertFeigl,CarlHempel,MoritzSchlicketal.weresomeofthesefamiliarnames.Bymid-century,objectionsbegantocounterthepositivistprograms,andwhattodayisusuallycalledthe“positivist-anti-positivistwars”began.KarlPopper,ImreLakotos,PaulFeyerabendandpre-eminentlyThomasKuhnweretheanti-positivistcritics.And,althoughconcretehistories,instrumentsand,tosomedegree,experimentsbegintoplayaroleinscienceinterpretation,itwasnotuntillaterinthetwentiethcenturythatashifttoapraxis,laboratoryandnewexperimentalfocusbegantoover-whelmtheearliertrajectoryoftheory-centeredinterpretation.Beforeleavingphilo-sophersofscienceaskeyinterpretersofscience,theappearanceinthe1980s,preciselyafterForman’swatershedyear,ofexperiment-andinstrument-orientedphilosophyofsciencebegantomakeinroads.IanHacking’sRepresentingandIntervening(1983),withitsmarkedshifttointerventionandmanipulationviaexperimentandinstruments,wasonelandmark.RobertAckermannfollowedwithData,InstrumentsandTheory(1985),andPeterGalisonwithHowExperimentsEnd(1987).Tothispoint,interpretersofsciencefromthephilosophyofsciencehavebeennoted;but,evenbeforethenewexperiment-andinstrument-sensitivephilosophyofsciencegainedmomentum,newchallengersforinterpretationsofsciencewhichwerepractice-orientedandfocuseduponexperiments,instrumentsandlaboratorieswereunder54\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page55technologyandscienceway.Thiswasespeciallymarkedbythenewandlargely“post-Mertonian”sociologiesofsciencefromboththeUnitedKingdomandEurope.“SocialConstructionism,”“TheStrongProgramme”and“ActorNetworkTheory”bythemid-1980swereinstrongcontentionwithinterpretationsofsciencewhichlookedatthesocialandsometimesmaterialculturesofscience.HerethenamesofTrevorPinch,HarryCollins,SteveWoolgar,MichelCallon,BrunoLatour,KarinKnorr-Cetinabegantoappear.Philosophersofsciencehadnewinterpretivecompetition,andthe“wars”whichoccurredwereanindirectrecognitionofthecontention.Whatofthephilosophyoftechnology?Forthemostpart,onecansaythatthephilo-sophyoftechnologyisprimarilyatwentieth-centurydevelopment.While,attheendofthenineteenthcentury,thetwoneo-Hegelians,ErnstKappandKarlMarx,bothturned“idealism”upsidedownandbegantolookattechnologiesandproductiveprocessesasleadingto,orevendetermining,societaloutputs,itwasonlyafterthestrongesteffectsoftheIndustrialRevolutionandtheemergenceofmilitarizedtechnologiesfromthetwoworldwarsthatmajorphilosopherslookeddeeplyandseriouslyintotechnology.WiththeexceptionofJohnDeweyontheAmericanscene,mostearlyphilosophyoftechnologywasEuropean,andmostlyderivingfromwhatcouldbecalledthemorepraxis-orientedtraditionssuchasMarxian,phenomenological,andincludingAmericanpragmatism.Lookingbackoverthelastcentury,thereisnowclosetoaconsensusregardingthebeginningsofthephilosophyoftechnology.PublicationsrangefromCarlMitcham’swell-recognizedhistoryofthephilosophyoftechnology,ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(1994),totheworkoftheTwentegroupofphilosophersoftechnologyundertheleadershipofHansAchterhuiswithDeMaatvandetechniek(1992)andVanStoommachinetotCyborg:denkenovertechniekindenieuwewereld(1997),latertranslatedwithupdatesintoAmericanPhilosophyofTechnology:TheEmpiricalTurn(2001).FollowingAchterhuis,onecouldcharacterizeearly-twentieth-centuryphilosophyoftechnologyasconcernedwithtechnology-in-generalata“transcendental”level;asoftendystopianintone;andasportendinganendtothemodernera.FriedrichDessauer,aneo-Kantian,andMartinHeideggerbothaddressedtechnologicalthemesasearlyas1927;butOrtegayGasset,KarlJaspers,manyoftheprincipalsoftheFrankfurtSchool,includingAdorno,HerbertMarcuseandJürgenHabermas,alsobegantowriteabouttechnologicalthemes.Incontrasttotheseearly-to-mid-twentieth-centurythinkers,inthelatertwentiethcenturyasecondgen-erationofphilosophersoftechnologywereseenastakingan“empiricalturn”tothecloser-upexaminationofapluralityofparticulartechnologies,asmorepragmaticinoutlook;andasdemocraticinaim.Achterhuis’sAmericanPhilosophyofTechnologyincludesintroductionstoAlbertBorgmann,HubertDreyfus,AndrewFeenberg,DonnaHaraway,DonIhdeandLangdonWinnerasthosewhoarelocatedunderthenewdescriptions.Withrespecttotechnologiesandscience,IwillmentionmyInstrumentalRealism:TheInterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnology(1991),whichaddressesawidespectrumofbothphilosophersofscienceandphilosophersoftechnologywithemphasisuponscience’stechnologies.AndmyearlierTechnicsandPraxis:APhilosophyofTechnology(1979)hadalreadyarguedthatsciencehasallalongbeentechnologicallyembodied.Thus,fromanenlargingfieldofdifferentlybasedinterpreters,therolesoftechnologyvis-à-vissciencehavebecomemorevisiblefromthelatetwentiethcenturyintothe55\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page56donihdetwenty-first.InthissectionoftheCompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnology,thecon-tributorstothethemesoftechnologyandscienceagainalsoactuallydisplayavarietyofopinions,clearlycallingintoquestionany“standardview”oftheprimacyofscienceovertechnology,butnotoftengoingsofarastoinverttherelationshiptoa“Heideggerian”oneoftheprimacyoftechnologyoverscience,nortothehybridizationoftechnologyandscienceintoatechnoscience.Threeofthecontributingphilosophers–incidentallyallfromtheNetherlands–allrecognizethecontemporaryshiftwhichhasoccurredinphilosophiesofscience.HansRaddernotesthat,fromtheearlier,onecouldsaymoreelitistperspectivesof“scientism”and“technocracy,”currentshiftstowards“methologicalnaturalism”and“criticalnormativity”arealsomoreconcreteand,onecouldsay,empirical,withrespecttotheearlierandmoreideologicaltonesofthelastcentury.BartGremmenclaimsthatthescience–technologyrelationshiptotheseventieswasdominated,again,bythetheoryconcernsofphilosophyofscience,thusconfirmingthemodernistframesug-gestedbyFormanaswell.Gremmen,however,seessomethinglikeaninteractionschemareplacingthemodernistone,inwhichthereremainsacertaindistinctionbetweentech-nologyandscienceandtheinterrelationofthecognatephilosophiesthereof.AndMiekeBoon,quiteawareoftheemergenceofthenotionoftechnoscience,seestheshiftcen-teringonemphasesona“newexperimentalism”relatedbothtophilosophyofscienceandphilosophyoftechnology,butalsorelatesthistoamovementtowardrecognizingauniquestyleoftechnologicalknowledge.Inallthreecases,theoldertraditionsofastrongdistinctionbetweenepistemeandtechnearecalledintoquestion.Indeed,thelargestgroupofcontributorstothissectioncouldbecharacterizedasinterestedpreciselyinformsof“technologicalknowledge.”AnthonieMeijersandMarcdeVriesmaketechnologicalknowledgetheirprimarytheme,arguingagainstnowdatednotionsof“appliedscience”andforadistinctandrecognizabletechnologicalknow-ledge.PeterKroesargues,inaparallelvein,that,insofarasengineeringanddesignmusttakeintoaccounthumanneeds,actionsandvaluestherecanbesomethinglikeahistoryofintentionalitywhichplaysintothehuman–technicaljuncture.Somewhatmoreextreme,WiebeBijker,oneoftheprincipalsinthesocialconstructionoftech-nologymovement,showsawidespectrumofsocial–culturalaspectswhichpermeatetechnologies,drawingfromsomeofhispastworkonspecifictechnologicaldevelopments.LouisBucciarelli,whileallowingasabackgroundphenomenontheoldernotionsofscience,forefrontsthenotionofanengineeringscience,againhavingitsownvalidityasatypeofknowledge.AlongwithKroesandMeijersanddeVries,functionplaysastrongrole.KeekokLeeplaysasimilarroleinthecritiqueoftheancientepisteme/technedis-tinctionwhendealingwithtechnologyandbiology.Theverynotionofabiotechnologyanditsmanipulationsandconstructionsofnewbiologicalentitiesbeliessuchancientdistinctions.Finally,insomerespectscomingtheclosesttoaninversionofthemodernistprimacy-of-sciencenotion,aretheessaysofHelgeKragh,W.J.NuttallandAndrewPickering.Allhold,indifferentcontextsandfordifferentsciences,variantsuponhownewtechnologiesordiscoveriesintechnologiesnotonlyimpactuponscience,butalsoeffectivelyinventtostimulatenewsciences.Kraghdoesthishistoricallywithrespecttochemistry:thediscoveriesofphosphorus,sodaandsulfuricacidwereallmadeeitheraccidentallyorserendipitouslyandledtooneofthefirst“BigSciences”inchemistry,withoutbenefitoftheoreticalsciencewhichonlylatercoulddealwiththeatomicand56\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page57technologyandsciencemoleculartheoryneededtohavesuchachemicalscience.Nuttall,bytracingaspectsofnuclearscienceandthedevelopmentofnuclearweaponry,showshow,onceagain,asetoftechnologiescarriesenormousimplicationsforthepractices,politicsandformationofscience–inthiscaseColdWarphysicsandengineering.Pickering,againdrawingfromdevelopmentsinthesameera,takescyberneticsasyetanother“techno-logical”developmentwhichleadstoanewtypeofscience,onestillunderdevelopmentinanumberofsciencedisciplines.Theseentries,notunlikethatofthesteam-engine-to-thermodynamicsmaximcitedabove,cometheclosesttotheprimacyoftechnologyoverscienceinapostmodernsense.Andinallcasesitisclearthatamodernistcon-sensusregardingthesheerprimacyofscienceovertechnologynolongerholdsformostcontemporarythinkers.Anditshouldequallybeclearthatthe“thin”andtheory-biasedimageofscience,oftennarrowlyconcernedwithphysics,hasequallybeencalledintoquestion.Amorecomplicatedimageofscience,insomewaysactuallylookingmorelikeatechnologicallypracticedscience,hasemerged.Suchascienceis,orhas,cul-tural,historical,contextual,social–politicalfeatures–andis,asLarryLaudanproclaimsforallcontemporaryphilosophyofscience–fallibilistic.Ifthegroundhasshifted,particularlywithrespecttomodernism,and,ifthecriti-cismsofmodernismneedtotakeintoaccountcultures,histories,technologies,whatwouldatechnoscienceinterpretationoftherelationsbetweentechnologyandsciencelooklike?Here,ratherthantakethedirectiontakenbyFormanconcerningthe“primacyoftechnology,”thisreframingwillexamineamoresymbiotictechnology/sciencedirection,onesuggestedbytheterm“technoscience.”This,too,wouldbeareframingofthequestion,butonewhichreflectssomeaspectsofamorepragmatistinter-pretation.Suchareframingwouldholdthat(a)thestyleofrobust,repeatableanddependableknowledgewhichweidentifywithsciencehasalwaysbeenaprocesswhichentailstechnologies;(b)sinceitisahumanactivitywhichrespondstoneedsforknow-ledgeinavarietyofcontexts,itshouldbeidentifiablewhereverandwheneverithasoccurred;and(c)itcanalsobevariouslycontexted,relativetotheneedsandshapesofthesocietiesintowhichsuchpracticesfit.Thisreframing,aswillbeshown,endsupbeingmulticultural,occurringinmanydifferentplacesandtimes,andisdevelopmental,particularlywithrespecttotherefinementandprogressionofthetechnologiesusedinproducingtheknowledgeentailed.Onceagain,thisreframingnarrativebeginswiththeveryancientscience–astronomy.Evenourprehistoricancestorsobservedthecelestialmotionsofthenight-timeskiesandveryearlyonbegantodevelopcalendars,whichareoneformof“writing”tech-nologywhichcanmakerepeatablepatternsavailable,includingpassingonarecordforlatergenerationstorecognize.Moonphaseshavebeenfoundmarkedonreindeerantlers,counting-sticksandthelike,goingbackatleastasfarastheIceAgeimagesof30,000+bp.Thefulllunarandsolarcalendars,somemoreaccuratethanthoseoftheEuropeanMiddleAges,canbefoundinanumberofancientcivilizationsstretchingfromtheMiddleEasttoMeso-America.Andthewritingtechnologyofthecalendar-artifactis,ascontemporaryarcheoastronomyhasnowshown,nottheonlytechno-logyrelevanttotheancients.Observationalinstrumentsalsoplayedanapparentrole.IthaslongbeensurmisedthatStonehenge(4500bp)wasusedasanobservationalinstrument;and,asAnthonyAveniandDickTeresihavepointedout,similarstonerings,sightingtunnelsandthelikehavebeenfoundalignedwithancientobservations57\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page58donihdeinmanyareasoftheglobe.Infact,somearesoancientthatonlybytakingintoaccounttheshiftinprecessionchangesincelestialalignmentcandatingofprimeusagetimebeestablished(Amerindianringshavebeendatedforsuchusageatleast3000bp).Thepointhereissimple:observationsofthissorthavebeenmadeinmanycultures,ingreatantiquity,andwerebothrecordedonvariousformsofwritingtechnologiesandobservedbymeansofsimpleinstruments.Isthis,then,ancienttechnoscience?Ifso,ithaspluralorigins,butcanalsoaccommodateourownstandardhistory,whichalsoincludessignificantdiscoveries.RobertCrease’sThePrismandthePendulum(2006)isamonographrespondingtoaphysicseducators’pollconcerningthetenmostbeautifulexperimentsinsciencehistory.ThemostcitedexamplewasfromHellenicGreektimes,thatofEratosthenes’measurementofthecircumferenceoftheearth.Byusingagnomon,asticksundialwhichatthesummersolsticecastnoshadow,com-binedwithrelativelysimplegeometrywithaknowndistancebetweentwocities–onetheobservationsite,thesecondwheretheangleofshadowcouldbemeasured–throughsimpletriangulationhewasabletoproducearespectablemeasurementoftheearth’scircumference.This,too,isaninstrumental-styled,mathematicallyinterpretedtechnoscience,thistimewithinourstandardmasternarrativetheme.Thereframingbeingsuggestedheretakesaccountofbothmulticulturalinstancesofscience,bettertechnoscience,andofitsembeddednessinbothamaterialcultureandmaterialinstrumentalization.And,whilefewrecentauthorshaveventuredintothemulticulturalaspectofthisterritory,somehavemadesignificantgesturesinthisdirection,including:SandraHardingwithIsScienceMulticultural?(1998);DickTeresi,LostDiscoveries:AncientRootsofModernScience(2002);HelaineSelin’smassiveEncyclopediaoftheHistoryofScience,TechnologyandMedicineinNon-WesternCultures(1997).Suchstudiesonlynowbegintoexpandandsupplementtheoldertraditions–suchasthoseofBacontoNeedhammentionedabove–whichrecognizeonlylimitednon-WesterntechnoscienceoriginssuchasChina.Whatemergesisadifferent,morescattered,butalsomoreunderstandableprofileofscientificandtechnologicalinven-tionsanddiscoveries.Forexample,andagainonlyduetocontemporarydatingtech-niques,itisbeginningtobeunderstoodthatgraindomesticationoccurredinmanydifferentplacesoftheearthroughlybetween8000and–10,000bp,intheMiddleEast,inAsia,andeveninMeso-America–andwithdifferentgraincombinations,usuallyadominantgrainorafewdominantgrains,withmostgrainsnotundergoingselectionforhypertrophism.Thus,wheat,riceandcornrespectivelyfitintothesamplesabove;butotherexamples,too,havebeguntoberecognized(figs,squashandbeans,andthelike).Granted,thereisakindofironywithbothwhyandhowsuchareframingcantakeplaceinpostmodernity.Theironyisthatonlycontemporarilydowehavetheinstru-mentationtodeterminewithaccuracythedating,theidentificationofthematerialsinvolvedandthustherecognitionofpast,oftenpreviouslylostpractices.Thissameinvent-iveness,themulticulturalistshavebeguntorecognize,canalsooccurinmuchmoreabstractactivities.Teresipointsout,alongwithotherssuchasRobertandElaineKaplan,that“zero”hasbeeninventedanumberoftimesinanumberofancientcultures.TheBabyloniansmayhavebeenfirstwithzeroasaplace-holder3800bp,butlaterwithagenuinezero,3100bp;butHinduculturealsoinventedzero,and,fromthesesourcesinAsiaandtheMiddleEast,ArabiccultureborrowedandthenconveyedthenotionofzerointoareluctantandlateEuropeanculturewhich,onlyonacceptingArabic58\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page59technologyandsciencenumberconcepts,incorporatedzerointoitsownsystem.And,althoughveryseparatefromtheOldWorldculturesmentioned,theMayansalsoindependentlyinventedzero.Thus,onceagain,onemustcallintoquestionthemonodimensionalityoftheoldermasternarrativesomuchtakenforgrantedinEurocentrichistories.Theantiquityofwritingisanothermulti-originexample:cuneiformwritingcontinuestoholditsplacefromatleast6000bpintheOldWorldhistory,buttwentieth-centuryfindsoftortoise-shellwritingfromChinanowalsoequala6000bpdatedorigin.Here,then,apragmatisthuman-inventivitymodelfortheproductionoftoolsagainallowsfortherecognitionofsuchapluralisticsetofhistories.Admittedly,muchoftheancientknowledgenowre-emerginghaddisappeared.Theredoesnotseemtobeanythinglikeasinglecontinuoushistoryofsciencesanymorethanthereisacontinuoushistoryof“civilization”assuch.But,withinthesepluralhistories,therearealsotellingexamplesofhowtechnologicallyprogressivetrajectoriesleadbothtorefinementsofknowledgeandtobreakthroughs.Asnoted,astronomyunderwentamany-millenniaperiodlimitedtohumanvisualobservationinrelationtosimple,fixedobservationalinstruments.Lensesqualitativelychangedtherangeandtypeofobservationpossibleandallowedforthefour-centuryhistoryfamiliartotheEurocentricaccount.Interestingly,sunspotsandtheirperiodicitywasfirstnotedbyGalileointheearlyseventeenthcenturywiththeaidofatelescopeofhisowndesign,andwhichincludedahelioscopetocastsunspotimagesonascreen.InChina,however,sunspotactivityhadbeennotedandchartedsince2500bpbyGanDe,ShiShenandothers.Withouttelescopes,howcouldthesephenomenabeobserved?Whiletheanswerisnotdefinitive,onecannotethatveryearlylensdevelopmentinChinaincludedtheuseofdarkquartz,whichcouldhavebeenusedforpreciselysuchsightings.Yet,inspiteoftheearlierchartingofsunspotactivityinChinaandthelaterchartinginearlymodernity,thediscoveryoftheeleven-yearsunspotcycleanditsrelationtoauroralactivityhadtoawaitlatermodernityinspiteofthefactthatthechartsfromantiquityevidencethispattern.Thepointbeingmadeisthattechnologies,instrumentation,mediateandmakepossibledifferentandrefinedobservations.And,inonesense,thisbecomesevenmorepronouncedinlatemodernity,asPeterGalisonhaspointedoutinEinstein’sClocks,Poincaré’sMaps:EmpiresofTime(2003).Thehistoryanddiscoveryofspecialrelativityanditsrelation-shiptotimerelatestothemoreaccuratetime-keepingwhichbecamepossibleonlyinthetwentiethcentury.Untilclockswerebothaccurateenoughtomeasuremicro-seconds,andputintosynchonizedsystems–suchasthevariousproposalsforauniversaltimetogovernrailwaytrafficwhichpatentsAlbertEinsteindealtwithinhis1905career–couldtheclearerimplicationsofrelativistictimebemoredeeplyprobed.Galisonshowshowthistechnologicallifeworldistheconcretecontextwithinwhichrelativityisconceived.Thus,theframingbeingsuggestedhere,inbothitspragmatistsensewhichem-phasizeshumaninventivenessinitsmaterialdimensionincludingtechnologies,andinaphenomenologicalsenseinwhichhumanperceptionandembodimentplaysarole,canmorefullyaccommodateatechnoscience,orhybridizedtechnologiesandsciencesinwhatcanbeunderstoodasbothsymbioticinrelationshipandmulticulturalinoriginandpluralisticinbothtemporalandgeographiclocalitiescanherecomeintoview.59\n9781405146012_4_008.qxd2/4/0916:09Page60donihdeReferencesandFurtherReadingAchterhuis,H.(1992).DeMaatvandetechniek(Baam:Ambo).Achterhuis,H.(1997).VanStoommachinetotCyborg:denkenovertechniekindenieuwewereld(Baam:Ambo).Achterhuis,H.(2001).AmericanPhilosophyofTechnology:TheEmpiricalTurn(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Ackermann,R.(1985).Data,InstrumentsandTheory(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Aveni,A.(2008).PeopleandtheSky(London:Thames&Hudson).Bacon,F.(1623).TheNewAtlantis.Crease,R.(2006).ThePrismandthePendulum(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Forman,P.(2007).“ThePrimacyofScienceinModernity,ofTechnologyinPostmodernity,andofIdeologyintheHistoryofTechnology,”HistoryandTechnology,23(1–2):1–152.Fox-Keller,E.(2002).MakingSenseofLife(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Galison,P.(1987).HowExperimentsEnd(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Galison,P.(2003).Einstein’sClocks,Poincaré’sMaps:EmpiresofTime(NewYork:W.W.Norton).Hacking,I.(1983).RepresentingandIntervening(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Harding,S.G.(1998).IsScienceMulticultural?(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Heidegger,M.(1977).TheQuestionConcerningTechnology.(NewYork:HarperTorchbacks).German,1954.Ihde,D.(1979).TechnicsandPraxis:APhilosophyofTechnology.(Dordrecht:Reidel).Ihde,D.(1991).InstrumentalRealism:TheInterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Kaplan,E.andKaplan,R.(1999).TheNothingThatIs:ANaturalHistoryofZero(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Laudan,L.(1996).BeyondPositivismandRelativism(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress).Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Selin,H.(1997).EncyclopediaoftheHistoryofScience,TechnologyandMedicineinNon-WesternCultures(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Stengers,I.(2000).TheInventionofModernScience(Minneapolis,Minn.:UniversityofMinnesotaPress).Teresi,D.(2002).LostDiscoveries:AncientRootsofModernScience(NewYork:Simon&Schuster).60\n9781405146012_4_009.qxd2/4/0913:23Page619ScienceandTechnology:PositivismandCritiqueHANSRADDERThenotionofpositivism,whichisprimarilyusedinrelationtoscience,isnotoriouslyambiguous.KarlPopper,forone,stronglyarguedagainstpositivistphilosophyofscienceandwassharplycriticizedforbeingapositivistphilosopherofsciencehimself.Inepistemology,positivismisoftenseenasequivalenttoempiricism;inphilosophyofscience,itusuallymeans“anti-realism”;inmethodologicaldiscourse,itfrequentlyreferstoaunity-of-scienceapproachaccordingtowhichthesocialsciencesshouldfollowthemethodologyofthenaturalsciences;insocialscience,itcommonlystandsforapreferenceofquantitativeoverqualitativemethods;andinontologicaldebatesitmaydenotereductionistormaterialistpositions.Clearly,somelimitationandclarificationisinorder,themoresosincenotallofthesesensesofpositivismwillbeequallyrelevanttobothscienceandtechnology.Forthepurposeofthisessay,Istartwiththeinfluentialviewsof(theearly)JürgenHabermas,whoconceivedofscienceandtechnologyasbeingintrinsicallyrelated.Habermasproposesaverybroadcharacterizationofpositivismastheviewthat,becauseoftheirobvioussuccesses,thereisnoneedforacriticalreflectiononscienceandtechnology“assuch.”Thelatterqualificationisimportant,sincepositivismacknowledges,andevenexplicitlyaimstocriticize,theoccurrenceofparticulardeviationsfromscientificortechnologicalrationality.Inadditiontothis,positivismoftenincludesastrongernormativeview,sayingthatascientificoratechnologicalapproachisthebest,oreventheonlylegitimate,approachtotackleanyeconomic,socio-culturalorpersonalproblem.Putdifferently,positivismequatesknowledgewithscienceandaccordinglyclaimsthatonlyscienceandscience-basedtechnologycanbringusmaterialandsocialprogress.Inthecaseofscience,thisapproachiscalledscientism;inthecaseoftechnology,onespeaksoftech-nocracy.Suchviewsarestillquitecurrent(thoughnotunchallenged)amongscientists,technologists,policy-makers,politiciansandthegeneralpublic.Forinstance,ascient-isticapproachtohumanintelligenceholdsthatintelligenceiswhatIQtestsmeasure,andatechnocraticpolicyproceedsbyreplacingculturallyspecificactors’notionsofintelligencewithscientificpractices,suchastestingchildrenatschoolandadultsdur-ingapplicationprocedures.Or,inthefaceofthethreateningexhaustionoffossilfuels,technocracyadvocatesatechnologicalfixthroughastrongexpansionofnuclearpower(despiteitsmanyunsolvedproblems),whilelegitimateconcernsarebeingsilencedthroughACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks61©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_009.qxd2/4/0913:23Page62hansradderthescientisticstrategyofdistinguishingbetweentheobjectiveriskrevealedbythescientificexpertsandthemerelyperceived(andhencesubjectiveandunreal)riskofthelaycritics.InhisKnowledgeandHumanInterests,Habermas(1978)criticizesAugusteComte’sandErnstMach’spositivistviewsofscienceforbeingunreflexive.Theyfocusonmethodologicalandepistemologicalissues,suchasthefunctionofscientificexperi-enceandthenatureofscientifictheories.Indoingso,theyforgothereflexiveKantianquestionofthegeneralconditionsofthepossibilityofscientificknowledge.Asalreadymentioned,Habermasseesthis“disavowalofreflection”asthecoreproblemofpos-itivism.Positivismunjustlytakesthefactualsuccessesofthescientificapproachtobeenoughepistemicjustificationandsociallegitimation.Againstthis,Habermasfirstpointstothesignificanceofhuman,instrumentalorexperimentalactionastheconditionofthepossibilityofscientificknowledge;second,heclaimsthatcriticalreflectiononscienceshouldtakefullaccountofcommunicativeaction,whichistheconditionofthepos-sibilityoftheinterpretivehumanitiesand,moregenerally,ofmutualunderstandinginourlife-world.Thatistosay,thesphereofcommunicativeactionconstitutesamorebasicoutside“position”fromwhichthedevelopmentofsciencemaybecriticallyques-tioned.Thus,Habermas’critiqueofpositivisminscienceresultsinassigningscienceitsproperplace,relativetotheinterpretivedisciplinesandtoourlife-world.Scienceisalegitimatehumanendeavor,butitisalsoone-sided,andhenceitsunconstrainedexpan-sionshouldbecounteractedfromthesphereofcommunicativeaction.Somethingsimilarappliestotechnologysince,accordingtoHabermas,scienceisintrinsicallyrelatedtotechnology,withexperimentationbeingthecruciallink.Bothscienceandtechnologyaimatpredictionandcontroloftheeventsstudiedtheoretic-allyandrealizedexperimentallyortechnologically.Technologyhasitsproperplaceasaninstrumentalmeansforsupportingthesurvivalofindividualhumanbeingsandofhumankindmoregenerally.Alltoooften,however,technologyintrudeson,andintendstoreplace,communicativediscourseandactionconcerningsocietalgoals(seeHabermas1971).Positivismprovidesanideologicalunderpinningofthisimproper“colonizationofthelife-world,”sinceitclaimsthattheactualpracticesofscienceandtechnologyneednot,andshouldnot,benormativelyconstrainedfromanindependentdomainofcommunicativeaction.ItisalongtheselinesthatHabermasanalyzesandcriticizesthescientisticandtechnocraticdoctrinesofpositivism.YetonemayarguethatHabermas’approachstillincludesapositivistresidue:becauseofhisclaimthatthevalidityofscientificfactsandtheeffectivenessoftechnologicalartifactsareindependentofparticularsocietalinterestsandspecificnormsandvalues,hisaccountoftheconditionsofthepossibilityofscienceandtechnologyisinadequate.Scienceandtechnologyareseenasyieldinguniversallyvalidknowledgeandobjectivelyworkingtoolsthatarenorm-ativelyneutralandacquirevalueonlywhenappliedforspecificsocialpurposes.Thus,laserscienceandtechnologyassuchprovideneutralknowledgeandeffectivetools,whichonlybecomevalue-andinterest-ladenwhenused,forinstanceforhealingorforkillingpeople.Morerecentstudiesofscientificpractice,however,haveclaimedthatscientificknowledgeisneverneutralanduniversallyvalid,butsociallyconstructedonthebasis62\n9781405146012_4_009.qxd2/4/0913:23Page63scienceandtechnology:positivismandcritiqueofparticularsocialgoalsandinterestsorasaresultofspecificprocessesofsocialnego-tiation(seeBarnes,BloorandHenry1996).Thus,thenewexperimentalproceduresadvocatedbyRobertBoyleandthedisputeaboutthoseproceduresbetweenBoyleandThomasHobbesareclaimedtodependcruciallyonalocalaspectoftheseventeenth-centuryEnglishsocialorder.Intechnology,the“validity”–thatis,theobjectivityandeffectiveness–oftechnologicalartifactsandsystemshassimilarlybeenclaimedtobesociallyconstructedthroughnegotiationamonginvolvedactorsorthroughpowerfulindividualandinstitutionalsystem-builders(Bijker,HughesandPinch1987).Illustra-tionsarethedevelopmentofthebicycleinthelastdecadesofthenineteenthcenturyandtheevolutionofthesystemofelectriclightandpowerinWesternsocietiesbetween1870and1940.Atpresent,suchdetailedstudiesofscientificandtechnologicalpracticeabound.Theyhavebeenframedintoacomprehensive(social)constructivistresearchtradition.Thistraditionmaybecharacterizedasbroadlynaturalistic:itfocusesonaccurateempiricaldescriptionandexplanationofactualscientificortechnologicalpracticeswiththehelpof(social)scientificmethods.Thus,froma(social)constructivistperspective,Habermashimselfisstillacaptiveofpositivisminthatheendorsesitsuntenabledoctrinesoftheuniversalityandneu-tralityofscienceandtechnology.OnereasonforholdingthesemistakenviewsistheabstractnatureofHabermas’theorizing,whichdoesnotincludeanyillustrationsfromscienceortechnology,letaloneextensivestudiesofactualscientificortechnologicalpractices.Buthowdoes(social)constructivismitselfrelatetopositivism?IntermsofHabermas’characterization,constructivistreflectionhasexploredingreatdetailnotonlythegeneralbutespeciallytheparticularconditionsofthepossibilityofscienceandtechnology.Morespecifically,constructivismhasemphasizedthemethodologicalandepistemologicaldisunityandtheontologicalmultiplicityofthesciences(seeMol2002).Furthermore,intheirexplicitdeclarations,constructivistsdonotendorsethestronglynormativeclaimsofscientismandtechnocracy.Forthesereasons,theconstructivisttraditionmightbeclassifiedasanti-positivist.YetoneimportantelementofHabermas’anti-positivismismissingfromthistradi-tion.Habermasadvocatednotmerereflectionontheconditionsofpossibilityofscienceandtechnology,butcriticalreflectioninthesenseofincludinganormativecritiqueoftherolesofscienceandtechnologyinourpresentsociety.Incontrast,manynatur-alisticstudiesofscienceandtechnologyclaimtoprovidenomorethananimpartialdescriptionorexplanationofscientificandtechnologicalpractices,andquiteafewarguestronglyagainsttakinganormativestanceonthescientificandtechnologicalissues1theystudy.Putdifferently,whileconstructivistshaverightlyquestionedtherigidcontrastbetweenscienceandsociety,madebyboththepositivistsandHabermas,theyhavewronglyconcludedthatthisalsoentailsthedissolutionofthenotionandpossibilityofcriticalnormativity.Thelatter,however,isanonsequitur(seeWinner1993;Radder1996,chs5and8).Consider,forinstance,Habermas’emphasisontheimportanceofthenotionsoftechnologicalpredictionandcontrol.Thesenotionsmaybereinterpretedasbeingtheoreticallynecessaryforsuccessfullyrealizingastableandreproducibletechnology(seeRadder1996,chs6and7).Ofcourse,itremainsamatterofempiricalstudytoseewhetherornotthissuccesshasmaterializedinactualpractice.Nonetheless,the63\n9781405146012_4_009.qxd2/4/0913:23Page64hansradderattemptatrealizingstableandreproducibletechnologiesmaybecriticallyassessedfortworeasons.Afirstquestioniswhethertherequiredmaterialandsocialcontrolneededforsuccessfullyrealizingastableandreproducibletechnologycanbereasonablyexpectedtobefeasible.Ifnot,weshouldrefrainfromrealizingthisspecifictechnology.But,second,evenifthismaterialandsocialcontrolcanbesuccessfullyrealized,thenormativequestionshouldbeaskedwhetherlivinginsuchacontrolledworldisseenasdesirable.Ifnot,wehaveanotherreasonfornotrealizingthisspecifictechnology.Thetwopointscanbeillustratedwiththeexampleofnuclearenergy.Inthiscase,therearegoodreasonsforquestioningthefeasibilityofkeepingthesystemofnuclearpowerproductionstableandreproducible(andhencesafe)duringaperiodofdecades,cen-turies,andlonger.Moreover,evenifthiscontrolwerefeasible,thereisthequestionofthedesirabilityofthestrictcontrolanddisciplineneededtokeepthistechnologystableandreproducible.AndrewFeenberg’scriticaltheoryoftechnologyconstitutesanotherapproachthatcombinestheoretical,empiricalandnormativeinsights.Feenberg(1999)identifiestwodifferent“aspects”or“levels”oftechnology:thefunctionalconstitutionoftechnicalobjectsandsubjects,calledprimaryinstrumentalization,andtheactualrealizationofthecon-stitutedobjectsandsubjects,calledsecondaryinstrumentalization.Thus,technologyinstrumentalizeshumansandnatureintwodistinctways.Thedistinctionisanalytic,meaningthatinanyactualtechnologicalartifactorsystembothaspectsalwaysgotogether.Feenbergdevelopsthistheoryoftechnologybyaddingfurthercharacter-isticsofthetwonotionsofinstrumentalization.Hespecifiesfour“reifying”momentsofprimaryinstrumentalization(decontextualization,reductionism,autonomizationandpositioning)aswellasfour“integrating”momentsofsecondaryinstrumentaliza-tion(systematization,mediation,vocationandinitiative).Primaryinstrumentalizationisclaimedtoentailuniversalcharacteristicsoftechnologies.Secondaryinstrumental-izationcreatesfurthercharacteristicsthatmightvaryinprinciplebutareinfactfixedbythedominantvaluesandinterestsofaparticularsocialgrouporsociety.TheaimofFeenberg’scriticalapproach,then,istoexposetheseunderlyingvaluesandinter-ests,andtoargueforalternative–thatistosaylessoppressiveandmoredemocratic–secondaryinstrumentalizationsofthetechnologiesinquestion.Anexampleofsucha“democraticrationalization”isthebottom-uphackingoftheFrenchMinitelsystemintheearly1980s.Theaimofthisessayhasbeentopointtosomeofthecentralissuesinpastandpresentdebatesaboutpositivismandanti-positivisminscienceandtechnology.Whiletheolderdisputesfocusedonthedoctrinesandpracticesofscientismandtechnocracy,morerecentapproachesdiscusstheprosandconsofmethodologicalnaturalismandcriticalnormativity.Note1.Forreasonsofspace,thepresentdiscussionisrestrictedtoconstructiviststudiesofscienceandtechnology.Ofcourse,“naturalism”isamuchbroadercategory,includingforinstancetheinfluentialevolutionaryapproachestothestudyofscienceandtechnology(see,e.g.,Lelas2000).64\n9781405146012_4_009.qxd2/4/0913:23Page65scienceandtechnology:positivismandcritiqueReferencesandFurtherReadingBarnes,B.,Bloor,D.andHenry,J.(1996).ScientificKnowledge:ASociologicalAnalysis(London:AthlonePress).Bijker,W.E.,Hughes,T.P.andPinch,T.(eds)(1987).TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Feenberg,A.(1999).QuestioningTechnology(London:Routledge).Habermas,J.(1971[1968]).“TechnologyandScienceas‘Ideology’,”inJ.Habermas,TowardaRationalSociety(London:Heinemann),pp.81–122.Habermas,J.(1978[1968]).KnowledgeandHumanInterests,2ndedn(London:Heinemann).Lelas,S.(2000).ScienceandModernity.TowardanIntegralTheoryofScience(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Mol,A.(2002).TheBodyMultiple:OntologyinMedicalPractice(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress).Radder,H.(1996).InandabouttheWorld:PhilosophicalStudiesofScienceandTechnology(Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress).Winner,L.(1993).“UponOpeningtheBlackBoxandFindingItEmpty:SocialConstructivismandthePhilosophyofTechnology,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,18:362–78.65\n9781405146012_4_010.qxd2/4/0913:23Page6610EngineeringScienceLOUISL.BUCCIARELLI“Engineeringscience”referstoeitherabodyofknowledgeortheactivitywhichgeneratesthatbodyofknowledge.Engineeringscienceasknowledgeiscodifiedinthetextbooksusedinundergraduatecoursesinengineering–coursesinthermodynamics,solidmechanics,fluidmechanics,aerodynamics,mechanicalvibrations,electronics,wavepropagation,materialsscience,controlsystemtheoryandnowbiomechanics,com-puterscienceandnano-whatever.Thesedomains–andthereareothers–constitutethe“engineeringsciences.”Engineeringscienceasanactivityistheresearchengagedbyfacultyalliedwithdepartmentsofmechanical,electrical,chemical,civilengineering–manyofwhichteachtheundergraduateengineeringsciencecourses.Industry,too,hasitsresearchlaboratorieswhereengineersdoengineeringscience.Andthereissomethingofahistoryoftheengineeringsciences,butwewillnotsaymuchaboutthat.(SeeB.Seely,“Research,Engineering,andScienceinAmericanEngineeringColleges:1900–1960,”TechnologyandCulture,34[April1993]:344–86.)Thequestionarises:Howisengineeringscience,asabodyofknowledgeand/orresearchactivity,distinguishedfromordinaryscience?Oneclaimmadeisthatscientistsseektruth,torevealnature’ssecrets,knowledgeforknowledge’ssake,etc.Engineersseektomakethingsworkinaccordwiththeirdesigns.Theycarelessabouttruth.Theyaimforarobustandreliabledesign,increasedefficiency,orhigherproductivityandprofit.Thepurposeoftheirworkisperhapsthemostimportantandoft-statedfactordistinguishingtheworkofengineersfromtheworkofscientists.Butdoesthisdistinc-tionapplywhenwefocusonthoseengineerswithadvanceddegreeswhospendtheirtimeinalaboratorydoingresearch?Anotherusefulwaytoattempttodistinguishsciencefromengineeringscienceistoconsiderthekindsofphenomenastudiedbyscientistsandbyengineersactiveinresearch.Hereweseemtobeonfirmerground.Inlinewiththepragmaticorientationoftheengineer,theengineerasresearcherstudiesthebehaviorofaproductofhumanagency–anartifact–oraphenomenonintimatelyassociatedwiththatbehavior.Thescientiststudiesnaturalphenomena–eventsandprocessesofwidelyvaryingscaleinspaceandtime.Wecantakethisabitfurther:Becausetheobjectofresearchoftheengineerisanartifact,its“nature”ismalleable.Engineersdoingresearchinmaterialsscienceisperhapsthebestexampleofthis.Movedtomakeitstronger,lighter,lesssusceptibleto66ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_010.qxd2/4/0913:23Page67engineeringsciencecorrosion,moreeasilymass-produced,etc.,theengineerasresearcherwillanalyze,reconstitute,runthetestagain,seekingthedesiredoutcome.(Thisisnotthecaseforthephysicist,thechemistorthebiologist–atleastaccordingtothetraditionalpictureofwhatthenaturalscientistdoesinalaboratory.Weleaveasidewhataconstructivistmightclaim.Alternatively,onemightclaimthat,ifthenaturalscientistdoeshavetheabilitytoshapetheobjectofresearch,anddoesso,thenheorsheisdoingengineering.).Insuchacontext,whatdoesobjectivitymean?Thisabilitytoalter,notjusttheassumptionsinananalysisortheconditionsofanexperiment,buttheactualobjectunderstudyitself,maybewhyengineersseemlessdogmaticintheirassertionsabouttheontologicalstatusoftheobjectsandentitiesthatenterintothephenomenatheystudy.Whereasthenaturalscientist,accordingtothetraditionalpicture,positstheexistenceofentitiesasfact,theconjecturesofanengineerarefullyacceptableifstatedintheform“Ifxismodeledasaz,theny,”know-ingfullwellthatxisnotreallyaz;i.e.“Ifweassumethebeambehavesasanelastic,perfectlyplasticmaterial,thencollapseofthebeamwilloccurwhentheweightattheendexceeds1,000pounds.”The“truth”oftheassertionsrestsontheusefulnessoftheresultsoftheresearch,i.e.“thatwhichistrueiswhatisuseful.Thisthought...isinsharpcontrasttothe‘dogmatic’conceptionoftruthasafixed,statictranscriptionofanimpersonalrealityexternaltoman,arealityinwhichmanisshornofanyactiverole”(E.A.Tiryakina,SociologismandExistentialism:TwoPerspectivesontheIndividualandSociety[EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1962],p.158).Thereisanotherwaybywhichthisinterplayofsubjectandobjectcaninfluence,ifnotdefine,theproductofengineeringresearch.Ifwetakeahistoricalperspective,weseethatdevelopmentsinengineeringscienceproceedastheartifacts,thetechnologytowhichthescienceapplies,proceedtoimproveandbecomemoresophisticated.Themanufacturedworldeverpresentsanewrealitytotheengineer.Astechnologicaldevelop-mentsaccumulate,newconceptsandprinciplesaswellasmethodsbecomethinkable.Forexample,theprincipleofcontinuityofdisplacement,inthedevelopmentoftheengineeringsciencewhichappliestothebehaviorofstructures,hadtoawaittheavailabilityofmaterialsuniformintheirnature,ofconsistentandreliablewaysoffabricatingandofassemblingstructuralelementsintoawhole.Beforethelasthalfofthenineteenthcentury,theprinciplesofforceandmomentequilibriumwerethelonepillarsof,confessingtheanachronism,theengineeringscienceofstructures.Only“staticallydeterminate”structurescouldbeanalyzed.Woulditbecorrect,then,tosaythattheengineeringscienceofstructureswasincompleteor–strongerstill–inerror,nottrue,beforethen?Ifwetakeutilityasacriterionoftruth,werespondnegatively.Someclaimthat,becausetheirmotivation(andrewards)andsubjectmatterdiffer,engineersthinkinwaysdifferentfromthoseofscientists.WalterVincentipresentsacompellingargumentforsuchadifferenceinhishistoryofthedevelopmentofaparticularperspectiveandmethodusedsoeffectivelyintheanalysisofproblemsinthermodynamicsandinfluidflow,namely“Control-VolumeAnalysis.”Theuseofacontrolvolumeenablestheengineertoignorethedetailsofwhatgoesonwithinthecontrolsurfaceyetstillobtainusefulresults:engineersfrequentlymustdealwithflowproblemssocomplexthattheunderlyingphysicsisnotcompletelyunderstood....Insuchsituationscontrol-volumeanalysis,by67\n9781405146012_4_010.qxd2/4/0913:23Page68louisl.bucciarelliworkingwithinformationonlyonboundariesandignoringtheinteriorphysics,canoftensupplylimitedbuthighlyusefulresultsofanoverallnature.(W.G.Vincenti,“Control-VolumeAnalysis:ADifferenceinThinkingbetweenEngineeringandPhysics,”TechnologyandCulture,23,2[1982],p.150)Butnotethathere,too,theusefulnessofthemethoddependsupontheabilityoftheengineertoarrangeandmanipulatetheobjectinthestudyofthephenomenon–whetherthedragonanairfoil,ortheefficiencyofatriple-expansionreciprocatingsteamengine–suchthatcertainconditionsaremet–e.g.steadyflow,noseparation,theinternalmachinerybehavesinaccordwithitsdesign–oratleastapproximatelysatisfied.Weseetherearesignificantdifferencesintheinterests,thewaysandobjectsofthought,andthemethodsofengineersasresearchersandthoseofscientists.Butfromanother,social/politicalperspectivetheylookverymuchthesame.Likescientists,engineersapplytotheNationalScienceFoundation,oranothergovernmentagency,forgrantstosupporttheirresearch.Theyemploygraduatestudentsasassistantswho,uponcom-pletionoftheirresearch,areawardedanadvanceddegree.Theresultoftheirresearchispublishedinscholarlyjournalsandavailabletotheworld.Theyworkunfettered,forthemostpart,bytheimmediateneedsofindustry–thoughthisischangingasgovernmentsupportofresearchinsomedomainsofengineeringsciencedwindlesandindustrialsupportincreases.Andyoungerfacultyinengineeringseekingtenurerecognizethatthemostimportantfactorweighedinthetenure-grantingandpro-motionprocessisthenumberandsignificanceoftheirresearchpublications–justasitisfortheirpeersinthesciencedepartmentsattheuniversity.Finallywenotethat,likethescientist,theengineerengagedinresearchwillmakeheavyuseofmathematicsintherepresentationofphenomenaandintheprocessingofexperimentaldata.Agoodbitofresearchinengineeringscienceisdirectedatthedevelopmentofmathematicalmethodsalbeitforthesolutionofpracticalproblems:e.g.finiteelementmethodsincontinuummechanics.Thereisastrongtiebetweenengineeringscienceandappliedmathematics,atiereflectedintheexistenceofuniver-sitydepartmentslabeledassuch.Thesimilaritiessuggestthatanothercomparisonmightilluminatetheengineeringsciences.Normally–andithasbeenthecasehere–thecomparisonismadewithscience.Whatifweturnthetablesandexplorehowengineeringsciencediffersfrom,orislike,engineering?(BythatImeanengineeringpractice.)Thefirstthingtonoteisthedifferentdegreerequirementsfordoingengineeringscienceandenteringengineeringpractice.Thelatterrequiresbutabachelor’sdegree(orathree-year,two-year,bachelor’s,thenmaster’s,degreeinaccordwiththeBolognarecommendations).TodoengineeringsciencerequiresaPhD–asinscience.Asecondthingtonoteisthecontextofuseoftheresultsoftheirrespectiveefforts.Engineersworking,usuallyinateam,onaproductforthemassmarket,afacilityforthegeneralpublic,orasystemformanagingtheflowofinformationoveranetwork,etc.,facesignificantuncertaintiesabouthowtheobjectoftheirdesignwillbehandled,usedormisused.Theengineeringscientist,ontheotherhand,likethescientistcancontrolthecontextofuse,outontheroadaswellasinthelab.Anothersignificantdifferenceisthattheengineerdesigninggenerallyworksasamemberofateamwhoseothermembershavedifferentinterests,competenciesand68\n9781405146012_4_010.qxd2/4/0913:23Page69engineeringscienceresponsibilities.Designingisapolyvalentprocessormulti-paradigmaticprocess.Researchinengineeringsciencemayalsobedoneinteams;butordinarily,andlikeresearchinscience,participantsintheprojectworkwithinasingleparadigm.Theengineerasscientistneedonlybeconcernedwithoneknowledgedomain.Wemightconcludethatengineeringscienceismorelikesciencethanitislikeengineering!Indeed,therearethosewhoclaimthattheemphasisonengineeringscienceasknowledgewithintheundergraduatecurriculumisexcessive.Whileallwillagreethatlearningthe“fundamentals”of(some)engineeringscienceisessentialandnecessarytoqualifyasaprofessionalengineer,thatformoflearningisneversufficient.69\n9781405146012_4_011.qxd2/4/0913:23Page7011TechnologicalKnowledgeANTHONIEW.M.MEIJERSANDMARCJ.DEVRIES1.TypesofKnowledgeinTechnologyInthisarticleweshalltaketechnologicalknowledgetobetheknowledgethatisinvolvedinthedesigning,makingandusingoftechnicalartifactsandsystems.Bothengineersandusersoftechnologycanhavesuchknowledge.Forinstance,engineersknowabouttheoriesinnaturalsciences;theyknowhowtosolvedesignproblems;theyareacquaintedwithtechnicalnormsandstandards;theyknowabouteconomicsandaboutlegalmatters;andtheyknowhowtotranslateclients’desiresintotechnicalspecifications.Usersknowwhattechnicaldevices,machinesandsystemsarefor;theyknowwhichactionsneedtobeexecutedinordertomakeanartifactwork;andtheysometimesknowhowtomaintainorrepairtheartifact.Thisquicksurveyalreadyshowsthatthetypesofknowledgeinvolvedinthedesignanduseoftechnicalartifactsarevaried.Thechallengetophilosophy(oftechnology)istoidentifythecharacter-isticsofthesetypesofknowledgeandtoinvestigatewhethertheycanbeaccountedforbyexistingtheoriesofknowledge.Atfacevalue,technologicalknowledgeappearstohaveadistinctnatureinthatitinvolvesdescriptiveandnormativeelements.Knowledgeofthebehaviorofartifactsasdescribedbythenaturalsciencesisofadescrip-tivenature,whiletheknowledgethat“screwdriversofthisbrandarealwaysgood”isofanormativenature.Thelatterexampleindicatesthatsometypeswithinthedomainoftechnologicalknowledgeareprobablydifferentfromknowledgeinnaturalscience(ascientistwillneverclaimto“knowthatelectronsproducedbylinearaccel-eratorsaregood”).2.ANeglectedTopicReflectionsonthenatureoftechnologicalknowledgearefairlyrecentinthephilo-sophyoftechnology.Inmoregeneralepistemologicaldebates,technologicalknowledgehardlyeverfeaturesasanobjectofseriousconsiderations.Laudan(1984)presentedpossiblereasonsforthis.Thefirstisthepopularityinphilosophyoftheviewthattech-nologyisprimarilyaformofappliednaturalscience.Thisideawasadvocatedina“classic”articlebyBunge(1966).Ithasalsobeenthedominantviewinscienceand70ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_011.qxd2/4/0913:23Page71technologicalknowledgetechnologypolicyinthedecadesfollowingtheSecondWorldWar.Theideaoftechno-logyasjusttheapplicationofnaturalscienceimplicitlysuggeststhattechnologyisnotaseparatefieldofknowledge.Maybeknowledgeintechnologydifferssomewhatfromscientificknowledgeinthatitcontainsempiricalelementsthatcomplementtheidealizedconceptsandtheoriestakenfromscience,butthatcanhardlybeajustificationforregardingtechnologicalknowledgeasaseparatekind(Layton1974).AccordingtoLaudan,asecondpossibleexplanationforthelackofinterestisthatpartoftechno-logicalknowledgehasatacitcharacter.Thelackofanin-depthanalysisoftechnologicalknowledgemayalsobeexplainedbythefactthattheengineeringsciencesthemselveshavenotbeentheobjectofstudyinphilosophyofscience,whichistraditionallybiasedtowardphysics,andmorerecentlyalsotowardbiology.Iftechnologicalknowledgehasbeenstudiedatall,itwasinthecontextoftherelationbetweenscienceandtechnology.Thesestudiesmainlyfocusedontheroleoftechnologyintheacquisitionofnewknowledgeinscience,byprovidingartifactsforscientificexperiments(instrumentsforobservationandmeasurement).Viceversa,somestudiesinvestigatedhowsciencecontributedtotechnologybyprovidingconceptsandtheories.Owingtotheirfocus,andthereforeunderstandably,thesestudieshardlygaveevidencethattechnologicalknowledgeisdifferentfromothertypesofknowledge(Skolimowski1966).3.EmpiricalStudiesFirstinitiativestostudythenatureoftechnologicalknowledgewerenottakenbyphilo-sophers,noteveninthephilosophyoftechnology,butbyhistoriansoftechnology.Aharvestofhistoricalstudiesupto1980wasmadebyStaudenmaier.BasedonasurveyofarticlesinthejournalTechnologyandCulture,heclaimedthattechnologicalknowledgedoesindeedcompriseconceptsthathavebeenderivedfromscience,butalsothatitcontainsalotmore.Thisincludesempiricaldataspecificfortechnology(datawhicharenotjustinstrumentalforthedevelopmentofscientifictheories),technolo-gicaltheoriesandtechnologicalknow-how(orskills).Sooneofthefirstthingsthesehis-toriansderivedfromtheirhistoricalaccountsisthattechnologycannotbeaccountedforadequatelybythe“appliedscience”hypothesis.OneofthefirstphilosopherstorecognizethedistinctnatureoftechnologicalknowledgewasAlexandreKoyré.Hecalledtechnologynotjustasetoftechniques,buta“systemofthought,basedoncommonsense”,whichdoesnotdependonsciencebutisinfluencedbyitindirectly.Healsoemphasizedthat,inordertobeusefulforengineers,scientificknowledgeneedstogothroughacertaintransformation.HewasquotedinanarticlebyLayton(1974),whoidentifieddesignasa“commondenominator”fortechnologicalknowledge.Laterhistoricalstudiesintothenatureoftechnologicalnaturehavefollowedthatvein,andasaresultinsightsweregainedprimarilybystudyingprocessesofinven-tionanddesign,ratherthanproduction.Vincenti(1990)conductedaseriesofcasestudiesinthefieldofaeronauticalengineering.Heidentifiedsixtypesofknowledgethatengineershadused.Thesetypesare:fundamentaldesignconcepts(e.g.knowingthebasiccomponentsofacar),designcriteriaandspecifications(e.g.knowingthatinter-facesneedtobeunderstandableforusers),theoreticaltools(e.g.calculationmethods71\n9781405146012_4_011.qxd2/4/0913:23Page72anthoniew.m.meijersandmarcj.devriesforforcesinaconstruction),quantitativedata(e.g.thestrengthofamaterial),practicalconsiderations(e.g.knowinghowtostrikeabalancebetweencostsandsafety)anddesigninstrumentalities(e.g.knowinghowtotracethecauseofafailureinanefficientway).Healsolistedsixtypesofknowledge-generatingactivitiesinengineering:transferfromscience,invention,theoreticalandexperimentalengineeringresearch,designpractice,productionanddirecttrial.Faulkner(1994)extendedtheanalysisanddevelopedatypologyoftechnologicalknowledgebystudyingindustrialinnovations.Shecameupwiththefollowingtypes:knowledgerelatedtothenaturalworld,todesignpractice,toexperimentalR&D,relatedtofinalproducts,andrelatedtofindingnewknowledge.AltogetheritcanbeconcludedthatnotmuchsubstantialhasbeenwrittensinceVincenti’sstudyin1990.4.PhilosophicalExplorationsThehistoricalstudiesmentionedabovemadesensetophilosophers(see,e.g.,Ropohl1997andPitt2001foraresponsetoVincenti’staxonomy),butthewaytheywerederivedfromcasestudieswasseenasfairlyadhoc.Itwasacknowledgedthatamoresystematicapproachisneededandthatthesereflectionshavetobeintegratedinphilosophicaldebates.Onesuchdebateisaboutthequestionwhetherornottech-nologycanindeedbedescribedasonly“appliednaturalscience.”Twocharacteristicsoftechnologychallengethisidea:collectivityandcontext-dependentness.(a)CollectivityTechnicalnormsandstandardsarepartandparceloftechnologicalknowledge.Theydifferfromnaturalphenomenainthattheyrequireacommunityofprofessionalsfortheirexistence;obviously,thesenormsandstandardsareoftentheresultofcollectivedecision-making,theyaresocialconstructs.Thisisreflectedintheepistemicstandardsthatapplytothem.Incontrasttonaturalscienceknowledge,justificationcriteriaarepurelysocial,becauseinthelattercaseitisentirelyuptothegroupmemberstodecideaboutthetruth(oreffectiveness)ofthebeliefs;inprinciplethereisnoneedtocheckagainsttheexternal(natural)world.Itcanevenbethecasethatcertainmembersofthegroupareauthorizedtomakedecisionsaboutwhatbeliefstoaccept.(b)Context-dependentnessInthenaturalsciencesoneaimsforrigoroustheoriesthatcanbeappliedtoanycontext;intheengineeringsciencesonelooksforknowledgethatcanberelevantforsolvingproblemsforspecific(typesof)contexts.The“technologyasappliedscience”thesiscanaccountforthiscontext-dependency.Whennaturalscienceknowledgeisapplied,knowledgeforaspecificdomainemerges.However,intechnologythisisonlypartofthestory.Technologicalknowledgealsoemergesfromothersourcesbottomup,sotospeak;forinstance,inthedesign,productionandoperationofartifacts.Inengineeringsciences,thatknowledgeisgeneralizedsothatitcanbeappliedtocon-texts(e.g.designproblems)otherthantheonesinwhichthisknowledgeoriginally72\n9781405146012_4_011.qxd2/4/0913:23Page73technologicalknowledgewasdeveloped.Thesegeneralizations,though,nevermovetoofarfromthesespecificcontextsinordertoremainpracticallyrelevant.Anotherphilosophicaldebateistheoneaboutthe“justifiedtruebelief”accountofknowledge.ThishasbeenchallengedbyEdmundGettier’swell-knowncounter-examples.Twoothercharacteristicsoftechnologicalknowledgesuggestadditionalproblems:normativityandnon-propositionality.(c)NormativityInepistemology,normativityusuallyfeaturesonlyintheepistemicnormsforknow-ledge.Inthecaseoftechnologicalknowledgethereisalsonormativityinthecontentofcertaintypesofknowledge.Wehavealreadymentionedtechnicalnormsandstandards.Butanengineersaying“Iknowthatthisisagoodhammer”alsodisplaysknowledgewithanormativecomponent.Perhapslessobvious,butyetstillnormative,istheexpression“Iknowthatthisisahammer,”becauseitismoreorlessequival-enttotheexpression“Iknowthatthisisadevicethatoughttoenablemetoinsertanailintoapieceofwood.”Thislatterexampleiswhatcanbecalled“knowledgeoffunctions.”Houkes(2006)hasarguedthatthisisatypeofknowledgeofparticularepistemologicalinterest,becauseitisrelatedtopracticalreasoning(inparticularmeans–endsreasoning)througha“useplan”fortheartifact.Aconsequenceofthistypeofnormativityisthattruthisnottheonlycriterionforknowledge,butprud-enceorefficiencycanalsoserveassuch,thuschallengingthe“justifiedtruebelief”account.(d)Non-propositionalityTechnologicalknowledgeispartlyexpressedinnon-propositionalways.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.First,animportantpartoftechnologicalknowledgeisofthe“knowing-how”type.RyleinhisbookTheConceptofMind(1949)introducedthistermtoindicateskill-likeknowledgethatcannotfullybeexpressedinpropositions(e.g.know-inghowtohammeranailintoapieceofwood).Oftenthatsortofknowledgeremainstacit(Polanyi1967).Itisembodiedinpersonsanddifficulttotransfertootherper-sons.Second,asFerguson(1992)argued,technicaldrawingsanddiagramscontainknowledgethatisalmostimpossibletoexpressinpropositionalterms.Thereisprob-ablyanirreduciblevisualaspecttotechnologicalknowledge.Third,artifactsthem-selvesmayembodyknowledge.Baird(2004)hasdevelopedamaterialepistemology,inwhichthefocusisnottheoriesbutthings.Heclaimedthattechnologicalartifactssuchasscientificinstrumentsnotonlygeneratebutalsoexpresstechnologicalknow-ledge.Itcanbe“read”fromthemwhatinsightstheengineermusthavehadinordertodesigntheartifact(heusestheterm“thingknowledge”forthis).Thisinsightisbuiltintothedeviceandissubsequentlyseparatedfromhumanagencyandthusfromhumanbeliefs.Thetypeofknowledgeinvolvedisthusthing-based,notbelief-based.Thisshortexplorationsuggeststhattherearegoodreasonstobelievethattech-nologicalknowledgemaybehardtoaccountforwithintraditionalapproachesinepistemology.Obviously,anin-depthanalysisisneeded,whichhasonlyrecentlystartedintheliterature.73\n9781405146012_4_011.qxd2/4/0913:23Page74anthoniew.m.meijersandmarcj.devriesReferencesandFurtherReadingBaird,D.(2004).ThingKnowledge(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Bunge,M.(1966).“TechnologyasAppliedScience,”TechnologyandCulture,7(3):329–47.Faulkner,W.(1994).“ConceptualizingKnowledgeUsedinInnovation:ASecondLookattheScience–TechnologyDistinctionandIndustrialInnovation,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,19(4):425–58.Ferguson,E.S.(1992).EngineeringandtheMind’sEye(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Houkes,W.(2006).“KnowledgeofArtefactFunctions,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience,37:102–13.Kroes,P.A.andMeijers,A.W.M.(2000).TheEmpiricalTurninthePhilosophyofTechnology(Oxford:ElsevierScience).Laudan,R.(1984).“Introduction,”inR.Laudan(ed.),TheNatureofTechnologicalKnowledge:AreModelsofScientificChangeRelevant?(Boston,Mass.:Reidel).Layton,E.T.(1974).“TechnologyasKnowledge,”TechnologyandCulture,15(1):31–41.Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pitt,J.C.(2001).“WhatEngineersKnow,”Techné,5(3):17–30.Polanyi,M.(1967).TheTacitDimension(NewYork:AnchorBooks).Ropohl,G.(1997).“KnowledgeTypesinTechnology,”inM.J.deVriesandA.TamirA.(eds),ShapingConceptsofTechnology:FromPhilosophicalPerspectivestoMentalImages(Dordrecht:Kluwer),pp.65–72.Ryle,G.(1949).TheConceptofMind(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Skolimowski,H.(1966).“TheStructureofThinkinginTechnology,”TechnologyandCulture,7(3):371–83.Staudenmaier,J.M.(1985).Technology’sStorytellers:ReweavingtheHumanFabric(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Vincenti,W.G.(1990).WhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowIt(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Vries,M.J.de(2003).“TowardanEmpiricallyInformedEpistemologyofTechnology,”Techné,6(3):1–21.74\n9781405146012_4_012.qxd2/4/0913:23Page7512TheInterplaybetweenScienceandTechnologyBARTGREMMENUntilthe1970sthedebateonthescience–technologyrelationshipwasdominatedbytheoreticalissuesfromthephilosophyofscience.Thehistoryoftechnologyhadlimitedtheoreticalimport,andsociologyoftechnologywasalmostnonexistent.Thedevelopmentofbothofthesedisciplinesledtocriticismofthesubsumptionschema(thedominationofscienceovertechnology),andtotheriseoftheso-calledinteractionschemaasanalternativeschema.Althoughtheinterplaymodelbelongstotheinteractionschema,theinteractionbetweenscientificandtechnicalpracticesisconsideredtobemorethanjustasimpleexchangeofresultsbetweenpractices.Bothkindsofpracticesarechangedinsomemanner,yeteachalsomaintainsitsuniquenessandintegrity.In1965,DerekdeSollaPriceformulatedoneofthefirstversionsoftheinteractionschema:scienceandtechnologyasrelativelyindependentbutcloselyinteractingactivities.Thisinteractiveschemaofthescience–technologyrelationshipmustbeseen,accordingtoBarnes,asamajorreorientationinourthinkingaboutthescience–technologyrelationship.Wehavetorecognizescienceandtechnologytobeonaparwitheachother.Theinteractionmodelisamodelthatcapturesmuchofcurrentthinking;and,followingBarnes,wecanidentifytwonecessarydevelopmentsfortheemergenceoftheinteractivemodel.First,therecognitionofscienceandtech-nologyasbeingformsofculture:newsciencedevelopingfromoldscienceandnewtechnologyfromoldtechnology.Second,theacceptationthatknowledgedoesnothaveinherentimplications:itisnotpossibletotraceatechnologicalinnovationback-wardsandtomakeitoutasalogicalconsequenceofthenewestscientifictheoryordiscoveryencounteredinthelineofitsdevelopment.Intheinteractionschematheinterpenetrationbetweenscienceandtechnologyhasbecomeanimportantaspectoftheirinteraction.Scienceandtechnologyareenmeshedinasymbioticrelationship–aweak,mutu-allybeneficialinteraction.Scienceasonecontextofinventiveactivity(anactivitywhichbyitsnaturedemandsevaluationinrelationtohumanobjectives)mayreadilybecomeconditionedbycriteriafromthetechnology,theothercontext,andviceversa.Differentmodelsaredevelopedtoprovideamoredetaileddescriptionofthenatureofthisinteractionprocess.Ripdevelopedonesuchmodel,usingthemetaphorofdancingpartnerstodescribethescienceandtechnologyrelationship.HelooksatscienceandtechnologyasongoingprocesseswithinteractionsthatclusterinvariouswaysandareACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks75©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_012.qxd2/4/0913:23Page76bartgremmenlabelled“science”and“technology,”alsoinavarietyofways.Inthisrespecthewantstoadd,inathreefoldway,totheanalysisofdeSollaPrice,whotendedtolookatscienceandtechnologyasseparate,unifiedwholes.InthefirstplaceRiparguesthatthereisacertainmutualadaptationanddivisionoflaborbetweenscienceandtechnology,cre-atedinparticularhistoricalcircumstancesandmadepossiblebyparticular“cognitiveinfrastructures.”Inthesecondplaceeconomicandstrategicconsiderationscomeinafterscienceandtechnologyhavenotonlyproducedtheirproductsbutarepartandparceloftheproductionprocess.Third,itmustbepossibletotracechangesintherela-tionsbetweenscienceandtechnology,transformationseven,inthepastandinthepres-ent.Riparguesthatanewkindofintertwiningofscienceandtechnologyisoccurring,aspartofaconscious,strategicmobilizationofcognitive-technicalpotential.Productiveinterplaybetweentechnicalandscientificpracticesrequiresinanycasethecreationbyoneormoreoftheinvolvedpracticesofan“interface.”Aninterfaceisthemeansbywhichinterplay(i.e.ongoinginteraction)iseffectedattheplacewheremultipleintersectionsofdifferentpracticesoccur.A“brokerpractice”isamaininterfacebetweenscientificandtechnicalpractices.Asapracticeinitsownrightitmediatesbetweentechnicalandscientificpractices.Inorderto“getofftheground,”theremustbemobilizationofinterestandresources.Thus,abrokerpracticeresemblesasituationinwhichlargenumbersofpeople,laboratoriesandorganizationsrapidlycommittheirresourcestooneapproachtoaproblem(whatFujimuracallsa“band-wagon”).Forexample:combinationsofproblemanddatarepresentations,methods,andtheory.Inthecaseofbandwagons,theemphasismaybeonitstemporarychar-acter,apassingfadeven.Amorepermanent“broker”practiceisapracticalscience.Thepracticalsciencesareagroupofacademicdisciplinesthatprovidetheengineerwiththeknowledgenecessaryfortheproductionanduseofcertainmaterialobjects.Practicalscientistsworkonthefollowingproblems:prognosisofthebehaviorofaprojectedfunctionalobject,prognosisoftheresultsofaprojectedprocedure,determinationofthestructureandcompositionofafunctionalobjectnecessaryforacertainintendedbehavior,anddeterminationoftheproceduresoneshouldfollowinordertoachieveanintendedeffect.Thesolutiontothequestionofhowtomanufacturesomethingisnotidenticaltotheactofmanufacturing.Thedevelopmentofnewproceduresandfunctionalobjectshasbecomeaspecializedsystematicactivity.Thepointofpracticalresearchis,however,thebringingaboutofeventsandprocesses.Practicalsciencerelatestotheactivitiesofdesigners,engineers,techniciansandproductionworkers,andalsoconcernstheusersandconsumersofwhateverisproduced.Inthedebatesonthescience–technologyrelationshiptheinterplaymodelisakindofinteractionmodel.Wecansummarizethephilosophicalbasisoftheinterplaymodelinthreepoints:1.Externalinfluencesonapracticeareresultsoftheinteractionbetweenpractices.Thisinteractionisseldomaone-wayinfluence;thepracticesinvolvedarechangedintheinteraction.2.Therearenohierarchicallydominantpracticesinastrictsense.3.Innovationinpracticesdoesnotderivefromscientificdiscovery,asitwereinalinearsequence.76\n9781405146012_4_012.qxd2/4/0913:23Page77theinterplaybetweenscienceandtechnologyReferencesandFurtherReadingBarnes,B.(1974).ScientificKnowledgeandSociologicalTheory(London:Routledge&KeganPaul).Fujimura,J.(1992).“CraftingScience:StandardizedPackages,BoundaryObjects,and‘Translation’,”inPickering(1992).Gremmen,B.(1993).“TheMysteryofthePracticalUseofScientificKnowledge,”PhDdis-sertation,UniversityofTwente.Latour,B.(1987).ScienceinAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineersthroughSociety(MiltonKeynes/Cambridge,Mass.:OpenUniversityPress/HarvardUniversityPress).Price,D.J.deSolla(1965).“IsTechnologyHistoricallyIndependentofScience?AStudyinStatisticalHistoriography,”TechnologyandCulture,6:553–68.Rip,A.(1992),“ScienceandTechnologyasDancingPartners,”inP.KroesandM.Bakker(eds),TechnologicalDevelopmentandScienceintheIndustrialAge,pp.231–70.77\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page7813InstrumentsinScienceandTechnologyMIEKEBOON1.ScienceandTechnologyAtpresent,manyacceptthatmodernscienceandtechnologyareinterwovenintoacomplexthatissometimescalled“technoscience”:theprogressofscienceisdependentonthesophisticationofinstrumentation,whereastheprogressof“high-tech”instru-mentsandapparatusisdependentonscientificresearch(seeGalison1987,1997;BairdandFaust1990;Radder1996,2003).Fromthisperspective,anunderstandingofhowscientificresearchinteractswithtechnology,inparticularinthedevelopmentofinstrumentsandapparatus,isatopicforbothphilosophyoftechnologyandphilosophyofscience.Thefocustakenhereishowscientificresearchcontributestothedevelop-mentofinstrumentsandapparatusfortechnologicaluse.Inphilosophyoftechnology,recentinteresthasbeeninthenatureoftechnologicalknowledge(e.g.Vincenti1990;Kroes1995;Pitt2000),ratherthaninhowscientificresearchcontributestotechnologicaldevelopment.Inthatliterature,scienceisvaluedforitsheuristicrole,whereasscientificapproachestothedevelopmentoftechnologyarenonexistent.Conceptualandhistoricalreasonsmayexplainthisfocus.Tradition-ally,scienceandtechnologyweredistinctdomains.Theclassicaldichotomybetweenscientificknowledge(episteme)andtechnologicalknowledge(techne)wasgroundedintheontologicaldistinctionbetweentheirobjects:scientificknowledgeisabout“things”thatexistofnecessity,thingsthatareuniversal,eternal,ungeneratedandimperish-able;technologicalknowledgeisaboutthingsthathavetheiroriginintheirmaker,“things”thatarevariable,generatedandperishable.Thisdichotomyhascausedconceptualconfusionwhentryingtounderstandtherelationbetweenscienceandtechnologyinmodernscientificpractices.MarioBunge(1966)putforwardthethesisthat“technologyisappliedscience.”Whathemeanttosayisthatintechnologythemethodandthetheoriesofscienceareappliedtosolvingpracticalproblems.Anoutcomeofthisscientificapproachistechnologicalknowledge,whichismadeupoftheories,groundedrules,anddata.Thisthesis–anditsimplicitimplication,whichisthattechnologyresultsfromscience–hasbeenmuchdebatedinphilosophyoftech-nologyofthe1970sand1980s.Itwasrejectedonthebasisofconceptualanalysesofscientificandtechnologicalknowledge(e.g.Skolimowski1966).Butalsohistoricalstudiesshowedthatthefactualcontributionofsciencetonewtechnologiesinthepast78ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page79instrumentsinscienceandtechnologywaslesssignificantthanmanyseemedtobelieve.Mosttechnologicaldevicesweredevelopedbycraftsmen,independentofscience.Engineersdidnotneedascientificunderstandingofthephenomenatheyutilizedandofthetechnologicaldevicestheyinvented.Fordevelopmentanddesigntheyusedphenomenologicallawsand“rulesofthumb”(seeLayton1974).2.InstrumentsinSciencePhilosophyofscience,ontheotherhand,haslongignoredtheroleofinstrumentsandlaboratoryexperimentsinscience.Inatraditionalphilosophicalview,theaimofscienceistheproductionofreliable,adequateortrueknowledgeabouttheworld.Theroleofexperimentsistestinghypothesesincontrolledlaboratorysettings.Butexperimentationwasseenasameredata-providerfortheevaluationoftheories,andtheproductionofempiricalknowledgebyinstrumentsisnotatopicofphilosophicalconcern.Weobservenaturethroughtechnologicalspectacles,whichdonotinfluencetheresultingpictureofnature,andinstrumentsareinstrumentaltothearticulationandjustificationofscientificknowledgeoftheworld.Someofthephilosophicalproblemsintraditionalphilosophyofscienceseemtoresultfromthisneglectoftheroleofinstrumentsandexperiments.OnesuchproblemforthepositivisticideaoftestingtheoriesistheDuhem–Quineproblemofunderdeterminationoftheoriesbyempiricalevidence.Ifanexperimentorobservationispersistentlyincon-sistentwiththeory,onecouldeitherrevisethetheoryorrevisetheauxiliaryhypo-theses–forinstancethosewhichareabouttheproperfunctioningoftheinstruments.AnothersevereproblemtothepositivisticimageofsciencecamefromPopper(1959),whoclaimedthatallobservationistheory-laden.Tohim,observations,andobservation-statementsthatrepresentexperimentalresults,arealwaysinterpretationsinthelightoftheories.Kuhn’s(1970)notionofparadigmswasconceivedinasimilarvein:ratherthanobservation,theparadigmisbasictoourknowledgeoftheworld,andobserva-tionsonlyexistinsofarastheyemergewithintheparadigm.Theviewthatnon-empiricalfactors,suchasontologyandtheoreticalbackgroundknowledge,arepriortoobservationandexperimentshasbeenaseverethreattothetraditionalviewthatscientifictheoriesaretestedbymeansofanempiricalandlogicalmethodology,asitwasconceivedbylogicalpositivismandlogicalempiricism,andopenedtheroadtoextremeskepticalappraisalsofscience.Socialconstructivists,forinstance,haveraisedobjectionstotheviewthatexperimentalresultsareacceptedonthebasisofepistemologicalormethodologicalarguments,andarguethatsocialfactorsplayanineliminablerole(e.g.BrunoLatour,HarryCollinsandAndrewPickering).3.NewExperimentalismNewExperimentalistssharetheviewthatanumberofproblems,suchastheunder-determinationoftheorybyempiricalknowledge,thetheory-ladennessofobservation,andextremeskepticalpositions–suchassocialconstructivist–thatresultfromit,stemfromthetheory-dominatedperspectiveonscienceofpositivisticphilosophersofscience.79\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page80miekeboonTheydefendthatfocusingonaspectsofexperimentsandinstrumentsinscientificpracticeholdsthekeytoavoidingtheseproblems.Someofthekeyfiguresofthismove-mentinthe1980sandearly1990sareIanHacking,NancyCartwright,AllanFranklin,PeterGalison,RonaldGiere,RobertAckermann,andmorerecentlyDeborahMayo.Theseauthorsdonotaccepttherestrictiontothelogicofsciencethatpositivisticphilosophershadsetforthemselves.Traditionalphilosophicalaccountsofhowobservationprovidesanobjectivebasisforevaluationoftheories–bytheuseofconfirmationtheoryorinduct-ivelogic–shouldbereplacedbyaccountsofsciencethatreflecthowexperimentalknowledgeisactuallyarrivedatandhowthisknowledgefunctions.Thetraditionaldis-tinctionbetweenthe“contextofdiscovery”andthe“contextofjustification,”whichmotivatedwhyphilosophersshouldrestricttheirtasktothelogicofjustificationofscientifictheories,isabandoned.NewExperimentalists,instead,aimatanaccountoftherationalityofscientistsinscientificpracticesthatincludeshowscientistsreasonaboutexperiments,instruments,dataandtheoreticalknowledge.Thisnewphilosophicaltraditionheavilyreliesonhistoricalcasestudiesofscience,whichfocusonaspectsofexperimentsandinstruments.ThesehistoricallyinformedapproachesinphilosophyofsciencestrengthenedthetraditionthatmayhavebeenusheredinbyThomasKuhn,andwhichisnowcalledthe“historyandphilosophyofscience.”Thefocusisonepistemologicalaspectsofexperiments,instruments,dataandtheprocessingofdata,anddifferentlayersoftheorizing.Thus,althoughNewExperimentalistsadmitthatnon-rational,sociologicalandcontingentfactorsmaydeterminethecourseofscience,theydenythatsociologicalfactorsaredetermin-ingmethodologicalandepistemologicalcriteriainternaltoscientificpractices.TheexamplesbelowaimtoillustratehowthefocusofNewExperimentalistsontheroleofinstrumentsprovidesnewperspectivesonscientificresearch.4.InstrumentsinScientificPracticeSeveralauthorshavedefendedthatthetheory-ladennessproblemofinstrumentscanbeexcludedinsomecases.Afavoredexampleisobservationsbymeansofmicroscopesandotherinstrumentswithwhichobjectscanbemadevisible(e.g.Hacking1983;Zik2001;Chalmers2003).Thisalsoholdsfordata.Datagivenbyinstruments–suchasdataproducedbyaconductivitymeter–maybegivenindependentofatheory.Instrumentscreateaninvariantrelationshipbetweentheiroperationsandtheworld.Afterachangeintheory,itwillcontinuetoshowthesamereading.However,themeaningsofdata–suchassuperconductivity–arenotgivenbythedata,sincethedataareinterpretedasaphenomenonbytheories.Thus,althoughdatahaveaninternalstability,whichresultsfrombeingreproduciblebyinstruments,theirmeaningisneithermanifestnorstable(e.g.Ackermann1985;Gooding1990).Inparticularinexploratoryexperimentsitrequirestheformationofnewbasicconcepts,suchasthenotionofacurrentcircuitinthecaseofAmpère,beforethedataproducedbytheinstrumentcanbeinterpretedasaphenomenon(e.g.Harré1998;Steinle2002;Heidelberger2003).Nevertheless,theviewthatdataproducedbyinstrumentsareindependentoftheoryhasalsobeenchallenged.Eventhemostbasic“data-generating”instruments,80\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page81instrumentsinscienceandtechnologysuchasthermometers,havegonethroughalong,intellectuallyandexperimentallychallengingroutetoknowingthattheseinstrumentstellusthetemperaturecor-rectly.Findingempiricalknowledgeoftemperatureinvolvedtheoreticalassumptionsaboutthepropertiesofmatter.Therefore,abasicproblemforaphilosophicalaccountofempiricalscience,whichdemandsthattheoriesshouldbejustifiedbyobservations,isthatobservationsinvolvetheories,forinstanceabouthowthingswork(e.g.Chang2004).Thislatterfindingalsoholdsforotherinstrumentsandapparatusthatinhabitourlaboratories.AccordingtoNancyCartwright,suchinstrumentsaretobeunderstoodasnomologicalmachines.Anomologicalmachineisafixedarrangementofcomponents,orfactors,withstablecapacitiesthatintherightsortofstableenvironmentwillgiverisetoregularbehavior.Lawsrepresentthisregularbehaviorofnomologicalmachines,whichimpliesthatthoselawsholdasaconsequenceoftherepeated,successfulopera-tionofnomologicalmachines.Therefore,laws–understoodasanecessaryregularassociationbetweenproperties–donotnecessarilyholdfortheworldbeyondthenomologicalmachine(Cartwright1983,1989,1999,andalsoHarré2003;addition-ally,importantarticlesontheroleofinstrumentsinscientificpracticeareinRadder2003;seealsoBoon2004).Whattheseexamplesillustrateisthat,inscientificpractice,theoriesandinstrumentsaredevelopedinamutualrelationship.Ratherthanbeingspectaclesontheworld,instrumentstakepartinourtheoreticalknowledge.ThishasbeenwellexpressedbyHacking(1992),whoclaimsthatourpreservedtheoriesandtheworldfittogether,lessbecausewehavefoundouthowtheworldisthanbecausewehavetailoredeachtotheother.Asalaboratory-sciencematures,itdevelopsabodyoftypesoftheoriesandtypesofinstrumentsandtypesofanalysisofdatathataremutuallyadjustedtoeachother.Anytestoftheoryisrelatedtoinstrumentsthathaveevolvedinconjunctionwithit–andinconjunctionwithmodesofdataanalysis.Conversely,thecriteriafortheworkingoftheinstrumentsandforthecorrectnessofanalysesarepreciselythefitwiththeory.Thus,contrarytotheDuhem–Quinethesisthattheoryisunderdeterminedbydata,Hackingarguesthattheconstraintsbytheseinterrelatedelementsnarrowthedegreesoffreedomforfindingadequatetheories.5.TheInterwovennessofScienceandTechnologyThepicturethatemergesisthatinstrumentsarenotpassivetechnologicalspectaclesthroughwhichweperceivetheobjectofscience,i.e.“things”thatareuniversal,eternal,ungeneratedandimperishable.Theontologicaldistinctionbetweentheobjectsofepistemeandtechnebecomesblurredonceinstrumentsareusedinscientificinvestigations.Muchofourempiricalknowledgeresultsnotfrompassiveobservationbymeansofinstru-mentsbutfrominterventionswithinstrumentsandtechnologicaldevices.Observationasasourceofempiricalknowledgeisextendedbydoing,byinteractingandinterveningwiththeworldthroughourinstruments.ThisclaimofHacking(1983)pullsdownthetraditionaldistinctionbetweenscienceandtechnology.Thespectaclemetaphorofinstrumentsisreplacedbyametaphorinwhichinstrumentsandtechnologicaldevicesprovideamaterialplaygroundwherewelearnalot–notaboutthetraditional81\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page82miekeboonobjectofscience,butabout“things”thatarelocal,generated,variableandperishable,i.e.aboutthetraditionalobjectoftechne.But,intheirinterventionsandinteractionswith“things,”scientistsconcurrentlysearchforasolidground,i.e.forthose“things”thatdonotchangeorthatworkinareproducibleway,whichisthetraditionalobjectofepisteme.Thus,NewExperimentalists’focusonscientificpracticegivesanewperspectiveontheroleofinstruments,technologicaldevices,andexperimentsinmodernscientificpractice,whichalsoexplainstheinterwovennessofscienceandtechnology.Forinstrumentshaveanimportantroleinproducingreproduciblephenomena,andthesephenomenamayhavetechnologicalapplications.Forinstance,theimportantcon-tributionofthediscoveryofsuperconductivitywasnotthatitconfirmedatheoryabouttheworld;theimportantcontributionwasthesimultaneousdiscoveryofthatphenomenonandhowthatphenomenoncanbetechnologicallyproduced.Theurgefortheoreticalunderstandingofthephenomenon,andofmaterialsandphysicalconditionsthatproduceit,isnotforthesakeoftheoriesabouttheworld,butforthesakeofunderstandingthisphenomenonandhowitistechnologicallyproduced.Inmanycasestheoreticalunderstandingofaphenomenonisinthecontextoftechno-logicalapplications.Thisinsightalsoinvolvesanewperspectiveontheaimofscience.Thetraditionalviewassumesthatscienceaimsattheproductionandjustificationoftheories.ThepicturethathasemergedfromNewExperimentalists’studyofscientificpracticeisthatscientificresearchalsoaimsatcreatingphenomenabymeansofinstrumentsandtechnologicaldevices,aswellasatatheoreticalunderstandingofphenomenaandoftheinstrumentsthatcreatethem.Thispicturesapracticeinwhichscienceandtechnology,i.e.scientificresearchanddevelopmentoftechnologicaldevices,areinterwoven.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAckermann,R.J.(1985).Data,InstrumentsandTheory:ADialecticalApproachtoUnderstandingScience(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Ackermann,R.(1989).“TheNewExperimentalism,”BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience,40(2):185–90.Baird,D.F.andFaust,Thomas(1990).“ScientificInstruments,ScientificProgressandtheCyclotron.”BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience,41(2):147–75.Boon,M.(2004).“TechnologicalInstrumentsinScientificExperimentation,”InternationalStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,18(2–3):221–30.Bunge,M.(1966).“TechnologyasAppliedScience,”inContributionstoaPhilosophyofTechnology(Dordrecht/Boston,Mass.:F.Rapp./ReidelPublishing),pp.19–39.Cartwright,N.(1983).HowtheLawsofPhysicsLie(Oxford:ClarendonPress).Cartwright,N.(1989).Nature’sCapacitiesandTheirMeasurement(Oxford:ClarendonPress).Cartwright,N.(1999).TheDappledWorld:AStudyoftheBoundariesofScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Chalmers,A.(2003).“TheTheory-DependenceoftheUseofInstrumentsinScience,”PhilosophyofScience,70(3):493–509.Chang,H.(2004).InventingTemperature:MeasurementandScientificProgress(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).82\n9781405146012_4_013.qxd2/4/0913:24Page83instrumentsinscienceandtechnologyFranklin,A.(1986).TheNeglectofExperiment.Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Franklin,Allan,“ExperimentinPhysics,”TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Winter2002Edition),EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),URL=.Galison,P.(1987).HowExperimentsEnd(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).Galison,P.(1997).ImageandLogic:AMaterialCultureofMicrophysics(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Giere,R.N.(1988).ExplainingScience(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).Gooding,D.(1990).ExperimentandtheMakingofMeaning:HumanAgencyinScientificObserva-tionandExperiment(Dordrecht/Boston,Mass.:Kluwer).Hacking,I.(1983).RepresentingandIntervening:IntroductoryTopicsinthePhilosophyofNaturalScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Hacking,I.(1992).“TheSelf-vindicationoftheLaboratorySciences,”InA.Pickering(ed.),ScienceasPracticeandCulture(Chicago,Ill.UniversityofChicagoPress),pp.29–64.Harré,R.(1998).“RecoveringtheExperiment,”Philosophy,73(285):353–77.Harré,R.(2003).“TheMaterialityofInstrumentsinaMetaphysicsforExperiments,”inH.Radder(ed.),ThePhilosophyofScientificExperimentation(Pittsburgh,Pa.:UniversityofPittsburghPress),pp.19–38.Heidelberger,M.(2003).“Theory-ladennessandScientificInstruments,”inH.Radder(ed.),ThePhilosophyofScientificExperimentation(Pittsburgh,Pa.:UniversityofPittsburghPress),pp.138–51.Kroes,P.(1995).“TechnologyandScience-basedHeuristics,”inJ.C.Pitt(ed.),NewDirectionsinthePhilosophyofTechnology(Dordrecht:Kluwer),pp.17–39.Kuhn,T.S.(1970).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,2ndedn(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Layton,E.T.J.(1974).“TechnologyasKnowledge,”TechnologyandCulture,15:31–41.Mayo,D.G.(1996).ErrorandtheGrowthofExperimentalKnowledge(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pickering,A.(1995).TheMangleofPractice:Time,AgencyandScience(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pitt,J.C.(2000).ThinkingaboutTechnology:ThinkingabouttheFoundationsofaPhilosophyofTechnology(NewYork:SevenBridgesPress).Popper,K.R.(1959).TheLogicofScientificDiscovery(London:Hutchinson).Radder,H.(1996).InandabouttheWorld:PhilosophicalStudiesofScienceandTechnology(Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress).Radder,H.(ed.)(2003).ThePhilosophyofScientificExperimentation(Pittsburgh,Pa.:UniversityofPittsburghPress).Skolimowski,H.(1966).“TheStructureofThinkinginTechnology,”TechnologyandCulture,7:371–83.Steinle,F.(2002).“ChallengingEstablishedConcepts:AmpereandExploratoryExperimentation,”Theoria,17(44):291–316.Vincenti,W.G.(1990).WhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowIt:AnalyticalStudiesfromAeronauticalHistory(Baltimore,Md./London:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Zik,Y.(2001).“ScienceandInstruments:TheTelescopeasaScientificInstrumentattheBeginningoftheSeventeenthCentury,”Perspectives-on-Science,9(3):259–84.83\n9781405146012_4_014.qxd2/4/0913:24Page8414SocialConstructionofScienceHARRYCOLLINSThestudyofthe“socialconstructionofscience”referstotheanalysisofsocialinfluencesonthecontentofscientificknowledge.Thattherearesocialinfluencesonwhatwecountasknowledgeisanoldidea,mostcloselyassociatedwithKarlMannheimwhosewritingsgaverisetothesubject“sociologyofknowledge.”Quitesimply,whatpeopleindifferentsocietiescountastruthvariesfromsocietytosociety.Whatyoubelievedependsonwhereyouwerebornandhowyouwerebroughtup.Forexample,itisimpossibleforaninhabitantofanAmazoniantribetocountitastruethatmarketeconomiesarebetterthancommandeconomiesjustasitisimpossibleforaWesterneconomisttocountcertaincomplexclaimsaboutwitchesandspirits(Idonotknowhowtosaywhattheyare)tobetrue.Ifyouhavenotencounteredthe“knowledge,”thenitcannotbepartofyouruniverse.Sofar,soincontestable,butthingsgetabitmoretrickyaswecomeclosertohome.IfIambroughtupinaCatholiccommunityofNorthernIreland,IamlikelytobecomeaCatholicandbelievethatthewineturnstobloodduringthemass.IfIambroughtupinaProtestantcommunityinthesamecountry,Iamlikelytobelievethattheideaofthe“change”issymbolicratherthanreal.Heretwogroupsknowabouteachother’sbeliefs,andsoitislessobviousthattheymustbeboundbyupbringing.And,indeed,somepeoplechangetheirbeliefs.Still,mostpeopledonotchangetheirfundamentalreligiousandpoliticalbeliefs,andthesociologyofknowledgeiswellsupportedbysuchstatistics–whatpeoplebelieveisstronglyassociatedwiththeirupbringing.Talkingaboutthatimpressivestatisticcancausetrouble.Thoughthebelieversaresuretheybelievewhattheybelievebecauseitistrue,thestatisticstendtosuggestthatformostpeopleitismoreamatterofaccidentofbirth.Nevertheless,forthetruebeliever,thestatisticpresentsnodeepproblem–itisjustthatsomewere“chosen”orfortunateenoughtobebornintherightcircumstancesandsomeinthewrongcircumstances.Youthinkyouareamongtheluckyones;thattheothergroupthinksitistheywhoareluckyandyouwhoareunluckyistheirproblem.Furthermore,anydoubtscanberesolvedbyexperience–theexperienceofrevelationthataccompaniestruefaith.Ontheotherhand,sociologistsandthelike,whoaresufficientlyimpressedbythestatisticstobelievethatfaithiscausallylinkedtolocationinsociety,andwhofinditindicativethatpersonalrevelationcanconfirmeventhedetailsofhistoricallysituatedcollective84ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_014.qxd2/4/0913:24Page85socialconstructionofsciencepracticesandinstitutions,arelikelytoattractthewrathofallbecausetheyappeartobecastingdoubtonallfaiths.Whenwecomestillclosertohomethedangerbecomesmanifest.Considerthosewhobelieveinthetruthsofscience.Theyarewellawarethatothersdonotbelieveinthosetruths,butjustlikethefaithfultheyconsidertheseotherstobesimplylessfortunatethanthemselves.Again,doubtscanbedispelledbyreflectingonexperience,thistime,notofrevelation,butofrepeatedexperimentandtheforceoftheoreticaldeduction.Thosewhobelieveinsciencehaveasystematicmethodforarrivingatthetruthwhichissaidtobeindependentofaccidentsofbirth.Butactuallyitisthereligiouslyfaithfulwhohavetheadvantageherebecauseanyonecanopentheirsoultorevelation.Totestthetruthofascientificclaimisalmostimpossibleforallbutaverysmallelite.Itisoneofthestrangestfactsaboutsciencethatthebeliefthatanyonecantestascientificclaimremainsrobustinthefaceofthefactthathardlyanyonecanorhas.Forexample,whohasevertriedoneofthetestsofrelativityorconfirmedtheobservationoftheW-Boson?Infact,differentbeliefsaboutthenatureofthephysicalworldpersistevenamongdifferentgroupsofscientistsfordecadeafterdecade.Itbecomesclearthat,first,thereisamplelogicalspaceforasociologyofscientificknowledgeand,second,thatthosewhopracticeitarelikelytobethoughttobequestioningthetruthsofscienceandfindthemselvesthesubjectofattackssuchasaremoretypicallydirectedatreligioushereticsthanatscholars.Therewasevenaperiod,inthe1990s,whichbecameknownasthe“sciencewars”becauseofthetenoroftheattacksonsociologistsofscientificknowledgebycertainnaturalscientists.Whenweturntothosewhoactuallyengageinthesociologyofscientificknowledgewefindawidespectrumofpositions,manyofwhicharenotatallcriticalofscienceeventhoughtheyinvolveareassessmentofthewayscienceworkswhichsometimesdepartsfrommodelsdeartoscientists.Admittedly,therearethosewhoclaimthatbecauseWesternscienceisjustonebeliefamongmanyitfollowsthat,forexample,Western-stylemedicineshouldnotbebroughttosocietieswithradicallydifferentbeliefs.Therearealsothosewhostressthe“interest-based”componentofthesocialinfluenceonknowledgeandtakeittojustifyageneralizedanti-Western-sciencestance,oranoppositiontowhite-male-dominatedscience.Thereareotherswhousetheideasofthesociologyofscientificknowledgetofoundadistrustofascience-basedcapitalismasawholeand/ortheeffectofindustrializationontheenvironment.Ingeneral,thesecriticsarenotfoundamongthesmallgroupwhostudyscienceclosely.Mostofthemembersofthelattergroupclaimthatthesocialanalysisofscientificknowledgedoesnotimplyaquestioningofthatknowledge.Forexample,thegroupbasedinEdinburghandassociatedwithwhatisknownas“thestrongprogramme”insistthattheircon-cernisthewaysocialforcescontributetothecontentofallscientificknowledgeclaims.Theyinsistthatthesecanbefoundatworkinallsuchclaims,boththosewhichwetreatastrueaswellasthosewhichwetreatasfalse,sothatbeingaffectedbysocialforcesisnottobeequatedwithdoubtsaboutvalidity.Ithastobesaid,however–andthisismerelyastatementofthefact–thatmorethanthirtyyearsonfromtheinitialstatementofthestrongprogrammepositiontherearestillcriticswhoarefailingtomakecompletesenseofthisclaim.Onewaytogoforwardistolookatexamplesofpractice.Wecanallagreethatscientificknowledgeisaffectedbysocialforcestoatleastsomeextentevenifonlyin85\n9781405146012_4_014.qxd2/4/0913:24Page86harrycollinstheshortterm.Ifwewanttostudythosesocialforces,itissensibletoconcentrateonthemalone.Thedutyofthesociologistisclear:oneshouldconcentrateonthesocialcausesofbeliefin“p”andceasetoargueorworryaboutwhetherbeliefin“p”hasanythingtodowiththetruthof“p.”Thus,supposeIwanttostudythesocialforcesthathelpedorhinderedtheacceptanceofthetheoryofrelativity.Todoitwell,Ishouldassumethatthetruthorotherwiseofthetheoryofrelativityhadnoeffectonitsacceptance.TotakethetruthofthetheoryasacausalcontributortoitsacceptancecanonlydivertattentionfromthesocialprocessesIamtryingtounderstand;topressthesocialanalysistoitslimits,itisvitalnottocutitoffprematurelybysayingthatthingsjust“hadtocomeoutthiswaybecausethetheoryistrue.”Whetherornotthetheoryistrue,thecrucialpointistolookatthesocialforcesinvolvedinbringingpeopletobelieveitwastrue;theanalysisshouldbenodifferentinthecaseofrelativitythaninthecaseof,say,astrology.Nophilosophicalcommitmenttothetruthorotherwiseofscienceisrequiredtoadoptthismethodologicalstance–itisknownasmethodologicalrelativism.Thisapproachisnotdissimilartoagnosticismasaprescriptionfordoingscienceitself.If,asascientist,onewantstounderstand,say,whatcausedthefunda-mentalconstantstohavetheparticularvaluesthatenabledlifetoexist,onemustignoreclaimsorargumentsalongthelines“Godmadeitthus,”andgetonwithlookingforphysicalcauses.Theactualanalysisofhowfactsandtheoriescometobebelievedcanbeconductedatavarietyoflevels.ThomasKuhn’sinfluentialbookTheStructureofScientificRevolutionspointedoutthewaythatwholecommunitiesofsciencewouldsometimesbecomecaughtupinshifting-fashion-likeswitchesofview–analogouswith“gestaltswitches”inpsychology.Afteragestaltswitch,thesamedatafromthesameexperimentorobservationcanbeseenaspointingtoquitedifferentconclusions.A“paradigmrevolution,”asKuhncalledsuchchanges,isasocialphenomenon.ItoughttobementionedthatmanyofKuhn’sideasabouthowthesamefactsandobservationscanbeconsistentwithdifferenttheorieswereworkedoutmuchearlierbythemedicalresearcherLudwikFleck,reflectingonhisownpracticeinthestudyofsyphilis.ThelaterideasofthephilosopherLudwigWittgensteincanalsobetakentogiveamoredetailedunderpinningtothenotionthatwhatwetaketobethelogicalcompulsionofrulesofactionandanalysisarereallymattersofsocialconventionwithina“form-of-life”–amatterofcertain“waysofgoingon”being“takenforgranted.”Anexampleofamuchmoredetailedanalysisthatfollowsthroughtheimplicationofsuchphilosophicalideasistheexaminationoftheactualprocessofcheckingofscientificresultsbyreplicationofexperiments.“Believers”inscientificmethodoftencitereplicationasoneofthecrucialdifferencesbetweenscienceandotherkindsofbelief–anyone,fromanywhere,whocheckstheresultsofascientificexperimentwillgetthesameresult,soexperimentallydeterminedfactsstandoutsidesociety.Ithasalreadybeenmentionedthatexperimentsareexpensivetocarryout,sothe“anyone”in“anyonecancheck”isoftenaverysmallnumberofpeople.Formostofus,includingscientists,beliefthatthecheckshavebeencarriedoutandhaveconfirmedtheinitialclaimsdependsonassessingthecredibilityofthesmallnumberofreplicatorsandthereliabilityofthemediathroughwhichtheresultsareconveyedtoawideraudience.Obviously,theseassessmentsdependuponwiderassumptionsabouthowsocietyworks–mostofuswouldmakedifferentassumptionsiftheclaims86\n9781405146012_4_014.qxd2/4/0913:24Page87socialconstructionofscienceconcernedwitchcraft,magic,orevenexperimentalresultsconcerning,say,paranormalphenomena.Thatiswhathappens“atbest.”Often,however,eventhemembersoftheelitegroupwhohavethemeanstotestanexperimentalclaimfindthemselvesindispute.Underthesecircumstancesthesocialcomponentsintrinsictotheveryprocessofreplicationbecomeclear.Thus,itisnotenoughtohavethelogisticresourcesrequiredtorepeatanexperiment;onemustalsohavethenecessaryskillstodoit.Tosomeextent,skillsturnon“tacitknowledge”thatcannotbeexpressed.Therefore,ifsomeonefailstoconfirmanexperimentalresult,itmaynotbethattheresultwaswrong–theymaynothavepossessedthenecessaryskills.Theonlyclearwaytofindoutifthenecessaryskillsareinplayistoseeiftheexperiment“works,”butwhatitisto“work”isusuallythesubjectofthedispute–e.g.shouldaworkinggravitationalwavedetectorofacertainsensitivityseegravitationalwavesorshoulditnotseethem?Theexperimentersfindthemselvescaughtinthe“experimenter’sregress”:toknowifanexperimenthasbeensoundlyperformed,onehastoshowithastherightoutcome,buttoknowwhattherightoutcomeshouldbeonemustfirstconductaseriesofsoundexperiments.Disputesofthiskindaresettledbyagreementstoagreeonwhatcountasthesoundexperiments;andthis,again,turnsonjudgmentsofcredibilityandsoforth–thesearesociologicallyanalysableprocesses.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBloor,D.(1976).KnowledgeandSocialImagery(London:Routledge&KeganPaul);2ndedn(1991)(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Collins,H.M.(1985).ChangingOrder:ReplicationandInductioninScientificPractice(London/BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage);2ndedn(1992)(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Collins,H.M.andPinch,T.J.(1993).TheGolem:WhatEveryoneShouldKnowaboutScience(Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).Newedn1998.Fleck,L.(1935/1979).GenesisandDevelopmentofaScientificFact(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).FirstpublishedinGermanin1935.Knorr-Cetina,K.(1981).TheManufactureofKnowledge(Oxford:Pergamon).Kuhn,T.S.(1962).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Labinger,J.andCollins,H.(2001).TheOneCulture?:AConversationaboutScience(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Latour,B.andWoolgar,S.(1979).LaboratoryLife:TheSocialConstructionofScientificFacts(London/BeverlyHills:Sage).87\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page8815SocialConstructionofTechnologyWIEBEE.BIJKERThesocialconstructionoftechnologyisoneapproachamongseveralconstructivistwaysofstudyingscienceandtechnologythatemergedinthe1980s.Here,“constructivist”meansthatthetruthofscientificfactsandtheworkingoftechnicalartifactsarestudiedasaccomplishments–asbeingconstructedratherthanasintrinsicpropertiesofthosefactsandmachines.Theterm“socialconstructionoftechnology”canbeusedtodenotetwodifferentthings.First,itisaresearchapproachtostudytechnicalchangeinsociety,bothinhistoricalandincontemporaneousstudies.And,second,itisatheoryaboutthedevelopmentoftechnologyanditsrelationtosociety.ConstructivistStudiesofScienceandTechnologyThephrase“socialconstruction”wasfirstusedbyBergerandLuckmann(1966)intheir“treatiseinthesociologyofknowledge.”Buildingonthephenomenologicaltradition,andparticularlyontheworkofAlfredSchutz,theyarguethatrealityissociallyconstructedandthattheseprocessesofsocialconstructionshouldbetheobjectofthesociologyofknowledge.BergerandLuckmannfocusonthesocialconstructionofordinaryknowledgeofthesortthatweusetomakeourwayaboutsociety.Otherscholarshipdevelopedaroundsuchthemesasthesocialconstructionofmentalillness,deviance,gender,lawandclass.Similarly,inthe1970sthesocialcon-structionofscientificfactsdeveloped,followedinthe1980sbythesocialconstructionofartifacts.Constructiviststudiesofscienceandtechnologycomeinawidevarietyofmildandradical(Sismondo1993).Themildversionsmerelystresstheimportanceofincludingthesocialcontextwhendescribingthedevelopmentofscienceandtechnology.Theradicalversionsarguethatthecontentofscienceandtechnologyissociallycon-structed.Inotherwords,thetruthofscientificstatementsandthetechnicalworkingofmachinescannotbeexplainedasbeingderivedfromnaturebutasconstitutedinsocialprocesses.Radicalconstructiviststudiesofscienceandtechnologysharethesamebackground,havesimilaraims,andareevenbeingcarriedoutbypartlythesameresearchers.Theremainderofthisarticlewillfocusontechnologystudiesandmorepreciselyontheradicalversionsofthesocialconstructionoftechnology.88ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page89socialconstructionoftechnologyTheOriginandDevelopmentoftheSocialConstructionofTechnologyThesocialconstructionoftechnology(SCOT)grewoutofthecombinationofthreedistinctbodiesofwork:thescience–technology–society(STS)movement,thesociologyofscientificknowledgeandthehistoryoftechnology.Thefirststartedinthe1970s,mainlyintheNetherlands,Scandinavia,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates.Itsgoalwastoenrichthecurriculaofbothuniversitiesandsecondaryschoolsbystudyingissuessuchasscientists’socialresponsibilities,therisksofnuclearenergy,theproliferationofnucleararms,andenvironmentalpollution.Themovementwasquitesuccessful,especiallyinscienceandengineeringfaculties,andsomeoftheSTScoursesbecamepartofthedegreerequirements.Thesociologyofscientificknow-ledge(SSK)emergedinthelate1970sintheUnitedKingdomonthebasisofworkinthesociologyofknowledge,thephilosophyofscienceandthesociologyofscience.Thecentralmethodologicaltenetsofthestrongprogramme(especiallyitssymmetryprinciple)seemedequallyapplicabletotechnology.Inthehistoryoftechnology,espe-ciallyintheUS,anincreasingnumberofscholarsbegantoraisemoretheoreticalandsociologicallyinspiredquestions(influentialwereConstant[1980],Hughes[1983]andCowan[1983]).Path-breakingadvocacyforthisbodyofworkinthehistoryoftech-nologyprovidedthereadereditedbyMacKenzieandWajcman(1985).Researchersfromthesethreetraditionsconvenedinaninternationalworkshopin1984intheNetherlands.Thesubsequentvolumefromthatworkshop,editedbyanSTS-er,ahis-torianoftechnologyandasociologistofscientificknowledge(Bijkeretal.1987),hasbeenheraldedasthestarting-pointofthesocialconstructionoftechnology.Additionally,itisimportanttorecognizethatthesocialconstructionoftechnologydevelopedlikeanynormalscientificprogram:itsagenda,centralconcepts,andevenunitofanalysisshiftedinresponsetoresearchfindingsanddiscussionsamongscholars.Inthatsense,onecandistinguishearlyandlate(orrecent)versionsofthesocialcon-structionoftechnology.Animportantstarting-pointforthesocialconstructionoftechnologywastocriti-cizetechnologicaldeterminism.Technologicaldeterminismwastakentocomprisetwoelements:(1)technologydevelopsautonomously,and(2)technologydeterminestoanimportantdegreesocietaldevelopment.Thisviewwasseenasintellectuallypoorandpoliticallydebilitating.Technologicaldeterminismimpliesapoorresearchstrategy,itwasargued,becauseitentailsateleological,linearandone-dimensionalviewoftechnologicaldevelopment.Anditwasconsideredpoliticallydebilitatingbecausetechnologicaldeterminismsuggeststhatsocialandpoliticalinterventionsinthecourseoftechnologyareimpossible,thusmakingpoliticization(seebelow)oftech-nologyafutileendeavor.Tobolsterthiscritiqueontechnologicaldeterminism,itwasnecessarytoshowthattheworkingoftechnologywassociallyconstructed–withtheemphasisonsocial.Keyconceptsinthisprogram,aswillbediscussedinthenextsection,were“relevantsocialgroup,”“interpretiveflexibility,”and“closure”and“stabilization.”Theunitofanalysiswasthesingleartifact.Thechoicefortheartifactasunitofanalysiswasachoiceforthe“hardestpossiblecase.”Toshowthateventheworkingofabicycleoralampwassociallyconstructedseemedahardertask,andthus89\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page90wiebee.bijker–whensuccessful–moreconvincing,thantoarguethattechnologyatahigherlevelofaggregationwassociallyshaped.Theagendaofdemonstratingthesocialconstructionofartifactsbyananalysisonamicrolevelresultedinawealthofcasestudies.Afewyearslater,theprogramwasbroadenedintwoways(BijkerandLaw1992).First,questionswereraisedatamesoandmacrolevelofaggregationaswell–forexampleaboutthepoliticalconstruc-tionofradioactivewaste,clinicalbudgetingintheBritishNationalHealthService,ortechnicallymediatedsocialorder.Second,theagendawasbroadenedtoincludeagaintheissueoftechnology’simpactonsociety,whichhadbeenbracketedforthesakeoffightingtechnologicaldeterminism.Conceptsdevelopedforthisagendawere“technologicalframe,”andvariousconceptualizationsoftheobduracyoftechnology(Hommels2005).Theunitofanalysiswasbroadenedfromthesingulartechnicalartifacttothemorecomprehensiveandheterogeneoussociotechnicalensemble.Theemphasisnowwasonconstructionratherthanonsocial.Presentresearchinthesocialconstructionoftechnologycombinesongoingempiricalcasestudieswithmoregeneralquestionsaboutmodernizationofsociety,politicizationoftechnologicalculture,andmanagementofinnovation.Itnowbecomesincreasinglydifficult(andunfruitful)toobservetheboundariesbetweenthevariousapproacheswithinthebroadersocialconstructionoftechnology:researchcollaborationandcon-ceptualcombinationsemergebetween,forexample,theactor-networkapproach,thesocialconstructionoftechnology(inthenarrowsense),andgenderandtechnologystudies.TheSocialConstructionofTechnologyasaHeuristicsforResearchAsaheuristicsforstudyingtechnologyinsociety,thesocialconstructionoftechno-logycanbelaidoutinthreeconsecutiveresearchsteps(Bijker1995).Keyconceptsinthefirststepare“relevantsocialgroup”and“interpretiveflexibility.”Anartifactisdescribedthroughtheeyesofrelevantsocialgroups.Socialgroupsarerelevantfordescribinganartifactwhentheyexplicitlyattributeameaningtothatartifact.Thus,relevantsocialgroupscanbeidentifiedbylookingforactorswhomentiontheartifactinthesameway.Fordescribingthehigh-wheeledOrdinarybicycleinthe1870s,suchgroupswere,forexample,bicycleproducers,youngathleticOrdinaryusers,womencyclists,andanti-cyclists.Becausethedescriptionofanartifactthroughtheeyesofdifferentrelevantsocialgroupsproducesdifferentdescriptions–andthusdifferentartifacts–thisresultsintheresearcher’sdemonstratingthe“inter-pretiveflexibility”oftheartifact.Thereisnotoneartifact;therearemany.InthecaseoftheOrdinarybicycle:therewastheUnsafemachine(throughtheeyesofwomen)andtherewastheMachomachine(throughtheeyesoftheyoungmaleOrdinaryusers).Forwomen,thebicyclewasamachineinwhichyourskirtgotentangledandfromwhichyoufrequentlymadeasteepfall;forthe“youngmenofmeansandnerve”ridingit,thebicyclewasamachinewithwhichtoimpressalady.Inthesecondstep,theresearcherfollowshowtheinterpretiveflexibilitydiminishes,becausesomeartifactsgaindominanceovertheothersandmeaningsconverge–and,90\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page91socialconstructionoftechnologyintheend,oneartifactresultsfromthisprocessofsocialconstruction.Here,keycon-ceptsare“closure”and“stabilization.”Bothconceptsaremeanttodescribetheresultoftheprocessofsocialconstruction.“Stabilization”stressestheprocesscharacter:aprocessofsocialconstructioncantakeseveralyearsinwhichthedegreeofstabiliza-tionslowlyincreasesuptothemomentofclosure.“Closure,”stemmingfromSSK,high-lightstheirreversibleendpointofadiscordantprocessinwhichseveralartifactsexistednexttoeachother.Inthethirdstep,theprocessesofstabilizationthathavebeendescribedinthesecondstepareanalyzedandexplainedbyinterpretingtheminabroadertheoreticalframe-work:whydoesasocialconstructionprocessfollowthisway,ratherthanthat?Thecentralconcepthereis“technologicalframe.”Atechnologicalframestructurestheinteractionsamongthemembersofarelevantsocialgroup,andshapestheirthinkingandacting.ItissimilartoKuhn’sconcept“paradigm”withoneimportantdifference:“technologicalframe”isaconcepttobeappliedtoallkindsofrelevantsocialgroups,while“paradigm”wasexclusivelyintendedforscientificcommunities.Thisthree-stepresearchprocessthusamountsto:(1)sociologicaldeconstructionofanartifacttodemonstrateitsinterpretiveflexibility;(2)descriptionoftheartifact’ssocialconstruction;and(3)explanationofthisconstructionprocessintermsofthetech-nologicalframesofrelevantsocialgroups.SomePhilosophicalQuestionsThesocialconstructionoftechnologyalsoprovidesatheoryoftechnologydevelopmentandoftechnology’srelationtosociety.HeresomeoftheimplicationsforaphilosophyoftechnologywillbediscussedbybrieflyreviewingthequestionsthatMitcham(1994)identified.Ishallfollowtheagendainhischapter“ThePhilosophicalQuestioningofTechnology.”TechnologyandIdeasExtendingitsresearchheuristics,SCOTalsoimplies“ideasabouttechnology”:therecognitionthat“technologiescouldhavebeenotherwise”bydenyingadetermininginternallogicintechnologydevelopment,thesociallyconstructednatureofeventechnology’sobduracy,thekeyrolethattechnologicalframes(andthustheculturalvaluesandsocialrulesthatareembeddedtherein)play.Suchideas,then,generatequestionsthatconstitutecoreissuesinthephilosophyoftechnology,eveniftheywillnotbespelledouthere.ConceptualIssuesTherelationbetweenscienceandtechnologyisapproachedbySCOTasanempiricalratherthanatheoreticalquestion.Ratherthantryingtocharacterizethetransistorasatechnological(patents!)orasascientific(NobelPrize!)accomplishment,Pinch91\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page92wiebee.bijkerandBijker(1984)suggestedthatitwouldbemorefruitfultoinvestigateempiric-allyhowactorsinpracticedefineaproblemastechnicalorscientific.Thesameappliesempiricallytracingthenegotiationsabouttheboundariesbetween,forexample,economicandtechnical,ortechnicalandsocial,orpoliticalandtechnical(Callon1987).LogicandEpistemologicalIssuesTechnologicalframescomprisealsocriteriatoidentifyprimaryandsecondaryprob-lemsandproblem-solvingstrategies.Thatis,thus,theconceptuallocusforidentifyingandstudyingdifferentstylesoftechnologicalthinkinginSCOT.Thesestylesshowaclearcorrespondencetopragmatistphilosophy,thoughthishasbeenarguedonlyforthepoliticaldimensions(Bijker2006).EthicalIssuesSCOToffersavarietyofentrypointsforethicalanalysisoftechnology,especiallybecauseofthecoreideathat“thingscouldhavebeenotherwise.”However,theonethingthatSCOTdoesnotprovideisaconceptualframeworktocharacterizeethicaltechnolo-giesinanycontext-independentandintrinsicway–thatimporttechnologicaldeter-minismthroughthebackdoor(philosopherswhocriticizedconstructiviststudiesofscienceandtechnologyforthisareRadder[1992]andWinner[1993]).Apragmatistapproachseemsmostfruitful(Keulartzetal.2004).IssuesofPoliticalPhilosophyWeliveinatechnologicalculture:ourmodern,highlydevelopedsocietycannotbefullyunderstoodwithouttakingintoaccounttheroleofscienceandtechnology.SCOToffersaconceptualframeworkforpoliticizingthistechnologicalculture.“Politicizing”heremeans:showinghiddenpoliticaldimensions,puttingissuesonthepoliticalagenda,openingissuesupforpoliticaldebate.ThesocialconstructionoftechnologyapproachnotonlygivesanaffirmativeanswertoWinner’s(1980)question“Doartifactshavepolitics?”butalsooffersahandletoanalyzethesepolitics.Technologyissocially(andpolitically)constructed;society(includingpolitics)istechnicallybuilt;technologicalcultureconsistsofsociotechnicalensembles.Theissueofpoliticaldecision-makingabouttechnologicalprojectsacquiresaspecialguiseunderthelightofthesocialcon-structionoftechnology.Ifitisacceptedthatavarietyofrelevantsocialgroupsareinvolvedinthesocialconstructionoftechnologiesandthattheconstructionpro-cessescontinuethroughallphasesofanartifact’slifecycle,itmakessensetoextendthesetofgroupsinvolvedinpoliticaldeliberationabouttechnologicalchoices.Thus,severalcountriesexperimentwithconsensusconferences,publicdebatesandcitizens’juries.Oneofthekeyissueshereistheroleofexpertiseinpublicdebates.Thesocialconstructionoftechnologyapproachsuggeststhatallrelevantsocialgroupshave92\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page93socialconstructionoftechnologysomeformofexpertise,butthatnotoneform–forexamplethescientists’orengineers’–hasaspecialandapriorisuperiorityovertheothers(Bijker2004).ReligiousIssuesOnceasocialconstructivistperspectivehasbeenadopted,religiousvaluesalsocomeintoplayaspartofthetechnologicalframesofrelevantsocialgroups.Theconceptofinterpretiveflexibilitycanhelptodistinguishdifferent–religiousandotherwise–identitiesofartifactsandthusopenupnewresearchentriestounderstandrelationsbetweentechnologyandreligion.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBerger,P.L.andLuckmann,T.(1966).TheSocialConstructionofReality:ATreatiseintheSociologyofKnowledge(NewYork:DoubledayAnchorBooks).Bijker,W.E.(1995).OfBicycles,Bakelites,andBulbs:TowardaTheoryofSociotechnicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Bijker,W.E.(2004).“SustainablePolicy?APublicDebateaboutNatureDevelopmentintheNetherlands,”HistoryandTechnology,20(4):371–91.Bijker,W.E.(2006).“WhyandHowTechnologyMatters,”inR.E.GoodinandC.Tilly(eds),OxfordHandbookofContextualPoliticalAnalysis(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),pp.681–706.Bijker,W.E.,Hughes,T.P.andPinch,T.J.(1987).TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Bijker,W.E.andLaw,J.(eds)(1992).ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety.StudiesinSociotechnicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Callon,M.(1987).“SocietyintheMaking:TheStudyofTechnologyasaToolforSociologicalAnalysis,”inW.E.Bijker,T.P.HughesandT.J.Pinch(eds),TheSocialConstructionofTech-nologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.83–103.Constant,E.W.(1980).TheOriginsoftheTurbojetRevolution(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Cowan,R.S.(1983).MoreWorkforMother:TheIroniesofHouseholdTechnologyfromtheOpenHearthtotheMicrowave(NewYork:BasicBooks).Hommels,A.M.(2005).UnbuildingCities:ObduracyinUrbanSociotechnicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Hughes,T.P.(1983).NetworksofPower:ElectrificationinWesternSociety,1880–1930(Baltimore,Md./London:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Keulartz,J.,Schermer,M.,Korthals,M.andSwierstra,T.(2004).“EthicsinTechnologicalCulture:AProgrammaticProposalforaPragmatistApproach,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,29(1):3–29.Mackenzie,D.andWajcman,J.(eds)(1985).TheSocialShapingofTechnology:HowtheRefrigeratorGotItsHum(MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress).Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).93\n9781405146012_4_015.qxd2/4/0913:24Page94wiebee.bijkerPinch,T.andBijker,W.(1984).“TheSocialConstructionofFactsandArtefacts:orHowtheSociologyofScienceandtheSociologyofTechnologyMightBenefitEachOther,”SocialStudiesofScience,14:399–441.Radder,H.(1992).“NormativeReflectionsonConstructivistApproachestoScienceandTechnology,”SocialStudiesofScience,22:141–73.Sismondo,S.(1993).“SomeSocialConstructions,”SocialStudiesofScience,23:515–53.Winner,L.(1980).“DoArtifactsHavePolitics?,”Daedalus,109(1):121–36.Winner,L.(1993).“UponOpeningtheBlackBoxandFindingItEmpty:SocialConstructivismandthePhilosophyofTechnology,”Science,Technology,andHumanValues,18(3):362–78.94\n9781405146012_4_016.qxd2/4/0913:24Page9516TheoryChangeandInstrumentationJOSEPHC.PITTPhilosophicaltheoriesofscientificchangehavetendedtoignoretheroleofinstrumentsandtheimpactofinnovationininstrumentationontheorychange.Whatareoftenreferredtoasthe“standard”theories,thoseofThomasKuhn,ImreLakatosandLarryLaudan,withtheirfocusontheory,concentrateprimarilyonabstractconsiderations.Theseincludesuchfactorsasanomalies(Kuhn),degeneratingresearchprograms(Lakatos)andproblem-solvingability(Laudan).However,innoneofthesecasesisattentionpaidtothemechanicsbehindchange.Thus,weareinformedthatovertimeparadigmsaccumulateanomalies,buthowtheseoccurisnotexplained.Researchprogramsdegenerate,butwhatarethespecificcausesofdegeneration?Andwhatexactlycontributestotheproblem-solvingabilityoftheories?Oneclearansweris“instruments.”Instrumentscontributetotheorychangeindifferentways.Thus,itwouldbeincorrecttoproposeasingletheoryregardinghowinstrumentsareinvolvedintheorychange.Partoftheissuehereisthattheorieschangeinavarietyofwaysandundermultiplecircumstances.Thus,onewouldexpectthatinstrumentswouldalsobeinvolvedinthosechangesisamyriadofways.Butthereisoneconstant:ifscienceiswhatscientistsdo,theninstrumentschangethewayscientistswork.Sothefocushereisonhowinstrumentschangescience,ratherthanontheorychangeperse.Considerjustafewofthewaysthatinstrumentsareinvolvedinscientificchange.Newinstrumentscanmakepossiblenewobservationsthatplacethestatusofacur-renttheoryindoubt.Newinstrumentscanstimulatethedevelopmentofnewsciences.Instrumentsdevelopedinthecontextofonesciencecanbeimportedintoascienceprovidingtheimpetusforavarietyofchanges.And,finally,devicesdevelopedforuseoutsidethesciencescanbeincorporatedintoscientificworkinwaysthatamounttoamassiveshiftinhowscienceisdoneor,rather,inwhatscientistsdo.AnepisodeinthehistoryofsciencethatvividlyillustratesoneroleinstrumentsplayintheorychangeconcernsGalileo’stelescope.Galileodidnotinventthetelescope,buthewasthefirsttoputittoscientificuse.In1609hepublishedSideriusnuntius.ItcontainedtheresultsofhistelescopicobservationsoftheMoon.Accordingtothethencurrenttheoryofthestructureandnatureoftheuniverse,theMoon,asacelestialbody,wasperfect–itwassmoothandwithoutblemish,aswereallthebodiesoftheheavens.ClaimssuchasthesewerepartofthegeocentrictheoryelaboratedbyAristotlethatACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks95©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_016.qxd2/4/0913:24Page96josephc.pittproposedthat,whiletheearthwasabodythatexperiencedconstantchange,theheavensdidnot.Galileo’sreportedobservationsshowedthat,contrarytowhatAristotlepro-posed,theMoonwasnotaperfectsphere–itcontainedmountainsandcraters.OtherobservationsincludedtherevelationthatJupiterhadmoons.ThisdealtaheavyblowtotheAristotelianclaimthattherewasonecentertotheuniverse,Earth,andthatallothercelestialbodiesrevolvedaroundit.Itnowseemsthatthereweremany“centers”ifJupiterhadmoons.Inshort,thegeocentrictheorywasinserioustrouble.ItisnottoomuchtoclaimthatGalileo’stelescopicobservationswerehighlyinstrumentalinthefinalrejectionofAristoteliantheoryanditseventualreplacementbyNewton’saccount.Inthestandardaccountsoftheorychangeweshallfindacknowledgmentoftheobservations,butnotofthekeyroleoftheinstrument,thetelescope,thatmadethoseobservationspossible.And,moretothepoint,thereisnounderstanding,inthestandardaccounts,oftheroleinstrumentsplayinchangingnotjustthesciencebutalsoourunderstandingoftheworldofexperience.Thatis,ofthekindofexperienceswecanhave.Kuhnalludestotheworldchangingwhenparadigmschange,butdoeslittletoelaborate.Butitisclearthat,followingGalileo’sdiscoveriesregardingtheMoonandJupiter,thepotentialforhumanexperiencechanged.Thatis,thereisaveryrealsenseinwhichtheverymeaningof“observation”changed,becausetheinstrumentmadeitpossibletoseethingsthathithertoithadnotbeenpossibletosee.Anotherinstrumentthatinfluencednotonlythedevelopmentofscience,inthiscasebiology,wasthemicroscope.Buttheroleitplayedintheorychangewasdifferentfromthatofthetelescope.Ratherthanplayingakeyroleinreplacingamajorentrenchedtheory,itwas,toputitstrongly,responsibleforthecreationofnotjustanewtheory,celltheory,butawholenewscience.Themicroscopeemergedintheearlydecadesoftheseventeenthcentury.Galileomadeone,Leeuwenhoekreportednumerousmicro-scopicobservations,asdidRobertHooke,whoseMicrographiawasthefirsttextbookofmicroscopy.Likethetelescope,themicroscopemadeitpossibletoseewhatwecouldnothaveseenbefore.Intheearlyyears,however,itwasnotclearwhatwasbeingobserved.Newvocabularieswereinventedtotrytogivesomestructuretothisnewmicroscopicworldthatwasbeingopenedup.Forexample,Leeuwenhoekspokeof“animalculus,”andHookeinventedtheterm“cell.”Butwhatactuallywasgoingoninthearenaoftheverysmallwasunclearbecausetherewasnotheoryoftheverysmall.Whatwerethesethings,andwhydidtheydowhattheydid?Ittookanothertwocenturiesbeforeasystematicresponsetothesequestionswasformulatedincelltheory.Intheinterveningyearsimprovementstotheinstrumenthadbeenmade,andmanyspeculatedonwhatwasgoingonatthemicroscopiclevel.Themainimpetusforthedevelopmentofcelltheorycamefromeffortstounderstandthecausesofhumandisease.Attemptstousethemicroscopetounderstandthemakeupofhumanorgansprovedunfruitfulbecausenoonewasclearaboutwhattheywereseeing.InsomerespectstheseproblemsechoedHooke’scomplaints.Thecommonthreadrunningthroughthemcouldonlybeansweredbythedevelopmentofstainingtech-niques,whichinturncouldonlyfollowfromatheoryofthecellfinallyarticulatedbyTheodorSchwannandMithiasJacobSchleidenaround1839.Sointhiscasewehavethedevelopmentofaninstrumentthatstimulatesthesearchfortheorytoexplainwhattheinstrumentreveals.And,likethetelescope,themoreusefulthemicroscopebecame96\n9781405146012_4_016.qxd2/4/0913:24Page97theorychangeandinstrumentationinrevealingtheworldoftheverysmall,so,too,didthereoccurchangesinwhatweunderstoodtocountasanobservation.Therearenumerouscaseswheredevicesdevelopedoutsidethecontextsofscienceareimportedintoasciencewithastonishingresults.Thephotographisonesuchexample.Today,inastronomy,thephotographhasbecomeanessentialcomponentinthedoingofscience.Usingatelescopeisinitselfacomplicatedbusiness.Tobeginwith,sincetheEarthmovesatadifferentratefromthatoftheheavens,keepingatelescopealignedwiththeobjectofstudyisamajorproblem.WhenGalileowasmakingarecordofwhathesawonthesurfaceoftheMoonhewouldhavetostophisobservingandturntotheparchmentonwhichhewassketchinghisobservations,thenturnback,onlytofindthattheMoonwasnolongerinthesameplace.Hewouldthenhavetoresighthistelescopeandmakesurehehadproperlysketchedthesurfaceandthenturnbackandrealignthetelescopeagain.Todayitispossibletoattachacameratoahometelescopethathasabuilt-intrackingdevicethatkeepsitalignedwiththeobjectofstudyandtotakepicturesofit,preservingthemomentforlaterstudy.TheHubbleSpaceTelescopehasentertainedtheworldwiththepicturesithastakenofdeep-spacephenomenainadditiontoprovidingtheastronomicalcommunitywithdetailedimagestheanalysisofwhichischangingourunderstandingoftheexpandinguniverse.Inshort,inastronomy,thecamera(insomeformorother)hasbecomeaninstrumentofscience.Finallyweturntoadevicethathastransformedthefaceofmanysciences,butinparticularofspacescience:thecomputer.Thecomputerplaysincreasinglyimportantrolesinnuclearphysics,mathematics,statistics,sociology,astronomy,spacescience–andthelistgoeson.Interestingly,itplaysdifferentroles,andtheyhavetobecare-fullydelineated.Hereweshallconcentrateonnuclearphysicsandspacescience.FromthebeginningofthehydrogenbombprojectintheUnitedStates,thecomputerhasbeenanintegralpartofthedevelopmentofnuclearphysics.Atfirstitwasusedtoassistinmakingcalculationstopredictreactiontimes.Itwasnotessentialtothatjob,sincetheSovietUnionusedbatteriesofmainlywomenwithhandcalculatorstoachievethesameresult.Butitisincreasinglyessentialtoday.Forthosecountriesthataresignatoriestoandabidebytheconventionsoftheanti-nuclearproliferationtreaty,thecomputerhasbecomethemeansbywhichtocontinuedevelopmentofourknow-ledgeinthisareathroughtheuseofsimulations.Simulationsareimportantnotonlyforthepurposeofdesigningnewergenerationsofnuclearweapons,butalsoforthedevelopmentofnewnuclearenergyplantsandfortrackingthedeteriorationofexist-ingnuclearwarheads.Howevercrucialcomputersaretonucleardevelopments,itissafetosaythatspacesciencewouldnotexistwithoutthem.Spacescienceinvolvesmorethanastronomyandcosmology.Itinvolveschemistryandgeologyandbiology,anditincreasinglyreliesoninformation-gatheringbymechanicalprobessentofftovariousplanetaryandcelestiallocations.Andthecomputerisinvolvedinvirtuallyallstages.Considerthefollowingscenario.NASAsentaprobe,appropriatelynamedGalileo,toJupiterandputitintoorbitaroundtheplanet.Toaccomplishthatsimpleact,scientistsandengineersonEarthhadtocommunicatewiththeprobe,tellingitwhentodotheappro-priatemaneuversneededtoachieveorbit.Essentially,theywerecommunicatingwithacomputerprogram.WhentheGalileoprobe’s“cameras”tookpicturesofthesurface97\n9781405146012_4_016.qxd2/4/0913:24Page98josephc.pittofJupiter’smoonIo,itwasessentiallystoringdigitaldatagovernedbycomputers.WhenitsentthatdatabacktoEarth,thecomputersonboardalignedtheantennawithearthandthensentthedata,toberecoveredandtransformedinto“pictures”bycomputerprograms.LikewiseforthepictureswenowhaveofthesurfaceofMars.Fromtheconstructionoftheprobe,toitslaunch,toitsarrivalatitsdestination,totheacquisitionofdataandtheirreturntoEarthandreconstitution,computersareintegral.Inasimilarfashion,computersareanessentialfeatureofnano-science.Thisisasciencethatreliesheavilyonanarrayofelectronmicroscopesallgovernedbycom-puterprograms.And,similartothepictureswegetfromtheHubble,thepicturesweobtainoftheatomiclevelfromascanningtunnelingelectronmicroscopeare“com-puterenhanced.”Theenhancementconsistsof,amongotherthings,providingthevividcoloringsocharacteristicofnano-scalepictures.Thecrucialthinghereisthatwewouldseenothingwithoutthecomputerenhancementssincethereisnocolorattheatomiclevel.Thecomputermakesitpossibleforustogainknowledgeofthestructuresoftheatomiclevel,knowledgethatwouldotherwisebeimpossible.Ifinstrumentsareessentialcomponentsofthedevelopmentofscience,attendingtotheirrolesandtheirowndevelopmentisequallyessentialtoourunderstandingofthedevelopingsciences.Aswasmerelysuggestedabove,therearecomplicatedrelationshipsbetweentheconstructionanduseofaninstrumentanditsimpactonascience.But,likewise,theinstrumentsthemselvesareimpactedbythedemandsofthevarioussciences.Newtheoriesallowfornovelpredictionsthetestingofwhichrequiresnewinstrumentsorenhancedversionsofoldinstruments,andthesymbioticinterplayproceeds.Attendingtothetransformationofscienceanditsinstrumentsalsomeansattendingtotheenvironmentsinwhichthescienceisbeingconducted–ifyouwill,thesocial.Insodoing,scienceitselfbecomesamuchmorevibrantandexcitingworldthansteriletheoriesofscientificchangewouldhaveusbelieve.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAckermann,R.J.(1985).Data,Instruments,andTheory:ADialecticalApproachtoUnderstandingScience(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Galison,P.(1997).ImageandLogic:AMaterialCultureofMicrophysics(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Kuhn,T.S.(1970).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,2ndedn(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Lakatos,I.(1978).TheMethodologyofScientificResearchProgrammes,ed.J.WorrallandG.Currie(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Laudan,L.(1977).ProgressandItsProblems(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Pitt,J.(2005).“WhenIsanImageNotanImage?,”Techné:ResearchinPhilosophyandTechnology,8(3).Rasmussen,N.(1999).PictureControl(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress).Turner,G.L.(1990).ScientificInstrumentsandExperimentalPhilosophy1550–1850(Aldershot:Variorum).98\n9781405146012_4_017.qxd2/4/0913:25Page9917BiologyandTechnologyKEEKOKLEEIntroductionBiologymaybrieflybedefinedasthesciencewhichstudieslivingorganisms,atalllevelsoftheirorganization;technology(forthepurposeofthisessay)astechniquesfortrans-formingthenaturalworld/environmenttomeetspecifichumangoals,interestsorneeds.Biologyandtechnologyappeartohavenothingtodowitheachother,astheyoccupyverydifferentontologicaldomains–theformerisaboutautopoieticlivingmatter,thelatteraboutartifacts.However,oneisnotjustifiedtoconcludefromthisthathumaningenuitycannotmakeartifactsoutoflivingorganisms.Thisessayexploresandexplains1preciselysuchatransformation.But,beforedoingso,oneneedsfirsttogiveashorthistoryoftechnology.HistoryofTechnologyTechnologyhasexistedaslongasHomosapiens.Itisnotpossibletodojusticetoallthehistoricalformsoftechnologyhere,butitsufficestodistinguishbetweenthattypewhichexistedsincethefirstadzemadebyourStoneAgeancestorsandthemodernvarietiesrootedinmodernscience.However,itwouldbeamistaketothinkthatthelatterbeganwiththebeginningofmodernscienceitself,usuallydatedtotheseventeenthcenturyinWesternEurope;instead,moderntechnologylaggedbehindmodernscienceforagoodtwocenturiesanddidnottakeofftillaboutthe1840s.Uptothen,humansreliedonwhatmaybecalledcraft-basedtechnologyratherthanscience-induced/appliedtechnology.Thefirstindustrialrevolutionwasbasedontheformer(thewater–wind–woodcomplex);sowasthesecond(thesteam–coal–ironcomplex),asitreliedonthe2steamengine.However,thethirdindustrialrevolutionoccurredunderverydifferentcircumstances,asitwasinducedbythetheoreticaldiscoveriesofphysics(suchaselectro-magnetismonthepartofFaraday,andthenothersincludingVolta,Galvani,Oersted,Ohm,AmpèreandHenry,leadingtoinventionsliketheelectriccell,thestoragecell,thedynamo,themotor,theelectriclamp,nottomentiontheelectricpowerstation,thetelephone,theradiotelegraph)andofchemistry(suchasFaraday’sisolationofbenzenewhichmadetheindustrialuseofrubberpossible,whileadvancesinorganicACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks99©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_017.qxd2/4/0913:25Page100keekokleechemistrypermittedtheindustrialutilizationofcoalbeyonditsuseasadirectsourceofenergy).Tillthen,theinventorledandthescientistfollowed;fromthe1840s,sciencehasledandradicalinventionsfollowed–thepathsofpure(theoretical)scienceandtechnologynolongerdiverged,butbegantobeharnessedtoworkasjointforces.However,giventhecomplexitiesinthehistoryoftechnology,itwouldbearbitrarytowithdrawtheterm“technology”fromthatlongphaseofseveralmillenniaandconfineitonlytowhathashappenedinthelast150years.TechnologyandArtifactsTechnologyisnormallyassociatedwiththeproductionofabiotic/exbioticartifacts,suchashouses,machines.Aristotle,inhisanalysisintermsofthefourcauses–material,efficient,formalandfinal–usedastatueasprototypeofanartifact.Thismighthave,subconsciously,overthecenturies,influencedourunderstandingoftheconceptofartifact,makingitdifficultforsometograspthatartifactscouldbeeitherabioticorbiotic.Thismeansthatalivingorganismcouldbetransformedbyhumantechnology3tobecomeanartifact;thisistosaythattheontologicalstatusofalivingorganismasanaturallyoccurringbeingcould,inprinciple,betransformedtobecomethatofanartifactualone.Artifactsare,therefore,theontologicalfoilofnaturallyoccurringbeings.Thelattermaybedefinedasthatwhichhavecomeintoexistence,continuetoexist,andgooutofexistence,inprinciple,independentlyofhumanexistenceormanipulation;theformer,incontrast,maybedefinedasthematerialembodimentofhumanintention-ality,astheywouldnothavecomeintoexistence,continue/ceasetoexistwithouttheexplicitintentionandinterventionofHomofaber.Theontologicaldifferencebetweenthetwodomainsmaybefurtherexplainedintermsofthefollowingthreethesesofteleology:1.External–thismaybesaidtoembodyastridentanthropocentrismasitholdsthatEarthhascomeintoexistencefortheveryspecificpurposeofservinghumans,aviewwhichisnotuniformlysanctionedandchampionedbycontemporarytheologicalthought,norisitcompatiblewithscientificthoughtsinceDarwin,whosetheoryofnaturalselectionpreciselydispenseswithsuchathesis:naturalevolution,inaccordancewithnaturalselection,doesnotrequiretheinterventionofextra-neousendsordesigns,whethersupernaturalorhuman.Instead,themechanismofnaturalselectionisconsonantwithandrequiresthesecondthesisofteleology.2.Intrinsic/immanent–eachorganismissimplyconcernedwithmaintainingitsownfunctioningintegrityinordertosurviveandtoreproduceitself;inotherwords,itexists“byitself”(asithascomeintoexistenceindependentlyofhumans)and“foritself”(asitbreathes,ingestsnutrients,excreteswaste,reproducesindependentlyofhumans)asanautopoieticbeing.Thoseindividualswhichhappentohavecertaintraits(intheirgeneticmake-up)whicharefavorabletosurvivalandreproductioninacertainenvironmentareabletoleavebehindoffspring(ormoreoffspring);thosewhichdonot,eitherdiebeforetheyreachmaturitytoreproduce,simplyfailtoreproduce,ortheiroffspringthemselvesdieassoonastheyarebornorfailto100\n9781405146012_4_017.qxd2/4/0913:25Page101biologyandtechnologythriveandtosurvivetosexualmaturity.Inotherwords,thetheoryofnaturalselec-tioninnaturalevolution,whiledenyingexternalteleology,presupposesintrinsic/immanentteleologyifitistobeintelligible.However,Aristotlemaybesaidtoholdboth;butitwouldbeatravestyofthisthoughttoignorehisimplicationthatintrinsic/immanentteleologyispriortoexternalteleology.Asaresult,hisanthro-pocentrismismorenuancedthancertainmodernversions,whichsimplyupholdexternalteleology,whilerejectingintrinsic/immanentteleology.3.Extrinsic/imposed–Homofaberinmakinganartifactexpressesitsownwillandintention;thetelos(formalandfinalcauses)oftheartifactisdesignedintoit,whilethetelosofanaturallyoccurringbeinghasnothingtodowithhumandesignandmanipulation.Should,onedayinthefuture,thehumanspecieswithitspeculiarkindofconsciousnessgooutofexistence,theconceptofartifactswoulddiewithit–therewouldbenomoremotorcars,nomoreChartrescathedral,onlypilesofmattersuchasmetal,stone,wood,etc.Incontrast,theoakorthebee,asautopoieticbeings,wouldcontinueontheirownrespectivetrajectories,livingouttheirownrespectivetele,whichunfoldaltogetherindependentlyofhumanexistence,inten-tion,sustenanceorintervention.Biology,TechnologyandBioticartifactsCraft-basedtechnologywasusedintransforminglivingorganismstobecomebioticartifactswhenthefirstplantsoranimalsweredomesticatedabouttenthousandyearsago.Theprocessofdomesticationwasbasedontrialanderror,althoughithasledtospectacularresultsindeed.Itremainsthemethodinmanypartsoftheworldeventoday,butinthedevelopedworldithasbeen,byandlarge,supersededbydoublehybridization(1930s),atechnologyinducedbythefundamentaldiscoveriesofthefirstrevolutioningenetics,namelyMendeliangenetics,andsincethe1970sitissupple-mented(ratherthantotallysuperseded)bybiotechnology,inducedbythefundamentaldiscoveriesofthesecondrevolutioningeneticsofthetwentiethcentury,namelyDNAgenetics(1957)andmolecularbiology.Whatthesethreetypesoftechnologyhaveincommon,inspiteofthegreatdifferencesbetweenthem,istheircommongoaloftransformingnaturallyoccurringorganismstobecomebioticartifacts–humankindthroughthemselectsaparticularcharacteristic(s)possessedbyaplant/animaldeemedtobedesirable(highyield,drought-resistance)oraspecificcharacteristicdeemedtobeundesirable(pronetopest-infestation,tooshort/tootall)tobebredinoroutoftheorganism.Inotherwords,ateachofthesethreelevelsoftechnologicaldevelopment,theconceptofthebioticartifactcorrespondinglyevolved.Undercraft-basedtechnologyofartificialselectionandbreeding,theprocedureforachievingthebreeder’sgoalusuallytookaverylongtime,sometimesevenhundredsofyears,asitdependedbyandlargeontrialanderror.Thelengthoftimeisalsodependentongenerationalduration,onhowlongittakesfortheorganismtobecomesexuallymatureandreproduce;thefruitfly(Drosophilamelanogaster)hasalifecycleofonlytwoweeks,whereasanelephantofevenoverseventyyears.Suchatechnologyimplicitlyrecognizes(insexuallyreproducingorganisms)thatmalesandfemalestransmittheircharacteristicstotheiroffspring.This101\n9781405146012_4_017.qxd2/4/0913:25Page102keekokleecommon-senseorproto-scientificknowledgeservedhumankindwelluntilthearrivalofthe(classical)scienceofgeneticswiththerediscoveryofMendel’slawsofinheritancein1901,followedbythediscoveryofthechromosome(ThomasHuntMorgan),whenitwasestablishedthatgeneticmaterialiscarriedbygenesonchromosomes–thismadeclearwhytheearliercraft-basedtechnologyhadworkedaswellasitdid.Asaresult,artificialselectionandbreedingbecameascientific,morepreciseandcontrolledundertaking;itsproceduresalsoshortenthelengthoftimerequiredtoachievethedesiredoutcomes,eventhough,likethemoreprimitivetechnologyithassuperseded,Mendeliantechnologyalsorests(inthecaseofsexualreproduction)ontheexchangeofgeneticmaterial(containedinthewholespermandegg)intheactofreproducingthezygote(embryo)irrespectiveofwhetherreproductiontakesplaceinvivoorinvitro.However,thislimitationisfinallyovercomewiththearrivalofbiotechnologyslightlymorethanhalfacenturysincethefirstappearanceofMendelianhybridization.Bio-technology,asweallknow,enableshumankindtobypassthetraditionalrouteofgenetictransmission,asitisbasednotsomuchonthewholespermoregg,butonlyonspecificDNAsequencescontainingcharacteristicsdeemeddesirableorundesirablewhichcanbeinsertedorremovedatwill.Theaboveconfirmsthatthegreaterandthedeeperourunderstandingandknow-ledgeofhowlivingorganismsfunctionandreproduce,thegreater,themorepreciseisourabilitytocontrolandmanipulatelivingorganisms,inourattemptsontologicallytotransformthemfrombeingnaturallyoccurringentitiestobecomebioticartifacts.Asartifacts,theydifferfromabiotic/exbioticonesinthat,whilethelatterareinert,theyarealive.However,thefactthattheyarealive,thattheybreathe,eat,excrete,grow,developandreproduce,doesnotnecessarilyunderminetheclaimthattheyareartifacts,asthoseautopoieticbiologicalmechanismshavebeencapturedanddivertedbyHomofabertoserve,nolongertheirowntele,butthegoalsandintentionsofhumankind–true,thetransgeniccowstillproducesmilk,butthemilksheproducescontainsahumanproteinwhichisalientothecowgenome,andwhichhasdeliberatelybeeninsertedintoitinordertoadvanceaspecifichuman(pharmaceutical)end.Thedeeperthescience,thedeeperbecomesthelevelofmanipulationthroughitscor-respondingtechnology,andthereforealsothedeeperthelevelofartifacticityembodiedbyitsproducts.Domesticatesproducedbythecraft-basedtechnologyofartificialselection/breedingbytrialanderrorare,therefore,atthelowestlevelofartifacticity.ThenextlevelisbroughtaboutbyMendelianhybridizationtechnology,operatingstillthroughthewholeorganisminreproduction,but,nevertheless,atthesametime,focusingonthegene-chromosome(cellularlevel)astheunitofgenetictransmission.Finally,withthearrivalofDNAgeneticsandbiologyatanevendeeperlevelofunder-standing,thetechnologyitengendersoperatesatacorrespondinglyfardeeperlevel,namelythemolecularlevel,therebygeneratinganevengreaterlevelofartifacticityinitsendproducts.Biotechnologynolongerreliesonbreedinginthetraditionalsensewhichunderpinsbothcraft-basedandMendeliantechnologies,butbypassesit;thisenablesbiotechnologytobeamuchmoreradicaltechnologythanthatbasedonthegene-chromosometheory,asitcancrossnotonlyspeciesbutalsokingdombarriers.Notonlycanthetransgeniccowbemadetoexpressahumanproteininherotherwisenormalcowmilk;thetransgenictomatocanbemadefrost-resistantbyhavinginsertedintoitsgenomeaDNAsequencebelongingtotheflounderfish.Exhypothesi,interms102\n9781405146012_4_017.qxd2/4/0913:25Page103biologyandtechnologyofnaturalevolution,thecowandthehumancouldnotmate;neithercouldthetomatoplantwiththeflounderfish.Thistestifiestotheradicalnatureofbiotechnology,thedeeplevelatwhichitmanipulatesgeneticmaterial,andhencethedepthofartifacticityinitstransgenicproducts.ConclusionThereisacloselinkthroughouthumanhistory–sincehumankindbecamesedentaryandpracticedagricultureandhusbandry–betweenbiologyandtechnology.Ontheonehand,the(modern)scienceofbiologymaystudy,inthemain,naturallyoccurringplantsandanimals(intheirnaturalhabitats);ontheother,especiallysincetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,genetics(asabiologicalscience)hasconsistentlylentitstheoreticalunderstandingoforganismstothetechnologicaldomain,andhence,crucially,bringsaboutnotonlythetechnologicalbutalsotheontologicaltransformationofnaturallyoccurringbeingstobecomebioticartifacts.Notes1.Fordetails,seeKeekokLee,PhilosophyandRevolutionsinGenetics(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2005).2.Ironically,theattempttoraiseitsefficiencyledSadiCarnottodiscoverthefundamentalscienceofthermodynamics.3.Someanimalsalsohavetechnologies–thebeaveranditsdam,thechimpanzeeanditstermitetwig.103\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page10418NuclearTechnologiesWILLIAMJ.NUTTALL1.IntroductionNucleartechnologieslieclosetotheheartofthepost-SecondWorldWarZeitgeist.TheygiveustheBombandnuclearpower,whichshaped,andwereshapedby,socio-politicalchange,includingmassprotest.Thepoweroftheatomchallengestechnocraticnotionsof:utilitarianism,severaldomainsofethics,politicalphilosophy,andtheimpactoftechnologyonsociety.Nuclearsciencehasmadenumerouscontributionstomedicinefordiagnosisandtherapy.However,hereweshallrestrictdiscussiontothedomainsmostcloselyconnectedtothecoreofnuclearscience–fission.2.ThePhysicistsandtheBombKeytotheprovenanceofnucleartechnologiesisphysics.Physicswastransformedby1theSecondWorldWar.PhysicshadgiventheAlliesradarandtheatombomb.BeforetheSecondWorldWarphysicshadnotbeenappreciated:...industrieshadbeenpeculiarlyobtuseinnotseeinganyconceivableuseforphysicists.Youngmeninthe1930s,withdoctoratesandgoodresearchtotheircredit,consideredthemselvesluckytogetdecentjobsinschools.(Snow[1981],p.42)Inthe1920sand1930sthefirstmurmuringsofthenuclearagecamefromsolitary2figuresworkinginsmallacademicgroupsontheEuropeancontinent.Theonlyindustrializationofnuclearpropertiesconcernedtheuseofradiuminlargelyunscientificmedicaltherapiesandforluminousdialsforclocksandaircraftinstru-mentation.Radium,ahighlyradioactiveelement,occursnaturallyastheresultofthe3radioactivedecayofisotopesofthoriumanduranium.Oneoftheseisotopes,uranium-235,isfissionable,i.e.canbesplitwhenhitbyaneutronreleasinglargeamountsofnuclearenergy.“Collectenoughuranium-235,andtherewasthechanceofanimmenseexplosion.Therethepuresciencefinished”(Snow[1981],p.100).Uranium-235fissionalsomadepossiblethefirstself-sustainingnuclearreactor.EnricoFermi’s1942104ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page105nucleartechnologiesChicagoPile-1alsodemonstratedproductionoftheman-made,butstable,fissileisotope:plutonium-239.TheuseoffissionintheSecondWorldWarManhattanProject,andtheresultingatomicbomb,transformedphysics.ForthehistoryofthedevelopmentofthefissionweaponintheUKandtheUS,seeRonaldClark’sTheBirthoftheBombandRichardRhodes’sTheMakingoftheAtomicBomb.EvenbeforethedetonationofthefirstnuclearweaponattheTrinityTestinNewMexicoon16July1945,thefirstsignsofdissenthademergedwithinthescientificteam.JosephRotblat(NobelPeacePrize1995)wasthefirstscientisttoresignfromnuclearweaponsworkonthegroundsofconscience.Rotblatbelievedthatscientistsshouldbeconcernedwiththeethicalconsequencesoftheirworkandhewouldgoontobe4theyoungestsignatoryofthepacifistRussell–Einsteinmemorandumof1955.KlausFuchswasanotherEasternEuropeanphysicistwhopassedthroughtheUKonhiswaytotheManhattanProject.Fuchs’sresponsetohis,andhisfamily’s,experiencesundertheNaziswastobetraytheAllies’nuclearsecretstotheSovietUnion.TheSecondWorldWarandtheColdWarledthephysiciststoconfrontrealitiesforwhichtheyhadnotbeentrained.Theirworldhadchanged.“Tothechagrinofmostphysicists,andtheapprehensionofsome,theColdWarnotonlyproducedanescalationofthearmsrace;italsoputbarbedwireandguardedgatesaroundtheRadiationLaboratoryatBerkeley”(Kevles[1971],p.378).Despitetheindividualmisgivings,thephysicistsfoundthemselvesthewinnersinacompetitionfordefenseresearchfunding.Thishasbeendescribedasa“victoryforelitism”(Kevles[1971],ch.22).Thepowerofnuclearphysicswastangible,rational,secretive,andtheunderpinningknowledgeobscure.Nucleartechnologiesemergingfromthehyper-rationalistworldofphysicsandthelargelyunquestioninghierarchismofmilitarycontrolbecamearguablythemostpositivistandtechnocraticofpostwartechnologicaldevelopments.AlthoughRotblatandothershopedtounderminethisparadigmfromwithin,theyandtheirconcernsweresoonforcedoutbeyondthewirebothliterallyandmetaphorically.3.ThermonuclearWeaponsandtheColdWarThebuildingofthevastnuclearmilitaryindustrialcomplexes(tousePresident5Eisenhower’scautionaryphrase)occurredduringtheColdWar.Thedominantpro-jectwasnottheatombombbutthethousand-times-more-powerfulthermonuclearfusionweapon–theH-bomb.TheSovietUnionandtheUnitedStatesracedtoproduceadeliverablefusionweapon.ThefirstdeliverableweapontestwithafusionelementtotheblastactuallyoccurredintheSovietUnionwiththeadoptionofAndreiSakharovandVitaliGinzburg’sLayerCakesingle-stagedesigninwhichLithiumDeuteride(forfusion)waslayeredinwiththeelementsofafissionweaponboostingitsyield(Rhodes,1995).Theconceptwassuccessfullytestedtoa400kilotonneyieldinthe“Joe-4”testof12August1953.This,however,wasnotatwo-stagehydrogenbombwiththepos-sibilityofamegatonneyield.ThatrequiredanelegantbreakthroughinsightfromStanislawUlamandEdwardTellerintheUnitedStates.TheresultingmegatonnetestoftheenormousMikedevicepredatedtheJoe-4test,occurringon1November1952.105\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page106williamj.nuttallThefirstdeliverablehydrogenbomb,CastleBravo,wastestedbytheUSon1March1954.TheUlam–Tellerinsightis(probably)stillnotinthepublicdomaintoday.That,however,hasnotstoppedthepublicationofthesecretoftheH-bombfromhavingaplaceinthehistoryoftheUSConstitution.TheUSFederalGovernment,foronlythesecondtimeinitshistory(thefirstbeingthePentagonPapers),brieflysoughtaprior-restraintinjunctionbarringamagazine,TheProgressive,frompublishingonthegroundsofnational6security,althoughlaterpublicationoccurredlegally.Nucleartechnologieswereaffect-ingnotionsofthefreedomofthepress.Inaddition,thethreatofnuclearwarwasalteringnotionsoffear.Nucleartech-nologieshaveseveralspecialplacesinthehistoryoffear:theblast,thefallout,andpost-apocalypticHobbesiansocieties(Bourke2005).SpencerR.Wearthassplendidlyarguedthatnucleartechnologieswerefrighteningbeforenuclearfissionhadevenbeendiscovered.Theattributesofnuclearfear–that,forinstance,radiationisimposed,invisibleandmutating–havealwaysexistedinthehumanmind(Weart1988).Therealitiesofnuclearfearshapethepolicylandscapenotjustfornuclearweapons,butalsofornuclearpowergeneration;anditisarguablethatnuclearenergy,ifitistopro-gress,mustestablishanewsocialcontractwithlowerlevelsoftechnocracy,secrecyandfear(Nuttall2006).Thisraisesnotionsofriskandtrustinourchangingsocieties,andthesemattershavebeenablyexploredbyRagnarE.Löfstedt(2005).Thenotionsthatnucleartechnologiesarefearfulproductsofinsufficientlyaccount-abletechnocraticelitesleadonetotwovitalquestions.Thefirstisessentiallyanthro-pological.Whywoulddecentpeopleworkonsuchtechnologies?HughGustersonhasshownthatdecent,oftenliberalprogressivepeopleworkfortheUSSandiaNationalLaboratoryonnuclearweaponssystemsandgivenarangeofinsightsastowhy(Gusterson1998).Thesecondquestionconcernsthesubstanceofthemoralissuesinherentinnuclearweapons.FortheseaspectstheworkofDouglasP.Lackeyisparticularlyinsightful,albeitstoical,separating,asheattemptstodo,nuclearweaponsfromnuclearwar(Lackey1984).Heconsidersnuclearweaponsthroughthelensesofhumanwelfare,rightsandjustice.Hemakesclearthatnuclearweaponsrelate7tonotionsofaJustWar,forceastrongerseparationofthetacticalfromthestrategicanddriveconsiderationofdétenteandrisk.4.AtomsforPeaceNucleartechnologiesare,ofcourse,farmorethanthoseofweapons.ThedevelopmentofcivilnuclearpowerintheUSA,theSovietUnion,BritainandFrancefollowedshortlybehindtheweaponsprograms.Theworld’searliestnuclearreactorforelec-tricalpowerwasatObninsk,SovietUnion(1954),followedbythefirstcommercial-scaleplantatCalderHall,UK(1956).ThefirstUSpowerreactorwasdevelopedatShippingport,Pennsylvania,in1957.ThesecivilinitiativesfollowedamajorUSpushtointernationalizethebenefitsofnuclearpowerviathe“AtomsforPeace”pro-cesslaunchedbyPresidentEisenhowerattheUnitedNationson8December1953.Theprocessyieldedaseriesofcelebratedexhibitionsinfar-flungplaces,somewithdubiousnuclearfutures,suchasTehran,Iran,andKarachi,Pakistan(Weart[1988],p.163).106\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page107nucleartechnologiesArguablytheworld’smostsuccessfulinnovationincivilnuclearpowerhasbeenthedevelopmentoflightwaterreactors(LWRs).Thesetechnologiesuseordinary8waterasbothareactorcoolantandaneutronmoderator.Twomaintypesexist–thePressurizedWaterReactor,developedasanoffshootofUSnavalpropulsionresearch,andalaterinnovation,theBoilingWaterReactor.WhileearlyEuropeanreactorswhichusedgraphiteasamoderator(e.g.theMagnoxseries)bearsimilaritiestotech-nologiespreviouslydevelopedforweaponsplutoniumproduction,theUSLWRshadlittleornoconnectionwithnuclearweapons.Interestingly,theLWRshadnavalmilitaryoriginsnotdissimilartothemilitaryaviationoriginsofthegasturbinesnowwidelyusedtogenerateelectricity.ItisalsoimportanttonotetheexistenceoftheCanadianDeuteriumUraniumReactorseriesknownas‘CANDU’.Thiscivilpowerplanttechnologyhascompletelycivilianorigins,butsadlyitsbenigncredentialsbecamebadlytarnishedwhen,in1974,IndiausedmaterialsobtainedfromitsCANDUprogramtoconductitsso-called“PeacefulNuclearExplosion”(PNE)(Nuttall[2005],§II.5.2).WhileIndia’sinterestinthepeacefulpossibilitiesofnuclearexplosionsappearstohavebeenlessthansincere,itisinterestingtonotethatboththeUS(withitsPlowshareprogram)andtheSovietUnion(“IndustrialExplosions”)hadpreviouslyconsideredthepossibil-itiesofPNEs.InmybookNuclearRenaissanceIconsidertheprospectsforthefutureofcivilnuclearpowerviathreepolicylenses–economics,theenvironmentandthesecurityofenergysupplies.Thebookcommentsonproliferationandsecurityinanafterwordandnotesthatanuclearrenaissancedoesnotrequiretheproductionofeitherhighlyenricheduraniumorseparatedplutonium(thekeyingredientsofnuclearweapons).TheNorth9KoreansseeminglyjoinedthenuclearweaponsclubinOctober2006,andnowtherelationshipbetween,toquotethetitleofarecentbook,NuclearPowerandtheSpreadofNuclearWeaponshasbecomeevermorepressing(Leventhal,TanzerandDolley2005).JacquesHymansarguesinhisbookThePsychologyofNuclearProliferationthatthepsychologyofindividualleadershasalwaysmatteredgreatlyinregardtowhetheracountrydevelopsnuclearweapons.Kim-JongIlandKimIlSungwouldappeartobenoexceptions.5.Deterrence,Détente,9/11andDirtyBombsNucleartechnologieshavepassedthroughseveralphases:theinitialmovestofissionandfusionnuclearweapons,deterrence,thedevelopmentofcivilnuclearelectricitysystems,theemergenceofdétenteandtheSALTtreatiesinthefaceofpossiblemutu-allyassureddestruction,thethreatofnuclearweaponsproliferation,andperhapsmostrecentlyadiverserangeofthreatsfromwell-resourced,technicallyableandsuicidalterrorists.Eachphasehasraiseditsownsetofissuesforthesocialsciences.Theriskofsubnationalorganizationspossessingnuclearweapons,perhapsasaresultofanuclearweaponstatebecomingafailedstate,isacurrentconcern.Oursecurityresidesinthedifficultyinobtainingbothfissilematerials,includingthe10cannibalizationofdivertednuclearweaponstoimproviseanewweapon,andpre-requisitenuclearknow-how.Whileimportantpiecesofknow-howappeartoremainundisclosed,Allinsonwarnsthattalentedundergraduates,suchasJohnAristotle107\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page108williamj.nuttallPhilipsatPrincetonUniversityin1977,canapparentlydesignaworkablenuclearweaponfrompurelypublic-domaininformation(Allinson[2004],pp.87–9).FearsofnuclearproliferationhaveledtheUnitedStates,viatheBushDoctrinefollowing11September2001,toreassessitsnotionsofajustwar,incontextsofweaponsofmassdestructionproliferation,topermitpre-emptivestrikes.Inaworldofpro-liferationfears,itisimportanttorememberthatforthefirstfivenuclearweaponsstatesthedelayfromfissionweapontesttoworkablethermonuclearweaponwas,onaverage,onlyseventy-onemonths(NorrisandKristensen2003).Aworldwithloosethermonuclearweaponswouldsurelybedifferentfromtodaywith,attheveryleast,stronglyauthoritariansecuritycountermeasures.Thosewhoadvocatethepossession11ofnuclearweaponsforutilitarianreasonsmustacknowledgenotonlytheriskofanuclearwarbutalsotheseparaterisksofaplutoniumsociety.Nuclearterrorismgoesbeyondnotionsthatterroristsmightacquireordevelopanuclearweapontoincludetheconceptofthe“dirtybomb”inwhichtheyseektodispersehighlyradioactivematerialusingconventionalexplosives.Suchadevicewouldprobablynotcauseanenormousnumberofcasualties,andhenceisnotaweaponofmassdestruction,butithasbeencharacterizedasaweaponofmassdisruption(Allinson[2004],p.8).6.NuclearWasteCivilnuclearpowerhasanimportantplaceinthehistoryofenergyasthefirsttech-nologytointernalizefullyandtomanageitswastes.Intheearlydays,wasteswerediscardedusingmethodswhichincludedseadumping,butthesedaysthelevelofharmassociatedwithcivilnuclearpoweremissionsisremarkablylowwhencomparedtoissuessuchasgreenhousegasemissions,acidrainorparticulatesinurbanair.Atthebackendofthecivilnuclearfuelcycleisakeychoice:onepossibilityisthedirectdisposalofspentfuel,withthemajorityofitsembeddedenergyuntapped,andrecycling,knownasreprocessing,withitsgreaternumberoftechnicalchallengesand,conventionally,theseparationofplutonium.NuclearwasteisfrequentlydescribedastheAchillesheelofcommercialnuclearpower.In1976intheUKtheRoyalCommissionforEnvironmentalPollution,chairedbyLordFlowers,recommendedinitssixthreportthataresolutionofthewasteques-tionshouldbefoundbeforetheUKcouldembarkonarenewedprogramofnuclearbuild.Althoughtherecommendationhadlimiteddirectimpact–SizewellBPWRwasconstructedinthe1990s–itputinplacetheideathatnuclearrenaissancerequiresaresolutionofthewastequestion.Britain’sapproachtonuclearwasteinthe1970sto1990shasbeencharacter-izedasoneofDecide,Announce,Defend(GrimstonandBeck2002).Thisapproachderailedin1997withtheblockingofplansforanundergroundlaboratoryinCumbria,England(Nuttall[2005],§I.4.2).Inrecentyears,initiallyinScandinavia,anewwayforwardhasbeenfoundbaseduponfargreaterlevelsofpublicengagementintheprocess(Nuttall2006).IntheUKrecentmovestowardnuclearnewbuildhavebeenaccompaniedbyafreshapproachtothewastequestionledbytheCommitteeon108\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page109nucleartechnologiesRadioactiveWasteManagement(CORWM).Nuclearwastepolicyisincreasinglythe12domainofthepolityratherthanofAtomicPriesthoods.7.ClimateCrisisKeytothepositionofcommercialnuclearenergyinthetwenty-firstcenturywillbetheissueofglobalclimatechange.JamesLovelockwarnstheworldthatattemptsatsustainabilityareinsufficientandthattheworldmustmobilizeallitstechnologicalandintellectualresourcestocombatthethreat(Lovelock2006).Societymustbalanceitsnuclearfearsagainsttheprospectofdevastationfromglobalwarming.Nuclearenergyhasthepotentialnotonlytocontributetothedecarbonizationofourelectricitysys-tem,butalso,perhapsviaamovetoahydrogeneconomy,tohelptacklethemoredifficultchallenge–howtodecarbonizeourtransportsystem.8.ConclusionNucleartechnologieshaveraised,andwillcontinuetoraise,ahostofphilosophicalandpoliticalissues.Perhapsattheheartofnuclearscienceandtechnologyinthetwentiethcenturyhasbeenthenotionthatscience,andespeciallynuclearscience,isonadeterministic,almostpreordained,path,andthatthemostwecanhopetodoistoslowitsprogressinundesirabledirections.Assuch,itisarguablethatmany,perhapsmost,decision-makersfeltthatsuchinevitabilitiesrenderedirrelevantall13issuesofmorality.Theissuesbecamemoremattersofmanagementthanofleadership.Thusfar,thetwenty-firstcenturyisgivingushope,fromdevelopmentsincommercialnuclearpowerinparticular,thattheoldtechnocraticparadigmsarebreakingdown.However,simultaneouslythereisgrowingapprehensionasnuclearproliferationseemstobequickeningpace.AcknowledgmentsTheauthorismostgratefultoDrSimonD.Smith,Dr.DavidM.ReinerandtohislatefatherProfessorAnthonyD.Nuttallforhelpfulandinspiringcommentsinconnectionwiththisentry.Asusual,anyerrorsoromissionsaresolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthor.Notes1.NaziGermany’sengineershadproducedballisticmissilesandBritishmathematicianshadbrokensecureGermanciphers,butintheyearsimmediatelyaftertheSecondWorldWarthesewereeitherstilltooforeignorstilltoosecrettorepresentcelebratedgenius.2.See:http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/radioactivity.html(accessedOctober2006).109\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page110williamj.nuttall3.See:http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/natural-decay-series.pdf#search=%22radium%20decay%20thorium%20uranium%22(accessedOctober2006).4.See:http://www.pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm(accessedOctober2006).5.See:http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm(accessedOctober2006).6.HowardMorlandprovidespersonalinsightintotheProgressivelegalcaseinhispaper(Morland2003)availablefromtheFederationofAmericanScientists.http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/mhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.htmlorland.html(accessedOctober2006).7.TheconceptofaJustWarhasbeendebatedforcenturies.ProminentthinkersincludeSt.Augustine(354–430ce),authorofTheCityofGod,andSt.ThomasAquinas(1225–74ce),authorofSummatheologica.8.Nearlyallcommercialnuclearpowerplantsemployneutronsthathavebeenslowedfromtheirinitialfastspeeds,whenemittedbythefissionprocess,tolevelsnaturalforthetemperatureofthereactorcore.Theprocessofslowingdownisknownas“moderation”(Nuttall2005,§I.3.1).9.NorthKoreaclaimstohavetestedanuclearweaponon9October2006.Seismicdataindicatethatsomeformofeventoccurred.See:http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/(accessedOctober2006).10.Suchcannibalizationmightarisefromaneedtogetaroundthedivertedweapon’sin-builtprotectionssuchas“permissiveactionlinks”(LeventhalandAlexander1987,p.15,andAllinson2004,pp.89–92).11.i.e.policiesconsistentwithanexpectationofthegreatesthappinessforthegreatestnumber.12.–tousetheevocativephraseintroducedinanothercontextbylinguistThomasA.Sebeokaspartofthe1981workofBechtelGroup’sHumanInterferenceTaskForce.13.WiththankstoDr.SimonSmith,YorkUniversity,forhelpfuldiscussions.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAllinson,G.(2004).NuclearTerrorism:TheUltimatePreventableCatastrophe(NewYork:OwlBooks).Bourke(2005).Fear:ACulturalHistory(London:Virago).Clark,R.W.(1961).TheBirthoftheBomb(London:Phoenix/ScientificBookClub).Grimston,M.C.andBeck,P.(2002).DoubleorQuits?TheGlobalFutureofCivilNuclearEnergy(London:Earthscan),ch.2.Gusterson,H.(1998).NuclearRites:AWeaponsLaboratoryattheEndoftheColdWar(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Hymans,J.E.C.(2006).ThePsychologyofNuclearProliferation(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Kevles,D.J.(1971).ThePhysicists:TheHistoryofaScientificCommunityinModernAmerica(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Lackey,D.P.(1984).MoralPrinciplesandNuclearWeapons(Totowa,N.J.:Rowman&Allanheld).Leventhal,P.andAlexander,Y.(1987).PreventingNuclearTerrorism(Lexington,Mass.:LexingtonBooks).Leventhal,P.L.,Tanzer,S.andDolley,S.(eds)(2005).NuclearPowerandtheSpreadofNuclearWeapons(NewDelhi:ManasPublications).Löfstedt,R.E.(2005).RiskManagementinPost-TrustSocieties(London:PalgraveMacmillan).Lovelock,J.(2006).TheRevengeofGaia(London:AllenLane).110\n9781405146012_4_018.qxd2/4/0913:25Page111nucleartechnologiesMorland,H.(2003).TheHolocaustBomb:AQuestionofTime,FederationofAmericanScientists,5February.Norris,R.S.andKristensen,H.M.(2003).BulletinoftheAtomicScientists,September–October,p.71.Nuttall,W.J.(2005).NuclearRenaissance:TechnologiesandPoliciesfortheFutureofNuclearPower(Abingdon:Taylor&Francis).Nuttall,W.J.(2006).“NuclearRenaissanceRequiresNuclearEnlightenment,”inD.Elliott(ed.)NuclearorNot?(London:PalgraveMacmillan).Rhodes,R.(1995).DarkSun:TheMakingoftheHydrogenBomb(NewYork:Simon&Schuster).Rhodes,R.(1998).TheMakingoftheAtomicBomb(NewYork:Simon&Schuster).Snow,C.P.(1981).ThePhysicists:AGenerationThatChangedtheWorld(Boston,Mass.:LittleBrown).Weart,S.R.(1988).NuclearFear:AHistoryofImages(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).111\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page11219EngineeringDesignPETERKROESGeneralCharacterizationOneofthecoreactivitiesofengineeringthatdistinguishesitfromscienceisdesigning.Engineeringdesign,asdefinedbytheAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTech-nology(ABET):istheprocessofdevisingasystem,component,orprocesstomeetdesiredneeds.Itisadecision-makingprocess(ofteniterative),inwhichthebasicscienceandmathematicsand1engineeringsciencesareappliedtoconvertresourcesoptimallytomeetastatedobjective.Thestatedobjectiveislaiddowninwhatisusuallycalledalistofspecifications.Thislistisderivedfromthefunctionthatthethingtobedesigned(system,componentorprocess)isrequiredtoperform;andthatfunction,inturn,isrelatedtocertainhumanends(needs).Ifthedesignedartifactmeetsallthespecifications,itisdeemedabletorealizethedesiredfunction.Whetherthatisindeedthecasedependsonwhetherthelistofspecificationsadequatelycapturedthefunction.Ifthereasoningfromendtofunc-tionhasbeenperformedadequately,thedesignedartifactcanbeusedasareliablemeanstorealizethespecifiedend.Engineersdesignagreatvarietyofthingsrangingfrommass-producedcomputerstouniqueoilplatforms,fromtelephonestohigh-risebuildings,fromcomponentstocomplexsystems,frommicro-organismtosoftware,etc.Correspondinglythereisalsomuchvarietyinengineeringdesignpractices.Insomepractices,thedesignphaseincludestheactualmakingandtestingofprototypesofthedesignedobject;inothers,theactualmakingofthedesignedobjectfallsoutsidethedesignphase.Insome,aestheticcriteriaareofparamountimportance;inothers,not.Somedesignprojectsmaybeperformedbyasingledesigner;othersrequirealarge,multidisciplinaryteamofdesignengineers.Thereisalsoagreatdealofvarietyinthetypesofdesignproblemstobesolved.Vincenti(1990)distinguishesbetweennormalandradicaldesign,andbetweendesigntasksthatarehighorlowinthedesignhierarchy.Withsomuchvariety,thequestionariseswhetheritispossibletodefinedomain-independentgeneralprinciplesandproceduresforengineeringdesign.Simon(1996[1969])maintainsthatsuchageneralscienceofdesignispossible.Moreover,withthe112ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page113engineeringdesigngrowingcomplexityoftheobjectsofdesign,theneedforasystematicapproachtoengineeringdesignhasbecomemoreurgent.Inrecentdecades,newfieldssuchassystemdesignanddesignmethodologyhaveemergedthatstudytheprinciplesandproceduresofengineeringdesignwiththeaimofrationalizingandimprovingdesignpractice(Sage1992;PahlandBeitz1996).Withinthesefields,analysesofandpro-posalsforengineeringdesignmethodsareoftendomain-independent.ADesignTheoutcomeofanengineeringdesignprocessinvolvestypicallyamaterialobjectoritsdescription.Theseobjectsaretechnicalartifactsandaredifferentfromnaturalobjectsinthattheyarebasedon(human)designs.Exactlywhatadesigninthissenseis,isnotsoeasytospellout.Ontheonehand,adesignmaybetakentobeablueprintforproduction:adescriptionofallthephysical(chemical)propertiesofatechnicalartifactthatarerelevantforactuallymakingatokenoftheartifacttypedefinedbythedesign.Inthissense,adesignisacompletedescriptionofallthepartsandtheirrelations.Butthisdoesnotcapturethefullnotionofdesign.Somebodywiththeappropriateskillsandequipmentwouldbeabletoproducesuchatechnicalartifactwithouthavinganyideawhatitisfor.Thenotionofdesignhasstrongteleologicalconnotationsinthatadesignedobjecthasaspecificpropertyof“for-ness”asithasbeenmadetodosomething:tobeforsomething(seeanalysisofteleologyinrelationtotechnicalartifactsinMcLaughlin2001).Adesignmaytherefore,ontheotherhand,alsoincludeadescriptionofthefunctionofthetechnicalartifact,andfurthermore(usuallyimplicitly)anexplanationofhowthephysicalstructurerealizesthatfunction(Kroes1998).Inthis“thick”sense,adesignbecomesadescriptionofa“teleologicalarrangement”ofphysicalpartsthattogetherrealizeafunction.Acloserlookattheoutcomeofadesignprocessshowsthatitisnotjusta(descriptionofa)technicalartifact,butthatitalsocomprisesthemanual,thatis,thedescriptionofhowtousethetechnicalartifactcorrectly.Theoutcomemay,therefore,becharacterizedasa“use-plan,”thatis,asaconsideredseriesofactionstoachieveacertainend,with(adescriptionof)thetechnicalmeansnecessaryforexecutingthe“use-plan”(formoredetails,seeHoukes,Vermaasetal.2002).Thegrowingcomplexityofmoderntechnicalartifactsandtheuseofcomputersinsupportingthesolutionofengineeringdesignproblemshaveincreasedtheneedformoreformal,unambiguousrepresentationsofdesigns.Suchrepresentationsareimport-antindevelopingengineeringdatamanagementsystemsforcomputer-aideddesign(CAD).Especiallytheformalrepresentationofafunctionhasprovedproblematic(Dym1994).Muchworkisbeingdoneindevelopingtaxonomiesoffunctionalprimitives(afieldsometimesreferredtoas“functionalmodeling”),functionalrepresentationandfunctionalreasoninginAIquarterswiththeaimofsupportingengineersinsolvingdesignproblemsandaccuratelyrepresentingdesignsolutions.113\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page114peterkroesTheDesignProcessAccordingtotheABETdescription,engineeringdesignisadecision-makingprocess.Designinginvolvesdecision-makingondifferentlevels,atdifferentstagesandaboutdifferentkindsofissues.Simon(1996[1969])considersthisdecision-makingprocesstobeallabouttheproblemofmakingrationalchoicesbetweenavailablealternatives.Bucciarelli(1996)characterizesitmoreasasocialprocessinwhichnegotiationsbetweendifferentstakeholdersalsoplayarole,thusstressingthatmoreisinvolvedinengineeringdesignthanmereinstrumentalrationality.Fromthepointofviewoftheobjecttobedesigned,theengineeringdesignprocesscanbedescribedasaprocessthroughwhichafunctionaldescriptionoftheobjectis“translated”intoastructuraldescription.Apurelyfunctionaldescriptionofanobject“black-boxes”itsinternalstructure;itisorientedtowardtheenvironmentoftheobjectanddescribesitintermsofdesiredinput–outputrelations.Threedifferentkindsofinput–outputrelationsareoftendistinguished,whichcorrespondtotheconversionofmatter,energyandinformation.Astructuraldescriptionspecifiesallthephysical/chemicalpropertiesofthetechnicalartifact(asintheblueprintforproduction)andhowitwillbehaveundervariousinputconditions.Thestructuraldescription,however,doesnotspecifywhichoneofallpossibleinput–outputrelationsistheonethatcorrespondstothedesiredfunction:inthissense,thestructuraldescriptionblack-boxes,sotospeak,theenvironment.Towhatextentthecontentoftheblackboxis,inpractice,alreadyfixedatthebeginningofthedesignprocessdependsstronglyonthenature(radicalornormal)ofthedesigntask.Whatkindofreasoningandknowledgeisinvolvedintranslatingafunctionintoastructure?Fromalogicalpointofview,itisnotpossibletodeducestructurefromfunc-tion(formdoesnotfollowfunctioninalogicalsense),northeotherwayaround.Insolvingthistranslationproblem,“means–ends”reasoningseemstobeofparamountimportance.Means–endsreasoningisbasedoncausalrelationships(VonWright1963).IfweknowthatAcausesB,thenwecanrealizeBbybringingaboutA(ifthisistech-nologicallypossible).SoAcanbeconsideredasthemeansinrelationtoB,theend.Inspiteofitsimportanceinengineeringpractice(anddailylife),theformal(logical)analysisofmeans–endreasoninghasreceivedrelativelylittleattentionuptillnow.Theintimaterelationbetweenmeans–endsreasoningandcausalrelationsexplainswhyscientificknowledgeplayssuchadominantroleinmoderndesignpractice.However,itwouldbemisleadingtointerpretengineeringdesignassimplytheapplicationofscientificknowledge(orknowledgeproducedbytheengineeringsciences).AccordingtoVincenti(1990,ch.7),theanatomyofengineeringdesignknowledgeincludesatleastsixdif-ferentcategoriesofknowledge,someofwhichdonotderivefromscientificknowledgeatall(suchasthe“knowhow”acquiredontheshop-floor).Allthesevariouskindsofknowledgeareimportantforturningafunctionaldescriptionoftheobjecttobedesignedintoastructuralone.Theoveralldesignprocessmaybedividedintovariousphasesorstepsthatcorrespondtodistinguishableaspectsofsolvingadesignproblem.Withindesignmethodologythetriad“analysis–synthesis–evaluation”isoftentakenasastarting-pointformodelingthedesignprocess.Aslongasdesigningisanactivityperformedbyasingleindividual,114\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page115engineeringdesignthesephasesarerelevantmainlyfromaconceptualpointofview.Butassoonasdesigningbecomesamatterofteamwork,whichisbyandlargethesituationinmodernindustrydealingwithcomplexandlargesystems,thephasingofthedesignprocessbecomesanimportantinstitutionaltoolfororganizing,controllingandsteeringtheprocessofproductdevelopment.Thewell-knownVDIphasediagramforthedesignprocesscontainssevensteps(withiterationsbetweenthesesteps).Thesestepsare:clarifyanddefinethetask;determinefunctionsandtheirstructure;searchforsolutionprinciplesandtheircombinations;divideintorealizablemodules;developlayoutofkeymodules;completeoveralllayout;prepareproductionandoperatinginstructions(VDI1987).Aproblemthathampersdiscussionsabouttheusefulnessofimplementingsuchphasediagramsinengineeringpracticeisdecidingwhichcriteriacanmeasurethesuccessoftheoutcomeofanengineeringdesignprocess.Fromastrictlyengineeringpointofview,thesimplestsuccesscriterionissimplymeetingthelistofspecifications.Butthisassumesthatthelistofspecificationsisfixedimmutablyatthebeginningofthedesignprocess,whichisoftennotthecase.Becauseofproblemsencounteredontheway,theymayhavetobeadjustedduringthedesignprocess.Furthermore,decisionsaboutwhatperformancecriteriatouseandthedevelopmentofmethodsformeasuringtheseperformancecriteriaareoftenanintegralpartofthedesignprocess.Moreover,variousparticipantsmayevaluatetheoutcomeindifferentways.Inspiteofthesedifficulties,designmethodologistsclaimthatimplementationofsys-tematicapproachestodesignimprovesthedesignprocess(see,forinstance,PahlandBeitz1996,pp.499–501).RationalityandCreativityinEngineeringDesignThelackofclearcriteriaforevaluatingtheoutcomeofdesignprocessesalsoaffectsdiscussionsabouttheroleofrationalityinengineeringdesign.TheABETdefinitionsuggeststhatthedecision-makinginengineeringdesignisstronglygovernedbyinstrumentalrationality,thatis,choosingtherightmeansforrealizingagivenend.Theobjectiveissetfromoutside,andthedesignprocessisaboutfindingtheoptimalmeanstorealizethisobjective.Thefundamentalnormsorvaluesonwhichinstru-mentalrationalityisbasedareefficacyandefficiency;thesewouldconstitutethemaincriteriaforevaluatingtheoutcomeofthedesignprocess.Thisviewontheroleofrationalityinengineeringdesignisproblematic.Asalreadyremarked,theobjectiveitselfmayhavetobeadjusted.Decisionsonhowtoredefinetheobjective,however,falloutsidethescopeofpureinstrumentalrationality.Furthermore,engineeringdesignisnotjustaboutrationallychoosingthebestalternativefromagivensetofoptions(even,thatis,fromthepointofviewofrationalchoicetheorynotalwaysastraightforwardmatter;problemsariseincasevariousoptionshavetobeevaluatedagainstmultiplecriteria[Franssen2005]).Engineeringdesignisalso,andoftenpri-marily,aboutgeneratingthevariousoptions(means)fromwhichachoicecanbemade.Here,decisionshavetobemadeabouthowmanyoptionstogenerate,aboutwhichoptionstodropbecausetheyaretooproblematic,aboutwhichoptionstodevelopfurtherbecausetheyarepromising(andallthisunderconstraintsoftimeand115\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page116peterkroesresources,whichthemselvesmaybecometheobjectofdecisionsornegotiations).Itseemshighlyunlikelythatsuchdecisionscanbejustifiedonthebasisofinstrumentalreasoning.Thisisnottosaythatengineeringdesignisirrationalbutthatthenotionofinstrumentalrationalityistoonarrowaconceptadequatelytoanalysetheissueofrationalityinengineeringdesign.Engineeringdesign,therefore,isessentiallyacreativeactivitysinceitisallaboutcreatingnewtechnicalartifactsandprocesses.Itisoftenthoughtthattheuseofrationalproblem-solvingmethodsstiflescreativity,especiallywithinthoseengineer-ingdisciplinesinwhichaestheticcriteriaaremoreimportant.Thereis,however,noreasontoassumethatcreativityandrationalitydonotbothmakeavaluablecon-tributiontoengineeringdesign.Ontheonehand,designinvolvesthegenerationofnewideasforsolvingdesignproblems,whileontheotherhandtheseideashavetobeevaluatedagainstavailableresources,customerrequirements,in-housestate-of-the-arttechnology,productionfacilitiesandsoon.Comingupwithproposalsmayrequirecreativethinking;but,oncetheproposalsareonthetable,choiceshavetobemadeandthentherationalappraisalofthevariousoptionscomesintoplay.Creativityandrationalityarecomplementaryelementsthatarebothnecessaryforeffectiveengineeringdesign.AcknowledgmentIamgratefultotheNetherlandsInstituteofAdvancedStudy(NIAS)forprovidingmewiththeopportunity,asaFellow-in-Residence,tocompletethispaper.Note1.http://www.me.unlv.edu/Undergraduate/coursenotes/meg497/ABETdefinition.htm(accessed28September2006).ReferencesandFurtherReadingBucciarelli,L.L.(1996).DesigningEngineers(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Dym,C.L.(1994).EngineeringDesign:ASynthesisofViews(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Franssen,M.(2005).“Arrow’sTheorem,Multi-criteriaDecisionProblemsandMulti-attributeDesignProblemsinEngineeringDesign,”ResearchinEngineeringDesign,16:42–56.Houkes,W.N.,Vermaas,P.E.etal.(2002).“DesignandUseasPlans:AnAction-theoreticalAccount,”DesignStudies,23(3):303–20.Kroes,P.A.(1998).“TechnologicalExplanations:TheRelationbetweenStructureandFunctionofTechnologicalObjects,”Techné,3(3):18–34.McLaughlin,P.(2001).WhatFunctionsExplain:FunctionalExplanationandSelf-reproducingSystems(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Pahl,G.andBeitz,W.(1996).EngineeringDesign:ASystematicApproach(London:SpringerVerlag).Sage,A.P.(1992).SystemsEngineering(NewYork:JohnWiley).116\n9781405146012_4_019.qxd2/4/0913:25Page117engineeringdesignSimon,H.A.(1996[1969]).TheSciencesoftheArtificial(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).VDI(1987).VDIDesignHandbook2221:SystematicApproachtotheDesignofTechnicalSystemsandProducts,trans.K.Wallace(Düsseldorf:VDI-Verlag).Vincenti,W.G.(1990).WhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowIt(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).VonWright,G.H.(1963).“PracticalInference,”ThePhilosophicalReview,72(2):159–79.117\n9781405146012_4_020.qxd2/4/0913:25Page11820CyberneticsANDREWPICKERINGThecanonicalhistoryofcyberneticsisUS-andWiener-centric.ItbeginswithNorbertWiener’sworkatMITduringtheSecondWorldWarthatsought(unsuccessfully)tobuildananti-aircraftpredictor–amachinewhichcouldextrapolateaplane’straject-oryintothefutureandhenceimprovethechancesofshootingitdown(Galison1994;Mindell2002).Philosophically,thekeyfeatureofthisdevicewasthatitcouldbethoughtofasbothapurposefulmachineinitselfandasamodelforunderstandingpurposefulbehaviorinlivingcreatures,thuselidingthedistinctionbetweenmachines,animalsandhumans–anideasetoutinaclassicessaybyRosenblueth,WienerandBigelow(1943)anddevelopedatgreaterlengthinthe1948bookthatfirstgainedthefieldworld-wideattention,Wiener’sCybernetics;or,ControlandCommunicationintheAnimalandtheMachine.AlongsideWienerhimself,historicalattentionhasfocusedonaseriesofconferencessupportedbytheMacyFoundationbetween1946and1953astheprin-cipallocusfortheelaborationofcyberneticideasintheUS(Pias2003,2004).BothHeims(1991)andDupuy(2000)havewrittenbook-lengthstudiesbasedontheMacyProceedings,theformerfocusingoncyberneticsassocialscience,thelatterascognitivescience.ThechairmanoftheMacymeetingswasneuropsychiatristandphilosopherWarrenMcCulloch,themostimportantfigureintheimmediatepostwarhistoryofUScybernetics(Kay2001);thesecretaryforthelatermeetingsandeditoroftheProceedingswastheAustrianémigréphysicistHeinzvonFoerster.Institutionalcentersofcyber-neticsweretheResearchLaboratoryofElectronicsatMIT,whereMcCulloch’sgroupwasbased,andtheBiologicalComputerLaboratoryattheUniversityofIllinoisestab-lishedbyFoerster(1958–75:MüllerandMüller,forthcoming).Beyondthecanonicalhistory,cyberneticshadarichandvariedlifeoutsidetheUS.ItflourishedinFranceandGermany,andbecamealmosttheofficialscienceoftheSovietUnion(Gerovitch2002).InBritain,thepublicationofCyberneticscatalysedtheformationoftheRatioClub,aninformaldiningclubofproto-cyberneticiansthatmetbetween1949and1958(Pickeringforthcoming).Thesubstanceofcyberneticscanbedefinedinmanyways.Wiener’sbookrantogetherseveralconcernsandnewdevelopmentsofthewartimeera,includingnotionsoffeedbackcontrol,neuralnetworks(AndersonandRosenfeld1998),informationtheoryandthenewelectronicdigitalcomputers,andallofthesehavetheirownhistory.Itisperhapsbettertodefineearlycyberneticsintermsofitsprimaryreferent:thebrain.118ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_020.qxd2/4/0913:25Page119cyberneticsThoughthishasbeenobscuredbyWiener’sbackgroundinmathematics,cyberneticsbeganasascienceofthebrain,anditsdistinctivecharacterderivedfromitsconcep-tionofthebrainasanorganofperformanceratherthanofcognition–thebrainasakeyorganinourbodilyfunctioningand,especially,inouradaptationtosituationswehaveneverencounteredbefore.And,materially,onehallmarkofearlycyberneticswastheconstructionofelectromechanicalmodelsthatcouldilluminate“thego”oftheperformativeandadaptivebrain(Cordeschi2002).Wiener’spredictorwassuchamodel,exemplifyingafunctionalsystemthatmightunderliegoal-orientedbehaviormoregenerally.In1948twooftheBritishcyberneticians,GreyWalterandRossAshby,builtfurtherimportantmodels(Asaro2006).Walter’s“tortoises”weremobilerobotsthatsearchedforandhomedinonlights;Ashby’s“homeostat”randomlyreconfigureditselftocomeintodynamicequilibriumwithdifferingenvironments.Thesemachinescouldbeunderstoodasmodelsofthepathologicalaswellasthenormalbrain,andthusofferedanovelscientificbasisforpsychiatry(towhichMcCulloch,AshbyandWalterallhadprofessionalaffiliations).OntheothersideoftheAtlantic,inthe1950s,GregoryBateson,oneofthefoundersoftheMacyconferenceseries,developedaverydifferentbutalsocyberneticapproachtopsychiatry,whichwasputintopracticeinthe1960sbyR.D.LaingandothersatKingsleyHallinLondon.Initsearlyyears,then,cyberneticsconstitutedasingularconflationofnovelformsofadaptiveengineeringandrobotics,brainscienceandpsychiatry,andthisproteanqualitycontinuedtomarkthesubsequentdevelop-mentofthefieldasitwasextendedbeyondthebrainintomanyareas,includingbio-logicalcomputing(Asaroforthcoming),socialtheoryandpractice,politics,spirituality,education,music,thearts,theaterandarchitecture.And,althoughtheword“cybernetics”hasgoneoutoffashion,muchcurrentworkinallsortsoffields–includingmanagement,complexitytheory,roboticsandthearts–continuestoelaboratedistinctlycyberneticapproaches.Thereispresentlyagrowingresurgenceofinterestincyberneticsacrossthehuman-itiesandsocialsciences,withDonnaHaraway’s“ManifestoforCyborgs”(1985)andN.KatherineHayles’sHowWeBecamePosthuman(1999)amongstthekeyworks–aninterestthatreflectstheconvictionthatcyberneticsisa“newkindofscience”(Wolfram2002)importantlydifferentfrommorefamiliarsciencessuchasphysicsormainstreamsociology.Onewaytogetatthatdifferenceisontologically(Pickering2002;forthcoming).AsthesubtitleofWiener’sfoundingbooksuggests,cyberneticsdecentersthehumanandeffacestheusualdualismsofmodernity,puttinghumans,animals,machinesandnatureonthesameplaneandemphasizingbothparallelsandconstitutiveinter-relationsbetweenthem.Moregenerally,anothercybernetician,StaffordBeer(1959),arguedthatmodernscienceslikephysicsaresciencesofknowablesystems,anddefinedcybernetics,incontrast,asthescienceof“exceedinglycomplexsystems”–systemsthatwecanengagewithbutwhichwecanneverfullyunderstand.Thecentralproblematicofcyberneticsonthisdefinitionisaconcernwithhowsuchsystems(includingourselves)cangetalongandcometotermswithoneanother(andhencethecentralitytocyberneticsoftheadaptiveratherthanthecognitivebrain).Thetortoiseandthehomeostatwereearlymaterializationsofthisontology,eachadaptinginitsownwaytoitsenvironment,performativelyratherthancognitively,andmanyofthestrangestandthemostimaginativecyberneticprojectssubsequentlystagedsomeversionofthesameontologicalstance.Around1960,Beerandanother119\n9781405146012_4_020.qxd2/4/0913:25Page120andrewpickeringcybernetician,GordonPask,developedadistinctiveapproachto“biologicalcomput-ing,”whichsoughttoentrainsomenaturallyoccurring,exceedinglycomplexsystem–apondecosystem,forexample–asacontrollerforanothersuchsystem,afactory.Intheearly1950s,PaskbuiltamachinecalledMusicolourwhichtranslatedmusicalsoundsintoalightshow.Thekeyfeatureofthemachinewasthatitsinternalpara-meterschangedintimeasafunctionoftheperformanceitself,sothattheperformerwasneverinfullcommandbuthadinsteadtoadapttotheemergentpropertiesofthemachine(themselvesadaptingtotheperformance).Musicolour,inturn,wasamodelforPask’slaterworkonadaptivearchitecture–bothonreconfigurablebuildingsthatcouldrespondtoemergentpatternsofuseandinvitenewones,andondesignsystemsthat,asexceedinglycomplexsystems,couldgenuinelycollaboratewitharchitects(Mathews2003;Sadler2005).Asortofpolitics,orsubpolitics,goeswiththecyberneticontology.Themodernsciencesandphilosophyoftenportraytheworldasymmetricallyinawaythatiscenteredonhumanknowledgeandagency:weknowtheworldandcanthusbendittoourwill.Fromacyberneticperspective,thisisnonsense.Implicitinthecyberneticdecenteringisanotionofrespectfortheother(humanornon-human):ifwecannotdominateexceedinglycomplexsystems,weshouldbeinterestedintheirperformancesandalerttounexpectedpossibilitiesaswellasdangers.OnethinkshereofHeidegger’s(1976)contrastbetween“enframing”and“revealing”.Enframingcharacterizeslatemodernity,withitsgrimobsessionwithdictatingtopeopleandthingshowtheyshouldbehave,andwithdisasterasitsfrequentcorollary(thinkofNewOrleansandHurricaneKatrina,ortheUSinvasionofIraq);revealingisopentowhattheworldhastoofferus.Ingeneral,cyberneticprojectsandproductslookverydifferentfromtheirmorefamiliarmoderncounterparts.Politically,wecouldseethemasasetofsketchesofanotherfuture,anotherwaytobeintheworld.This,nodoubt,isanothersourceoftherenewedinterestinthefield.Otheroutgrowthsofcyberneticshavetakenontologicaldecenteringfurther.Ifmodernityischaracterizedbyawholeconstellationofdualismsanddichotomiesthatcirclearoundspecificdefinitionsofmind,brain,body,self,spiritandmatter,thencyberneticsisanon-modernsciencefocusedoncontinuitiesandinter-relationsbetweenalltheseterms.Thishastranslated,forexample,intoaninterestinstrangeperformancesandalteredstates.GreyWalter’sTheLivingBrain(1953)discussestheabilityofEasternyogistosuspendnormalbodilyfunctions(breathing,theheartbeat)aswellastheachievementofnirvana.Thesealteredstatescaninturnbeassociatedwithmaterial“technologiesoftheself”(Foucault1988),withtheselfnowunder-stoodasitselfdecenteredandnon-modern.Walterwasveryinterestedinflicker–theeffectsbroughtonbystroboscopiclight–includingepilepsy(brainscienceagain)butalsovisions–ofmovinggeometricalpatternsandscenesthatarenotthere.(Huxley1956isalongcatalogueoftechnologiesofthenon-modernself,includingflickerandpsychedelicdrugs.)Easternphilosophycropsuprepeatedlyinthehistoryofcybernetics,andwecanunderstandthisalongsimilarlines.Fromoneangle,meditationisatechnologyofthenon-modernself.Fromanother,BatesonandLaingappealedtoBuddhistphilosophytograspthealteredstatesthatcharacterizeschizophreniaandtoreconceptualizepsychiatrictherapy.StaffordBeertaughttantricyogaandintegratedhistantric120\n9781405146012_4_020.qxd2/4/0913:25Page121cyberneticsexperiencesandbeliefsintohiscyberneticapproachtomanagementandorganization.Comingfromthedirectionofmatterratherthanofself,cyberneticshasoftenbeenassociatedwithacertainhylozoism–avisionofmatteritselfaslivelyandinfusedbothwithmindandspirit–andwithadistinctlynon-modernstanceondesign.Moderndesignimaginesanartfulrearrangementofmattertobringitintoconformitywithourpurposes;hylozoism,incontrast,suggestsanexploratoryengagementwiththeagencyofthings.Thinkofbiologicalcomputingjuxtaposedtotheindustrialmanu-factureofdigitalcomputers.Muchcyberneticarthasahylozoistquality,thematizingtheagencyofnature:atortoise-likerobot,forinstance,controlledbyacockroachinsteadofelectricalcircuitry(Hertz2006).Finally,asanon-modernscience,cyberneticshasresonatedwithwidernonmodernculturalformations.Theheydayofcyberneticswasthe1960swhenitcrossedoverintothecountercultureandits“explorationsofconsciousness.”WilliamBurroughsandtheBeatwritersandartistswere,likeAldousHuxley,intenselyinterestedinflicker,forexample.KingsleyHallwasakeysiteforbotharadicalcyberneticpsy-chiatryandtheLondon“underground”scene.GordonPask’sColloquyofMobiles–anassemblyofrobotsdesignatedmaleandfemalethatengagedinuncertainmatingsviasoundsandlights–wasexhibitedattheCyberneticSerendipityexhibitionattheInstituteforContemporaryArtsinLondonin1968.Sincethenmodernityhasregainedandintensifieditsgriponthepopularimagination,butechoesofcyberneticscanstillbefoundinallsortsofculturalformationsrunningfrom“cyberculture”(Turner2006)toNewAgephilosophyandspirituality.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAnderson,J.A.andRosenfeld,E.(eds)(1998).TalkingNets:AnOralHistoryofNeuralNets(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Asaro,P.(2006).“WorkingModelsandtheSyntheticMethod:ElectronicBrainsasMediatorsbetweenNeuronsandBehavior,”ScienceStudies,19(1):12–34.Asaro,P.(forthcoming).“HeinzvonFoerster,theBio-computingMovementsofthe1960sandtheMachinesoftheBCL,”inA.MüllerandK.H.Müller(eds),ADisruptedRevolution?HeinzvonFoersterandtheBiologicalComputerLaboratory,1958–1974(Vienna:EditionEchoraum).Beer,S.(1959).CyberneticsandManagement(London:EnglishUniversitiesPress).Cordeschi,R.(2002).TheDiscoveryoftheArtificial:Behaviour,MindandMachinesbeforeandbeyondCybernetics(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Dupuy,J.-P.(2000).TheMechanizationoftheMind:OntheOriginsofCognitiveScience(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Foucault,M.(1988).TechnologiesoftheSelf:ASeminarwithMichelFoucault,ed.L.H.Martin,H.GutmanandP.H.Hutton(Amherst,Mass.:UniversityofMassachusettsPress).Galison,P.(1994).“TheOntologyoftheEnemy:NorbertWienerandtheCyberneticVision,”CriticalInquiry,21:228–66.Gerovitch,S.(2002).FromNewspeaktoCyberspeak:AHistoryofSovietCybernetics(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Haraway,D.(1985).“AManifestoforCyborgs:Science,Technology,andSocialistFeminisminthe1980s,”SocialistReview,80:65–107;reprintedinHaraway(2004),TheHarawayReader(NewYork:Routledge),pp.7–45.121\n9781405146012_4_020.qxd2/4/0913:25Page122andrewpickeringHayles,N.K.(1999).HowWeBecamePosthuman:VirtualBodiesinCybernetics,Literature,andInformatics(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Heidegger,M.(1976[1954]).“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology,”inD.Krell(ed.),MartinHeidegger:BasicWritings(NewYork:Harper&Row),pp.287–317.Heims,S.J.(1991).TheCyberneticsGroup(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Hertz,G.(2006).“CockroachControlledMobileRobot,”www.conceptlab.com/roachbot/(updated16October2006).Huxley,A.(1956).HeavenandHell(NewYork:Harper).Kay,L.E.(2001).“FromLogicalNeuronstoPoeticEmbodimentsofMind:WarrenS.McCulloch’sProjectinNeuroscience,”ScienceinContext,14:591–614.Mathews,S.(2003).“AnArchitecturefortheNewBritain:TheSocialVisionofCedricPrice’sFunPalaceandPotteriesThinkbelt,”PhDdissertation,ColumbiaUniversity.Mindell,D.(2002).BetweenHumanandMachine:Feedback,Control,andComputingbeforeCybernetics(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Müller,A.andMüller,K.H.(eds)(forthcoming).ADisruptedRevolution?HeinzvonFoersterandtheBiologicalComputerLaboratory,1958–1974(Vienna:EditionEchoraum).Pias,C.(ed.)(2003).Cybernetics-Kybernetik:TheMacy-Conferences1946–1953,Vol.I,Trans-actions(Zürich/Berlin:Diaphanes).Pias,C.(ed.)(2004).Cybernetics-Kybernetik:TheMacy-Conferences1946–1953,Vol.II,EssaysandDocuments(Zürich/Berlin:Diaphanes).Pickering,A.(2002).“CyberneticsandtheMangle:Ashby,BeerandPask,”SocialStudiesofScience,32:413–37.Pickering,A.(forthcoming).SketchesofAnotherFuture:CyberneticsinBritain,1940–2000.Rosenblueth,A.,Wiener,N.andBigelow,J.(1943).“Behavior,PurposeandTeleology,”PhilosophyofScience,10:18–24.Sadler,S.(2005).Archigram:ArchitecturewithoutArchitecture(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Turner,F.(2006).FromCounterculturetoCyberculture:StewartBrand,theWholeEarthNetwork,andtheRiseofDigitalUtopianism(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Walter,W.G.(1953).TheLivingBrain(London:Duckworth).Wiener,N.(1948).Cybernetics,orControlandCommunicationintheAnimalandtheMachine(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Wolfram,S.(2002).ANewKindofScience(Champaign,Ill.:WolframMedia).122\n9781405146012_4_021.qxd2/4/0913:54Page12321ChemistryandTechnologyHELGES.KRAGHFromahistoricalperspective,chemistryisthequintessential“mixed”science,asmuchconcernedwithmakinganddevelopingusefulmaterialsaswithgeneratingscientificknowledge.PracticalortechnologicalchemistrywaswellknowninancientEgyptandcontinuedtobedevelopedinEurope,ChinaandtheIslamicworld,independ-entlyofscientificorphilosophicalideasofmatteranditstransformations.Untiltheseventeenthcentury,chemistry(oralchemy)wasbasicallyacraftrootedinempiricaltraditions,yettheabsenceofguidancefromchemicaltheorydidnotpreventpracticalchemistsfrommanufacturingmanychemicalsanddevelopingnewinstrumentsandtechniques.Duringthescientificrevolution,thenewcorpusculartheoriesofmatter,asdevelopedbyPierreGassendi,RobertBoyleandothers,wereinspiredbypracticallyworkingchemistsandalchemists,buttheydidnotresultinnewtechnologicalapplica-tions.Briefly,whilescientificchemistrywastosomeextenttechnology-driven,progressinpracticalchemistrywasbynomeansscience-driven.Tomentionbutoneexample,thediscoveryin1669ofphosphorus–thefirstchemicalelementisolatedsinceantiquity–wasmadebyaHamburgmerchantandalchemistwithnoknowledgeofscientificchemistry.Thirtyyearslater,thediscoveryhadbeentransformedintoacommercialmanufactureofphosphorus,aprocessinwhichscienceplayednorole.Itis,though,problematicaltospeakoftherelationshipbetweenscientificandpracticalchemistrypriortothesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcentury,asitwasonlythenthatchemistrybegantotakeshapeasabranchofscienceindependentofpro-ductionandmedicine.Bythestartoftheeighteenthcentury,chemistryhadbecomeabranchofnaturalphilosophy,hence“scientific”inasenserecognizabletoday.Thephlogistontheorywassuccessfulinsofarasitprovided,forthefirsttime,acommonframeworkforinterpretingawiderangeofchemicalphenomena,butfromatechno-logicalpointofviewithadlittletooffer.Althoughtheemergenceofinorganicchemicalindustryinthesecondhalfoftheeight-eenthcenturycoincidedwiththeso-calledchemicalrevolutionofAntoine-LaurentLavoisierandhisallies,theactualimpactofthenewchemistryonindustrywasprac-ticallynil.Withinacentury,sodaandsulfuricacidbecamethebackbonesofaheavychemicalindustryofenormouseconomicsignificance,yetscienceplayedbutalimitedroleinthissuccessstory.Thepopularviewofearlychemicalindustryasthefruitofnewadvancesinscientificchemistryisnotsupportedbyhistoricalresearch.Thus,theACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks123©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_021.qxd2/4/0913:54Page124helges.kraghcelebratedNicolasLeblanc,whoin1789developedthemethodofsodaproductionnamedafterhim,wasanordinarychemicalworkerwhosesuccessdidnotdependonuseofnewscientificprinciples.Byandlarge,untilthemid-nineteenthcentury,chemicalindus-tryandtechnologywasmoreimportanttoscientificchemistrythantheotherwayaround.Severalelementshavebeendiscovered,moreorlessaccidentally,inconnectionwithchemicalmanufactures(e.g.iodinein1812andseleniumin1817).Nevertheless,itiswithsomejustificationthatchemicalindustryissaidtobethefirstindustrythatprofitedsignificantlyfromadvancesinpurescience.Thereisevensometruthintheclaimthatimportantpartsofchemicalindustryaround1900werescience-based,inthesensethattheseindustrieswouldprobablynothaveemergedandflourishedhaditnotbeenthattheyutilizedfairlynewinsightsbasedincontem-poraryscientificresearch.Atechnologydoesnotmerittheepithet“science-based”merelybecauseithappenstomakeuseofknowledgeorapparatusthathavetheirorigininsomescientificcontext;thescienceinquestionhastobeessentialtothetechnology.Theprimeearlyexampleofachemicalindustryrootedinscienceisthehugecom-plexoforganic–syntheticindustrythatemergedinGermanyafter1870andinwhichscientificallytrainedchemistsplayedacrucialrole.ThereisnosimpleroadfromAugustKekulé’sdiscoveryofthehexagonalstructureofbenzenetothemass-productionoforganicdyes,butitisbeyonddoubtthatpurescienceplayedanimportantroleinthecomplexprocess.WhereasWilliamPerkin’ssynthesisofmauveinin1856wasserendipitous,lateradvancesinindustrialorganicsynthesisreliedcruciallyonscientificinsightinthestructureoforganiccompoundsandthecorrespondingreactionmech-anisms.Inthe1890stheGermanchemicalcompanyBASFsucceededintransform-inglaboratory-basedknowledgeintoafull-scaleindustrialmanufactureofindigo,adyestuffofgreateconomicimportance.Theentireprocesswasbasedonscientificadvancesinorganicsynthesisandotherbranchesofchemistry,butofcoursethisisonlyhalfthestory:althoughscientificadvanceswerenecessaryconditions,theywerenotsufficientconditions.Muchthesamestorycanbetoldaboutotherbreakthroughsinchemicalindustryinthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,suchastheHaber–Boschprocessforsyntheticproductionofammoniafertilizersandtheinventionofnylon.Thefirstcaseillustratesthemaxim“Necessityisthemotherofinvention,”whereasthesecondgoesbetterwiththeinvertedmaxim“Inventionisthemotherofnecessity.”Intheearlyyearsofthenewcenturytherewasamarkedshortageofnitrogen-richfertilizersforEuropeanagriculture,whichwasthedirectbackgroundforthehighprioritygiventoexperimentswith“fixatingnitrogen,”thatis,toconvertsomeoftheatmosphere’smolecularnitrogentosolidorliquidfertilizers.Itdidnotrequireanexpertchemisttomakenitrogenreactwithhydrogen,buttheproblemwastomaximizetheyieldundercircumstancesthatwereeconomicallyfeasible.Thisturnedouttobeaformidableproblemthatinvolvedscientificproblemsinchemicalthermodynamics,equilibriumtheory,high-pressurereactionsandthemechanismofcatalysis.ItisanindicationofthescientificbasisoftheHaber–Boschprocessthatitstwomainarchitects,thetheoret-icalchemistFritzHaberandhisindustrialcolleagueCarlBosch,werebothawardedtheNobelPrizeinchemistry;alsotwootherNobellaureates,WaltherNernstandWilhelmOstwald,hadsignificantlycontributedtothescientificknowledgethatmadethefirstindustrialplantarealityin1913.Itistobenotedthatthetechnologyonwhichthe124\n9781405146012_4_021.qxd2/4/0913:54Page125chemistryandtechnologyammoniamanufactureresteddidnotflowfromscientificresultsobtainedindependentlyinthelaboratory;rather,theseresultsweredirectresponsestotechnologicalneeds.Thehistoryofthesyntheticammoniaprocessexemplifiesaclassoftechnologicallyorientedresearchthattakesonthecharacteroffundamentalscientificresearch,exceptthat“techno-scientific”researchprogramsaremuchmorecloselytiedtosocio-economicgoalsthanacademic-scientificresearch.Anothernoteworthyexamplefromthepre-SecondWorldWarperiodistheAmericanphysicalchemistIrvingLangmuir,whoworkedforGeneralElectricandwhoseexperimentalprogram(aimedatimprovingtheefficiencyoffilamentlamps)includedsurfacechemistry,forwhichhewasawardedthe1932NobelPrize.Togeneralize,chemicaltechnologyisnottobethoughtofasanindependentvariable,drawingitsideasparasiticallyfromscience;ratheritisanequalpartnercontributingasmuchtothecommonstockasitdrawsout.TheHaber–Boschprocesswasobviouslydrivenbyeconomic,politicalandmilitaryneeds.Inthe1930s,whentheDuPontcorporationsucceededinmanufacturingnylon,theconsumersfeltnoneedatalltogetdressedinclothesmadebysyntheticfibers.DuPonthadtocreateaneed,whichtheyandothercompanieseventuallydid.Thepolymericnatureofmacromoleculeswasanovelandsomewhatcontroversialscientificinsightofthe1920s,whenthefieldwaspioneeredbytheGermanorganicchemistHermannStaudingerinparticular.Toturntheinsightintoprofitmadeastrongresearchbaseimperative,anditwaswiththispurposethatDuPonthiredtheuniversity-trainedchemistWallaceCarothersin1928.Carothers’sresearchprogramwas“orientedbasicresearch,”meaningthatitwasfundamentalresearchinmacromoleculesguidedbythewishtomanufacturecommerciallyusefulsyntheticfibers.HisresearchresultedinthedevelopmentofanewpolyamidefiberwhichDuPontmarketedas“nylon”in1938andwhichmarkedthebeginningofthe“syntheticrevolution.”Oneshouldnotbelieve,though,thatalladvancesinthenewsyntheticindustrywerebasedinaplannedscientificapproach.Itissignificantthatanothermajorsuccessoftheearlyindustry,thediscoveryofpolyethyleneinthelaboratoriesofICIinEngland,wasaresultofaresearchprograminvestigatingtheeffectsofhighpressureonorganicmaterials.Theinvolvedchemistswerenotaimingatfindinganewplasticmaterialbuthappenedtodososerendipitously.Althoughsciencedidnotshowtheway,theirapproachwasthoroughlyscientific.Theexamplesmentionedillustratecertaingeneralfeaturesofchemicalindustryanditsrelationtoscientificchemistry.Whateverthekindofmanufacturedproduct,inacommercialchemical-technologicalprocessitisofdecisiveimportancethatitcanbegovernedandcontrolled.Theaimisnotmerelytomanufactureacertainproduct,buttogaincompletecontrolovertheprocess.Therefore,thefactorsthatgovernthereactivityandoutputoftheprocessmustbeknown,andmethodstocontrolandanalyzetheproductmustbedeveloped.Technologyisaboutpurposefulmanipulationofmaterials.Successfulmanipulationoftinyunitssuchasatomsandmoleculesrequiresscientificknowledgeofthenatureofmatterandtheprocessesoftransforma-tion.Contraryto,say,mechanicalarticles,thechemicalunitsareinvisible.Forthisreason,knowledgeoftheirbehaviorandmeansofinfluencingthemisbest-obtainedthroughscientifictheoryandsystematicexperiments.Thisdoesnotmeanthattechnicalchemistrymustnecessarilyrelyonscientificknowledge.ThealchemistsandtechnicalchemistsoftheRenaissancewerehappilyunawareofmolecules,thermodynamicsand125\n9781405146012_4_021.qxd2/4/0913:54Page126helges.kraghreactionrates,andyettheymanufacturedmanyusefulsubstances.Butitdoesmeanthatthescientificapproachhasenormousadvantages,andthatahighlydevelopedandefficientchemicalindustrycannotbebasedonempiricalrulesonly.Itisnottoomuchtosaythatmodernchemicalindustryiscruciallybasedonscience,althoughinmostcasesnotthemostrecentscience.Post-SecondWorldWarchemistryhasreliedheavilyonhigh-technologicalinstru-mentation,andinseveralcasestheinstrumentsusedinthelaboratorieshadtheiroriginandwereshapedbyexperiencesintheindustrialsector.Forexample,infraredspectroscopy–whichprovidesa“fingerprint”ofmoleculesbasedontheirvibrationalstates–wasappliedanddevelopedbythepetroleumindustryinthe1930sandonlywidelyadoptedbyorganicchemistsafterthewar,soontobecomeindispensablefortheirscientificresearch.Theinstrumentationrevolutionpromotedanideaof“instru-mentalobjectivity”whichemphasizedcostefficiencyandthereductionintheroleofhumanjudgment.Startinginanalyticalchemistry,thiskindofobjectivityidealsoonspreadtoawiderangeofmeasurements,fromfoodlabelstopollutionmonitors.Tospeakofchemicalindustrypurelyintermsof“science”and“technology”isacon-siderableoversimplificationthattendstoignoremuchofwhatisspecifictochemicalengineering.Althoughmanipulationofchemicalcompoundsandreactionsisattheheartofmostchemicalindustries,theyalsodealsignificantlywithphysicalprocesses(suchasheatexchangeandcrystallization)andapparatusassociatedwiththem.Chemicalengineeringisnotscience-basedinthetraditionalsensebutbetter-understoodasanindependentclassofappliedscienceorientedtowardindustrialprocessesingeneral.Modernchemicalindustryischaracterizednotprimarilybyitsproductsbutratherbyitsprocesses,thatis,thesuccessionofactions–whetherphysicalorchemical–thattransformrawmaterialsintoanewchemicalproduct.Processesandtheircon-ceptualizationintermsof“unitoperations”areattheheartofchemicalengineering.AccordingtotheAmericanArthurD.Little,whointroducedtheconceptin1915,anychemicalmanufacturingprocesscanbebrokendownintoaseriesofdiscretephysicalprocessesknownasunitoperations.Thenumberandorderoftheseoperationswillvaryfromchemicaltochemical,butthevarietyofmanufacturingprocessescanneverthelessbeunderstoodintermsofthesamesetofbuildingblocks.ChemicalengineeringbasedontheintellectualinnovationofunitoperationscametodominatethechemicalindustryaftertheSecondWorldWarandmadepossibleamuchmoreefficient,coordinatedandscaled-upproductionofchemicals.Inmodernchemicalindustry,advancesin“chemicalprocesssoftware”havebeennolessimport-antthanadvancesin“chemicalmaterialhardware.”Thisalsomeansthatscientificcompetencesenteringchemicalindustryhavecarvedouttheirownniche.Theyareneitherwhollyscientificnorwhollytechnologicalbutahybridformofknowledgeinwhichthecomputerisofgreaterimportancethantheglasswaresandinstrumentsoftheclassicallaboratory.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBhushan,N.andRosenfeld,S.(2000).OfMindsandMolecules:NewPhilosophicalPerspectivesonChemistry(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).126\n9781405146012_4_021.qxd2/4/0913:54Page127chemistryandtechnologyFurukawa,Y.(1998).InventingPolymerScience:Staudinger,CarothersandtheEmergenceofMacromolecularChemistry(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).Hounshell,D.A.andSmith,J.K.(1988).ScienceandCorporateStrategy:DuPontR&D,1902–1980(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).Mauskopf,S.H.(ed.)(1993).ChemicalSciencesintheModernWorld(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).Meyer-Thurow,G.(1982).“TheIndustrializationofInvention:ACaseStudyfromtheGermanChemicalIndustry,”Isis73,pp.363–81.Rabkin,Y.M.(1987).“TechnologicalInnovationinScience:TheAdoptionofInfraredSpectroscopybyChemists,”Isis78,pp.31–54.127\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page129PartIIITechnologyandPhilosophyACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page13122Introduction:PhilosophyandTechnologyVALDUSEKThefieldofphilosophyoftechnologyasabranchofprofessionalphilosophyisrelativelyrecent.Itisonlysomethreedecadesoldasaflourishingspecialty.Traditionalbranchesofphilosophy,suchasmetaphysicsandethics,arealmosttwoandahalfmillenniaold.Philosophyofscienceasaspecializedbrandoftechnicalphilosophy,bycontrast,stemsfromthesecondandthirddecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Duringthenineteenthcenturyanumberofscientists,primarilyphysicists,wroteworksspecificallydedicatedtothephilosophyofscience.Despitetheimportanceoftechnologytohumanlifeandsocietythroughouthumanhistory(and,indeed,prehistory),therehasnotbeenacontinuoustraditionofthephilosophyoftechnology.Therehavebeensporadicmajorcontributionstothefieldamongtheclassicalphilosophers.Socrates,PlatoandAristotlediscussedthecrafts,expertiseandtechne.SocratesandPlatocontrastedtheconcreteandeffectiveknowledgepossessedbycraftspeoplewiththespuriousclaimstoknowledgeofethicalandpoliticalmattersonthepartofpoliticiansoftheday.Ontheotherhand,SocratesandPlatocontrastthenarrow,concreteandspecializedcraftknowledgewiththecomprehensivewisdompursuedbygenuinephilosophy.SocratesandPlatoconsideredethicalandpoliticalknowledge,whenachieved,asgenuinetheoreticalknowledge.Aristotlealsocon-trastedtheoreticalwithpracticalandproductiveknowledge.ForAristotle,however,practicalwisdomisnotitselfakindoftheoreticalknowledgeasSocratesandPlatohadclaimed.Itdoesnotadmittheprecisionofmathematicalorscientificknowledge.WhilePlatoheldtraininginmathematicstobeanidealprerequisiteforthestudyofethicsandpolitics,andinhislater“unwrittendoctrine”conflatedphilosophicalknowledgewithahigherformofknowledgeofnumbers,Aristotlestronglycontrastedpracticalknowledge,gainedfrommentorsandlearnedbyexample,dependingonintuitivejudgmentcallsbasedonlifeexperience,withpreciseandexplicitmathemat-icalknowledge.AlmosttwothousandyearslaterFrancisBaconemphasizedtheroleoftechnologyinexperimentalknowledgeandincontributingtotheprosperityandwelfareofsociety.Bacontookseriouslytheimportanceofcraftknowledgeingainingtheoreticalknowledgeofandmasteryovernature.InthisBacondifferedgreatlyfromthe“Britishempiricists”(Locke,Berkeley,HumeandMill),whoaregenerallyconsideredhisphilo-sophicalprogenyduringthenextthreecenturies,inthatthelatterconcentratedonACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks131©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page132valdusektheassociationofideasbasedonperceptualknowledgeandnotonknowledgeasbasedonpractical,manipulativeactivity.InthenineteenthcenturyHenrideSaint-SimonandAugustComteinFrance,aswellasKarlMarxinGermany,devotedattentiontotheroleoftechnologyinthedevel-opmentofsociety.ComteandSaint-Simondidnotfocusonthedetailsofparticulartechnologies(thoughComtehadafairlydetailedknowledgeofmathematicalphysics)butbothdidmaketheconceptof“industrialsociety”centraltotheirconceptionsoftheculminationofhistoricaldevelopmentandthesocialstructureofcontemporarysociety(Comtebeingthefatherofsociology).Marx,whocharacterizedtheessenceofcontemporarysocietyascapitalismratherthanasindustrialismingeneral,did,inhislatereconomicworks,doanalysesofparticulartechnologieswithrespecttotheireffectsonworkersandtheircontributiontoproductivity.Nevertheless,scoresofmajorphilosophersintheeighteenth,nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturieshadverylittleornothingtosayabouttechnology.Evenwiththegrowthofearlymodernscienceandtechnologyfollowedbytheindustrialrevolution,theContinentalEuropeanrationalistsandBritishempiricistsoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies(withtheexceptionofBacon),despitetwocenturiesofintenseconcernwiththeoryofknowledgeandthenatureofknowledgeinpurescience,hadsurprisinglylittletosayspecificallyabouttechnology.Whywasthis?Onesuggestionisthatinthemoderneratechnologyhasbeenseenpurelyandsimplyasappliedscience.Ifonecouldunderstandthenatureofscientificknowledge,thentheproblemsofphilosophyoftechnologywereessentiallysolved.Thedirectapplicationofsciencetotechnologywasseenaslargelyunproblematic.Furthermore,themainstreamsofrationalist,empiricistandEnlightenmentphilosophersrightupthroughtheworksofthelogicalpositivistssawtechnologyasanalmostunalloyedbenefittosociety.Technologywould,followingBacon,contributetothenationalhealth,wealthandwelfare.Therewerenomajorethicalproblemsintechnology.(Granted,LeonardodaVinciandFrancisBacondidraisesomeconcerns,butmostofthemajorearlymodernphilosophersdidnot.)Thetheoryofscientificknowledgeandpoliticaltheoryofferedissuesandproblems,butoncetheseweresolvedtherewerenoproblemsleftsolelyinvolvingtechnology.ItistruethatfromtheendoftheeighteenthandbeginningofthenineteenthcenturytheRomantictraditionincludedquestioningandcriticismoftechnologyandemphasisontheharmsoftechnology,butevenherethemajorwritersconcernedwiththeharmfulnessoftechnologywereRomanticpoets,novelistsandliteraryessayists,nottheRomanticphilosopherssuchasFichteandSchelling.Similarly,theactualLudditemovementwasapractical,politicaloneofindustrialsabotage,notaprimarilythe-oreticalmovement.Thosenineteenth-centurywriterswhohavesometimesbeencalledhonorary“Luddites”fortheirnegativeassessmentoftheindustrialrevolutionwereforthemostpartpoets,artcriticsandessayistswhosometimespresentedphilosophicalideas,butwhoarenotincludedinthecanonicalhistoryofphilosophy.InGermany,defeatintheFirstWorldWarledtoapopularwaveofdisillusionmentwithtechnologyandaneo-Romanticinterestin“returntonature”intheGermanYouthMovement.However,intherestofWesternEurope,BritainandtheUnitedStates,itwouldseemthatonlyaftertheSecondWorldWar,especiallybecauseofnuclearbombsandthenucleararmsrace,werelargenumbersofpeoplewillingtoentertaintheidea132\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page133introduction:philosophyandtechnologythattechnologymightbeatleastasharmfulashelpfultohumanity.Similarly,althoughtherehadbeencriticismsoftheharmfuleffectsoftechnologyontheenvironment,par-ticularlyamongtheRomantics,masspopularconcernaboutnegativeimpactsoftech-nologyontheenvironmentdidnotsurfaceuntilthe1960sand1970s.Thusnuclearweaponsandwidelyreportedecologicalside-effectsoftechnologymadereflectionontheethicalbalanceofthebenefitsandrisksoftechnologyawidespreadphenomenon.Withdevelopmentofbiotechnology,particularlythepossibilityofgeneticmodificationofhumans,andconcomitantspeculationaboutengineeringhumannatureitself,intensifiedconcernaboutthisseeminglymoreintimateand“essential”intrusionoftech-nologyintohumanitygrew.Therewasafurtherbarriertothewidespreadandintensedevelopmentofphilo-sophyoftechnologywithinphilosophyforthefirsttwo-thirdsofthetwentiethcenturyandbeyond.Philosophyoftechnologyisafieldofphilosophythatinvolvesawidevarietyofbranchesofphilosophy.Philosophyoftechnologyinvolvesphilosophyofscience,theoryofknowledge,philosophyofaction,ethics,politicalphilosophy,andmayinvolveaesthetics,metaphysicsandphilosophyofreligionaswell.Withinanalyticalphilosophy,focusonphilosophyofscienceandfocusonethicshaveinvolveddisjointclassesofspecialists.Atleastintothe1980s,mostethicistsoftenappealedtoasome-whatdatedphilosophyofscience,iftheyappealedtoitatall.Philosophersofscience,withafewexceptions,havenotworkedonproblemsofethics.Theinteractionsbetweenpoliticalphilosophyandphilosophyofsciencehavenotbeenquitesoexclusive,buthavegenerallybeenbynomeansintimateformostpractitioners.Anotherfeatureofphilosophyoftechnologymayhaveimpededitsearlierdevel-opment.Notonlydoesthefielddemandsimultaneousengagementinadiversityofbranchesofphilosophy,butalsocontributorstophilosophyoftechnologyhavecomefromanumberofschoolsofphilosophy.Thesediverseschoolsformostofthetwentiethcenturydidnotcommunicatewithoneanother.Oftentheydidnotrespectortakeseriouslyoneanother’sstyleandproduct.ThesplitbetweenanalyticandContinentalphilosophybeganaroundtheturnofthetwentiethcentury.AftertheearlyexchangesbetweenthephenomenologistEdmundHusserlandthegrandfatherofmuchlogicalanalyticalphilosophy,GottlobFrege,forinstance,ortheearlymutualandco-respectiveawarenessofMartinHeideggerandRudolfCarnap,despitetheharshcriticismsoftheformerbythelatter,analyticandContinentalphilosophyremainedmutuallyincom-municadoforatleastthree-quartersofthecentury.Thereweresomeexceptionstothis,asinthereviewsofHusserlbytheleaderoftheViennaCirclelogicalpositivists,MoritzSchlick,andreviewsoftheworksoftheViennaCirclebytheearlyFrankfurtSchoolcriticaltheoristssuchasMaxHorkheimerandHerbertMarcuse(althoughthesecross-schoolreviewswereuniformlynegative).Anglo-AmericananalyticalandlinguisticphilosopherstendedtodismissmuchofGermanandFrenchphilosophyasobscurantist,pretentiousandmeaningless,whileprofessionalsinthemainstreamofContinentalphilosophyoftendismissedanalyticalphilosophyasnarrow,trivialandirrelevanttothegreatissuesoftheage.Onlyinthelastfewdecadesofthetwentiethcenturyhadtherebeguntobeanalyticcommentariesonmajortwentieth-centuryContinentalphilosopherssuchasHeideggerandHusserl,whileanumberofContinentalphilosophers,suchasJürgenHabermas,Karl-OttoApelandErnstTugendhat,tookseriouslyandgrappledwithAnglo-American133\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page134valduseklinguisticphilosophy.ScandinavianandDutchphilosophers,dominatedbyneitherGermannorBritishtraditions,wereabletomakefruitfuluseofbothtraditionsearlierthantheirGermanandBritishcounterparts.InrecentdecadesintheUnitedStatestherehavebeenanumberofphilosophersoccupiedwithvariousprojectsof“bridge-building”betweenanalyticalandContinentalapproaches.Therearecontributionstophilosophyoftechnologynotonlyintheanalyticalandlinguisticvein,aswellasfromthephenomenological,existentialandhermeneutictraditions;therehavealsobeenfurthercontributionsfromBritishsocialconstructionists,FrenchpostmodernistsandAmericanpragmatists.Duringthelastdecadetherehasbeenasurprisingrenewalofinterestintheworkoftheearly-twentieth-centuryAnglo-AmericanprocessphilosopherAlfredNorthWhiteheadamongsocialconstructionistsandFrenchactor-networktheoristssuchasDonnaHaraway,BrunoLatour,AndrewPickeringandPaulVirilio.Thetwenty-firstcenturyshowsstrongevidenceoftheovercomingofthesediscip-linaryandscholasticbarriers,asexemplifiedbytheworksinfollowingsectionsofthisCompanion.Theolddisjunctionofphilosophyofscienceandmoralphilosophy,aswellastheolderdivisionsofthevariousschoolsoftwentieth-centuryphilosophy,isinthecourseofbeingtranscendedinmuchofthebestcontemporarywork.Byforcingtheintegrationofethicsandpoliticalphilosophywithepistemologyandphilosophyofscience,aswellasinvitingthemutualemploymentandcombinationofthemethodsoflogicalandlinguisticanalysiswithphenomenology,hermeneutics,socialconstructionismandprocessphilosophy,philosophyoftechnologywillmovefrombeingamarginalandneophytespecialtytoplayingacentralroleinthecross-pollinationofbothsubjectfieldsandmethodsofcontemporaryphilosophyleadingtoareunitedworldphilosophycommunity.PhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnologyBothanalyticandContinentalphilosophyofscienceareintegratedintocontemporaryphilosophyoftechnology.WithinAnglo-Americanphilosophyofscience,thepost-positivistcurrentsassociatedwithThomasKuhnandseveralothersopenedvariousavenuestotheanalysisandevaluationoftechnologiesthathadnotbeenopentoapproachesbeholdentothelogicalpositivistaccountofscience.Justasthemathematicallogic-basedearlyworkofLudwigWittgenstein,partiallymisinterpreted,wasappealedtobytheoriginalViennaCirclelogicalpositivists,thelater,ordinary-language-basedworkofWittgensteininfluencedtheworkofThomasKuhn,NorwoodHanson,StephenToulminandanumberofotherpost-positivistphilosophersofscience.Althoughthesewritersofthelate1950sandearly1960sdidnotoriginallyemphasizetheextra-logicalsocialandculturalinfluencesonscience,themorecontextualandnon-formalisticapproachofthepost-positivistsallowedtheconsiderationofnon-scientificpolitical,genderandotherinfluencesonscientifictheories.AlthoughThomasKuhndidnotdeveloptheoccasionalbriefreferencestosocialinfluencesonscienceinhiswork,theBritishsocialconstructivistsociologistsofscientificknowledgedidsoduringthenextdecade.AweaknessofmuchoftheimmediatereactionagainstlogicalpositivismofthefollowersofthelaterWittgensteinmentionedabovewasover-emphasisontheory,even134\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page135introduction:philosophyandtechnologythoughtheconceptionoftheoryallowedthebroadeningof“theory”toincludeideo-logicalandculturalinfluences.WhatDonIhdeandDavisBairdindependentlycalled“instrumentalrealism”shiftsthefocusfrompurelyintellectualtheorytotheinstru-mentationandpracticalmeansofexperimentalinvestigation.IanHacking,PeterGalisonandothershavehelpedreorientphilosophyofsciencetowardtheproductionofinstrumental“effects”andimaging.DonIhdehasfurtherintegratedthisworkwithahermeneuticswithinscience.(SeediscussionofhermeneuticsbelowaswellasIhde’sentriesonhermeneuticsandimagingtechnologyinthissection.)PhenomenologyandTechnologyPhenomenologyisthedescriptionofexperience.FranzBrentanocontributedthenotionofintentionalityofactsofconsciousness,alwaysdirectedtowardanobject,butEdmundHusserlwasthemajorinfluenceontwentieth-centuryphenomenology.AlthoughmostofthosewhoappealedtoHusserlasphilosophicalmentorfocusedonissuesindescriptionofeverydaylife,ethicsandreligion,Husserlhimselfbeganfromtraininginmathematicsandpsychology,andreturnedinhislaterworktoreflectiononphysicalscience.Husserldidadissertationonthecalculusofvariationsundertheleadingnineteenth-centurymathematicalanalystKarlWeierstrassandcontinuedwithstudiesinpsychologyunderCarlStumpf.Husserl’sdescriptionofexperiencecontrastedwiththeatomisticanalysisoftheBritishempiricistsandmanyofthelogicalpositivists.Ratherthanportrayingexperi-enceasconsistingofatomicsensedataorsensations,Husserldescribedthefieldofconsciousnessascontainingorganizingwholesandcontaininghorizons,bothouter(whichgiveasenseoftheextensionofthefieldbeyondwhatisimmediatelyincon-sciousness)andinner(potentiallyyieldingdetailbeyondthatinitiallyevident).Husserlintroducedthephenomenologicalepocheorbracketinginwhichonesuspendsjudgmentconcerningtheexistenceornonexistenceoftheobjectsofexperienceandthenotionofeideticintuitionofessencesinexperience.HusserllaterturnedtotheanalysisofGalileo’s“idealization”ofordinarylivedexperi-ence(lifeworld)andthesubsequentmistakenidentificationofrealitywithourideal-izedabstractionsratherthanwithourlivedexperience.ThislaterworkofHusserlopenedmanypathsinthephenomenologyofscience.Withrespecttoitsusefulnessforphilosophyoftechnology,thislaterworkofHusserlsharesadeficiencywiththeoriginalpost-positivisticphilosophyofscienceinitsoveremphasisontheoryandinsufficientattentiontoinstrumentation.DonIhdehascalledHusserl’sGalileoaGalileowithoutthetelescope.MauriceMerleau-Ponty,who,alongwithhisfellowFrenchmanJean-PaulSartre,issometimescalledbyAmericanfollowersan“existentialphenomenologist,”developedtheconceptionsofthelaterHusserl.Merleau-Ponty’selaborationontheconceptionofthe“livedbody,”abodyneitherthepurelymechanisticbodyofexternal,physicalanalysis,northesubjectiveconsciousmindofintrospection,butthebodyasexperiencedhasmuchpotentialityfortheaccountoftechnologicalactivityandrelationshipsbetweenhumansandtheirmachines.HubertDreyfushasmadefruitfuluseofthisconceptaswellasofHusserl’saccountofthefieldofconsciousnessinhiscritiqueofartificialintelligence.135\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page136valdusekMartinHeidegger,studentofHusserl,andoneofthemostinfluentialphilosophersofthetwentiethcentury,transformedtheratherPlatonicconceptionsofessentialintuitioninHusserl’sphenomenologyintoamoreconcrete,existentialaccountofhumanexistence.Heideggeralsogaveequalemphasistotheaccountofobjectsaspragmaticmeansthroughwhichweactandwork,alongwiththemoretraditionalaccountofobjectspresenttohandasdetachedlyobservedandindependentofus.Heideggeralsoenrichedphenomenologynotonlywithconcreteexistentialthemesbutalsowiththecentralityoftheinterpretationofmeaning.InthelaterworksofHeidegger,incontrasttothoseofHusserl,technologyitselfbecomesacentraltheme.AccordingtoHeidegger,technologycharacterizesthenatureofmodernsocietyinthewaythatnaturedidtheworldoftheGreeksorreligionwascentraltotheMiddleAges.Technologystructuresmodernhumans’entirecomport-menttotheworld,turningallobjectsintoresources,andthecentralityofmoderntechnologymakesallourthinkingorientedtoinstrumentalityandcontrolofnatureevenatthemostrarifiedlevelsofphilosophicalreflection.Experiencesoftheworldinanon-technologicalmannerbecomemuchmorerareandfragilethaninpreviousepochs.AlbertBorgmannhasemphasizedhowwemaytreasureandmaintainthe“focal”andcommunalexperiencesthatfreeusfromthetechnologicalenframingoftherestoflife.HermeneuticsYetanotherphilosophicalmethodologythatholdsanimportantplacewithinthephilosophyoftechnologyishermeneutics.Hermeneuticsbeganasthespecialtyofbiblicalinterpretation.Atthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,itssensewasbroadenedbyFriedrichSchleiermachertoincludetheinterpretationofallsortsofwrittentexts.AttheendofthenineteenthcenturyitwasfurtherexpandedbyWilhelmDiltheytoincludetheinterpretationofcultureingeneral.Inthelatetwentiethcenturythescopeofhermeneuticsasabranchofthehumanitiesandliteraryinterpretationwasevenfurtherextendedtoincludescience.Atfirstthehermeneuticsofscienceencompassedonlytheinterpretationofscienceasapartofculture.However,inrecentdecadesDonIhdehasfurtherexpandedhermeneuticsto“hermeneuticsinscience,”thatisanaccountoftheroleofhermeneuticinterpretationaspartofscientificprocedure.The“texts”interpretedbyhermeneuticsinscienceincludeprominentlythedeliverancesofscientificinstruments.Marxism,CriticalTheoryandTechnologyMarxismandneo-Marxismareanothermajorcomponentofcontemporaryphilo-sophyoftechnology,bothasasourceofideasandasanobjectofcriticism.Marx’slatereconomicwritingscontaindetaileddiscussionoftheeffectoffactorymachineryonworkers.Ironically,“orthodox”MarxistsofthehalfcenturyafterMarxdidnotgreatlyelaborateonthesespecificallytechnologicalinquiriesofMarx,thoughtheyemphasizedthetechnologicallydeterministicaspectsofMarx’saccountofhistory.Muchoftheneo-HegelianrediscoveryofthedialecticalandsocialconstructivistaspectsofMarxismin136\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page137introduction:philosophyandtechnologythefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,so-called“WesternMarxism,”concentratedonaestheticsandliterarycriticismratherthanontheeconomyandtechnology.CriticalTheorywasanexceptiontothisde-emphasisontechnologywithinneo-Marxism.However,thecriticaltheoriststendedtotreattechnologyandtechnologicalreasonasamonolithicunity.(Thiswastrueofothermid-twentieth-centurywriterssuchasJacquesEllulaswell.)AndrewFeenbergcorrectsthistendencyofcriticaltheorytotreattechnologyasanundifferentiatedrepressivephenomenon,examiningparticulartech-nologieswithregardtoemancipatoryaswellasrepressivepotentials.SocialConstructivismAnothertrendinthephilosophyoftechnologyisthatinfluencedbythesocialconstruc-tionoftechnology(SCOT).Thesocialconstructionapproachoriginatedinthesocialconstructionofscientificknowledge.TheconstructionisttraditioninphilosophygoesbacktoThomasHobbesandGiambattistaVico.Bothoftheseearlymodernphilo-sophersclaimedthatweknowbestthatwhichweourselvesmake.VicoemphasizedmathematicsandhistoryashumanproductswhileHobbesemphasizedtheroleofsocialcontractintheconstitutionofsocietyandofscienceanddefinitionalconventionintheconstitutionofscientificknowledge.ThenextmajorcontributortoconstructivismwasImmanuelKantinthelateeighteenthcentury.Kantclaimedthatweconstituteourknowledgethroughtheapplicationofcategoriesofthemindappliedtothemani-foldofsenseexperience.JohannGottliebFichteradicalizedKant’sconstructivismbyclaimingthattheminddoesnotsimplyorganizeandsystematizetheinputsofsenseexperiencebutpositsorcreatestheobjectsofknowledge.In1923,GyörgyLukácscombinedtheconstructivetrendofGermanidealismwithMarxism.Ratherthantheformsofmindorreasonassuch,itistheformsofeconomicproductionthatstructureknowledgeandworldviews.Inthe1960sthesocialconstitutionofknowledgewasrevivedinanumberofforms.Inthe1970sthisapproachwasappliedtothesociologyofscientificknowledgebytheBritishsocialconstructivistsofscience.Socialconstructionoftechnologyisinsomewayslesscontroversialthanthesocialconstructionofscientificknowledge.Therearethreeaspectsorlevelsofconstructivism.Oneistheconstructionofthephysicalinstrumentsofscienceandtechnology.Asecondistheconstructionofknowledge.Thethirdistheconstructionofnaturalobjectsandfacts.Thenotionthathypothesesandtheoriesareconstructedbyknowersisnotinitselfcontroversial,especiallysincethegeneralrejectionoftheearlierBritishempiricistclaimthattheoriesemergeautomaticallyfrominductiveobservations.Theadditionoftheterm“social”toconstructivismemphasizesthewidelyacceptedviewthatscienceisasocialenterprise,aproductofthescientificcommunity.Themostcontroversialthesisofthesocialconstructionofscienceisthatthenaturalobjectsand/orfactsofsciencearesociallyconstructed.Ifby“fact”onemeanswhatisacceptedasafactbythescientificcommunity,thisthesisisnotcontroversial.Itisonlywhenthereisaslippagebetweenfactinthissenseandfactasanindependentlyexistingstateofaffairsthatthethesisofthesocialconstructionoffactsbecomescontroversial.InstrumentalrealistssuchasIanHackingpointoutthatinexperimentalphysics“effects”arepro-ducedbyinstrumentation.Theartifactsoftechnologyare,literally,physicallyconstructed.137\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page138valdusekWhatmaybemorecontroversialinSCOTwouldbetheclaimthatwhatcountsas“efficient”intechnologyisitselfsociallyconstructiveandisnotsimplyamatterofinputsandoutputsofphysicalenergy.PragmatismandTechnologyPragmatismhasbeenthedistinctiveAmericancontributiontophilosophy.Incontrasttopreviousphilosophiesthatevaluatedclaimsintermsofprinciplesoraxiomsthatlogicallyjustifythemorintermsofperceptualdataonwhichtheyarebased,pragmatismevaluatesclaimsintermsofconsequencesforaction.CharlesS.Peirceinitiallypresentedpragmatismasaprinciplefortheevaluationofmeaningandhadadifferentchar-acterizationoftruth.WhenWilliamJamesusedthepragmaticprincipleasadefinitionoftruth,andunderstoodtruthasresultsinthebroadestpossiblesense,Peircedis-sociatedhimselffromJames’saccountbycallinghisownapproach“pragmaticism.”JohnDeweydevelopedanaccountofevaluationofclaimsinsomewaysclosertoPeirce’sbutdidusethepragmaticmaximasameansofevaluatingtruthaswellasmeaning.Deweyatonepointsuggestedthat,sincetheterm“truth”issocloselyassociatedwiththeclassicalnotionofcorrespondencewithpre-existing,independentfacts,oneshouldgiveuptheterm“truth”for“warrantedassertability.”DuringthemiddlethirdofthetwentiethcenturyintheUSAtheémigréCentralEuropeanlogicalempiricistsbecamealliedwiththepragmatistsonmanyissues.Pragmatistcriticismsoflogicalempiricism,suchasthoseofW.V.O.QuineandWilfridSellarsborrowedthesesfrompragmatismtocriticizethelogicalpositivistcriterionofmeaningintermsofverificationbysenseobservations,butwereinphilosophicalstyleandinterestsfarclosertoanalyticalphilosophythantotheclassicalpragmatists.TheylackedthebroadconcernswithsocialproblemsofindustrialsocietyanddemocracyexpressedinthewritingsofDewey.RichardRortyexpressedsympathywithDeweybutturnedinthedirectionofwhatmanyseeasrelativismandContinentalliterarypostmodernism.AmongtheclassicalpragmatistsitisJohnDeweywhosewritingsdealmostwiththemesofinteresttothephilosopheroftechnology.Peircefocusedonthephysicalscienceandphilosophyofmathematics,andhadlittletosayaboutsocialproblemsandissues.Jamesconcernedhimselfwithpsychologyinhisearlyworkandreligiousbeliefandcommitmentaswellasgeneralepistemologyinhislaterwork.Incontrast,issuesrelatedtoorapplicabletotechnologypervadeDewey’swritings.LarryHickmanhasbeenacontemporaryphilosopherconcernedwithrevivinginterestinDeweyontech-nologyandemphasizingthevalueofDewey’sviewsforthereformoftechnology.Theveryterm“instrumentalism”thatDeweyusedtocharacterizehisapproachshowshisaffinitytothephilosophyoftechnology.ForDewey,notjustphysicaltools,butconceptsandmethodsareinstruments.Dewey’sconceptionoftechnologyastheevaluationoftoolsandtechniques(whichincludeideasandconcepts,habitsandinstitutions)isextremelybroad.ForDeweythereisnocontrastbetweentechnologyandtherestofculture.Deweywishestotreatallthetraditionalphilosophicaldichotomies,factandvalue,mindandbody,thoughtandaction,aspolesincontinua,orphasesofactivities,not138\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page139introduction:philosophyandtechnologyasabsolutedistinctionsofkind.ThisaspectofDeweyfitswellwiththephilosophyoftechnology’sneedtodealwithethicsaswellasscience,conceptsaswellastheoryofaction.DeweyhasbeencriticizedbyEuropeancriticaltheoristsandbyhermeneuticpheno-menologistsforexcessiveoptimismconcerningthefutureoftechnologicalandindus-trialsociety.However,Dewey’soptimismisnotuncritical,andhisemphasisonrevisionandreformaspartoftheverynatureoftechnologyisausefulcorrectivetothepor-trayaloftechnologyasall-encompassing,uncontrollable,dominatingandoppressivethatisfoundinmuchtwentieth-centuryGermanwritingabouttechnology.TowardanIntegratedPhilosophyofTechnologyPhilosophyoftechnologyhasbeenapproachedthroughavarietyofphilosophicalperspectivesand“schools.”Theseincludepost-positivistphilosophyofscience,pheno-menology,hermeneutics,socialconstructivism,criticaltheoryandpragmatismdiscussedabove.Oneoftheimpactsofthephilosophyoftechnologyistoencourageand,inthecontextofproblem-solving,insomecasestoforcetheintegrationofvariousphilosophicalapproaches.Injointlydeployingthemethodsofthesevariousapproachestodealwithphilosophyoftechnology,thesharedfeaturesofmanyoftheseschoolsofphilosophybecomemoreevident.Onefeatureofthevariousschoolsofrecentphilosophyappliedtothephilosophyoftechnologyistheirsensitivitytotheissueofcontext.Ordinarylanguagephilosophy,incontrasttoearlierlogicalpositivismandformal-logic-orientedanalyticalphilosophy,emphasizesthecontextofutterances.Deweyanpragmatismlikewiseisathorough-goingcontextualism.Anotherfeatureofthephilosophiesdeployedinthephilosophyoftechnologyistheemphasisontheroleoflanguageandmeaningasstructuringperceptualexperience.OrdinarylanguagephilosophyofthelaterWittgensteinstandstotheearlierlogicalpositivismandempiricismashermeneuticsandthehermeneuticphenomenologyofthelaterHeideggerstandtoearlierphenomenology,inthatbothemphasizetheinextricablerelatednessoflinguisticmeaningtothedescriptionofexperience.TheemphasisonactionratherthanpassiveapprehensioninknowledgehasbeencentraltobothMarxismandpragmatism.Furthermoretheunderstandingofmeaninginpragmatismandinordinarylanguagephilosophyisonethatemphasizesuseinpracticeratherthancorrespondencetoabstractentities.Oneasksinpragmatismnotwhatabstracttermsarebutwhattheydo.Similarlytheslogan“meaningasuse”hasbeencentraltoordinarylanguagephilosophy.Avarietyofotherapproaches,suchasconceptualrolesemantics,aremoreprecisevariationsonthisapproachtomeaninginuse.Similarlyanemphasisontheroleofembodimentinhumanlifeandknowledgedistinguishesanumberofthemid-to-late-twentieth-centuryapproachestophilosophyfromearlierapproachesemphasizingthedualismofmindandbody.ThelivedbodyofMerleau-PontyandDewey’semphasisontechnologiesasextensionsofembodimentarejusttwooftheseemphasesonembodiment.MichelFoucault’sfocusonthepower139\n9781405146012_4_022.qxd2/4/0916:18Page140valdusekofandcontroloverbodiesandfeministphilosophy’scritiqueoftheneglectofembodi-mentinclassicalearlymodernphilosophyareotherdevelopmentsofthistheme.Anotherturninthetreatmentofknowledgeandactionsharedbyanumberofthephilosophiesmadeuseofindiscussingtechnologyisthesocialnatureofknowledge.Marxism,criticaltheoryandsocialconstructivismareamongthoseapproachesthatmostobviouslyemphasizethesocialdimensionsofknowledge.Ordinarylanguagephilosophyemphasizesthesocialnatureoflanguage,andpragmatismincorporatesthesocialnatureofknowledge.Emphasisontheroleofthescientificcommunityinpost-Kuhnianphilosophyofscienceisanotherexampleoftheinclusionofthesocialdimensionofknowledge.Thereisnowwidespreadawarenessof,althoughdisagree-mentabout,theroleofgenderandcultureintheformulationoftheoriesandnormsofaction.Theimportanceofconstructionofsocialarrangementsandofknowledgeisanotherthemesharedbyseveralofthephilosophieswehaveexamined.Itismostevidentintheverynameofsocialconstructionism,butpragmatisminitsDeweyanformisalsoaconstructionism.ThisconstructionwaspreviouslypresentedasapurelymentalconstructionasinKant,butthephilosophyoftechnologyhasbroughttotheforetheroleofliteralphysicalconstruction.Anotherareaofintegrationofapproachesisthewaythatthephilosophyoftech-nologyforcesuseofbothdescriptiveandnormativeorevaluativeconsiderationstogiveadequateaccountsoftechnologicalartifactsandprojects.Developmentsinpost-positivistphilosophyofscienceandsocialconstructionistaccountsofsciencehaveforegroundedtheroleofnormsofscienceinknowledge,bothwithrespecttothenormsofknowledgeandtheethicsofscientificpractice.Sincetechnologicalsystemsincorporatebothphysicalapparatus,rules,andhumanorganizationandskills,accountsoftechnologymustcharacterizethecultural,politicalandmoralnormsinvolvedintechnologicaldevelopmentsandthecontroversiesconcerningthem.Thesharedfeaturesofthevariousapproachestophilosophyutilizedinthephilo-sophyoftechnologymaypartiallyanswerthequestionofwhythefieldofphilosophyoftechnologyissorecent,developingcenturiesafterthescientificandindustrialrevolutions.Earlymodernphilosophy,suchasthatoftherationalistsandempiricists,sharplyseparatedthedualitiesofmindandbody,theoryandaction,individualandsocial,descriptiveandnormative,thatneededtobeintegratedorovercomeforanadequatephilosophyoftechnology.Itisonlyinthelasttwo-thirdsofthetwentiethcenturythatphilosophiessuchasordinarylanguagephilosophy,hermeneuticphe-nomenology,andsocialconstructionismdeveloped.Thesephilosophiesinitiallydidnotshowmuchinterestintechnologyassuch,andittookfurtherdecadesfortheirapplicationtotechnologyassubjectmatter.140\n9781405146012_4_023.qxd2/4/0913:26Page14123SemioticsofTechnologyROBERTE.INNISThefundamentalpremiseofasemioticapproachtotechnologyisthattechnologycanbeanalyzedwiththeconceptualtoolsofsemiotics,thegeneraltheoryofsigns.Semioticshasasitsgoaltoexplorethe“logic”ofsignsandthe“factors”ofsemiosis,theproductionandinterpretationsofsigns.Signsarethecarriersorsupportsofsemiosis,whichisitselfacomplexphenomenon.Signs,inthemostgeneralsense,aremeaning-carriers,whilesemiosis,whichreliesuponsigns,ismeaning-making,onboththeproductiveandreceptiveside.Signsareproduced,intentionallyorunintention-ally,andtheyareinterpreted,bothoperativelyandthematically.Thepossibilityofasemioticsoftechnologyisdependentuponthesuccessfulapplicationofthesemiotic-allyinformedcategoryofmeaningtotechnologyassuchonboththestructuralandtheprocesssides.Aprimaryconcerniswhethersemioticsisbeingusedtomodelandhencetointerprettechnologyorwhethertechnologyisitselfanintrinsicallysemioticphenomenon.Thisisakindofambivalencethat,ratherthanbeingtheoreticallydebilitating,canbeextremelyenlighteningwhenwetrytograsptechnologyinitsrootstructures.Bothsemiosisand“technics”aredependentuponafundamentalmateriality.Theyarethroughandthroughmaterialprocesses.Whilesignsareembodimentsofmean-ing,tools,inthebroadestsenseofthatterm,areembodimentsoftechnico-practicalintentionsandgoals.Althoughtheabilitytoembodymeaningsandtheeffectiveconditionsofhumanpracticalactionsinvariousmaterialarrays–thatis,signs,toolsandmodels–suppliesessentialenablingconditionsforthecircuitofhumanactivity,widening,expandingandtransformingit,onboththelevelofsemiosisandtheleveloftechnics,materialconditionsalsoconstraintherangeandtypesofactivities.Language,thespecies-specificmarkofhumans,isnotanimmaterialphenomenon,anymorethanthederivativeactivitiessuchasartandmusicare.Whetheritispuffsofair,complexgesturalandfingermovements,ormarksonsomesortofsemi-permanentsurface,languageandotherhumansymbolsystemshavetoappearinsomematerialform.Likewise,ahammeroraknife,certainlyparadigmatictools,orthegreatauxiliaryapparatusesoftechnologysuchascontainersandmachines,cannotbeconstructedoutofpapier-mâchénorcanwecreateanoutdoorstatueoutofgelatin.Semiosisandtechnics,inalltheirforms,mustbesupportedinsomestableandsemi-permanentway,subjectclearlytotheconditionsofentropy.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks141©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_023.qxd2/4/0913:26Page142roberte.innisSemioticshasforthemostpartdevelopedalonganumberofpredominantlyparallelandonlyoccasionallyintersectingpaths,andhasusedquitedifferentconceptualframe-works.JakobvonUexkülldevelopedwithinthecontextofabiologicallybasedtheoryofmeaningaschemaofthefunctionalcircleofhumanactivity.CharlesS.Peirce,theAmericanpolymath,developedalargelyphilosophicalframeworkforsemioticswithhisdifferentiationofsignsintothethreegreatclassesoficons,indexesandsymbols,basedonjusthowoursignsarerelatedtotheobjectstheymakeknown.FerdinanddeSaussure,inhisCourseinGeneralLinguistics,developedafundamentallylinguisticmodel,withthepresuppositionthatitsanalyticalapparatus,focusedonlanguageasadynamicsystemofdifferences,wouldapplytoothersemiotic–or,inhisterms,“semiological”–phenomena.ErnstCassirer,whosePhilosophyofSymbolicFormsisoneofthecentraltextsofthetraditionofphilosophicalsemiotics,developedamodelbasedonhistriadicschematizationoftheformsofsenseintothreelevels:theexpressive,therepresentational,andthepuresignifying,allthewhile,inhislaterwork,alsoseeingtherelevanceofUexküll’swork.Thesedifferentframeworksbearupontheproblemofasemioticsoftechnologyinratherdifferentways.Theylayquitedifferentgridsovertechnologyasatotalphe-nomenonandhighlightquitedifferentfeaturesoftechnologicalstructuresandprocesses.Buteachframeworkhasitsownadvantagesforthesemioticanalysisoftechnology.Uexküll’sfunctionalcircledisplaysthe“circuitofmeaning”ofanyorganismquatale.Itisextremelyimportant,asheuristicschema,fortheproperunderstandingofthepossibilityofasemioticsoftechnology.Theorganism,onUexküll’saccount,isdefinedbyadeepreceptivitytoperceptualstimuliandbyvaryingdegreesandtypesofreac-tionsthatchangetheoriginatingstimuliinaconstantdynamicspiral.Thepathfromthemeaning-bearingobjecttotheorganismUexküllcallsthe“receptorarc.”Thepathfromtheorganismtothemeaning-bearingandmeaning-receivingobjectUexküllcallsthe“effectorarc.”Generalizingfromthisschema,wecandistinguishbetween“perceptualtechnologies”and“effectortechnologies”allthewhileacknowledgingtheintimaterela-tionsbetweenthetwo.Infact,the“perceptual”andthe“effector”arerather“dimensions”thanseparatespheres,sincetheorganismisnevermerelypassiveorpurelyactive,nevermerelyinterpretingormateriallyconstructing.Uexküll’srevolutionaryinsightisthatweshouldthinkofthesearcsinsemioticterms,thatis,intermsofmeaningandofdifferentialcue-carriers.Thereceptorarcismarkedbythegraspof“differences”intheperceptualfield.Whileotherorganismsareforthemostpartconfinedtopredeterminedfieldsofcues,humansareopentoavastarrayof“articulate”cues,havingnotanUmweltbutaWelt,thatis,notan“environment”buta“world.”Thishumanworldisan“openworld,”permeatedbyarticulate,exosomaticsystemsthatinformandembodyper-ception,inthebroadsenseofthatterm.Thisworldisconstitutedbythematerialandsemioticresultsofhumanconstructiveaction,whichintroducevastsystemsofdiffer-encesintothenaturalandthesocialworld.These“effecteddifferences”arethemselvesperceivedbytheorganisminacontinuousandever-expandingspiral.Asemioticanalysisoftechnologyishencefacedwithunderstanding,insemioticterms,whattypesofcue-carriersarecirculatingandareproducedinthissemio-technicalspiralandwhattheirrelationstooneanotherare.Peirce,SaussureandCassirerofferthreedifferentlyconfiguredsetsofanalyticaltoolsfordevelopingafine-grainedsemioticanalysisoftechnology.142\n9781405146012_4_023.qxd2/4/0913:26Page143semioticsoftechnologyPeircedistinguishedthreedifferentwaysanythingfunctioningasasigncouldmakeanobjectknowntoaninterpreterorsign-user.Thesign–objectrelationcanbebasedonresemblances,theresultingsigntypebeinganicon.Iftherelationisbasedonsomesortofphysicalorexistentialconnection,includingapart–wholerelation,theresultingsign-typeisanindex.Thesymbol,thethirdtypeofsign,exemplifiedpara-digmaticallybyhumanlanguage,isbasedonpurelyconventionalrelationbetweensignandobject.Peirce’striadicschemaallowsustodistinguishiconic,indexicalandsymbolicdimensionsoftechnology.Theparadoxicalupshotofsuchadistinctionisthat,ineffect,semiosisisassimilatedtotechnology,toproductiveactivityratherthantechnologybeingassimilated,assuch,tosemiosis.Iconictechnologies,onthePeirceaninterpretation,areallthosesystemsthatrelyuponresemblances,including,butnotrestrictedto,alltechnologiesoftheimage.Imagesarenotjustinterpreted;theyarealsoproduced.Thesemioticsoftechnologymust,therefore,concernitselfwithboththecreativetechniquesfortheproductionofimagesandthecontentsorformsofpresentationofthesesystems.Imagesconveymessagesandhaveadistinctiverhetoric.Indexicaltechnologiesrelyuponinterventions,uponsystemsofactionandreaction.Wenotonlyreadthesignsofnatureandtrytotransformthemintosystemsofeffectiveaction;thesesystemsalsomakeamaterialdifferenceintheworld.Scienceisdistinguishedfromtechnologyherebyitsessentiallyrepresentationalinterest,whichisnot,however,absolutelyseparatefromintervening.But,whilethepointofscienceiscognitive,thepointoftechnologyiseffectivecontrolandexploitation.Symbolictechnologiesareexemplifiedfirstandforemostbylanguageandmathematicalsystems,which,infact,maketheothertwosystemsdistinctivelyhumanandintentional.Languagesandallnotationalsystems,includingalgebraicandothermathematicalforms,havetobedevelopedjustliketools,machinesandotherapparatuseshavetobedeveloped.Thepivotalpoint,however,isthatonPeirce’saccounteachtypeofsigngivesriseintheinterpretertoadistincttypeof“interpretant,”whichhecallsthe“propersignificateeffectofasign.”Notechnology,initsentranceintothefunctionalcircleofhumanaction,leavestheinterpreteroragentuntouched.Theaimoficonictechnolo-giesistoestablishdeepaffectivebondsin,to“qualify”theaffectivefieldof,interpretiveagents,toestablish“sharedqualities”offeelingbyinducingandshapingdistinctformsofparticipatorypresencingandattunement.Indexicaltechnologiesaimatestab-lishingsystemsofactionandreaction,ofreciprocalrelations,betweenhumansandnature,whichPeircecalls“energeticinterpretants,”sincetheyexploithumanandnon-humanenergiesforaneffectiveactionandend.Thepropersignificateeffectofsymbolictechnologiesistheestablishingofaconcept,thoughtoridea.Furthermore,ifwefollowthesemioticlinedrawnbyPeirce,wecanclearlyseethattechnologyhasasyntacticdimension,whichinvolvestherelationsoftools,instrumentsandprocessestooneanother,asemanticdimension,whichtracestheirdifferentwaysofrelatingustotheworld,andarhetoricaldimension,whichdefinestheirrelationshiptous,thepractitionersoftechnicsasmateriallyembodiedsemiosis.Saussure’slinguisticmodelalsohasaclearandpowerfulbearingonthesemioticsoftechnology.ForSaussure,languagewasfirstandforemostasystem,astructure,definedbyinternalrelationsofitsunits.Eachunitinthesystemhada“place”definednotbyitsmaterialstructurebutbyitsrelationstoalltheotherunits.Theseunits,likepieces143\n9781405146012_4_023.qxd2/4/0913:26Page144roberte.innisonaboard,allowedonlycertain“moves”tobemade–certaintypesofgame-actions,sotospeak.This“language-game”analogyisapowerfulmodelfortheanalysisoftech-nology.Butevenmorepowerfulisthedoctrineofthetwoaxesoflanguage:theaxisofselectionandtheaxisofcombination,or,withdifferentemphases,theparadigmaticandthesyntagmatic.Technologicalsystemshaveselectedandcombinedelementsfromthenaturalandhumanlyconstructedworlds.Astoselection,ateachpointintimethereareonlyalimitedsetofpossibleunitsthatcanbechosenandusedtoplaythegameoftechnology,tomakeamoveonthegreatboardofnature.Theircombination,asastateofaffairs,givesusthetechnologicalsystem.Butthedynamicnatureoftech-nologicalinventionsconstantlygivesusnewunitstocombine,andtherulesofcom-binationareconstantlychanging,asisthesystemitself.Technologyisakindofgameweplaywithnatureinwhichnotonlythepiecesbutalsotherulesthemselvesareinperpetualtransformation.But,ontheSaussureanposition,technologicalsystemsaremeaningful.Killinginstruments,forexample,aremultiple.Abowandarrowcanbesubstitutedforbyacrossbow,whichitselfcanbesubstitutedforbyapistolorarifle,whichcanbesubstitutedforbyacannonoramachinegun,andthesebyadynamite-poweredbomb,itselfthenbeingsubstitutedforbyanuclearorbiologicaldevice.Eachadditionofaunittoselectfromchangestherelationofalltheotherpiecesinthesystem.Technologyisadynamicrelationalsystem,self-mediatinginternallyandmediatingustoandwiththeworld.Wearetoseetechnologyasasystemofpossiblesubstitutionsandcombinations–asacontinuousstreamoftechnological“utterances,”sotospeak.Thesystemmakespossiblethestreamoftechnological“events”thatmakeupthehistoryoftechnology.Saussureoffersusa“structuralist”modeloftechnology.Wecanonlyunderstandanytechnologicalphenomenonbyseeingitinthesystem(s)towhichitbelongsanditsdifferencesfromotherphenomena.However,whileSaussurethinksoflanguageasasystemwithoutpositiveterms–thatis,languageisapurelyformalsystem–itisclearthattechnologyisnotpurelyformal.Thephonetics/phonologydistinction,whichunderliesmuchofthemodernmodeloflanguage,could,however,beusedtomitigatesuchanobjectiontosomedegree.Technologyselectsfromoutofallthepossibletransformationsofmatteronlythosewhicharesignificantforaccomplishingaspecificend.Itlooksforrelevantdifferencesinthematerialworld.Moregenerally,inourattemptstounderstandtechnologyfromthepointofviewofsemiotics,weshouldasknotonlyabouttheactualnatureandtransforma-tionsofmaterials,butwhatissignificantorformallydefininginanynewtechnologicalinvention.Newtechnologicalunitsorplaceholdersinthesystemarenottobedefinedonlymateriallybutintermsofanew“logic.”Radioandtelevisionarenotjustvari-ationsofinformationtechnologiesatadistance,asMarshallMcLuhanshowed.Theyarelogicallydifferentunits.Televisionchangedthesysteminsemioticallynovelways,justasthetechnologyofwriting(andofthebook)hasbeendifferentiallychangedbytheinventionofprintingandtheinventionofthecomputer(andwithitthearrivalof“theelectronicword”).Cassirerinsightfullyappliedhissemioticschematizationofthe“formworlds”ofmeaning,whichheundertookinhisPhilosophyofSymbolicForms,tothephenomenonof“technics.”Theexpressive,mythicallevelofconsciousnessisparalleledinthedomainoftechnicsbyamimetic,participatoryphase,rootedinmythicconsciousness’ssub-jectionofitselftoafundamentalwish-worldofmagicandritualisticacts.Oneis,in144\n9781405146012_4_023.qxd2/4/0913:26Page145semioticsoftechnologythisphase,“inthrall”toone’stools.Therepresentationallevelofconsciousnessisparalleledbyananalogical,extendingphasewhereineverytoolistobeseenasanexternalizationofthehandorotherbodilyorganandprocesses.Whatisknownas“organ-projection”becomesthekeybothtothedevelopmentandtheinterpretationoftechnics.Thelogicofthebody,onthislevel,definestheconcretelogicoftechnics.ThepuresignifyinglevelofconsciousnessforCassirerinvolvesafundamental“trans-parency”ofsigns.Itisparalleledintechnicsbytheriseandfunctioningofapurelyabstractor“symbolic”phasethattranscendsorsupersedes,eitherinscale,speedorinnerform,theorganiclimitsofhumanbeing-in-the-world.Theprogressive“dematerialization”ofthesignchartedinCassirer’ssemioticphenomenology,itsabandonmentofintuitivesupports,ismatchedbyaprogressivedematerializationofthebodyanditsextensionsintechnics.ThehingeofCassirer’spositionisthethesisthattheconceptual–linguistic–semiotic“grasping”oftheworldisparalleledbyanisomorphicmaterialgraspingthroughthemediumofeffectiveaction.Form-givingrunsonthesetwoparallelandattimesintertwiningpaths,andoccursonanarcrunningfromtheutterlyconcretetotheutterlyabstract.Asemioticapproachtotechnology,consequently,suppliespowerfulanalyticaltoolsandoffersfreshinsightsintotechnologyasadistinctivelyhumanphenomenon.Itdoesnotmerelyoffersetsofformalmodels,butasksustoexplorehowourembodimentintechnologyinvolvesnotjustasemioticbiasingofperceptiononthe“modal”or“accessstructure”levelbutalsothemediationofnovelcontents,whichhavebeenmadepossiblebythenewmedia,ineverysenseofthatterm.Hence,thesemioticsoftech-nologycantakeitsplacealongsidethehistorical,theethical,thepolitical,andotherframeworksofanalysisandvaluation.ReferencesandFurtherReadingClassictextsofsemioticsandadiscussionoftheirbearingonthesemioticsoftechnologyarefoundinthefollowingtwobooks,withcopiousreferencestocollateralmaterials.Innis,R.(1985).Semiotics:AnIntroductoryAnthology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Innis,R.(2002).PragmatismandtheFormsofSense:Language,Perception,Technics(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).145\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page14624CriticalTheoryofTechnologyANDREWFEENBERGTheconceptofcriticaltheoryoftechnologywasintroducedinmybookofthesamenamein1991.Iattemptedtoachievetwosomewhatdifferentgoalswiththisconcept.Ontheonehand,itsignifiedageneraltypeofphilosophyoftechnologythathadnotyetbeenclearlydistinguishedfromthedominantviewsinthefield.Theseviewsarecommonlyunderstoodtobeinstrumentalism,thenotionthattechnologyistheneutralservantofourdesires,andsubstantivism,theopposednotionthattechnologyisautonomousandinherentlybiasedtowarddomination.Ontheotherhand,“criticaltheoryoftechnology”indicatedtheconnectionbetweenmyownversionofthistypeofphilosophyandtheheritageoftheFrankfurtSchool.PerhapsitwouldhavebeenbetterifIhaddistinguishedthesetwousagesbyemployingtheplural“criticalthe-oriesoftechnology”inthefirstcase,andreservingthesingularformyownapproach.CriticalTheoriesofTechnologyCriticaltheoriesoftechnologyarguethattechnologiesarenotseparatefromsocietybutareadaptedtospecificsocialandpoliticalsystems.Technologiesarethusnotneu-traltools,becausetheyareimplicatedinthesocio-politicalordertheyserveandcon-tributetoshaping,norcantheybecharacterizedbyasingular“essenceoftechnology”becausetheyevolvehistoricallyalongwithotheraspectsofsociety.Justasinstitutions,lawsandcustomscanbechangedbyhumanaction,socantechnologicalsystems.Thesubstantivistideaofthe“autonomy”oftechnologydescribesatmostcertainlarge-scaletechnicalsystems.ThesesystemspossesswhatThomasHughescalls“momentum.”However,autonomyinthissenseisacontingentfeatureoftechnology,nottheessen-tialpropertyitappearstobeinthetheoriesofJacquesEllulandMartinHeidegger.Criticaltheoriesoftechnologyarenotnew.MarxandDeweyeachofferrepresent-ativeversions.Nevertheless,someformofinstrumentalismcontinuestoprevailincom-monsense.Hencethescandalprovokedin1964byMarcuse’sclaimthat“Technologicalrationalityhasbecomepoliticalrationality.”By1980,whenLangdonWinnerpublishedhisclassicarticleassertingthat“artifactshavepolitics,”thecriticalviewwasstillcon-troversialbutithadgainedwidercurrency.Todayitseemsself-evidenttomoststudentsoftechnologyinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Thereasontoformulateageneral146ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page147criticaltheoryoftechnologyTable24.1TechnologyisAutonomousHumanlycontrolledNeutralDeterminismInstrumentalism(completeseparation(e.g.modernization(liberalfaithinofmeansandends)theory)progress)Value-ladenSubstantivismCriticalTheory(meansformawayof(meansandends(choiceofalternativelifethatincludesends)linkedinsystems)means-endssystems)conceptofcriticaltheoryoftechnologyisthusprimarilytoenablestudentsoftech-nologytoidentifytheircommonalitiesinoppositiontotheprevailingpopularviewand,hopefully,tocontributetoalteringthatview.Makingtheunityofapproachofthesevarioustheoriesexplicithasapoliticalcontextandimplication.Fromthelate1960son,controversyandreformprojectsgraduallyunderminedthetechnocraticfaithinexpertisethatcharacterizedattitudesinthepostwarperiod.Withtheriseoftheenvironmentalmovement,thestruggleofAIDSpatientsforaccesstoexperimentaldrugs,andthere-inventionoftheInternetbyitsusersasacommunicationmedium,thepoliticaldimensionsoftechnologybecameclear.Inthiscontextthenotionofacriticalapproachtotechnologybegantomakeheadway.InTable24.1,Ihaverepresentedtherelationbetweencriticaltheoriesoftech-nologyandthealternativesinachartwithtwoaxes–averticalaxiscorrespondingtotherelationoftechnologytovalues,andahorizontalaxiscorrespondingtotherelationoftechnologytohumanaction.Myowncriticaltheoryoftechnologyisaparticularapplicationofthisgeneralperspective.ItderivesfromMarcuse’sversionofFrankfurtSchoolCriticalTheory.Marcusearguedthattheexistingmoderntechnologyformsaquasi-dystopiansystemthatmightbechangedthroughpoliticalaction.Marcuse’swritingsareveryabstract,butIhaveconcretizedhispositionthroughaconstructivistapproachtotheanalysisofspecifictechnologies,suchascomputer-mediatedcommunicationandexperi-mentationonhumansubjects.CriticaltheoryoftechnologythusrepresentsauniquesynthesisofideasdrawnfromtheFrankfurtSchoolandcontemporaryscienceandtechnologystudies.TechnologyandDemocracyCriticaltheoryoftechnologyisapoliticaltheoryofmodernitywithanormativedimension.ItbelongstoatraditionextendingfromMarxtoFoucaultandHabermasaccordingtowhichadvancesintheformalclaimsofhumanrightstakecenterstagewhileinthebackgroundcentralizationofevermorepowerfulpublicinstitutionsandprivateorganizationsimposesanauthoritariansocialorder.147\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page148andrewfeenbergMarxattributedthistrajectorytothecapitalistrationalizationofproduction.Todayitmarksmanyinstitutionsbesidesthefactoryandeverymodernpoliticalsystem,includingso-calledsocialistsystems.Thistrajectoryarosefromtheproblemsofcom-mandoveradisempoweredanddeskilledlaborforce;buteverywheremassesareorganized–whetheritbeFoucault’sprisonsorHabermas’spublicsphere–thesamepatternprevails.Technologicaldesignanddevelopmentisshapedbythispatternasthematerialbaseofadistinctivesocialorder.Marcusewouldlaterpointtoa“project”asthebasisofwhathecalledratherconfusingly“technologicalrationality.”Releasingtechnologyfromthisprojectisademocraticpoliticaltask.Inaccordancewiththisgenerallineofthought,criticaltheoryoftechnologyregardstechnologiesasanenvironmentratherthanasacollectionoftools.Welivetodaywithandevenwithintechnologiesthatdetermineourwayoflife.Alongwiththeconstantpressurestobuildcentersofpower,manyothersocialvaluesandmean-ingsareinscribedintechnologicaldesign.Ahermeneuticsoftechnologymustmakeexplicitthemeaningsimplicitinthedevicesweuseandtheritualstheyscript.Socialhistoriesoftechnologiessuchasthebicycle,artificiallightingorfirearmshavemadeimportantcontributionstothistypeofanalysis.Criticaltheoryoftechnologyattemptstobuildamethodologicalapproachonthelessonsofthesehistories.Asanenvironment,technologiesshapetheirinhabitants.Inthisrespect,theyarecomparabletolawsandcustoms.Eachoftheseinstitutionscanbesaidtorepres-entthosewholiveundertheirswaythroughprivilegingcertaindimensionsoftheirhumannature.Lawsofpropertyrepresenttheinterestinownershipandcontrol.Customssuchasparentalauthorityrepresenttheinterestofchildhoodinsafetyandgrowth.Similarly,theautomobilerepresentsitsusersinsofarastheyareinterestedinmobility.Interestssuchastheseconstitutetheversionofhumannaturesanctionedbysociety.Thisnotionofrepresentationdoesnotimplyaneternalhumannature.Theconceptofnatureasnon-identityintheFrankfurtSchoolsuggestsanalternative.Ontheseterms,natureiswhatliesatthelimitofhistory,atthepointatwhichsocietylosesthecapacitytoimprintitsmeaningsonthingsandcontrolthemeffectively.Thereferencehereis,ofcourse,nottothenatureofnaturalscience,buttothelivednatureinwhichwefindourselvesandwhichweare.Thisnaturerevealsitselfasthatwhichcannotbetotallyencompassedbythemachineryofsociety.FortheFrankfurtSchool,humannature,inallitstranscendingforce,emergesoutofahistoricalcontextasthatcontextislimnedinillicitjoys,strugglesandpathologies.WecanperhapsadmitalessromanticandmoreHegelianconceptioninwhichthosedimensionsofhumannaturerecognizedbysoci-etyarealsograntedtheoreticallegitimacy.ThisviewconvergeswiththeemphasisonthedevelopmentofhumancapacitiesintheworkofAmartyaSen.Technologicalrepresentationbecomessalientwhenindividualsfindthatimport-antaspectsoftheirhumanityarenotwellservedbythetechnologicalenvironment.Thencontroversiesandprotestsarise,asinthecaseoflawsorcustomsconsideredunjustoroutmodedbythosetheygovern.Controversiesaimtoaltertechnicaldesignstoensurebetterrepresentationofmoreaspectsofthehumanityofusersandinsomecasesvictimsoftechnology.Strugglesovertechnologythusresemblepoliticalstrugglesinimportantrespects.Andinfact,inthecontemporaryworld,strugglesovertechnologyareoftenthemostimportantpoliticalstruggles.148\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page149criticaltheoryoftechnologyYet,becausethefoundationsofourpoliticalphilosophiesandarrangementswereelaboratedintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,thereisstillatendencytodis-tinguishsharplybetweenpoliticsandtechnology,theonesupposedlybasedonrightsandvalues,theotheronscientificknowledge.Inreality,thepoliticalconsensusislargelyshapedbytheavailabletechnologicalformofliferatherthanrationalargumentation,andallthescientificknowledgeintheworldwillnotgetanengineerfromthegeneralideaofafunctiontoaconcretedevice.Themanytechnicallyunderdeterminedaspectsofdesignmustbedecidedbyreferencetosocialprinciplesanddemands.Thissituationmustbemorewidelyunderstoodtobringtechnologyintothepublicspherewhereitincreasinglybelongs.Theblindnessofpoliticaltheorytotechnologybluntsitscriticalforce.Modernsocietiesofferevermoretechnicalpowerstothosewithmoneyandgovernmentalauthority.Asaconsequence,democracyisreducedtoareflectionofthemediaandpoliticalmanipula-tion.Alltoooftenthissituationisregardedasaninevitableconsequenceofmodernity.But,forCriticalTheory,thetruthofthepresentcanonlybeunderstoodfromthestand-pointofitspotentialities,thealternativeitbothmakespossibleandsuppresses.Fromthatstandpoint,itisclearthatmodernsocietieswillonlybeabletorealizetheirdemo-craticvalueswhenpubliccontroloftechnologybecomesroutine.Aswithallearlierdemocraticmovements,democracyengendersdemocracy:technicalpublics,likeeveryearlierdisempoweredgroup,canlearnfromtheexerciseofpowerhowtounderstandtheirinterestsandconstrainpublicinstitutionstoservethem.Thisrequiresadaptingthetechnologicalenvironmentitselftotherequirementsoffreedom.Criticaltheoryoftechnologythusprojectsafutureinwhichthepoliticsoftechno-logyisrecognizedasanormalaspectofpubliclife.Themeansthepubliccanemploytoexpressitswillarealreadyforeshadowedinmanycurrentpracticessuchascitizenjuries,technicalcontroversies,protests,boycottsandlegalchallenges,hackingandothercreativeappropriationsoftechnologies,andofcoursesuchfamiliarmethodsaselectionsandgovernmentregulation.Insuchatechnicaldemocracy,technicalworkwouldtakeonadifferentcharacter.Designwouldbeconsciouslyorientedtowardpoliticallylegitimatedhumanvaluesratherthansubjecttothewhimsofprofit-makingorganizationsandmilitarybureau-cracies.Thesevalueswouldbeinstalledinthetechnicaldisciplinesthemselves,muchasthevalueofhealingpresidesoverthemedicalsynthesisofbiologicalknowledgeofthehumanbody.Technologicalrationalitywouldnolongerbedefinedaspurelyinstrumentalbutwouldbecomeconsciousofitsvalue-ladencharacterandassuchopenaspacewithinitscompassformoralandpoliticalrationality.ThiswouldbetherecoveryofwhatMaxHorkheimercalled“objectivereason,”areasonthatcombinesmeansandends,incontrastwiththe“subjectivereason”ofmoderntimesthathasnointrinsicgoals.InstrumentalizationtheoryThisperspectiveonapossiblefuturedistinguishescriticaltheoryoftechnologyfrommuchcontemporaryphilosophyandsociologyoftechnology.WhilemanyphilosopherscontinuetomakegrandnormativeclaimsbasedonclassictextssuchasHeidegger’sfamous“QuestionConcerningTechnology,”sociologistshavetheoppositeviceandcan149\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page150andrewfeenbergfrequentlybefoundstirringtheempiricalfragmentswithnooverallconceptionofmodernityanditsproblems.CriticaltheoryoftechnologyhasattemptedtobridgethisgapbyintegratinginsightsandmethodsfrombothtraditionsinwhatIcall“instru-mentalizationtheory.”Theanti-essentialistassumptionsofcontemporaryempiricaltechnologystudiescon-trastwiththeabstractessentialismoftraditionalphilosophyoftechnology.However,technologyisobviouslydistinguishablefromothertypesofobjects,andtechnicalactionhasanundeniablespecificitythatdeterminesitsappropriaterangeofapplica-tion.Thisdilemmaisresolvedbyasocio-historicnotionoftheessenceoftechnology,enablingtheresearchertodoempiricalworkinthelightoflargernormativeissuesandviceversa.Theinstrumentalizationtheoryaccordinglydistinguishesthecognitiveandimaginativeconditionsoftechnicalactivity,ononeside,andthesocialmediationsthatinterveneinthedesignofdevicesandsystems,ontheother.Everyconcretetechnicalachievementpresupposestheabilitytoperceivetheworldintermsoffunctionsandaffordances.ThatperceptionconstituteswhatIrefertoasa“primaryinstrumentalization.”Objectsoftechnicalactivityaredefinedandisolatedfromtheirnaturalcontextthroughtheprimaryinstrumentalizationwhichdecontextualizesthemandreducesthemtotheirusableaspects.Wedescribethisasthefacultyof“clever-ness,”whichhumanssharewithafewotheranimalspecies.Whenachildpilesboxesontopofeachothertocreateatower,sheisalreadylearningtoengagewiththeworldtechnically,isolatingtheboxesfromtheirnormalplaceforausagewhichignorestheirmanyaspectsforasingleone,theircapacitytostack.Thisrelationtoreality,whichHeideggercalled“readiness-to-hand,”isagenericfeatureofhumanbeing,corporeallypresentintheopposablethumb.Objectsintroducedintotechnicalnetworksaremoreorlesstransformed.Theygen-erallybearthemarkoftheprimaryinstrumentalizationtowhichtheyhavebeensub-mitted.Itisthiswhichconstitutestheintrinsiclimitofthetechnicalasaformofthoughtandaction.Hencewerejecttheideathatthereareappropriatetechniquesforeverything,fromformingfriendshipstoenjoyingThanksgivingdinner.Clearly,thedecontextual-izationsandreductionscharacteristicoftheprimaryinstrumentalizationhaveatmostasubordinateplaceinthebackgroundofclosehumanrelationsandfestiveoccasions.Technicalobjectscanonlyachieverealizationinadeviceorsystembytakingonmoreandmoresocialdeterminantsateachstageintheproductionprocess,fromtheworkingupofrawmaterialstothefinaloutputoffinishedproducts.Thetechnicallyunderdeterminedaspectsoftheobjectsaredecidedalongthewaysoastoadaptthemtoagivensocialworld.Thisprocessofsocialdeterminationiscalledthe“secondaryinstrumentalization.”ThesocialappearsinthetechnicaldomainintwoprincipalformsIcall“systematiza-tions”and“mediations.”Systematizationsarethecausalinterconnectionsbetweenthevariouspartsofadeviceandbetweenthedeviceanditstechnical,humanandnaturalenvironments.Sincethereisnouniquecausallogicdeterminingtheoptimumfunctioningandrelationshipsoftechnologies,empiricalstudyfindssocietyeveninthisapparentlypuretechnicalaspect.Mediationsoperateatthelevelofmeaningandgovernaspectsoftechnologiesthatfallunderethicalandaestheticcriteria.Theseaspectsarenotlimitedtoprohibitionsandexternalappearancesbutpenetratetothetechnicalheartoftheobject.150\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page151criticaltheoryoftechnologyAutomobilesexemplifybothaspects;theyaredesignedsystematicallytoworkwithspecifictypesofroadsandfuels,andstylisticallytoappealtovariousaesthetictastes,theselatterinfluencinginturntechnicalfeaturessuchasdimensionsandengineposition.Theinteractionofthesetwodimensionsisaniterativeprocessinwhichthemeaningtechnologiestakeoninthelifeworldfeedsbackintotheirdesignfromonestageintheirdevelopmenttothenext.Theprimaryinstrumentalizationhasbeenstudiedprimarilybyphilosophersintheexistentialisttradition.TheirreflectionsonwhatPeter-PaulVerbeekhascalledthe“transcendental”preconditionsoftechnologyformthebasisofacritiqueofmodernity.Thisexcessivelynegativeapproachoverlooksthewayinwhichthesecondaryinstru-mentalizationadaptsandcomplementstheinitialdecontextualizationandreductiontowhichobjectsaresubmittedastheyenterthetechnicalfield.Thesecondaryinstru-mentalizationisstudiedbysocialscientistsandhistorians,whofocuspreciselyonwhatphilosophersoverlook:theconcretesocialforcesandmeaningsatworkinthedesignprocess.But,withoutatheoryoftheintrinsicstructureofthetechnical,theylackanormativeperspectiveontheconsequencesandlimitsoftechnology.Criticaltheoryoftechnologyattemptstocombineinsightsfrombothsidesofthisdeadlockedargument.CodeandBiasEachtypeoftechnologyischaracterizedbyaparticularconfigurationofprimaryandsecondaryinstrumentalizations.Theseconfigurationsoftenprevailforaverylongtime.Icallsocialprinciplesthataresuccessfullyanddurablyinscribedintechnolo-gicaldesigns“technicalcodes.”Thisterminologydoesnotsuggest,asmightMarcuse’snotionof“technologicalrationality,”thatreasoninitselfistheobjectofcritique.Technicalcodesoperateatseverallevelsofgenerality.Themostgeneralcodeslaydownsuchprinciplesastheseculartendencytodeskilllaborthroughtechnicaladvance.Specificcodesdeterminethemeaningofparticulardevices.Ineverycase,atechnicalcodedescribesthecongruenceofasocialdemandandatechnicalspecification.Aprocessoftranslationlinksthetwointhecourseoftheevolutionoftechnicalobjects.Tocontinuewiththeautomotiveexample,ademandforgreaterattentiontosafetyistranslatedintoseatbeltsandairbags;operationallyspeak-ing,thisiswhatsafetymeans.Thustechnologyandvaluesarenotalienrealms,asarefactstovaluesinthetreatisesofphilosophers.Rather,theycommunicateconstantlythroughtherealizationofvaluesindesignandtheimpactofdesignonvalues.Thisfluidityofthetechnical,highlightedinBrunoLatour’sconceptofdelegation,explainswhythevauntedtrade-offofefficiencyandideology,deartoconservativeeconomists,islargelymythical.Thetwoinstrumentalizationscharacterizetechnicalproductioninallsocietiesbutareonlyclearlydistinguishableinmoderntimes.Thishasledtotheillusionthattheyareentirelyseparateentitiesenjoyingexternalrelations.Infactthedistinctionisprim-arilyanalyticeventoday,althoughlargeorganizationsoftenseparatecertainprimarilysocialfunctions,suchaspackaging,fromengineeringoperations.Theexistenceoftechnicaldisciplinesappearstoconfirmthecommon-sensenotionthattechnologyandsocietyareseparateentities,butthesedisciplinesareactuallyfulloftracesofsocialchoices151\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page152andrewfeenbergthathavebeencrystallizedinstandardsandmaterialsimposedoriginallybysocialactorsinthepast.Atechnologicalunconsciousmasksthishistory.Nevertheless,radicalversionsofconstructivismarewrongtoinsistthatthereislit-erallynodistinctionbetweenthesocialandthetechnical.Ifthatweretrue,technicaldisciplineswouldnotexist,andthemakersandusersofproductswouldnothavetocommunicatethroughtranslations.Itwouldbemoreaccuratetosaythatmoderntech-nologyisaparticularexpressionofthesocialinartifactsandsystems,functionalizedbyrigorousdecontextualization,reductionandsystematization.Ordinarysocialbeliefandbehaviorisquitedifferent,mixingthetechnicalandnon-technicalpromiscuously.Meaningsguideimprovisationalactionineverydaylife,formingpatternsthatintersectwithdifficultywithengineeredproducts,asLucySuchmanarguespersuasively.Technicalcodesarealwaysbiasedtosomeextentbythevaluesimposedbythedomin-antactors.Thecriticaltheoryoftechnologyaimstouncoverthesebiases.Technicalbiasis,however,difficulttoidentifysincetheunjustsocialconsequencesoftechnicaldecisionsappeartobemereside-effectsof“progress.”Criticaltheoryoftechnologyrejectsthealternative–technicalrationalityorsocialbias–andarguesthatthelattershowsupintheformerthroughthesocialcontentoftechnicalchoices.Thispointturnsouttobecentraltotheabilityoftechnologystudiestocontributetopublicdebateovertechnicalissues.Thefocusontechnologymakesitpossibletocon-testthehegemonyofneo-liberaleconomicsinthepublicsphere.Thenotionthatpoliticalandpropertyrightscreateaneutralsysteminwhicheveryonecanpursuetheirprivateconceptionofthegoodisdifficulttocriticizeeffectively.Toshowthatsuchasystemisinherentlybiasedrequiresanunfamiliartypeofargumentthathasbeenmostoftendeployedbytechnologycritics.ExamplesofsuchargumentsareMarcuse’snotionthattheneutralityoftechnologyplacesitintheserviceofthedominantpowers,andAlbertBorgmann’scritiqueofthemutualimplicationofliberalismandthe“deviceparadigm”inabiastowardprivateconsumptionasawayoflife.Criticaltheoryoftechnologygen-eralizessuchargumentsthroughadistinctionbetween“substantive”and“formal”bias.Theusualcommon-sensenotionofbiasattributesunjustdiscriminationtoprejudiceandemotion.This“substantivebias”isbasedonfactuallyquestionablebeliefswhichhavenoplaceinthetechnologicalrealm.Theintrusionofprejudiceandemotionwherecoolrationalityoughttoprevailleadstoavoidableinefficienciesandbreakdowns.But,evenwherebiasinthisordinarysenseisavoided,efficientoperationsareoftenunfair.Thuscriticaltheoryoftechnologyintroducestheconceptof“formalbias”tounderstandhowarationallycoherentandwell-designedand-operatedtechnicaldeviceorsystemcanneverthelessdiscriminateinagivensocialcontext.Thisconceptofformalbiaspar-allelsnotionssuchasinstitutionalracismandservesmuchthesamepurpose,namelytoenableacritiqueofrationalizedactivitiesthatappearfairwhenabstractedfromtheircontextbuthaveunjustconsequencesinthatcontext.Identifyingandchangingformallybiasedtechnicalcodesisessentialtodemocraticadvanceinmodernsocieties.Modernity,Premodernity,AlternativeModernityAccordingtoprestigiousacademics,wearesupposedtobepostmodernoramodern.Criticaltheoryoftechnologyarguesinsteadthatwemustchoosebetweenalternative152\n9781405146012_4_024.qxd2/4/0913:26Page153criticaltheoryoftechnologyformsofmodernity.Theconceptofmodernityretainsitsvalidityinthiscontextandcannotbereducedtothevariousstrawmensoenergeticallyrefutedbythecritics.Thereisagoodreasonnottodismissthisconcept.Itenablesustodistinguishbetweensocietiesbasedonmoderntechnologyandallothers.Ofcourse,wherethatdistinctionisoverdrawninself-congratulatorytermsitdeservescritique.Butthedistinctionisinevitableinsomeformnevertheless.Premodernandmodernsocietiesattachdifferentrelativeweightstosystematiza-tionandmediation.Inpremodernsocieties,technicalnetworksarerelativelyshortandtheirnodeslooselycoupled.However,veryelaboratemediationscontroleveryaspectoftechnicallife;heretechniquemergeswithwhatwemodernsidentifyasartandreligion.Thustribalweaponsandhutsmayshareacommonsymbolism,buttheyarenotsystematicallyrelatedbytechnicalspecificationsofgreatprecisionasaremoderntechnologies.Asaresult,premodernsocietieshavealimitedspatialreachbuttheyconquertimeinthesensethattheycanbereproducedsuccessfullyoverthousandsofyears.Modernsocieties,onthecontrary,emphasizesystematizationandbuildlongnetworksthroughtightlycouplinglinksbetweenverydifferenttypesofthingsandpeopleoverhugedistances.Thiscanonlybeaccomplishedbystrippingtechnicalobjectsasmuchaspossibleofethicalandaestheticmediations.Theresultingoveremphasisonthepri-maryinstrumentalizationandsystematizationmakespossiblebothlarge-scalehierar-chicalorganizationandtechnicaldisciplines.But,despitethepoweroverhumanbeingsandnaturetheyachieve,modernsocietieshavesolittlecontroloftimeitisuncertainiftheformoflifetheyhaveinventedwillevensurvivethroughthenewcentury.Analternativemodernityworthyofthenamewouldrecoverthemediatingpowerofethicsandaestheticsattheleveloftechnicaldisciplinesanddesign.Itwoulddevolvepowertothemembersoftechnicalnetworksratherthanconcentratingitatthetopofadministrativehierarchies.Theseformalchangeswouldresultinnewtechnicaldesignsandnewwaysofachievingtheefficienciesthatcharacterizemoderntechnologicalactivitygenerally.Whethersuchasocietywouldbecompetitiveonneo-liberaltermsisnottheissue.Itsmemberswillvalueitforofferingabetterqualityoflife,amoredemocraticpoliticalorderandasustainablecivilization.ReferencesandFurtherReadingFeenberg,A.(1991).CriticalTheoryofTechnology(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Feenberg,A.(1995).AlternativeModernity:TheTechnicalTurninPhilosophyandSocialTheory(LosAngeles,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Feenberg,A.(1999).QuestioningTechnology(NewYork:Routledge).Feenberg,A.(2002).TransformingTechnology:ACriticalTheoryRevisited(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Feenberg,A.(2005).HeideggerandMarcuse:TheCatastropheandRedemptionofHistory(NewYork:Routledge).153\n9781405146012_4_025.qxd2/4/0913:56Page15425CyborgsEVANSELINGERCyborgdiscourseisinter-disciplinary.AstheopeningtoTheCyborgHandbookquiteappropriatelynotes:Cyborgologyhasbecomeacentralconceptforacademics,notonlypeopleinscienceandtechnologystudies,butalsopoliticaltheorists,militaryhistorians,literarycritics,humanfactorsengineers,computerscientists,medicalsociologists,psychologists,andculturalobserversofalltypes.Tothislistwecanaddliteratureandfilm;inthesecontextscyborgimagerycutsacross“high”and“low”culturalpresentations.Manyofthecurrentdiscussionstouchuponthemesthatcanbetracedbacktoideasthatweregerminatingoverhalfacenturyago.Inparticular,conversationsattribut-abletoNorbertWiener,ManfredClynesandNathanKlinefeatureprominently.Duringthe1940sand1950s,Wienerfoundedthedisciplineofcybernetics–atermwhichcanbetracedbacktotheGreekkybernetes(Κυβερνητης´),whichmeanssteersman.Thecentralcyberneticthemeisthathuman,animalandmachinebehaviorcanbeexplainedbythesameprinciplesofcommunication,control,learningandfeedback.AsPeterGalisonnotes,Wiener’sSecondWorldWarworkontheAAPredictor–anairplanedesignedaccordingtocyberneticprinciplesthatwassupposedtoanticipateanenemypilot’smovementinordertoshoothimdown–proveddecisiveforWiener’sattempttocreatea“newsymbolforman”thatwouldreplacetheoutdatedmechanicalfiguresmadebyeighteenth-centuryclockmakers,andthereverediconofnineteenth-centuryengineers,thesteamengine.Inthe1960s,ClynesandKlineusedtheterm“cyborg”todiscussthepossibilityofastronautsenduringlongperiodsofspacetravel.Inlightofthespecialphysicalconditionsthatwouldprevail,theyconsideredwhatkindofenhancedhuman–machinehybridwouldbeappropriateforthetask.Contemporarycyborgdiscussionstendtobepolarizedbetweenadvocatesandcritics.Inordertobeeffective,bothpositionshavehadtotakeintoaccount–evenifonlyimplicitly–DonnaHaraway’spioneeringworkthatbeganinSocialistReviewwith“ManifestoforCyborgs:Science,Technology,andSocialistFeminisminthe1980s.”Althoughsituatedasanironicpoliticalinterventionthathadsignificantimplicationsforfeminismandmilitaryhistory,Harawaymakesthreestartlingobservationsabout154ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_025.qxd2/4/0913:56Page155cyborgs“transgressedboundaries”and“potentfusions”thattheoristsofallstripesarestillreck-oningwith.First,theboundarybetweenhumanityandanimalityhasbeen“breached.”Countlessexamplesfromevolutionarybiologyanditsrelatedfieldsrevealthatcreative,intelligent,tool-usingandsocialbehaviorsthatwereoncethoughttobefoundonlyinhumanpracticescanbefoundthroughtheanimalkingdom.Second,theboundarybetweenhumansandmachineshasbecome“leaky.”Countlessexamplesrangingfromtheuseofprostheticstoadvancesinartificialintelligenceandartificiallifeattestthatitisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttodemarcatehumanpossibilities,desiresandidentitiesfromtechnologicaldependenciesandmachine-generatedoutputs.Third,theboundarybetweenthephysicalandthenon-physicalhasbeenrendered“imprecise.”Manyoftheveryimagesoftraditionaldivinity,suchasomnipresenceandlight,havebecomeaptdescriptionsofportableandminiaturizedmicroelectronicdevices.Ontheadvocacyside,somescientistsandengineershaveemergedasspokespeopleforaposthumanfutureinwhichtheboundary-transgressionsassociatedwithcyborgsbecomethenorm.Theyinsistthat,whileromanticandnostalgicsentimentmightdeifyourcurrentformofhumanity,suchafuture–onemadepossiblelargelybyadvancesinbiotechnologyandnanotechnology–willfreeusfromthecurrentlimitationsofembodimentandlabor,thereinopeningupnewhorizonsofscarcelyimaginablecreativity,collaborationandinvigoratingchallenge.AccordingtoIanPearson,futur-ologistatBritishTelecom,thefollowingscenarioisnotsciencefictionbut,rather,aplausiblehistoricaloutcome:“HomoCyberneticus”willemergewitha“fullduplexlinkbetweenmanandmachine.”Thiscreaturewillinturnmergewith“HomoOptimus,”thegeneticallyengineered“eliteraceofpeoplewhoaresmart,agile,anddiseaseresistant.”Togethertheywillform“HomoHybridus,”whichwillhavenotroubledisplacing“HomoLudditus.”Formanyadvocates,thedisplacementof“HomoLudditus”shouldbeviewedasapositiveevolutionarymoment–acauseforcelebrationinwhichdisgust,notlonging,istheappropriatesentimenttohavewhenconsideringpreviousincarnationsofhumanity.Withinthediverseconstituencyofadvocates,thephilosopherAndyClarkhasemergedasaratheruniquevoice.HisNaturalBornCyborgsisa“naturalist”accountofhumansas“cognitiveopportunists”whose“cognitivefossiltrail”demonstratesthattheydeservetobeunderstoodascyborgspreciselybecausetheirspecialneuralplasticityhas,atleastsincetheinventionofwriting,allowedthemtofacilitateexploitative“symbioticmergers”thattraverseorganicandnon-organicdomainsandallowagencytobedistributedamongsta“shiftingcoalitionoftools.”Fromthisperspective,mostcon-cernsaboutaposthumanfuturearemisguided.Whereasthetypicalworriescenteronupcomingtechnologicallyinducedthreatstoastablehumanidentity,itismorescientific,Clarkcontends,torecognizethataproperunderstandingofourevolution-arypastdemonstratesthatsuchaconceptionofidentitywastheresultofmisguidedtheorizing.ThusClarkinsiststhat,inordertobringaboutthebestofallpossiblefutures,itisincumbentuponpeopleinthepresenttounderstandbetterwhatitmeanstobehumansothatafuturecanbecreatedthatbestcapitalizesuponthedriveof“humannature”to“annex,exploit,andincorporatenonbiologicalstuffdeepintoourmentalprofiles.”155\n9781405146012_4_025.qxd2/4/0913:56Page156evanselingerOnthecriticalside,theoristssuchasFrancisFukuyama,LeonKassandBillMcKibbenhavefeaturedprominently.OneofMcKibben’smostinterestingargumentsagainstaposthumanfuturestemsfromhissenseofhowhumanidentityandself-understandingrelatetocertainformsofembodiedaction.Incontrasttotheintellectualisttraditionofassociatingtheacquisitionofself-understandingwithconversationandtextualengagement,McKibbennotesthatbasicbodilypractices,suchasAlbertBorgmann’sparadigmcaseofrunningasa“focalpractice,”provideuniqueexperientialwindowsintoourfinitude.Forexample,running:(1)canbringaboutastateofutterpresence;(2)caninduceaGestaltswitchbymagnifyingthefeltqualitiesofexperience;(3)canbringonetowardsa“core”thatpsychologicaldefensestypicallyprotectusfrom;(4)cancreateasenseofmeaningthatisinseparablefromcontext;(5)canfacilitateasenseofpersonalmeaningthatmaynotbeaccessiblefromathird-personperspective;(6)canfacilitateunitedformsofcommunalparticipationinwhichsharedembodiedexperiencedoesnotcompromisetheindividual’ssingularity;(7)cancreatealinkwithevolutionarypastandcross-culturalpresent;and(8)cancreateasenseofmeaningthatisirreducibletomeresensoryexperience.Whilesomeofthesefeaturesmayremaininaposthumanfuture,McKibbencontendsthatitishardtoenvisionothersaspersisting.Afterall,muchofthemeaninginvolvedfrompracticessuchasrunningstemfromthenotionof“authenticchoice”–fromthefactthatanindividualfreelydesignatedaparticularpracticetohavepersonalsignificanceandtobeworthyofcom-mittedeffort,whenotherscouldhavebeenselectedjustaseasily.Theprospectofdesignerbabiesandtheuseofpharmacologyforthepurposeofperformance“enhancement,”however,issaidtoposeaseriouschallengetothissenseofauthenticengagement.Similarly,thecommunalconnectionsthatpracticeslikerunningcanengenderarealsosaidtobethreatened.Posthumanrunnerswouldlosetheprimalbondwithpastgenerationsofhumanrunners.Theywouldalsolosethatconnectionwithallthepresentandfuturebeingswho,formoralorfinancialreasons,didnot“upgrade”themselvesaccordingly.156\n9781405146012_4_026.qxd2/4/0913:27Page15726SimulationEVANSELINGERAccordingtoSherryTurkle,“InthecultureofsimulationthenotionofauthenticityisforuswhatsexwastotheVictorians–‘threatandobsession,tabooandfascination’.”Thisobservationinvitesanexplanationthatcanclarifywhysuchstrongandmixedsentimentsconcerningsimulationabound.Tothedelightofsomeandthechagrinofothers,manyofthecurrentdebatesaboutsimulationcanbetracedbacktoJeanBaudrillard’sœuvre.AccordingtoBaudrillard,thehistoryofimagingcontainsfourdistinctinterpretationsofwhat“images”areandsymbolize.Initially,Baudrillardcontends,imageswereunderstoodasrepresentations.Aproperimage,therefore,reflected“basicreality.”Inthiscontext,thesimplepropertiesofbasicimagesweresaidtocorresponddirectlytorealphenomena:primitivecavepaintingsreferredtorealevents,likehuntinganimals,andreligiousartifactsreflectedthebasicrealityofGod’sexistence.But,astimeprogressed,visualculturechanged.Baudrillardcontendsthatthemimeticsensibilitybecameeclipsedbythreetransform-ativestagesthatculminatedinthepresent,inanageofsimulation.Today,imagesproliferatethatdonotcontainindexicaltracesofanoriginalreferent.Today,ubiquitousimagesexistthatfailtosymbolizethemelancholicmementomori.Toclarifythesepoints,theremainingthreestagesrequireelaboration.Inthesecondstage,theimagebecomessynonymouswiththeprocessofconcealingand“perverting”abasicreality.PerhapswhatBaudrillardhasinmindinthiscontextislandscapepaintingfromtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.Thisartformrestoredabeatificsignificancetonature,eventhoughthatsignificancehadalreadybeenlostasaresultoftheemergenceofearlyindustrialculture.Whilenaturehadcometobeviewedasaninstrumentalresourcetobeappropriatedforcommodityandcapital,landscapepaintingsrepresentednatureinacompletelydifferentlight.There,naturewasportrayedasadivinegifttobecherishedforitsownintrinsicvalue.Indeed,duringthistimeperiod,theinstitutionsofthegalleryandthemuseumwereinventedasculturalforms.Painterlyimagesofanextinctnaturethusbecameabsorbedbytheinsufficientlycriticalgazeofmiddle-classculture.Inthesubsequentstage,theimagecametobedefinedasthatwhichmasksthe“absence”ofabasicreality.ThecontextthatBaudrillardisreferringtoislikelytheperiodofmassproductioninwhichmachinesdominate.Duringthisperiod,essentiallyindistinguishablecopiesofasingleprototypebecomeprevalent(e.g.mass-producedbooks,ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks157©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_026.qxd2/4/0913:27Page158evanselingerautomobiles,clothes,photographs,etc.).Thesecopieswerenotcounterfeits.Instead,theywereviewedasitemstobejudgedashavingjustasmuchrealityandsignificanceastheirguidingmodel.Asaconsequenceofthisshiftinsensibility,theconceptofthe“original”begantolosewhatWalterBenjamincalls“aura.”(Note:Sinceitisstillpos-sibletodistinguishbetweentheprototypeanditscopiesduringthisphase,Baudrillardmighthavebeenclearerhadhecharacterizedtheperiodasoneinwhichthevalueofabasicrealityisnolongerprivileged.)Inthefourthandmostcontemporarystage,Baudrillardinsiststhattheimage“bearsnorelationtoanyrealitywhatever:itisitsownpuresimulacrum.”Thebasicmodeofproductioninthiscontextisnotthemachinebut,rather,informationtechnology.Inthepresent“informationage,”wearesurroundedbysimulationsthatarenotdesignedascopiesoforiginalprototypes.Virtualreality,computermodels,geneticengineering,status-symbolcommoditiesandmediafabricationsareparadigmcasesofthispheno-menon.SinceBaudrillardhaswrittenextensivelyonthelatter,afewremarksonthetopicareinorder.TheshiftinAmericanopinionabouttheVietnamWarinthe1960swaslargelyduetothetelevisedcoverageof“real”battlefieldandciviliancasualties.ButrecentworkssuchasBaudrillard’sprovocativelytitledTheGulfWarDidNotTakePlaceandPaulVirilio’sStrategyofDeceptionsuggestthatasignificantshiftinvisualculturehasoccurredsincethen.Forexample,duringthefirstGulfWarthemediapresentedrelentlessimagesof“smartbombs”destroyingonlydeliberatelychosenandcarefullydelimitedtargets.This,inturn,createdmisleadingimpressionsaboutthefrequencyofindiscriminatebombingandtheamountofciviliancausalities.Amorerecentargument,presentedbyMichaelMooreinhisOscar-winningdocumentaryBowlingforColumbineisthatthemediadistortionoftopicssuchasurbanviolencehasproduceda“cultureoffear”inwhichAmericancitizensroutinelybecomehystericaloversensationalizedreportingthatmasqueradesasunbiasedpresentation.Inadditiontomediaissues,newquestionsconcerningthenatureandscopeofiden-tityarearisingaspeoplecontinuetoexplore(andsometimesbecomepsychologicallydependentupon)virtualrelationshipsthatarecultivatedthroughdigitalavatarsandonlinepersonae.Theseactivitiesarenotlimitedtoreplacingorenhancingtraditionalface-to-faceencounters.Rather,theirveryallureliesintheirtransformativepotential:newformsofsolitaryandinter-subjectiveexperiencearearising.Forexample,theInternethasmadeiteasytoinventalternatelifeexperiencesandtoexplorepreviouslyinhibitedorunderemphasizeddesires.Indeed,interactingthroughdifferentandeveninconsistentpersonalitieshasbecomesocommonplacethatitnolongerappearsconspicuous.ThepopularSecondLife(http://secondlife.com/),aninteractivethree-dimensionalvirtualworldthatisbuiltandownedbyitsresidents,exemplifiesthispointwell.Inthiscontextofcontroversyconcerningthequalityofsimulation-basedrelation-ships,worriesabouttheimpactofvideogamesarefrequentlyarticulated.Inadditiontoarticulatingsoberingthoughtsaboutobesity,anti-socialbehavior,depressionandde-sensitizedjudgment,concernhasalsobeenexpressedovertheadversecognitiveandemotionaleffectsthatmaybearisingasaconsequenceofthemilitarystylizingitsrecruitmentcampaignsinavideogameformat.Asiswidelynoted,suchadistinctiveuseofvisualcultureisnotinnocent.158\n9781405146012_4_026.qxd2/4/0913:27Page159simulationTheappealtovideogamesandvideogameimageryisbeingstagedduringatimeinwhichfighterpilotsroutinelytrainwithsimulatorsandelectronicwargamesare“realistically”modeleduponrecentcombatscenarios.Becauseskepticismalreadyexistsconcerningtheobjectivityofembeddedwartimereporting,additionalcomplica-tionscanbeexpectedtoariseasaresultofvideogamedesignersincludingAssociatedPressnewsreportsasgraphicswhileurgingpotentialgamerstosecond-guesswhethertheUSreallyneededtokillSaddamHussein’ssons.Indeed,collectivememorymaybeweakenedasnewformsofhistoricalrevisionism(and,perhaps,propaganda)threatentoengenderdirepoliticalconsequences.Moreover,asCatherineWilsonemphasizes,itisimportanttorecognizethefunda-mentaldifferencethatdistinguishesvideogameviolencefromcinematicandtelevisedviolence.Inthelattercases,theaudienceremainspassive.Theyaremerelyspectatorsofviolentactsthathavebeenchoreographedbyothersinadvanceoftheviewerwitnessingtheircinematicandtelevisedunfolding.Bycontrast,inthecaseoftheformer,videogameplayersassumetheroleofactiveagents.Thechoicestheymakeareresponsibleforsettingcausalsequencesofviolenceandpredationinmotion.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatuseofsimulationisleadingresearcherstomakeinnovativeandpotentiallyradicalproclamationsabouthumanbehavior.Forexample,undertheauspicesofPatrickGrim,theGroupforLogicandFormalSemanticshasbeenusinggame-theoreticmodelstoprovideanewunderstandingofwhycontact–atleastinsomeinstances–canreduceprejudice.Owingtoethicalandpracticalconstraints,empiricalpsychologistscannotconducttheidealcontrolledexperiment.Suchanexperimentwouldrequireanextremescenario;“outgroups”wouldhavetoberelocatedtolivewiththevery“ingroups”whoviewthemprejudicially.Theuseofsimulatedagents,however,freesresearchersfromthelimitationsthatcircumscribehowhumanexperimentationshouldbeconducted.Whilesuchworkmaybecutting-edge,itisnotunique.Comparableanalysesintoethnocentrism,genocide,culturalextinc-tionandothersociallyrelevanttopicshavealsobeenconducted.159\n9781405146012_4_027.qxd2/4/0913:27Page16027Technologyas“AppliedScience”ROBERTC.SCHARFFAccordingtoDescartes’famousmetaphor,thetreeofphilosophyhasthreemainparts.Metaphysicstendstheroots;scientificknowledgeofnature[“physics”]constitutesthetrunk;andmedicine,moralsandmechanicsformitsthreemainbranches.Descartes’interpretationsofmetaphysics,physicsandtheirrequisiteepistemologywereallcontestedfromthestart;buttherehasalwaysbeenlesscriticismofhisultimatelypracticalconclusion,namelythattheprincipalbenefitofphilosophycomesfromgatheringthefruitofitsthreebranches(Descartes1985:186).Here,DescartesmaybeseenasgivingafullandsystematicelaborationofBacon’sslogan,knowledgeispower(Schouls1989:173);andtheobviousmoralofthisstoryisthat“Whatisknowledge?”and“Whatdoweuseitfor?”arethekeyphilosophicalquestions.Technology,ontheotherhand,isjustthetotalityofmeansforapplyingsciencetodo/producewhateverwechoose.Ofcourse,manywouldbeuncomfortableactuallystatingthisconclusioninallofthecircumstancesinwhichtheyneverthelessunderstandittobetrue.Who,forexample,iseagertocharacterizeprestigiousactivitieslikemedicalcareasmerelyappliedscience,sothatsurgeryisnodifferentinprinciplefromplumbing?Yetitwouldbedifficulttoexaggeratehowdeeplythetechnology-as-applied-sciencemodelhasaffectedmodernWesternthought.Eventhegoodlifeitselftendstobeconceivedasakindoftechnologicalproduct,aplannedoutcomeoftherighttheory.Allweneeddo,itseems,isfindtheappropriatesocialscientific,economic,politicaloreven(byanalogy,forthosestillhostiletoscience)religiousknowledgeandputitintopractice.Intwenty-first-centuryretrospect,thismodelofknowledge,practiceandtheirrelationnolongerseemsquitesoinnocentorcommonsensical,andphilosophersoftechnologynowobjecttoitinvariousways.Butwhyhavetheirobjectionscomesolate?Undoubtedlythesuccessofmodernscienceinbothacquiringknowledgeandalteringourcircumstancesispartoftheanswer.Yet,evenafterthesesuccessesbegantoseemamixedblessing,theverydefinitionofacivilizedmentalityseemed,aboveall,amatterofcultivatingthescientifictreeandharvestingitsfruits.Thekeyistonoticethat,inthismodel,technology-as-mere-meanstypicallyfunctionsassilentassumption,notasexplicitconcept.Hence,evenafterobjectionstorosyprogressivistclaimsaboutascientificculturebecameplentiful,thisassumptioncouldremainunchallenged.Tomeettheobjections,itseemedsufficienttoredoubleeffortstodefendscience,analyze160ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_027.qxd2/4/0913:27Page161technologyas“appliedscience”itsepistemicstructures,andexercisegreatercareindecidinghowtouseit.Herelayphilosophy’scentraltopicsandcivilization’sgreatesthope(Sorell1991).OneseesallofthisplayedoutasthemainstrandsofmodernthoughtdevelopafterDescartes(Mitcham1990).IntheAnglo-Americanempiricist,French/GermanEnlightenment,andEuropeanpositivisttraditions,technologytypicallycontinuestobeconceivedinstraightforwardlyCartesianfashion.Sciencetellsuswhatthereis;technologysimplyemploysthisknow-ledgeinwhateverwaywedecide.“Fromsciencecomesforesight,fromforesight,action,”declaredthefatherofpositivism(Comte1988:38).Theprimaryphilosophicalissuesthereforelieeitherbeforeoraftertechnology.Beforewecanreceivethebenefits,wemusthavereliableknowledge–hencetheneedforanepistemologyofscience.Oncewehaveit,wemustdecideamongthetechnologicallypossiblegoalsthatscienceempowersustoachieve–hencetheneedforanethics(inthebroadsense,includingsocio-politicalinquiry).Withphilosophyfocusedonhowwecanknowandwhatwemaydo,technologyfallsuninterestinglybetweenthem.Inthemodernromantic-expressivistandpost-HegelianContinentaltraditions,technologytendstobejustasphilosophicallyuninteresting,butfordifferentreasons.Atfirstglance,thismightseemsurprising,sincethesetraditionsarenotoriouslylesslikelytodefineknowledgeonthemodelofscience,ortoregardtheuseofscienceasmostlyaforceforgood.SuspiciousofthereductivescientismandfalsehistoricaloptimismthatseemtolurkinEnlightenmentphilosophy,thesetraditionstendtothinkofscienceasexpressiveonlyofourtheoretical/cognitiveandinstrumentalinterests.Toensureaplaceforothervaluesassociatedwithotherinterests(e.g.beautyandartisticcreativity,thereflective“understanding”ofselfandothers,socio-politicalliberation,aspirituallife),theytendtogivecriticallyrestrictiveorevendystopianaccountsofbothscientificrationalityitselfanditsapplicationstothenaturalandsocialworld.Yet,preciselyinthuscurbingthescopeandfunctionofscience,romanticandpost-Hegelianthinkersimplicitlyreaffirmthestatusoftechnologyasphilosophicallyinessential.Forifthemaintaskistoavoidoverratingscienceandtodefendother,non-instrumentalpurposes,thentechnology–albeitreconceivedaspotentiallyservingseveralmasters–remainsinthepositionofsimplybeingthemeansforenactingchosenpurposes.Bythe1970s,however,thispinchedconceptionoftechnologywasunderattackfromseveraldirections(Dusek2006).Onelineofcriticismaccompaniedgrowingdissatisfactionwiththedominantpositivistictendencytodefinescienceintermsofanarrowlyformalist,ahistoricalmodeloftheoryconfirmation.Asphilosophicalmodelsofscientificreasoningbecamemorecontextualizedandpluralized(Kuhn1996,Longino2002)andintegratedintoanewperspectivethattendedtoviewscienceasahumanpracticeinsteadofjustakindofreasoning(Fuller2002,Stengers2000,Rouse1996),theoldideaoftechnologyasmerelymakinguseofsciencealsobecameuntenable.Philosophersbegantoacknowledgewhathistoriansandsociologistsoftechnologyhadalwaysknown,namelythatmodernscienceandtechnologyaremutuallyinter-dependent(LatourandWoolgar1986).Evenearlymodernsciencerelieduponthepriorexistenceoftechnicaldevices(e.g.telescopes,microscopes,measuringinstruments)inventedbypersonswhohadnorecognizably“scientific”concerns(White1962).Indeed,technologyhasalwaysmatteredinwaysonlyremotelyconnectedwiththeurgetoobtain161\n9781405146012_4_027.qxd2/4/0913:27Page162robertc.scharffnaturalknowledge–waysdrivendirectlybyadesireforusefultoolsandefficiently“mechanized”practices,orevenbyasheerinventivenessandloveofgadgetry(Nye2006).Philosophicalinterestintechnology,then,beganinoppositiontotheobjectivismoftraditionalphilosophyofscience.Itwasnolongerpossibletoignorethefactthatphilo-sophical,sociologicalandengineeringissuesconcerningtechnologyandscienceareallinfactintertwined(Knorr-Cetina1999,Mitcham1994).Atfirst,theseissueswereconsideredprimarilyatagloballevel.Debatesoverconcreteethical,socialandpolit-icalissuesonlyseemedtoperpetuateold,deeplyheldbutnowobviouslyproblematicgeneralassumptionsaboutscience,itsappropriations,andtheproperroleofscienceandtechnologyinhumanaffairs.Mostfamously,Heidegger(1993)suggestedthattheinstrumentaldefinitionofmoderntechnologyasappliedscienceis“correct,”butifweaskwhatmakesitcorrectwefinditisreallypremoderntechnology,notmodernscience,thatwemustultimatelyreconsider.For2000years,WesternhumanityhasbeenelaboratingtheancientGreeknotionoftechneasakindofmakingthatisakintotheproductivenessdisclosedtousbythecosmos.Asaresult,wehavenowcometofashionaworldinwhich,forthemostpart,ouractivities,thethingswedealwith,andevenweourselvesallseemtohappentogetherinaworldwhereeverythingis“enframed”–thatis,disclosedandunderstoodaspartofa“stockpile”ofmaterialsandpersonnelavailablefortechnolo-gicalpurposes.Theimplicationofthisargumentforourideaoftechnologyisnothardtosee.Whenmodernphilosophyprivilegesscienceandethics,andlargelyignorestechnology,itgetsthingsbackwards.Foritisinthe“techniques”ofbothpremodernandmodernactivitiesthatourbasicunderstandingofwhatthereisandwhattodowithitalreadyresides.Ifwenowfindthissenseofthingsconstrictingorevendangerous,thesolutioncanonlybe,inHeidegger’sphrase,toworkouta“freerelation”withtoday’stechnology.Heidegger’sworkiscertainlynottheonlysourceforthesethemes,butmuchrecentthinkingabouttechnologycanbeseenasreactingtothegeneraloutlookexpressedthere.Onestrainexplores,moreorlessspecificallyinlightofHeidegger’sownposition,what“beingfreelywith”technologymightmean(Spinosaetal.1999,Borgmann1985).OtherstrainsbeginbyobjectingtoviewslikeHeidegger’sfortheirpessimismandforexaggeratingnegativeexperienceswithtechnology,andthenmoveontooffereithermorephenomenologicalaccountsofcontemporarytechnoscientificlife(Ihde1990)orpoliticalandsocialprogramsthatpromisetoovercometherestrictiveanddehuman-izingaspectsoftoday’stechnoscientificpractices(Feenberg2005a,2005b;Llewelyn2004,Haraway1997).SomeapplaudthesecriticalreactionstowardHeideggerandothersofhisgeneration(e.g.Mumford,Ellul,OrtegayGasset)asmarkingan“empiricalturn”inrecentphilo-sophyoftechnology(Verbeek2005,Achterhuis2001).Somesuggestitalsosignalsawelcomerevivalofelementsofthepragmatisttradition(Hickman2001).Stillotherspraisethelong-overduerecognitionofthe“materiality”of(asopposedtothethinkingin)technoscientificpractices(IhdeandSelinger2003).Whatisnoticeableinalltherecenttrends,however,istheirsteadyenrichmentoftopicsassumedtobeincludedinanyphilosophicallyadequateinquiryintotoday’s“technoscientific”life(Ihde2004).Theprovocativeimplication,ofcourse,isthattheanalysisandcritiqueoftechnoscientific162\n9781405146012_4_027.qxd2/4/0913:27Page163technologyas“appliedscience”practicemightprovideabetterentréetoallthemajorphilosophicalissuesincon-temporaryhumanaffairsthanethicsortheepistemologyofscience.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAchterhuis,H.(2001).AmericanPhilosophyofTechnology:TheEmpiricalTurn,trans.RobertP.Crease(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Borgmann,A.(1985).TechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Comte,A.(1988).IntroductiontoPositivePhilosophy,trans.FrederickFerré(Indianapolis,Ind.:Hackett).Descartes,R.(1985).PhilosophicalWorks,Vol.2,trans.JohnCottinghametal.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Dusek,V.(2006).PhilosophyofTechnology:AnIntroduction(Malden,Mass.:Blackwell).Feenberg,A.(2005a).HeideggerandMarcuse:TheCatastropheandRedemptionofHistory(NewYork:Routledge).Feenberg,A.(2005b).TransformingTechnology:ACriticalTheoryRevisited,2ndedn(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Fuller,S.(2002).SocialEpistemology,2ndedn(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Haraway,D.J.(1997).Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse(NewYork:Routledge).Heidegger,M.(1993).“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology,”inD.F.Krell(ed.),MartinHeidegger:BasicWritings(NewYork:HarperCollins),pp.301–41.Hickman,L.(2001).PhilosophicalToolsforTechnologicalCulture:PuttingPragmatismtoWork(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Ihde,D.(1990).TechnologyandtheLifeWorld:FromGardentoEarth(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Ihde,D.(2004).“HasthePhilosophyofTechnologyArrived?AState-of-the-ArtReview,”PhilosophyofScience,71:117–31.Ihde,D.andSelinger,E.(eds)(2003).ChasingTechnoscience:MatrixforMateriality(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Knorr-Cetina,K.D.(1999).EpistemicCultures:HowtheSciencesMakeKnowledge(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Kuhn,T.S.(1996).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,3rdedn(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Latour,B.andWoolgar,S.(1986).LaboratoryLife:TheConstructionofScientificFacts,2ndedn(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress).Llewelyn,J.(2004).SeeingthroughGod:AGeophenomenology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Longino,H.E.(2002).TheFateofKnowledge(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress).Mitcham,C.(1990).“ThreeWaysofBeing-WithTechnology,”inGayleL.Ormiston(ed.),FromArtifacttoHabitat:StudiesintheCriticalEngagementwithTechnology(Bethlehem,Pa.:LehighUniversityPress),pp.31–59(reprintedinMitcham1994).Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Nye,D.(2006).TechnologyMatters:QuestionstoLiveWith(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Rouse,J.(1996).EngagingScience:HowtoUnderstandItsPracticesPhilosophically(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress).163\n9781405146012_4_027.qxd2/4/0913:27Page164robertc.scharffSchouls,P.A.(1989).DescartesandtheEnlightenment(Kingston,Ont.:McGill-Queen’sUniver-sityPress).Sorell,T.(1991).Scientism:PhilosophyandtheInfatuationwithScience(London:Routledge).Spinosa,C.,Flores,F.andDreyfus,H.L.(1999).DisclosingNewWorlds:Entrepreneurship,DemocraticAction,andtheCultivationofSolidarity(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Stengers,I.(2000).TheInventionofModernScience,trans.D.W.Smith(Minneapolis,Minn.:UniversityofMinnesotaPress).Verbeek,P.(2005).WhatThingsDo:PhilosophicalReflectionsonTechnology,Agency,andDesign(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).White,L.T.(1962).MedievalTechnologyandSocialChange(London:OxfordUniversityPress).164\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page16528TechnologicalArtifactsPETER-PAULVERBEEKANDPIETERE.VERMAAS1.IntroductionTechnologicalartifactsareclear-cutmanifestationsoftechnology.Ourworldisfullofmaterialobjectsmadebyengineersforpracticaluses,andthroughtheseobjectstechnologyaffectssocietyandourdailylives.Thephilosophicalcharacterizationoftechnologicalartifactsislessclear-cut.CarlMitcham(1994)singlesouttechnologicalobjectsasaseparatefieldofphilosophicalanalysis,besidemanifestationsoftechno-logyasactivity,asknowledgeandasvolition.YetanalyzingtechnologicalartifactswillimmediatelyinvokeMitcham’sotherfields,sinceartifactsaremadeandused,whichareactivities,andsincethedemarcationoftechnologicalartifactsfromartisanproductsandworksofartisrelatedtothetypesofknowledgeandtheaimsinvolvedintheseactivities.Moreover,theeverydayintuitionthattechnologicalartifactsareobjectsmadebyhumanagentsisinphilosophyoftenloosenedtodefinitionsoftechnologicalartifactsasobjectsthatareintentionallyorlessintentionallyselectedtobeused,raisingissuesabouttheirdemarcationfromnaturalobjects.Westartbydiscussingthosedefinitionsandthenbroadenourscopetofurtherphilosophicalanalysesoftechnologicalartifactsandtheirsocialandculturalroles.2.DefinitionsofTechnologicalArtifactsTechnologicalartifactsareingeneralcharacterizednarrowlyasmaterialobjectsmadeby(human)agentsasmeanstoachievepracticalends.Moreover,followingAristotle,technologicalartifactsareaskindsnotseenasnaturalobjects:artifactsdonotexistbynaturebutaretheproductsofart.ThisgeneralcharacterizationisincorporatedinRistoHilpinen’sacceptancecondition:“[a]nobjectisanartifactmadebyanauthoronlyiftheauthoracceptsitassatisfyingsomesortaldescriptionincludedinhisproductiveintention”(2004:sect.3).Thisconditionappliesalsotoeventsandworksofart;itcanberestrictedtotechnologicalartifactsbylimitingthesortaldescriptionstotechnolo-gicalonessuchas“materialmeanstoachievepracticalendx.”Unintendedby-productsofmaking(e.g.sawdust)orofexperiments(e.g.falsepositivesinmedicaldiagnostictests)arenotartifactsforHilpinen.ObjectsthatresultACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks165©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page166peter-paulverbeekandpietere.vermaasfromactionsofcollectivesofagentsbutdonotsatisfysortaldescriptionsinoneoftheagent’sproductiveintentions(e.g.somepathsandvillages)aremerelyartifices.Objectsmadebyagentsbutnotacceptedtosatisfytheintendedsortaldescriptionsare“scrap.”Hilpinenspecifiesmakingasaphysicalmodificationofanexistingobjectorastheassemblingofexisting/modifiedobjects,suchthat“[t]heexistenceandsomeofthepropertiesofanartifactdepend[counterfactually]onanauthor’sintentiontomakeanobjectofcertainkind”(2004:sect.1).Technologicalartifactsasmadeobjectsaredifferentfromnaturalobjectsintwoways:theycanhavephysicalpropertiesthatnaturalobjectsdonot,andtheyareconsideredasmeanstoends.Hilpinenconsiderstheborderlinecaseinwhichmakingbecomesonlyselecting(forincluding“foundart”[1993:sect.VI]).Ifthiscaseholdsfortechnology,atechnologicalartifactbecomesmorewidelyamaterialobjectacceptedbyitsauthorassatisfyingsometechnologicalsortaldescription.Thedifferencefromnaturalobjectsisthenonlythattechnologicalartifactsareobjectsconsideredbyagentstobeusableasmeanstopracticalends.RandallDipert(1993:ch.2)characterizestechnologicalartifactsalsoprimarilyasobjectsmadebyagentsbutbroadenshisanalysistousableobjectsbytakingartifactsasspecialcasesoftools,whichinturnarespecialcasesofinstruments.Aninstrumentis“anobjectoneofwhosepropertieshasbeenthoughtbysomeonetobeameanstoanendandthathasbeenintentionallyemployedinthiscapacity.”Atoolisanobjectthat“hasbeenphysicallymodified,intentionally,toserveasamoreeffectivemeanstoanend”(toolsareroughlyHilpinen’sartifacts).Anartifactis,forDipert,“anintentionallymodifiedtoolwhosepropertieswereintendedbytheagenttoberecognizedbyanagentatalatertimeashavingbeenintentionallyalteredforthat,orsomeother,use.”Thisdefinitionalsoappliestoeventsandart;technologicalartifactsareartifactsthatservepracticalpurposes(1993:17).Thecharacterizationasusableobjectsismoreexplicitinthe“Dual[structural-intentional]Nature”analysisbywhichtechnologicalartifactsare“(i)designedphysicalstructures,whichrealize(ii)functions,whichrefertohumanintentionality”(KroesandMeijers2006).Designingisanalyzedasthedevelopmentofuseplansforobjects–seriesofactionsthatincludemanipulationsofobjects–bywhichagentscanachieveends,andasthedescriptionofthephysicalstructureofthoseobjects(VermaasandHoukes2006).Designing,inthisbroadsense,turnsthedescribedobjectsintomeans(Dipert’sinstruments)butdoesnotrequirethattheobjectsbemodified:ifexistingobjects–technologicalartifactsornaturalobjects–meetthesedescriptions,modificationisunnecessary.Thesethreeanalysesrelatetechnologicalartifactstointentionsofindividualauthors,selectingagents,ordesigners.Afourthapproachtakesdistancefromsingleagentsanddescribestechnologicalartifactsbysocietalmechanisms.Basalla(1988),forinstance,hasgivenanevolutionaryaccountoftechnologicalartifactsinwhichtheircreationandusearedeterminedprimarilyby(longer-term)culturalreproductionandselection.Artifactsarestilltypicallymade,buttheendsforwhichtheyaremadearerelatedto(successful)usesovertime,andtypicallynotbytheintentionsofindividual(creating)agents.CharacterizingtechnologicalartifactsasmadeobjectsagreeswiththeAristoteliancontrastbetweentechnologicalartifactsandnaturalobjectsbutmaybetoostrict:pieces166\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page167technologicalartifactsofflintthatwereselectedbyourpredecessorsseemequallytechnologicalartifactsastheonesthatwerecarefullycut.Yetcharacterizingtechnologicalartifactsasusableobjectsmaybetoopermissiveandleadtoincludingnaturalobjects:thesunisoftenusedfororientation,butitseemsoddtotakeitasatechnologicalartifact.3.TechnologicalArtifactsinPhilosophy3.1Technologicalartifactsandcategorization:functiontheoriesTechnologicalartifactsareoftentakenasobjectswithfunctions,as(made)meanstoends(thisapproachhasbeencriticized,aswediscussbelow).Thephilosophicaltraditionoffunctiontheoryanalyzesthisconceptoffunction,inparttodistinguishtypesoftechnologicalartifacts.Functionsarenottheonlyfeaturesbywhichtechno-logicalartifactsarecategorized(seeMitcham1994:ch.7)buttheyareofparticularinterestbecauseoftherelationtheyestablishbetweentechnologicalartifactsandhumanintentionality,andaspartofanongoingdiscussioninmetaphysicsabouttakingfunctionsasnominalorrealessencesoftechnologicalartifacts(e.g.Baker2004,Elder2004,Thomasson2003,Wiggins2001:ch.3).Theanalysisoffunctionsoriginatedtoalargeextentinphilosophyofbiology,inwhichanalysesofbiologicalfunctionsweregeneralizedtoincludealsoartifactfunctions.Onecandistinguishthreeapproaches.Inthefirst,fittinganalysesoftechnologicalartifactsintermsofintentionsofindividualagents,functionsarethecapacitiesorpurposesforwhichagentsmakeorselectartifacts(e.g.Neander1991).Inthesecondapproach,fittingtheevolutionaryaccountoftechnologicalartifacts,functionsarethosecapacitiesforwhichartifactsarereproducedovertime(e.g.Millikan1984,1993).AndfinallyRobertCummins’s(1975)approach,compatiblewithboththeintentionalandtheevolutionaryaccounts,inwhichfunctionsarecausalrolesoftechnologicalartifactsthatcontributetotheir(successful)uses.Inrecentanalysesoffunctionsintechnologythesethreeapproachesarecriticizedandcombinedtotheoriesthattakemorenoticeoftheparticularsoftechnologicalfunctionaldescriptions.BethPreston(1998)hasarguedforapluralisttheoryinwhichfunctionsoftechnologicalartifactsaredescribedasreproducedcapacitiesand/orascausalroles.VermaasandHoukes(2006)havearguedfora(monist)functiontheorythatintegrateselementsofthethreeapproaches.3.2Technologicalartifactsandsociety:ScienceandTechnologyStudiesInScienceandTechnologyStudies,twodistincttypesofanalysisoftechnologicalartifactshavedeveloped.The“socialconstructionoftechnology”(SCOT)approachanalyzestechnologicalartifactsastheoutcomesofprocessesofsocialinteractionbetweendesignersandrelevantsocialgroups(Bijker1995).Actor-networktheory(ANT),however,proposesasymmetricalapproach,inwhichbothhumansandartifactsplayconstructingroles(Latour1993),andinwhichtechnologicalartifactsareconstructedandconstructingatthesametime.Understandingartifactsasconstructions,ratherthanassocialconstructions,requirestakingintoaccounttheconstructingroleofbothhumansandavarietyof“non-humans,”likethematerialenvironmentinwhichthe167\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page168peter-paulverbeekandpietere.vermaasartifactwillfunctionandthecharacteristicsofthematerialsoutofwhichitismade.Theconstructingroleoftechnologicalartifactsinsocietyisoftenindicatedwiththeconceptof“script”(Akrich1992),makingvisiblethattechnologicalartifacts,similartothescriptofatheaterplayoramovie,canprescribespecificactionstotheirusers,likespeedbumpsthathelptodeterminehumandrivingbehavior.Latourhasevenanalyzedsuchformsofagencyoftechnologicalartifactsintermsofmorality(Latour1992,2002).Onamorepoliticallevel,LangdonWinnerhasanalyzedthesocialroleoftechnologicalartifactsintermsof“politics,”withthehelpofhiswell-knownexampleofthebridgesonLongIslandinNewYorkovertheroadtoJonesBeach,deliberatelybuiltverylowbyarchitectRobertMosestopreventbusespassingthrough,thusblockingaccessforpoorandblackpeoplewhonormallyusepublictransit(Winner1986).3.3Human–artifactsrelations:philosophicalanthropologyInphilosophicalanthropology,severalapproachestotechnologicalartifactshavebeendeveloped,withdifferentanalysesofthenatureoftherelationsbetweenhumansandartifacts.Thefirstapproachesweremainlyinstrumentalist.ErnstKapp(1877)approachedtechnologicalartifactsasprojectionsofhumanbodilyorgans.Relatedtothis,ArnoldGehlen(1988)arguedthathumanbeingsshouldbeseenas“Mangel-wesen,”deficientbeingsneedingtechnologicalartifactstocompensatefortheirpoorabilitiestosurviveinanenvironmenttowhichtheyarenotequippedbynature.Bothapproachesgivetechnologicalartifactstheinstrumentalroleofreplacingspecifichumanpossibilities,enhancinghumancapacities,orrelievinghumansfromburden-sometasks.Asecondapproachfocusesonthealienationsupposedlybroughtaboutbytechno-logicalartifacts.ExistentialphilosopherslikeKarlJaspers(1951)heldthatsocietyhasbecomeanapparatusofmachines,bureaucracyandlaborers,creatingmassruleratherthanauthenticexistence.Operatingmachinesinafactoryreduceshumanbeingstomereappendicesofthemachinery,producingmassproductswhichdonotallowattachmenttoorengagementwiththem.Ratherthanbeingmerelyfunctionalextensionsofthehuman,technologicalartifactsareseenhereasathreattoit.Theirperfectioncouldevenleadtoasenseofhumbleness,indicatedbyGüntherAnders(1987)as“Prometheanshame”–asopposedtoPrometheus’prideathavingstolenfirefromtheGods.Athirdapproachtotherelationsbetweenhumansandtechnologicalartifactsfocusesontheirinterwovencharacter.DonIhde(1990)developedananalysisofhuman–technologyrelations,arguingthattechnologicalartifactsdonotalienateusfromthelifeworldbut,rather,mediateourrelationstoitandhelptoshapeatechnologicalcul-ture.DonnaHaraway(1991)andBrunoLatour(1993)evengoonestepfurtherbyarguingthatitbecomesevermoredifficultactuallytomakeadistinctionbetweenhumanbeingsandtechnologicalartifacts.Withtheirnotionsof“cyborgs”(Haraway)and“hybrids”(Latour),theyaimtomakevisiblethatbothareinterwoventosuchanextentthatonecannotexistwithouttheother,sincethe“human”andthe“technological”helptoshapeeachother.Abiological,andradical,variantofthispositionistranshumanism,whichisdefendedbyauthorslikeHansMoravec(1988)andNickBostrom(2005a,168\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page169technologicalartifacts2005b),whoannouncetheendofHomosapiensandtheadventofatranshumanlifeformwhichwillbeablendoforganicandtechnologicalelements.3.4Technologicalartifactsandthelifeworld:phenomenologyIncloseconnectiontoanthropologicalapproaches,phenomenologicalapproachestotechnologicalartifactsweredeveloped,initiallybyMartinHeidegger,andlaterbyDonIhdeandAlbertBorgmann(cf.Verbeek2005).InhisearlyworkSeinundZeit,Heideggeranalyzedtheroleof“tools”or“equipment”(Zeug)intherelationsbetweenhumanbeingsandtheirworld(Heidegger1966).Inordertounderstandequipment,Heideggerstated,oneshouldtrytodescribenotitspropertiesbuthowitispresenttohumanbeingswhentheyuseit.Artifactsinusetypicallywithdrawfromhumanatten-tion;theysubmergeinhumaninvolvementswithreality,whichtakeplace“through”thetool.Toolsinuseare“readytohand”;theyremainunnoticed,ascentersofacomplexstructureofreferencesandrelations.Onlyfromadistancedandobservingstandpoint–forinstancewhentheybreakdown–toolsare“presentathand”objects.Inhislaterwork,Heideggerdevelopedaradicallydifferentapproach(1977),statingthattechnologyshouldnotbeunderstoodintermsofartifacts,butasawayof“revealingreality”–afundamentalunderstandingofrealitywhichletsusinterpretitintermsofrawmaterial,availableforhumanmanipulation.Technologicalartifactsdonothelptoshapehumanrelationswiththeworldanymorenow,butfunctionasexpressionsofaspecificwayoftakingupwithreality(forananalysisofthedevelop-mentofHeidegger’sthinkingabouttechnologicalartifacts,seeVerbeek2005).AlbertBorgmann(1984)hasbroughtthisanalysisincloserrelationtoactualtechnologicalartifacts.Hemakesadistinctionbetween“things”thatrequireengagedinteractionwiththemselvesinordertobeusedand“devices”thatimpedeengagementbecausetheytypicallymakecommoditiesavailablewhichcanbeconsumedwithoutengagementwiththemachineryproducingthem.Theboiler,thermostat,pipesandradiatorsofacentralheatingsystemdeliver“warmth”asacommoditythatcanbeconsumedwith-outactiveengagement,whereasafireplacerequiresengagingpracticeslikegatheringwood,choppingit,andfilling,pokingandcleaningthehearth.DonIhde(1979,1983,1990)usesHeidegger’stool-analysisasastarting-pointforanalyzingwhathecalls“human–technologyrelations.”Ihdedistinguishesfoursuchrelationsbetweenhumanbeingsandtechnologicalartifacts:theembodimentrelation,whichresemblesHeidegger’s“readiness-to-hand,”andinwhichhumansperceivetheworldthroughtheartifact,aswhenlookingthroughamicroscope;thehermeneuticrelation,inwhichtheartifactgivesarepresentationoftheworldwhichrequiresinter-pretation,likereadingoffathermometer;thealterityrelation,inwhichhumansexperi-encetheartifactitself,muchlikeHeidegger’s“presence-at-hand”;andthebackgroundrelation,inwhichtechnologicalartifactsshapeabackgroundforourexperiences,liketheswitchingonandoffofthefridge.Ihdeelaboratedhowtechnologicalartifacts,fromallthesehuman–technologyrelations,mediatehowhumanbeingsexperienceandinterprettheworld.Thesemediationsarenotessentialpropertiesoftechnologicalartifacts,though,asIhdeindicateswiththeconceptofmultistability;humanbeingscanappropriatethemindifferentframeworksofinterpretationandusepractices,whichcanresultinvariousmediatingroles.169\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page170peter-paulverbeekandpietere.vermaasReferencesandFurtherReadingAkrich,M.(1992).“TheDe-scriptionofTechnicalObjects,”inW.E.BijkerandJ.Law(eds),ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.205–24.Anders,G.(1987).DieAntiquiertheitdesMenschen(Munich:Beck).Baker,L.R.(2004).“TheOntologyofArtifacts,”PhilosophicalExplorations,7:99–111.Basalla,G.(1988).TheEvolutionofTechnology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Bijker,W.E.(1995).OfBicycles,BakelitesandBulbs:TowardaTheoryofSociotechnicalChangeCambridge,Mass./London:MITPress).Borgmann,A.(1984).TechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife:APhilosophicalInquiry(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).Bostrom,N.(2005a).“AHistoryofTranshumanistThought,”JournalofEvolutionandTechnology,14(1):1–25.Bostrom,N.(2005b).“InDefenceofPosthumanDignity,”Bioethics,19(3):202–14.Cummins,R.(1975).“FunctionalAnalysis,”JournalofPhilosophy,72:741–65.Dipert,R.R.(1993).Artifacts,ArtWorks,andAgency(Philadelphia,Pa.:TempleUniversityPress).Elder,C.L.(2004).RealNaturesandFamiliarObjects(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Gehlen,A.(1988[1957]).Man:HisNatureandPlaceintheWorld(NewYork:ColumbiaUniver-sityPress).Haraway,D.(1991).“ACyborgManifesto:Science,Technology,andSocialist-FeminismintheLateTwentiethCentury,”inSimians,CyborgsandWomen:TheReinventionofNature(NewYork:Routledge),pp.149–81.Heidegger,M.(1966[1927]).BeingandTime,trans.J.MacquarrieandE.Robinson(NewYork:Harper&Row).Heidegger,M.(1977[1949]).“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology,”inTheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays,trans.W.Lovitt(NewYork:Harper&Row).Hilpinen,R.(1993).“AuthorsandArtifacts,”ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,93:155–78.Hilpinen,R.(2004).“Artifact,”TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Fall2004Edition),ed.EdwardN.Zalta,URL:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/artifactIhde,D.(1979).TechnicsandPraxis(Dordrecht:Reidel).Ihde,D.(1983).ExistentialTechnics(Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress).Ihde,D.(1990).TechnologyandtheLifeworld(Bloomington,Ind./Minneapolis,Minn.:IndianaUniversityPress).Jaspers,K.(1951[1931]).ManintheModernAge,trans.E.PaulandC.Paul(London:Routledge&KeganPaul).Kapp,E.(1877).GrundlinieneinerPhilosophiederTechnik.ZurEntstehungsgeschichtederKulturausneuenGesichtspunkten(Braunschweig:VerlagGeorgeWestermann).Kroes,P.andMeijers,A.(2006).“TheDualNatureofTechnicalArtefacts,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience,37:1–4.Seealsohttp://www.dualnature.tudelft.nlLatour,B.(1992).“WhereAretheMissingMasses?TheSociologyofaFewMundaneArtifacts,”inW.E.BijkerandJ.Law(eds),ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Latour,B.(1993).WeHaveNeverBeenModern,trans.C.Porter(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Latour,B.(2002).“MoralityandTechnology:TheEndoftheMeans,”inTheory,CultureandSociety,19(5–6):247–60.Millikan,R.G.(1984).Language,Thought,andOtherBiologicalCategories:NewFoundationsforRealism(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).170\n9781405146012_4_028.qxd2/4/0913:27Page171technologicalartifactsMillikan,R.G.(1993).WhiteQueenPsychologyandOtherEssaysforAlice(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Moravec,H.(1988).MindChildren:TheFutureofRobotandHumanIntelligence(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Neander,K.(1991).“TheTeleologicalNotionof‘Function’,”AustralasianJournalofPhilosophy,69:454–68.Preston,B.(1998).“WhyIsaWingLikeaSpoon?APluralistTheoryofFunction,”JournalofPhilosophy,95:215–54.Thomasson,A.L.(2003).“RealismandHumanKinds,”PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch,67:580–609.Verbeek,P.P.(2005).WhatThingsDo:PhilosophicalReflectionsonTechnology,Agency,andDesign(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).Vermaas,P.E.andHoukes,W.(2006).“TechnicalFunctions:ADrawbridgebetweentheIntentionalandStructuralNatureofTechnicalArtefacts,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience,37:5–18.Wiggins,D.(2001).SamenessandSubstanceRenewed(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Winner,L.(1986).“DoArtifactsHavePolitics?,”inTheWhaleandtheReactor(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).171\n9781405146012_4_029.qxd2/4/0913:28Page17229TechnicalPracticeBARTGREMMENIntraditionalactor-theory,anactorisseparatedfromthemeansusedinactionandfromtheobjectsofactioninreality.Fromtheperspectiveoftechnicalpractice,however,practitioners,themeansandtheobjectsareintegratedinthesocio-naturalworld.Theconceptofapractitionerisanalternativetotheconceptofanindividualactorinstandardtheoriesofsocialscience.Practitionerstakepartinsocietalactivitiesandcannotpracticeontheirown,andwhattheyareandwhattheydocannotbeisolatedfromthepracticeinwhichtheyparticipate.Itistheircompetentperformanceinthepracticewhichmakesthemintopractitioners,whichdefinesthemassuch.Whentheylackthecompetence(orarelabeledaslackingit),theywillberedefinedasnotbelonging:“Heisnotarealengineer”isthephrasethen.Becausepractitionersbehaveaccordingtostandards,theirperformancecanbeunderstoodfromasocio-logicalperspective.Inarticulatingthenormativestructureoftechnicalpractice,thedifferencebetweenindividualbehaviorandcompetentper-formanceisimportant.Intheircompetentperformance,practitionerscanbesaidtomakenormativeclaimsaboutthequalityoftheirperformance.Theseclaimsaremadeto,orreferto,otherpractitioners.Intheirevaluation,criticismandotherreactions,thequalityoftheperformanceisestablished.Itisanachievementofallpractitionerstogether.Thuscompetentperformanceistheunityofthetechnicalpractice.Competentperformanceasthenormativestructureofatechnicalpracticeconsistsoffouraspects.Onewaytoexaminetheseaspectsisbylookingatthewaypracti-tionersdiscussfailuresincompetentperformance.Theunityofthepracticethenappearsinthepossibilitytoshiftfromoneaspecttoanotherwithoutcreatingabreak(oracategorymistake).Thefirstaspectislabeled“positioning.”Intheirpositioning,practitionersassumetheirroleaspractitioners,andtakeuptheresponsibilitiesoftheirpractitionership.Goodworkingrelations,loyalty,disciplineandcircumspectionareexamples.Thecommun-icativerelationshipbetweenthosewhoparticipateinatechnicalpracticeisatstake.Inatechnicalpractice,practitionersininteractionconstituteapublicforoneanother.Whatpeoplearedoingisrarelyproperlydescribedasjusteating,orjustworking,buthasstylisticfeatureswhichhavecertainconventionalmeaningsassociatedwithrecognizedtypesofpersonae.172ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_029.qxd2/4/0913:28Page173technicalpracticeThesecondaspectisthewaysandmeanspractitionersusetopositionthemselvesaspractitioners:itislabeled“representation.”Theysteertheinteractionbetweenpracti-tionersbyregulatingmutualaccesstotheirinterpretationsofbeingapractitioner.Thisdoesnotimplyexpressivebehavior,butstylizingtheexpressionofone’sownexperi-encesasapractitionertootherpractitioners.Thisaspectisevaluatedbylookingattheusepractitionersmakeofmediaandinstruments.Thethirdaspectisthestrategic“judgmental,”thelayingdownofrelevantdirectionsoftheperformance,orthequestionofwhathastobedonewhen.Inthisprocess,aimsandmeansarecombinedbystrategies,andinacomplextechnicalpracticemanydifferentmeansmaybeusedforthesameaim.Agoodpractitionerisabletochoosebetweenalternativestrategiesandtoavoidbadjudgment.Judgmentisessential,andpractitioners,whenarticulatingthethirdaspect,oftentalkintermsofjudgment.Thefourthaspectisthe“execution”ofthestrategicplanningofaperformance.Inatechnicalpractice,certainprocessesinthesocio-naturalworldarecontrolledbyopera-tionswhichmanipulatetheappropriatesocio-naturalprocesses.Incontrollingthesesituations,thesocialprocessesarenot“secondary.”Thisinfactisoneofthemostimportantaccomplishmentsofanewpractice.Theongoingcompetentperformanceinvolvesreconstructionofboththenaturalandthesocialworld.Oftenthisisaresultofaperformance’sownoperatingrequirements:itsimplywillnotworkunlesshumanbehaviorchangestosuititsformandprocess.Adifficultyinthisanalysisofatechnicalpracticeisthatonlyapractitionerisdefinedintermsofcompetentperformance,butapracticealsohasparticipants.Thelatterconceptincludesboththepractitionersandtheclientsorpatientsofthepractitioner.Inengineeringpracticeanengineerandhisclientsbothparticipate,butonlytheengineerisapractitioner.Evenso,clientsalsohavetoperformwellinordertomakethepracticeanongoingconcern.Thedistinctionbetweenpractitionerandclient/patientistheresultofprofessionalizationstrategies,andcanbecontested.Thedynamicsofatechnicalpracticeisthedevelopmentofatechnicalpracticeovertime.Sinceatechnicalpracticeisanongoingprocessofcompetentperform-ances,itisdifficulttodemarcatethebeginningofsuchapractice.Onacloserlook,thebirthofatechnicalpracticedissolvesintocontingentprocesses.Whatonecanidentifyistheemergenceofarepertoireand,especially,keyexperiencesthatserveasanexample,orexemplar,intheevolvingrepertoireoftheemergingpractice.Anexemplar,anopportunityfordoing-as,indicatesthatthebasicstructureofcom-petentperformanceisinplace,andassoonasactionisseenasactionbypractitionersthemutualevaluabilityofperformance,i.e.thesocialsideofapractice,canfunction.Then,atechnicalpracticehasemerged,andtherepertoirewillevolvecontinuously.Reflection-in-actionisthewayinwhichtechnicalpracticesevolve:itisindigenousrationalization.AccordingtoSchön,whensomeonereflects-in-action,heorshebecomesaresearcherinthepracticecontext.Thereisadifferencewiththenormsofcontrolledexperiment.Scienceisoften,andmistakenly,seenastheidealwayofadvancingknowledge,whileinfactitsprogressispredicatedonthepracticalpos-sibilitytocreateclosedsystems.Practitionersareadvancingknowledgewhilework-ingwithopensystems.Sotherearegoodreasonstoconsiderpractitioners’researchasalimitingcase.Then,thedynamicsoftechnicalpracticesshouldrelateprimarilyto173\n9781405146012_4_029.qxd2/4/0913:28Page174bartgremmensuchindigenouspractitioners’researchratherthantoaninfluxofso-calledscientificknowledge.ReferencesandFurtherReadingGremmen,B.(1993).“TheMysteryofthePracticalUseofScientificKnowledge,”PhDdisserta-tion,UniversityofTwente.Harré,R.andSecord,P.F.(1972).TheExplanationofSocialBehaviour(London:OxfordUniversityPress).MacIntyre,A.(1984).AfterVirtue:AStudyinMoralVirtue(NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress).Rouse,J.(1987).KnowledgeandPower(Ithaca,N.Y./London:ColumbiaUniversityPress).Rouse,J.(2002).HowScientificPracticesMatter:ReclaimingPhilosophicalNaturalism(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Schön,D.(1983).TheReflectivePractitioner(SanFrancisco,Calif.:Jossey-Bass).Sternberg,R.J.andHorvath,J.A.(1999).TacitKnowledgeinProfessionalPractice:ResearcherandPractitionerPerspectives(Mahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaum).VonWright,G.H.(1971).ExplanationandUnderstanding(London:Routledge).174\n9781405146012_4_030.qxd2/4/0913:28Page17530TechnologicalPragmatismLARRYHICKMANFromitsinception,thephilosophicalmovementnowknownasclassicalAmericanpragmatismwasstronglycommittedtothemethodsofthesciences.CharlesS.Peirce(1839–1914)wasemployedbytheUSCoastandGeodeticSurvey.WilliamJames(1842–1910),whowastrainedasaphysician,taughtphysiologybeforeturningtopsychologyandphilosophy.JohnDewey(1859–1952)andhisteamattheUniversityofChicagoperformedexperimentsrelatedtoperceptionandattention.ThecloserelationshipbetweenpragmatismandexperimentalismisevidentinPeirce’s1878maxim:“Considerwhateffects,whichmightconceivablyhavepracticalbearings,weconceivetheobjectofourconceptiontohave.Then,ourconceptionoftheseeffectsisthewholeofourconceptionoftheobject”(Peirce1986).WilliamJamesextendedtheapplicationofthispropositionbyassertingthat,forthepragmatist,“theoriesbecomeinstruments,notanswerstoenigmas,inwhichwecanrest”(James1975).Deweypusheditstillfurtherbytreatinglogicalobjects,numbers,hypothesesandotherabstractentitiesastoolsthataredesigned,developedandutilizedinmuchthesamewaysasmaterialtools,thatis,forthesakeofachievingsomedesiredend.Buildingonhisinsightsintotherelationsbetweentooluseandinquiry,Deweyhadbythe1890salreadybeguntodevelopacomprehensiveprojectthatwouldultimatelyrelatetechnologytothehistoryofscience,education,socialandpoliticalphilosophy,theartsandevenreligion.Hisapplicationofphilosophicaltoolstoacritiqueoftechnologicalculturethusprecededtheeffortsofmostothertwentieth-centuryphilosophersoftechnologybyseveraldecades.Unlikemostofhisphilosophicalcon-temporaries,however,healsothoughtthatanimprovedunderstandingoftechnologicalculturecouldeffectareformofthetoolsandtechniquesofphilosophy.ThefactthatDewey’scontributionstothephilosophyoftechnologywerenotgenerallyacknow-ledgeduntilthe1990s(Hickman1990)maybedueinparttohisfailuretodevoteanysingleworktothesubject.Hisphilosophyoftechnologyinsteadleavenshisextensivepublishedwork.Inhis1896“TheReflexArcConceptinPsychology”(Dewey1972),publishedthreedecadesbeforethepublicationofMartinHeidegger’sBeingandTime,DeweydistinguishedbetweentwomodesofexperiencethatHeideggerwouldlaterterm“readiness-to-hand”and“present-to-hand.”Hedevelopedthismaterialfurtherin1916inDemocracyandEducation(Dewey1980a)andin1925inExperienceandNature(Dewey1981).GivenACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks175©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_030.qxd2/4/0913:28Page176larryhickmantherelativepaucityofdiscussionsofeducationalissuesbyotherphilosophersoftech-nology,itisnoteworthythatDeweyemployedthisdistinctioninthecurriculumofhisexperimentalelementaryschoolduringthe1890s(Dewey1979,1980a).LiketheHeideggerofBeingandTime,DeweyrejectedtheancientGreekviewoftech-nologythatdemeanedtheworkofthecraftsmanbysubordinatingthepracticalandtheproductivetothetheoretical.Unlikethelater(post-SecondWorldWar)Heidegger,however,whosomecriticsviewashavingturnedtoanostalgicandromanticizedviewoftechnologythattendedtoovershadoworevennegatehisearlierphenomenologicalcommitments,Deweyconsistentlylinkedtheaccomplishmentsofthetechnosciencessincetheseventeenthcenturytotheirabilitytotreattheoreticalandpracticalactivitiesasequalpartnersininquiry,negotiatingthebusinessofproducingnewtoolsandnewoutcomes.Dewey’spositionstandsinstarkcontrasttothatofJacquesEllul(Ellul1964),whoseworkwashighlyinfluentialduringtheclassicperiodofthephilosophyoftechnology.ForEllul,technologywasessentiallyanautonomoussystemthatleavesvirtuallynoroomforhumanfreedom.ForDewey,however,“technology”doesnotnameathing,systemorforcethatcouldbeautonomous.Itnamesinsteadaparticulartypeofhumanactivitythatthrivesonfreedomofthoughtandprudentinnovation.Asthelogosoftechne,technologyisforDeweyinquiryintotoolsandtechniquesinthesamesenseinwhichbiologyisinquiryintoformsoflife.TechnologicalsuccessorfailureisinDewey’sviewtheresponsibilityofhumanactorsastheyengagesocialnetworksaswellasnetworksofnon-humanobjectsandevents.Althoughpastsuccessesmayprovideplatformsfromwhichfuturetechnologycanbemounted,thereisnogeneralrecipefortechnologicalsuccess.Technologyrequiressensitivitytocontext.Oneconsequenceofthisviewisthat“appropriate”tech-nologydoesnotnecessarilyrequiresmallprojects:projectsofanysizemaybeappro-priate,dependingonthetypesofproblemstobesolved.Italsofollowsfromthisviewthattechnology,asinquiryintotoolsandtechniques,cannotbeexported.Thisthesishasimportantsocialandpoliticalconsequences.Dewey’spositionalsodifferssharplyfromthatof“firstgeneration”criticaltheoristsMaxHorkheimerandTheodorAdorno(HorkheimerandAdorno1987),wholinkedtechnologytoideologyandalienation.Deweydidnotthinkthattherewasanythingessentiallyideologicaloralienatingabouttechnology.Hewaswellawareoftheexcessesoflaissez-fairecapitalism;heworkedthroughouthislongcareertoaddressracialandeconomicinjustice;buthedidnotthinksuchproblemsthefaultoftechnology.In1930,duringtheGreatDepression,forexample,Deweywrotethat“‘Technology’signifiesalltheintelligenttechniquesbywhichtheenergiesofnatureandmanaredirectedandusedinsatisfactionofhumanneeds;itcannotbelimitedtoafewouterandcom-parativelymechanicalforms.Inthefaceofitspossibilities,thetraditionalconceptionofexperienceisobsolete”(Dewey1984b).Dewey’sresponsetothe“ideology”and“alienation”argumentsadvancedbyfirst-generationcriticaltheoristswastonaturalizetechnologybylocatinginquiryintotoolsandtechniqueswithinanevolutionaryaccountofhumandevelopment.Itwasinthisconnectionthatherefusedtodrawasharpontologicaldistinctionbetweentoolsthatareconcreteortangibleandthosethatareabstractorintangible.Heregardedbothahammerandthenumber2,forexample,astoolsthathavebeenrefinedfromtheraw176\n9781405146012_4_030.qxd2/4/0913:28Page177technologicalpragmatismmaterialsofhumanexperienceinordertoserveevolvingends.Theprimarydis-tinctionbetweenthetwotypesoftoolsisfunctional:“intellectualtools,”hewrote,“areindefinitelymoreflexibleintheirrangeofadaptationthanothermechanicaltools”(Dewey1980b).Deweyalsorecognizedtheceremonialobjectsandideasofartandreligionsastools,althoughhearguedthatprogressinrefiningthetoolsofthelatterhadtendedtolagbehindotherareasofhumandevelopment.Dewey’snaturalisticthesishasimportantconsequencesforenvironmentalphilo-sophy.Rejectingtranscendentalistarguments,Dewey’spragmatictechnologyutilizesonepartofnaturetotransformorreconstructanotherpartofnature.Somesituationscallforwhatisrelativelyexternaltotheorganismtobealteredoradaptedtotheneedsoftheorganism.Othersituationsrequiretheorganismtoaccommodateitselftowhatarerelativelyexternalconditions.Inmostcases,however,whatisrequirediswhatDeweyterms“adjustment”–ajudiciousbalancebetweenadaptationandaccommodation.Dewey’spragmatictechnologyisthusneitheressentialistnorreductionist.Thephrase“relativelyexternaltotheorganism”carriesspecialfreightinthiscon-nection.Deweyrefusedtoidentifythemindwiththebrain,orevenwiththebrainplustheperipheralnervoussystem.Heinsteadtreatedmindasfunctional,asintentional,andasverbal:mindinginvolvesbrainandnervoussystemaswellastoolsandotherartifacts,bothtangibleandintangible.InthismatterDeweyanticipatedMarshallMcLuhan’streatmentofmediaastheextensionsofhumanorganisms(McLuhan1962)and,morerecently,thedynamicsystemstheoryofW.TeedRockwellandothers(Rockwell2005).Earlyon,Deweyidentifiedhisphilosophicalpositionas“instrumentalism.”ThisdesignationhasbeenthesourceofdifficultyamongsomeofDewey’sEuropeanreaders,whohavemisunderstoodhisprojectasaversionof“instrumentalrationality,”ortheviewthatefficiencyofmeanstrumpsevaluationofgoalsorends.Byusingtheterm“instrumentalism,”however,Deweysignaledhis“praiseoftools,instrumentalities,[and]means,puttingthemonalevelequalinvaluetoendsandconsequences,sincewithoutthemthelatteraremerelyaccidental,sporadicandunstable”(Dewey1984a).Deweythusrejected“instrumentalrationality”atthesametimethatheprovidedabasisforevaluatingtoolsandtechniques,includingthecognitivetoolsutilizedbythemainstrandsofWesternphilosophy.Inthislatterrole,instrumentalism“involvesthedoctrinethattheorigin,structure,andpurposeofknowingaresuchastorendernugatoryanywholesaleinquiriesintothenatureofBeing”(Dewey1978).Dewey’scritiqueoftechnologyalsodiffersinimportantwaysfromthatof“secondgeneration”criticaltheoristJürgenHabermas.DeweywouldhavecertainlyrejectedHabermas’sclaimthatthehumansciencesproceedinamannerthatistotallydifferentfromthetechnosciencesbecausetheformerareprimarilyconcernedwithmeaningandvaluewhereasthelatterareprimarilyconcernedwithdata-gathering.Hispragmatictechnologyprovidesthebasisforrelatingandintegratingwithinageneraltheoryofinquirytheseveralinterests–theempiricalsciences,thehistoricalhermeneuticalsciences,andthecriticalsciences–thatHabermastendstomaintainasdistinct(Habermas1971).Sincethe1990ssomephilosophersoftechnologyhavebeguntoreassesstheclaimsoftheclassicalperiodoftheirdisciplinealonglinesthatarequitefamiliartoDewey’sreaders.RejectingtheapproachofwhatheregardedasHeidegger’soverlyromanticized177\n9781405146012_4_030.qxd2/4/0913:28Page178larryhickmanposition,forexample,DonIhde(1991)developedan“instrumentalrealism”thattreatedinstrumentsastheinterfacebetweenthephilosophyofscienceandthephilo-sophyoftechnology.AndrewFeenberg(1999)distancedhimselffromhisrootsincriticaltheorybymovingtoreplaceanessentialistunderstandingoftechnologywithonethatisfunctional,rejectingtheideaoftechnologyasideology,andrecharacter-izingtechnologyinwaysthatinvolvegreaterappreciationofsocialnetworks.Peter-PaulVerbeek(2005)arguedthatHeideggerandotherclassicphilosophersoftechnologyhadbeenlookinginthewrongdirection:insteadofattemptingtounderstandthecon-ditionsforthepossibilityoftechnology,theyshouldhavebeendevelopinganaccountoftoolsandartifactsastheytaketheirplaceinlife’sactivities.EachofthesepositionswasbothanticipatedanddevelopedindetailasapartofJohnDewey’spragmatictechnology.ReferencesandFurtherReadingDewey,J.(1972).“TheReflexArcConceptinPsychology,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheEarlyWorks,1887–1898,Vol.5(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.96–109.Dewey,J.(1978).“SomeImplicationsofAnti-intellectualism,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheMiddleWorks,1899–1924,Vol.6(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.86–90.Dewey,J.(1979).“SchoolsofTomorrow:Play,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheMiddleWorks,1899–1924,Vol.8(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.275–93.Dewey,J.(1980a).“TheNatureofMethod,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheMiddleWorks,1899–1924,Vol.9(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.171–87.Dewey,J.(1980b).“ScienceintheCourseofStudy,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheMiddleWorks,1899–1924,Vol.9(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.227–39.Dewey,J.(1981).“ExperienceandNature:Nature,CommunicationandMeaning,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheLaterWorks,1925–1953,Vol.1(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.132–61.Dewey,J.(1984a).“TheCopernicanRevolution,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheLaterWorks,1925–1953,Vol.4(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.229–50.Dewey,J.(1984b).“WhatIBelieve,”inJ.A.Boydston(ed.),TheCollectedWorksofJohnDewey:TheLaterWorks,1925–1953,Vol.5(Carbondale,Ill.:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress),pp.267–78.Ellul,J.(1964).TheTechnologicalSociety(NewYork:VintageBooks).Feenberg,A.(1999).QuestioningTechnology(NewYork:Routledge).Habermas,J.(1971).KnowledgeandHumanInterests(Boston,Mass.:BeaconPress).Heidegger,M.(1962).BeingandTime(NewYork:Harper&Row).Hickman,L.(1990).JohnDewey’sPragmaticTechnology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Horkheimer,M.andAdorno,T.(1987).DialecticofEnlightenment(NewYork:Continuum).Ihde,D.(1991).InstrumentalRealism:TheInterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnology.(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).178\n9781405146012_4_030.qxd2/4/0913:28Page179technologicalpragmatismJames,W.(1975),inF.Burkhardt(ed.),TheWorksofWilliamJames:Pragmatism(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).McLuhan,M.(1962).TheGutenbergGalaxy(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress).Peirce,C.S.(1986).“HowtoMakeOurIdeasClear,”inC.J.Kloeseletal.(eds),WritingsofCharlesS.Peirce,Vol.3(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress),pp.257–76.Rockwell,W.T.(2005).NeitherBrainNorGhost(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Verbeek,P.(2005).WhatThingsDo:PhilosophicalReflectionsonTechnology,Agency,andDesign(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).179\n9781405146012_4_031.qxd2/4/0913:28Page18031HermeneuticsandTechnologiesDONIHDEAtfirstglance,itmightappearthathermeneuticsasatheoryofinterpretation,andtechnologiesasthearrayofartifactsusedbyhumans,mightnotbeeasilyrelated.However,insofarasalltechnologiesasusedbyhumansareascribedwithrangesofoftencomplexmeanings,soalsoaretexts,sothatatadeeperlevelhermeneuticsandtechnologiespotentiallyexhibitconsiderableinterrelationsafewofwhichwillbeexploredhere.Hermeneuticsisalsousuallythoughtofaspertainingtolinguisticphenomena,andmostprimarilytowrittenortextualinterpretation.Clearly,inthepre-modernEuropeantraditions,hermeneuticswasmostfocallypracticedwithrespecttosacredtexts,particularlybiblicalones.However,withthespreadofmodernistthoughtandwithbeginningslargelyintheeighteenthcenturyandthesubsequentriseof“biblicalcriticism,”orthequestionofinterpretationwhichquestionedthehistoricaloriginsandformationsofbiblicaltexts,thenotionsofacriticalintepretationbegantoexpandintoabroadercriticaltheory.Bythenineteenthcenturythemaincurrentsofscholarlythink-ingbegantodifferentiatedisciplinesintomoredistinctpracticeswiththemethodsandaimsofthenaturalsciences–previously“naturalphilosophy”–andthehumansciencesintotwodistinguishablestylesofthinking.Themostfamousandlongest-lastingsetofdistinctionsremainsassociatedwithWilhelmDiltheyandhisNaturwissenschafteninterpretedbyan“explanationtheory,”incontrasttotheGeisteswissenschafteninter-pretedbya“theoryofunderstanding.”IntheDiltheyancontext,itwouldbeclearthathermeneuticswouldbeoneformofunderstandingorVerstehenandbeassociatedwiththehumanities.ButDiltheywasnotalonewiththisyetmorewidelyexpandednotionofhermeneuticssincethetheologianFriedrichSchleiermacheralsoquiteexplicitlyelevatedhermeneuticsaseffectivelythemethodofthehumanitiesandofauniversal1interpretationofhumanity.Cappingoffthisexpansionofhermeneuticsasaneverexpandingtheoryofinterpretation,inthetwentiethcenturyMartinHeideggerexpli-citlycalledforontologyitselftobehermeneuticinhislandmarkpublicationBeingandTime(1927).Assuch,hermeneuticsbecomesanevenbroadertheoryofinterpretation,encompassingbeing-in-the-world.Where,then,inthisexpansionofahermeneutictheoryofmeaning,fromsacredtextstoontology,dotechnologiesfit?Inthiscontextwithinthephilosophyoftechnology,twointerestingsuggestionswillbeposed:First,beginningquitespecificallywiththe180ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_031.qxd2/4/0913:28Page181hermeneuticsandtechnologiesolderandnarrowersenseofhermeneuticsasfocusingupontexts,whileitshouldbeimmediatelyapparentthatanytheoryofmeaningorsignificancerelatingtotextsmustrecognizethattextsaretechnologicallyproduced!Writtenlanguage–resultingintexts–isaprocessofsomekindofwritingproductionentailingartifacts.Inthestillwidelyacceptedmasternarrativeconcerningwrittenlanguage,itisusuallyheldthatcuneiformwasprobablytheearliestdatableformofwriting,goingbackto6000bp.However,tortoise-shellwritingfromChinaalsoseemstodatebackto6000bp,sug-2gestingmultipleoriginsforthisprocess.Herethetechnologicalsystemisonewhichincludesatabletofwetclay,astylus,probablymostcommonlyasharpenedstick;andengagingasetofskillsappliedbyahumanscribe.Thescribeinscribesasetofmarksupontheclaytablet,whichafterbakingorotherhardeningprocessescanbeberead–visuallyinterpreted–byaskilledreader.Antiquityproducedaconsiderablerangeofsuchtextual-technologicalprocesses:cuneiform,asjustmentioned,butalsopapyrusreed“paper”inscribedwithabrushplusinkandagainentailingaskilledscribeandskilledreadertocompletethesystem;Asianricepaperwithbrushandinkandadif-ferentwritingsystem;andofcoursethelater,majorinventionofthealphabetinitsmanyvariations,firstamongstSemiticpeoples,thenrefinedbytheGreeks.Here,quiteliterally,hermeneuticsmeetstechnologiesintheinvention,historyanddevelopmentofwrittenlanguage.Putmorestrongly,thetechnologiesoftextualproductionmakehermeneuticsasatheoryofinterpretationnecessaryandpossible.Themateriallyproductiveconnectionbetweenthedevelopmentoftextproducingtechnologiesofwritinghas,inpostmodernity,beenrevisitedbythevariationsuponseveral“linguisticturns”inthehumanisticdisciplines.First,amongstanalyticphilo-sophers,thetaskbecameoneoflanguage(andlogical)analysis,soonfollowedbya3similarbutmoretextuallybasedturnbyhermeneuticphilosophers.But,inbothcases,therecanbenotedverylittlesensitivityto,orinterestin,thetechnologieswhichproducesuchwritingoritsendproduct,texts.Onlytheechoofsuchaprocessappears,forexample,inJacquesDerrida’snotionofinscriptionandthetracewhichhedoesacknow-ledgearethemarksproducedbymaterialusingactivities.Similarly,BrunoLatour’slaterclaimthatalllaboratoryequipmentproducesinscriptions,orvisibledisplays,also4echoes,atbest,theunderlyingtechnologiesofproduction.Asecondperspectiveuponatechnology–hermeneuticsrelationshipemergesbyreversingtheorderwhichviewsthemateriallyproductivebasesofwritingtechnolo-giestotexts,toaviewwhichbeginswiththearrayoftechnologiesandthemeaning-contextsintowhichtechnologiesfit.Technologicalartifacts,althoughtheycanbesimplyanymaterialobjectincludingnon-designedandnon-manufacturedones,typicallyareartifactswhichhavebeenshapedand“designed.”Indeed,thedominantcommonnotionsofdesigningandshapingoftenentailabeliefthat“designerintent”isorshouldaffectboththemeaninganduseofthetechnologiesinvolved.Yetsuchconstraintsareatbestpartialandintermsofactualhistoriesmayactuallyoftenfallawayortakeverydifferenttrajectories.EdwardTennercataloguesahistoryof5unintendedside-effectswhichaccompanymany,ifnotmost,technologies.Anolderexample,frequentlyrecounted,relatestoAlfredNobel’sinventionofdynamite,anexplosivetechnology“designed”tomaketheminingprocesseasierandmoreeffective,which,tragically,alsomadewartimeexplosivesmoreeffective.Tenner’sexamplesincludethenotionthatelectroniccommunicationswouldproducethe“paperlesssociety,”but181\n9781405146012_4_031.qxd2/4/0913:28Page182donihdewhichtodayusesmorepaperthaneverbefore,andthelistgoesonindefinitely.This,however,canbetakenasahermeneuticproblem.Thatis,technologies,preciselybecausetheycanbetakenandusedinamultiplicityofcontexts,usesandtrajectories,displayarangeofindeterminancyofmeaningwhichispreciselythephenomenonwhichanyhermeneutictheoryofmeaningmustengage.Here,onecanbeginbyapproximatingsomeoftheclassicaltextualandliteraryprob-lemsinhermeneuticstoanalogproblemswithtechnologies,andshowthebeginningsofcreativeinteractionbetweenhermeneuticsandtechnologies.Inliteraryandtextualcontexts,onequestionrelatestoorigins,suchasthequestionof“author’sintent,”butalsotothehistorical-cultural-socialcontextoftheoriginofthetext.Thesamekindofquestionwithrespecttotechnologiescanberaisedconcerning“designerintent,”andthehistorical-cultural-socialcontextoftheoriginofthetechnology.Technologies,liketexts,areembeddedinsocialmeanings.Intheirclassicexaminationofthedevelop-mentofthebicycle,inTheSocialConstructionofTechnology,TrevorPinchandWiebeBijkershowhowsocialmeanings–notonlytechnicalcapacities–relatetodevelop-ment.TheassociationofthehighwheelPennyFarthingbicyclewithboldyoungmasculinemales,andtheSafetyBicycle(withbrakesandaccommodationtoskirts)withwomen,clearlyplayedaroleinthistechnicalevolution.Technologiesareopen,6theyargue,tointerpretiveflexibility.Inthehistoryofliterarycriticalhermeneutics,forexample,thenotionofauthor’sintentasthemeaningofatexthasbecomecriti-cizedasthe“intentionalfallacy,”sinceinmanycasesintentcannotbediscoveredandinothersmeaningsotherthanintendedoftencometodominate.Similarly,inthehistoryoftechnology,“designerintent”isoftenradicallymodifiedastechnologiescomeintouseand/oraremodifiedovertime.Historicallytheprostheticdesignintentofboththetelephoneandthetypewriterlostouttoothercommunicationandcom-7mercialusesandmeanings.Drawingfromthetraditionsoftheinterpretationofsacredtexts,theroleofcommentarytraditionsarealsoofimportance.Commentarytraditionsdeflectinterpretivetrajectoriesandchangetheirdirectionsbyshowingnewpossibilities.Imagineasimpleexample:theFallofAdamandEveintheGarden.Thebiblicalstoryhasthreecharacters–Adam,EveandtheSerpent.Takingoftheforbiddenfruitoftheknowledgeofgoodandevilconstitutesthe“fall”frominnocence.Butwhichcharacteristobeassignedtheblame?Thetextisnottransparent,thuscommentary,itselfsituatedinsomecultural-historical-socialcontext,willprovidepossibleperspectives.Adam,ifviewedhierarchicallyandpatriarchally,willbemostresponsible;orEve,ifviewedinthecontextofsomesexuallyloadedcontext,ortheSerpent,ifviewedinapre-existentflawofNatureareallpos-sibilities.Similarly,thechoicetodaytoreplacelightbulbswithincandescent,inastrictlyshort-termeconomiccontext,halogenorfluorescentifinalonger-term,energy-savingcontext,arechoicesofwhichdominatesparalleltothecommentaryexample.Thehermeneutics–technologiesrelationshipis,atdepth,oneoftextsandtechnologiesbothbeinghumanlyproducedbutinwaysinwhichmeaningsaccrueandfromwhichtrajectoriescanbetaken.Criticalinterpretationiscalledforwithbothtextsandtechnologies.Thereisfinallyyetanothersteppossible.Whatcouldbecalledamaterialhermeneuticsisyetanotherexpansionfrompre-modernhermeneutics.Herethefocusisuponmeaningsinherentin,orexpressiblefrom,technologies,particularlythosewhichare182\n9781405146012_4_031.qxd2/4/0913:28Page183hermeneuticsandtechnologiesinstrumentalintheproductionofknowledge.Metaphoricallythiswouldbeaher-meneuticswhichhelpsthingsormateriality“speak.”Physicalanthropologyandarcheologyaretwodisciplineswhichentailpriordevelopmentsofsuchamaterialhermeneutics.Inboth,significantphysiologicalshaping–toothenamelandshapeandsizeinphysicalanthropologycanhelpdeterminefunctionandspecies–andculturalstylistics–typicalstyleofpotteryandotheruse-objects–canhelpdeterminewhichcultureandperiodisbeingexamined.But,beyondthesetraditionalmeans,contem-porarymeanswhichutilizecarbon14dating,thermo-luminescence,massspectroscopy,penetrateandyieldinterpretationswhichfarexceedthoseoftraditionalobservations.This,too,canberecognizedasahermeneutic,amateriallyhermeneuticprocess.Notes1.AnextensivehistoryandcomparisonofhermeneuticsmaybefoundinP.Riceour,TheConflictofInterpretations(Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1974).AlsoseeD.Ihde,ExpandingHermeneutics:VisualisminScience(Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1998).2.SeeS.R.Fischer,AHistoryofWriting(London:ReaktionBooks,2005).3.R.Rorty(ed.),TheLinguisticTurn:EssaysinPhilosophicalMethodology(Chicago,Ill.:Univer-sityofChicagoPress,1967).Unnoticedbymostanalyticphilosophers,however,wasthesimilarturnbyJ.Derrida,DelaGrammatology(1974),laterOfGrammatology,trans.G.C.Spivak(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1976).4.Derrida’snotionofthetraceandtheinscriptiontakesshapeinOfGrammatologyandisalsosimilarlynotedwithrespecttolaboratoryexperimentsinterpretedasinscriptionsorvisualizationsbyB.Latour,ScienceinAction(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987).AlsoseeDonIhde’suseofhermeneuticrelationsinasimilarinstrumentalcontextinTechnologyandtheLifeworld(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress,1990).5.E.Tenner,WhyThingsBiteBack:TechnologyandtheRevengeofUnintendedConsequences(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1996).6.W.Bijker,OfBicycles,BakelitesandBulbs(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1995).7.F.Kittler,F.,Grammaphone,FilmandTypewriter(NewYork:HarcourtBrace,1992).183\n9781405146012_4_032.qxd2/4/0913:29Page18432AnalyticPhilosophyofTechnologyMAARTENFRANSSENThefirstthingthatshouldbenotedaboutanalyticphilosophyoftechnologyisthatthereisnotamoreorlessunifiedsubfieldofthatnamewithinphilosophywithaconsensusonalistofcentralproblemsandacanonofkeywritings,asisthecasefor(analytic)philosophyofscience.Itisonlyduringthelastfourdecadesthatanalyticphilosophershaveturnedtotechnology.Analyticphilosophyoftechnologyis,there-fore,atbestanemergingdiscipline,anditisstilltooearlytobeconvincedthatitwillgrowintoamaturefieldcomparableinextenttothephilosophyofscience.Thecontingenciesofhistoricaldevelopmentplayalargeroleinsuchmatters.Analyticphilosophyisprimarilyawayofdoingphilosophy,oraviewonwhatmeaningfulphilosophyisabout:whatsortsofquestionsareworthaskingandwhatsortsofanswerstothesequestionsareacceptable.Accordingly,itisdefinedbymethod,notbysubject.Nevertheless,somesubjectsinphilosophyareclosertotheheartofana-lyticphilosophythanothers.Whatcharacterizesanalyticphilosophyisanabhorrenceofsystem-buildingandspeculation,apreferenceforadetailedtreatmentofclearlydelineatedproblems,anemphasisoncleardefinitionsoftheconceptsusedtoputaproblemandtoanswerit,anemphasisonlanguage,conceptualizationandformaliza-tion,ageneralacknowledgmentoftherelevanceofempiricalfacts,andagreatrespectforthefindingsofscience–tosuchanextent,even,thatscienceandphilosophyareconsideredtomergeintoeachotherortoforminsomesenseacontinuum.Giventhisgeneraloutlook,questionsconcerningknowledgeandtheorieshavetraditionallybeenatthecentreofanalyticphilosophy,andforananalyticphilosopherthephilosophyofscienceisarespectablefieldofinquiryparexcellence,thoughfieldslikemetaphysicsandethics,whichwereregardedwithextremesuspicionbytheearliestanalyticphilosophers,havesincebeentakenuptobestudiedfromtheanalyticperspective.Thefollowingoverviewofsomecoreissuesinanalyticphilosophyoftechnology–thecharacteroftechnologicalknowledge,thestudyofdesignandaction,andthestatusoftechnicalartifacts–willshowthattheyareclosetotheheartofanalyticphilosophy.Theneglectthatthephilosophyoftechnologyforalongtimehadinanalyticphilo-sophymaybeattributedinparttoalackofreflectionontherelationbetweenscienceandtechnology–anattitudethatisoftenpresented,perhapssomewhatdramatized,intheformofaclaimthattechnologyis“merely”appliedscience.Indeed,aquestion-ingofthisrelationwasthecentralissueintheearliestdiscussionsamonganalytic184ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_032.qxd2/4/0913:29Page185analyticphilosophyoftechnologyphilosophersoftechnology.In1966,inaspecialissueofthejournalTechnologyandCulture,HenrykSkolimowskipointedoutthattechnologyissomethingquitedifferentfromscience.Scienceconcernsitselfwithwhatis,whereastechnologyconcernsitselfwithwhatistobe.Afewyearslater,inhiswell-knownbookTheSciencesoftheArtificial,HerbertSimonemphasizedthisimportantdistinctioninalmostthesamewords,statingthatthescientistisconcernedwithhowthingsarebuttheengineerwithhowthingsoughttobe.Althoughitisdifficulttoimaginethatearlieranalyticphilosophers,inparticularthelogicalempiricists,wereblindtothisdifferenceinorientation,theirinclinationtoviewknowledgeprimarilyasasystemofstatementsmayhaveledtoaconvictionthatintechnologynoknowledgeclaimsplayarolethatcannotalsobefoundinscience,andthatthereforethestudyoftechnologyposesnonewchallengesandholdsnosurprisesregardingtheinterestsofanalyticphilosophy.Additionallyitmustbenotedthatacloserelationshipbetweenscientistsandphilosophershadgrownaroundseveralfoundationalissues–therealityofatoms,thestatusofcausalityandprobability,questionsofspaceandtime,thenatureofthequantumworld–thatweresolivelydiscussedduringtheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Nosuchintimacyexistedbetweenthosesamephilosophersandtechnicians;theirworldsbarelytouched.Andasthesayinggoes:unknown,unloved.InthesameissueofTechnologyandCulture,MarioBungedefendedtheviewthattech-nologyisappliedscience,butinasubtlewaythatdoesjusticetothedifferencesbetweenscienceandtechnology.Bungeacknowledgesthattechnologyisaboutaction,butanactionheavilyunderpinnedbytheory–thatiswhatdistinguishestechnologyfromtheartsandcraftsandputsitonaparwithscience.AccordingtoBunge,theoriesintechnologycomeintwotypes:substantivetheories,whichprovideknowledgeabouttheobjectofaction,andoperativetheories,whichareconcernedwithactionitself.Thesubstantivetheoriesoftechnologyareindeedlargelyapplicationsofscientifictheories.Theoperativetheories,incontrast,arenotprecededbyscientifictheoriesbutareborninappliedresearchitself.Still,asBungeclaims,operativetheoriesshowadependencyonscienceinthatinsuchtheoriesthemethodofscienceisemployed.Thisincludessuchfeaturesasmodelingandidealization,theuseoftheoreticalconceptsandabstractions,andthemodificationoftheoriesbytheabsorptionofempiricaldatathroughpredictionsandretrodictions.InhiscommentonSkolimowski’spaperinTechnologyandCulture,IanJarvieproposedasimportantquestionsforananalyticphilosophyoftechnology,whattheepistemo-logicalstatusoftechnologicalstatementsisandhowtechnologicalstatementsaretobedemarcatedfromscientificstatements.Thissuggestsathoroughinvestigationofthevariousformsofknowledgeoccurringineitherpractice.Adistinctionbetween“knowingthat”–traditionalpropositionalknowledge–and“knowinghow”–non-articulatedandevenimpossible-to-articulateknowledge–hadearlierbeenintroducedbyGilbertRyle,oneofthemostimportantBritishanalyticphilosophersofthemid-twentiethcentury,butthisdistinctionwasnotusedtoinvestigatetheepistemologicalstatusoftechnologicalclaims.Whetheritwouldhavebeenfruitfulinthisrespectisstillanopenquestion.Notmuchprogressseemstohavebeenmadeinphilosophyinthisrespect.Theseearlyanalyticphilosophersoftechnologystillsharedthephilosophyofscienceaspointofdeparture.Asaresult,theytendedtomissanimportant,ifnotthemostimportant,activitythatsetstechnologyapartfromscience,thatofdesign.To185\n9781405146012_4_032.qxd2/4/0913:29Page186maartenfranssenunderstandthispartoftechnologyproperly,athoroughacquaintancewithengineer-ingpracticeisrequired.Inhis1990bookWhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowIt,theaeronauticalengineerWalterVincentigaveasixfoldcategorizationofengineeringdesignknow-ledge(leavingasideproductionandoperationastheothertwobasicconstituentsofengineeringpractice).Vincentidistinguishes(1)fundamentaldesignconcepts,includingprimarilytheoperationalprincipleandthenormalconfigurationofapar-ticulardevice;(2)criteriaandspecifications;(3)theoreticaltools;(4)quantitativedata;(5)practicalconsiderations;and(6)designinstrumentalities.ThethirdandfourthcategorycanbeassumedtoincludeBunge’ssubstantivetechnologicaltheories.Oftheremainingfourcategories,Vincenticlaimsthattheyrepresentprescriptiveformsofknowledgeratherthandescriptiveones.Here,theactivityofdesignintroducesanelementofnormativity,whichfailsinscientificknowledge.Takesuchabasicnotionas“operationalprinciple,”bywhichismeantthewayinwhichthefunctionofadeviceisrealized–howitworks,inshort.Thisisstillapurelydescriptivenotion.Subsequently,however,itplaysaroleinargumentsthatseektoprescribeacourseofactiontosomeonewhohasagoalthatcouldberealizedbytheoperationofsuchadevice.Atthisstage,theissuechangesfromadescriptivetoaprescriptiveornormativeone.Inanalyticphilosophy,suchargumentsarestudiedundertheheadingsofpracticalinference,instrumentalrationalityandmeans–endsreasoning.Alotofworkstillhastobedoneontheprecisewaystechnologicalaction,asincludedintheactivityofdesigning,islinkedtothestudythatthesefieldspresentofactioningeneral.Thistaskrequiresaclearviewontheextentandscopeoftechnology.IfwefollowJosephPittinhis1999bookThinkingaboutTechnologyanddefinetechnologybroadlyas“humanityatwork,”thentodistinguishbetweentechnologicalactionandactioningeneralbecomesdifficult,andthestudyoftechnologicalactionmustabsorballdescriptiveandnormativetheoriesofaction,includingthetheoryofpracticalration-ality,andmuchoftheoreticaleconomicsinitswake.Therehaveindeedbeenattemptswithinanalyticphilosophyatsuchanencompassingaccountofhumanaction,forexampleTadeuszKotarbiñski’sPraxiology(1955),butaperspectiveofsuchgeneralitymakesitdifficulttoarriveatresultsofsufficientdepth.Itisachallengeforanalyticphilosophyingeneraltospecifythedifferencesamongactionformsandthereasoninggroundingthemin,tosingleoutthreeprominentpractices,technology,organizationandmanagement,andeconomics.Anotherissueofcentralconcerntoanalyticphilosophersoftechnologyisthestatusofartifacts.Philosophyofsciencehasemphasizedthattheconceptofnaturalkind,suchasexemplifiedby“water”or“atom,”liesatthebasisofscience.Intech-nology,artifactsaresimilarlyrepresentedasformingkinds,butsuchkinds–inparticularfunctionalkindslike“knife”or“aeroplane”–lackthepropertythatmakesthemsoimportantinscience,thatofsupportingnaturallaws.Therearenoregularitiesthatallknivesorallaeroplanesanswerto.Infactthecharacteritselfofafunctionalkindisunclear:isaknifeeverythingthatcanbeusedtocut,oreverythingthatwasmadewiththeintentionthatitbeusedforcutting?Theformerwouldclassifysplintersofglassandsharprocksasknives;thelatterwouldhaveusincludeintheclassofknivesallfailedattemptsatdesigningaknifeandallremnantsofkniveswornbeyondrecognition.Neitheralternativeisattractive.Thisbroadconceptoffunctionalkindis,186\n9781405146012_4_032.qxd2/4/0913:29Page187analyticphilosophyoftechnologyhowever,nottheonlyrelevantnotionofakindintechnology,northemostimportantone.Itcanbearguedthatengineeringdesignisaimedatcreatingakindortyperatherthanoneorseveralindividualartifacts.Sincethesekindsarespecifiedintermsofphysicalandgeometricalparameters,theyaremuchclosertothenaturalkindsofscience,inthattheysupportlaw-likeregularities.Thecontrastbetweenthesetwosortsofkindsreflectsthemoregeneralproblemoftherelationbetweenstructureandfunctionintechnicalartifacts.Structureandfunctionmutuallyconstraineachother,buttheconstrainingisonlypartial,anditisthereforeunclearwhetherageneralaccountofthisrelationispossible.Inrelationtothisitisequallyproblematicwhetheraunifiedaccountofthenotionoffunctionassuchispossible.Thisnotionisofparamountimportanceforanunderstandingofartifacts.Anartifact’sfunctionis,roughly,whatitisfor,whereitisopenwhetherthisfor-nessisbasedultimatelyonwhattheartifactisdesignedfororbeingusedfor.Severalresearchershaveemphasizedthatanadequatedescriptionofartifactsmustreferbothtotheirstatusastangiblephysicalobjectsandtotheintentionsoftheirusersanddesigners.PeterKroesandAnthonieMeijers(2006)havedubbedthisview“thedualnatureoftechnicalartifacts.”Theysuggestthatthetwoaspectsare“tiedup,”sotospeak,inthenotionofartifactfunction.Function,however,isalsoakeyconceptinbiology,wherenointentionalityplaysarole.Uptillnowthereisnoacceptedgeneralaccountoffunctionunderwhichboththeintentionality-orientednotionofartifactfunctionandthenon-intentionalnotionofbiologicalfunction–nottospeakofotherareaswheretheconceptplaysarole,suchasthesocialsciences–canbesubsumed.ThecollectionofessayseditedbyAriew,CumminsandPerlman(2002)presentsarecentintroductiontothistopic.Thispresentationofsomeofthecoreissuesaddressedbyanalyticphilosophersoftechnologymightsuggestthattheyarenotinterestedinethicalandsocialproblemsinconnectionwithtechnology,justastheethicalandsocialdimensionsofsciencearealmostcompletelyignoredinanalyticphilosophyofscience.Thisisnotso,however,buttheirinterestistriggeredmorebytheengagementofanalyticphilosophersoftech-nologyinengineeringpracticethanbytheinterestsofphilosophicalethics.Analyticethicsisprimarilyaformofmeta-ethics,thatis,itdiscussesthecharacterofethicaljudgmentsandethicalstatementsandthewaythesearerelated,throughrulesofinfer-ence,forinstance,withothertypesofstatements.Itisnotapparentthattechnologypresentsspecialchallengestometa-ethics–none,atleast,thatdonotalreadyoccurwithinthephilosophyofactionandthetheoryofrationality.Rather,analyticphilo-sophersoftechnologyshareinabroadlyfeltconvictionthatanyformofphilosophicalreflectionontechnologymustaddresstheethicalandsocietalproblemsraisedbytechnology.Thewaytheyaddresstheseproblemsreflectsthegeneralorientationofanalyticphilosophy.Inlinewiththecentralplacetheygivetoconceptualanalysis,analyticalphilosophersstresstheimportanceofclarifyingkeynotionslikeresponsibility.And,inlinewiththeirurgetotaketheempiricalfactsintoaccount,theyarguethatathoroughacquaintancewiththewayengineeringdesignisorganizedandthewaytechnicalartifactsareimplementedandusediscrucialtoanunderstandingofthewayinwhichethicalproblemsrelatedtotechnologyemerge,anunderstandingthatmustprecedeanysensibleproposaltodealwithsuchproblems.Similarly,withregardtothesweepingclaimsconcerningthemeaningoftechnologyinhumancultureandthegood187\n9781405146012_4_032.qxd2/4/0913:29Page188maartenfranssenorbadwaysinwhichitshapeshumanlifethatcansoreadilybefoundintraditionalphilosophyoftechnology,analyticphilosophersoftechnologypointtotheneedtoana-lyzeandmakemorepreciseconceptslikeman,mankind,culture,thought,freedom,andthelike,beforesuchstatementscanbemeaningfullyproposedanddiscussed.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAriew,A.,Cummins,R.andPerlman,M.(eds)(2002).Functions:NewEssaysinthePhilosophyofPsychologyandBiology(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Kotarbi´nski,T.(1955).Traktatodobrejrobocie,Englishtranslation(1965),Praxiology:AnIntro-ductiontotheSciencesofEfficientAction(Oxford:PergamonPress).Kroes,P.A.andMeijers,A.W.M.(eds)(2006).“TheDualNatureofTechnicalArtefacts,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience,37(specialissue):1–158.Mitcham,C.(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology:ThePathbetweenEngineeringandPhilosophy(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pitt,J.C.(1999).ThinkingaboutTechnology:FoundationsofthePhilosophyofTechnology(NewYork:SevenBridgesPress).Ryle,G.(1949).TheConceptofMind(London:Hutchinson).Simon,H.A.(1969).TheSciencesoftheArtificial(Cambridge,Mass./London:MITPress).Vincenti,W.G.(1991).WhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowIt:AnalyticalStudiesfromAeronauticalHistory(Baltimore,Md./London:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).188\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page18933TechnologicalRationalityLORENZOC.SIMPSONTechnologyandtechnologicalsystemsareembeddedinavarietyofsocial,politicalandeconomiccontexts–contextsthatultimatelyshapetheconcreteformthatmaterial1technologiesandtechnologicalprocesseswillassume.Despitesuchcontextualdiffer-entials,anunderlyingrationalitycanbediscerned.Thiscanbecapturedbytheideaoftechnologicalrationality.Impliedbytheideaoftechnologicalrationalityistheexistenceofacoresetofcharacteristicsthatrunsthroughavarietyoftypesofaction.Themeaningfuluseoftheexpression“technologicalrationality”woulddemandthatitscriteriaofapplicationservetoexcludesomerationalesforactionwhileincludingothersandservetodelimitfeaturesofthephenomenonthatallowforitsidentificationandreidentification.So,presupposedbytheideaisourabilityanalyticallytoisolatesuchacoreoratleastindicateintelligibleconnectionsamongfamiliesofsuchcharacteristics.ThoughitsorigincanbetracedtotheAristoteliannotionoftechne,ormaking,theconceptualgenealogyoftechnologicalrationalitystemsperhapsmostdirectlyfromMaxWeber’sanalysisofactiontypesinmodernsocieties.Weberputforwardathreefolddistinction:whathecalledpurposive-rationalactionwasopposedtoso-calledvalue-rationalaction,andbothwereopposedtotradition-basedaction.Purposiverationality(Zweckrationalität)referstotheideaofassessingactionfromthepointofviewofitsadequacyasameanstotherealizationofanagent’sendsorgoals.Valuerationality(Wertrationalität)referstotheideaofassessingactionfromthepointofviewofitscoherencewithavalueornormheldtobeofintrinsicsignificance,regardlessoftheaction’sprospectsforsuccessintheattainmentofaprojectedendorgoal.Theend-orientednatureoftechnologicalorpurposiverationalityisthencontrastedwitharationalitythatisorientedbyaconcernwiththewayinwhichanactionisdoneorwiththevaluesembodiedinitorbythenormsgoverningit.Tradition-basedactionisdeterminedbyingrainedhabituationandistypicallynotmediatedbyrationalassessment.AccordingtoWeber,modernityischaracterizedbytheincreasedscopegiventoinstrumentalorpurposiverationality.Theideaofinstrumentalorpurposiverationalityanditssocialramificationsinlatecapitalismandinmodern,post-industrialsocietybecameacentralconcernofthefirstgenerationoftheGermansocialtheoristsknownastheFrankfurtSchool(MaxHorkheimer,TheodorAdorno,HerbertMarcuseandothers).TheysawtechnologicalACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks189©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page190lorenzoc.simpsonrationalityasessentiallyembodiedinthepurposefulorganizationandcombinationofproductivetechniques–directedeitherbypublicorprivateagents–thatareaimed2ultimatelyatmoreandmoreeffectiveandefficientsocialcontrol.Tothisinstru-mentalrationalitytheyopposedwhattheyreferredtoascriticalrationality,butwith-outelaboratingarigorouslysystematicandcoherentaccountofthelatter.JürgenHabermas–themostprominentmemberofthesecondgenerationofFrankfurtSchoolsocialtheorists–elaborateduponWeber’sdistinction,maintainedthatinstrumentalrationalitydoesnotexhaustmodernity’srationalpotential,andopposedtothismodeofrationalityasystematicaccountofwhathecallscommunicativerationality.Habermas’sconceptionofcommunicativerationalityprovidesabackdropforfurtherdelimitingthecontoursoftechnologicalrationality.Communicativelyrationalactionislinguisticallyorsymbolicallymediated,isgovernedbynormsthataresharedbyatleasttwoagents,eachofwhomacknowledgestheother’srecognitionofthenorms,3andisorientedtowardsseekingmutualunderstandingandagreement.Thisrationalitythatunderliesreachingagreementwithothersinlanguageissharplydistinguishedfromtherationalitythatunderwritessuccessfulinterventionintheobjectiveworldbasedonknowledgeofthecausaldeterminantsofprocessesinthatworld.Othersignificantaspectsoftechnologicalrationalitycometotheforewhenweunderstandtechnologyitselftobearesponsetoourfinitude,totherealizationthatwearevulnerableandmortalandthatourtimeislimited.Andtechnologyhasbeenaresponsetoourfinitudefromthebeginning.Theearliestinstancesoftool-usinginforagingsocietieswereto“increasethereliabilityandproductivityof...subsistence4strateg[ies]byusingtime-savingdevices.”Thissuggeststhattime-savingisanimport-5antaimoftechnologicalrationalization.Indeed,itcanbearguedthattherationalitythatinformstechnologicalpractice,byplacingapremiumonefficiencyandcontrol,encourageswhatcanbecalledadomesticationoftime,areductionoftimetomanipul-6able,interchangeableanddispensableunitsgearedtowardfuturegoals.Alltechnologicalends,betheyproximateorremote,havetheirorigininsomeobjectofhumanneedordesire.Ourcapacitiesanddesires,e.g.forcommunication,health,transportation,nourishment,security,entertainment,shelter,comfortetc.,willultim-atelyconstitutethehermeneuticgridintermsofwhichthepointofanytechnologycanbeunderstood.Inthissense,thoughtechnologymaygeneratepossibilitiesthatwehavenotenvisioned,itssignificancederivesultimatelyfromournatureandvalues.However,whenthosevaluesbecomeendsoftechnology,theyaretranslatedintotherealmoftechnics,andvariousbranchesoftechnologycoalescearoundthem,e.g.mechan-icalengineering,electronics,civilengineering,agriculture,etc.And,whenthoseendsbecometheguidingcriteriaforthevarioussectorsoftechnology,theendsandthetechnologiesassociatedwiththemwillformarelativelyautonomousdomain.Thetechnologicallyrationalgazeisguidedbyanendthathasbeenarticulatedintermscommensuratewiththeparticulartechnologyinquestion.Forinstance,inmedicineonetypicallyspeaksintermsofhaltingtheprogressofaspecificbiomedicallydefineddiseaseratherthan,say,intermsinvokingtheconceptofhealth,wherehealthisunder-stoodtoinvolvesocialandculturalaswellasmedicaldimensions.Technologicalrationalityisapurerationalityoffunction,focusedexclusivelyontherelationofmeanstoends.Technology’sanimatingrationalityrestrictsthescopeofitsdeliberationtomeans–endthinking,toaspeciesofcalculationdedicatedto190\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page191technologicalrationalitymaximizingeconomyandefficiency,withrespecttotimeandeffort,intherealizationofends.So“technologicalrationality”referstothatviewofreasonwhichfocusesitsattentionexclusivelyupontheadequacyofmeansfortherealizationofends,wherethoseendsarenotthemselvessubjecttonon-strategicrationaladjudication,andtothenotionofprogressthatisconsistentwiththisview.Wecanthinkoftechnologyitselfasasocialphenomenonthatembodiesatonceadistinctivecognitivestyleororientation,adistinctivemodeofaction,andadistinctivewayoftakingupwiththeworld.Accordingly,ausefulcorecharacterizationoftechnologicalrationalityistothinkofitasaspeciesofproblem-solvingrationalitywherebywemakeuseoftheenvironmenttosatisfyourwantsanddesires.Worldlyobjects,andtimeitself,areinstrumentallyinterpretedaspotentiallymanipulableunits7tobeorchestratedintheinterestofachievingthegoalsathand.Thesetofknowledge,skillsandinstrumentsthatarethemostefficientandeffectiveatproblem-solvingare8thedistinctiveproductsofthismodeofrationality.Wecancharacterizethewaytechnologyaddressesitsproblems,orthetechnologicalapproach,inthefollowingway:aneedismadeexplicit,oranopportunity,madeavailablebyscientificorperhapsothertechnologicaldevelopments,isarticulated;withinthecontextoftheneedoropportunity,aclearanddeterminategoalisspecified;themajorstepstobetakenandthemajorpiecesofworktobedoneareidentified;theplanisconstantlymaderespons-iveto“feedback”fromtheresultsofthework;and,typically,theworkisorganized9sothateachmajorsegmentisapportionedwithinadivisionoflabor.Thiswayofputtingithighlightstheimportantpointthattheendthattechnologyseekstorealizeasefficientlyandeffectivelyaspossibleisonethatisspecifiableanddeterminatebeforehand.Itfurtherhighlightstheimportancetothetechnologicalenterpriseofplanning,oftherationalorchestrationofprocedure.Therationalityoftechnologyaimsatthereductionofcontingencyanduncertaintyviathemasteryofinstrumentalitiesandtimethroughplanningandordering.Hence,whiletherearehistoricallycontingentfeaturesoftechnologicalpractices,wecan,withoutundulyessentializingtechnology,alsolocatefeaturesthatare,atleastrelativelyspeaking,historicallyinvariant,featuresthatsurvivesocialandhistoricaltransformations,featuresthatenableustoidentifyandre-identifyapracticeorsomeaspectofitastechnologicalinvirtueofanunderlyingrationality.Amongtheseare:(1)theseparationofmeansandendsand(2)therationalizationofthemeansfortheefficientprocurementofends.Tosummarize,wemightthinkoftechnology,then,asthesetofpurposivelyrationalizedpracticesaimedatputtingthefutureatourdisposal.Tosaythattechnologycanbeviewedasthatconstellationofknowledge,processes,skillsandproductswhoseaimisrationallytocontrolandtransformistoraisetheques-tionoftherelationbetweentechnologicalandscientificrationality.Weoftenthinkthattechnology’spromiseofcontrolisfulfilledbycashinginonthecognitiveachievementsofscience.Butwhat,exactly,istechnology’srelationshiptoscience?Anadequateaccountofthisdistinctionwillhavetoacknowledgethatthereisconsiderableoverlapbetweenwhatpersonsidentifiedasscientistsandthoseidentifiedastechnologistsdo.Ithasbeenremarkedthatitisoftendifficulttodifferentiateresearchscientistsfromresearch10engineersbaseduponobservationofthematwork.So,ifourdemarcationcriteriaaretobesensitivetoactualpractice,itwouldbeadvisabletothinkperhapsintermsofaspectrumofactivities,interestsandkindsofknowledgeratherthanintermsof191\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page192lorenzoc.simpsonsharpdichotomiesandtoacknowledgethatthescience/technology“border”isratherfluid.Theendpointsofsuchaspectrumshouldbeunderstoodthentodesignatefeaturesmoreakintothoseofanidealtypethantothoseofanactualpractice.Butthoseterminiwillbeusefulfortalkingaboutscientificortechnologicalaspectsofapracticeorinspeakingofamoreorlessscientificortechnologicalpractice.Themostusefulandleastcontestedwayofcharacterizingwhatliesattheendpointsistodosointermsofultimateaims.Scientificpracticeaimsatincreasingourknowledgeofthenaturalandsocialworldsbyofferingexplanationsofphenomena.Technologicalpracticeaimsatsolvingthematerialproblemsofhumanlifebyincreasingourpowertotransformthoseworlds.Anadequateattempttodifferentiatebetweenthescientificandthetechnological,then,musttakeitsorientationfromanacknowledgment11thatscience’saimisprimarilycognitive,whiletechnology’sisprimarilypractical.Weturn,finally,totheconceptionofprogressthatisconsonantwiththeaccountoftechnologicalrationalitypresentedhere.Theprimarymeasureoftechnologicalprogressisgrantedbytheimperativetomaximizeeffectiveness(reliability,durability,strength,easeofuse,etc.)andefficiencyinthesecuringofagivenend.(Increasedefficiencycanbeachievedeitherthroughthediscoveryofmoreproductiveways–yieldingmoreforagiven“cost”orinput–ormore“economical”modes–providingthesameyieldforlessinput–ofsecuringanend.)Afurtherandhighlysalientmarkof12technologicalprogressistheabbreviationofthetimenecessaryforsuchasecuring.Socialconstructivistswillpointoutthattheevolutionoftechnologyitselfisunderdeterminedbytheprincipleoftechnologicalrationalityarticulatedhere.Forthatprincipleisreachedbyabstractingordisembeddingtechnologyfromthecontextswhereinparticulartechnologiesareactuallydeployed.Torenderafullaccountofsuchcontextsofuse,sociallyandhistoricallyinformedanalysesthatexaminethesocialandhistoricalspecificityoftechnologicalsystemsmustalsobebroughttobear.Notes1.See,forinstance,Feenberg(1995),Feenberg(1999)andIhde(1990).2.Leiss(1972).3.Habermas(1970),p.92.4.Zvelebil(1984),p.314,citedinDeGregori(1985),p.14.5.SeealsoDeGregori(1985),pp.14ff.6.Simpson(1995),p.4.7.Ontheideaofencounteringtheworldasaresourceformanipulationanduse(Bestand),seeHeidegger(1977).8.DeGregori(1985),p.37.9.SeeKranzbergandPursell(1967),p.18.10.Hughes(1976),p.651;andO.Mayr(1976),p.667.Furthercomplicatingthisproblemisthefactthatwhatatagiventimeistakentobethescience–technologydistinctionmaybeinpartasocialconstruction,maybedeterminedbywhatsocietyjudgestobepracticalandirrelevanttopracticeatagiventime.SeeReingoldandMolella(1976),p.629,andMayr(1976),p.664.11.SeeBunge(1972),pp.63,68–70.Thosewhowouldrejectthesalienceofthecognitive/practicaldistinctionhere–andthatwouldincludeboththosewhoseviewofscienceis192\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page193technologicalrationalityinformedbysomeversionofinstrumentalismorpragmatismandthoseinfluencedbysometrendswithintheFrankfurtSchoolofcriticaltheoryorinthethoughtofHusserl,HeideggerandMaxScheler–andwhowouldclaimthatscienceitselfisbutadevicefortechnicalcontrolandmanipulation,facethechallengeofgivinganadequateaccountofthedifferentcriteriaofsuccessthatcharacterizewhataregenerallyacknowledgedtobethedistinguishableenterprisesofscienceandtechnology.Thoughsocialvaluesmayinfluencewhatgetsbroughtunderscientificscrutiny,thepurelyscientificwillisultimately“disinterested”inthespecificsensethatitisnotwedtoaparticularexperimentaloutcome.Forit,the“pressuresoflife”arebracketedorneutralized(thoughtheymaynotbeforanindividualscientist).Thetechnologicalwillisnotdisinterestedinthissense.Evenfunda-mentalengineeringresearch–basicscientificresearchwithaneyetopracticalpayoff–iscommittedtofindingcorroboratedscientificclaimsthatmayproveuseful(seeAgassi[1980],p.93).Ifwe,withKarlPopper,agreethatscienceprogressesby,andultimatelyseeks,falsificationsorrefutations,thenwecandistinguishthecriteriaofscientificsuccessfromeventhoseoffundamentalengineeringresearch.Thecommitmenttotruthonthepartofthescientificcommunityissufficientlystrong(atleastinprincipleandideally)toredeemtheself-negationofarefutation.Thoughapost-empiricistsuchasThomasKuhnmightcontestthisclaim,mypointisthatatleastitcanbearguedinthecaseofscience,becauseofitscognitivecommitment.Butitcannotbearguedinthecaseoftechnology,becauseofitscommitmenttosuccessinreliablyalteringtheworld.Whilerefutationsarecognitiveachievements,andareforthisreason“suffered”byscience,theysignifyfailureinthepracticalarena(seePopper[1963],pp.112–14,andAgassi[1980],pp.94–8).Tendenciestoconflatescienceandtechnologyareoftenpredicateduponanuncriticalidentificationoftruthandusefulness.Forexample,oftenthedistinctionisnotmadebetweenthesuccessoflaboratoryoperationsandthesuccessofpracticaloperationsintheoverdeterminedworldoutsidethelaboratory.Thepractical,real-worldsuccessorfailureofascientifictheoryisnot,ingeneral,anindexofitstruth,orevenofitswarrantedassert-ibility.Therearemanycasesoffalsescientifictheoriesbeingofgreatpracticaluse.OneneedthinkonlyoftheusefulnessofPtolemaiccosmographyfornavigationalcalculations.OrofN.A.Otto’ssuccessfulinternalcombustionenginewhichturnedouttobebaseduponfalsetheoreticalassumptions(seeBryant[1966]).Thereareanumberofreasonsforthis:(1)eitherthefalsepartofthetheoryisnotusedinthedeductionthatinformsthetechnologicalapplicationorthefalseparthasnopracticalconsequences;(2)becausetheemphasisintechnologyisuponusingknowledgetoachieveareal-worldgoalratherthanon“steppingback”inordertoachievecognitivesecurity,thelevelsofprecisiondemandedinpracticeareoftenfarlowerthanthatdemandedinscientificresearch,whereprecisionisanelementofatheory’sfalsifiability;and(3),inrealsituations,relevantvariablesareseldomadequatelyknownandpreciselycontrolled,forinthedomainofpracticetimelyandeffectiveactionismuchtoostronglyurgedtopermitthedetailedstudynecessarytoisolateandassessrelevantindependentvariables(seeBunge[1972],pp.65–6).Theorychoiceinscience,nomatterhowlittleitisalgorithmicallygovernedorhowmuchitisvalue-laden,remainsanepistemicaffair.Technology’sconcernwithextra-epistemicvaluessuchasreliability,safety,standardizationandspeedatthepossibleexpenseofdepth,scope,accuracy,andfruitfulnessforfurtherresearchprogramsmakeitscriteriaofsuccessratherdifferentfromthoseofscience(seeBunge[1972],p.76).Anepistemicallypromisingnewtheorymaywellberejectedinfavorofalesspromisingbutlessriskyalternative.Evenifoneargues,aswasHabermas’wont,thatthetechnicalinterestunderliesscience’sprojectionofitsobjectdomain,wecanstillacknowledgethedistinctionofthetwoenterprisesattheleveloftheirself-understanding,adistinctionthataccountsfordifferentcriteriaofsuccessandhenceobservabledifferencesininstitutionaldynamics.This193\n9781405146012_4_033.qxd2/4/0913:29Page194lorenzoc.simpsonisadistinctionthatouruniversitiesneglectattheirperilinthecurrentrushtowardcorporatesponsorshipofresearch.Forafullerdiscussionofsomeoftheissuesbroachedhere,seeSimpson(1983).12.SeeSkolimowski,H.(1972),p.44.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAgassi,J.(1980).“BetweenScienceandTechnology,”PhilosophyofScience,47:82–99.Bryant,L.(1966).“TheSilentOtto,”TechnologyandCulture,7:184–200.Bunge,M.(1972).“TowardaPhilosophyofTechnology,”inC.MitchamandR.Mackey(eds),PhilosophyandTechnology:ReadingsinthePhilosophicalProblemsofTechnology(NewYork:TheFreePress).DeGregori,T.(1985).ATheoryofTechnology(Ames,Iowa:IowaStateUniversityPress).Feenberg,A.(1995).AlternativeModernity:TheTechnicalTurninPhilosophyandSocialTheory(LosAngeles,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Feenberg,A.(1999).QuestioningTechnology(London/NewYork:Routledge).Habermas,J.(1970).“TechnologyandScienceas‘Ideology’,”inTowardaRationalSociety,trans.JeremyJ.Shapiro(Boston,Mass.:BeaconPress).Heidegger,M.(1977).“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology,”inTheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays,trans.WilliamLovitt(NewYork:Harper).Hughes,T.P.(1976).“TheScience–TechnologyInteraction:TheCaseofHigh-VoltagePowerTransmissionSystems,”TechnologyandCulture,17:646–62.Ihde,D.(1990).TechnologyandtheLifeworld(Bloomington/Indianapolis,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Kranzberg,M.andPursell,C.(eds)(1967).TechnologyinWesternCivilization,Vol.2(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Leiss,W.(1972).“TechnologicalRationality:MarcuseandHisCritics,”PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences,2:31–42.Mayr,O.(1976).“TheScience–TechnologyRelationshipasaHistoriographicalProblem,”TechnologyandCulture,17:663–73.Popper,K.R.(1963).ConjecturesandRefutations:TheGrowthofScientificKnowledge(London:Routledge).Reingold,N.andMolella,A.(1976).“Introduction”topapersreprintedfrom“TheInteractionofScienceandTechnologyintheIndustrialAge,”TechnologyandCulture,17:624–33.Simpson,L.C.(1983).“CriticalRemarksConcerningMarcuse’sNotionofScience,”PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences,13:451–63.Simpson,L.C.(1995).Technology,TimeandtheConversationsofModernity(London/NewYork:Routledge).Skolimowski,H.(1972).“TheStructureofThinkinginTechnology,”inC.MitchamandR.Mackey(eds),PhilosophyandTechnology:ReadingsinthePhilosophicalProblemsofTechnology(NewYork:TheFreePress).Weber,M.(1968).“BasicSociologicalTerms,”inG.RossandC.Wittich(eds),EconomyandSociety(NewYork:BedministerPress).Zvelebil,M.(1984).“CluestoRecentHumanEvolutionfromSpecializedTechnologies,”Nature,307(5949):314–15.194\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page19534PhenomenologyandTechnologyIAINTHOMSONAsadistinctivephilosophicaltradition,phenomenologywasfoundedbyHusserlandthendevelopedfurther–intothedomainoftechnology–byHusserl’smostoriginalandimportantstudent,Heidegger.Letusbeginwiththisstandardviewandthendevelopandrefineitasourneedsrequireandspaceallows.ThewatchwordofHusserlianphenomenologyis:“Tothethingsthemselves!”AccordingtoHeidegger,phenomenology–awordderivedfromtheGreekphainomenon(“whatshowsitselffromitself”)andlogos(understoodasa“makingmanifest”ofthewaythingshangtogether)–requires“lettingwhatshowsitselffromitselfbeseenin1theverywayinwhichitshowsitselffromitself.”ForbothHusserlandHeidegger,phenomenologyseekstodescribethewaythingsshowthemselvestoconsciousness–or,better,Dasein,ourmere“being-here”–whenwedonotdistortmatterswiththeoretical2interpretationsdrawnfromoutsidetheexperienceofthesephenomenathemselves.Phenomenology’sideal(virtuallyregulative,butsometimesachievable)isthusatypeofpuredescription,thepursuitofwhichrequiresphenomenologiststostrugglevigilantlyagainstourusualtendencytoforcethesquarepegofrecalcitrantexperienceintotheroundholeofready-madeconceptualcategories.For,insofarastheconceptsweusetomakesenseofourexperienceremainuninterrogatedastotheirownbuilt-ininter-pretivebiases,wetendnoteventonoticewheninappropriateconceptualprojectionsleadustoadistortedorinadequateapprehensionofthephenomenaatissue.Thephenomenologistmustthusbea“radicalbeginner,”asHusserllikedtosay,becausephenomenologyseekstoneutralizeourpervasivebutunnoticedconceptualbiasesbycriticallyinspectingandcarefullyreconstructingourconceptualtoolkit–aprocessmeanttohelpusunderstandwhatourphilosophicalconceptsconcealaswellaswhattheyreveal.Phenomenology’smethodsremainwidelyapplicable,butitwasnotdevelopedinordertodescribejustanyphenomena.Phenomenologyisprimarilyconcernedwithphenomenathatremain“hiddeninplainsight”becausetheyareeither(1)maskedbythedistortionsofinappropriatetheories(asOthello,viewinghiswifethroughthelensesofIago’sjeal-ousy,seesonlyademoninDesdemona)orelse(2)concealedbytheirveryimmediacy(likethefeeloftheclothingonourbodies),ubiquity(likewatertothefishor,increas-ingly,technologytous),orobviousness(likePoe’seponymouspurloinedletter).The“firstlawofphenomenology,”the“lawofproximity”(drawnfromGestaltpsychology),ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks195©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page196iainthomsonstatesthat,paradoxically,whatisclosesttousinoureverydayworldlyendeavorsremainsfurthestfromusintermsofourabilitytotakeitupexplicitlyandunderstanditcritically.Phenomenology’sfundamentalconcernisthustouncover,understandand,whennecessary,contestandseektotranscendtheunderlyingprinciplesofvisionanddivisionwhich–likelensesweseethroughbutdonotsee–tacitlyinformandfrequentlydistortourbasicsenseofourselvesandourworlds.Byunderstandingphenomenologyinthisway,wecantracethepathleadingfromitsrootsinKantandHegeltoitsbranchesinHusserlianandHeideggeriancritiquesoftechnology.Kant’sCritiqueofPureReasonfamouslydistinguishesthefacultyofintuition,whichpassivelyreceivessensoryinformation,fromthefacultyofunderstanding,whichactivelyorganizesthatsensorydataintothestableformofconscious“mentalrepres-3entations.”AccordingtoKant’sdiscursivitythesis,thefacultiesofintuitionandunder-4standingworktogethersubconsciouslytogeneratetheworldofexperience.Theunderstanding,employingitstwelvebasiccognitivecategories(todataalreadyshapedbythetwo“pureformsofintuition,”theproto-categoriesofspaceandtime),sponta-neouslysortsandorganizesthemanifoldcontentofintuition,therebybestowingtheformofstablementalrepresentationsontothestreamofsensorydata.Thiscontinuouscombinationofintuitionandunderstanding(orreceptivespontaneity)happensbeneaththelevelofconsciousexperience,soIsimplyseemtoperceive,forinstance,ablue-and-goldbookbeforeme,unawarethatthisstablerepresentationisalreadytheproductofmymind’ssubconsciousconceptualorganizationofthemanifoldfluxofsensationintotheformofthissubstancewiththeseparticularproperties.HusserlthoughtthatKant’sview–thatthereareonlytwelvecategoriestacitlyorganizingthespatio-temporaldeliverancesofintuition–facedaninsurmountableproblem.Recalltheexampleofthebooklyingbeforeme.ForKant,themindsub-consciouslyemploysacombinationofthetwelvebasiccategoriesinordertoarriveattherepresentationaljudgmentthat,ofallthemultifarioussubstanceswithsimilarproperties,thisoneisablue-and-gold-coloredbook,andnotablue-and-goldjournal(or,forthatmatter,justanemptydust-jacketorevenahologram).Where,however,doIgetthegeneralideaof“blueness,”of“gold,”orofa“book”?HusserldidnotthinksuchideascouldbeexplainedsolelythroughacombinationalapplicationofKant’stwelvecategories.(Inthis,HusserleffectivelyrevivesanobjectionAristotle’sempiricismhadraisedagainstPlato’sproto-rationalistictheoryofideas:Howcananideapre-existtheentireclassofentitiesthatinstantiatethatidea?)Instead,inoneofhisdis-tinctivetheoreticalinnovations(butonewhichhasprovedproblematicforHusserlianapproachestothephenomenologyoftechnology,asweshallsee),Husserlpostulatestheexistenceofaneideticintuition,thatis,acapacitytoreceivetheveryideaofsome-thing(thatis,toexperiencewhatsomethingis)alongwithothersensoryinformationaboutit.FromaKantianperspective,however,Husserltherebyseemstoblurthebound-ariesbetweenintuitionandunderstanding.For,onHusserl’sview,thecontoursofmyexperienceoftheworlddonotjustreflectthefixedconceptualstructuresthatmymindhasalreadytacitlysuppliedtotheworld.Rather,myexperienceoftheworldgivesmecategories(viaeideticintuitions)thatthefixedstructureofmyminddidnotfirstgivetotheworld.Whetherthatseemslikegoodphenomenologyorelsea“pre-critical”(oreven“mystical”)movedependsonhowrigidlyKanthasshapedone’sphilosophical5intuitions.196\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page197phenomenologyandtechnologyKantbelieved,further,thatthecognitivecategoriessubconsciouslyorganizingthesensorymanifoldintostablerepresentationsweresimplypartofthefixedstructureof6thehumanmind.Fromthebeginning,however,HegelrejectedKant’sviewthatthecategoriesbywhichthemindmakessenseoftheworldwerefixedforalltime.Instead,Hegel’sPhenomenologyofSpiritsoughttocapturetheinner,“dialectical”logicrespons-ibleforthehistoricalemergenceofhumanity’sprogressivelymoresatisfyingcognitivecategories.WecouldthussaythatthephenomenologicaltraditionreallybeginswithHegel’sPhenomenology.For,inthePhenomenology–originallytitled“TheScienceoftheExperienceofConsciousness”–HegelattemptstosupplementandhistoricallygroundKant’sdiscursivitythesis(whichholdsthattheconceptualscaffoldingofourmindstacitlyconstitutesthelimitsofourworld)byattendingtotheactualexperienceoffirst-personalawareness,whichKantignoredinhislogicalanalysisofthecategorialstructuresconditioningexperiencebeneaththelevelofconsciousawareness.Hegelarguedthatbycarefullydescribingthestructureoffirst-personalconsciousexperiencewecancometounderstandnotjusttheemergenceofourparticularformofself-consciousness(whichKanttreatedahistorically)butalsothenecessarypathofconsciousness’shis-toricalunfoldingandevenitsfinalpoliticaldestiny.Thefirstphilosophertocallhimselfa“phenomenologist,”Husserl,independentlyreini-tiatedHegel’s“scientific”attempttodescribethestructureoffirst-personalexperience.YetsomeofHegel’smostradicalinsights–intonotjust(1)theincompletenessofKant’scategories(theirfailuretoaccountfortheexperienceoffirstpersonalawareness)butalso(2)thehistoricityofexperience(thefactthathumanity’sbasicsenseofrealitychangeswithtime),(3)theineliminableabsenceattheheartofself-consciousness(thefactthatconsciousnesscannotbeconsciousofitselfandoftheworldsimultaneously)and(4)theideathatthehistoricaldestinyofhumanityisdeterminedbythenatureofourunderstandingoftherelationbetweenourselvesandtheworld(suchthatourfunda-mentalsenseofourselveschangeshistoryandviceversa)–didnotjointlyre-enterthephenomenologicaltraditionuntilHeidegger,whobroughtthempowerfullytogetherinhishistoricalunderstandingofthephenomenonoftechnology.Indeed,theessentialdifferencebetweenHusserlianandHeideggerianphenomeno-logyisnowheremoreperspicuousthaninthephenomenologyoftechnology;forHusserliansandHeideggeriansgivesubtlybutimportantlydifferentanswerstothequestionofwhetherandinwhatsensetechnologyhasanessence.Notsurprisingly,theirviewsoriginallyconverged.ThelaterHusserl(ofTheCrisisoftheEuropeanSciences)andtheearlyHeidegger(ofBeingandTime)boththoughtthatthepositivedevelopmentoftheempiricalsciences,inwhicheachsciencepresupposesanunderstandingoftheessenceofwhatitstudiesandthengeneratesempiricalresultsonthebasisofthatunder-standing,effectivelyburiesthephilosophicallycrucialpriorquestionoftheadequacyofeachscience’soriginal,guidingunderstandingoftheessenceoftheclassofobjects7itstudies.Boththusthoughtthatphenomenology,byprovidingaclarifiedgraspoftheseessentialfoundationsguidingeachscientificdiscipline,wouldallowphilosophytoregainitsthroneasthequeenofthesciences.AsIhaveshownindetailelsewhere,however,thelaterHeideggeroutgrewthispoliticallydisastrousview,refiningitinawaythatbroughtitclosertoHegel’sinsightintohistoricity(comingtorecognizethehistoricallydynamicnatureofourunderstandingofessences)butinawaythatrejectedHegel’steleologicalunderstandingofhistoricalprogress.197\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page198iainthomsonTosimplifyacomplicatedstory,thematureHeideggercametotheviewthatthepositivesciencesareguidednotbyahistoricallyimmutableunderstandingofthebeingofallentities,a“fundamentalontology”(orunderstandingof“themeaningofbeingingeneral”)thatphenomenologistsneededonlyrecoverinordertosetthesciencesaright(andsounifythebroaderculturalunderstandingthesciencesguide).ThelaterHeideggercontinuedtobelievethatanunderstandingofthebeingofentitiesimpli-citlyguidesallthevariousknowledgedomains.(Heideggerbelievesthisbecausehemaintainsaformofontologicalholism:Everythingis,sochangingourbasiccon-ceptionofisnesseventuallychangesourconceptionofeverything.Aswesawatthebeginning,moreover,phenomenologyisfundamentallycommittedtotheKantianinsightthatourconceptionsofthingsstructuretheirveryintelligibility,shapingthewaythingsrevealandconcealthemselves.)ButHeideggercametothinkthatthisguidingunderstandingofbeingchangedwithtime,arguingthatthis“historyofbeing”derivesatthemostfundamentalconceptuallevelfromahistoricallyvariableunderstandingofthebeingofentitieswhichhasanontotheologicalstructure.Ourcurrentsciencesarethusguidedimplicitlybythesameontotheologythatincreasinglyshapesourentirehistoricalconstellationofintelligibility.ThisimplicitlyNietzschean,“technological”ontotheologyunderstandsthebeingofentitiesaseternallyrecurringwill-to-power,thatis,mereforcescomingtogetherandbreakingapartwithnoendbeyondtheself-perpetuatingaccumulationofthoseunderlyingforces.(Whenphilosophersofbiologyproclaimthatlifeisaself-replicatingsystem,forinstance,theyseemtoconfirmHeidegger’sinsight.)InHeidegger’sview,thistechnologicalontotheologyisleadingusincreasinglytounderstand,andsotreat,allentities,includingourselves,asintrinsicallymeaningless“resources,”mereBestand.Asthishistoricaltransformationofbeingsintointrinsicallymeaninglessresourcesbecomesmorepervasive,itincreasinglyeludesourcriticalgaze.Indeed,welate-modernscometotreatevenourselvesinthenihilistictermsthatunderlieourtechnologicalrefashioningoftheworld:Nolongerasmodernsubjectsseekingtomasteranobjectiveworld,butmerelyasonemoreintrinsicallymeaninglessresourcetobeoptimized,orderedandenhancedwithmaximalefficiency,whethercosmetically,psychophar-8macologically,genetically,orevencybernetically.ImentionedthatHusserl’sphenomenologicalmethoddevelopedinparttohelp9affordphenomenologistswithaneideticintuitionoftheessenceofaphenomenon.Ironically,however,Husserlianphenomenologistshavetendedtoavoidthedifficultques-10tionoftheessenceoftechnologicalphenomena.Owingtothisomission,Husserlianphenomenologytendstojoinforceswiththeothercontemporary“anti-essentialist”approachestotechnologyfoundinthesociologyofscienceandinsocialconstructivism(Latour,PinchandBijker,andthelike).Suchanti-essentialiststendtofocustheircriticalanalysesonthesocialnormativityembeddedwithinparticulartechnologicaldevices(ratherthanonthebroadereffectsoftechnologyperse).Theymightreveal,forexample,thewayred-lightcamerasreinforceanormativesocialordermarkedbytheefficiencyandimmediacyofbruteobediencetothelawratherthantheneo-enlightenmentprojectthatwouldseektoeducatecitizensabouttherationalityoftrafficlaws,forexample,inordertosecuretheirautonomousconsenttosuchlaws.Suchana-lysesmightnotethatred-lightcamerasacceptthepermanentalienationofsubjectsfromthelawandsoreinforcethat“panopticization”whichreifiesthecarceralsurveillance198\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page199phenomenologyandtechnologysocietyFoucaultwarnedagainst,buttheywilltend(becauseoftheirpriorcommitmenttoanti-essentialism)tobeextremelycautiousaboutfollowingFoucaultbyextrapolatingfromsuchinterlockingtechnologicaltrendsbacktoanunderlyinghistorical“episteme”orbroaderframeworkof“power-knowledge.”HereFoucaulthimself,however,wasfollowingHeidegger.Indeed,Foucault’srevealinganalysesofcontemporary“biopower”appliedanddevelopedHeidegger’scritiqueofour“technological”understandingofbeing,whichincreasinglyreducesallentitiestothestatusofintrinsicallymeaninglessresourcestobeefficientlyorderedandoptimizedforfurtherordering.Niceexamplesofsuchtechnological“enframing”canbefoundintheubiquitousphenomenonoftelevision’slaugh-trackand,evenmorepoignantly,inthesimilarbutlessnoticeabletechnologyof“roomtone,”inwhichdifferenttypesof“silence”(actuallydifferentkindsoflow-levelbackgroundnoise)arerecordedandstoredforuse11inmakingtheaudiocomponentoffilmandtelevisionrecordingseemlessartificial.Still,Heideggerwasconcernedlesswiththenormativityembeddedinparticulartech-nologicaldevicesthanwiththeontohistoricaltrendtowardincreasingtechnologization,thatis,withthedisturbingandincreasinglyglobalphenomenon(manifestwithpar-ticularclarityinexemplarytechnologiessuchastheautobahnandtheInternet,andsorightlycalled“technological”)bywhichentitiesaretransformedintointrinsicallymeaninglessresourcesstandingbyforoptimization.TheultimategoalofHeidegger’sphenomenologyoftechnologyisthustohelpusbecomeawareofthesenihilisticontotheologicallensesimplicitlystructuringourbasicsenseofourselvesandour12worldsothatwecancontestandtranscendthem.Notes1.Heidegger,M.(1962).BeingandTime.Trans.J.MacquarrieandE.Robinson(NewYork:Harper&Row,p.58;seealsoE.Husserl(1969).FormalandTranscendentalLogic.Trans.D.Cairns(TheHague:MartinusNijhoff),p.234:“experiencedbeing‘isthere,’andisthereaswhatitis,withthewholecontentandmodeofbeingthatexperienceitself,bytheperformancegoingoninitsintentionality,attributestoit.”SeealsoInwood,M.(1999).AHeideggerDictionary(Oxford:Blackwell),pp.159–60;andMoran,D.(2000).AnIntro-ductiontoPhenomenology(London:Routledge),p.6.2.RadicalizingHusserl’sproject,HeideggerarguedthatHusserl’sunderstandingofcon-sciousnessasanimmanentsphereofintentionalitywasitselfanexampleofatheoreticalmodelinappropriatetothephenomenonitseekstodescribe.SeekingtoeradicateHusserl’sresidualCartesianism,HeideggerproposeshisnotionofDaseinor“being-here”–i.e.,themaking-intelligibleoftheplaceinwhichonefindsoneself–asamaximallyneutraldescriptionofthephenomenonthatHusserl’s“consciousness”seekstodescribe.3.“Mentalrepresentation”isadoublydubiousconceptphenomenologically,becauseIdonottypicallyexperiencerepresentationsatall,letaloneastakingplaceinmy“mind,”asifconsciousnessweresomesortofcontainerforrepresentationsofaworldexteriortoconsciousness.AsHusserlalreadyrecognized,“experienceisnotanopeningthroughwhichaworld,existingpriortoallexperience,shinesintoaroomofconsciousness;itisnotameretakingofsomethingalientoconsciousnessintoconsciousness”(FormalAndTranscendentalLogic,p.232).HeideggersharpensHusserl’spoint,writingthat“theper-ceivingofwhatisknownisnotaprocessofreturningwithone’sbootytothecabinetofconsciousnessafteronehasgoneoutandgraspedit”(BeingandTime,p.89).199\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page200iainthomson4.SeeAllison,H.(1983).Kant’sTranscendentalIdealism:AnInterpretationandDefense(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress),pp.65–8.5.Inmorecontemporaryterms,Husserl’seideticintuitionseemstoresuscitateabeliefinwhatorthodoxKantians–whosubscribetoascheme/contentdualismbytreatingsensory“intuition”andconceptual“understanding”asdichotomous–wouldcallamythofthegiven.ButtheneatdichotomiesassumedbytheorthodoxKantianview,longchallengedbyphenomenologists,arenowundersiegefromnumerousquarters,includingtheholismandneo-pragmatismofDavidsonandPutnam,theneo-KantianismofMcDowell,andtheneo-HegelianismofBrandom.Idevelopsomeoftheimportantethico-politicalimplicationsofthisfundamentalontologicaldisagreementinIainThomson,“Environ-mentalPhilosophy,”inH.L.DreyfusandM.A.Wrathall(eds)(2006),ACompaniontoPhenomenologyandExistentialism(Oxford:Blackwell).6.Inotherwords,Kant’scategorieslooklikethetypeof“hard-wired”conceptualstructuresthat,iftheypossessadiscernibleneurophysiologicalcorrelate,afutureneuroscientistshouldinprinciple(oreveninpractice–say,withatimemachineandsuitablyadvancedbrainimagingtechnology)beabletouncovertheminanyconscioushumanbeingfromanypointinhistory.7.SeeHusserl,E.(1970).TheCrisisoftheEuropeanSciencesandTranscendentalPhenomenology.Trans.D.Carr(Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversityPress),pp.46–53.ThisisalateHusserlianwork,andclearlyshowstheinfluenceofHusserl’scriticalreadingofHeidegger’sBeingandTime,asarguedinIhde,D.(1987).InstrumentalRealism:InterfacebetweenPhilosophyofScienceandPhilosophyofTechnology(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).8.Heideggerisdeeplyworriedthatwithinourcurrenttechnologicalconstellationofintelli-gibility,thepost-Nietzscheanepochofenframing,itisincreasinglybecomingthecasethat:“Onlywhatiscalculableinadvancecountsasbeing.”Forourtechnologicalunderstand-ingofbeingproducesa“calculativethinking”whichquantifiesallqualitativerelations,reducingentitiestobivalent,programmable“information,”digitizeddatareadytoenterintowhatJeanBaudrillardaptlydescribesas“astateofpurecirculation”ontheInternet.SeeHeidegger,M.(1998).“TraditionalLanguageandTechnologicalLanguage.”Trans.W.T.Gregory,JournalofPhilosophicalResearch,23:136,139;Heidegger,M.(1966).DiscourseonThinking.Trans.J.AndersonandE.Freund(NewYork:Harper&Row),p.46;andBaudrillard,J.(1993).TheTransparencyofEvil:EssaysonExtremePhenomena.Trans.J.Benedict(London:Verso),p.4.SeealsoDreyfus’simportant(2003)monograph,OntheInternet(London/NewYork:Routledge).9.Amongotherphenomenologicalreductions,Husserltaughthisstudentstopracticean“eideticreduction”inordertohelpthemlearntodiscerntheeideticintuitionsmentionedearlier.SeealsoMoran,IntroductiontoPhenomenology,pp.134–6.10.Thepointisperhapsbest-illustratedwithananecdote.IvividlyrecallDonIhde,theleadingHusserlianphenomenologistoftechnology,performingHusserlian“phenomeno-logicalvariations”inwhichhecompared(1)atechnologicallyadvancedvirtualfish-tankIdiscoveredinthelobbyofourTokyohotel(thesimulacrawassorealisticthatseveraldayspassedbeforeInoticedthatthefish-tankwasafake,althoughweallwalkedbyitnumeroustimesonourwayinandoutofthehotel–aniceillustrationofthe“hidinginplainsight”predictedbyphenomenology’slawofproximity,whichtechnologyreinforcesbybringingthedistantnearandsodistancingthenearfromus)with(2)arealfish-tankIhdeencounteredinarestaurantsoonafterIpointedoutthefakeonetohim.Ihdesoughtinthiswaytoidentifytheessentialstructurescommontotheideaoffish-tankassuch,isolatingthesestructuresfromthecontingentpropertiesinstantiatedinthetechnologicalsimulacrumandtherandomfish-tank.InhisobviousmasteryofthisHusserliantask,Ihde200\n9781405146012_4_034.qxd2/4/0913:29Page201phenomenologyandtechnologyshowedarealknackfordiscerningpatternsinstantiatedacrosstheminutiaeofconcretedifferencesbetweentechnologies(and,notsurprisingly,Ihde’sworkhasbeenextremelyinsightfulaboutthewayadvancesintechnologicalinstrumentationdriveconceptualrevolutions,andnotsimplythereverse).Yetthisverystrength,thisknackfordiscerningsharedpatternsacrossconcretedifferences,seemedtocomewithaweaknessaswell,foritlefttheHusserlianwithoutanynon-question-beggingmeansofapproachingthemuchlargerandmoreabstractquestionoftheessenceoftechnologyassuch.(Evenifitwerenotanuntenablyenormoustask,onecouldnotgathertogetherallthedifferenttechnolo-gicaldevicesinordertoexaminethemphenomenologicallywithoutsomepriorcriterionforwhatmakesallandonlythesedevicestechnologicalinthefirstplace.)AHeideggerian,bycontrast,wouldabandonthesystematicandscientificpretensionsofHusserlianphenomenologyandinsteadaccepttheunavoidablehermeneuticcircularityinvolvedintheattempttodistinguishthetechnologicalfromthenon-technologicalphenomenologic-ally.(OntheHeideggerianapproach,theordinaryfish-tanklookslikeatypicallymodernartifact,aninstanceofthehumansubject’scontroloveranobjectiveworld,whereasthetechnologicalfish-tankappearsasalate-moderntechnologicalobject,aninstanceofourreductionofallentitiestointrinsicallymeaninglessresourcesincreasinglycaughtupinanendlesscycleofefficientoptimization.)Heideggerthussuggeststhatweshouldunder-standtheemergenceof“technology”intermsofitsmorethantwomillenniahistory,asaneventualeclipseofpoiesis,bringintobeing,byoneofitsspecies,techne,amakingwhichimposesapre-givenformonmatterwithoutregardforitsintrinsicpotentialities.Thedifferencecanbestarklyillustratedbycomparingthewoodworkingartisan,whodecideswhattomakeoutofapieceofwoodbycloselystudyingitinordertodiscernitsintrinsicpotentialities,withthecontemporaryfurnituremill,whichreducesallthedifferentwoodtosawdust,pastesitbacktogetherasparticleboard,andthenshipsittomasssuppliersforuseinamaximalvarietyofbuildingapplications.Thathumanbeingsnowtreateachotherlikesuchparticleboardis,forHeidegger,technology’s“greatestdanger.”Formoreonthispoint,see“UnderstandingTechnologyOntotheologically;or,TheDangerandthePromiseofHeidegger,anAmericanPerspective,”inJ.K.B.Olsen,E.SelingerandS.Riis(eds),NewWavesinthePhilosophyofTechnology(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2008).11.Onthisenframingofsilence,seeBaudrillard,J.(2006).CoolMemoriesV.Trans.C.Turner(Cambridge:PolityPress),p.29:“Firstvictimofthescreen:silence.Nolivingsilenceontelevisioneveragain,butminutesofartificialsilence,ofdeadsilence,stockedlikesparepartsorreplacementorgans,fortheneedsoftheprogram.”Anotherimportantphilosopheroftechnologywho,alongwithsuchFrenchthinkersasFoucault,Baudrillard,deCerteau,andLyotard,appliesandsorevealinglydevelopsHeidegger’scritiqueoftechnologizationisAlbertBorgmann;seehis(1997)TechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife:APhilosophicalInquiry(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).12.Foramuchmorecarefuldevelopmentoftheargumentssummarizedhere,seeThomson,I.(2005).HeideggeronOntotheology:TechnologyandthePoliticsofEducation(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).201\n9781405146012_4_035.qxd2/4/0913:29Page20235ExpertiseEVANSELINGERDatingbackatleastasfarasPlato’swritingsontechne,issuesofexpertisehavebeenvexingforquitesometime.Today,theyhavebecomeinter-disciplinarytopicsthatarewidelyacknowledgedashavingprofoundsocialandpoliticalconsequencesaswellasdecidedlyepistemicandnormativedimensions.Forexample:Questionsabouthowtoidentifyexpertsandwhentodefertothemremaindaunting.Theproblemofwhethergenuineexpertisecanbedistinguishedfromitssocialmarkerscutsacrossandevenreshapesdisciplinaryboundaries.Theconundrumofhowtoclassifyandorganizedifferentkindsofexpertisetraversesdescriptiveandprescriptiveterrain.Whilescientificandtechnologicalauthorityremainattheforefrontoftheexpertisedebates,phenomenologicalconcerns,suchasthenatureandscopeofskillacquisitionandembodiedaction,alsooccupyacentralrole.Mattersofdiscretionarypower,mediabias,litigationandsharedgovernanceoccupycenterstageaswell.Here’swhy.Intheabstract,itiseasytoseeexpertsasspecialkindsofpeoplewhoserelationtoknowledge,skillandexperienceentitlesthemtorespect.Inanincreasinglyspecializedageinwhichinformationisrapidlyproliferatingandscientificresearchisdelegatedtoteamsofinquirers,itseemsratherdifficultforpeopletoacquirein-depthunderstand-ingofmultiplespecializedfields.And,whilethedivisionoflabormakesitincumbenttodiversifyandproliferatetalents,skills,interestsandtraining,individualsappeartobenefitfromtheeaseofconsumerism–frombeingabletouseelectronicandmechan-icaldevices,aswellasappliedmedicaltechnologies,withoutobtainingasophisticatedunderstandingofhowthemeansofproductionanddistributionrelatetotheendsofuseandhabituation.Despitethegainsthatresultfrommanaging“resources”and“ignorance”inthisway,expertshaveincreasinglybecomesubjecttocriticalscrutinyanddistrust.Scandals,suchasthatsurroundingHwangWooSuk’sfalseclaimsaboutcloningresearch,haveremindedthepublicthatintegritycanbemarredbycompetition,andthatthestand-ardsmaintainedbythecurrentpeer-reviewprocessareimperfect.Beyondblatantinstancesofunethicalconduct,moresubtleproblemsconcerningbiasandideologyremain.Byconsideringthefollowingproblematicbutwidelydiscussedcases,someoftheseissuescanbecrystallized.202ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_035.qxd2/4/0913:29Page203expertiseRecentdebatesoverglobalwarmingand“natural”disastershighlightthedifficultyofdisentanglingscientificjudgmentfrompoliticalideology.Whenconsideringthesame“evidence,”somefindeconomicmotivationsandracismatplay,whileotherscounterthatsuchaccusationsarerootedinamisunderstandingofnaturalcauses.Thistensionisnotrelegatedtoesotericacademicmusings.CausticversionsaboundinmainstreammediacoverageoftheKyotoProtocol,HurricaneKatrinaandotherrelatedtopics.Controversybetweenadvocatesofintelligentdesignandnaturalevolutionhasraisedanewquestionsabouthowscienceandreligionmightbedemarcatedfromoneanother.Thecomplexitiesofthesedebateshaveevencalledintoquestionwhatcountsasasecularandwhatcountsasareligiousperspective.Inchallengingscientificauthority,somehavegonesofarastodenounceproponentsofnaturalselectionas“highpriestsofScience.”Moreover,heatedexchangehasbeenpromptedovertherolethatpublicopinionshouldplayinshapingthecurriculumsthatguidetaxpayer-fundededucation.Theissueofmedicalobjectivitycontinuestograbheadlines,withparticularemphasisbeinggiventopsychologicaldiagnosesandalternativemedicaltherapies.Withhottopicssuchascancer,depression,AttentionDeficitDisorder,chiropracticcare,andhomeopathicremedies,theproblemofhowtodistinguishsoundclinicalclassi-ficationfromeconomicmotivationandculturalbiasseemsdestinedtobecaughtininterminabledispute.So,too,doesthedifficultyofdecidinghowtoevaluatefirst-personaccountsofsuccessfultreatmentthatdifferfromreportsderivedfrommore“objective”“evidence-based”approaches.Indeed,thefinancialsuccessofAirborne–adietarysupplement“invented”byaformerelementary-schoolteacherthatputativelyhelpsfightcoldsymptoms–illustratesthat,insomeinstances,peoplearelessinterestedinindependentscientificevidencethantheyarein“folksy”markersoftrust.Suspicionofthegreedexhibitedbythemainstreampharmaceuticalindustry–fanned,forexample,bytherecentVioxxlawsuitsandtrials–maybepertinenthereaswell.Withrespecttolegalmatters,thefamous1993USSupremeCourtcase,Daubertv.MerrellDowPharmaceuticalswasanattempttoconstructapracticalsolutiontothedifficultproblemofscreeningoutjunkscience.Unfortunately,questionsaboutitseffectivenessremain.Someclaimthatithashadatendencytoproduceexpensiveandtime-consumingpretrialhearingsthatdiscouragethekindofsoundgatekeepingthatthedecisionwasintendedtoestablish.Othersworrythatthecaseinadvertentlycre-atednewobstaclesforsortingthroughcompetingclaimsmadeonbehalfoffrontierandmainstreamresearchers.Beyondtheseissues,additionalreflectionshavequestionedwhetherdueprocessitselfiscompromisedbythemannerinwhichjuriesassessexperttestimony.Finally,phenomenologistshavequestionedwhetherexperttestimony,ingeneral,ispredicateduponaperformanceinwhichintuitiveunderstandingremainshiddenandrationalizationdominates.Theexpertisedebatescontinuetogeneratemomentumindiscussionsabouttheadvan-tagesanddisadvantagesthathaveariseninconnectionwithnewcomputerpracticesofacquiringanddisseminatinginformation.Forexample,long-standingconvictionsaboutcredentialsarebeingchallengedbyadvocatesofWikipedia,anonlineencyclopediathatisnotdrivenbycontentexperts,andwhoseentriescanbealteredbyessentiallyanyonewhodesirestochangethem.Whileinstancesoferrorandevenfraudhavebeen203\n9781405146012_4_035.qxd2/4/0913:29Page204evanselingerdiscovered,NaturerecentlyconcludedthatWikipediaandtheEncyclopediaBritannicahavenearlycomparablelevelsofaccuracy.Furthermore,asdebatesaboutreportsoccurringonblogshaveallegedlybroughttraditionalreportingtothethresholdofacrisis,intrigueintothecollaborativecategorizationofinformationbymeansofusingsocialsoftwareto“index”informationinsteadof“classifying”ithasraisedpowerfulquestionsconcerningwhohastherighttomanagedata.Attheheartofthesedebatesmayverywellbeconfusionaboutfundamentalrelationsbetweenknowledge,skillandexperience.Thisisevidencedbythefactthatquestionsabouttheprerequisitesforexpertjudgmentarenowbeingraised.Howmuchfirsthandexperienceisnecessarytobeanexpert?Whatkindoftrainingisrequiredtobeanexpert?Thesequeriesare,perhaps,onlyintheirembryonicstages.Theyshouldshapethedebatesforsometimetocome.Finally,itshouldbenotedthat,insomeoftheliteratureonindigenousculture,theverynotionofexpertisehasbecomesynonymouswithWesternimperialism.Thecentralideaconveyedinthiscontextisthat,evenwhenwellintentioned,muchofthe“development”workthatisundertakentoaddressthepovertyof“developing”regionsremainschauvinistic.Asaconsequenceofadvocatingparticularmodelsofefficiency,itisalleged,thetraditionalskillsareunfairlydevaluedandtraditionalformsoflifearemischaracterizedasbackward.MoshoeshoeIIexpressesthispointclearlyinthecon-textofinterventionsinAfricawhenhewrites:“Experts”haveshownatotaldisregardandignoranceofAfrica’slong-establishedandsuccessfulmethodstoensuretheirsurvivalandwell-being....Such“experts”havealsofailedtounderstandeitherthesocialorecologicalbaseoftheculturalpracticesonwhichtheyseektoimposetheirexternallyderivedsolutions,constructedinanentirelydifferentsocioeconomicandecologicalcontext.Theresultisthatmanyoftheiragriculturalstrategiesandenvironmentalsolutionshaveproveddisastrousforthepeople,wildlife,andnaturalenvironmentofAfrica.204\n9781405146012_4_036.qxd2/4/0913:30Page20536ImagingTechnologiesDONIHDEAmajorgroupoftechnologiesinthecontemporaryworldisunquestionablythatoftheimagingtechnologies,soimportantforartistic,scientific,communicationandentertainmentactivities.TheproductionofimagesbyhumanscanbetracedatleastbacktotheIceAges–excellentimagesofanimallife34,000bpwerefoundinChauvet,France.And,since,inthisentry,bothvisualandauditoryimagetechnolo-gieswillbefeatured,abear-bonefluteassociatedwithaNeanderthalsitehasbeendatedbackto45,000bp.Thesevisualizationsandacousticsoundswere“handproduced”withminimalisttechnologiessuchaspigmentsandbrushesandthebear-bonemusicalinstrument.Morecompleximagingprocessesariseinantiquity,andthebest-knownoftheseimagingprocesses–atleastintheWest–isprobablytheshadowtheaterimaginedbyPlatoandknownasthe“allegoryofthecave.”Herealightsource(fire)caststheshadowsofcut-outobjectsuponthecavewall(screen)somewhatlikeanIndonesianpuppetshadowtheater.And,althoughitisunknownwhetherPlatoknewofthecameraobscura,AristotleandEucliddid(2350bp);andMo-Tzu,aChinesemathematician,knewofitanddescribeditapproximatelyacenturyearlier(2450bp),althoughitscompletedescriptionandthescienceofitsopticswasdescribedlaterbytheArabphilosopherAlHazen(1070bp).Thecameraobscuraanditsvariantsstandatthebeginningsofaverylongandcomplextechnologicaltrajectoryofimage-producingmachines.Thecamera–earlyexampleswereusuallyroom-sized–dependsuponanexternallightsource(sunorartificial),anaperture(atfirsthole,laterwithlenses)andablankscreenuponwhichiscastanupside-downimageintwodimensions.And,althoughknowninantiquity,possiblyusedtovieweclipses,suchdevicesbecameapopularpartoftheopticaltoolkitsoftheRenaissanceinEurope.Alberti,daVinciandmanyotherartistsofthe1fifteenthcenturyusedacamera.Indeed,onetendencyintheRenaissanceseemstohavebeentheincreasedinstrumentalizationofmanyhumanpractices.Thecameraandothervisualframingdevicesassistedinthedevelopmentofso-calledRenaissanceperspective,butinmusictheearlierandmostlyacappellavocalmusicsunginsacredcontextswasinthissameperiodundergoingmuchinstrumentaldevelopmentaswell,withallthemainfamiliesofinstruments–brass,winds,stringsandpercussion–represented.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks205©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_036.qxd2/4/0913:30Page206donihdeThuswhatwecallearlymodernscienceintheseventeenthcenturyarrivedinanalreadyinstrumentalizedculture.Earlyscience,too,haditsvisualizationtechnologies,mostnotablyopticaloneswiththeadaptationofearlierlensusessuchaseyeglasses,2latercompoundedintotelescopesandmicroscopes.Now,inastrictphenomenologicalsense,telescopesandmicroscopes,particularlyifhand-heldandwithoutsomeaddedimagingdevice,arenotyetfullyimagingtechnologies.The“images”ofGalileo’snewtelescopicdiscoveries–(a)themountainsoftheMoon,(b)thesatellitesofJupiter,(c)thephasesofVenus–wereproducedasimagesthroughhisowndrawingsthereof(andGalileohadaratherremarkablehandatdrawing).Theoneexception–(d)sunspots–wasproducedbyhisinventionofahelioscope,thatisthecastingofanimagethroughthetelescopeontoanattachedsmallscreen,thusturningthetelescopeintoacameraobscuravariant.Theseventeenthcenturyalsosawconsiderabledevelopmentofacousticinventionsandexperimentation.Large,separatedhearinghornshelpedforlong-rangeandstereo-directedhearing,echochambersandspydeviceswerearchitecturallydesigned,3aswellasfurthermusicalinstrumentationdevelopment.Theeighteenthcenturyproducedyetmorevariantsuponthecamera,includingtheadditionsoffocusablelenses,butalsothereplacementofalensbyaprismbyIsaacNewton,producingspectrainsteadofisomorphicimages,which,withthenineteenthcenturydevelopmentofaslitinsteadofaroundholeoritslensedvariant,ledtospec-troscopybythenineteenthcentury.Thenineteenthcenturythenacceleratesthecontinuumofimagingtechnologies.Cameraobscuraeundergodevelopmentsas“box”devices,lensedandfocusable;and,althoughprecededwithafewexperimentsto“fix”cameraimageswithsilversalts,LouisDaguerreimprovesupontheearlierprocessesandthephotographiccamerais4inventedanditsprocessespublicizedin1839.Notfarbehindareacousticimagingprocesseswhichcanrecordsounds–ThomasEdisoninventsthefirstcylindermechan-icalrecordingtechnologyin1877.Bothphotographyandphonographyarequicklyadaptedtoart,science,entertainmentandcommunicationpracticesintheentireindustrialworld.Itshouldbenotedatthispointthatbothvisualandauditoryimagingprocessesremainedlimitedtoopticallightforvisionandtothehumanlyhearablerangeofsoundwavesforrecordings.Thenextplateauisreachedonceelectricitybecomesmanipulatable.Bythe1830sexperimentationinelectromagneticprocessesyieldedthefirstdynamosorelectriccurrentgenerators,thuslayingthebasisforelectricandelectronicimagingprocesses.Manipulationofwhatcametobeknownastheelectro-magneticspectrum(EMShereafter)openedthewaytolevelsofemissiondetectionbothaboveandbelowthepreviousimagingranges.RadioactivewavepropagationthroughtheuseofcathodetubesledWilhelmRoentgentothediscoveryofX-ray5imagingin1895.Noticingaglowfromhiscathoderaytube,hediscoveredthatthisstrangelight-likesourcecouldactuallypassthroughhishandandcastashadow-likeimageofhishandbonesuponaplate–helateruseda“shadowgraph”ofhiswife’shandwithherringtoadvertisehisdiscovery.Thisbringsustothetwentiethcenturyandwhatcannowberecognizedasthecen-turybeginninganexplosiveimagetechnologyrevolution.Stillphotographyevolvedintocinema–later,withaudio-visualcombinations,tobecome“talkies”–towhichonemustaddearlyradioandimprovedelectricallyproducedsoundrecordings.By206\n9781405146012_4_036.qxd2/4/0913:30Page207imagingtechnologiesmid-centuryonecanaddtelevisiontocinema,manyvarietiesofsoundrecordingtoradioandrecords,andcommunicationversionsofimagingtechnologiessuchascable(wired)andradio(wireless)imaging.Then,laterinthecentury,thefurtherdevel-opmentoftheelectroniccomputerwithitsvariantversionsalsobecomeswidespread.Bycentury’sendthe“screen”isomnipresent.Contemporaryimagingtechnologiesarequalitativelydifferentincapacityfromthepredecessortechnologiesintothenineteenthcentury.Foursuchdistinctivecapacitiesmaybenoted:Contemporaryimagingtechnologiesandtheassociatedsystemsofemissiondetec-tion–atleastsincethecapacitytodetectandimageEMSfrequenciesbeyondhumanopticallightandhumanauditoryperception–cannowdetectandimage,withpar-ticulartechnologies,thefullknownrangeoftheEMS.Thiscapacityisprobablymostimportantinthesciences.Forexample,untilthetwentiethcenturyallastronomywas6limitedtoobservationswithintheopticallightspectrum.Withtheaccidentaldiscoveryofradioastronomyearlierinthecentury,andthenthelaterimagingprocessesnowpossible,rangingfromveryshortgammaraytoverylongradiowavedetectionandimaging,theentirepictureofthecosmoshaschanged.And,whileearlyphotographymadetimemanipulationpossiblethroughfasterexposuretimes–fromMuybridge’stimestudiestoEdgerton’sstroboscopicimages–itwasnotuntilX-raysandother“penetrating”technologiessuchasground-penetratingradarthatimagingcouldshowinteriorstructures.Today,thiscapacityisparticularlyimportantinmedicinewiththerangeofimagingrunningfromX-raytoMagneticResonanceImaging(MRI)toPositronEmissionTomography(PET).Atthisnowbreakingofhumanperceptuallimits,typicalimagingisdevelopedfrom“slices”oftheEMS.Inastronomy,forexample,theHubbleSpaceTelescopecontainsanumberofdifferentcameras,attunedtodifferentslicesoftheEMS.ThereisalsotheChandraX-raysourcetelescopeandothersinalisttoolongtomention.ResultsarethenowfamiliarimagesofMartianwatererosion,Venusianmounts,andtheicesurfaceofEuropa.Itistobenoted,however,thatallsuchimagingfrombeyondhumanperceptuallimitstranslatesitsimagerybackintoexperienceablevisualizationswhichincludegestaltshapes,and“falsecolors.”Thesecondcapacityofcontemporaryimagingarisesfromthesimultaneousdevel-opmentofcomputationaltechnologiesembodiedintheelectroniccomputer.Thecapacitytotransformdataintoimage,anditsreversibilitytotransformimageintodata,producesanewsetofimagingpossibilities.Aspaceprobetakinganynumberofimagetechnologyslices–say,ofaMartiansurface–hastheresultfirsttransformedintotransmissibledatatosendbacktotheearthboundreceivingstation;and,oncereceived,thedataistransformedbackintoanimage.Moremundanely,thisisalsotheprocessfamiliartothosewhosenddigitalphotosovertheInternet.Data,however,canalsobereconstructedaccordingtoalgorithms–asinfractalandchaosphenomena–toproduceimageswhichwerenotpreviously“imaged.”Third,contemporaryimaginghasawiderangeofconstructibilitybuiltintoit.Computationalprocessesincludetomography,suchthat,forexample,onecanatonelevel“dialin”differentsetsoffrequencies.MRIscansaretypicallytakenofmultipleslicesthroughabrain,forexample,atdifferentfrequenciesandcomposedintothemultipleimagesusedbytheneurologist.OronecanalsodoacompositethroughtomographyofMRI,PETandCATimagingtoproduceamorecompletethree-dimensionalimage207\n9781405146012_4_036.qxd2/4/0913:30Page208donihdeofapossiblebraintumor.Alsoincludedinsuchconstructibilityareboththerota-tionalandslicecapacitiessuchthatvirtualanatomyandothervirtualpracticesmaybeundertakenonthebasisofimagerymanipulation.Onemayaddhere,too,thedevelopmentofholographyandotherthree-dimensionalimagingwhichisundercurrentdevelopment.Thefinalcontemporaryimagingcapacitytobenotedhereiswhatcouldbecalledcomplexityimaging,whichispreciselywhatisalsoknownasmodelingandsimulation.Firstusedinthemodelingofacomplexatomicreactionduringthedevelopmentoftheatomicbomb(MonteCarlosimulations),modelingandsimulationistodayarapidlygrowingsetofpracticeswhichincludegraphicmodelingofglobalwarming,hurricanesimulationmodels,complexindustrialprocessesandawholerangeofsimilarcomplexphenomenavisualizedincomputationalgestalts.Althoughthisentryhasconcentratedonscientificimaging,theburgeoningofsimilarimaginginthearts,communications,contemporarymediaandentertainmentisparallel.Indeed,artistsusingsuchimagingprocesseshavealsodiscoveredthatthecapacitytotransformdatatoimage,anditsreversal,alsohasadifferentpotential.Onecanturndataintoeitheravisualizationoranacousticimage.Thusvariousperformanceartistshaveturnedhurricanemodelsinto“music,”andothershavewithtimecompressionanddataintoacousticformproducedsoundpatternsofweather“songs”7andthelike.Notes1.DavidHockney’sSecretKnowledge:RediscoveringtheLostTechniquesoftheOldMasters(NewYork:PenguinPutnam,2001)mayhaveshockedsomeoftheartworldinitsclaimsconcerningtheuseofthecameraobscurainRenaissanceartpractice,buthistoriansoftechnologyhadbeenfamiliarwiththisfactasacommonplacefordecades.2.LensesforusesineyeglasseswerecommoninEuropebythethirteenthcenturyand,similarly,werealsoinuseinChina.3.AninterdisciplinarygrouplocatedattheFreeUniversityofBerlinproducedamajorstudyofinstrumentsinbothartandscienceintheseventeenthcentury;seeLudgarSchwarte,HelmarSchrumandWaltherLazarzig,InstrumenteinKunstundWissenschaft(Berlin:WalterdeGreuter,2006).4.JosephNiepcehadusedsilversaltstofixphotographicimagesbeforeDaguerre,butDaguerreperfectedtheprocessandpublishedhisresultsin1869–photographyasatechnologywasimmediatelyadoptedintheindustrialworldofthetimeanditsuseinsciencethroughconnectingaphotographiccameratobothstandardandspectroscopictelescopesoccurredwithinayearofDaguerre’spublication.5.Afullaccountofmedicalimaging,fromtheX-rayon,maybefoundinBettyAnnKevles,NakedtotheBone(Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley,1998).6.SeeNigelHenbestandMichaelMarten,TheNewAstronomy,2ndedn(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996).ThenewastronomyisatermappliedtoEMSfrequenciesbeyondtheopticalspectrum.7.AndreaPollifromHunterCollegedevelopedthetechniqueofturningmodeldataintoacousticrecordings,andFelixHesshasdevelopedaseriesoftime-compressedacousticrecordsofbothnaturalandsociallyproducedimagedsound.208\n9781405146012_4_036.qxd2/4/0913:30Page209imagingtechnologiesReferencesandFurtherReadingGalison,P.(1997).ImageandLogic(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Giere,R.(2006).ScientificPerspectivalism(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Ihde,D.(1998).ExpandingHermeneutics:VisualisminScience(Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversityPress).Latour,B.andWeibel,P.(2002).Iconoclash(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).209\n9781405146012_4_037.qxd2/4/0913:30Page21037TheCritiqueofthePrecautionaryPrincipleandthePossibilityforan“EnlightenedDoomsaying”JEAN-PIERREDUPUYAllthefearsofourageseemtohavefoundshelterinoneword:precaution.Yettheconceptualunderpinningsofthenotionofprecautionareextremelyfragile.LetusrecallthedefinitionoftheprecautionaryprincipleformulatedintheMaastrichttreaty:Theabsenceofcertainties,giventhecurrentstateofscientificandtechnologicalknow-ledge,mustnotdelaytheadoptionofeffectiveandproportionatepreventivemeasuresaimedatforestallingariskofgraveandirreversibledamagetotheenvironmentataneconomicallyacceptablecost.Afirstseriousdeficiencywhichhamstringsthenotionofprecautionisthatitdoesnotproperlygaugethetypeofuncertaintywithwhichweareconfrontedatpresent.Theveryformulationoftheprecautionaryprinciplemakesitclearthatitplacesitselffromtheoutsetwithintheframeworkofepistemicuncertainty,i.e.aformofuncertaintythatresidesinthemindoftheknowingsubjectratherthanintheobject-ivepropertiesoftheoutsideworld.Thepresuppositionisthatweknowweareinasituationofuncertainty.ItisanaxiomofepistemiclogicthatifIdonotknowp,thenIknowthatIdonotknowp.Yet,assoonaswedepartfromthisframework,wemustentertainthepossibilitythatwedonotknowthatwedonotknowsomething.Incaseswheretheuncertaintyissuchthatitentailsthattheuncertaintyitselfisuncertain,itisimpossibletoknowwhetherornottheconditionsfortheapplicationofthepre-cautionaryprinciplehavebeenmet.Ifweapplytheprincipletoitself,itwillinvalidateitselfbeforeoureyes.Moreover,“giventhecurrentstateofscientificandtechnologicalknowledge”impliesthatascientificresearcheffortcouldovercometheuncertaintyinquestion,theexistenceofwhichisviewedaspurelycontingent.Itisasafebetthata“precautionarypolicy”willinevitablyincludetheedictthatresearcheffortsmustbepursued–asifthegapbetweenwhatisknownandwhatneedstobeknowncouldbefilledbyasupplement-aryeffortonthepartoftheknowingsubject.Butitisnotuncommontoencountercasesinwhichtheprogressofknowledgecomportsanincreaseinuncertaintyforthe210ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_037.qxd2/4/0913:30Page211thecritiqueoftheprecautionaryprincipledecision-maker,somethingwhichisinconceivablewithintheframeworkofepistemicuncertainty.Sometimes,tolearnmoreistodiscoverhiddencomplexitiesthatmakeusrealizethatthemasterywethoughtwehadoverphenomenawasinpartillusory.However,themostimportantreasonthatleadsustodeemtheprecautionaryprin-cipleaninsufficienttoolifwearetoconfrontthenewthreatsthatputthesurvivalofhumankindinjeopardyisthat,byplacingtheemphasisonscientificuncertainty,itutterlymisconstruesthenatureoftheobstaclethatkeepsusfromactinginthefaceofcatastrophe.Theobstacleisnotuncertainty,scientificorotherwise;theobstacleistheimpossibilityofbelievingthattheworstisgoingtooccur.Evenwhenitisknownthatitisgoingtotakeplace(thinkofglobalwarming),acatastropheisnotcredible:thatistheprincipalobstacle.Onthebasisofnumerousexamples,anEnglishresearcheridentifiedwhathecalledan“inverseprincipleofriskevaluation”:thepropensityofacommunitytorecognizetheexistenceofariskseemstobedeterminedbytheextenttowhichitthinksthatsolutionsexist.Tocallintoquestionwhatwehavelearnedtoviewasprogresswouldhavesuchphenomenalrepercussionsthatwedonotbelievewearefacingcatastrophe.Inadditiontopsychology,thequestionoffuturecatastrophebringsintoplayawholemetaphysicsoftemporality.Theworldexperiencedthetragedyof11September2001lessastheintroductionintorealityofsomethingsenseless,andthereforeimpossible,thanasthesuddentransformationofanimpossibilityintoapossibility.Theworsthorrorhasnowbecomepossible,onesometimeshearditsaid.Ifithasbecomepossible,thenitwasnotpossiblebefore.Andyet,commonsenseobjects,ifithappened,thenitmusthavebeenpossible.FrenchphilosopherHenriBergsondescribestheweirdfeelingofeasinessandreliefheexperiencedon4August1914whenhelearnedthatGermanyhaddeclaredwaronFrance.Thisuncannyfamiliaritycontrastedsharplywiththefeelingsthatprevailedbeforethecatastrophe.WarthenappearedtoBergson“atoneandthesametimeasprob-ableandasimpossible:acomplexandcontradictoryidea,whichpersistedrightuptothefatefuldate.”Inreality,Bergsondeftlyuntanglesthisapparentcontradiction.Theexplanationcomeswhenhereflectsontheworkofart:“Ibelieveitwillultimatelybethoughtobviousthattheartistcreatesthepossibleatthesametimeastherealwhenhebringshisworkintobeing,”hewrites.Thisreflectionisnolessvalidinthecaseofacatastrophe.Catastrophesarecharacterizedbyatemporalitythatisinsomesenseinverted.Asaneventburstingforthoutofnothing,thecatastrophebecomespossibleonlybymakingitselfpossiblewhilebecomingreal.Andthatispreciselythesourceofourproblem.For,ifoneistopreventacatastrophe,oneneedstobelieveinitspossibilitybeforeitoccurs.If,ontheotherhand,onesucceedsinpreventingit,itsnon-realizationmaintainsitintherealmoftheimpossible;and,asaresult,thepreventioneffortswillappearuselessinretrospect.Itisthisspontaneousmetaphysicsofthetemporalityofcatastrophesthatisthechiefobstacletothedefinitionofaformofprudenceadaptedtoourtime.Theconceptof“enlighteneddoomsaying”proposesasolutionfoundedonanantidotetothatsamemetaphysics.Theideaistoprojectoneselfintothefutureandlookbackatourpresentandevaluateitfromthere.Thistemporalloopbetweenfutureandpastdefinesthemeta-physicsofprojectedtime.Itmakessenseonlyifoneacceptsthatthefutureisnotonly211\n9781405146012_4_037.qxd2/4/0913:30Page212jean-pierredupuyrealbutalsofixed.Thepossibleexistsonlyinpresentandfutureactuality,andthis1actualityisitselfanecessity.Moreprecisely,beforethecatastropheoccurs,itcannotoccur;itisinoccurringthatitbeginstohavealwaysbeennecessary,andthereforethatthenon-catastrophe,whichwaspossible,beginstohavealwaysbeenimpossible.Thismetaphysicsconsistsinprojectingoneselfintothetimefollowingthecatastrophe,andinretrospectivelyseeinginthelatteraneventatoncenecessaryandimprobable.The(im)probabilityofanecessaryeventisnolongerthemeasureofanignorancethatmighthavesomechanceofbeingonlyprovisional(uncertainty).Itisanelementofreality,arealitythatisnotentirelydeterminate(indeterminacy).Theparadoxof“enlighteneddoomsaying”presentsitselfasfollows.Tomaketheprospectofacatastrophecredible,onemustincreasetheontologicalforceofitsinscrip-tioninthefuture.Buttodothiswithtoomuchsuccesswouldbetolosesightofthegoal,whichispreciselytoraiseawarenessandspuractionsothatthecatastrophedoesnottakeplace.Inprojectedtime,thefutureistakentobefixed,whichmeansthatanyeventthatisnotpartofthepresentorthefutureisanimpossibleevent.Itimmediatelyfollowsthat,inprojectedtime,prudencecannevertaketheformofprevention(ofwhichpre-cautionisjustaparticularinstance).Preventionassumesthattheundesirableeventthatonepreventsisanunrealizedpossibility.Theeventmustbepossibleforustohaveareasontoact;butifouractioniseffectiveitwillnottakeplace.Thisisunthinkablewithintheframeworkofprojectedtime.Toforetellthefutureinprojectedtime,itisnecessarytoseektheloop’sfixedpoint,whereanexpectation(onthepartofthepastwithregardtothefuture)andacausalproduction(ofthefuturebythepast)coincide.Thepredictor,knowingthathispredictionisgoingtoproducecausaleffectsintheworld,musttakeaccountofthisfactifhewantsthefuturetoconfirmwhatheforetold.Traditionally,whichistosayinaworlddominatedbyreligion,thisistheroleoftheprophet,andespeciallythatofthebiblicalprophet.However,wearespeakingofprophecyhereinapurelysecularandtechnicalsense.Theprophetistheonewho,moreprosaically,seeksoutthefixedpointoftheproblem,thepointwherevoluntarismachievestheverythingthatfatalitydictates.Theprophecyincludesitselfinitsowndiscourse;itseesitselfrealizingwhatitannouncesasdestiny.TheFrenchplanningsystemasitwasonceconceivedbyPierreMasséconstitutesthebestexampleofwhatitmeanstoforetellthefutureinprojectedtime.It“aimedtoobtainthroughconsultationsandresearchanimageofthefuturesufficientlyoptimistictobedesirableandsufficientlycredibletotriggertheactionsthatwouldbringabout2itsownrealization.”Itiseasytoseethatthisdefinitioncanmakesenseonlywithinthemetaphysicsofprojectedtime,whosecharacteristicloopbetweenpastandfutureitdescribesperfectly.Herecoordinationisachievedonthebasisofanimageofthefuturecapableofensuringaclosedloopbetweenthecausalproductionofthefutureandtheself-fulfillingexpectationofit.Theparadoxofthedoomsayer’ssolutiontotheproblemposedbythethreatshang-ingoverhumanity’sfutureisnowinplace.Itisamatterofachievingcoordinationonthebasisofanegativeprojecttakingtheformofafixedfuturewhichonedoesnotwant.Onemighttrytotransposetheformerdefinitionintothefollowingterms:“toobtainthroughscientificfuturologyandameditationonhumangoalsanimageofthefuture212\n9781405146012_4_037.qxd2/4/0913:30Page213thecritiqueoftheprecautionaryprinciplesufficientlycatastrophictoberepulsiveandsufficientlycredibletotriggertheactionsthatwouldblockitsrealization”–butthisformulationwouldseemtobehobbledfromtheoutsetbyaprohibitivedefect:self-contradiction.Ifonesucceedsinavoidingtheundesirablefuture,howcanonesaythatcoordinationwasachievedbyfixingone’ssightsonthatsamefuture?Theparadoxisunresolved.Theproblemistoseewhattypeoffixedpointiscapableofensuringtheclosureoftheloopthatlinksthefuturetothepastinprojectedtime.Weknowthatthecatastrophecannotbethisfixedpoint:thesignalsitwouldsendbacktowardthepastwouldtriggeractionsthatwouldkeepthecatastrophicfuturefrombeingrealized.Ifthedeterrenteffectofthecatastropheworkedperfectly,itwouldbeself-obliterating.Forthesignalsfromthefuturetoreachthepastwithouttriggeringtheverythingthatwouldobliteratetheirsource,theremustsubsist,inscribedinthefuture,animperfectionintheclosureoftheloop.Themaximforarationalformofdoomsayingbecomes:“toobtain...animageofthefuturesufficientlycatastrophictoberepulsiveandsufficientlycredibletotriggertheactionsthatwouldblockitsrealization,barringanaccident.”Onemaywanttoquantifytheprobabilityofthisaccident.Letussaythatitisanepsilon,ε,bydefinitionweakorveryweak.Theforegoingexplanationcanthenbesummedupveryconcisely:itisbecausethereisaprobabilityεthatthedeterrencewillnotworkthatitworkswithaprobability1-ε.Whatmightlooklikeatautology(itwouldobviouslybeoneinourusualmetaphysics)isabsolutelynotonehere,sincetheprecedingpropositionisnottrueforε=0.Thediscontinuityatε=0suggeststhatsomethinglikeanindeterminacyprincipleisatworkhere.Theprobabilitiesεand1-εbehavelikeprobabilitiesinquantummechanics.Thefixedpointmustbeconceivedasthesuperpositionoftwostates,onebeingtheaccidentalandpreordainedoccurrenceofthecatastrophe,theotheritsnon-occurrence.Thefactthatthedeterrencewillnotworkwithastrictlypositiveprobabilityεiswhatallowsfortheinscriptionofthecatastropheinthefuture,anditisthisinscriptionthatmakesthedeterrenceeffective,withamarginoferrorε.Notethatitwouldbequiteincorrecttosaythatitisthepossibilityoftheerror,withtheprobabilityε,thatsavestheeffectivenessofthedeterrence–asiftheerrorandtheabsenceoferrorconstitutedtwopathsbranchingoutfromaforkintheroad.Therearenobranchingpathsinprojectedtime.Theerrorisnotmerelypossible,itisactual:itisinscribedintime,ratherlikeaslipofthepen.Thefutureiswrittenbutitispartiallyindeterminate.Itincludesthecatastrophebutasanaccident.Notes1.Themetaphysicsofprojectedtimerestsonanovelsolutiontooneoftheoldestproblemsinmetaphysics:Diodorus’MasterArgument.SeeVuillemin,J.(1996).NecessityorContingency:TheMasterArgument(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversity,CSLIPublications).2.Guesnerie,R.(1996),L’Economiedemarché(Paris:Flammarion).Thephrasingreflectsthespiritofrationalexpectations.213\n9781405146012_4_038.qxd2/4/0913:30Page21438TechnologyandMetaphysicsJEAN-PIERREDUPUYThepositivistphilosophythatdrivesmostofmodernscienceandtechnology(andmuchofcontemporaryphilosophy)takes“metaphysics”tobeameaninglessquestforanswerstounanswerablequestions;butKarlPopper,followingtheleadofEmileMeyerson,showedthatthereisnoscientific(or,forthatmatter,technological)researchprogramthatdoesnotrestonasetofgeneralpresuppositionsaboutthestructureoftheworld.Tobesure,thosemetaphysicalviewsarenotempiricallytestableandtheyarenotamenableto“falsification.”However,thatdoesnotimplythattheyarenotinteresting,substantial,andthattheydonotplayafundamentalroleintheadvancementofscience.Thosewhodenymetaphysicssimplyrenderitinvisible,anditisverylikelythattheirhiddenmetaphysicsisbadorinconsistent.Totheamazementofthosewhomistookhimforapositivist,KarlPopperclaimedthatthephilo-sopherorhistorianofscience’staskwastwofold:first,unearthandmakevisiblethemetaphysicalideasthatlieunderneathscientificprogramsinordertomakethemamenabletocriticism;second,proceedtoacriticalexaminationofthosemetaphysicaltheories,inawaythatisdifferentfromthecriticismofscientifictheories,sincenoempiricaltestingisherepossible,butneverthelessrational.Twomajorphilosophersfromtheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturiescanbesaidtohavefleshedoutthemetaphysicsunderlyingthenewsciencethebuddingofwhichtheywerewitnessing:RenéDescartesandGiambattistaVico.Descartessawscienceandtechnologyasaimingatmakingmanmasterandpossessorofnatureandofhimself.Moresubtly,Vicogavethepostulateofthe“newscience”(1725)acelebratedformulation:Verumetfactumconvertuntur(“Thetrueandthemadeareconvertible”).Thismeansthatwecanhaverationalknowledgeonlyaboutthatofwhichwearethecause,aboutthatwhichweourselveshavemade.Theprincipleofverumfactumwasoriginallyunderstoodasimplyingawantorlackonthepartofhumanbeings:wecanneverknownatureinthewaythatGoddoes,forGodcreatedwhatwecanonlyobserve.Quickly,however,theprincipleacquiredapositivesensemoreinkeepingwiththegrowingaffirmationofmodernsubjectivism:whathumanbeingsmakecanberationally–thatis,demonstrativelyanddeductively–knowndespitethefinitenessofhumanunderstanding.Amongthebranchesofknowledge,rankedindescendingorderaccordingtotheirdegreeofperfection,mathematicsbythiscriterionofcoursecomesfirst,followed,however,notbythenaturalsciencesbutby214ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_038.qxd2/4/0913:30Page215technologyandmetaphysicsthemoralandpoliticalsciences,supposedtobemorescientificbecausetheydealwiththeproductsofhumanactivity.Asregardsthescienceofnature,however,itsfirstprinciple,accordingtoHannahArendt,hadtobethatonecanknowonlyinmakingor,rather,inremaking.Despitehishumanlimitations,thescientist“neverthelessfromtheoutsetapproachedit1[nature]fromthestandpointoftheOnewhomadeit.”Thisexplainsnotonlythescientist’semphasisonthe“how”ofphysicalprocessesratherthanonthebeingofthings,butalsotheconsiderableroleassignedbysciencetoexperiment.Withtheloomingadvancedtechnologies,weshallbeonebigstepfurther.Iamthinkinginparticularoftheso-calledNano-Bio-Info-Cogno(NBIC)convergencewhichpresentsitselfastheultimateculminationoftheverumfactum.Itisnolongermerelybydoingexperimentsonit,itisnolongermerelybymodelingit,thatmenwillnowcometoknownature.Itisbyremakingit.But,bythesametoken,itisnolongernaturethattheywillcometoknow,butwhattheyhavemade.Or,rather,itistheveryideaofnature,andthusofagiventhatisexteriortotheself,whichwillappearoutmoded.TheverydistinctionbetweenknowingandmakingwillloseallmeaningwiththeNBICconvergence,aswillthedistinctionthatstillexiststodaybetweenthescientistandtheengineer.Alreadytoday,inthecaseofbiotechnologies,thedistinctionbetweendiscoveryandinvention,onwhichpatentlawrests,isprovingincreasinglytrickytomaintain,asthedebatesaboutthepatentabilityoflifeformsdemonstrate.Underthisgeneralheading,wecanincludewhatsomephilosopherscall“theartificializationofNature”and,inparticular,ofLifeandtheMind.ThemetaphysicalprogramthatdrivestheNBICconvergence,aPrometheanprojectifevertherewasone,istoturnmanintoademiurgeor,scarcelymoremodestly,the“engineerofevolutionaryprocesses.”Biologicalevolution,withitsclumsytinkering,hasoftenbotchedthejob,anditcannotbeespeciallyproudofitslatesthandiwork,man.Itisuptomanhimself,then,totrytodobetter.Thisputshiminthepositionofbeingthedivinemakeroftheworld,thedemiurge,whileatthesametimecondemninghimtoseehimselfasoutofdate.Wearedealingherewithanextraordinaryparadoxofthecoincidenceofopposites,whichsuchphilosophersasMartinHeidegger,HannahArendtorGüntherAndershavebroughtout:theoverweeningambitionandprideofacertainscientifichumanismleadsstraighttotheobsolescenceofman.Itisinthisbroadperspectivethatwemustalwayssetthespecificquestionswhicharetermed“ethical”andwhichtouchontheengineeringofmanbyman.Thehumanconditionisaninextricablemixtureofthingsgivenandthingsmade.Thismeansthatman,toagreatextent,canshapethatwhichshapeshim,conditionthatwhichconditionshim,whilestillrespectingthefragileequilibriumbetweenthegivenandthemade.Now,alreadyinthe1950s,Arendtprophesiedahumanrebellionagainstthegiven.Shewrote:Forsometimenow,agreatmanyscientificendeavorshavebeendirectedtowardmakinglifealso“artificial,”towardcuttingthelasttiethroughwhichevenmanbelongsamongthechildrenofnature....Thisfutureman,whomthescientiststellustheywillproduceinnomorethanahundredyears,seemstobepossessedbyarebellionagainsthumanexistenceasithasbeengiven,afreegiftfromnowhere(secularlyspeaking),whichhewishes2toexchange,asitwere,forsomethinghehasmadehimself.215\n9781405146012_4_038.qxd2/4/0913:30Page216jean-pierredupuyIndeed,themetaphysicsoftheNBICconvergencedreamsofovercomingonceandforalleverygiventhatisapartofthehumancondition,especiallythefinitenessofahumanlife–itsmortalityanditsbeginninginbirth.Ifimmortalityhasalwayshadaplaceinman’sthoughtsordreams,itisonlyveryrecentlythatdeathhascometobecon-sidereda“problem”whichscienceandtechnologycansolvebyeliminatingit.Asforbirth,thefactthatwearebornintotheworldwithoutourhavinghadanythingtodowithithasbecomeasourceofshame(GüntherAnders).Wediscoverthatwehavebeenthrown(theHeideggerianGeworfenheit)intotheworldandwefeelabandoned.Weexperienceforlornnesswhenwerealizethatwearenotthefoundationofourownbeing.Technologyfantasmaticallypromisesaremedyforthisfeelingofnausea:(re)designingourselves,partiallyortotally,asifwewereourownmachines.Attheheartofthemetaphysicalresearchprogramthatdrivesmuchofcontem-porarytechnology,thereisanenormousparadox.Themetaphysicsinquestionclearlywantstobemonist:onewouldnolongersaytodaythateverythingintheuniverseproceedsfromthesamesubstance,butonewillsaythateverythingissubjecttothesameprinciplesoforganization:nature,lifeandthemind.Thewatchwordofcognitivescienceis“naturalizingthemind.”Itisamatteroffullyrestoringthemind(andlife)totheirproperplacewithinthenaturalworld.Now,ithappensthattheprinciplesoforganizationsupposedtobecommontoeverythingthatexistsintheuniversearemechanisticprinciples.Adevicethatprocessesinformationaccordingtofixedrules,thatis,thealgorithm,constitutesthesolemodelofeverythingthatexists.Chronologically,anddespitewhatcertainpreconceptionsmightsuggest,themindwasfirsttobeassimilatedtoanalgorithm(orTuringmachine:McCullochandPitts’smodel,1943);nextwastheturnoflife,withthebirthofmolecularbiology(MaxDelbrückandthe“phagegroup,”1949);andonlylatercamethethesisthatthelawsofphysicsarerecursive(orTuringcomputable).Thenaturalizationofthemindthusmergeswiththemechanizationofthemind.Istheambitionto(re)maketheworldtantamounttocontrollingit,inkeepingwithDescartes’metaphysics?Thinkingsowouldmeanthatoneremainsblindtoafundamentalshiftinthephilosophyofcontemporarytechnology.Itisoftenthecasethatthephilosophyimplicittoanewfieldisgivenaway,admittedlyinacrudeway,byitsvisionariesandideologues.OnthisscoreitisdifficulttobemoreexplicitthanKevinKellywhenhewrites:“Ittookusalongtimetorealizethatthepowerofatech-nologyisproportionaltoitsinherentout-of-controlness,itsinherentabilitytosurpriseandbegenerative.Infact,unlesswecanworryaboutatechnology,itisnotrevolu-3tionaryenough.”In1948,thegreatAmericanmathematicianJohnvonNeumann,theinventorofgametheoryandautomatatheory,butalsoamajorcontributortothedesignoftheA-andH-bombs,prophesiedthatsoonthebuilderofautomatawouldfindhimselfashelplessbeforehiscreationaswefeelourselvestobeinthepresenceofcomplexnaturalphenomena.Hewasthusfoundingtheso-calledbottom-upapproachthathasbecomethelandmarkofnanotechnology.Inkeepingwiththatphilosophy,theengineersofthefuturewillnolongerbetheoneswhodeviseanddesignastructurecapableoffulfillingafunctionthathasbeenassignedtothem.Theengineersofthefuturewillbetheoneswhoknowtheyaresuccessfulwhentheyaresurprisedbytheirowncreations.216\n9781405146012_4_038.qxd2/4/0913:30Page217technologyandmetaphysicsTheparadigmofcomplex,self-organizingsystemsenvisionedbyvonNeumannissteppingaheadatanacceleratedpace,bothinscienceandintechnology.Itisintheprocessofshovingawayandreplacingtheoldmetaphorsinheritedfromthecyberneticparadigm(theonewhosemainconceptis“control”),liketherepresentationsthattreatthemindorthegenomeascomputerprograms.Complexityhasalreadybecomeacatchwordinbiology.Thetimehasnotcome–andmaynevercome–whenwemanufactureself-replicatingmachinerythatmimicstheself-replicationoflivingmaterials.However,weareusingmoreandmorelivingmaterialsandtheircapacityforself-organizationtomimicsmartmachineryorperformmechanicalfunctions.Wearemanufacturingself-organizationandsoonweshallbeabletounchaincomplexity,thatis,createirre-versibleprocessesthatwouldneverhaveexistedwithouthumanintervention.Theheightofthisambitionwillbereachedwhenorifwebecomeabletomanufacturelifeitself–notnecessarilythekindoflifethatemergedspontaneouslyonthisplanetonebillionyearsagoandevolvedintoevermorecomplexforms,butorganizationsthathavethebasicpropertieswhichweattributetolife:self-replicationandself-complexification.Itwillthenbeaninevitabletemptation,nottosayataskoraduty,forthetechno-logistsofthefuturetosetoffprocessesoverwhichtheyhavenocontrol.Themythofthesorcerer’sapprenticemustbeupdated:itisneitherbyerrornorbyterrorthatManwillbedispossessedofhisowncreationsbutbydesign.Notes1.Arendt,H.(1958).TheHumanCondition(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress),p.295.2.ibid.,pp.2–3.3.Kelly,K.(inprogress).“WillSpiritualRobotsReplaceHumanityby2100?,”inTheTechnium,http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/217\n9781405146012_4_039.qxd2/4/0913:31Page21839LargeTechnicalSystemsERIKVANDERVLEUTENBackgroundThenotionofLargeTechnicalSystems(LTS)refersbothtoanapproachtounderstandingandanalyzingsociotechnicalchange,andtoaclassofphenomena–largeinfrastructuralandproductionsystems–whichareparticularlysuitedforanalysisbyanLTSapproach.LTSthinkingfindsitsrootsintheAmericanhistorianThomasP.Hughes’sbookNetworksofPower:ElectrificationinWesternSociety1880–1930(1983).Inthelate1980s,theLTSapproachwaspositionedamongthepromising“newdirectionsinthesocio-logyandhistoryoftechnology”nexttotheSocialConstructionofTechnology(SCOT;seeChapter15)andActor-NetworkTheory(ANT;seeChapter64).Simultaneously,anLTSliteratureemergedtoinvestigatelargeinfrastructureandproductionsystems.Sincethen,theconceptualframeworkandtheempiricalrangeofinquiryhavesteadilyexpanded.LTS-informedworkisbest-presentednotasacoherenttheoryinastrictsocialsciencesense,butratherascomprisingavarietyofnarratives,conceptsandresearchstrategiesthatcaninspireinquiry.Theseareusuallyguidedbytwooriginalconcerns.Afirstimportantoriginalconcernwastocriticizeandtranscendthecustomaryfocusuponartifactsormachinesinhistoryandsociology,routinelyinvestigatingthelightbulb,locomotive,motorcarorassemblylineaslocioftechnologicalchangeandharbingersofmajorsocialchanges.Suchartifacts,however,wereonlythemostvisibleofmanyinteractingelementsthatjointlyformedentire“systems”forelectricitysupply,transportation,orindustrialproduction.Inelectricitysupplysystems,forinstance,thedesignsofsteamengines,generators,distributionnetworks,andconsumerappliancesweremutuallyadaptedandalignedintoonefunctioningwhole.Suchsystemscon-stitutetruefrontiersoftwentieth-centurytechnicalchangeaswellasimportant“deepstructures”inmodernsocieties.Therefore,inLTSresearch,systems,nottheirmostvisibleelements,formtheprimaryunitofinquiry.Asecondoriginalconcernisthatexplainingthedevelopment,functioningandsocietalimplicationsofsuchsystemsdemandsunderstandingtheirsociotechnicalnature(aconcernsharedwithSCOTandANT).Inthecaseofelectricitysupplysystems,designpropertiesalsointeractedwithnon-technicalsystemelementsascompanystructures,financialpossibilitiesandobligations,negotiatedgovernmentconcessions,218ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_039.qxd2/4/0913:31Page219largetechnicalsystemsandconsumerpractices.Traditionalanalyticcategoriesaprioriseparatingthe“tech-nical,”“political”and“economic”obscuresuchsociotechnicalintertwinement.Worse,theymaysuperimposeanalyticalboxesthatobscurethesociotechnicalfabricfromview.Hughesandothersthereforedevelopedalternativeconceptstoinquirehowthesociotechnicalfabriciswoven,howitworks,andhowitintertwineswithbroadersocietalchanges.Theseconcernsinspiredhistoricalnarrativesofthedevelopmentofspecificsystemsandthehistoryoflargetechnicalsystemsasacategorysuigeneris;thedevelopmentofstrategiesforbuildingandmanagingsystems;andtheintertwinementsofLTSdevelopmentandtheshapingofcities,nationsandregions.Forreasonsofspace,IshallherefocusontheLTSapproachandkeyconceptsinformingtheinquiryofLTSdynamicsanditssocietalimplications.ConceptsforExaminingLTSDynamicsAsthemostcommondenominator,studyingtechnologiesfromanLTSperspective,whetherelectricitysupply,uraniumsupplychains,steamboats,orweaponproductionsystems,meansbringingintovoguetheirsystemicandsociotechnicalaspects.Beyondthat,thereisnoconsensusondefiningwordslike“large,”“technical”and“system.”ItistruethatearlyLTSstudiesoftenpresupposedcentralizedcontroloverallsystemelementsandexcludedanarchisticsystemslikeroadandwatertransport.Laterstudies,however,examinedexactlyself-regulationandcoordinationmechanismsin“loosely–coupled”largetechnicalsystems.Likewise,someauthorshavedefinedlargetechnicalsystemsbyfunction(communication,transport,energysupply),whileothersinvesti-gatedchallengesandproblemsduetotheirmultifunctionality(again,particularlyinwater-basedandroadsystems).AnumberofconceptsaimtospotlightthesystemicandsociotechnicalcharacterofLTSdevelopment.MostofthemwerefirstintroducedbyHughes.Regardingoverallsystemdevelopment,Hughesidentifieda“looselydefined”patternofLTSdevelopmentwith“overlappingyetdiscernible”phases.Inaninventionphaseanewtechnologicalsystememergesaroundradicalinventions.Inadevelopmentphasethisnascentsystemisadaptedtoeconomic,politicalandsocialcharacteristicsneededforsurvivalinthe“useworld,”typicallyattestsites.Aninnovationphaseaddsfurthersystemcomponentsrelatingtomanufacturing,salesandservicefacilities,enablingthesystemtoenterthemarket.Inaphaseofcompetitionandgrowththesystemexpandsandadaptsincom-petitionwithrivalsystems.Inaconsolidationphaseasystemhasacquiredsomuch“momentum”thatitisdifficulttochange,creatinganappearanceofautonomyfromitsenvironment.Atechnologytransferphasemayoccuratanytimeduringasystem’shistory.Hereitisexportedtodifferentenvironments,forinstancedifferentcountries,andadaptedtonewnatural,socialandtechnicalcontexts.Finally,otherauthorssoonaddedaphaseofstagnationordecline,whichwaslackinginHughes’soriginalpublications.Severalconceptsspecifydrivingforcesbehindsuchsystemdevelopment.First,theconceptofsystem-buildersbringshumanagencyintotheanalysisofsociotechnicalsystemdevelopment(whichwasignoredinearliersystemtheories,mostnotably219\n9781405146012_4_039.qxd2/4/0913:31Page220erikvandervleutengeneralsystemstheory).Theconceptreferstoindividualsand(later)organizationsthatmoldandaligntechnicalandnon-technicalelementsintoasociotechnicalwhole;theydothesociotechnicalweaving.Theconceptsuggestsstudyingkeyactorsnotasheroicinventors,butasdedicatedbuildersofsociotechnicalsystems:ThomasEdisonwasnotsomuchconcernedwith“inventing”thelightbulbaswithdesigningandsellingentireelectricitysupplysystems,whichdemandedsimultaneousworkonacommercialvision,contractswithlocalgovernmentsandfinanciers,settingupnewcompanies,marketing,andnewgenerator,distributionnetworkandlightbulbdesigns.Often,system-buildersworkbyidentifyingreversesalients–elementslaggingbehindandrestrainingtotalsystemdevelopment–andtranslatetheseintocriticalproblemsthatmay(ormaynot)besolved.Suchreversesalientsandproblemscanbeofatech-nicalornon-technicalnature;system-buildersengageintrans-disciplinaryproblem-solving.Furthermore,differenttypesofsystem-buildersdominatedifferentphasesofsystemdevelopment.Inventor-entrepreneurssuchasEdisonarecrucialduringinvention,developmentandinnovation,whilemanager-entrepreneurs(e.g.HenryFordsettinguphisautomobileproductionsystem)presideoverthegrowthphase.Financierentrepreneursandconsultingengineersarethemainplayersintheconsolidationphase.System-buildingapproachesalsovariedintime:modernsystem-buildingreferstotop-downhierarchicalorganizationstructuresandmicro-managementinthepre-SecondWorldWarperiod,whilepostmodernsystem-buildingofthe1990sreflectscounterculturevaluessuchashorizontalorganizationandparticipativesystem-building–givingstakeholdersaccesstothedesignprocess.Ecotechnicalsystem-buildingreferstorestoringandredesigningnaturalsystemslikeriverorforestsystems.Hughes’soriginalconceptpaidscarceattentiontooneimportanthumanattribute–conflict.Itemphasizedhowsystem-buildersmanipulatedandalignedsystemelementsinarathertop-downfashion.Laterstudies,bycontrast,oftenexaminesystem-buildingasagameinvolvingmanyactors,fullofnegotiationandpossiblyconflict,producingwinnersaswellaslosers.Theystudysystem-buildersasamethodologicalmovetogainaccesstothesystemic,sociotechnicalandcontestedcharacterofsociotechnicalchange.Otherconceptspointatstructuraldriversofsystemdevelopment.Theconceptoftechnologicalstyleexpresseshowthedesignsofsystemsandtheirinterrelatedtechnicalandnon-technicalelementschangewhentransferredtoothersocial,naturalortech-nicalenvironments.Bycontrast,theconceptofmomentumarticulatestheapparentautonomyofmaturelargetechnicalsystems,resistingpressuresforchange.Thisphysicsmetaphorsug-gestsa“mass”(again,intermsofinterrelatedtechnicalandnon-technicalelementsasinvestedcapital,actorcommitment,employment,userhabits,etc.)travelingwithacertain“speed”inacertain“direction”(e.g.geographicalexpansionorscaleincrease).Theconceptisbroaderthancomparableconceptsof“pathdependency”and“lock-in”intheeconomicsofinnovation.Large-scaleelectricitysupplyhadreachedconsider-ablemomentumbythe1930s;thetrajectoryofscaleincreaseproveddifficulttochangesince.Relatedconceptsexplaininggrowthandmomentumaddresseconomicperformance.Nexttoeconomiesofscaleandscope,Hughesintroducedtheconceptsofloadfactorandeconomicmixfromtheelectricitysupplyworld.Ahighloadfactordenotesastablesystemload,allowingbetterusageoftheavailablemachineryandthusaquickerreturn220\n9781405146012_4_039.qxd2/4/0913:31Page221largetechnicalsystemsoninvestment.Aneconomicmixdenotesthepoolingofproductionfacilitieswithdif-ferentcharacteristicssoastooptimizeproductioncostsatanygivenmoment.Laterresearchhasfurthernuancedtheseinsights.Inparticular,ArneKaijserandhisSwedishcollaboratorshavedevelopedawealthofconceptsdifferentiatingbetweensystemswithdifferenttechnical,geographical,economicandinstitutionalproperties,withdueimplicationsfortheirdevelopmentpatterns.Forinstance,systemswithartificialorspecificlinkslikerailroadsorelectricitysupplynetworksarelesseasilychangedthansystemsusingnature-basedlinkslikemaritimenavigationorairtransport,oralreadyexistinglinkslikethepostalsystem.IntheBalticcountriesafterthetransition,airconnectionswerepredominantlyreorientedtotheWest,whiletrainandelectricityconnectionsremainedfocusedonRussiaandtheUkraine.Systemsvarygeographicallyontheirlocal,provincial,nationalorinternationalscaleandtheirrepresentationbydots(likeself-generatingelectricityunits),lines(likerailroads)orfields(likeradiosystems).Economiccriteriaincludefinancingandpricingmethods,whileinstitution-allysystemsdivergeonformsofgovernmentcontrolandformsofcooperationbetweenkeyactorslikeoperators,equipmentsuppliersandusers.Muchworkhasbeendoneontheissueofsystemstabilityandchange,particularlyinthelightofadesiredtransitiontowardmoresustainabletransportandenergysystems.Ifmaturelargetechnicalsystemsarecharacterizedbyalargemomentumandresistchange,onlyextremeexternalconditionslikewarfare,oilcrises,environ-mentalismandgovernmentinterferencemaychangethedevelopmenttrajectory.Thepolicyimplicationisthat,toassistchange,policy-makersshouldsetupprotectedspacesor“niches”wherenewsystemscanbeinventedandgrow,protectedfromtheestablishedsystemuntiltheyareabletocompete.Anotherstrategyistogenerateinnovativeviewsonfuturesystemdevelopmentsinthemindsofthemainstakeholdersusingparticipativetechnologyassessmentmethods.Currentpolicytoolsforsustain-abletechnologicaldevelopmentasStrategicNicheManagementandsociotechnicalscenariodevelopmentpartlyleanonLTSinsights.Someauthors,however,dismisstheassumptionthatmaturesystemscannotchange.Closedsystemscanopenupandadapttonewinternalandexternalcircumstances.Inthisvein,ongoingworkonsysteminnovationsisdevelopingataxonomyoftransitionpathsoriginatingeitherfromwithinoroutsideexistingsystems.SocietalImplicationsofLTSLTSauthorsseelargetechnicalsystemsas“deepstructures”shapingindividualandsociallife.ConceptualizationofLTS’ssocietal(inthebroadestsense)implicationshasbeenlimited,though,mainlybecauseofageneralconcerntosteerclearofTechno-logicalDeterminism.Onlyrecentlyitwascommonlyacceptedthatthetechnologicalshapingofsocietycanbeinvestigatedinnon-deterministways.Thenotionofsociotechnicalsystem-building,ofcourse,alreadyencouragesinquiryofseveralLTS-relatedsocietalchanges,namelythosethatarepartandparcelofthesociotechnicalconstructionprocess.Forinstance,electricitysupplysystemsmadelightandpoweromnipresent,SwedishorNorwegianhydropowersystemssecurednationalenergyindependence,andtheAustralianinterstatepowergridshouldbreakthe221\n9781405146012_4_039.qxd2/4/0913:31Page222erikvandervleutenstate-ownedutilitymonopoliesthatkeptpricesup–andbreakcoal-minerstrikesthatwereorganizedatthestatelevel.Otherapproachesbringintovogueindirect,oftenunanticipatedandlong-termsocietalchangesrelatedtoLTSdevelopment.Oncebuilt,usersmayuselargetech-nicalsystemsinmultiple,sometimessurprisingways.Users,too,areagentsofindirectLTS-relatedsocietalchanges.Large-scaleindustriesusedelectricdrivetodesignevenlargerfactories;medium-andsmall-sizeindustries,however,employedelectricdrivetoimprovetheircompetitivepositionrelativetolargefactories.Householdshelpedshapethemeaningofelectricityandgassupplysystemsinthehome.Institutionaluserssuchasthemilitary,thefoodsectororthehealthsectorbuilttheirownsystems(so-calledsecond-orderlargetechnicalsystems)fordefenseandwarfare,foodsupply,andorgantrans-plantationontopofexistingtransportandcommunicationsystems.Finally,somechangesfollowtheintrinsicpropertiesoflargetechnicalsystems.Electricitysupplyandautomobilitysystemsinitiallygreatlyreducedurbanreduction,butinthelongruntheirmassivediffusioncreatednewformsofregionalandglobalpollutionsuchasacidrainandthegreenhouseeffect.Systempropertiesalsomayenhancenewconsciousnessandmentalspaces;spaceexplorationsystemsinspiredarediscoveryofafragileblueplanetEarthandtheconceptofthebiosphere,traintravelinterferedwithperceptionsofthelandscape,etc.SuchLTS-relatedchangesmayhaveadeterministiccharacter,whetherasanaturalsciencecause-and-effectrelation(effectsonthenaturalenvironment)orasa“forcefield”favoringsomechangesaboveothers(inthesocialworld),butremaintooimportanttobeexcludedfromcriticalanalysisasundesirable“TechnologicalDeterminism.”ReferencesandFurtherReadingCoutard,O.(ed.)(1999).GoverningLargeTechnicalSystems(London:Routledge).Coutard,O.,Hanley,R.andZimmerman,R.(eds)(2005).SustainingUrbanNetworks:TheSocialDiffusionofLargeTechnicalSystems(London:Routledge).Elzen,B.,Geels,F.andGreen,K.(eds)(2004).SystemInnovationandtheTransitiontoSustainability:Theory,EvidenceandPolicy(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).Hoogma,R.,Kemp,R.,Schot,J.andTruffer,B.(2002).ExperimentingforSustainableTransport:TheApproachofStrategicNicheManagement(London:SPON).Hughes,T.P.(1983).NetworksofPower:ElectrificationinWesternSociety1880–1930(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Hughes,T.P.(1987).“TheEvolutionofLargeTechnologicalSystems,”inW.E.Bijkeretal.(eds),TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.51–82.Hughes,T.P.(1998).RescuingPrometheus(NewYork:Pantheon).LaPorte,T.(ed.)(1991).SocialResponsestoLargeTechnicalSystems:ControlorAnticipation(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Mayntz,R.andHughes,T.P.(eds)(1988).TheDevelopmentofLargeTechnicalSystems(Frankfurt:Campus).Summerton,J.(ed.)(1994).ChangingLargeTechnicalSystems(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress).vanderVleuten,E.(2006).“UnderstandingNetworkSocieties:TwoDecadesofLargeTechnicalSystemStudies,”inE.vanderVleutenandA.Kaijser(eds),NetworkingEurope:InfrastructuralIntegrationandDisintegration(SagamoreBeach,Mass.:ScienceHistoryPublications).222\n9781405146012_4_040.qxd2/4/0913:31Page22340SociotechnicalSystemsMAARTENFRANSSENANDPETERKROESThecoreoftechnologyisthedesignandrealization–whichincludesmanufacture,implementationandmaintenance–oftechnicalartifacts.Theprototypicalartifactisasinglematerialobjectdesignedtobeusedbyaparticularpersonforaparticularpurpose.Thereisanimportantclassofartifacts,inthesenseofman-madeconstructs,thatcannotbeseenasasingleconnectedmaterialobject,norashavingasingleuserorevenasequenceofsinglebutdistinctusers.Typicalexamplesaretheinfrastructuresthatformthebackboneofoursocieties:theairandroadtransportationsystems,theelectricityandgasnetworks.Suchartifactshaveadiffusemultitudeofusers,amultitudethatis,moreover,heterogeneousinthatthepurposesforwhichtheusersparticipateinitsusemaybequitedifferent.Itisincreasinglybeingrecognizedthatartifactualconstructsofthissorthaveparticularpropertiesthatsetthemapartfromotherartifacts,andposespecialproblemstothepeoplewhoareinvolvedindesigningandimplementingthem,whichhasledtotheirbeingreferredtobythespecialtermsociotechnicalsystems.Sociotechnicalsystemsare,firstofall,systems.Thenotionofsystem,however,isextremelygeneral.Anysingle-userconsumerartifactisasysteminthatitconsistsofvariouscomponents,wherethebehavioroftheoverallartifactresultsfromacare-fulmatchingoftheinput–outputrelationsbetweenthesecomponents.Still,thesecomponentsareallsimilarinbeingmaterialobjectsforwhichascientificdescriptionisavailablethatenablesengineerstoinvestigate,predictandcontroltheirinput–outputbehavior.Sociotechnicalsystems,incontrast,arehybridsystems,consistingof,orinvolving,“components”or“elements”that,bythedescriptionwehaveavailablefortheirbehavior,belongtootherdomainsthanjustthedomainofthematerialobjectsdescribedbynaturalscience.Amongthesecomponentsorelementswemaydistinguishindividualpeople,butalsocorporateactorssuchasbusinesscompaniesandgovern-mentalbodies,andmoreabstractsocialentitiessuchasinstitutions,andlaws,regu-lationsandotherrules.Itisimportanttorecognizethatpeoplecanbeinvolvedinartifactualsystems,throughtheirrelationstothematerialobjectsthatareinastraightforwardsensecomponentsofsuchsystems,intwodifferentways.Ontheonehand,therearepeoplewhousethesystem,throughtheiruseofmaterialcomponentsofthesystem,intheACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks223©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_040.qxd2/4/0913:31Page224maartenfranssenandpeterkroeswaythepeoplewhodrivetheircartogotoworkusetheroadtransportationsystem,andthepeoplewhoconnecttheirtelevisionsettothesocketintheirhouseusetheelectric-powersystem.Ontheotherhand,therearepeoplewhoareinvolvedintheoperationandmaintenanceofthesystem.Inthecaseoftheroadtransportationsystemtheyincluderoadworkers,trafficpolice,petrol-stationpersonnel,andsoforth;inthecaseoftheelectric-powersystemtheyincludetheoperatorsofpowerstations,repairandmaintenanceworkersinthefield,andthepersonnelofthecompaniesthatsellelectricitytocustomers.Theremayalsobecaseswhereitisdifficulttodecidetowhichcategorysomeonebelongs.Ataxidriver,forexample,oranemployedchauffeur,seemstoparticipateinthetrafficsystemjustlikeanyothercardriver.However,thesepeopledonotusetheroadtransportationsystemtosatisfytheirgoalofbeingtrans-portedfromoneplacetoanother.Presumablytheyparticipateforsomepurposeoftheirown–toearnasalaryormakeaprofit,ortoliveafulfillinglife–butthispurposebearsnologicalrelationtothefunctionofthesystemthey“use”forthispurpose.Thecontrastbetweenthesetwowayspeopleareinvolvedinsociotechnicalsystemscanbeaccentuatedbyconsideringthatintheirfacilitatingrolepeoplecaninprinciplebereplacedby–intelligent–machines.Itwouldmakenosense,however,toconsiderautomatingtheusersofasociotechnicalsystem,thatis,thepeoplewhousetheroadsandpetrolstationstodrivetheircartoworkorwhousethepowersocketsintheirhometowatchtelevision.Werethesepeopletobereplacedbymachines,therewouldnolongerbeanypointtothesystem.Thisshowsthat,whereastheintentionalityoftheuserofasystemisnecessaryfortheconceptionofthesystemasperformingafunc-tioninthefirstplace,theintentionalityofthepeoplewhoareactiveintheoperation,facilitation,maintenanceandrepairofthesystemisonlyanaccidentalpropertyofthese“systemcomponents.”Hardwarecomponentsandpeoplefulfillingcertainrolesdonotexhausttheingredientsofsociotechnicalsystems,however.Institutionsandtherelatedrulesandregulationsarealsoessential,beyondtheextenttowhichthereisaninstitutionalbackgroundtoalltechnicalartifacts.Thisinstitutionalbackgroundconsistspartlyoftherulesthatconstitutecorporateactors,suchthatbusinessfirmscanown,buyandsellobjectsandbeheldliableincaseofmisconduct,andpartlyoftherulesdefiningmisconduct,i.e.thesafety,healthandenvironmentalprotectionregulationstowhichthedesign,manufactureanduseofallartifactsissubject.Sociotechnicalsystemsadditionallyrequirerulesdefiningownership,regulatingthedistributionandbillingofcosts,regulatingthemutualeffectsofconsecutiveusebydifferentusers.Althougharguablyaroadtransportationsystemcouldexistevenintheabsenceofanytrafficrules,theroadtransportationsystemasweknowitfunctionsonlythankstotheexistenceoftrafficrulesandofalegalsystem–itselffunctioninglargelyonthebasisofrules–thatseestoitthattheserulesaremaintainedandeffective.Similarlytheelectric-powersystemasweknowitfunctionsonlygivenasetofrulesthatdeterminehowmuchanindividualuserischargedfortheshareofelectricpowerheorshetook,andgivenalegalsystemthatseestoitthattheserulesareimplemented.Itisonlyonthebasisofthisregulatoryapparatusthatindividual“customers”developthesortoftrustinthesystemthatisnecessaryforthemtobepreparedtouseit.Aspecialplaceamongtheserulesistakenbytherulesthatdefinetherolesofthehuman“components”ofasociotechnicalsystem.Suchrulesspecifywhatatraffic224\n9781405146012_4_040.qxd2/4/0913:31Page225sociotechnicalsystemspolicemanortheoperatorofthecontrolroomofapowerstationissupposedtodo,giventhecircumstances.Theindividualtrafficpolicemanorcontrol-roomoperatorserveshisorherindividualpurposeofearningalivingbestbyfollowingthoserolesasmeticulouslyaspossible.Whenthesehumancomponentsofthesystemarereplacedbymachines,thesemachinesmustbeengineeredorprogrammedtooperateinaccordwiththeserules;theyincorporatetheserules,sotospeak,inthewayanordinarythermostatcanbeseenasincorporatingtherule“Keeptheroomatatemperatureofx°C.”Itcouldbeargued,however,thatinthiswaytheruleslosetheircharacterasrules.Aruleisanormativeconcept:itisnottrueorfalsebutappliesordoesnotapply,andwhetherornotitisactuallyfolloweddoesnotaffectwhetherornotitapplies.Followingarulefollowsuponajudgmentthattheruleapplies.Themachinesreplac-ingthehumanssupposedlycannotjudgethattheyareinasituationinwhichtheyoughttoapplytheruletheyincorporate,norcantheybreaktherulestheyincorporate;thatispreciselywhattheincorporationamountsto.Theconsiderationsthatspecifywhenaparticularruleappliesarethemselvesoftheformofrulesandthereforepre-supposeconsiderationswhentheyintheirturnapplyandwhennot.Ifthisistrue,itisinprincipleimpossibletoreplaceallhumancomponentsinasociotechnicalsystembymachinesthatincorporatetherulesdefiningthecorrespondingroles.Anaturalist,however,wouldarguethathumanbeingsthemselvesarejustaslittlecapableofexhaustivelyfulfillingtheseroles,andaccordinglytherewouldthenbenoprincipledlimittotheautomationofhumanroles.Thisissueisofinteresttodisciplineslikesafetysciencebutalsohasanethicaldimension,concerning,forexample,thenotionofresponsibility.Thepreviousconsiderationspointtotheparticulardifficultiesthatsociotechnicalsystemsposetoengineeringdesign,inparticularthequestionoftheengineer’scontrolofthesystem.Intheclassicalapproachtoengineeringdesignanengineeraimstoconstructanartifactsuchthat,aslongascertainconditionsprevailthatincludetheconditionsoftheenvironmentinwhichtheartifactistobeusedandthespecificmanipulationsthatareinvolvedinitsuse,thebehavioroftheartifactcanbepredictedwithcertainty.Thiscanbeachievedthankstotheengineer’sinvestigationofandsub-sequentknowledgeofthelaw-likebehaviorofthematerialsandcomponentsappliedinthespecifiedcircumstancesandtothecontrolledlinkingofthecomponentstoeachother,butalso,ofcourse,thankstotheengineer’sabilitytoprescribepreciselytoanyfutureusertherequiredmanipulationsandenvironmentalconditions.Thisdoesnotnecessarilypresupposeasingleuser;theartifact’sdesignercouldspecifythecoordinatedmanipulationsofanexactnumberofusers.Ifauserchoosestodeviatefromtheseprescriptions,theartifact’sbehaviorisnolongertheresponsibilityofthedesigner,althoughithasincreasinglybecomeapartofengineeringdesigntolimitthepossibilitiesoftheusertodeviateincaseswheresuchdeviationswouldcauseahazardtotheuserorhisorherenvironment,wherebythescopeoftheengineer’scontroloftheartifact’sbehaviorisextendedevenmore.Inthecaseofsociotechnicalsystems,this“controlparadigm”cannolongerbeupheld.Sociotechnicalsystemshaveanindefinite,constantlychangingnumberofuserswhoaregenerallyanonymoustoeachotherandcannotcoordinatetheiruseofthesystemexceptinlimitingcasesofclosecontact,eventhoughtheymayanticipatethesystem’susebyothersandtheconsequencesfortheirownuse,suchastrafficqueuesduring225\n9781405146012_4_040.qxd2/4/0913:31Page226maartenfranssenandpeterkroesrushhours.Thisdifficultyofcoordinationisrepeatedatthesystemlevelofmanagersandoperators:decisionstoopenorclosemotorwaylanesandaccessroads,ortoexpandpower-generatingcapacity,todecouplestations,ortopurchaseextracapacity,areequallydistributedovervariousroles,eveninternationally,andthereforeinvolveproblemsofcoordination.Finally,controlislimitedbytheimportanceoftheinstitutionallevel.Legalandregulatorychangesmaylimitorexpandthefreedomofoperatorstotakemeasuresasdefinedfortheirroles,andchangesintrafficlaworinsurancelawmaycauseconsiderablechangesinthewaytheusersofthesystembehave.Owingtotheselimitationstothecontrolofthesystem,classicalengineeringdesigncriterialikeoptimalityandefficiencybecomeveryhardtooperationalize.Insteadcriterialikeflexibilityandrobustnessseemthemoreimportantones.Eventakingintoaccountthatsociotechnicalsystemsevolveandareconstantlyredesigned,ratherthandesignedinonestroke,anadequateconceptualizationofthesystemisoffirstimportancefortheprofessionalsinvolvedindesigningsuchsystems.Here,engineeringdesignalsofacesamajorchallenge.Incontrasttotraditionalartifacts,whereallelementsarematerialobjectsrelatedbycausallaws,itisunclearhowthevariouselementsorcomponentsinvolvedinsociotechnicalsystems–hardware,peopleinvariousroles,andlaws,rulesandregulations–mustbeseenasmakingupthesystem,andinparticularbywhatrelationstheseelementsarelinked.Sincethebehaviorofpeopleisdescribedwithintentionalratherthancausalconcepts,andsincerulesareabstractratherthanconcretethings,theserelationsmustcoveramuchwiderspectrumthanjustthecausallawsofnaturalscience.Partoftheproblemofconceptualizingsociotechnicalsystemsistheproblemofwheretodrawtheirboundaries.Itisanimportantaspectofthecharacterofsocio-technicalsystemsthatthescopeofdesignincludesalltypesofelements.Designingasociotechnicalsystemwillthereforeinvolvedesigningspecificrolesandtasksforpeopletofulfilltomatchthehardwarecomponents,andalsorulestodefineandregulatetheserolesandtasks.Theroad-transportsystem,forexample,containscoordinatingdevicessuchastrafficlights;but,forsuchtechnicaldevicestocontributeadequatelytotheoverallfunctioningofthesystem,lawsthatpunishthosewhoignorethemareessential,asarepolicepatrolstodetectsuchcases.Maintainingthesystemthenincludesnotjustcheckingthatthelightsstillwork,butalsocheckingthatdrivers’estimatesofthechanceofgettingcaughtwhenskippingthelightsarestilllargeenough,andthatthefinesarestillhighenoughtodeterthem.Engineersmaycomeupwithsophisticatedtechnicalsolutionsforparticularproblems,suchasspeciallanesforcarpoolerstoreducetraffic-jams;but,ifthelawforbidsanydiscriminationamongcardriversonpublicroads,thetechnicalsolutionitselfisineffective,andthedesignshouldincludeanaccompanyingchangeoflaw.Itdependsonthecircumstanceswhethersuchchangescanindeedbeconsideredduringthedesignprocess–whichwouldincludethegovernmentasapartytothedesign–andwhethertheboundariesofthesystemshouldbe(re)drawnaccordingly.Foranysociotechnicalsystem,however,thetechnical,human-operationalandinstitutionallevelsallcontributetoitsadequatefunctioningandmustallbetakenintoaccountinitsdesignandimplementation.226\n9781405146012_4_041.qxd2/4/0913:59Page22741InformationTechnologyLUCIANOFLORIDIInformationtechnology(IT),alsoknownasinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT),hasshapedhumanlifesoprofoundlythat,inthemiddleofthenineteenthcen-tury,theword“prehistory”wasintroducedtoclassifycivilizationsthatlackedwrittenrecordsandhencecouldbestudiedonlyonthebasisoftheirartifacts.ItseemsthathistorybeginswiththeavailabilityofsomeIT,butthenatureofIThasalsoevolvedthroughhistory,tothepointthat,atthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcentury,IThasbecomesopervasiveastomakeitdifficulttodetermineitsspecificnature.InordertoclarifyinthisarticlewhatcountsasIT,itisusefultoconcentrateonthethreefunda-mentalfunctionsexercisedbyIT:recording,communicatingandelaboratinginformation(Floridi1999).Withsomeapproximation,eachofthemhascharacterizedadifferentstageintheevolutionofIT.TheEvolutionofITAccordingtoabroadlyinclusiveunderstandingofIT,theinventionofalphabets,numericalnotationsandwritingsystemsrepresentstheearliestandmostfundamentalstageinthedevelopmentofinformationtechnologies.ThiswascertainlyPlato’sviewwhenhenotoriouslycomplainedagainstwrittenrecordsinfavourofadialecticalunderstandingofwhatiseternalandimmutable(Phaedo275aandff.).Writingmakespossiblethediachronicaccumulationofinformationasnon-biologicalmemory.But,ifwritingisthefirststep,itisthennaturaltointerprettheinventionofprintingasitscompletionandhenceasthefollowingmajorrevolutioninIT.Themech-anizationoftextreproductionmadetheaccumulatedinformationwidelyavailabletoapotentiallyendlessnumberofpeople.Afterthefifteenthcentury,universalalpha-betization–thatis,thetranslationofavailabilityofinformationintoitsaccessibility–cametobeconsidered,forthefirsttimeinthehistoryofhumancivilization,afeasibleproject.TheevolutionofITfromPlatotoGutenbergisthereforelargelyunderstandableastheevolutionofrecordingtechnologies.Then,fromLeibniztotheEncyclopédie(1751–80),ITwasatthecenterofavastprocessofreorganizationandrestructuringofhugeamountsACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks227©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_041.qxd2/4/0913:59Page228lucianofloridiofrecordedinformationincreasingexponentially.But.whenthenineteenthcenturycametobedominatedbythetelegraph(Standage1998),andITbecameassociatedwithcommunicationtechnologies,theimpressionwasthattheoriginalfunctionofrecordingtechnologieshadbeenreplacedbythenewfunctionofcommunication(Headrick2000).ItisindicativethattheCookeandWheatstoneelectric“FiveNeedleTelegraph,”patentedinLondonin1837,hadnomeansofrecordingmessagesandthatMorsejudgedthisamajorshortcoming.Historyprovedhimright;ITwastodevelopbyaccumulatingfunctions,notbyreplacingthem.Thefollowinginventions,especiallycinema,radio,telephoneandtelevision,allbelongtothecommunicationeraofIT.Thisiswhytheyareconsideredmassmedia,i.e.mediaofmasscommunication,althoughtheyarealsomediaofmassiverecording.Thethirdandlaststagebeginsonlyinthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,withtheinventionofthecomputer(Goldstine1972).Between1941(ZuseZ3,Germany)and1948(ENIAC,USA),ITacquireditsnewmeaning,theonewecurrentlyassociatetoit,asitcametorefertoanytechnologyusedtoelaborateinformationbyprocessingdataelectronicallyandautomatically.Forafewdecades,ITwasonceagainsupposedtohavereplaceditspreviousfunction(communication)withanewone,elaboration.Shiftingfromanalogtodigitalsolutions,theinventionofnewlanguagesandnewphysicalsupportsgavetheimpressionthattheoldfunctionofrecordingcouldnowbejoinedbythenewprocessingcapacities.Communicationwasnolongerinview.Thisprovedtobe,onceagain,amistake.Bytheendofthetwentiethcentury,theevolutionoftheInternet,oftheWorldwideWeb,ofemailcommunication,ofmobilephonesandofotherdigitaltechnologiesofinformationexchangeanddisseminationhadshownthatITcontinuestocompriseandcross-fertilizeallofthethreefunctionslistedabove:informationrecording,communicationandelaboration(Cyganskietal.2001).UnderstandingITThesketchysummaryjustprovidedlendscredibilitytothefollowingapproach:afruitfulwayofunderstandingITisbyfocusingnotonthespecificandcontingentfeaturesoftheconstantlyandever-changingtechnologiesthatgounderthatlabel,butonthemorestablenatureoftheobjectwithwhichtheydeal,namelyinformation.Fromthisperspective,ITincludesanytechnologyusedtotreatinformationinoneormoreofthephasesinitslifecycle:occurrence(discovering,designing,authoring,acquiring,creating,etc.),processingandmanagement(collecting,validating,modifying,organiz-ing,indexing,classifying,filtering,updating,sorting,storing,networking,distributing,disseminating,displaying,accessing,retrieving,transmitting,transferring,etc.)andusage(monitoring,modeling,analyzing,explaining,interpreting,planning,forecast-ing,decision-making,instructing,educating,learning,etc.).Thefocusontheinformationlifecycleexplainswhyabacuses,cameras,faxesandphotocopiersareformsofITandwhyITwaspoisedtobecomethetechnologythatwoulddeterminethetransitionfromprehistorytohistoryand,withinhistory,frompre-informationtopost-informationsocieties.228\n9781405146012_4_041.qxd2/4/0913:59Page229informationtechnologyITintheInformationSocietyWhatwecall“theinformationsociety”hasbeenbroughtaboutbythefastest-growingtechnologyinhistory.Nopreviousgenerationhaseverbeenexposedtosuchanextra-ordinaryaccelerationoftechnologicalpowerandcorrespondingsocialchanges.TotalpervasivenessandhighpowerhaveraisedITtothestatusofthecharacteristictechno-logyofourtime,bothrhetoricallyandiconographically.Nowonderthatthecomputer,thequintessentialITproduct,hasbecomeasymbolofthenewmillennium,playingaculturalrolecomparabletothatofmillsintheMiddleAges,mechanicalclocksintheseventeenthcentury,andtheloomorthesteamengineintheageoftheindustrialrevolu-tion(Ifrah2001).Thecomputerastheinformationmachineisadefiningtechnology.Themostdevelopedpost-industrialsocietiesnowliterallylivebyinformation,andITiswhatkeepsthemconstantlyoxygenated.Informationhasmaturedintoanassetofgrowingvalue,withmarketablequantitiesandprices.Itisthenewdigitalgoldandrepresentsoneofthemostvaluableresources.Suchmodificationsinthegrowth,thefruitionandthemanagementofinformationresourcesandservicesconcernfourmainITsectors:computation,automaticcontrol,modeling,andinformationmanagement.Thissequencefollowsaconceptualorderandonlypartiallyoverlapsthroughtime.“Computation”seemstobeasufficientlyintuitiveconcept,butassoonasonetriestoprovideaclearandfullysatisfactorydefinitionofitoneimmediatelyrealizeshowdifficultthetaskis.Accordingtodifferentperspectives,computationmaybedescribedasalogicalorphysicalprocessofgenerationoffinalstates(outputs)frominitialstates(inputs),basedon:(1)rule-governedstate-transitions,or(2)discreteordigitalrule-governedstate-transitions,or(3)aseriesofrule-governedstate-transitionsforwhichtherulecanbealtered,or(4)rule-governedstate-transitionsbetweeninterpretablestates.Therearesomedifficultieswiththesedefinitions.(1)istooloose,foritalsoappliestodevicessuchasprintersandwashingmachines,physicalsystemsthatwedonotincludeintheclassofcomputationalsystemsorIT;(2)isperhapstoostrict,foritexcludesformsofanalogcomputation,whichonemaywishtoincludeinthedefinitionofIT;(3)iseithervagueortoostrict,fortherearecomputationalsystems,likepocketcal-culators,withembeddedrules(non-programmablealgorithms);(4)seemstobethemostsatisfactory,asitmakestheinterpretablerepresentationofastate(i.e.information)anecessaryconditionforcomputation.Althoughcomputationhasremainedamajorareaofapplication,itwouldbeshort-sightedtothinkthattheimpactofthetechnologicalinnovationsbroughtaboutbythediffusionofIThasbeenlimitedjusttostraightforwardnumericalproblems,andhencetoimportantbutquitespecificsectorsofmathematicalapplications.Fornotonlyhavecomputershelpedustoreadsomeofthemostcomplexchaptersinthe“mathematicalbookofnature”;theyalsohaveputusinapositiontocontrolalargevarietyofphys-icalandbureaucraticprocessesautomatically(officeautomationandelectronicdata229\n9781405146012_4_041.qxd2/4/0913:59Page230lucianofloridiprocessing).Today,thecomplexfunctioningofanincreasingnumberofmanufacturingandadministrativeoperationsrequirestheconstantinterventionofmicroprocessorsandotherITdevices.Followingonfromtheprocessofmechanization,IThascausedasecondindustrialrevolutionthroughtheimplementationofmassiveautomation.Asindustryhasmovedfromalow-technology,unspecializedandlabor-intensivestagetoahighlymechanized,automated(electronics),AT-intensive(advancedtechnology)andmorespecializedstage,ithasbecomeextensivelyinformation-basedandhencemoreandmoreIT-dependent.Themathematicaldescriptionandthedigitalcontrolofthephysicalenviron-menthaveprovidedthesolidpremisesforitspotentialreplacementbymathematicalmodels(systemsofdifferentialequations)inscientificcomputingandvirtualrealityenvironments.Digitalcomputinghasbecomecrucialwheneveritisnecessarytosimulatereal-lifepropertiesandforecastthebehaviorofobjectsplacedincontextsthatareeithernotreproducibleinlaboratorysituationsorsimplynottestableatall,whetherforsafetyreasons,forexample,orbecauseofthehighcostofbuildingandtestingphysicalprototypes,orbecauseweneednon-invasiveandnon-destructivetechniquesofanalysis,asinmedicalcontexts.Indeed,everyareaofhumanknowledgewhosemodelsandentities–whetherrealortheoreticalnolongermatters–canbetranslatedintothedigitallanguageofbitsis,andwillinevitablybemoreandmoredependentupon,ITcapacitytoletusperceiveandhandletheobjectsunderinvestiga-tion,asiftheywereeverydaythings,piecesonachessboardthatcanbeautomaticallymoved,rotated,mirrored,scaled,magnified,modified,combinedandsubjectedtothemostdiversetransformationsandtests(Baeyer2003).TheIT-baseddescriptionandcontrolofthephysicalenvironment,togetherwiththedigitalconstructionofasyntheticworld,is,finally,intertwinedwithafourthareaofapplication,representedbythetransformationoftheencyclopedicmacrocosmofdata,information,ideas,knowledge,beliefs,codifiedexperiences,memories,images,artisticinterpretationsandothermentalcreationsintoaglobalinfosphere(Floridi2004).Theinfosphereisthewholesystemofservicesanddocuments,encodedinanysemioticandphysicalmedia,whosecontentsincludeanysortofdata,informationandknowledge,withnolimitationseitherinsize,typologyorlogicalstructure,andhencerangingfromalphanumerictexts(i.e.textsincludingletters,numbersanddiacriticsymbols)andmultimediaproductstostatisticaldata,fromfilmsandhypertextstowholetext-banksandcollectionsofpictures,frommathematicalformulaetosoundsandvideoclips.Asregardstheinfosphere,thesymbolic-computationalpowerofITtoolsisemployedforendsthatgobeyondthesolutionofcomplexnumericalproblems,thecontrolofamech-anicalworldorthecreationofvirtualmodels.ITprovidesthenewmeanstogenerate,manufactureandcontroltheflowofdigitaldataandinformation(whichisalsobeinggenerated,inincreasinglyhugequantities,bythethreeareasofapplicationjustmentioned)thusmanagingitslifecycle.ConclusionInformationisthesapofcontemporarysocieties,andITprovidestheessentialtoolforitsgeneration,recording,flow,managementandusage.Thecorruption,wanton230\n9781405146012_4_041.qxd2/4/0913:59Page231informationtechnologydestruction,illegalorunethicaluseofinformationmayeasilyunderminethebasicpro-cessesonwhichthelifeofindividualsandtheircomplexsocietiesdepends(BrownandDuguid2002).Inlightoftheirimportance,thewholelifecycleofinformation–fromcollectionorgenerationthroughstorageandmanipulationtousageandpossibleerasure–isoftenprotected,atdifferentstages,bylegalsystemsinvariouswaysandinmanydifferentcontexts.Examplesincludecopyrightandownershiplegislation,patentsystems,privacyprotectionlaws,fairuseagreements,regulationsaboutavail-abilityandaccessibilityofsensitivedata,andsoforth.Themoresocietiesdevelopintoinformation-basedsocieties,themoreconcernedandcarefultheyneedtobecomeabouttheirveryfoundation.Unsurprisingly,inrecentyearsethicalandpoliticalconcernsaboutthecorrectandfairusageofIThavebeguntoaddressthechallengingethicalissuesraisedbythenewdata-basedenvironmentinwhichadvancedsocietiesgrow(Floridi2007).ReferencesandFurtherReadingBaeyer,H.C.van(2003).Information:TheNewLanguageofScience(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson).Brown,J.S.andDuguid,P.(2002).TheSocialLifeofInformation(Boston,Mass.:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress).Paperbackeditionofthe2000hardbackedition,includessomecorrectionsandrevisions.Cyganski,D.,Orr,J.A.andVaz,R.F.(2001).InformationTechnology:InsideandOutside(UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall).Floridi,L.(1999).PhilosophyandComputing:AnIntroduction(London/NewYork:Routledge).Reprintedaselectronicbook(London:Routledge,2001).Greektranslationforthcoming.Floridi,L.(2004).“Information,”inTheBlackwellGuidetothePhilosophyofComputingandInformation,ed.L.Floridi(Oxford/NewYork:Blackwell),pp.40–61.Floridi,L.(2007).“InformationEthics:ItsNatureandScope,”inJ.vanderHovenandJ.Weckert(eds),MoralPhilosophyandInformationTechnology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Goldstine,H.H.(1972).TheComputerfromPascaltoVonNeumann(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Reprinted2001.Headrick,D.R.(2000).WhenInformationCameofAge:TechnologiesofKnowledgeintheAgeofReasonandRevolution,1700–1850(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Ifrah,G.(2001).TheUniversalHistoryofComputing:FromtheAbacustotheQuantumComputer(NewYork:JohnWiley).Standage,T.(1998).TheVictorianInternet:TheRemarkableStoryoftheTelegraphandtheNineteenthCentury’sOnlinePioneers(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson).231\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page233PartIVTechnologyandEnvironmentACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page23542TechnologyandEnvironmentMARYTILES1The“InconvenientTruth”wefaceinthetwenty-firstcenturyisthatourrelianceonfossilfueltechnologiesfortheprevioustwocenturieshashadanimpactonourglobalenvironment.Combustionoffossilfuelshasincreasedthelevelofcarbondioxideintheearth’satmospheretothepointatwhichtheoccurrenceofglobalwarminghashadtobeacknowledgedevenbydeterminedskepticsintheWhiteHouse.Thepublicitygiventothisissue,andthepoliticizationofthesciencesurroundingit,meansthatithascometoframemanydiscussionsoftherelationshipsbetweentechnologyandtheenvironment.Inthemid-twentiethcentury,duringtheperiodoftheColdWar,thehazardsofnucleartechnologyandofthewidespreaduseofinsecticides(suchasDDT)inagricultureoccupiedsimilarroles.Inthenineteenthcenturyitwasthetransformationanddegradationoflandscapesbysteam-poweredindustrialtechnology,asreflectedin,forexample,theworkofWilliamBlake(“England’sdarksatanicmills”),thatframedthecontextofdebate.Thesearethecontextsofenvironmentalpolitics,oftheclashofvaluesbetweenenthusiastsviewingtechnologicaldevelopmentasanessentialindicatorofhumanprogressanddetractorswhohaveseentechnologyasavehicleofdominationoverboththenaturalenvironmentandlargesectorsofhumanity.Whentheterms“technology”and“environment”arejuxtaposedinsuchcontextsthereisatendencytoassumethatthediscussiontofollowwillbeframedintermsofthedividebetweenManandNature.TechnologyisseenasthematerialexpressionofMan’sambitiontodominateNature,withthesubjugatednaturalenvironmentthevictimofitsdetrimentalimpacts.Here,inbrief,weseetheideologicalloadbornebyjuxtapositionoftheterms“technology”and“environment”andthenear-impossibilityofenteringintoanydis-cussionoftheirrelationshipsfromanideologicallyneutralstandpoint.Manyenviron-mentalistcritiquesoftechnologyhavesharedwiththeirtacitlyorexplicitlyfaith-basedopponentsanacceptanceoftheMan–Naturedivide.Questionsarethenframedasquestionsofenvironmentalethicsandasdisputesoverthefundamentallocusofmoral2values.Thisideological/politicalburdenof“TheEnvironment,”particularlyintheUnitedStates,createsachasmacrosswhichitisdifficulttoconductapolicydialogue,letaloneconstructpolicybridgesinresponsetothechallengespotentiallypresentedbyachangingclimate.Asinmostsuchstandoffs,theopposedpositionsrestonasharedassumption,inthiscasethathumansandtheirenvironments,orManandTheACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks235©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page236marytilesEnvironment,areindependentlyconstitutedandstandinanexternalrelationship;absolutevaluescanhaveabasisononeortheother,butnotonboth.Recognizingthatsuchdeepideologicaldifferencesareunlikelytoberesolvedeitherbyphilosophicaldebatebetweentheopposedpositionsorbypoliticalormoralevan-gelism,itwouldseemthatitispasttimetochallengetheideathatthereisanysuchthingasTheEnvironmentstandinginanexternalrelationtohumans,theirhistoriesandtheirtechnologies.Inotherwords,itistimetobecomereacquaintedwithhumanenvironmentsandourdependenciesonthemaswellaswiththeextenttowhichtheyarehumanenvironments,formedoverthecourseofahistoryofhumanhabitation.Anexaminationoftheroleoftechnologyincreatingenvironments,throughitsfunctionasanintermediarythatcreateshuman–naturalhybrids,isoneroutetosuchre-acquaintance.Anenvironmentissimplyasurrounding,acontext,amilieu,hardlyanythingwithenoughstabilityordefinitiontobecomeanobjectofscientificinvesti-gationorofphilosophicalorpoliticalconcern.Ishallbeginbyillustratingthemannerinwhichtechnologiesplayaconstitutiveroleinrelationtomanyofourenvironments.OnthisbasisIshallproposethatthereisaneedtoextendtheconceptionofanecosystemandofecologytoindustrial,technologicalandsocialecosystemsandecologies.Becauseecologyisveryunlikesciencessuchasphysicsandchemistry,apolicydebateinformedbyanextendedecologicalperspectivecouldbeexpectedtoviewpolicyobjectivesinaratherdifferentwaythanwouldbethecasewerethedebateinformedbytheperspectiveofthemoretraditionalsciences.First,however,itisworthbrieflymentioningtwocontextsthatlendcredencetoandservetoreinforceuseofthetechnology–environmentoppositionasasurrogatefortheMan–Natureoppositionanditsconstrualofthisasanexternalrelation.Thefirstisthatofminingandmanufacturing,andthesecondisthatofthemilitary–industrialmodeloftechnologicaldevelopment.Miningandmanufacturingtechnologiesarethosethathavemostfrequentlybeenportrayedasthreatstotheenvironmentbecausetheyhavemostdramaticallyillus-tratedthecapacityofhumantechnologiestocreateenvironmentsthatarehostiletomanylife-forms,humanincluded.Theirdevelopmentisalsointimatelyintertwinedwiththedevelopmentofenergyandtransporttechnologies.Miningisaparadigmexampleofanactivitythatislocallyunsustainable,exploitativeandhugelydisruptiveofthenaturalandsocialenvironmentsinwhichitbeginstooperate.Mineraldepositsoccurinlimitedquantitiesthatwillsoonerorlaterbeexhaustedandtheextractionofwhichbecomesincreasinglyuneconomic.Extraction,whetheropen-faceorbytunneling,wreaksdramaticphysicalchangesonthelandscape.Communitiesofminersandtheirassociatedequipmentmoveintoregionsthatmayhavebeensparselypopulatedandlargelyagriculturalorpastoral.Roadsorwaterwayshavetobebuilttosupplythemines3andtotransportmaterialstoandfromthem.Theextractionofmetalsfrommineraloresrequiresmechanicalenergyforcrushing,andheatforsmelting;andtheby-products,frequentlytoxic,migrateintothesurroundings,possiblycontinuingformanyyearstoleachoutoflargespoilheapsthatremainlongafteramine’sclosure.Earlymineswereseverelylimitedbytheavailabletechnologyforpumpingwateroutofmineshafts.Thiswasthecontextdrivingthedevelopmentoftheuseofsteamforpower,withthelargebeamenginesusedfirstforpumpingoutwater,andthentohaulmaterialandmenupanddownshaftswhoseincreaseddepthwasnowpossible,thentodrivesteamhammers236\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page237technologyandenvironmentforcrushingandsteamenginesforhaulingcartshorizontallyalongrails.Thesyner-gisticdevelopmentofcoal-miningandtheburningofcoaltopowersteamengineswasthespurtotheindustrialrevolutionthattransformedtheruralcountrysideofcentralEnglandintotheBlackCountry,wreathedinsmokeandsootthatclungtobuildingsandtheinsideofpeople’slungs–thesewerethedarksatanicmills.Thetrans-formationinmanufacturingcapacityassociatedbothwithimprovedtransportationandwithaseeminglyinexhaustiblesupplyofenergytransformedtheeconomyandsociety.Itlaidthefoundationsoftheenvironment–physical,socialeconomicandpolit-ical–inwhichwenowlive,eventhoughtheeraofsteamhaspassed,thosemillsarenowsilent,theminesaremostlyclosedandtheirminingcommunitiesdispersed.Itbeganourdependenceontheintensiveuseoffossilfuelinquantitiestheglobalimpactofwhichwehaveonlybelatedlycometorecognize.Itgaverisetoachemicalindustrythathastransformedourlivedenvironmentinwaystoonumeroustomention,butalsoinwaysthatwearefarfromunderstanding.Ithascreatedandcontinuestocreatelocalenviron-mentssurroundingmines,oil-drillingoperations,refineriesandchemicalplantsthataretoxictomostlifeforms.Soitisnatural,ifthisisourimageoftechnology,toputitinoppositiontoNaturesinceoneoftheside-effectsofitsoperationshasbeentocreatewastelandsdevoidofanythingmuchinthewayoforganiclife.Adifferentkindofoppositionalrelationshipisrevealedinthecontextofthemilitary–industrialdevelopmentoftechnology.Thishasbeenequallyimportantinshapingconceptionsofthetechnology–environmentrelationship,andisarelationshipthathasenormoussignificancefortheforgingofthescience–technologyrelation.AsSerres(1982)notes(creditingLucretiuswithasimilarinsight),militaryapplicationshavefrequentlybeenthespurdrivingtheuseofscienceintechnologicaldevelopment.Incontrastthehistoryofminingtechnology,includingtheearlydevelopmentofthesteamengine,wasnottheory-drivenbutwascraft-andtrade-based.Thedevelopmentofmilitarycapa-city,whetherdefensiveoroffensive,wasperceivedbythoseinpowerasanecessaryinstrumentfortheircontinuedsurvivaland/orholdonpower;and,becauseposses-sionoftechnologicaldevicesnotavailabletoopponentswasbelievedtoconferamilitaryadvantage,thereisaninternaldynamicfavoringinvestmentininnovation.Thefactthatmilitaryapplicationshaveplayedsucharoleintechnologicaldevelop-mentisofnominorsignificanceforthemannerinwhichtheenvironmenthasbeenimpactedbythedevelopmentoftechnologyorforthewayinwhichthetechnology–environmentrelationhasbeenconceptualized.WhetherintheremainsofancientChinaorinthoseoftheancientRomanEmpire,onecanseeevidenceoftheimpactofthemilitaryimpetustowardregimentation,imposedforthesakeofefficientandpredictableoperation,onthetechnologiesusedandonthebuiltinfrastructurerequiredfortheiruse.Armiesneedstandardizedequipmentwithstandardizedpartsthatcanbeonhandinanylocation.Armyengineersdevelopedstandardizedmethodsfortheconstructionofstructuressuchasroadsorfortifications,forcarriagesandships,forarmorandweaponry,methodsandspecificationsdevelopedaheadoftimewithpeopletrainedtodeploytheminanyrequiredlocation.StretchesofroadusedbytheRomanstomovetheirtroopsandsuppliesrapidlyacrosstheoutpostsoftheirempirecanstillbeidentifiedbytheirstraightnessandbytheirlackofconcernforlocaltopographicalorland-holdingpatterns.Militaryengineersusedgeometrytoassistinthedesignoffortwallsandrampartsasdefensesagainstanticipated237\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page238marytilesformsofattack(themselvesconditionedbyavailabletechnology)andreplicatedthemacrosstheterritorytobedefended.Particularlyforlargeimperialpowers,militaryefficiencyandeffectivenessislinkedtotherequirementsofbureaucratictechniquesofadministration,techniquesthatrequirestandardizationinmodesofoperationallowingforcentralizeddesignandplanningandallowingpersonnelandequipmenttobemovedfromonelocationtoanotherwithoutsignificantretrainingorredesign.Thishastwoeffects.Itallowsdesigntobecomeatheoreticalprocess,carriedoutaccordingtogeneralprinciples,andseparatedfromactualconstruction;anditrequiresthatlocalenvironmentalvariationsbemadeirrelevant.Theycanbemadeirrelevanteitherbyinsulatingdevicestobeusedfromexternalimpactsthatmightaffecttheirdesignatedfunction(thedesignofaship’schronometer–amechanicaltimepiecedesignedtokeepaccuratetimethroughthepitchingandrollingofashipandthroughthewidevariationsintemperaturethatmight4beexperiencedonalongseavoyageisoneinstancewherethereisdocumentationofthelongsequenceofeffortsexplicitlyundertakentoaddressthischallenge)orbyalteringthelocalenvironmenttoconformtoconditionsunderwhichthedevicefunc-5tionswell(buildroadsforcarriages,deforestandflattenareasaroundforts)orsome6combinationofboth.Theaimistocreateanenvironmentfavorabletoforwardplan-ningthatreliesonbeingabletopredictthedegreetowhichactionswillhavetheirdesiredeffects.Wherethereisuniformitythereisalsomuchmorepredictability;butthatuni-formityhastobecreatedbyeradicatingorexternalizingrelevantvariations.Thecloseinterconnections,bothhistoricallyandincontemporarysociety,betweenthemilitarydrivefortechnologicalinnovationandlargeprivatecorporations(thebureaucracies7ofthemilitary–industrialcomplex)haveensuredthatitisthisconceptionoftechno-logy,withitsdeliberatelydesignedinsensitivitytoenvironmentalvariationsandtoitsownenvironmentalimpactsthathasbeenanotherlensfocusingattentionontherelationbetweentechnologyandenvironmentasoneofopposedandcompetinginter-estsandvalues.Thishasleftintheshadows,andrelativelyinvisibleuntilrecently,thefactorsignoredwhenconcentratingattentioninthisway.Oneoftheareastohaveexposedweaknessesintheapproachthatassumesthatlocalenvironmentalvariationscaneitherbeignoredoreliminatedisthatofthedesignanduseofagriculturaltechnologiesunderthemovetoan“industrial”agriculture.Ithasfrequentlybeenpointedoutthatoneofthemostsignificantshiftsinthewayhumanssoughttosecuretheirbasicneedswaswhentheymadethetransitionfrombeingnomadichunter-gatheringgroupstobecomingplace-basedagriculturalsocieties.Ithasbeenthroughthedevelopmentofagricultureandtechnologiestosupportitthathumanstraditionallyhavemostalteredandcreatedtheenvironmentsinwhichtheylive.Agriculturaltechnologymadepossibletheriseofcities,withtheirlargeurbanpopu-lationsandbuiltenvironments.Theseinturnneededtobedefendedbothagainstothergroupsofhumansandagainsttheforcesofnature;theyrequiredextractionofmater-ialsourcesfortheirconstructionandforthemanufactureofthetoolsandartifactsthatbecamethetrappingsof“civilization”–thegoodsthatcanbeaccumulatedinsettleddwellingplaces.Agricultureisundoubtedlythelocusofthemostimmediateandmostnecessaryinteractionbetweenhumansandtheirphysical/biologicalenvironment.Wherethestoryoftheriseofagriculturewasoncetoldaspartofthelongepicofhumanprogress,some238\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page239technologyandenvironment8morerecenttellingshavebeenmoreambivalent.Theyhavedocumentedthedeclineinhumanhealthasaresultofincreaseddependenceongraininthediet.Theyhavealsoemphasizedthatoptingforagricultureandamoresettledexistencemarkedanirreversiblechoiceforasociety.Increasedfoodavailabilityleadstopopulationlevelsthatcannotbesupportedwithoutagriculture;populationpressureactstospurtech-nologicalinnovationandmotivatesthedrivetobringmorelandundercultivation,thuschangingthefaceofeverwiderswathesofthelandscape.Thisisatechnologicaltreadmillfromwhichthereisnovoluntaryrelease.Currentlythereareconcernsthat,althoughwehaveusednewtechnologiestoincreaseglobalagriculturalyieldstolevelsoncethoughtunattainable,andhavethus,sofar,roughlykeptpacewithpopulationincreases(althoughithastobeacknow-ledgedthatdistributionisfarfromequitable),thishasbeendoneonanunsustainablebasis.ThemassiveincreasesinproductionsincetheSecondWorldWarhavebeentheresult,first,oftheincreaseduseoffertilizersresultingfromchemicalproduction,ultimatelydependentonoil.Thistechnologicalshiftallowedgrainproductiontoexpandwithouttheneedofinputsofmanurefromanimalhusbandryandallowedelimina-tionofelaboratecroprotationsandperiodsoffallow.However,thisamountstoturn-ingfossilfuel(oil)intograin.Asfearsmountaboutthelimitsofoilproductionhavingbeenreached,andbecauseofalltheotherdemandsonoil,someworrythatthecurrent9configurationofourlargeagriculturalsystemswillnotremainviable.Thesecondimportantstimulanttoagriculturalproduction,spurredbytheavailabilityofnitrogenfertilizerswastheso-called“greenrevolution”–thedevelopmentofhybridizedgraincropsthatcantakeupmorenitrogenandgrowmoregrainratherthanmoreleafandstalk.Seedsfromhybridscannotbesavedforreplantingbecausetheywillnotrepro-ducetheoriginalhybrid;and,inanycase,thenewvarietieshave,forthemostpart,beenpatentedbylargecorporations.Widespreaduseofalimitednumberofvarietiesresultsinmono-cropping,thuseliminatinglocalgeneticvariation,andassumesthatsuchgeneticvariationisirrelevanttocropsuccessindifferentlocationsoreveninasinglelocationfromyeartoyear.Thesecropsalsorequiredmorewateriftheyweretoproduceconsistentlyhigheryields.Inmanypartsoftheworldtheacreageoflandunderirrigationwasdramatic-allyincreased.Insomecasesthishasbeentheresultofdam-buildingprojects,butinothersthesameprospectinganddrillingtechnologiesthatservedtheoilindustrywereusedtolocateandtapundergroundaquifers.Someoftheseaquiferscontained“fossil”water(watertrappedmanyyearsagoandreceivingnosignificantcurrentreplacement)whileothersarereplenishedmuchmoreslowlythanthecurrentrateofpumping.Technologyhasallowedustoexploittheseresources,butfurthertechnologicalinnova-tionseemstheonlypossibleroutetomaintainingcurrentlevelsofagriculturalproductionasaquifersandriversbegintorundry.Thisisthesenseinwhichembarkingontheagriculturalpathhasputhumanbeingsonatechnologicaltreadmill.Andthattread-millhascausedusto(re)shape,wittinglyandunwittingly,vastregionsofthelandsurfaceoftheglobe.Water-controltechnologieshavebeenhugelyimportantfortheexpansionofcultivatedlandandtheprovisionofsufficientfoodsurplusesfortheemergenceofnon-agriculturalsectorsofhumanactivity.Waterisalsoimportantforhumanconsump-tion,healthandhygiene.Ontheotherhand,itposesathreattohumanlifewhenthere239\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page240marytilesistoolittle,whenthereisanoverabundanceandwhenitiscontaminatedwithdisease-causingorganismsortoxicchemicals.Theneedandabilitytocontrolwaterprovidesoneofthemoststrikingexamplesofthewayinwhichphysicalenvironmentpromptsdevelopmentofcertainkindsoftechnologiesthatthenshapeandconstrainthesocietiesthatcometodependonthem.Theancient“hydraulic”civilizationsof10India,theMiddleEast,SouthAmerica,ChinaandBaliprovideexamples.Althoughthetechnicaldetailsofhydrologicalchallengesandthetechnologiesavailabletodealwiththemarelocation,timeandregionspecific,therearecommonfeaturesofdepend-enceonwatermanagement.Aswater-controltechnologiesareputinplaceintheser-viceofagriculture,continuedproductionoffooddependsoncontinuedwatercontrol,andthisinturncanimposeveryhighmaintenanceburdens.Oncontinentalland-masses,asopposedtorelativelysmallislands,rivernetworksextendovermanymilesandusuallythroughseveralcountries.Waterprojectsundertakenupstreamwillalmostcertainly11impactthosefurtherdownstream.Thedevelopmentofmodernengineeringtechnologiesthatmakepossibletheconstructionofeverbiggerdamshasintroducedthepotentialformajorpoliticalconflictaslargerproportionsofariver’sflowcanbedivertedfor12irrigationorotheruseswellbeforeitreachesthesea.Watercanbeaproblemwhenthereistoomuchaswellaswhenthereistoolittle.Technologieshavebeendevelopedanddeployedtopreventriverscausingdamagebyburstingtheirbanksandfloodingagriculturallandortowns,villagesorcities,andtopreventtheseaencroachingandcausingsimilardamage.Justasinregionsofwatershortagethosewithaccesshavesoughttoretainwaterfortheirownusewithoutconsiderationofthedownstreamconsequences,similarlyinregionssubjecttoflood-ingthetendencyhasbeentofindwaystohastenthewater’sflowaway,passingitonasquicklyaspossibletolowerreaches.Rarelywasthoughtgiventotheimpactofeitherapproachoncoastalecosystemswhenriversreachthesea.Someriversnolongerdoso;inothercasestheydosobutwithoutdepositingtheburdenofsiltthatmaintained13andfertilizeddeltaregions,;inyetotherstheyarecarryingsiltoutintoecosystems,suchascoralreefs,thatwillbedisruptedbyitspresence.Allofthisisteachingusthat,whenwaterisregardedasacommoditytobeshiftedaroundatwill,ourenvironmentsaretransformedinwayswemayormaynothaveintendedorforeseen.Atatimewhenfreshwaterisprojectedtobecomeanincreasinglyscarcecommodityinmanyregions,andseawater,withapredictedriseinsealevels,posesagreaterthreattomanyinhabit-antsofcoastalregions,itisperhapsparticularlyimportanttolearnfromtheimpactsofpasttechnologiesofwatermanagementandtothinkinamoreintegratedwayabouttheroleofwaterinconstrainingthewaysinwhichwecanliveandabouttheroleofwatersystemsinshapingourenvironmentsonanumberofscales(localtoglobal),14belowgroundaswellasabove.Similarlythereisaneedtothinkbeyondagricultureanditstechnologiestothelargersystemsinwhichtheyareembedded.Forexample,thewidespreaduseofseed-breedingtechnology,andnowgeneticmodification,wasaccompaniedbytheriseoflargeseedcompaniesandatransformationofagriculturefavoringlargefarmsoversmallholdingsfacilitatedbythedevelopmentoffarmmachinery,inturnmadepossiblebytheinternalcombustionengine.Thedisplacementofhumanenergyinagriculturemadepossiblebyrelianceonoil-basedtechnologieshaschangedoursocietiesandourenvironmentsinanotherway.240\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page241technologyandenvironmentTherearenowsparselypopulatedagriculturallandscapes,evergrowingcities,suburbansprawlandunplannedslumscreatedbythemovementofpeopleofftheland.Technologyhasdisplacedpeople–hasmovedthemfromenvironmentsinwhichtheyhavearelativelycloserelationshiptothelandandtootherlifeformstoanother,muchmoreobviouslyman-madeenvironment,onewherepeople,theiractivitiesandtheby-productsofthoseactivitiesdominate.Ofcourse,noneofthisseparationofpopulationconcentrationsfromtheirsourcesoffoodwouldbepossiblewithouttransportationnetworks,tradeagreements,refrigerationandfood-processingtechnologies.Thisillus-tratesthesenseinwhichtechnologiesdonotstandalonebutthemselvesexistandthriveorfaceextinctiondependingonotherenvironmental(technological,natural,social)conditions.Largefarmmachineryisoflittleuseincultivatingsmallpatchesoflandclingingtohillsidesornestlinginvalleybottoms.USporkproductioncanbeconcen-tratedinthehugehogfarmsoftheCarolinasonlyiftherearewaystobringthatmeattodistantconsumermarketsandonlyifregulatorystructurespermitthewidespreaduseofantibioticsinfarmanimalsandtheaccumulationofmanureinopenlagoons(inamannerthatwouldnotbepermittedforhumanwaste).Theriseinmeatcon-sumptionworldwide,madepossiblebyindustrial-scalelivestockoperations,isinturn15havinganimpactontheatmosphereandthusonclimate.Muchofthehistoryoftech-nologyhasbeenwrittenasahistoryoftechnologicaldevices(theplow,thecombineharvester,thesteamengine...).Attentionhasalsobeengiventothepotentialofsuchdevicesforchanginghumanenvironments(livingandworkingconditions)aswellas“natural”environments(landscapes,wildlifeandtheirhabitats,water,air...).But,asIhopethealltoobriefdiscussionabovehasindicated,ifweareconcernedabouttheinteractionsbetweentechnologicaldevicesandenvironments,itisequallyimport-antnotonlytothinkabouttheactualandpotentialeffectsofdeploymentanduseofthedevices,butalsotolookattheeconomicconditions,processes,laborandmaterialsrequiredfortheirmanufactureandsuccessfuluseaswellastheeffectsofdisposalattheendoftheirusefullife.Inotherwords,weneedtoborrowtechniquesandconcepts16fromecologytothinkintermsofindustrialortechnologicalecologythatcanfocusonthewebsofinterdependencebetweendifferenttechnologiesandthewaysinwhichtheyformenvironmentsforeachotheraswellasforhumanandotherlivingorganisms.TheideaofecologyasapotentialsciencearisesinthecontextofDarwin’stheoryofevolution.ItwasfirstmootedandlabeledbyHaeckelin1866(sevenyearsaftertheappearanceofTheOriginofSpecies).Threeyearslaterheexplaineditinthefollowingterms:Byecologywemeanthebodyofknowledgeconcerningtheeconomyofnature–theinvestigationofthetotalrelationsoftheanimalbothtoitsorganicandtoitsinorganicenvironment;including,aboveall,itsfriendlyandinimicalrelationswiththoseanimalsandplantswithwhichitcomesdirectlyorindirectlyintocontact–inaword,ecologyisthestudyofallthosecomplexinterrelationsreferredtobyDarwinastheconditionsofthestruggleforexistence.(quotedinCooper2003:4–5)Atthetimenosuchstudyexisted,inpartbecausetheneedtotakeenvironmentsintoaccountdoesnot,onitsown,indicatehowtheycanbecome“objects”ofscientific241\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page242marytiles17investigationandknowledge.Theyhavetobeacknowledgedascomplex,butalsotreatedasquasi-organicwholes,wholeswhosecharacteristicscannotbeunderstoodasanysimpleaggregationofpropertiesofthepartssincethewholemotivationfromevolutionarybiologyistoattempttounderstandtheinteractiverelationsbetweenagivenpart–thelifeforminfocus–andtheremainder,theenvironmentthatconstitutesitsdynamicbackdrop.AlreadyinHaeckel’s“definition”wecanseethepotentialproblemfortheconstructionofaunitarydiscipline.Hereferstobothorganicandinorganicenvironments.Theproblemhereisthatthebiologicalstudyoforganismsincommun-itiesandtheappliedphysicsandchemistryusedtostudyecosystemsbringfundamentallydifferentcategoriesandmethodstobear.Forexample,whereonedealsinthedynamicsandstatisticsofpopulationstheotherlooksatflowsofenergyandmaterials.Sothereisconsiderableheterogeneitywithinecologyasithascometobepracticed.Nonethelesstherearesomeimportantreorientationsinthewaytothinkabouthumanenviron-mentsthatcanemergefromreframingthediscussionbystartingfromanevolutionaryperspective.Theevidencebroughtforwardinfavoroftheoriesoftheevolutionofthehumanspecies,whetherDarwinianorLamarckian,cruciallyincludesthefossilrecord,andinterpreta-tionofthatrecordispartofthedevelopmentofgeologicalaccountsofthehistoryof18planetEarth.Thisstoryofouroriginsisinseparablefromthehistoryoftheplanet,theplacethat“gavebirth”tohumansastoallotherlivingcreaturesthatnowandinthepasthavepopulatedit.Butthehistoryofthatplanet,thecharacterofitssedimentaryrocks,itscoalandoildeposits,etc.,isequallyinseparablefromthestoryofthelifeformsevolvingonit.IfwebelieveDarwin’sversionofourorigins,wemustrecognizeour-selvesasproductsofselectionpressures,exertedbytheenvironmentsofourancestors,onthevariationsthrownupbyrandomgeneticmutation.Thisperspectivestartsfromaviewoflifeasadynamicprocessinwhicheachlivingorganisminteractswithandtherebyaffects,toalesserorgreaterextent,itssurroundings,andthosesurroundingsincludeallotherlivingorganisms.Thecutbetweenorganismandenvironmentisdeterminedbythefocusofattention;itdoesnotrestonanymetaphysicaldividebetweenManandtherestofCreation.Inordertounderstandhoworwhycreatureshaveevolvedastheyhave,attentionmustbepaidtothephysicalandbiologicalchar-acteristicsoftheenvironmentswithwhichtheyhadtocontendinordertosurvive;and,inturn,thoseenvironmentshavetoberecognizedasthemselveschangingpartlyinresponsetotheirlivinginhabitantsandasaresultofthechemicalandphysicalprocessessetintrainbydepositionanddecompositionoftheirleavings.Enteringenvironmentaldiscussionsviathebiologicalnatureofhumanexistenceisthusonewayofrevealingthestakethatallhumans,incommonwithotherlivingorganisms,haveintheirenvironments.Throughtheirreproductivepotential,livingorganisms,evenverysmallones,havecollectivelythepotentialtoaffecttheearth’s19ecosystemsinsignificantwaysiftheyexistinsufficientnumbers.Fromthepointofviewofanylivingbeing,itssurroundingstakeonavalue-ladensignificance–theymaybeconditionsconducivetotheflourishingofthatlifeform,conditionsthatthreatenits20continuedexistenceorsomewhereonagradientinbetween.Ifoneweretopursuethisdiscussionfurther,itwouldbenecessarytodistinguishbetweenindividualandspecies.Anindividual’scontinuedexistencemaybethreatenedorenhancedbyothersofitsownkind.Theexistenceofawholespeciesmaybethreatenedorenhancedbyenvironmental242\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page243technologyandenvironmentchanges–lossorextensionofhabitat,invasionbycompetitorspeciesorotherorgan-isms.Theevolutionof“higher”organismshasresultedinacomplextangleofinter-dependenciesbetweenlifeforms.Humans,however,haveneedsbeyondthoserelatedtotheircontinuedbiologicalexistenceandreproduction.Humansinsocietieshaveformedconceptionsoftheirownnature,andofwhatconstituteshumanwell-beingandflourishing,andthroughthevehiclesofreligion,philosophy,politicsandlawinawidevarietyofcombinationshavedevelopedculturalandcommercialstructuresthatallowatleastsomefractionsofsocietytolivealifethattheythemselvesconceivetobeconducivetotheirwell-being(intheirowninterests).Humansdeploytheircognitivecapacitiestoevaluatethesituationsinwhichtheyfindthemselvesasthreateningorasconducivetoflourishingandhave,overthousandsofyearsdeveloped,forgottenaboutandredevelopedwaysoftryingtoprotectthemselvesfromthreatsandprovidethemselveswithconditionsunderwhichtheycanthrive,buttheyhavenotalwaysagreedaboutwhatconstituteshumanflourishingorabouttheroleoftechnologyincontributingtoordetractingfromit.Giventhatconceptionsofhumanflourishingtypicallyextendbeyondmerebiolo-gicalwell-being,thesituationsbeingevaluatedare,forthemostpart,notevaluated21aspurelynaturalsituations;theyarealreadyhybridnatural–social–man-madesitu-ations.Moreover,giventhelimitednatureofourknowledgeatanygiventime,wedonotalwayscorrectlyevaluatesituationsorconditions,norinourattemptstochangeoursurroundingsinwaysthatsuitusarewefullyawareofthepossiblydetrimentalside-effectsorlong-termconsequencesofouractions.Allofthisisastrueforancientsocietiesandcivilizationsasformodernones.Avastpanoplyoftechnologieshasbeendevelopedbyhumanbeingsintheirpursuitofthe“good”life,whetherforthemselvesorforthelargerhumancommunitywithwhichtheyidentify(clan,village,city,nation,religioussect,orwhatever).Environmentscircumscribetherangeofpossiblehumanactions,andourrelation-shiptothemisinteractive;weshapeandareshapedbythem.Theimpactsofpasthumanactionscontributetotherural(more“natural”)aswellastheurban(moreman-made)environmentsofsubsequentgenerations(theNorfolkBroads,oldcanalnetworks,ruinedcastles,thehedgerowordrystone-wallenclosureoffields,townsquares,govern-22mentbuildingsandinstitutions,papermoneyandbankingsystems...).Onceoursightsareturnedinthisdirection,itbecomesnaturaltopayattentiontotechnologiesintheformoflargeinfrastructurenetworks(irrigationsystems,powergrids,sewersystems,theInternet,roads...)thatbecomeinseparablywovenintotheenvironmentthatframesourexistenceandwillleavetheirmarkontheenvironmentsoffuturegenerations,whetherornottheyaresustainedtoservetheiroriginalpurposes.Thesenetworksareessentialtomanufacturingandtrade,andtothecontinuedutilityofmanytechnologicaldevices.(Howusefulisanautomobilewithoutasupplyofgasolineandaroadtorunon,orarefrigeratorwithoutasupplyofelectricity?)Onceinstalled,thesenetworksceasetobethefocusofattentionandaretakenforgranteduntildisrupted;wetendtoforgetthatsuchsystemsarenotself-sustainingandthattheburdenofmaintainingthemcanbesohighastorenderthewholesystemvulnerabletocollapse23inthemediumtolongterm.Thevarietyandglobalextentofsuchinfrastructurenet-worksiswhatperhapsmoststrikinglymarksourcurrentsituation.Atanaccelerated243\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page244marytilespace,wearecontinuingtolaydownwebsofwires,pipes,sewers,roads,railways,andfillingtheairwayswithflightpathsandcommunicationchannelsallofwhichneedtobemaintainedinordertosustainlifestylesasweknowthemandwhosecontributionstotheenvironmentthatsupportsthoselifestylesislargelyinvisibletoandcertainlyincom-pletelyknownandunderstoodbymostofus.Theseinfrastructurenetworksarethelife-supportsystemscreatingenvironmentsfavorabletotheeffectivefunctioningofmanyofourtechnologicaldevices;ittakesenergyandmoneyandlabortomaintainthem.Totheextentthatourday-to-dayexistenceismediatedbyanddependentonthedevicesthatdependonsuchnetworks,infrastructurenetworkshavebecomefactorsinthehuman“struggleforexistence.”Thustheyneedtobeincludedinanyaccountingoftheecosystemsthattogethermakeupourhumanenvironments.But,iftherewasaproblemintegratingthelanguages,methodsandmodelsoforganicandinorganicperspectiveonecosystems,inclusionofmultipletechnological,economicandculturalnetworkswillonlyexacerbatetheproblem.Yetitdoesservetohighlightwhereourproblemlies–infiguringouthowtobringtheperspectivesandskillsofthevariousscientificandtechnicaldisciplinestobearonenvironmentalproblems–andtounderscorethepointthattheroleofsciencecannotbeexpectedtobethatofsup-portingthetraditionalconceptionofproblem-solvingthroughinstrumentalreasoning,wherescienceprovidespredictionsoftheconsequencesofactions.Itwasthereal-izationthatpredictabilityandcontrolcouldbesecuredbycreatinguniformityandexternalizingnaturalenvironmentalvariationsthatsetusdownthepathofcreatingenvironmentsfortechnologicaldevices.Toavoidbeinglockedinbyourowninfra-structuredependenciesandtheirassociatedmaintenancecostswouldrequiremovingbackinthedirectionofplace-basedtechnologicalsolutions,usinglocallyavailablematerialswherepossible,withdevicesdesignedeithertoberelativelyimpervioustoenvironmentalvariationorperviousbydesign–designedtobeabletotakeadvantage24offeaturesspecifictoalocalenvironment.Globalwarmingisastatisticalphenomenonsincetheglobedoesnothaveatemperature.Eachlocalitywillbeaffecteddifferently.Theriseinconcentrationsofatmosphericcarbondioxideaffectsallregions,buthumanactionsgeneratingsuchemissions(andthoseofothergreenhousegases)areconcentratedinlocalitiesanddonotoccuruniformlyaroundtheglobe.Globalizationhasmeantthatforsomepurposesthereisnodistinctionbetweenglobalandlocal.Thechallengeishowtoretainsomeofthebenefitsofglobalinterconnectednesswhileweaningourselvesoffdependenceonthoseconnectionsthemaintenanceofwhichisbotheconomicallyandenviron-mentallythemostburdensome.Globallythestrategywouldbetogiveseriouscon-siderationtovariationsinlocalconditionsinourefforttoreduceglobalgreenhousegasemissionsandtocreatemoresustainablehumanenvironments.Notes1.ThetermisborrowedfromthetitleofAlGore’sdocumentaryfilmonclimatechange,releasedin2006.2.SeeLatour(2004),Whiteside(2002)andNorton(2005)formoredetailedandnuancedelaborationofthispoint.244\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page245technologyandenvironment3.SuchenduringmarksofpastminingoperationscanbeseenforexampleinCornwall,CumbriaandSouthWalesintheUKorinColoradointheUS.Africaprovidesmanyexamplesofthedevastationanddisruptioncausedbyongoingminingandoil-extractionoperations.4.See,forexample,JohnHarrison’svariouspainstakingeffortstoachievethisasnarratedinSobel(1995).5.See,forexample,Ferguson(1992).6.AsLatour(1988)notes(p.90),thesearetheconditionsonwhichscienceisabletogetoutofthelaboratoryandintoapplication.Theapplicationofgeneralprinciplesoftenrequirescreationofasuitablycontrolledenvironment.7.WaltDisneyandRayKrock,thefounderofMcDonald’s,bothtransferredtheirexperienceofmilitaryorganizationandregimentationtotheworldofprivatebusiness.MultinationalcorporationscannowrelocateandreplicatemanufacturingplantsaroundtheworldfrequentlyignoringnotonlythenaturalenvironmentbutalsothelocalsocialimpactsasontheborderbetweentheUSandMexico.8.See,forexample,Diamond(1999):“Archaeologistshavedemonstratedthatthefirstfarmersinmanyareasweresmallerandlesswellnourished,sufferedmoreseriousdiseases,anddiedontheaverageatayoungeragethanthehunter-gathererstheyreplaced.Ifthosefirstfarmerscouldhaveforeseentheconsequencesofadoptingfoodproduction,theymightnothaveoptedtodoso”(p.105).9.See,forexample,Kunstler(2005),pp.157–66.10.See,forexample,Elvin(2004),Pearce(2006)andLansing(1991).11.AsElvin(2004)comments,“Watercontrolsystemsarewheresocietyandeconomymeettheenvironmentinarelationshipthatismoreoftenthannotadversarial”(p.115).More-overhenotesthatthedifferentneedsforwater,suchasirrigation,transport,poweranddrinking,haveoftencomeintocompetitionwithoneanother.Elvingivestwoexamplesto“suggestthecomplexitiesofhydraulichistoriesandshowhowChinesehydraulicengineeringbothchangeditsenvironmentandwas,inturn,constrainedbyit,andeven–sometimes–brokenbyit”(p.120).Hedocumentsthehugeamountsofmoney,labor,materialsandadministrativeskillrequiredtobuildandthenmaintainawatercontrolsystem.Healsoillustratesthewayinwhichasocietycanbecomelockedintomaintenance–evenatveryhighcost–ofsuchasystembecausethecostsofnotdoingsowouldbesociallyandeconomicallydisruptive.12.OnestrikingexampleisthediversionofwaterforirrigatingcottongrownintheAralSeabasin.TheresulthasbeenthattheSeahasshrunktoabout10percentofitsformersize(800macre-feetofwater).SeePearce(2006),ch.23.13.AsinthecaseoftheMississippidelta,whichusedtogivesomeprotectionagainststormsurgestoNewOrleans.14.Pearce(2006)isanexampleofabroad,systematicexaminationofwaterissues.15.Steinfeldetal.(2006).Thelivestocksectoraccountsfor18percentofanthropogenicglobalgreenhousegasemissionsmeasuredinCO2equivalent.16.ThistermisborrowedfromRosen(2003);sheexplains:“Biologistsexaminingnaturalecosystemsobservethatinnaturelivingorganismsareknittogetherwithoneanotherandwiththenaturalworld,drawingnourishmentfromthebodiesandwastesofotherorganismsaswellasfromthewaterandmineralsinthesoilandtheenergyproducedbythesun.Soitisforindustrialecologists.Theyseethatbusinessisalsowovenintothenaturalworld.Businessenterprisesfeedonnaturalresourcesfoundintheearth,orenergyultimatelyderivedfromthesun,windorgeologicalforcesdeepwithintheearth,andonthemanufacturedinputsoftheirindustrialsupplychains.Theyreturntheirwastestotheearththeseas,andtheatmosphere”(p.320).Iwouldwanttoaddthatbusinessis245\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page246marytilesalsothoroughlywovenintothehumanworldandthatitsinputsalsoincludehumanlabor,managementandeconomiccapital.17.AsthattimethiswasacaseofwhatCanguilhem(1988)wouldcallascientificideology:ascientificideologycomestoanendwhentheplacethatitoccupiedintheencyclopediaofknowledgeistakenoverbyadisciplinethatoperationallydemonstratesthevalidityofitsclaimstoscientificstatus,its“normsofscientificity”(p.33).Ascientificideologyisanexplanatorysystemthatstraysbeyonditsownborrowednormsofscientificityandprecedestheestablishmentofascience(p.38).18.See,forexample,Gillispie(1951).19.Forexample,termitesexistinsufficientnumberstocontribute11percentoftheannualemissionofmethanefromnaturalsources,about20Tg/yr.www.epa.gov/methane.20.SeeCanguilhem(1985),p.154.21.ThistermisborrowedfromLatour(1993).22.Cronon(1983)importantlypointsoutthat“humangroupsoftenhavesignificantlyunstableinteractionswiththeirenvironments....Anecologicalhistorybeginsbyassum-ingadynamicandchangingrelationshipbetweenenvironmentandculture,oneasapttoproducecontradictionsascontinuities.Moreover,itassumesthattheinteractionsofthetwoaredialectical.Environmentmayinitiallyshapetherangeofchoicesavailabletoapeopleatagivenmoment,butthenculturereshapestheenvironmentinresponsetothosechoices”(p.13).23.AnexampleofsuchacollapseisoneofthefactorsDavis(2001),pp.309–10,citesfortheseverityofthefaminesinIndiaandChinainthenineteenthcentury.LackoffinancialsupportformaintenanceofirrigationsystemsledtowhathecallsanirrigationdeficitleavingagriculturalproductionhighlyvulnerabletoENSOcycles.24.ForexampletheBritishSoilAssociationrecentlyproposedthatfoodthathasbeentrans-portedbyair-freightshouldnotinfuturebecertifiedasorganic.Thisispartofacampaigntoreducethedistancebetweenproducersandconsumersoffoodandthustheamountoffossilfuelrequiredtogetfoodfromonetotheother.ReferencesandFurtherReadingCanguilhem,G.(1985).Laconnaissancedelavie(Paris:J.Vrin).Canguilhem,G.(1988).IdeologyandRationalityintheHistoryoftheLifeSciences,trans.A.Goldhammer(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).OriginallypublishedasIdéologieetretionalitédansl’histoiredessciencesdelavie:Nouvellesetudesd’histoireetdephilosophiedessciences(Paris:J.Vrin,1977).Cooper,G.J.(2003).TheScienceoftheStruggleforExistence:OntheFoundationsofEcology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Cronon,W.(1983).ChangesintheLand:Indians,ColonistsandtheEcologyofNewEngland(NewYork:Hill&Wang).Davis,M.(2001).LateVictorianHolocausts:ElNiñoFaminesandtheMakingoftheThirdWorld(London/NewYork:Verso).Diamond,J.(1999).Guns,GermsandSteel:TheFatesofHumanSocieties(NewYork:Norton).Elvin,M.(2004).TheRetreatoftheElephants:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofChina(NewHaven,Conn./London:YaleUniversityPress).Ferguson,E.S.(1992).EngineeringandtheMind’sEye(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Gillispie,C.C.(1951).GenesisandGeology:TheImpactofScientificDiscoveriesuponReligiousBeliefsintheDecadesbeforeDarwin(NewYork:HarperTorchbooks).246\n9781405146012_4_042.qxd2/4/0913:59Page247technologyandenvironmentKunstler,J.H.(2005).TheLongEmergency:SurvivingtheEndofOil,ClimateChange,andOtherConvergingCatastrophesoftheTwenty-firstCentury(NewYork:GrovePress).Lansing,J.S.(1991).PriestsandProgrammers:TechnologiesofPowerintheEngineeredLandscapeofBali(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Latour,B.(1988).ThePasteurizationofFrance,trans.A.SheridanandJ.Law(Cambridge,Mass./London:HarvardUniversityPress).OriginallypublishedasLesMicrobes:guerreetpaixsuivideireductions(Paris:EditionsA.M.Métailié,1984).Latour,B.(1993).WeHaveNeverBeenModern,trans.C.Porter(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).OriginallypublishedasNousn’avonsjamaisétémodernes:Essaisd’anthropologiesymmétrique(Paris:LaDécouverte,1991).Latour,B.(2004).PoliticsofNature:HowtoBringtheSciencesintoDemocracy(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Norton,B.G.(2005).Sustainability:APhilosophyofAdaptiveEcosystemManagement(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pearce,F.(2006).WhentheRiversRunDry:WhatHappensWhenOurWaterRunsOut?EdenBooks.Rosen,C.M.(2003).“IndustrialEcologyandtheTransformationofCorporateEnvironmentalmanagement:ABusinessHistorian’sPerspective,”inA.MolellaandJ.Bedi(eds),InventingfortheEnvironment(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Serres,M.(1982).“Lucretius:ScienceandReligion,”inJ.V.HarariandD.F.Bell(eds),Hermes:Literature,Science,Philosophy(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress),pp.98–124.Originallypublishedas“Conditionsculturelle.Violenceetcontrat:Scienceetreligion,”inM.Serres(1977),LaNaissancedelaphysiquedansletextsdeLucrèce:Fleuvesetturbulences(Paris:Minuit).Sobel,D.(1995).Longitude:TheTrueStoryofaLoneGeniusWhoSolvedtheGreatestScientificProblemofHisTime(Harmondsworth:Penguin).Steinfeld,H.,Gerber,P.,Wassenaar,T.,Castel,V.,Rosales,M.anddeHaan,C.(2006).Livestock’sLongShadow:EnvironmentalIssuesandOptions,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,LEADwebsitehttp:www.virtualcentre.orgWhiteside,K.H.(2002).DividedNatures:FrenchContributionstoPoliticalEcology(Cambridge,Mass./London:MITPress).247\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page24843ThePrecautionaryPrincipleANDYSTIRLINGGeneralBackgroundFewissuesincontemporarytechnologypolicyareasmomentous(orcontentious)as1theprecautionaryprinciple.Thetopicfeaturesprominentlyinmainstreampolitical2345discourseaswellasinacademicliteraturesonrisk,environmentalscience,economics,67socialscienceandinternationallaw.Originatingintheearliestinternationalinitiatives8forenvironmentalprotectioninthe1970s,itfirstcametolegalmaturityinGerman9environmentalpolicyinthe1980s.Sincethenithasbeenchampionedbyenviron-1011mentalistsandstronglyresistedbysomeoftheindustriestheyoppose.Diverse12formulationsproliferateacrossavarietyofinternationalinstruments,nationaljurisdic-131415tionsandpolicyareas.FromaguidingthemeinECenvironmentalpolicy,ithas16becomeageneralprincipleofEClawandarepeatedfocusofattentioninhigh-stakes1718internationaldisputes.Applyingespeciallyinareaslikefoodsafety,chemicalsregula-1920212223tion,geneticmodification,telecommunications,nanotechnology,climatechange2425andgeneralhealthprotection,itremainsparticularlycontroversialintheUS.Else-26where,however,itsinfluencehasextendedfromenvironmentalregulation,towider27282930policy-makingonissuesofrisk,science,innovationandworldtrade.Asithas3132expandedinscope,soithasgrowninprofileandauthorityandinitsgeneralimplica-33tionsforthegovernanceoftechnology.Anearlyclassicformulation(whichhasbeenwidelyaccepted,evenbymanyother-34wiseskepticalstatessuchastheUS)neatlyencapsulatesthekeyminimalfeatures35andillustratesthecentralroleofprecautioninwiderconceptsofsustainability.AccordingtoPrinciple15ofthe1992RioDeclaration:“...Wheretherearethreatsofseriousorirreversibledamage,lackoffullscientificcertaintyshallnotbeusedasareasonfor36postponingcost-effectivemeasurestopreventenvironmentaldegradation.”Otherinstru-3738mentsarevariouslymorestringentormorefar-reaching.Sometimesgenerallychar-39acterizedasaninjunctionthat“itisbettertobesafethansorry,”evensuchasimpleexpressionoftheprecautionaryprincipleactuallyholdsrathermorespecificimplica-tions.First,ithingesonthepresenceoftwoquiteparticularqualities:apotentialforirreversibleharmandalackofscientificcertainty.Second,thenormativepresumptionisalsoquiteparticular:favoringtheinterestsoftheenvironment(andhumanhealth)40ratherthaneconomic,sectoralorstrategicinstitutionalinterests.Third,itrefersto248ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page249theprecautionaryprinciple41thereasonsforaction,nottothesubstanceofthepossibleactionsthemselves.Fourth,itappliesinprinciplesymmetricallytoalltechnologicalorpolicyalternativesinanygivencontext.Atroot,theprecautionaryprincipleinvolvesaparticularnormativedistillationofmorethanacenturyofexperiencewiththeunexpectedconsequencesofnewknow-42ledgesandtechnologies.Assuch,itbearscloserelationshipwithotherparallelprinciples(withwhichitissometimescomparedandelided),likethoseconcerning43444546“prevention,”“polluterpays,”“noregrets”and“cleanproduction.”Likethem,precautionservestoenrichandreinforceappreciationsofthedutiesofcareonthepart4748ofcommercialfirmsandoftheresponsibilitiesofsovereigngovernmentsandasso-49ciatedregulatoryadministrations.Inshort,theprecautionaryprinciplerequiresmoreexplicitandrigorousattentiontotheimplicationsofincompleteknowledgethan50isroutinelyprovidedintheconventionalregulatoryassessmentof“risk.”CriticalDebateGiventhenatureoftheissuesandthepowerfulinterestsatstake,itisnotsurprising51thattheprecautionaryprinciplehasbeensubjecttoawidearrayofcriticisms.One52frequentconcernisthatitisill-defined.Intheformulationgivenabove,forinstance,53how“serious”is“serious”?Whatexactlydoes“irreversible”mean?Does“fullscientificcertainty”everexist?Suchconcernsseemwellfoundediftheprecautionaryprin-54cipleispresentedasasufficient,comprehensiveordefinitiveproceduralrule.Yetlegalscholarspointoutthat,aswithanygenerallegalprinciple(like“proportionality”or55“cost-effectiveness”),precautionisnotadecisionruleinitsownright.Justastheseotherprinciplesrelyonmethodslikeriskassessmentandcost–benefitanalysisinordertomakethemoperational,so,too,canprecautionsimplybeseenasageneralguidetothedevelopmentandapplicationofmoredetailedcomplementarymethodsandprocesses.Thispointisreturnedtointhenextsection.Afurthercriticismisthattheinherentlynormativecharacteroftheprecaution-56aryprinciplerendersitintrinsicallyirrational.Inoneform,thisconcernrestsonthe(usuallyimplicit)assumptionthatconventional“science-based”proceduresmanage57totranscendnormativecontent.However,thisneglectsthewaysinwhichpracticalapplicationsofmethodslikeriskassessmentandcost–benefitanalysisalsorequiretheexerciseofevaluativejudgments.Forinstance,theseareintrinsictothesettingoflevelsofprotection,theweighingofdifferentformsofharmandtheirbalancingwith58countervailingbenefits.Beyondthis,anextensiveliteraturedocumentshowsuch59apparently“science-based”methodsaretypicallysubjecttodivergent“framings.”As606162aconsequence,theresultsobtainedinareassuchasclimate,energy,chemicals,6364geneticmodificationandindustrialregulationoftendisplaystrongsensitivityto65assumptionsthatcanvaryradicallyacrossdifferent,equallyauthoritativestudies.Whenanalysisisacknowledgedtobe“framed”inthiswaybyvaluejudgments,thereisanargumentthattheexplicitnormativityofprecautionisactuallymore,ratherthanless,rational.Avariantofthechargeofirrationalityrestsintheparticularorientationofthe66normativepresumptionofprecautioninfavoroftheenvironment.Underevaluative249\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page250andystirlingpositionsprioritizingeconomiccompetitivenessorfavoringtheparticulartechnologiesorinstitutionsthataresubjecttochallenge,thiscontrastingpresumptioncanappear67self-evidentlyunreasonable.Suchpositionsare,ofcourse,entirelylegitimateinapluraldemocraticsociety.Theyrepresentoneofthemainreasonsforthecontroversial68status–and,indeed(tosome),necessity–oftheprecautionaryprinciple.Yetitisdifficulttoclaimthattheseevaluativepositionshaveamonopolyonrationalityitself.Instead,suchcriticismsmaybeseennotasrefutingtherationalityofprecaution,butasasalutaryreminderthatitshouldnotbeinvokedasameanstosuppressordivertdeliberation,argumentordissent.Inshort,thesecriticismsreflectdisagreementwiththenormativevaluesunderlyingprecaution,notarefutationofitsrationality.Arelatedsetofconcernsfocusonthepoliticalimplicationsoftheprecautionaryprinciple.Casesaresometimescitedinwhichitappearstohavebeenappliedinanexpedientfashion,inordertoachieveoutcomesthatareactuallypursuedforratherdifferentreasons–liketherejectionofparticulartechnologiesortheprotectionofnational69industriesfrominternationaltradecompetition.Whereprecautionisinvokedselec-tivelyoropaquelywithrespecttoaparticularpolicy,therearedangersthatthealter-70nativesorsubstitutestherebyimplicitlyfavoredmayactuallyturnoutperversely71topresentmoreseriousenvironmentalorhealththreats.Finally(andsomewhatintensionwiththeprecedingconcern),therearefearsthatprecautionisoftenmotivated72by–ormightleadto–ablanketrejectionofallnewtechnologicalinnovation.Inconsideringsuchconcerns,itiswisetoreflectonthefundamentalfeaturesoftheprecautionaryprinciplehighlightedinthelastsection.Aswehaveseen,theprin-cipleisnotundiscriminatinginitsapplication–butexplicitlyappliesonlyunderspecificconditions(forinstance)ofseriousorirreversiblethreatoverwhichthereisalackofscientificcertainty.Thisdoesnotrenderitimmunetoexpediency,butdoeshelpmilitateagainstarbitraryusage.Itisimportanttorecallherethatthereisalsonoshortageofexamplesoftheexpedientusageofconventionalriskassessmentasameanstoprotect73favoredtechnologiesorinhibittheircompetitors.Awideliteratureshowsthistobe74endemicinregulatorypolitics.Criticsandproponentsthereforeholdtacitcommongroundhere,inaimingforasituationinwhichtheparticularmethodsadoptedintheimplementationofprecautionaremorerigorous,systematicandtransparentaboutchallengesofincompleteknowledgeandpotentiallyirreversibleharmthaniscurrentlytheestablishedpracticeinregulatoryassessment.Withrespecttoworriesoverblanketrejectionsoftechnology,thekeypointisthattheprecautionaryprinciplefocusesonthereasonsforintervening,notonthesubstanceoftheinterventionsthemselves.Thesemayasreadilytaketheformofstrengthened75standards,containmentstrategies,licensingarrangements,labelingrequirements,76liabilityprovisionsorcompensationschemesasthefearedbansorphase-outs.Sincetheprincipleproperlyappliessymmetricallybothtoagiventechnologyandtoitspotentialsubstitutes,thereisnomorereasonwhyitshouldleadtoperverseoutcomesthanisthecaseinconventionalriskassessment.Concernsthatprecautionisgenerally“anti-technology”arealsocounteredbyobservinghowrestraintsonanyonetechnologytypicallyactinpracticetofavorotherinnovations.Forinstance,someofthemajoropportunitiesforrenewableenergy,energyefficiency,ecologicalagricultureorgreenchemistryrestinprecautionarymeasuresaimedattheincumbenttechnologieswithwhichtheycompete.Inthisway,itisnotprecautionthatappearsaspoliticalrhetoric,250\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page251theprecautionaryprinciplebuttheselectivebrandingofconcernsoverparticulartechnologiesasiftheywere77undifferentiatedgeneral“pro”or“anti”technologypositions.Thisleadsontoafinalseriesofcriticismsoftheprecautionaryprinciple,fromaratherdifferentquarter.Theserelatenottothefeasibilitybuttothesufficiencyofwhat78isheldtobetherelativelynarrowtechnicalfocusofprecaution.Somesuchconcernsare798081informedbygrowingappreciationoftheopen,indeterminate,andpath-dependent82natureofscientificandtechnologicalchange.Othersdrawoncontemporarysocialtheory8384concerningthestructuraldynamicsoflate-moderngovernanceinstitutionsandthe85wider“risksociety.”Eitherway,current“risk”controversiesappearfarmoreopenintheirimplicationsthannarrowprecautionaryconcernsoverreversibility,safetyor86evenscientificcertaintyandtheenvironment.Instead,theycanbeseentoreflectmuchwideranddeepertensionsaroundcompetingculturaldiscourses,distributionalinequitiesandtheexerciseofpowerinthepoliticsoftechnologychoiceandknowledgeproduc-87tion.Inthisview,contemporarypreoccupationswithregulatoryriskarepartofapro-cessinwhichthesemoresubstantiveandintractableissuesarereduced,marginalized88andeclipsed.Atworst,theprecautionaryprinciplecanthusbeseenasanunhelpfulsimplification,distractingbothattentionandaccountabilityfromtherealissues.PracticalImplicationsAmajoroutcomeofthesecriticaldebatesisarecognitionthatthesubstantivesignifi-canceoftheprecautionaryprinciplerestslargelyinthespecificinstitutionalframeworks,89deliberativeproceduresandanalyticalmethodsthroughwhichitisimplemented.90Inotherwords,precautionismoreimportantasaprocessthanasa“decisionrule.”Thepurposeofthisprecautionaryprocessistohelpaddressalackofscientificcertaintyby91expendingmoreeffortin“sociallearning”–exploringawiderrangeofsalientknow-ledges.Thisisanimportantpoint,becausemuchoftheostensiblesupportcurrently92affordedtotheprinciplebygovernmentalbodies–liketheEuropeanCommission–isexplicitlypredicatedonthequalificationthatprecautionisarisk“management”(ratherthan“assessment”)measure.Thispointisalsorelevanttocountervailingconcernsfrom93bodiessuchastheUSgovernment(amongothers)totheeffectthatprecautionimpliesarejectionofconventional“science-based”riskassessment.Inconsideringtheseconcerns,theresultingquestionsfocusontheprecisenatureofthebroaderandmorerigorousappraisalprocessimpliedbyprecaution–andtheassociateddemandsonmoney,attention,timeandevidence.Adetailedunderstandingofthesepracticalimplicationsrestsonanappreciationoftherelationshipsbetweentheprecautionaryprincipleandconventional“science-based”94riskassessment.Here,anespeciallysignificantcontributionhasbeenmadebyan95extensiveliteratureinthesocialandpolicyanalysisofscience.Thisshowsthata“lackofscientificcertainty”cantakemanyforms,extendingwellbeyondthenarrowtech-96nicalcharacterizationof“risk”routinelyemployedinriskassessment.Inriskassess-ment,multivalentcomplexitiesarereducedtotwoparameters.First,therearethemagnitudesofthethingsthatmayhappen(“hazards,”“possibilities”or“outcomes”).Second,therearethelikelihoods(orprobabilities)associatedwitheach.Thesearethenaggregatedacrossallpossibledimensions,contexts,aetiologiesandperspectives.Theresulting251\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page252andystirling97“reductive–aggregative”stylelendsitselftoanapparentlytranscendentquantitative9899idiom,whichcanthenbeassertedasobjectiveauthority.Thiscaninturnbeused100101102asameanstojustifydecisions,channelaccountabilitiesandmanageblame.Whatistypicallyneglectedinconventionalriskassessment,however,isthatbothoftheseparametersmayeachbesubjecttovariouslyincompleteorproblematicknowledge,of103akindthatcan(bydefinition)notbeaddressedbyprobabilisticanalysis.104Underthestrictstateofuncertainty,forinstance,wecanbeconfidentinourchar-acterizationofthedifferentpossibleoutcomes,buttheavailableempiricalinformation105oranalyticalmodelssimplydonotpresentadefinitivebasisforassigningprobabilities.Undertheconditionofambiguity,itisnottheprobabilitiesthemselvesbutthechar-106acterizationofassociatedoutcomesthatisproblematic.Itariseswherethereare107108“contradictorycertainties,”applyingevenforeventsthathaveoccurredalready.Disagreementsmayexist,forinstance,overtheselection,partitioning,bounding,measurement,prioritizationorinterpretationofdifferentformsorunderstandingsof109110benefitorharm.Finally,thereistheconditionofignorance.Here,neitherprobabil-111itiesnoroutcomescanbefullycharacterized.Itiswhere“wedon’tknowwhatwe112113don’tknow,”thusfacingtheeverpresentprospectof“surprise.”Inordertoemphasizethepracticalrelevancetoestablishedriskassessment,Figure43.1representsthesecontrastingstatesofknowledgeaslogicalpermutationsunderthetwobasicparametersstructuringriskassessment:“outcomes”and“likelihoods.”114Inpractice,ofcourse,thesefour“ideal–typical”statestypicallyoccurtogether.Theschemeisthusnotataxonomybutaheuristicdistinctionbetweendifferent“aspectsKNOWLEDGEABOUTKNOWLEDGEABOUTPROBABILITIESOUTCOMESnotproblematicproblematicnotproblematicRISKAMBIGUITYriskassessmentparticipatorydeliberationmulti-attributeutilitytheorystakeholdernegotiationcost-benefit,decisionanalysisQ-method,repertorygridMonte-CarlomodelingscenarioworkshopsaggregativeBayesianmethodsmulti-criteriamappingstatisticalerrors,levelsofproofinteractivemodelingUNCERTAINTYIGNORANCEburdenofevidencetargetedresearchandhorizonscanningonusofpersuasiontransdisciplinarityandinstitutionallearninguncertaintyfactorsopen-endedsurveillanceandmonitoringdecisionheuristics“evidentiarypresumptions”:ubiquity,mobility,intervalanalysispersistence,bioaccumulationproblematicsensitivityanalysisadaptivemanagement:flexibility,diversity,resilienceFigure43.1Responsesintechnologyappraisaltodifferentaspectsofincertitude252\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page253theprecautionaryprinciple115116117ofincertitude”–eachspanningavarietyofspecificimplications,contextsand118causes.Forpracticalpurposes,thecrucialpointisthateachaspectissusceptible(inoverlappingways)totreatmentbydifferentkindsofinstitutionalframework,deliber-ativeprocedureoranalyticalmethod.Mostofthesearelessreductiveoraggregativethanthosethatareappropriateunderthestrictconditionof“risk.”Butthesearenolesssystematicor“scientific”innaturethanisriskassessment.Bydrawingattentiontothisdiversityofpracticalresponsesinappraisal,wecanreadilyappreciatehowpre-cautionisdirectlyrelevantnotjusttothemanagementbutalsototheassessmentofrisk.Wecanalsoseetheconsistencyofprecautionwithfundamentalprinciplesofscientificrigor.Inparticular,itisclearthatprecautiondoesnotimplyageneralrejectionofriskassessment.Instead,itpromptsattentiontoavarietyofalternativemethodsthataremorerigorouslyapplicableunderuncertainty,ambiguityandignorance.Akeychallengeofprecautionthusliesinconsideringhowtoimplementthisgreaterdiversityofapproaches,andarticulatethemtogetherinamorebroad-basedprocess119120ofappraisal.Drawingonabodyofrecenttheoretical,empiricalandmethodolo-121gicalwork,Table43.1summarizesaseriesofkeyconsiderations,whichtogetherhelpinrespondingtothischallenge.Eachrepresentsageneralquality,ofakindthatshouldbedisplayedinanytrulyprecautionaryprocessoftechnologyappraisal.Each122isbrieflyillustratedbyreferencetoanexampledrawnfromregulatoryexperience.Inmanyways,thequalitieslistedinTable43.1aresimplycommonsense.Asbefitstheirgeneralnature,theyapplyequallytotheimplementationofanyapproachtotech-123nologyappraisal,includingriskassessment.Thisunderscorestheunderstandingthatprecautionrepresentsanenhancement,ratherthanacontradiction,ofacceptedprin-ciplesofscientificrigorinthisfield.Importantquestionsdoarise,ofcourse,overtheextenttowhichitispossibleinexistinginstitutionalcontextsalwaysfullytoimplementthearrayofmethodsidentifiedinFigure43.1,inafashionthatdisplaysallthequalitiessummarizedinTable43.1.Bycontrastwithconventionalnarrowformsofriskassessment,theassociateddemands124onmoney,attention,timeandevidencecanlookonerousindeed.Althoughraisinganumberofunresolvedissues,suchquestionssuggestafocusformoreconstructivediscussionthanthatwhichisevidentinthemorepolarizedareasoftheprecautiondebatediscussedearlier.Here,anumberofframeworkshaveemergedinproposalsfrom125126127128differentlegal,environmentalscience,publichealthandtechnologypolicyperspectives.RecentworkforEuropeanriskgovernancebodiesmayservetoillustratesomeoftheresultingpracticalpossibilities.Adaptedfromaseriesofstakeholderdeliberations,Figure43.2isaschematicoutlineofageneralcompromiseframeworkforthearticulationofprecautionwith129conventionalriskassessmentofakindthatbuildsontheanalysisdiscussedhere.Thisaddressesconcernsoverproportionality,throughenvisaginganinitialscreeningprocess.Onlythemostappropriateissuesaretherebyallocatedtotreatmentbymorebroad-based(andonerous)processesofprecautionaryappraisal.Subjecttoasetofdetailedscreeningcriteriaappliedinstakeholderdeliberation,othercasesarevariouslyallocatedtomoreinclusiveandparticipatoryformsofappraisal(inthecaseofambiguity)ormorestraightforwardandfamiliarformsofriskassessment(wheretheseareheldtobesufficient).Inthisway,establishednotionsofproportionalityarereconciledwithprecautionthroughtheemploymentofmoretargetedapproachestoappraisal.Since253\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page254andystirlingTable43.1Keyfeaturesofaprecautionaryappraisalprocessindependencefromvestedinstitutional,disciplinary,economicandpoliticalinterests;aslongconstrainedattentiontoproblemscausedtoindustrialworkersbyasbestos.examinationofagreaterrangeofuncertainties,sensitivitiesandpossiblescenarios;asaddressedinearlyattentiontorisksofantimicrobialsinanimalfeed,butlaterneglected.deliberatesearchfor“blindspots,”gapsinknowledgeanddivergentscientificviews;aswithassumptionsoverthedynamicsofenvironmentaldispersalofacidgasemissions.attentiontoproxiesforpossibleharm(e.g.mobility,bioaccumulation,persistence);asencounteredinmanagingchemicalsliketheostensiblybenignfueladditiveMTBE.contemplationoffulllifecyclesandresourcechainsastheyoccurintherealworld;likefailuresinPCBcontainmentduringdecommissioningofelectricalequipment.considerationofindirecteffects,likeadditivity,synergyandaccumulation;ofakindlongneglectedintheregulationofoccupationalexposurestoionizingradiation.inclusionofindustrialtrends,institutionalbehaviorandissuesofnon-compliance;thelatterfeaturingprominentlyinthelarge-scalemisuseofantimicrobialsinanimalfeed.explicitdiscussionoverappropriateburdensofproof,persuasion,evidence,analysis;forinstancearoundthesystematicneglectof“TypeIIerrors”inriskassessment.comparisonofaseriesoftechnologyandpolicyoptionsandpotentialsubstitutes;atopicneglectedintheover-useofdiagnosticX-raysinhealthcare.deliberationoverjustificationsandpossiblewiderbenefitsaswellasrisksandcosts;asinsufficientlyconsideredinlicensingofthedrugDESforpregnantmothers.drawingonrelevantknowledgeandexperiencearisingbeyondspecialistdisciplines;liketheknowledgegainedbybirdwatchersconcerningthedynamicsoffishstocks.engagementwiththevaluesandinterestsofallstakeholderswhostandtobeaffected;aswithexperienceoflocalcommunitiesonpollutionepisodesintheGreatLakes.generalcitizenparticipationinordertoprovideindependentvalidationofframing;aswassignificantlyneglectedincheckingassumptionsadoptedinthemanagementofBSE.ashiftfromtheoreticalmodelingtowardsystematicmonitoringandsurveillance;whichwouldhelpaddressconceptuallimitations,suchasthoseaffectingregulationofPCBs.agreaterpriorityontargetedscientificresearch,toaddressunresolvedquestions;asomittedforlongperiodsoverthecourseofthedevelopmentoftheBSEcrisis.initiationattheearlieststages“upstream”inaninnovation,strategyorpolicyprocess;helpingtofostercleanerinnovationpathwaysbeforelock-inoccurstolessbenignoptions.emphasisonstrategicqualitieslikereversibility,flexibility,diversity,resilience;thesecanofferwayspartlytohedgeagainsteventhemostintractableaspectsofignorance.Source:AfterG.Gee,P.Harremoes,J.Keys,M.MacGarvin,A.Stirling,S.VazandB.Wynne,LateLessonfromEarlyWarnings:ThePrecautionaryPrinciple1898–2000(Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency,2001).thescreeningappliestoallcases,theresultinganalytic–deliberativeframeworkasawholeremainsprecautionary.Underthefinalsetofcriticismsofprecautiondiscussedinthelastsection,thesekindsof“practical”frameworkcanlookhighlysimplified,instrumentalandevenpotentiallycounterproductive.Thefearisthattheircompatibilitywithexistingpracticessimplyservestoreinforcecurrentinstitutionalinadequacies.However,acounterargumentisthatsuchframeworksmightalternativelybeseenasatacticalmeanstointroduceintoexistingmainstreampolicydiscoursesandinstitutionalproceduresconcernedwith254\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page255theprecautionaryprincipleCOMMUNICATION–engagementwithpublicsandstakeholders–reviewindividualcases–feedbackbetweenstages–frameanddesignprocessEVALUATIONMANAGEMENTSCREENINGAPPRAISALIstherecertainlyPRESUMPTIONOFPREVENTIONaseriousandyes–directtorestrictivemanagementmeasuresunambiguous–relaxationonlyifstrictsocietalconsensusthreat?oncountervailingpurposeorbenefitsnoPRECAUTIONARYAPPRAISALyeshumilityonscience;transdisciplinaryengagement;Isthethreatextendedscope;targetedresearch;deliberatedproof;scientificallypurpose,tolerability,acceptabilitybalanceperspectivesonpros/cons,conductmonitoring,surveillancedecideandimplementinstruments,prosandconsofalternatives;dynamicpropertiesuncertain?DELIBERATIVEPROCESSyesIsthethreat–citizenparticipation–inclusive,accessiblesociopolitically–stakeholdernegotiation–accountableambiguous?–socialscienceelicitation–representativenoRISKASSESSMENT–rigorous–transparent–peer-reviewed–professional–evidence-based–comprehensiveFigure43.2AframeworkarticulatingriskassessmentandprecautionaryappraisalSource:AdaptedfromA.Stirling,O.RennandP.vanZwanenberg,“AFrameworkforthePrecautionaryGovernanceofFoodSafety:IntegratingScienceandParticipationintheSocialAppraisalofRisk,”inE.Fisher,J.JonesandR.vonSchomberg(eds)ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,2006),pp.284–315.regulationandinnovationthewiderpoliticalissuesraisedearlierconcerningthegovernanceofknowledgeproductionandtechnologychoice.Underthisagenda,theadoptionofaninstrumentalidiomonprecautionisasignnotofnaïveorexpedientsimplification,butofstrategicsophistication.Inthisway,theimplementationofmorebroad-basedprecautionaryprocessesofappraisalmaythemselveshelpcatalyzethedevel-130opmentofmorereflexiveinstitutions–goingwellbeyondtheostensiblymarginalreformofexistingadministrativepracticesimpliedintheapparentlyreductiveandinstrumentaldiagrams.Byopeningthedoortorecognitionofthefullimplicationsofuncertainty,ambiguityandignorance,thesekindsofframeworkforthepracticalimplementationoftheprecautionaryprincipleintechnologyappraisalmayhelptonurturetheemergenceofaricherandmorevibrant,deliberateandequitablegeneral131politicsoftechnology.Notes1.O’Riordan,T.andJordan,A.(2001).ReinterpretingthePrecautionaryPrinciple(London:CameronMay).255\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page256andystirling2.Taverne,D.(2005).TheMarchofUnreason:Science,DemocracyandtheNewFundamentalism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).3.Paarlberg,R.(ed.)(2001).ThePoliticsofPrecaution:GeneticallyModifiedCropsinDevelopingCountries(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).4.Raffensperger,C.andTickner,J.(eds)(1999).ProtectingPublicHealthandtheEnvironment:ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple.(Washington,D.C.:Island),pp.36–50.5.Gollier,C.,Jullien,B.andTreich,N.(2000).“ScientificProgressandIrreversibility:AnEconomicInterpretationofthe‘PrecautionaryPrinciple’,”JournalofPublicEconomics,75(2):229–53.6.Jasanoff,S.(2005).DesignsonNature:ScienceandDemocracyinEuropeandtheUnitedStates(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).7.Fisher,E.(2006).“RiskandEnvironmentalLaw:ABeginnersGuide,”inB.RichardsonandS.Wood(eds),EnvironmentalLawandSustainability(Oxford:HartPublishing).8.O’Riordan,T.andCameron,J.(1994).InterpretingthePrecautionaryPrinciple(London:Earthscan).9.Boehmer-Christiansen,S.(1994).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleinGermany:EnablingGovernment,”inT.O’RiordanandJ.Cameron(eds),InterpretingthePrecautionaryPrinciple(London:CameronMay).10.Freestone,D.andHey,E.(eds)(1996).ThePrecautionaryPrincipleandInternationalLaw:TheChallengeofImplementation(TheHague,Kluwer).11.Morris,J.(ed.)(2000).RethinkingRiskandthePrecautionaryPrinciple(London:ButterworthHeinemann).12.Trouwborst,A.(2002).EvolutionandStatusofthePrecautionaryPrincipleinInternationalLaw(Amsterdam:KluwerLawInternational).13.Fisher,E.“Precaution,PrecautionEverywhere:Developinga‘CommonUnderstanding’ofthePrecautionaryPrincipleintheEuropeanCommunity,”MaastrichtJournalofEuropeanandComparativeLaw,9:7–28.14.Sadeleer,N.de(2002).EnvironmentalPrinciples:FromPoliticalSloganstoLegalRules(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).15.CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,CommunicationfromtheCommissiononthePrecautionaryPrinciple,COM(2000)1final,2February2000,Brussels.16.Christoforou,T.(2002).“TheOriginsandContentofthePrecautionaryPrincipleinEuropeanCommunityLaw,”inC.LebenandJ.Verhoeven(eds),LePrincipedePrecaution:aspectsdedriotinternationaletcommunitaire(Paris:Pantheon).17.Bohanes,J.(2002).“RiskRegulationinWTOLaw:AProcedure-basedApproachtothePrecautionaryPrinciple,”ColumbiaJournalofInternationalLaw,vol.40(2):323–90.18.Vos,E.andWendler,F.(eds)(2007).FoodSafetyRegulationinEurope:AComparativeInstitutionalAnalysis(Antwerp:Intersentia).19.Heyvaert,V.(2006).“GuidancewithoutConstraint:AssessingtheImpactofthePrecau-tionaryPrincipleontheEuropeanCommunity’sChemicalsPolicy,”YearbookofEuropeanEnvironmentalLaw,6:27–60.20.Levidow,L.(2001).“PrecautionaryUncertainty:RegulatingGMCropsinEurope,”SocialStudiesofScience,31:842–74.21.Burgess,A.(2003).CellularPhones,PublicFears,andaCultureofPrecaution(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).22.Rip,A.(2006).“TheTensionbetweenFictionandPrecautioninNanotechnology,”inE.Fisher,J.JonesandR.vonSchomberg(eds),ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).256\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page257theprecautionaryprinciple23.vanderSluijs,J.andTurkenburg,W.(2006).“ClimateChangeandthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”inE.Fisher,J.JonesandR.vonSchomberg(eds),ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).24.Martuzzi,M.andTickner,J.(eds)(2004).ThePrecautionaryPrinciple:ProtectingPublicHealth,theEnvironmentandtheFutureofOurChildren(Copenhagen:WorldHealthOrganisation).25.Wiener,J.andRogers,M.(2002).“ComparingPrecautionintheUnitedStatesandEurope,”JournalofRiskResearch,5:317–49.26.Harding,R.andFisher,E.(eds)(1999).PerspectivesonthePrecautionaryPrinciple(Sydney:FederationPress).27.Renn,O.(2006).RiskGovernance:TowardsanIntegrativeFramework,InternationalRiskGovernanceCouncil,Davos,available(August2007)at:http://www.irgc.org/irgc/IMG/hosted/IRGC%20at%20conf_IDRC%20Davos_%20Renn.pdf28.EuropeanScienceandTechnologyObservatory,“OnScienceandPrecautionintheManagementofTechnologicalRisk:VolumeI–aSynthesisReportofCaseStudies,”EuropeanCommissionInstituteforProspectiveTechnologicalStudies,Seville,EUR19056EN,May1999.Available(August2007)at:ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056en.pdf29.Stirling,A.(2001).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleinScienceandTechnology,”inT.O’RiordanandA.Jordan(eds),ReinterpretingthePrecautionaryPrinciple(London:Cameron–May).30.Winickoff,D.,Jasanoff,S.,Busch,R.,Grove-White,R.,Wynne,B.“AdjudicatingtheGMFoodWars:Science,RiskandDemocracyinWorldTradeLaw,”YaleJournalofInternationalLaw,30:81–123.31.Fisher,E.,Jones,J.andSchomberg,R.von(eds)(2006).ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).32.Fisher,E.(2007).Risk:RegulationandAdministrativeConstitutionalism(Oxford:Hart).33.Felt,U.,Wynne,B.,Callon,M.,Goncalves,M.,Jasanoff,S.,Jepsen,M.,Joly,P.-B.,Konopasek,Z.,May,S.,Neubauer,C.,Rip,A.,Siune,K.,Stirling,A.,Tallachini,M.(2007).ScienceandGovernance:TakingEuropeanKnowledgeSocietySeriously,ReportoftheExpertGrouponScienceandGovernancetoDGResearch,March.34.Myers,N.andRaffensberger,C.(eds)(2006).PrecautionaryToolsforReshapingEnviron-mentalPolicy(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).35.Richardson,B.andWood,S.(eds)(2006).EnvironmentalLawandSustainability(Oxford:Hart).36.UNConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopment(1992).FinalDeclaration,RiodeJaneiro.37.OSPAR(1992).ConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentoftheNorth-EastAtlantic,http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html.38.MinisterialDeclarationoftheFourthInternationalConferenceontheProtectionoftheNorthSea,8–9June1995,Esbjerg,Denmark.39.Sandin,P.(2004).“BetterSafethanSorry:ApplyingPhilosophicalMethodstotheDebateonRiskandthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”ThesesinPhilosophyfromtheRoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm,vol.5.40.Schomberg,R.von(2006).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleandItsNormativeChallenges,”inE.Fisher,J.JonesandR.vonSchomberg(eds),ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).41.Resnik,D.(2003).“IsthePrecautionaryPrincipleUnscientific?,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofSciencePartC:BiologicalandBiomedicalSciences,34(2):329–44.257\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page258andystirling42.Gee,D.,Harremoes,P.,Keys,J.,MacGarvin,M.,Stirling,A.,Vaz,S.andWynne,B.(2001).LateLessonfromEarlyWarnings:ThePrecautionaryPrinciple1898–2000(Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).43.Santillo,D.,Johnston,P.andStringer,R.(1999).“Theprecautionaryprincipleinpractice:amandateforanticipatorypreventativeaction,”inC.RaffenspergerandJ.Tickner(eds),ProtectingPublicHealthandtheEnvironment:ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrin-ciple(Washington,D.C.:Island),pp.36–50.44.Costanza,R.andCornwell,L.“The4PApproachtoDealingwithScientificUncertainty,”Environment,34(9):12–20,42.45.Dovers,S.andHandmer,J.(1992).“Ignorance,thePrecautionaryPrincipleandSustainability,”Ambio,24(2):92–7.46.Jackson,T.andTaylor,P.(1992).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleandthePreventionofMarinePollution,”ChemistryandEcology,7:123–34.47.Earll,R.(1994).ThePrecautionaryPrinciple:MakingItWorkinPractice:WorkshopReport(London:EnvironmentCouncil).48.Cameron,J.andAbouchar,J.(1991).“ThePrecautionaryPrinciple:AFundamentalPrinciplefortheProtectionoftheGlobalEnvironment,”BostonCollegeInternationalandComparativeLawReview,14:1–27.49.Fisher,E.(2001).“IsthePrecautionaryPrincipleJusticiable?,”JournalofEnvironmentalLaw,13:317–34.50.Tickner,J.,Kriebel,D.andWright,S.(2003).“ACompassforHealth:RethinkingPrecautionandItsRoleinScienceandPublicHealth,”InternationalJournalofEpidemiology,32:489–92.51.Sandin,P.,Peterson,M.,Hansson,S.O.,Rudén,C.andJuthe,A.(2002).“FiveChargesagainstthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”JournalofRiskResearch,5(4):pp.287–299(13).52.Gray,J.andBewers,J.(1996).“TowardsaScientificDefinitionofthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”MarinePollutionBulletin,32(11):768–71.53.Bodansky,D.(1991).“ScientificUncertaintyandthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”Environ-ment,33(7):4–44.54.Peterson,M.(2006).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleisIncoherent,”RiskAnalysis,26(3):595–601.55.Fisher,L.andHarding,R.(1999).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleandAdministrativeConstitutionalism:TheDevelopmentofFrameworksforApplyingthePrecautionaryPrinciple,”inL.FisherandR.Harding(eds),PerspectivesonthePrecautionaryPrinciple(Sydney:FederationPress).56.Gillot,J.andKumar,M.(1995).ScienceandtheRetreatfromReason(London:Merlin).57.Byrd,D.andCothern,C.(2000).IntroductiontoRiskAnalysis:ASystematicApproachtoScience-basedDecisionMaking(Rockville,Md.:GovernmentInstitutes).58.Jaeger,C.,Renn,O.,Rosa,E.andWebler,T.(2001).Risk,UncertaintyandRationalAction(London:Earthscan).59.Gieryn,T.(1995).“BoundariesofScience,”inS.Jasanoff,G.Makle,J.PetersenandT.Pinch(eds),HandbookofScienceandTechnologyStudies(ThousandOaks,Calif.:Sage).60.Shackley,S.andWynne,B.(1996).“RepresentingUncertaintyinGlobalClimateChangeScienceandPolicy:Boundary-orderingDevicesandAuthority,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,21:275–302.61.Sundqvist,T.,Soderholm,P.andStirling,A.(2004).“ElectricPowerGeneration:ValuationofEnvironmentalCosts,”inC.J.Cleveland(ed.),EncyclopediaofEnergy(SanDiego,Calif.:AcademicPress).62.Saltelli,A.,Tarantola,S.,Campolongo,F.andRatto,M.(2004).SensitivityAnalysisinPractice:AGuidetoAssessingScientificModels(Chichester:JohnWiley).258\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page259theprecautionaryprinciple63.Levidow,L.,Carr,S.,Schomberg,R.andWield,D.(1998).“EuropeanBiotechnologyRegulation:FramingtheRiskAssessmentofaHerbicide-tolerantCrop,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,22(4):472–505.64.Amendola,A.,Contini,S.andZiomas,I.(2002).“UncertaintiesinChemicalRiskAssess-ment:ResultsofaEuropeanBenchmarkExercise,”JournalofHazardousMaterials,29:347–63.65.Jasanoff,S.(1990).TheFifthBranch:ScienceAdvisersasPolicymakers(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).66.Lloyd,L.(2000).“TheTyrannyoftheL-shapeCurve,”ScienceandPublicAffairs,February.67.Wolpert(1992).TheUnnaturalNatureofScience(London/Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).68.Ashford,N.etal.(1998).TheWingspreadStatementonthePrecautionaryPrinciple(Racine,Wis.:Wingspread).Availableat:http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html69.Majone,G.(2002).“WhatPriceSafety?ThePrecautionaryPrincipleandItsPolicyImplications,”JournalofCommonMarketStudies,40(1):89–109.70.Graham,J.andWeiner,J.(eds.)(1995)RiskversusRisk:TradeoffsinProtectingHealthandtheEnvironment(Cambridge,Mass.:Belknap).71.Sunstein,C.(2005).LawsofFear:BeyondthePrecautionaryPrinciple(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).72.Holm,S.andHarris,J.(1999).“PrecautionaryPrincipleStiflesDiscovery,”Nature,400:398.73.Zwanenberg,P.vanandMillstone,E.(2001).“‘MadCowDisease’–1980s–2000:HowReassurancesUnderminedPrecaution,”inD.Gee,P.Harremoes,J.Keys,M.MacGarvin,A.Stirling,S.VazandB.Wynne(eds),LateLessonfromEarlyWarnings:ThePrecautionaryPrinciple1898–2000(Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).74.Jasanoff,S.(1997).ScienceattheBar:ScienceandTechnologyinAmericanLaw(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).75.Sand,P.(2000).“ThePrecautionaryPrinciple:AEuropeanPerspective,”HumanandEcologicalRiskAssessment,6(3):445–58.76.Klinke,A.,Renn,O.,Rip,A.,Salo,A.andStirling,A.(eds)(2000).OnScienceandPrecautionintheManagementofTechnologicalRisk,Vol.II:CaseStudies,EuropeanScienceandTechnologyObservatory,Sevilla,19056/EN/2,July2000.77.Stirling,A.(forthcoming).“DeliberateFutures:PrecautionandProgressinSocialChoiceofSustainableTechnology,”JournalofSustainableDevelopment.78.Wynne,B.(2002).“RiskandEnvironmentasLegitimatoryDiscoursesofTechnology:ReflexivityInsideOut?,”CurrentSociology,50(30):459–77.79.Stirling,A.(2007).“Science,PrecautionandthePoliticsofTechnologicalRisk:Converg-ingImplicationsinEvolutionaryandSocialScientificPerspectives,”ProceedingsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences,submittedAugust.80.Irwin,A.andWynne,B.(1996).MisunderstandingScience?:ThePublicReconstructionofScienceandTechnology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).81.Williams,R.andEdge,D.(1996).“TheSocialShapingofTechnology,”ResearchPolicy,25:865–99.82.Giddens,A.(1990).TheConsequencesofModernity(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress).83.Luhmann,N.(2000).TheRealityoftheMassMedia(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress).84.Voss,J.andKemp,R.(eds)(2006).SustainabilityandReflexiveGovernance(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).85.Beck,U.(1992).RiskSociety:TowardsaNewModernity(London:Sage).259\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page260andystirling86.Jasanoff,S.(2003).“TechnologiesofHumility:CitizensParticipationinGoverningScience,”Minerva,41(S):223–44.87.Jasanoff,S.(ed.)(2004).StatesofKnowledge:TheCo-productionofScienceandSocialOrder(London:Routledge).88.Wynne,B.(2007).“RiskyDelusions:MisunderstandingScienceandMisperformingPublicsintheGECropsIssue,”inI.TaylorandK.Barrett(eds),GeneticEngineering:DecisionMakingunderUncertainty(Vancouver:UBCPress).89.Fisher,E.(2000).“DrowningbyNumbers:StandardSettinginRiskRegulationandthePursuitofAccountablePublicAdministration,”OxfordJournalofLegalStudies,20:109.90.Zwanenberg,P.vanandStirling,A.(2004).“RiskandPrecautionintheUSandEurope,”YearbookofEuropeanEnvironmentalLaw,3:43–57.91.Wynne,B.(1995).“TechnologyAssessmentandRelexiveSocialLearning:ObservationsfromtheRiskField,”inA.Rip,T.MisaandJ.Schot,ManagingTechnologyinSociety(London:Pinter),pp.19–37.92.CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,CommunicationfromtheCommissiononthePrecautionaryPrinciple,COM(2000)1final,2February2000,Brussels.93.Woteki,C.(2000).“TheRoleofPrecautioninFoodSafetyDecisions,”remarkspreparedforUnderSecretaryforFoodSafety,FoodSafetyandInspectionService,USDepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,D.C.,March.94.Morgan,M.,Henrion,M.andSmall,M.(1990).Uncertainty:AGuidetoDealingwithUncertaintyinQuantitativeRiskandPolicyAnalysis(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).95.Krimsky,S.andGolding,D.(1992).SocialTheoriesofRisk(London:Praeger).96.Faber,M.andProops,J.(1994).Evolution,Time,ProductionandtheEnvironment(Berlin:Springer).97.Stirling,A.(2003).“Risk,UncertaintyandPrecaution:SomeInstrumentalImplicationsfromtheSocialSciences,”inI.Scoones,M.LeachandF.Berkhout(eds),NegotiatingChange:PerspectivesinEnvironmentalSocialScience(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar).98.Hacking,I.(1975).TheEmergenceofProbability:APhilosophicalStudyofEarlyIdeasaboutProbabilityInductionandStatisticalInference(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).99.Porter,T.(1995).TrustinNumbers(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).100.Collingridge,D.(1982).CriticalDecisionMaking:ANewTheoryofSocialChoice(London:Pinter).101.Power,M.(1999).TheAuditSociety(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).102.Hood,C.(2002).“ManagingRiskandManagingBlame:APoliticalScienceApproach,”inA.Weale(ed.),Risk,DemocraticCitizenshipandPublicPolicy(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress/BritishAcademyPress).103.Santillo,D.,Stringer,R.,Johnston,P.andTickner,J.(1996).“ThePrecautionaryPrin-ciple:ProtectingagainstFailuresofScientificMethodandRiskAssessment,”MarinePollutionBulletin,36(12):939–50.104.Funtowicz,S.andRavetz,J.(1990).UncertaintyandQualityinScienceforPolicy(Amsterdam:Kluwer).105.Knight,F.(1921).Risk,UncertaintyandProfit(Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin).106.Stirling,A.(1999).“RiskataTurningPoint?,”JournalofEnvironmentalMedicine,1:119–26.107.Thompson,M.andWarburton,M.(1985).“DecisionMakingunderContradictoryCertainties:HowtoSavetheHimalayasWhenYouCan’tFindWhat’sWrongwithThem,”JournalofAppliedSystemsAnalysis,12.108.Arrow,K.(1963).SocialChoiceandIndividualValues(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress).260\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page261theprecautionaryprinciple109.Wynne,B.(1987).“RiskPerception,DecisionAnalysisandthePublicAcceptanceProb-lem,”inWynne,B.(ed.),RiskManagementandHazardousWaste:ImplementationandtheDialecticsofCredibility(Berlin:Springer).110.Loasby,B.(1976).Choice,ComplexityandIgnorance:AnInquiryintoEconomicTheoryandthePracticeofDecisionMaking(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).111.Ravetz,J.(1986).“UsableKnowledge,UsableIgnorance:IncompleteSciencewithPolicyImplications,”inW.Clark,W.andC.Munn(eds),SustainableDevelopmentoftheBiosphere(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).112.Wynne,B.(1992).“UncertaintyandEnvironmentalLearning:ReconceivingScienceandPolicyinthePreventiveParadigm,”GlobalEnvironmentalChange,pp.111–27.113.Brooks,H.(1986).“TheTypologyofSurprisesinTechnology,InstitutionsandDevelop-ment,”inW.ClarkandC.Munn(eds),SustainableDevelopmentoftheBiosphere(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).114.Asselt,M.vanandVos,E.(2005).“ThePrecautionaryPrincipleinTimesofIntermingledUncertaintyandRisk:SomeRegulatoryComplexities,”WaterScienceandTechnology,52(6):35–41.115.Stirling,A.(2006).“Participation,PowerandProgressintheSocialAppraisalofTechnology,”ScienceTechnologyandHumanValues,submittedJuly2005,revisedJuly2006.116.Rowe,W.(1994).“UnderstandingUncertainty,”RiskAnalysis,14(5):743–50.117.vanderSluijs,J.,Craye,M.,Funtowicz,S.,Kloprogge,P.,Ravetz,J.andRisbey,J.(2005).“CombiningQuantitativeandQualitativeMeasuresofUncertaintyinModelBasedEnvironmentalAssessment:theNUSAPSystem,”RiskAnalysis,25(2):481–92.118.Asselt,M.van(2000).PerspectivesonUncertaintyandRisk:ThePRIMAApproachtoDecisionSupport(Dordrecht:Kluwer).119.EuropeanScienceandTechnologyObservatory,“OnScienceandPrecautionintheManagementofTechnologicalRisk:VolumeI–asynthesisreportofcasestudies”EuropeanCommissionInstituteforProspectiveTechnologicalStudies,Seville,EUR19056EN,May1999.Available(August2007)at:ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056en.pdfop.cit.120.Gee,D.,Harremoes,P.,Keys,J.,MacGarvin,M.,Stirling,A.,Vaz,S.andWynne,B.(2001).LateLessonfromEarlyWarnings:ThePrecautionaryPrinciple1898–2000(Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).121.Klinke,A.,Dreyer,M.,Renn,O.,Stirling,A.andZwanenberg,P.van(2006).“Precau-tionaryRiskRegulationinEuropeanGovernance,”JournalofRiskResearch,9:373–92.122.Gee,D.,Harremoes,P.,Keys,J.,MacGarvin,M.,Stirling,A.,Vaz,S.andWynne,B.(2001).LateLessonfromEarlyWarnings:ThePrecautionaryPrinciple1898–2000(Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).123.O’Brien,M.(2000).MakingBetterEnvironmentalDecisions:AnAlternativetoRiskAssessment(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).124.Klinke,A.andRenn,O.(2002).“ANewApproachtoRiskEvaluationandManage-ment:Risk-based,Precaution-based,andDiscourse-basedStrategies,”RiskAnalysis,22:1071–94.125.Ashford,N.(1999).“AConceptualFrameworkfortheUseofthePrecautionaryPrin-cipleinLaw,”inC.RaffenspergerandJ.Tickner(eds),ProtectingPublicHealthandtheEnvironment(Washington,D.C.:IslandPress),pp.198–206.126.Tickner,J.(2003).“PrecautionaryAssessment:AFrameworkforIntegratingScience,Uncertainty,andPreventivePublicPolicy,”inJ.Tickner(ed.),Precaution,EnvironmentalScienceandPreventivePublicPolicy(Washington,D.C.:IslandPress).127.Martuzzi,M.andTickner,J.(eds)(2004).ThePrecautionaryPrinciple:ProtectingPublicHealth,theEnvironmentandtheFutureofOurChildren(Copenhagen:WorldHealthOrganisation).261\n9781405146012_4_043.qxd2/4/0913:34Page262andystirling128.Stirling,A.(2007).“Science,PrecautionandRiskAssessment:TowardsMoreMeas-uredandConstructivePolicyDebate,”EuropeanMolecularBiologyOrganisationReports,8:309–15.129.Stirling,A.,Renn,O.andZwanenberg,P.van(2006).“AFrameworkforthePrecau-tionaryGovernanceofFoodSafety:IntegratingScienceandParticipationintheSocialAppraisalofRisk,”inE.Fisher,J.Jones,J.andR.vonSchomberg(eds)ImplementingthePrecautionaryPrinciple:PerspectivesandProspects(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar),pp.284–315.130.Stirling,A.(2006).“Uncertainty,PrecautionAndSustainability:TowardsMoreReflect-iveGovernanceofTechnology,”inJ.VossandR.Kemp(eds),SustainabilityandReflexiveGovernance(Cheltenham:EdwardElgar),pp.225–72.131.Stirling,A.(2005).“OpeningUporClosingDown:Analysis,ParticipationandPowerintheSocialAppraisalofTechnology,”inM.Leach,I.ScoonesandB.Wynne(eds),ScienceandCitizens:GlobalizationandtheChallengeofEngagement(London:Zed),pp.218–31.262\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page26344Boundary-work,PluralismandtheEnvironmentJOZEFKEULARTZUnfortunately,mostenvironmentalproblemsappeartobedifficulttohandle.Nowadays,thisintractabilityisnolongerexclusivelyascribedtosomeinherentfeaturesoftheenvironmentalproblemsthemselves,likecomplexity.Thereisagrowingawarenessthattheintractabilityofenvironmentalproblemscanatleastinpartbeexplainedbythesocialcontextinwhichtheseproblemsariseandshouldbesolved.TheTensionbetweenSustainabilityandDiversityandtheQuestforUnityClimatechange,airpollution,deforestation,lossofbiodiversity,stratosphericozonedepletion,landandfreshwaterdegradation–alltheseenvironmentalproblemshaveeffectsthattranscendnationalboundaries;theycannotbesolvedbytheunilateraldecisionsofindividualstatesbutrequireinternationalcooperation.Moreover,theseproblemsareinterconnectedandcannotbesolvedinisolationbutrequireanintegratedapproach.Butsuchanapproachisfrustratedbytheexistingmultiplicityofcommun-itieswithdiverseandsometimesdivergingethicalvisionsandmoralvocabularies.Hencethereisastrongtensionbetweenthediversityofactorsthathaveastakeinsustain-abledevelopmentandtheneedforaclosecooperationbetweenthesevariousstake-holders.Thereisageneraltendencytoresolvethistensionbyaforcedstrivingforunity.Thisquestusuallytakesoneofthefollowingdirections:itisaimedatoneworldcommunitywithoutborders,atanewcomprehensiveworldview,oratauniversalscientificmethod.OneworldcommunityBecauseenvironmentalproblemsusuallytranscendstatebordersandarecloselyinterrelated,theyrequireanintegratedapproach.ItseemsthatsuchanapproachcanonlysucceedifworldpoliticslosestheanarchisticcharacterthatisinherenttothesystemofsovereignstatesthatgraduallyspreadaroundtheworldaftertheTreatyofWestphaliain1648.That,atleast,istheopinionofPeterSinger.Inaneraofglobalization,SingerinsistsinhisbookOneWorld,weshouldabandontheideaofACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks263©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page264jozefkeulartzsovereignstatesandreplaceitwith“asensethatwereallyareonecommunity”(Singer2004:7).Weshouldgobeyondtheexistingstateboundariesanddevelopanethicswithoutborders–a“one-world-ethics.”However,theprocessofglobalizationthatSingersopositivelyreferstogoeshandinhandwithaprocessofdecentralizationandfragmentationinmoststates:therestric-tionofstatepowerandstatecontrol“fromabove”isaccompaniedbyarestriction“frombelow.”Butthispictureisfarfromcomplete–becausethelocusofpower,controlanddecision-makinghasmovednotonly“upward”and“downward”fromthestatelevel,butalsosideward,partlytothemarketandpartlytocivilsociety.So,actually,wehavetodowithadoubleshiftingovernance:averticalshiftfromthenationalleveltomoreglobalandtomorelocallevels,andahorizontalshiftfromthestatetothemarketandtocivilsociety.Theseworldwideshiftsingovernancehaveledtoasignificantincreaseinlevelsofdecision-making(multi-levelgovernance)andtoaconsiderablegrowthofthenumberofprivateandpublicplayers(multi-actorgovernance).InsteadoftheadventofSinger’ssingle-worldcommunityweactuallywitnessanongoingmultiplicationofcommunities.Increasingly,policy-makersaredealingwithawidearrayofgroupswhichdonotnecessarilyspeakeachother’slanguageorsharesimilarconceptionsoftheworld.Withthatmanyvoicesandvocabulariesandthatmanyinterestsatstake,thespecteroftheTowerofBabelloomslarge.Especiallyincontestedmatterssuchasscarcenaturalresources,multipleconflictsarise.Atthesametime,thesustainablemanagementofthesenaturalresourcesrequiresanintegratedapproachandaclosecooperationamongallgroupsinvolved.So,again,thequestionis:Howshouldthetensionbetweensus-tainabilityanddiversityberesolved?OneworldviewBothenvironmentalphilosophersandactiviststendtoresolvethistensionbydevelopinganewcomprehensiveworldviewthatwouldprovidetheunifyingpowerthatseemsindispensablefordealingwiththeenvironmentalcrisis.Mostenviron-mentalphilosophersandactivistsagreewithMartinHeidegger’scriticismoftheanthropocentrismofWesternmetaphysics.Ifmansetshimselfupasthemeasureandmasterofallthings,naturewillappearsolelyas“material”thathecancontrolandcommandashepleases.Thismetaphysicaldiseasecanonlybecuredwiththehelpofadifferentmetaphysicalworldview.Topreventtheenvironmentalcrisisfromendingincatastrophe,weshouldturnawayfromanthropocentrismandconverttosomesortofbiocentrismorecocentrism:weshouldnolongertreatnatureintermsofherinstrumentalsignificanceforoursurvivalandself-preservationbutinsteadacknowledgeandrespectherintrinsicvalue.Typically,suchanewmetaphysicsevolvesalongholisticlinesandbearsanecologicalstamp,accordingtothesloganthatthewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitspartsandthateverythingisconnectedtoanddependentoneverythingelse.However,thewaytoresolvethetensionbetweensustainabilityanddiversitythroughanew,comprehensiveandunifyingworldviewturnsouttobeablindalleyaswell.SinceEmmanuelKant,modernphilosophyhaslefttheroadfromdiversitytounityandhastakentheoppositeroad:theroadfromunitytodiversity–todifferentiation,decentering,dissemination,deconstruction,dissensusanddiscontinuity,tonameafew264\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page265boundary-work,pluralismandtheenvironmentofthetermsincirculationtodescribethisprocess.ThisroadfromunitytodiversityculminatesintheworkofJean-FrançoisLyotard,whowithagreatfanfarehaspro-claimedtheendofthegrandnarratives(meta-écrits).Theaversionofcontemporaryphilosopherstograndnarrativesisonlytoounderstandable.Suchnarrativeshaveanethnocentriccharacterbecausetheyareproductsofaspecifictimeandplace.Further-more,recenthistorydemonstratesthatsuchnarratives,exactlybecauseoftheirclaimstototalityandunity,showterroristfeatures–theysuppressanddestroyevery-thingthatisincompatiblewiththesenarratives.Thisisalsothecasewithecologicallyinspirednarrativesofthefuture(“greenutopias”)thatenjoygreatpopularityamongenvironmentalphilosophersandactivists.Sowehadbetterstopthequestforgrandnarrativesandtrytoacceptandlivewiththemultitudeandvarietyofethicalvisionsandmoralvocabularies.But,then,again,thequestionarises:howiscooperationpossibleatallunderthesepluralistconditions?TheuniversalscientificmethodThethirdwaytoanswerthisquestionis“science.”Thispathwayisfrequentlytakenbecausethesupposeduniversalcharacterofsciencelookslikeawatertightguaranteefortheunitythatseemsessentialforacollaborativesolutiontoglobalenvironmentalproblems.But,again,thissolution,too,turnsouttobeamock-solution.Theimageofscienceasanobjectiveandimpartialprovideroftheempiricalfactsandrationalexplanationsuponwhichpoliticiansandpolicy-makerscansafelyrelyhasbecomeoutdated.Especiallyinthecaseofverycomplexproblemslikeclimatechange,biotech-nologyorgenomics,thistraditionalimagenolongermatchesreality.Withthesedisciplineswefindourselveseachtimeinasituationinwhich“thefactsareuncertain,valuesindispute,stakeshighanddecisionsurgent.”Undertheseconditionsthepuzzle-solvingstrategiesof“normalscience”(intheKuhniansense)arenolongerappropriateandwehavetoswitchovertowhatSilvioFuntowiczandJeromeRavetzhavecalled“post-normalscience.”Themostprominentfeatureofpost-normalscienceistheextensionofthepeercommunityandtheinclu-sionofanevergrowingsetofscientificandnon-scientificstakeholders.Theboundariesbetweenscienceandsocietyarebecomingmoreandmoreblurred,withtheresultthatallexistingsocietalconflictsarepenetratingtheheartofscienceitself.Sosciencenolongerexistsasanindependentandimpartialagencyoutsideorabovesociety,andisthereforenolongerabletoprovidepoliticiansandpolicy-makerswithobjectiverulesanduniversalguidelines.Boundary-workThedifferentwaystohandlethetensionbetweendiversityandsustainabilitymentionedsofarboildowntothesearchforanewunity,andtothelimitationandfinallytotheeliminationofpolitical,ideologicalandscientificdiversity.Theyallturnedouttobeblindalleys:thestrivingforonesingleworldcommunitywithoutbordersisasunreal-isticasthestrivingforonesinglemetaphysicalworldviewortheappealtoscienceasthesolearbitratorwithwhomallpartiesshouldcomply.But,ifweabandonallefforts265\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page266jozefkeulartztoreduceoreliminatediversityonceandforall,andifweacknowledgepluralitywithoutanyreservations,thenthequestionofthepossibilitiesforcooperationforasustainablemanagementofnaturalresourcesbecomesallthemoreurgent.Apromisinganswertothisquestionis“boundary-work,”i.e.theconstructiveefforttosupportcommunicationandcoordinationacrossthefencesthatseparatecommun-ities.HereonecantakeinspirationfromphilosophicalpragmatismandfromscientificdisciplinesthatarestronglyinfluencedbyphilosophicalpragmatismlikePublicPolicyStudiesandScienceandTechnologyStudies.Thisshouldnotcomeasasurprisebecause,fromthestart,pragmatismhaspromotedtheissuesofcommunicationandcollabora-tionunderpluralistconditionstokeyissues.Threepragmaticmethodsofboundaryworkwillbediscussedinsomedetail:theovercomingofdualismsbygradualization,thetransformationofproblematicsituationsbyreframing,andthecreationofspaceforsharedproblem-solvingbytheformationofso-calledboundaryobjects.GradualizationAcommonpragmaticstrategytomakepersistentconflictsmanageableisbreakingupdualisms.Pragmatismisananti-dualisticmovementofthought.BothWesternphilosophyandWesterncommonsensearedominatedbydualismsliketheoryandpractice,factandvalue,bodyandmind,natureandculture,instrumentalandintrinsicvalue.Thesedualismsencourage“black-and-white”thinking,whichbringsconflictstoaheadandleadsdebatetoreachatotaldeadlock.Onemethodtobreakupdualismsisgradualization:thinkingintermsofdegreesinsteadofboundaries.Oneexampleofthisisthedebatebetweenanimalprotectionistsandnaturecon-servationistsaboutthemoralproblemsassociatedwiththeintroductionoflargegrazinganimalsinDutchnaturereserves.Theseanimalsarebasicallydomesticatedspeciesthatarederivedfromhoofedanimalsthatwereoncewild,suchascattle,horses,sheepandgoats.Theyaresubjectedtoaprocessof“de-domestication”andhavetolearntofendforthemselves.Themanagementpoliciesofde-domestication,whichentailminimizingsupplementaryfeedingandveterinaryassistance,havebeenmostcontroversial.Thereisalotofdebateoverthequestionwhethertheseanimalsshouldbeseenandtreatedasdomesticatedoraswild.Whilethemajorityoftheanimalprotectionistsviewthereleasedhorsesandcattleasdomesticatedanimalstobecaredforasindividuals,mostnatureconservationistsprefertotreatthemthesameaswildanimals.Asaresultofthisdiscord,peopleexhaustthemselvesinunproductiveboundarydisputesinwhichbothsidesclaimanexclusive“moraljurisdiction”overlargegrazinganimals.Thisdeadlockcanbeovercomebyreplacingthenotionofaclear-cutborderlinebetweennatureandculturewiththeideaofabroadcontinuumorscale.Thenthestatusofgrazinganimalsintroducedintonaturereservesisnolongeraquestionof“either–or”butof“lessormore.”Theseanimalsdonotsimplycrossadistinctdividinglinebetweencultureandnature;theydonotwalkfromdomesticationintothewild,thatis,fromamoraldomainofindividualcaretooneofconcernfortheecologicalwhole.Theygraduallymovefromathoroughlyculturalcontexttoonethatisincreasinglynatural.Inthisde-domesticationprocess,bothanimalprotectionistsandnatureconservationistswillbeindispensable.Thus,thegradualizationstrategycan266\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page267boundary-work,pluralismandtheenvironmenthelptobridgetheriftbetweenthesegroupsandcanopenupnewpossibilitiesforcom-municationandcooperation.ReframingAnotherpragmaticstrategytomakeconflictsmanageableiswhatDeweyhascalled“reconstructivethinking.”WithinPublicPolicyStudies,thismethodisdevelopedbypragmatistDonaldSchön.AccordingtoSchön,thedifficultiesinhandlingintractableproblemshavemoretodowithproblem-settingthanwithproblem-solving.Conflictsbecomedifficulttosolveiftheproblemathandisframeddifferentlybytheopponents.SuchconflictsrequirewhatSchöncalls“framerestructuring.”Hereby“werespondtoframeconflictbyconstructinganewproblem-settingstory,oneinwhichweattempttointegrateconflictingframesbyincludingfeaturesandrelationsdrawnfromearlierstories”(Schön1979:270).Agoodexampleofreframingisthenotionof“sustainabledevelopment.”Environ-mentalproblems,too,becomeintractablebecausedifferentpartiesframetheseproblemsdifferently.IntheindustrializedNorth,environmentaldegradationisconsideredaresultofoverproductionandoverconsumption.Hencetheslogan“LimitstoGrowth,”asthefamousClubofRomehascalledtheirfirstreportfrom1972.IntheSouth,envir-onmentaldegradationisframedquitedifferently,asaconsequencenotoftoomuchmaterialwealthbutoftoomuchpoverty.Hencethefierceprotestsofdevelopingcoun-triesagainstthepossiblelimitsontheirindustrialdevelopmentandtheirexploitationofnaturalresources.Thenotionof“sustainabledevelopment”wasintroducedtobridgethisgapintheperceptionofenvironmentaldegradation.Itmeetsboththeindustrializedandthedevelopingcountrieshalfway.Itacknowledgesthenecessitytotransformtheeco-nomyandatthesametimeitrecognizestheneedforpovertyalleviationandsocialequality.Itisagoodexampleofsuccessfulreframingbecauseitbroughttogethertwocompetingframesinanewframethatopenedupnewpossibilitiesforcommunicationandcooperation.BoundaryobjectsYetanotherpragmaticstrategyconcernstheformationofso-called“boundaryobjects.”ThisnotionwasintroducedbySusanLeighStarandJamesGriesemerwithinthecontextofScienceandTechnologyStudies.Boundaryobjectsareobjectswhichbothinhabitseveralintersectingsocialworldsandsatisfytheinformationalrequirementsofeachofthem.Theyarebothplasticenoughtoadapttolocalneedsandtheconstraintsoftheseveralpartiesemployingthem,yetrobustenoughtomaintainacommonidentityacrosssites.Theyhavedifferentmeaningsindifferentsocialworlds,buttheirstructureiscommonenoughtomorethanoneworldtomakethemrecognizable.(StarandGriesemer1989:393)Letusturntoclimatechange,the“quintessentialenvironmentalproblem,”foranexampleofasuccessfulboundaryobject:theso-calledCleanDevelopmentMechanism(CDM).Thisisoneoftheso-called“flexibilitymechanisms”establishedundertheKyoto267\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page268jozefkeulartzProtocol:market-basedmechanismsthatallowindustrializedcountriesflexibilityinmeetingtheircommitmenttoreducegreenhousegasemissionsbytakingactionoutsidetheirownborders.TheCleanDevelopmentMechanismenablesindustrializedcountriestoinvestinemissions-reducingprojectsindevelopingcountries.CDMpro-jectsshouldaddresstheneedforsustainabledevelopmentofthehostcountryandgeneratecreditsforthedonorcountry.CDMoffersmanybenefitsforthediversegroupofstakeholdersinvolved.Donorcountrieswillreceivecarboncreditstomeettheircommitmentatthelowestpossiblecosts.Corporationsinthesecountrieswilltrytoacquirecarboncreditsforreasonsofcost-effectiveness,buttheymayalsoviewaCDMprojectasameanstocreatemarketsfortheirproducts,orasawaytoenhancetheircorporateimage.Otherinvestorswillalsobenefit.Institutionalinvestorswillbeabletofurtherportfoliodiversificationandtopromotesociallyresponsiblebusiness.AfoundationorNGOmayinvestinaCDMprojectasameansofputtingcarboncreditsoutofcommercialcirculation.Hostcountrieswillbenefitaswell.Theyreceivenewandadditionalinvestmenttofostersustainabledevelopment,inlinewiththeirownpriorities.Theywillalsobeabletoprofitfromthetransferoflow-orno-carbon-emittingtechnologies.CDMprojectscanhaveapositiveeffectonthelocalenvironment,byreducingairpollutionandgroundwatercontamination,andbyprotectingorrestoringbiodiversity.Theycanalsohaveapositiveeffectonthelocaleconomyandonemployment,onpovertyallevia-tionandoncapacity-building.CDMprojectsbringtogethervariouspersonsandpartieswhoformerlyhadnocontactwitheachother,andcreateawidespreadcollaborationbetweenthem.Byenablingcommunicationandcooperationbetweendiversepartiesandcountries,CDMcanhelpbuildandenhancethetrustthatisanindispensablepreconditionfortheacceptanceofandcompliancetoneworfurthercommitments,especiallybythedevel-opingcountries.Inthiswayitcanhelpovercometheprofounddifferencesinthemoralperceptionandframingofenvironmentalproblems.ConclusionAnimportantpreconditionforsuccessfulboundary-workiswhatSchönandReinhavecalled“doublevision”:“theabilitytoactfromaframewhilecultivatingaware-nessofalternativeframes”(SchönandRein1994:207).Weshouldlearnto“squint,”sotospeak,inordertoseethingsfromdifferentanglessimultaneously.Thenotionof“doublevision”ismeanttomakestudents,teachers,researchersandpolicy-makersmoreawareofandsensitivetodifference.Suchanawarenessandsensitivityarecrucialifwewanttofosterandfacilitatecollaborativeconflictresolutionandinte-grativeproblem-solvingtopreventfurtherdegradationofournaturalresources.ReferencesandFurtherReadingSchön,D.A.(1979).“Generativemetaphor:Aperspectiveonproblem-settinginsocialpolicy,”inA.Ortony(ed.),MetaphorandThought(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),pp.254–84.268\n9781405146012_4_044.qxd2/4/0913:35Page269boundary-work,pluralismandtheenvironmentSchön,D.andRein,M.(1994).FrameReflection(NewYork:BasicBooks).Singer,P.(2004).OneWorld:TheEthicsofGlobalization,2ndedn(NewHaven,Conn./London:YaleUniversityPress).Star,S.L.andGriesemer,J.(1989).“InstitutionalEcology,‘Translations,’andBoundaryObjects:AmateursandProfessionalsinBerkeley’sMuseumofVertebrateZoology,1907–1939,”SocialStudiesofScience,19:387–420.269\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page27045GlobalWarmingSIRJOHNHOUGHTONGlobalwarmingisoftendescribedasthemostimportantproblemtheworldfacesinthetwenty-firstcentury.Itisanexampleofglobalpollution.Emissionsofthegascarbondioxideintotheatmospherefromtheburningoffossilfuels–coal,oilandgas–towhichweallcontribute,areleadingtodamagingclimatechange–soaffectingeveryoneintheworld.Globalpollutiondemandsglobalsolutions.Thisarticlewillout-linethescientificbasisforhuman-inducedclimatechange,thensummarizethemainimpactsonhumancommunitiesandecosystems,andfinallymentiontheactionthatneedstobetakentomitigatethechangeandadapttoit.TheScienceofGlobalWarmingByabsorbinginfra-redor“heat”radiationfromtheearth’ssurface,“greenhousegases”presentintheatmosphere,suchaswatervaporandcarbondioxide,actasblan-ketsovertheearth’ssurface,keepingitwarmerthanitwouldotherwisebe.Theexist-enceofthisnatural“greenhouseeffect”hasbeenknownfornearlytwohundredyears;itisessentialtotheprovisionofourcurrentclimate,towhichecosystemsandwehumanshaveadapted.Sincethebeginningoftheindustrialrevolutionaround1750,oneofthesegreen-housegases,carbondioxide,hasincreasedbyover35percentandisnowover380partspermillion(ppm)–ahigherconcentrationintheatmospherethanformanyhundredsofthousandsofyears.Chemicalanalysisdemonstratesthatthisincreaseisduelargelytotheburningoffossilfuels–coal,oilandgas.Ifnoactionistakentocurbtheseemissions,thecarbondioxideconcentrationwillriseduringthetwenty-firstcenturytotwoorthreetimesitspre-industriallevel.Theclimaterecordoverpastcenturiesshowsalotofnaturalvariabilityarisingfromexternalfactors(suchaschangesinthesun’senergyortheinfluenceofvolcanoes)orfrominternalvariationswithintheclimatesystem.However,theriseinglobalaver-agetemperature(anditsrateofrise)duringthetwentiethcenturyiswelloutsidethisrangeofknownnaturalvariability.Thetwelvewarmestyearsintheinstrumentalrecordthatgoesbackto1860haveoccurredsince1990.Amorestrikingstatisticisthateachofthefirsteightmonthsof1998wasthewarmestonrecordforthatmonth.Thereis270ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page271globalwarmingverystrongevidencethatmostofthewarmingoverthelastfiftyyearsisduetotheincreaseofgreenhousegases,especiallycarbondioxide.Overthetwenty-firstcenturytheglobalaveragetemperatureisprojectedtorisebybetween2and6°C(3.5to11°F)fromitspre-industriallevel;therangerepresentsdif-ferentassumptionsaboutgreenhousegasemissionsandthesensitivityoftheclimate.Forglobalaveragetemperature,ariseofthisamountislarge.Itsdifferencebetweenthemiddleofaniceageandthewarmperiodsinbetweenisonlyabout5or6°C.So,associatedwithlikelywarminginthetwenty-firstcenturywillbearateofchangeofclimateequivalentto,say,halfaniceageinlessthanahundredyears–alargerrateofchangethanforatleast10,000years.Adaptingtothiswillbedifficultforbothhumansandmanyecosystems.TheImpactsofGlobalWarmingTalkingintermsofchangesofglobalaveragetemperature,however,tellsusratherlittleabouttheimpactsonhumancommunities.Therewillbesomepositiveimpacts–for1instancealongergrowingseasonathighlatitudes.Butmostimpactswillbeadverse.Oneobviousimpactwillbeduetotheriseinsealevel(ofabouthalfameter[20inches]acentury)thatismainlyoccurringbecauseoceanwaterexpandsasitisheated.Thisrisewillcontinueformanycenturies–towarmthedeepoceansaswellasthesurfacewaterstakesalongtime.Thiswillcauselargeproblemsforhumancommunitieslivinginlow-lyingregions.Manyareas–forinstanceinBangladesh,southernChina,islandsintheIndianandPacificoceans,andsimilarplaceselsewhereintheworld–willbeimpossibletoprotect,andmanymillionswillbedisplaced.Therewillalsobeimpactsfromextremeevents.TheextremelyunusualheatwaveincentralEuropeduringthesummerof2003ledtothedeathofover20,000people.Carefulanalysisleadstotheprojectionthatsuchsummersarelikelytobeaveragebythemiddleofthetwenty-firstcenturyandcoolbytheyear2100.Waterisbecominganincreasinglyimportantresource.Awarmerworldwillleadtomoreevaporationofwaterfromthesurface,morewatervaporintheatmosphereandmoreprecipitationonaverage.Ofgreaterimportanceisthefactthattheincreasedcondensationofwatervaporincloudformationleadstogreaterreleaseoflatentheatofcondensation.Sincethislatentheatprovidesthelargestsourceofenergydrivingtheatmosphere’scirculation,thehydrologicalcyclewillbecomemoreintense.Thismeansatendencytomoreintenserainfalleventsandalsolessrainfallinsomesemi-aridareas.Themostrecentestimatesindicateby2050atypicalincreaseinmanyplaces2ofaroundafactoroffiveintheriskofthemostextremefloodsanddroughts.Since,onaverage,floodsanddroughtsarethemostdamagingoftheworld’sdisasters,theirgreaterfrequencyandintensityisbadnewsformosthumancommunitiesandespe-ciallyforthoseregionssuchasSoutheastAsiaandsub-SaharanAfricawheresucheventsalreadyoccuronlytoofrequently.Thesesortsofeventsprovidesomecredenceforthecomparisonofclimatewithweaponsofmassdestruction.Sea-levelrise,changesinwateravailability,andextremeeventswillleadtoincreasingpressurefromenvironmentalrefugees.Acarefulestimatehassuggestedthat,owing3toclimatechange,therecouldbemorethan150millionextrarefugeesby2050.The271\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page272sirjohnhoughtonrapidityofclimatechangewillalsohavealargeimpactonecosystemsandleadtosub-stantiallossofbiodiversity.Inadditiontothemainimpactssummarizedabovearechangesaboutwhichthereislesscertainty,butiftheyoccurredwouldbehighlydamagingandprobablyirreversible.Forinstance,largechangesarebeingobservedinpolarregions.Ifthetemperaturerisesmorethanabout3°C(∼5°F)intheareaofGreenland,itisestimatedthatmeltdownoftheicecapwouldbegin.Completemeltdownislikelytotakemanycenturies,butitwouldadd7meters(23feet)tothesealevel.CanWeBelievetheEvidence?HowsureareweaboutthescientificstoryIhavejustpresented?Itislargelybasedontheassessmentsbytheworldscientificcommunitycarriedoutthroughtheworkof4theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).Ihadtheprivilegeofbeingchairmanorco-chairmanofthePanel’sscientificassessmentfromitsbeginningin1988to2002.Manyhundredsofscientistsfrommanycountrieswereinvolvedinitswork.Noassessmentsonanyotherscientifictopichavebeensothoroughlyresearchedandreviewed.InJune2005,theAcademiesofScienceoftheworld’selevenmostimport-antcountries(theG8plusIndia,ChinaandBrazil)issuedastatementendorsingthe5IPCC’sconclusions.Unfortunately,therearestrongvestedintereststhathavespenttensofmillionsofdollarsonspreadingmisinformationabouttheclimatechangeissue.Theyfirstdeniedthescientificevidenceandmorerecentlyhavearguedthatitsimpactswillnotbelarge,thatwecan“waitandsee,”andinanycasewecanalways“fix”theproblemifitturnsouttobesubstantial.Thescientificevidencecannotsupportsucharguments.InternationalAgreementRequiredGlobalemissionsofcarbondioxidetotheatmospherefromfossilfuelburningarecurrentlyapproaching7billiontonnesofcarbonperannumandrisingrapidly.Unlessstrongmeasuresaretaken,theywillreachtwoorthreetimestheirpresentlevelsduringthetwenty-firstcenturyandclimatechangewillcontinueunabated.Tohaltclimatechangeduringthetwenty-firstcentury,globalemissionsmustbereducedtoasmallfractionoftheirpresentlevelsbeforethecentury’send.BecauseoftheworkoftheIPCCanditsfirstreportin1990,theEarthSummitinRiodeJaneiroin1992wasabletoaddresstheclimatechangeissueandtheactionthatneededtobetaken.TheFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(FCCC)–agreedbyover160countries,signedbyPresidentGeorgeBush,Snr,fortheUSAandsubsequentlyratifiedunanimouslybytheUSSenate–agreedthatPartiestotheConventionshouldtake“precautionarymeasurestoanticipate,preventorminimisethecausesofclimatechangeandmitigateitsadverseeffects.Wheretherearethreatsofirreversibledamage,lackoffullscientificcertaintyshouldnotbeusedasareasonforpostponingsuchmeasures.”272\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page273globalwarmingMoreparticularly,theObjectiveoftheFCCCinitsArticle2is“tostabilisegreenhousegasconcentrationsintheatmosphereatalevelthatdoesnotcausedangerousinter-ferencewiththeclimatesystem”andthatisconsistentwithsustainabledevelopment.Suchstabilizationwouldalsoeventuallystopfurtherclimatechange.However,becauseofthelongtimethatcarbondioxideresidesintheatmosphere,thelagintheresponseoftheclimatetochangesingreenhousegases(largelybecauseofthetimetakenfortheoceantowarm),andthetimetakenforappropriatehumanactiontobeagreed,theachievementofsuchstabilizationwilltakeatleastthebestpartofacentury.Oneofthelargestchallengesfacedbytheinternationalcommunityishowemissionsofcarbondioxidecanbesharedfairlybetweennations.Currentlygreatdisparityexistsbetweenemissionsbyrichnationscomparedwiththosebypoorerones.Expressedintonnesofcarbonpercapitaperannum,theyvaryfromabout5.5fortheUSA,2.2forEurope,0.7forChinaand0.2forIndia.Further,theglobalaveragepercapita,currentlyabout1tonneperannum,mustfallsubstantiallyduringthetwenty-firstcentury.A6proposalbytheGlobalCommonsInstituteisthatemissionsshouldfirstbeallocatedtoeverybodyintheworldequallypercapita,withtransferofallocationsthenbeingallowedthroughtradingbetweennations.Thelogicandthebasicequityofthispro-posalisinprinciplecompelling;inpractice,itwillnotbeeasytoachieve.TheKyotoProtocolagreedbytheFCCCin1997finallycameintoforcein2005.Itrepresentsabeginningfortheprocessofmandatoryreductioningreenhousegases,averagingabout5percentbelow1990levelsby2012bythosedevelopedcountriesthathaveratifiedtheprotocol.Itisanimportantstart,demonstratingtheachieve-mentofausefulmeasureofinternationalagreementonsuchacomplexissue.Italsointroducesforthefirsttimeinternationaltradingofgreenhousegasemissionssothatreductionscanbeachievedinthemostcost-effectiveways.Seriousdiscussionisnowbeginningaboutinternationalagreementsforemissionsreductionspost-Kyoto.Thesemustincludeallmajoremittersinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries.Regardingatargetlevelforstabilizationofgreenhousegasesin7theatmosphere,mostproposalsnowfallwithintherangeof450to550ppminterms8ofequivalentCO2,whichmeans400to490ppmintermsofCO2alone.Thisimpliesareductioninglobalcarbondioxideemissionsfromthecurrentlevelbyover50per-centby2050.TheUKgovernment,forinstance,hastakenaleadandhasagreedatargetforthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsof60percentby2050–atargetthatrecognizesthatdevelopedcountriesneedtomakegreaterreductionstoallowsomeheadroomfordevelopingcountries.Thoseinthedevelopedcountrieshavealreadybenefitedovermanygenerationsfromabundantfossilfuelenergy.AsisrecognizedbytheFCCC,therealizationthattheadverseimpactsofclimatechangewillfalldisproportionatelyonpoorernationscreatesastrongmoralimperativeforurgentactionbyindustrializedcountries.WhatActionsCanBeTaken?First,itisessentialthatallcountriesandcommunitiesbegintopreparetoadapttotheclimatechangetowhichtheworldisalreadycommittedandwhichwillbecomemoreapparentoverthenextfewdecades.273\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page274sirjohnhoughtonRegardingmitigation,threesortsofactionsarerequiredifthereductionsmentionedabovearetobeachieved.First,thereisenergyefficiency.Veryapproximately,one-thirdofenergyisemployedinbuildings(domesticandcommercial),one-thirdintransportandone-thirdbyindustry.Meansareavailabletodoubletheefficiencyofenergyuseinallthreesectors,inmanycaseswithsignificantsavingsincost.Second,awidevarietyofnon-fossil-fuelsourcesofenergyareavailablefordevelopmentandexploitation–forinstance,biomass(includingwaste),solarpower(bothphotovoltaicandthermal),hydro,wind,wave,tidal,geothermalenergyandnuclear.Third,therearepossibilitiesforsequesteringcarbonthatwouldotherwiseentertheatmosphereeitherthroughtheplantingofforestsorbypumpingunderground(forinstanceinspentoilandgasfields).Theopportunitiesforindustryforinnovation,developmentandinvestmentinalltheseareasarelarge.Technologytransferfromdevelopedtodevelopingcountriesisalsovitalifenergygrowthindevelopingcountriesisgoingtoproceedinasustain-ableway.Whataboutthecostofaction,andhowdoesitcomparewiththelikelycostofdamageifnoactionistaken?ArecentreviewoftheeconomicsofclimatechangebySirNicholasSternprovidesestimatesofboth.Thelikelycostofclimatechangeimpactsisestimatedatupto3percentofglobalworldoutputforawarmingof2–3°Candupto10percent(over10percentinmanypoorcountries)ifwarmingrisesmorethan5°Casislikelytooccurnextcenturyifnoactiontoreducegreenhousegasesistaken.TheseestimatesintermsoflossofGDPdonottakeintoaccountthehumancostintermsofdeath,dislocation,misery,lackofsecurity,etc.,thatwouldalsoaccompanylarge-scaleclimatechange.Theannualcostsofstabilizationofatmosphericcarbondioxidewithintherangequotedaboveareestimatedtobearound1percentofworldGDPby2050,anumberbroadlyinagreementwiththoseestimatedbytheIPCCinits2001Reportandmuchlessthanthecostoftakingnoaction.Theseconclusionspresentaverylargechallengetogovernments,industryandindeedtoeverybodytocontributeurgentlytothemitigationofhuman-inducedclimatechange.SirJohnHoughtonwasco-chairmanoftheScientificAssessmentfortheIPCCfrom1988to2002.HewaspreviouslychairmanoftheRoyalCommissiononEnviron-mentalPollution(1992–8),chiefexecutiveoftheMeteorologicalOffice(1983–91)andProfessorofAtmosphericPhysics,UniversityofOxford(1976–83).HeiscurrentlychairmanoftheJohnRayInitiative,atrusteeoftheShellFoundationandHonoraryScientistattheHadleyCentre.Notes1.Amodern,well-illustratedaccountofclimatechangeanditsimpactsisthatofGore,A.(2006).AnInconvenientTruth(NewYork:Rodale).2.See,forinstance,onfloodsinEurope,Palmer,T.N.andRaisanen,J.(2002),Nature,415:512–14,and,onglobalextremedroughts,Burke,E.J.,Brown,S.J.andChristidis,N.(2006),JournalofHydrometeorology,7:1113–25.3.Myers,N.andKent,J.(1995).EnvironmentalExodus:AnEmergentCrisisintheGlobalArena(Washington,D.C.:ClimateInstitute).274\n9781405146012_4_045.qxd2/4/0913:35Page275globalwarming4.ClimateChange2001infourvolumes,publishedfortheIPCCbyCambridgeUniversityPress,2001.AlsoavailableontheIPCCwebsitewww.ipcc.ch.Mybook,Houghton,J.(2004).GlobalWarming:TheCompleteBriefing,3rdedn(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),isstronglybasedontheIPCCreports.Further,areviewIhaverecentlywritten(Houghton,J.[2005].GlobalWarming,ReportsProgressinPhysics,68,pp.1343–1403)providesaconcisesum-maryofthescienceandassociatedimpacts.5.6.Formoredetails,see7.See,forinstance,theSternReviewcommissionedbyUKgovernment,publishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress,2006.8.EquivalentCO2(oftenwrittenasCO2e)includestheeffectofincreasesfrompre-industrialintheothergreenhousegases(CH4,N20),etc.)–assumedheretobeconstantattheir1990levels–expressedasanadditionalamountofCO2thatwouldgivethesameradiativeforcing;450ppmCO2isequivalenttoabout510ppmCO2e.275\n9781405146012_4_046.qxd2/4/0915:41Page27646TheReinventionofCO2asRefrigerantforBothHeatingandCoolingJANHURLENTheBreakthroughoftheRefrigerantSystemIn1862,theFrenchengineerF.Carrépresentedarefrigerationmachinebasedonammoniaandwater.Basedonhisprinciples,severalnewareasofapplicationforrefri-gerationsystemswerefoundinthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,andmanyofthetechnicalproblemsweresolved.However,therewerestillproblems–especiallyinconnectionwithtoxicrefrigerants.Accidentswithrefrigerantssuchassulfurdioxideandmethylchloridecouldbefatal.Ammonialeakscouldalsohavetoxiceffects,andthroughoutthetwentiethcenturyscientistsendeavoredtofindanon-toxic,non-flammable,efficientrefrigerant.CO2MakesaBriefAppearanceCO2–orcarbondioxide–hasbeenusedasrefrigerantforcoolingandfreezingsinceapproximately1870,andwasparticularlypopularwiththemilitaryandwiththeshippingindustrybecauseitwasneithertoxicnorflammable.But,inthe1940s,CO2disappearedfromthemarket,mainlyowingtotechnicalprob-lems.Containingthehigh-pressurechargeinsidethesystemwasproblematic,andleakswerecommon.Besides,thenew“wonderworkingfluids”CFCandHCFChadcomeonthemarketand,backedbyaprosperouschemicalindustry,provedtoughcompetitionfortheoldCO2technology.BothCFC(chlorofluorocarbon)andHCFC(hydrochlofluorocarbon)containchlor-ine–achemicalthatlaterinthe1970swasprovedtobeastrongozone-depletingsubstance.TheNewWonderRefrigerantsAsearlyasthe1890s,Belgianscientistsexperimentedwithchemicalcompoundscontainingtheelementschloride,fluorideandcarbon,knownaschlorofluorocarbons276ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_046.qxd2/4/0915:41Page277thereinventionofco2(CFCs).Thesecompoundsarechemicallyhighlystableandtransportheatwell.Theywereconsequentlyselectedforawiderangeoftechnologicalapplications,includingrefrigeration.Thetechnologywasadoptedbyindustryinthe1930s.Duringthe1950sand1960sitwasappliedincars,fridgesandfreezers–allproductsofpostwaraffluence.Inthemid-1970s,theenvironmentaleffectsofCFCgasescameintoquestion.Researchindicatedthatthesegasesdepletedtheozonelayerandcontributedtoglobalwarming.Thefollowingyearssawaheateddebateonthepossibleharmfuleffectsofthesesubstances,andintensiveresearchforalternativerefrigerantsbegan.TheAreaoftheHFCGasesIntheearly1980sitbecametechnicallyandfinanciallypossibletodevelopsubstitutesforCFCgasesthatdidnotharmtheozonelayer.Hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs),consistingofhydrogen,fluorineandcarbon,quicklybecameapopularsubstituteforCFCgases.ThegreatadvantageofHFCcompoundswasthattheyweresafeandefficientworkingfluids,likeCFCgases,andcouldbeusedinmoreorlessthesamesystems,butdidnotaffecttheozonelayer.HFCgasessoonbecamethedominantworkingfluidinrefrigerationsystems.But,likeCFC,HFCwasaverypowerfulgreenhousegas,andtherefrigerationindustrywasundercontinualinternationalpressuretofindnewandmoreenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts.Thequestfortheultimaterefrigerationsystemwasnotyetover.ANewTechnologyIsBorn–inNorwayInresponsetothe1987UNMontrealprotocolonsubstancesthatdepletedtheozonelayer,ateamofscientistsfromtheFoundationforScientificandIndustrialResearchattheNorwegianInstituteofTechnology(SINTEF)joinedthequest.Theystudiednaturalworkingfluidslikeammonia,hydrocarbons,waterandcarbondioxide(CO2),andtheyimmediatelysawmanyclearadvantagesofusingCO2asarefrigerant,butnowinatranscriticalconditionimplyinganoperatingpressureofover100bar.First,CO2wasanaturalsubstance,whichmeantthatnothingsyntheticorharmfulwouldbeintroducedtotheenvironment.Second,thesubstancewasneithertoxicnorflammableandwasthereforesafetoworkwith.Finally,itwasacheapandeasysourceasitwasanindustrialby-product.Themanyrequirementsfortheperfectrefrigerantseemedtobemet.ThequestionwaswhetherCO2technologyrequiringaveryhighoperationpressureofmorethan100barcouldbecomeaneconomicallyrealisticcom-petitortoexistingsolutions.ThecompanyNorskHydroenteredthesceneasmainindustrialsponsorandpart-nertothefurtherdevelopmentofthetranscriticalCO2systemintheearly1990s,beingamajorworldwideproduceranddistributorofCO2gasaswellasaleadingproducerofaluminummicro-tubes.Thelatterproductscouldbeadvantageouslyappliedinhigh-pressureheatexchangerstoreducevolumeandweight–anabsoluterequirementinautomotiveapplications.277\n9781405146012_4_046.qxd2/4/0915:41Page278janhurlenHenceNorskHydro–inalong-termperspective–believedthatsuchatechnologycouldaddtoitscommercialinterestinboththeCO2andaluminumarea.ThenewtechnologywasnamedSHECCOTechnology–SustainableHEatingandCoolingwithCO2–andissuccessfullycommercializedandtradedworldwideunderthisbrandname(www.shecco.com).Besides,thenameresemblesagekko–ananimalthathasshownitssustainabilitybyitsexistenceformillionsofyearsandhasanidealandefficientcontrolofitsbodytemperaturebycontinuouslyadjustingittothesurroundingairtemperature.TheSHECCOTranscriticalCO2CircuitTheSHECCOflowcircuitshowninFigure46.1comprisesthesameelementsasastandardcoolingorheatpumpcircuit.Itisseparatedintoalow-pressurepartandahigh-pressurepart.Thecompressordrawssuperheatedlow-pressurevaporfromtheInternalHeatExchanger.VaporisgeneratedbyheatabsorptionintheEvaporatorandtheInternalHeatExchanger.Afterincreasingthepressureandthetemperature,thecompressordischargeshigh-pressuregasintotheGasCooler.Here,thesupercriticalCO2gasiscooled(heatisreleasedtothesurroundingmedium–waterorair).Condensationdoesnotoccursincethepressureissupercritical.Thus,thegasiscooledanditsdensityincreased.AftertheGasCooler,thefluidisfurthercooledintheInternalHeatExchanger,givingoffheattothelow-pressurevapor.Thefluidisthenthrottledtolowpressurebyanexpansiondevice–forinstanceavalveorasimilardevice–givingaliquid–vapormixtureattheEvaporatorinlet.LiquidisvaporizedowingtoHeatingQOUTInternalHeatExpansionExchangerDeviceHighPressureLowPressureWINQINCoolingFigure46.1TheSHECCOflowcircuit278\n9781405146012_4_046.qxd2/4/0915:41Page279thereinventionofco2heatabsorptionintheEvaporator,givingasaturatedorslightlywetoutletwhichisbufferedinareservoir.WhenusingCO2inatranscriticalcycle,thehigh-sidepressureissupercritical(thatisabovethehighestpressureunderwhichliquidandvaporcancoexist)of7.4MPa.++OwingtothemoderatecriticaltemperatureofCO2(31°C),transcriticalcycleopera-tionisneededinair-cooledrefrigerationorair-conditioningapplicationsandheatpumpsorheatrecoveryapplicationswherewaterorairisheatedtoahightemperature.IngeneralthesystemefficiencyissignificantlybetterwithCO2thanwithHFCwhenappliedforheatingpurposes,andatleastasefficientasHFCwhenappliedforcooling/freezingpurposes.TheCO2ParadoxAstheglobalwarmingpotential(GWP)ofCO2is1–comparedto1300–1500fortheHFCgaseswidelyusedforcooling,freezingandwarmingapplicationsintoday’ssystems–substitutingHFCswithCO2representsasubstantialreductionintheglobalwarmingpotential.HenceCO2–ill-reputedinconnectionwithallglobalwarmingdebates–mayactu-allybeusedtoreduceglobalwarming.279\n9781405146012_4_047.qxd2/4/0913:36Page28047EnvironmentalScienceandTechnologyMARYTILESBecausetechnologiesdevelopapaceandcontinuetofindnewapplications,andbecauseenvironmentalscienceiscurrentlyanacademicgrowtharea,anyattempttocatalogexamplesofmutualinfluenceisdoomedtoincompletenessfromtheoutset.Analtern-ativeapproachistoconsiderthreeprincipalquestionsonecanaskaboutthecon-nectionbetweentechnologyandanyscientificareaandthentoaskhowtheanswerswillbedistinctiveinthecaseofatleastsomeoftheenvironmentalsciences.Thethreequestionsare:1.Doestechnologicaldevelopmentdrivetheresearchagenda?Ifso,howandtowhatextent?2.Inthelongterm,cansuccessfulresearchbeexpectedtoleadtoinnovativetechnologicaldevelopment?Ifso,how?3.Towhatextentandinwhatwaysisempiricalinvestigationdependentontech-nologyandtechnologicaldevelopment?Answerstothequestions,especiallyonceonegetstoanylevelofdetail,willdifferfordifferentareasofscientificinvestigation;butthereisreasontothinkthat,evenwhenworkingatarelativelyhighlevelofgenerality,therearesomedistinctivewaysinwhichtheanswersforenvironmentalscienceswilldifferfromthosegivenformoretraditional,laboratorysciencessuchasphysics,chemistryandbiology.First,however,thereshouldbesomeclarificationofwhatisincludedunder“envir-onmentalscience,”eventhoughthereisnounique,clearlyagreeddefinitionofthisterm.Oneusefulbroadindicationisthatitcovers“allthosedisciplineswhicharecon-cernedwiththephysical,chemical,andbiologicalsurroundingsinwhichorganismslive”andthatitis“especiallyconcernedwithchangeswroughtbyhumanactivities,1andtheirimmediateandlong-termimplicationsforthewelfareoflivingorganisms.”Theintroductiontoenvironmentalsciencefromwhichthesequotesaretakencoversearthsciencesandthestudyofphysicalresources,thebiosphereandthestudyofbio-logicalresources,andenvironmentalmanagement.Theauthoralsopointsoutthatoneofthedistinctivefeaturesofenvironmentalscienceisthatitsconductfrequentlyinvolvesassemblingateamofspecialistsfromdifferentdisciplinestoaddressaparticu-2larissue.Anotherintroductorytext,withoutanyclaimstocompleteness,givesatable280ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_047.qxd2/4/0913:36Page281environmentalscienceandtechnologylistingtwenty-sixkindsofenvironmentalissueofcurrentconcernasawayofindicating3thebroadscopeofenvironmentalscience.Theseissuesrangefromconcernsaboutpollutionthroughresourcedepletionandwastedisposaltoglobalwarming.Whatthistellsusisthattheresearchagendaofcontemporaryenvironmentalscienceissignificantlydrivenbyimpactsoftechnologicaldevelopmentthathavebecome4mattersofpublicconcernratherthanbytheoreticallygeneratedresearchproblems.Theimpetustostudymanyaspectsof“theenvironment”asenvironmentarosebothfromconcernabouttheimpactofindustrialandagriculturaltechnologiesandfromadesiretoutilizenaturalresourcesefficientlyandeffectivelywithoutcausingtheirdisappearancethroughoverexploitation.Andthepossibilitiesofoverexploitationincreaseasmoreeffectiveexploitativetechnologiesaredeveloped.Concernmightbeoverthedisappearanceofparticularwildlifespeciesinagivenarea,obviousairorwaterpollutionorfeared,lessobviousradiologicalorchemicalcontamination.Justastheresearchagendaofmedicalscienceissignificantlydrivenbytheneedtoaddresshumanhealthissues,theresearchagendaofenvironmentalscienceissignificantlydrivenbytheneedtoaddressissuesofthe“health”oftheenvironmentalsystemsonwhichourlives,andthoseofotherorganisms,depend,particularlywhereitseemsthathumanshavehadahandincausingtheproblemthroughtheirdeploymentofnewtechnolo-giesortechniques.Thereisatacitassumptionatworkthatifhumanbeings,throughtheiractivities,includingtheiruseoftechnology,havecausedaproblemthereshouldbeawayofremedyingitbychangingwhatwedoorthewayinwhichwedoit.So,totheextentthatenvironmentalsciencecanindicatethecausesofaproblemanddevelopanunderstandingofthesystemsinvolved,itcanatleastsetthestageforproposedtechnologicaland/orbehavioralfixesandwouldcontinuetoplayaroleinevaluatingtheirsuccess.Butitsresearchwouldnotperseprovideabasisfordevisingtechnologytoprovidethefix;itwouldmerelysettheparametersofthetechnologicalproblem.Abriefandoversimplifiedaccountoftheissueofacidrainillustratesonewayinwhichthiscanwork.Inthe1950sairpollutionfrompowerstationswasaconcernofcommunitieslivingnearthem.Inresponsetolocalpressures,energycompaniesbuilthighersmokestacksdispersingthepollutionoverawiderregionanddivertingitfromthelocalpopulation.Inthe1960sand1970speoplelivingandworkinginforestedregionswellawayfromobviouspoint-sourcesofpollutionnoticeddramaticdie-offoftrees.Environmentalscientists(intheroleofenvironmentaldetectives)determinedthatthiswasaresultofacidrain,itselfaresultofsulfurandnitrogendioxideemissionsfrom5tallpower-stationsmokestacks.Preventionofacidrainthenbecomesatechnologicalandpoliticalproblem–howtoreduceemissions(designandinstall“scrubbers”toreducethesulfurandnitrogendioxidecontentofsmokestackemissions),andhowtorequirepower-generatingcompanies(possiblyinastateorcountryotherthanthatexperiencingthedamagingeffectsofacidrain)toinstallscrubbers.However,itwouldbemisleadingtosuggestthatenvironmentalscienceisalwaysdrivenbyreactiontoalreadyrecognizednegativeimpactsoftechnology.Nowthatpeoplehavebeenalertedtothefactthatdeploymentanduseoftechnologycanhaveunexpectedandunintendedeffectsonsurroundingecosystems,publicworksinmanycountriescannotbeapprovedwithoutanenvironmentalimpactassessmenthavingbeenconducted.Soonesignificantroleforenvironmentalscientistsistheproduction6ofenvironmentalimpactassessmentsforproposednewdevelopments.Equally,as281\n9781405146012_4_047.qxd2/4/0913:36Page282marytilesthesescienceshavedevelopedtheirownresearchbaseandhaveacquiredtheresourcestogatherincreasingamountsofdataonanongoingbasis,scientiststhemselveshaveincreasinglysoughttoraisepublicawarenessofnegativeenvironmentalimpactsofouruseoftechnologythattheyhavedetectedandthattheybelievehavethepotentialtoposeseriousthreatsifnotaddressed.Thishasbeenthecase,forexample,withtheeffectofCFCs(chlorofluorocarbons,usedinrefrigeratorsandaerosols)ontheozonelayer,offemalehormones(usedinbirthcontrolpillsandhormonereplacementtherapy)onthereproductivesystemsoffish,andtheglobalwarmingeffectofincreaseduseoffossilfuels.Insuchcases,environmentalsciencebecomesabasisforsettingatechnologicalagenda,sinceveryoftenpeoplewouldratherfindatechnologicalsolutionthanceaseengagingintheactivitytheproblemtechnologiessupport.Anyscienceisdependentontechnologyforitsinstrumentation,forconstructingexperimentalset-ups,performinganalysesorroutinetests,makingmeasurements,andcollectingandprocessingdata.Technologicaldevelopmentenhancesexistingproceduresandcreatesthepossibilityofwholenewkindsofempiricalinvestigation.Inthisrespecttechnologiesformpartoftheconditionsofpossibilityfortheexistenceoftheempiricalstudyofrangesofphenomenatowhichtheyaffordaccess.Certainlyenvironmentalscienceshavethisincommonwithothernaturalsciences.However,theoreticaldevelopmentsinbasicsciences–physics,chemistry,molecularbiology–oftenleadtotechnologicalinnovationandthedevelopmentoftechnologicaldevicessomeofwhichpromptdevelopmentofnewscientificinstrumentation–thehistoryofmicroscopesfromearlylow-resolutionopticalinstrumentstoelectronscanningmicro-scopesandotherscanningdevicesprovidesjustonesequenceofexamples.Becausetheenvironmentalsciences,forthemostpart,donothavetherevelationoffundamentallaws,processesorentitiesastheirgoal,butratherdrawontheresourcesprovidedbyphysics,chemistryandbiology,itisnottobeexpectedthatworkinthesescienceswillleadtothekindoftechnologicalinnovationthatwouldresultinnewscientificinstrumentation.However,therearealwaysexceptions,andonefamousexceptionisthedevelopmentofthecloudchamber,usedbyphysicistsforthedetectionoffunda-mentalparticlesandtheresultsoftheircollisions.Thishaditsoriginsinattemptstoreproducecloudsinthelaboratorywithaviewtodemonstratingthatraincanbecaused7byanelectricaldischargeintheabsenceofparticulatematter.Becausetheenvironmentalsciencesmustdealwithandseektointegrateunder-standingofphenomenaoccurringonwildlydifferenttemporalandspatialscales,therangeoftechnologiesonwhichtheydependfordatacollectionandintegrationismuchbroaderthanthatofstandardlaboratorysciences.ThehistoryofGlobalEnvironmentalScience(predominantlyinterdisciplinaryearthsystemsanalysis),forexample,iscloselyinterwovenwiththehistoryofthedevelopmenttransport,communicationandmilitarytechnologiesandwithtechnologicalambitionstomanipulateourearthlyenvironmentonagrandscale.Butsuchglobalstudiescouldnotthemselvesdevelopwithoutthedevel-opmentofmoderncommunication,command,controlandinformationtechnologies(computers,satellites,automatedremotesensingdevices).Inorderforphenomenaexhib-itedonaglobalscaletobecomeobjectsofscientificstudyandinvestigation,therehavetobewaysofrevealingandstudyingphenomenaonthatscale.Earlymeteorologywasamatterofkeepingsystematicdaily,weekly,monthlyandyearlyrecordsofsuchthingsastemperature,atmosphericpressure,windspeedand282\n9781405146012_4_047.qxd2/4/0913:36Page283environmentalscienceandtechnologydirection,rainfall,cloudcoverandvisibilityonalocalbasis,andofrecognizingpatternsintheserecordsonthebasisofwhichtoattempttoproduceshort-andmedium-termforecasts.Withtheexpansionanddevelopmentofshippingandthenairtransportation,accurateshort-termforecastingbecameincreasinglyimportant.AsMonmoniersays,“Mapsthatcouldwarnofstormsandcoldwaveswereatrium-8phantcollaborationofscience,technology,bureaucracyandcartography.”Therequisitetechnologywastheelectrictelegraphthatforthefirsttimemadepossibletherapidcollectionofperishabledatafromwidelyseparatedweatherobserversandthesubsequentcommunicationofforecasts.Bureaucracywasrequiredtoprovidetheinstitutionalframeworkandfundingforthesystemofweatherstationsandweatherobservers.Hereweseeoneofthechallengesofconstructingempiricallyderivedrepresenta-tionsofglobalphenomena:datacollection,coordinationandprocessingfordynamicconditionsonsuchascaleisnotrivialmatterandwasinmanycasesimpossiblebeforethedevelopmentofmodernelectronic,computerandsatellitetechnologies,andevennowthisenterprisefacessignificantchallenges.Routinedatacollectiononsuchascalerequiresinternationalcoordinationandcooperation,andveryconsiderablefinancialinvestment.Thesheersizeofglobaldatasetsusedbyclimatologistsmeansthattheywouldyieldnothingintelligibletoahumanbeingwereitnotfortheexistenceoffastcomputersprogrammedtoprocessthemandrenderthemusable.Globalenvironmentalsciencesdependonandcontinuallypushthelimitsofcom-puterprocessingcapacityforanotherreason–thereisnowaythatmosthypothesesaboutthenatureandfunctionofglobalsystemscanbetestedempirically.TheEarthisnotaconvenientexperimentalobjectandis,sofarasweknow,theonlyaccessibleoneofitskind.Forthisreason,computermodelinghasbecomeavitalpartofEarthsystemsresearch.Butearlycomputerdevelopmentwasitselfshapedbyrecognitionthatdevelopmentofnumericalmethodsforhandlingtheequationsoffluiddynamicsandofdevicesthatwouldthenhandletheresultingmassofcomputationswouldprovideacrucialtoolforuseinatomicenergyandweaponsdevelopment,oilandgasexplorationandweatherforecasting.VonNeumannandEdwardTellerbothviewedtheEarthasanewfoundobjectoftechnologicalmanipulationandcontrol,thankstothepotentialofnucleartechnology.ProjectPlowshare,createdin1958andfundedbytheUSCongressin1964,wastoexplorethepossibilitiesofusingnuclearexplo-sionsforthecreationofharborsandasea-levelreplacementforthePanamaCanalandeventomodifytheclimateofNorthAmerica.Ahistoryofthisproject(Kirsch2005)containsthecommentthat“InthelaboratoriesandprovinggroundsoftheProjectPlowshare,thehistoriesofexperimentandenvironmentmeet.”Someofthetoolsdevelopedheremadeglobalenvironmentalsciencepossibleandcreatedthetech-nologicalpossibilityofdetectingandmonitoringglobaleffectsofhumanactivityandeven,paradoxically,ofrevealingthecompleteimpracticalityofproposalstocontroltheEarth’sclimate.EarlyattemptstoconstructacomputermodeloftheEarth’sclimatesystemopenedthedoortothesystematicstudyandrecognitionofnon-linearsystemsandthelimitsthattheseplaceonourcapacityforpredictionandcontrol.Inthisrespect,thepursuitofglobalenvironmentalsciencehaspromptedareframingofsometechnologicalambitionsandarethinkingofthetechnology–environmentinterface.283\n9781405146012_4_047.qxd2/4/0913:36Page284marytilesNotes1.Allaby(1996),p.2.2.ibid.,p.3.3.Hadlock(1998),pp.6–8.4.Thisisnottosaythatthelatterdonotexist,butthat–toanextentgreaterthanforbasicsciences–environmentalscienceexistsattheinterfacebetweentechno-political–economicpracticalproblemsandtheoreticallybasedresearchsciences.5.IntheUSatleast,thisepisodeillustratedanothernotuntypicalpatternofdevelopmentinenvironmentalscienceresearch.Inresponsetotheacidrainproblem,Congressin1980fundedaten-yearscientificresearchprogram(NAPAP)intheirdesiretohavetheauthorityofsciencebehindaplannednewregulatorypolicy.Lotsofgoodscientificresearchwasdonewithindifferentacademicspecializations,andthesystemsinvolvedweremuchbetterunder-stoodasaresult,butthespecialistsinvolveddidnotcoordinatetheirresearcheffortsaroundthepolicyproblem,andasaresulttheworkcouldnotbeintegratedtoformthebasisofanypolicyrecommendations.(SeeRubin,LaveandMorgan1991.)6.AttheUniversityofHawaiitheEnvironmentalCenterwaslegislative-fundedpreciselytoperformthisfunctionfortheStateofHawaii.7.SeeGalison(1997)fordetails.8.Monmonier(1999),p.7.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAllaby,M.(1996).BasicsofEnvironmentalScience(London/NewYork:Routledge).Gallison,P.(1997).ImageandLogic:AMaterialCultureofMicrophysics(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Hadlock,C.R.(1998).MathematicalModelingintheEnvironment(Washington,D.C.:MathematicalAssociationofAmerica).Kirsch,S.(2005).ProvingGrounds:ProjectPlowshareandtheUnrealizedDreamofNuclearEarthmoving(NewBrunswick,N.J./London:RutgersUniversityPress).Monmonier,M.(1999).AirApparent:HowMeteorologistsLearnedtoMap,Predict,andDramatizetheWeather(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofPress).Rubin,E.S.,Lave,L.B.andMorgan,M.Granger(1991).“KeepingClimateResearchRelevant,”IssuesinScienceandTechnology,NationalAcademyofSciences,NationalAcademyofEngineer-ing,InstituteofMedicine,Winter1991–2,pp.47–55.284\n9781405146012_4_048.qxd2/4/0913:43Page28548AgricultureandTechnologyJOHNR.PORTERANDJESPERRASMUSSENAgricultureisthehumanpracticeofcultivatingthelandanddomesticatinganimalstoproducefood,fiberandenergy.Inanarrowsense,agriculturereferssimplytopro-ductionoftheseessentialhumancommodities;inawidersense,itreferstoahumanactivitysystemthatconnectssocialandnaturalsystemssuchthatitispracticallyimpossibletoisolatechangesinagriculturefromchangesinsocio-economicandculturalconditions.Agricultureisauniquelyhumanactivityandisperhapsthefirstactivityforwhichhumansdevelopedtechnology.Technology,understoodastheuseoffarmingtoolsandtechniques,isanindispensablecomponentinagriculture.Inthemostgeneralsense,technologypermitshumanstoincreasethecaptureandefficientutilizationofsolarradiationthatdrivesprimaryplantproductionthatisthebasisofthehumanfoodandfiberchain.Humanshavecultivatedthelandsinceabout10,000yearsagowhentheglobalpopu-lationreached1million.Beforethattime,andforthepreponderanceofhumanhistory,humanshadhuntedandgatheredtheirfood,fiberandenergysinceHomosapiensdivergedfromitsancestorsabout200,000yearsago(Evans1998).Thetransitionfromhuntingandgatheringtoagriculture,representedbytheNeolithicRevolution,wasadoptedbyvariousindependentprehistorichumansocieties,invariouslocations.Thistransitioncreatedmajorsocialchange,includingtheorganizationofhierarchicalcommunities,settlementsandhigherpopulationdensities.Inthe10,000yearsleadingtoad1000,thehumanpopulationincreasedahundredfoldfrom5millionto500millionpeople.Inthesecondmillennium,theeffectwasevenmoreprofoundinabsolutetermsas500millionpeoplebecame6,000million.Boththehypothesisthathumanpopulationgrowthdrovetheneedforincreasedfoodproductionandthusagricultureanditsobverse,thatcultivationpermittedpopulationincrease,havebeensuggested.Itisprobablythecasethatmultiplecausesratherthanasimplecausalrelationshiplinklandcultivationtopopulationgrowth.Todaymorethan75percentofthelandareaofEuropeiscultivatedforcrops,grasslandorforestryproduction,andhumansappropriateabout40percentofglobalterrestrialnetprimaryproductivityfortheirownuse.Inrich,demographicallystablecountriestheeffectsofagricultureandforestryonbiodiversityandthecyclesofcarbon,nutrientsandwateraresocialandpoliticalissuesthatarerarelyoutofthenews.Landcultivation,andparticularlyitsmanagementintensity,isthemostinfluentialhumanACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks285©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_048.qxd2/4/0913:43Page286johnr.porterandjesperrasmussenpracticeforthedynamicsoftheterrestriallandscapeandtherebytheatmospheric,bio-geochemicalandwatercyclesoftheEarthsystem.Thecurrentproductionoffoodaffectsthemainglobalbiogeochemicalcyclesandisheavilyreliantoninputsoffossilfuelenergyandtechnology.Farmersusesuchproductsoffossilfuelsasnitrogenfertilizer,herbicidesandpesticidesandmachinerytoincreasetheproportionofsolarenergythatiscapturedbycropstodrivedrymatterproductionandtherebyharvestedyield.Itisonlyinthepast250yearsoutofthe10,000yearsthathumanbeingshavecultivatedthelandforfoodthattheyhavebeenabletoswapthetoiloflonghoursinthefield,toincreasesolarenergycapture,forlesshumanlydemandingmethods.Thebaseofthehumanfoodchainislargelyformedbythegrassesrice,maize,wheatandtropicalspeciessuchassorghumandmillet.Wheatprovidesaclearexampleofthemodernlinkbetweentechnologyandagriculture.Wheathasbeenbrednottosheditsseeds,tohaveahighyieldindex,tohaveahighresponsetonitrogenfertilizer,toneedtheprotectionagainstweedsanddiseasesaffordedbychemicals,andisharvestedbyenormousmachinesdrivenbyonepersonandisthemostgloballytradedcropbeingcarriedaroundtheworldinlargeships.Theimportanceofwheatasacropforhumansissuchthat,ofthe1.4billionhectaresofland(Evans1998)devotedtoarablecultiva-tion,wheatisharvestedfromabout15percentofit;directconsumptionofwheatcontributes20percentofthecaloriesand22percentoftheproteininthehumandiet(Amthor2001).Asmorethan30percentofharvestedwheatisfedtoanimalsandthencetohumansasmilkormeat,theplaceofwheatasthemostimportanthumanfoodsourceisunrivalled.Technologyinagricultureprobablystartedwiththestoneaxthatwasusedtoclearforesttreesandfirethatwasusedtoreleasethenutrientsinthewoodandtherebyprovidearichsoilforfoodplants.Thiswasshiftingcultivationandwasthefirststep,beyondhunter-gatherercommunities,inthesettlementofhumansocieties.TheNeolithicrevolutionsawthedomesticationofcropsandanimals,andtheconsequentnecessityforsocialstabilitytoguardthesepreciousresources.Theactofharvestingthewildgrainschangedthemgenetically.Asmallpercentageofwildgrassplantshaveseedsthatclingtothestalkevenwhenripe,ratherthanseparatingeasily.Humanscollectingwheatorbarleyseedwouldthusgatheradisproportionateamountoftheclingingmutantineachharvest,andplantsweretherebydomesticated.Lateranimalsweredomesticatedtobedraughtanimals,whichledtoalargeincreaseinthepoweravailableforcultivation.Intheanimal-poweredagriculture,themaintech-nologicaldevelopmentswereplows,harrows,cartsandwagons.Oxenweredomesti-catedasdraughtanimals6,000yearsbeforethepresent.Animal-poweredagricultureincreasedinefficiencyintheMiddleAges,whenhorsesreplacedcowsasdraughtanimals,andthefirstprimitiveEuropeanplowdatesfromabout3,500yearsago.Theseprimitivescratch-plowsconsistedofaframeholdingaverticalwoodenstickthatwasdraggedthroughthetopsoil.IntheMiddleAges,plowswerefittedwithwheelsandsharesthatinvertedsoil.Thewheelplowchangedlittleuntilthe1700swhentheswingplowwasinventedwithfittingsandacoultermadeofironandamoldboardandsharecoveredwithanironplate.Theuseoftheswingplowwascloselylinkedtonewcropmanagementpracticesinthe1700s,whichstartedmodernWesternagriculture.Forexample,inNorthernEurope,thehorse-drivenswingplowwaslinkedtotheintroductionofacroprotationalsystemwithfoddercropsthatcomprisedtemporalrotationsofroot286\n9781405146012_4_048.qxd2/4/0913:43Page287agricultureandtechnologycrops,twocereals,cloverandgrass,withthecloverbeingthe“driver”ofthesystemviaitssymbioticabilitytofixnitrogenintothesoilfromtheair.Thisrotationreplacedathree-yearcroprotationthathadbeenpracticedsincetheMiddleAgesrotatingryeorwinterwheatinyearone,followedbyspringoatsorbarleyinthesecondyear,andfollowedbyathirdyearoffallow.Theabolitionoffallowlandsandtheintroductionoflegume-basedfodderincroprotationsincreasedagriculturalproductionandmech-anization.Theagrarianrevolutionofthe1700sisaclearexampleofhowtechnologywaslinkedtoagriculturalchangeandhow,atthesametime,thisunderpinnedotherchangesinsocietysuchasindustrializationandthebeginningsofthemetropolitanlife.Thesameperiodalsosawthestartofthechemicalcontrolofplantandanimaldiseases,andthestartofsystematicplant-breedingandselectionbasedonthelaterdiscoveriesoftheprinciplesofgeneticsbyMendel.Thenextmajortechnologicalchangeinagricultureinvolvedtheincreaseduseoffossilfuelsindirectandindirectways,andthisoccurredintheearlytomiddleyearsofthe1900s.BetweenthecollapseoftheNewYorkstockmarketin1929andtheendoftheSecondWorldWarthenumberoftractorsinuseonfarmsintheUSAincreasedfrom1millionto2.5million,whilethenumberofhorsesfellfrom20millionto12millionoverthesameperiod(Evans1998).CheapernitrogenfertilizerswerealsoproducedbasedontheHaberprocess,dependentonaccesstoabundantandcheapsourcesoffossilenergy.Syntheticchemicalsbasedonanalogsofplanthormoneswerealsobeinginventedforweeds,andneurologicaltoxinswereusedforpestcontrol.Foodbecameandhasremainedasmuchamatterofeatingoil-producedenergyassolarenergyfixedbyphotosynthesis.Globalizedagriculturefollowedtherevolutioninfossil-fuel-dependenttransportationinthe1800sand1900s.Inglobalizedmodernagriculture,animalhusbandryhasdevelopedintoindustrial-likeplants,wheretheanimalproductionisseparatedfromfodderinputsthatmaynoworiginatealongdis-tancefromwheretheyareconsumed.Therearemanyconnectionsbetweenagriculture,technologyandphilosophy.Agriculturewasmainlybasedontraditionsandtraditionalknowledgesystemsandindigenousknowledgeuntilthe1700s,whenagriculturewasinfluencedbyscientificprogressandthephilosophyoftheEnlightenmentthatconfirmedfaithinman,reasonandprogress.Oneofthefirsttheoriesofthenewscientificagriculturestatedthatmoreforagemeantmorecattlethatmeantmoremanureandthusmorecereals.Thisthink-ingresultedinthegrowingofforagecropsinthecroprotation,whichledtothedeclineoftheoldagro-pastoralsystem.Questionssuchaswhethertechnologicalagriculturaldevelopmentsdrivepopula-tionincreaseorvice-versa,thenatureoftheagriculturalproductionparadigmsuchasbetweenconventionalandorganicfarming,andtheveryquestionofwhatshouldbethefunctionofagriculture–forexamplefoodorenergyproduction–eachrepre-sentadifferentlyweightedinterplaybetweentechnologyandphilosophyinagriculture.Theroleoftechnologyinfoodproductionhasbeentwofold;first,andmostbasically,toincreasetheproportionofphotosyntheticallyactivesolarenergythatisutilizedbycrops,therebyraisingcropyieldsthatformthebasisofthehumanfoodchain.Morerecently,technologyhasbeenusedtoalterthecompositionoffoodandtochangeitsnutritionalandprocessingproperties.Recentattemptstoaltergeneticallythemake-upofplantsusedforfoodproductionhavemetresistance,mainlyinEurope,whereasmany287\n9781405146012_4_048.qxd2/4/0913:43Page288johnr.porterandjesperrasmussenemergingeconomieshaveembracedbiotechnologywithenthusiasm.Oneimportantissueraisedbytheadventofbiotechnologyhasbeenthequestionofownershipandintellectualpropertyprotection.Theprivateandexclusiveownershipoftechnologicalproductsandprocessesinagriculturehasbeenextendedtoincludeplantandanimalvarieties.Thesehavetraditionallyeitherbeenpartofasocialandculturalheritage,andthusfreelyavailable,orhavebeenunderlegalprotectiondesignedtofostertheirutilizationbynon-owningothers.Suchdevelopmentsinownership,fosteredbytheapplicationofgenetechnologytoagriculture,willhaveprofoundconsequencesforahumanactivitythatformsthebasisofhumansociety.Insummary,exceptinthemost“primitive”societies,humanshavealwaysfoundmeanstoharnesstheirintellectstosolvingtheproblemofhavingenoughfoodtoeat.InthetimethathumanshavecultivatedthelandtheycanbesaidtohaveescapedtheMalthusianlogicofpopulationregulationtwoandahalftimes–inthemid-1800swhenthepopulationroseabove1billionforthefirsttimeandinthemid-1900swhenthepopulationreached3billion.TheGreenRevolutionofthemid-tolate1900s(the“half”)representedtheculturalexportoftheagriculturallessonslearnedintheenergy-richpostwarWesternworldtothedevelopedworld.AsL.P.HartleywroteatthestartofhisnovelTheGo-Between,“Thepastisaforeigncountry:theydothingsdifferentlythere”;and,thus,howfarthefutureofagriculturecanrepeatitspastsuccessesinaworldoflimitedandnotlimitlesscheapenergycombinedwithaglobalpopulationof9–10billionisoneofthegreatchallengesofthe2100s.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAmthor,J.S.(2001).“EffectsofAtmosphericCO2ConcentrationonWheatYield:ReviewofResultsfromExperimentsUsingVariousApproachestoControlCO2Concentration,”FieldCropsResearch,73:1–34.Evans,L.T.(1998).FeedingtheTenBillion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).288\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page28949TheBuiltEnvironmentCHRISTIANILLIES1.EnvironmentalImpactThebuiltenvironment,theworldofhousesandcities,isconsideredresponsiblefortwo-fifthsoftheworld’senergyconsumption.IntheUnitedStates,itisestimatedthatone-sixthofallenergyisusedforair-conditioningaloneonhotsummerdays;this1cangoupto43percentofthepeakpowerload.Theimpactontheenvironmentisobviouslyenormous.TheUSDepartmentofEnergyestimatesthatheatingandcoolingsystemsintheUnitedStatesemiteachyearoverhalfabilliontonsofcarbondioxideandgenerateaboutafourthofthesulfurdioxidethatgoesintotheatmosphere2(sulfurdioxideisthemainingredientinacidrain).AccordingtotheWorldResourcesInstitute,heating,coolingandlightingbuildingstogethermakeup12percentofUSgreenhousegasemissions(whichamountstoabout3percentofglobalwarming3gases).Atellingmetaphorfortheenvironmentalimpactofthebuiltenvironmentisits“ecologicalfootprint.”ThetermwasintroducedbyWilliamReesin1992toindicatethebioproductivelandandwaterareathatisrequiredtosupportahumanpopulationwithfoodandtimberproductsandtoassimilatewastesandemissionssuchascarbondioxide.Theecologicalfootprintisexpressedintermsof“globalhectares”(gha)and“globalhectaresperperson”(gha/cap).HerbertGirardethascalculatedthefootprintofLondonin1996whenithadaround7millioninhabitantsandwascoveringasur-4faceareaof158,000ha.Givenprevailingtechnology,onaverage1.2haperpersonarerequiredforfoodproductionand1.5haperpersonforfuelproduction(neededforcarbonsequestration)–thatamountsto8,400,000haand10,500,000harespectively.Ifweaddaforestareaof768,000ha(requiredforwoodproducts),itaddsuptoaround19,700,000ha.Thus,London’sfootprintis125timesitssurfacearea–andnearlyall5ofBritain’sproductiveland(around21millionha).But,ofcourse,theenvironmentaleffectsofLondonarenotlimitedtotheUnitedKingdom;itsfootprint“stretchestofar-flungplacessuchasthewheatprairiesofKansas,thetea-gardensofAssam,the6forestsofScandinaviaandAmazonia,andthecopperminesofZambia.”Itshouldnotcomeasasurprisethatinmanycountriestheenvironmentalimpactofcitiesisincreasingowingtotheirrapidgrowth.In1950onlyGreaterLondonand7NewYorkCityhadapopulationofmorethan8million;todaytherearearoundACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks289©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page290christianilliesthirteensuch“MegaCities.”In2000,twenty-threeprincipalagglomerationscontainedmorethan10millioninhabitants,andtheWorldBankestimatedthattwenty-sevenMegaCitieswillreachthissizeby2015.Themostobviouscausesforthisdevelopmentarepopulationgrowthandtheruralexodusinmany,especiallydeveloping,countries(inparticularinAfricaandAsia).Populationgrowthisawell-knownand-documentedphenomenon.In1950theworld’spopulationwas4billion,in2000itwas6billion,anditisprojectedtobe9billionin2050.Althoughthegrowthrateofthehumanpopu-lationhasbeensteadilydecliningsincethe1970s,theworldpopulationincreasescurrentlybymorethan200,000everyday.Asaconsequence,moreandmorehousingisneeded.Inaddition,aruralexodushappensinmanyplaces,mostlywherepeopleinthecountrysidelivebelowthepovertylineandmigratetocitiesinordertofindemployment.(Mostlythesearealsotheplaceswithhighestpopulationgrowth,sothattheeffectsofthetwocausesaccumulate.)InmanyMegaCities,therapidgrowthoftheurbanpopulationcannotbecontrolled,letaloneplanned,andleadstoslumandsquattersettlements.Mostofthesefalloutsidetherealmofurbaninfrastructuralprojectsandhaveinadequateroads,electricityand(mostimportantly)watersupply.Althoughtheabsolutenumberofpeoplewithaccesstosafewaterandsanitationbecomesbigger,populationgrowthexceedstheirnumber–WaterAidestimatesthatbetween1990and2000“anextra900millionpeoplewereborninplaceswithoutwaterand8sanitation.”Notsurprisingly,theurbanpoorcanbemuchworseoffthantheruralpoor–theeconomicgainsofmovingtothecityareoftenpaidforbydiseasessuchasdiarrheaandotherinfectionsstemmingfrominadequatehygiene.(Theinfantmor-talityrateintheslumsofBangladeshis142per1,000livebirths,comparedtotheruralrateinIndiaof93.)Further,mostoftheseplacesfacecriticalenvironmentaldegradationasaresultofoverloadonwatersourcesandtheuncontrolledextractionofwaterfromdepletedaquifers,improperwastedisposal,andthecontaminationofgroundwaterandriversthroughpoorsanitationmeasures.Yetimprovingthesituationisoftenfightingalosingbattlesincemanycitiesfaceaneverincreasingdemandwhilethequantityandqualityofavailablewaterdeclines.Inaddition,thereareofteninadequatepollutioncontrolsandalackofadministrativeorderandpoliticalwill.Whilesubdevelopmentsettlementsaretobefoundmainlyindevelopingcountries,somecitiesinindustrialnationsarespreadinginfaceofastagnatingpopulation(orevenwhilelosinginhabitants);thishappensmainlyinAustraliaandtheUnitedStates,butalsoinEurope–forexampleinBrussels,Copenhagen,Frankfurt,Munich9andZurich.Thisexpansionislabeled(critically)as“urbansprawl”:citiesexpandgeo-graphicallyintheformofsuburbsoflow-densityhousing,typicallywithsingle-familyhomesonbiglots,separatedbylawnsandroads.Theyaredistanttothecitycenterandtoindustrialandcommercialzones.Theimpactoflow-densitysuburbsontheenvir-onmentistwofold.Ontheonehand,thereismoreurbanizedland,andthusmorelandsurfacerenderedimperviousbydevelopmentthatwasformerlyopenandofagreaterenvironmentalvalue.Ontheother,thesenewdevelopmentsareonlypossiblebecauseof–andaredependenton–personalcarsasthemainmeansoftransportation.Whilecitiesbeforethemiddleofthenineteenthcenturywerebuiltaroundwalkingandothermethodsoftransit,thisisnolongerpractical.JeffKenworthyandPeterNewmancoinedtheterm“automobiledependence”inordertoexplainhowmoderncitiesinevitablyleadtomoreautomobileuse.WhileanaverageinhabitantfromcentralMelbournemakes290\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page291thebuiltenvironment2.12tripsperdaybycar,aninhabitantofthefringeuseshiscar3.92times.Similarly,aninhabitantofthesuburbsofNewYorkneedsmorethanfivetimestheamountof10gasolinethansomeoneinitscenter.Thecentralpointisthatpopulationdensityisneededtomakepublictransitpossible:“Urbandesign,reflectedchieflyinpopulationandjobdensities,emergedasthemostsignificantdeterminantofthetravelpatterns11incitiesaroundtheworld.”Notonlytheoperationofthebuiltenvironmentbutalsoitsconstruction–thatmeansallactivitiessuchasdevelopmentordemolitionanddisposal–haveamajorimpactontheenvironment.Takentogether,buildingconstructionandoperationsconsume12directlyorindirectlyaround54percentofallenergygeneratedintheUnitedStates.In1999,accordingtotheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,constructionactivitiesareestimatedtocontributeover35percentoftotalglobalcarbondioxide13emissions–morethananyotherindustrialactivity.Noothersectorusesmorerawmaterialsthanconstruction;itaccountsforanestimated40percentofallresourceconsumption.Thispointisillustratedwhenwelookatcementconcretethatisusedintheconstructionofeverypartofthebuiltenvironment(buildings,roads,bridges,etc.).Besidesrequiringcrushedstone,gravel,sandandwater,thecentralingredientofcementconcreteiscement;itis,onaper-unitbasis,thecomponentwiththestrongestimpactontheenvironment.Globally1.45billionMgofcementareproducedeveryyearrequiring2percentofglobalprimaryenergyandresponsiblefor5percentofglobal14carbondioxideemissions.IntheUnitedStates,0.6percentoftheenergygoesinto15cementproduction,thoughitisonly0.06percentoftheGNP.Theconstructionindus-tryisalsothecauseofenormousamountsofwaste.InAustralia,Finland,Germany,theNetherlandsandtheUnitedStates,forexample,thewasteofconstructionand16demolitionaddsupto13–29percentofsolidwasteenteringlandfills.Ifoneincludesgreenhousegasemissions,theconstructionindustryproducesabout40percentof17allwaste.Again,theeffectsobviouslydependonthetechnologyused.Accordingtoareport18onCalifornia’sconstructionindustry,olderequipmentisaparticularproblem.Toxicdieselparticulatematterpollutionfromolderdieseltractorsandbulldozerscancauseseverecardiovascularandrespiratoryillnesses,asthmaattacksandacutebronchitis.(Foreveryadditional10microgramsof2.5micronparticlespercubicmeterofair,an1918percentincreaseinheart-attackdeathshasbeenfound.)In2005atleast1,100prematuredeathsinCalifornia(ofwhich731wereinLosAngelesanditssuburbanareas)werelikelytohavebeencausedbyemissionsfromoutdatedconstructionequip-20ment(thereareanestimated250,000to300,000ofsuchmachinesinCalifornia).In2005,theestimatedpublichealthcostduetoCalifornia’sconstructionindustrywasaround$9.1billion.2.BuiltEnvironmentversusEnvironment?Thestoryofthebuiltenvironmentispartofman’sdominationofnature.Acityasanybuildingisaplacethathadtobewrestedoutofnature:forestsmustberootedout,landcleared,andmuchthatwashithertopartofavitalecologicalsystembecomescoveredbyasphalt,concreteandbrick.LeCorbusiercalledarchitecturean“assaulton291\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page292christianillies21nature”–andthoughtthathewascomplementingthecitybydoingso.Yettheoftendescribeddichotomousseparationofhumans(andinparticulartheirtechnologicalartifacts)fromnatureinWesternculturehasseldombeenradicalinthebuiltenviron-ment.NewYork’sCentralPark,urbansprawl,andeveryflowerpotonthewindowsillshowour“biophilia,”thatis,ourdeeplyrootedfascinationwithnatureandthingsthat22arealive.EvenEtienne-LouisBoullée,whoseabstractgeometricstyleisfarfromshowinganylinktoorganicforms,didnotrejectnatureentirely,his(neverbuilt)cenotaphforIsaacNewtonbeingdesignedasagiganticsphereembeddedinacirculartwo-levelledbasebuttoppedwithcypresstrees.Why,then,hasthebuiltenvironmentturnedinimicaltowardtheun-builtenviron-ment?Aprimaryreasonissurelyignoranceandthedifficultyinpredictingfutureconsequencesoftechnicalinnovationsandofthebuiltenvironment;quantitativeasmuchasqualitativeconsequences.In1896,whenNewYorkCityintroducedasphaltpavinginplaceofbrick,graniteandwoodblock,noonecouldhaveforeseenthatHouston(Texas)wouldbuildanasphalthighwaythatisinplaceseighteenlaneswide.AndwhentheGermanengineerCarlBenzinventedthecarin1886hecouldnothaveanticipatedthedevelopmentofmoderncities,whichPeterDroegehasbaptized“FossilCities”(becausetheir“veryexistence,formandgrowthdynamicsareexplainedbythe23logicofthefossilfueleconomy”).Afterall,TechnologyAssessmentisarelativelynewterm(coinedin1966)asmuchasanewscience.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment,aformalprocessusedtopredicttheenvironmentalconsequencesofadevelopmentproject,wasnotintroducedasaplanninganddecision-makingtoolbeforethelate1960s–intheUnitedStatesintheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969.(Ethicalcon-cernsaboutnegativeconsequencesofmodernurbandevelopmentshad,however,beenraisedmuchearlier–forexamplebyLewisMumfordinthelate1930s.)Anotherfactoristhedifficultyofdiscerningmanyveryslowdestructiveinfluences.Thewasteproductionorresourceconsumptionofasmallhamletdoesnotmattermuch,andonlywhenthesettlementgrowsdoenvironmentalimpactsaccumulate.Afterthe1913openingoftheaqueductthatallowedLosAngelestobloomfromasemi-ariddesert,ittooksomedecades(andthefillingofmanyswimmingpools)beforeOwensLakehaddriedupandturnedintoatoxicwasteland.Slowandgradualprocessesarenotmerelydifficulttopredictbutalsoeasilyescapeourattention.Itmightbeaninbornoptimismorgenerallazinessthatmakeshumansblindtonegativeeffectswhentheycomeupon24usstepbystep.Thishasbeendescribedasthe“BoiledFrogSyndrome.”Ifafrogisinapotofwaterthatisgraduallybeingheated,thenthefrogadjustsandcontinuestoadjustitsbodytemperature.Thefrogdoesnotseemtofeeluncomfortable–until,ultimately,itisboiledalive.Humans,likethefrog,keepadjustingtotheincreasinghealthandecologicalhazards,sothattheyoftendonotrealize(oratleastactagainst)thedestructionoftheirenvironmentandhealth,evenifitbecomesdramatic(OwensLake)orhighlydangerous(MexicoCityaverages30microgramsoffineparticlespercubicmeterofair).Another,ratherintricatereasonforneglectoftheenvironmentcouldbeadded:itisoftenaresultofapplaudableattemptstosatisfyhumanneedsinanefficientwayandonalargescale.Toprovidesolidshelter,warmhousing,orsufficientwaterandenergyforeveryonearerightlyseenasmoraldemands.AsFriedrichSchillerremarksonthispoint:“Tonourishgivehim,toshelter./Haveyethenakedbedecked,/Dignity292\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page293thebuiltenvironment25comesonitsown.”ThehumanrighttohousingisalsoexplicitlystatedintheUni-versalDeclarationofHumanRights:“Everyonehastherighttoastandardoflivingadequateforthehealthandwell-beingofhimselfandhisfamily,includingfood,26clothing,housingandmedicalcare.”Manyecologically(andpsychologically)dis-astrousdevelopmentswerebuilttoprovidehousingforthesociallyweakandtheneedyamongthepopulation.Yetthingshavechanged.Wehaveexperiencedtheambiguousnatureofmanydevelopments,suchasthatofourfuel-basedtransportationtechnologyandofcitiesbaseduponit.Theapparentdominationofmanovernatureturnedouttobeaself-destructiveillusion.Weunderstandthatregardfortheenvironmentandforfuturegenerationsisanessentialpartofourmoralobligation;thehappinessandcomfortofpresentandproximategenerationsshouldnotbeboughtwiththemisery(orevennonexistence)offutureones.ThisradicalizeduniversalityofethicshasbeenexpressedbyHansJonasinhisImperativeofResponsibility:“Actsothattheeffectsofyouraction27arecompatiblewiththepermanenceofgenuinehumanlife!”Manyarewillingtolistentothisimperative.Tonamebuttwoexamples:“PromotingSustainableHumanSettlementDevelopment”hasbeenspelledoutasanimportantpoliticalgoalintheAgenda21(ch.7),and“TheSustainableCitiesProgramme,”ajointUN-HABITAT/UNEPfacility,wasestablishedintheearly1990s.Itseemsthatmankindisabouttowriteanewchapterinthestoryofthebuiltenvironment,called“TheSustainableCity.”Wepossessmostofthetechnologicalskillsneededtoerectcitiesthatarenotinimicaltotheenvironmentbutareavitalpartofit.However,suchatransformationrequiresuschangingsomeideasabouthowweshouldlive,ideasabouttravelingandaboutthespaceandenergythatwethinkweneed.And,ifwearenotwillingtochangethem,thenextchaptermightneverbewritten.Notes1.Horvath,A.(2004).“ConstructionMaterialsandtheEnvironment,”AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources,29:186.2.cf.http://www.eartheasy.com/article_global_warming.htm(2.1.2007).3.Montague,T.andMontague,P.(2007).“SteppingBackfromtheBrinkofGlobalWarming,”Rachel’sDemocracyandHealthNews,888(4January).4.Girardet,H.(2000).“GreeningUrbanSociety,”inW.Fox(ed.),EthicsandtheBuiltEnviron-ment(London:Routledge),pp.15–30.5.Dependingonwhatisincludedinthefootprint,itcanbeseenasbeingevenhigher.TheWWFetal.(2006)(“CountingConsumption:CO2Emissions,MaterialFlowsandEcologicalFootprintoftheUKbyRegionandDevolvedCountry”)calculatetheecologicalfootprintoftheSoutheastpopulationasapproximately6.3gha/cap(whichisseenasthehighestintheUK)withfoodandagriculture1.14gha/cap,transport1.26gha/cap,anddomesticenergyandconstruction1.3gha/cap.(Thisequatestotwenty-fivetimestheactuallandarea.)6.Girardet(2000),p.19.7.Londonlostnearlyamillioninhabitantsbetween1950and1996.8.From“MegaCitiesandMegaSlumsinthe21stCentury”bytheeditorsofWaterAidWeb,quotedfromhttp://www.ittind.com/waterbook/mega_cities.asp(2.1.2007).293\n9781405146012_4_049.qxd2/4/0913:36Page294christianillies9.cf.Kenworthy,J.,Laube,F.andNewman,P.(1999).AnInternationalSourcebookofAutomobileDependenceinCities,1960–1990.(Boulder,Colo.:UniversityofColoradoPress).10.Newman,P.andKenworthy,J.(2006).“UrbanDesigntoReduceAutomobileDependence,”Opolis,2(1):40.11.ibid.,p.42.12.Horvath(2004),p.186.13.http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/focus/EnergyCities1.asp14.Worrell,E.,Price,L.,Martin,N.,Hendriks,C.andOzawaMeida,L.(2001).“CarbonDioxideEmissionsfromtheGlobalCementIndustry,”AnnualReviewofEnergyandtheEnvironment,26:303–29.15.Wilson,A.(1993).“CementandConcrete:EnvironmentalConsiderations,”EnvironmentalBuildingNews,2(2):7–12.16.Bossink,B.A.G.andBrouwers,H.J.H.(1996).“ConstructionWaste:QuantificationandSourceEvaluation,”JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,122(1):55–60.17.http://www.rics.org/Builtenvironment/Sustainableconstruction/rics+view+sustainable+construction.htm(11.12.2006).18.“DiggingupTrouble”bytheUnionofConcernedScientists(http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/california_driving/digging-up-trouble.html;2.1.2007).19.PopeIII,C.A.,Muhlestein,J.B.,May,H.T.,Renlund,D.G.,Anderson,J.L.andHorne,B.D.(2006).“IschemicHeartDiseaseEventsTriggeredbyShort-termExposuretoFineParticulateAirPollution,”Circulation,114:2443–8.20.SeeWilson,J.(2006).“DireHealthEffectsofPollutionReported,”LosAngelesTimes(6Decem-ber)(http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_ucs_diesel_report.061207.htm;2.1.2007).21.cf.Harries,K.(1992).“Context,Confrontation,Folly,”Perspecta,27:6–19.22.Whichmightevenbeageneticallygivenpreference(thoughsurelyrefinedthroughexperienceandculture);cf.Wilson,E.O.(1984).Biophilia(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).23.Droge,P.(2007).“CitiesintheAgeofClimateChangeandFossilFuelDepletion,”1999–2006,(http://www.solarcity.org/climate_cities.htm;23.2.2007).24.See,forexample,Saunders,T.(2002).TheBoiledFrogSyndrome:YourHealthandtheBuiltEnvironment(Chichester:Wiley-Academy).25.InDieWürdedesMenschen(1796).26.Article25.Itshouldbeaddedthat,again,thisisahumanrightthatisnoteverywheredulyrespected.TheUNCentreforHumanSettlementsestimatesthat100millionpeopleworldwidearehomelessandover1billionpeopleliveininadequatehousing.27.Jonas,H.(1984).TheImperativeofResponsibility(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress),p.43.294\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page295PartVTechnologyandPoliticsACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page29750TechnologyandPoliticsEVANSELINGERTechnologicalconcernsarecentraltopoliticalhistory,politicaltheoryandpoliticalaction.Sincedemocracyrequiresawell-informedcitizenry,civicresponsibilityisabdicatedwhenthepublicdoesnotmakeaconcentratedefforttounderstandtheconceptualandmateriallinksthatconnecttechnologyandpolitics.Ofcourse,theresponsibilityforbeingwellinformeddoesnotfallsolelyoncitizensthemselves.Sinceinformationispresentedandreceivedincontextuallyspecificways,injusticeoccurswhenthefollowingeventstranspire:publiceducationfailstoprioritizetherelevantissues;mediabiasdivertsattentionfrommattersofgenuineconcernandcloudsrealissuesthroughspin;govern-mentsmakebad-faithappealstosecrecyandsecurity;andinequitableaccesstodatamarginalizesindividualsandgroups.Inshort,withoutadeepunderstandingofhowideasaboutanddecisionsconcerningtechnologyimpactpoliticalprocesses,andwith-outasophisticatedgraspofhowpoliticalprocessesimpactthedevelopment,distributionanduseoftechnology,neitherglobalnorlocalaffairscanbecomprehensivelygraspedorintelligentlyevaluated.Giventheprofoundinter-relationbetweentechnologyandpolitics,aswellasthedifficultyoffindingrigorousandappropriatelycriticalframeworkstoilluminatethecentralissues,thearticlesfoundinthissectionshouldnotbeseenasmereacademicsummaries.Whiletheysynthesizevastbodiesofliterature,theycollectivelytranscendexegesisandofferpoliticaltoolsthatcitizensacrosstheglobeshouldfindessentialtotheirpursuitsofjusticeandthegoodlife.Putinmorespecificterms,thissectioncontainsanalysesoftechnologyandpoliticsthataddresstopicsmostpeoplehavestrongopinionsabout.Ittraversesissuescon-cerninghowtechnologyrelatestoprogress,power,culture,globalization,capitalism,energy,management,strategy,comparativegovernance,andgender.Toensurethatthephilosophicaldimensionsofalltheseissuesshinethrough,weshallbeginbydiscussingthemoreexplicitlyabstractideas.“TheIdeaofProgress”clarifiesthefundamentalproblemofinnovation.Ontheonehand,nationswouldnotputsignificantresourcesintotechnicalresearchanddevelop-mentiftheydidnotbelievethatprogress–economic,medical,military,environ-mentalandrecreational–wouldresult.Progressisawidespreadregulativeideal,andacommitmenttoprogressisessentialformotivatingcollaborationandstructuringsocialcohesion.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks297©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page298evanselingerOntheotherhand,citizensdonotalwaysbenefitequallyfromtheemergenceofinnovativepractices.Insomecases,thelimitedavailabilityorhighpriceofnewtech-nologyfacilitateshierarchicalpracticeswithpainfulexclusionarycosts.Inthiscontext,callsforjusticeareoftenframedintermsofdemandsforbetteraccessandusability.Otherinstancesofdisenfranchisement,however,containgreatersubtlety.Inthesecases,effortstopromotejusticeoccuroverlongperiodsoftimeandbeginwiththelaboriousprocessofclarifyinghiddenharms.Furthermore,asthehistoryofunintendedconsequencesdemonstrates,technologicalchangerarelyfollowsthepatternsofdevelopmentthatdesignersanticipate.Some-times,technologicaluseengendersnewproblemsthataresocomplexthatcost–benefitassessmentcannotbeusedasanuncontestedstandardfordeterminingwhetherpro-gresshasbeenachieved.Inlightofthishistory,judgmentsaboutwhetherinnovationgenerallyamelioratespervasivesocialillsorushersindisasterremainboundedbyseeminglyineliminableambiguity.Finally,whilemodernmarketeconomiesdependuponconstantconsumption,andsecurethisdependencybypromotingtheideathatthehappinesscanbeobtainedbypurchasingnewdevices,empiricalstudiesofthehedonictreadmillpointtotheoppositeconclusion.Theincreaseinsatisfactionthatnewtechnologyprovidesis,atbest,temporary.Aboveafairlyminimalthreshold,innovationdoesnotenhanceoveralllevelsofwell-being.“TechnologyandCulture”isacontributionthataddressestheproblemofaliena-tion–aproblemthathaslongbeentheAchillesheeloftechnologyadvocates.Forexample,MartinHeideggerworriedthatmoderntechnicalactivityis,atbottom,anattempttomasternature.IfHeideggerisright,thenitwouldseemthatmoderntoolsandtechniquesaredesignedinsuchawayasroutinelytofosterpracticesthatadverselyimpacttheenvironment.Fromthisperspective,theveryideaof“greentechnology”wouldbeanoxymoron.Contrarytothetechnocratichopeofrelyinguponinnovationtopavethewayforamoresustainablefuture,peoplelikeHeideggerviewashiftinontologicalorientationasaprerequisiteforsavingtheplanetfromdestruc-tion.Totakeanotherpowerfulexampleinwhichalienationisanissue,weneedonlyconsiderhowculturalconservativessomewhatironicallyappropriateoneofKarlMarx’searlyinsights.Moderntechnology’scapacitytoremakenaturehasenableddevelopedcountriestorefashiontheirworldsinthoroughlyartificialwaysthatchallengebothnaturalandtraditionalapproachestodealingwithotherpeople.Fromtheconserva-tiveperspective,innovation(especiallyinthedomainsofcommunicationandtrans-portationtechnology)erodesthefabricoftraditionalcivilitybecauseitunderminestradition.ThediscussionofAndréLeroi-Gourhan’scentralideasin“TechnologyandCulture”clarifieswhytraditionalconcernsaboutalienationcanbeunderstoodaspoorlyframedproblems.ForLeroi-Gourhan,suchpoorframingcomesfromtwosources.Thefirstsourceisreductivetheoriesthatviewcultureasarisingfromamaterialbaseinawhollydeterminatemanner.Thesecondsourceisreductivetheoriesthatviewcultureastheendresultofrationalmindsdevisingplansfortranscendingnature.AttheheartofLeroi-Gourhan’sconceptionoftechnologyareideasaboutgeneralanthropologyandinvariantusesoftechnologytoaccomplishthegoalof“exteriorization”thatchallengethetheoreticalprejudicesjustlisted.Theseideas:(1)clarifywhytraditionalconceptions298\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page299technologyandpoliticsoftechnology-inducedalienationarethemselvesartifactsofanimpoverishedtheoret-icalimagination,and(2)detailwhycontemporarysocialscientifictrendsofrejectingevolutionismandraisingthestatusofculturalrelativismtoadogmaimpedeourcapacitytounderstandhowculturalchangeoccurs.Ultimately,thereviewofLeroi-Gourhan’sideasisnotofferedasameansofjustifyingaparticularpoliticalagenda.Rather,readersarepresentedwiththeseideasasacor-rectivethatremediesmistakenconceptionsofhowtechnologyandculturerelate.Inthissense,thereaderisexposedtoarguablymoreaccurateconceptionsofhowrealpoliticalchangeoccursandwhycertainpoliticalanxietiesabouttechnologyaregivenmorecreditthantheydeserve.“TechnologyandPower”makesthecasethat,becauseourspeciesiscompetitiveandinventivebynature,technologyandpowerco-evolvesynergistically.1.Technologyaugmentsthehumanabilitytoexertcontroloverpeople,places,andthings.2.Technologyinfluencestheever-expandinggoalsthathumansselectasworthtryingtogaincontrolover.3.Technologytransformshowbothindividualsandcollectivesunderstandtheircomparativeworth.Whilethesepatternsofchangeareinvariant,anoticeablehistoricalshift,onethatliesatthecenterofcontemporarydebatesaboutglobalization,begantooccurhundredsofyearsago.Whereasinnovationoncehadageographicallyandtemporallyerraticcharacter–evenwithtradeandknowledgetransferbeinglong-standingfeaturesofhumaninteraction–overtimeithastakenonanacceleratedandmarkedlycosmopolitanform.Giventhecurrentinterdependenciesentailedbytechnologicallymediatedlaborandtradepractices,migrationpatterns(bothshortandlongterm)andgeographicallydispersedenvironmentalpollution,thetraditionalnotionofthe“nation-state”maynolongerbeviable.Withitsdemisegolong-standingconceptionsofhowtechnologycanbebestputintheserviceofmilitaryandeconomicpower.Moreover,astherecentUS“WaronTerror”demonstrates,advancesintechnolo-gicalresourcescannotbeequatedaprioriwithpoliticalmight.Thestrategiesofresist-ancedisplayedinIraqagainstUSinterventionshow:high-techmilitarytechnologycanbedisruptedbylocalenvironmentalconditions;religiousconvictioncanenablelow-techweaponstobeusedtoyieldhighcausalities;anddemocracycannotbereliedontoneutralizehistoricalandculturalinfluences.Giventhecomplexitiesjustoutlined,itseemsthatthetraditionaldistinctionbetween“knowledge”and“wisdom”remainsvalid.Despiteincreasingknowledgeofhowtomakepowerfultechnologies,westilllackthewisdomtorecognizehowbesttoapplyourcreations.“TechnologyandGlobalization,”“TechnologyTransfer”and“TechnologyandCapitalism”areinter-relatedentriesthatexpanduponsomeoftheconcernsjustarticulated.“TechnologyandGlobalization”clarifiessomeofthewaysinwhichinnova-tionrendersspatialandtemporaldifferencesincreasinglyobsoleteforcommuni-cativeandtravelpurposes,andhelpspavethewayforwhatsometheoristsseeastheemergenceofcosmopolitansensibilities.Informationtechnologyplaysanespeciallyimportantroleinthisprocessbecauseitdoesmorethanspeeduptraditionalbusiness299\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page300evanselingerpracticesandrenderthemmoreefficient.Crucially,informationtechnologyenablesnewindustries,typesofwork,managementstylesandfinancialmarketstoemerge–and,alongwiththem,theintroductionofnewgoods,servicesandpriorities.Phraseslike“knowledgeworkers”andthe“informationeconomy”designatethehistoricalshiftinpracticeandexpectationthatdemarcatethepresentfrommaterialconditionsassociatedwiththeIndustrialRevolution.Accompanyingthischangeinmodesofproductionanddistributionarenewpolit-icalproblemsandnewresourcesforpoliticaladjudication.Attheinternationallevel,controversiesrageoverhowbesttoregulatethemannerinwhichworkersaretreated,goodsarecreated,sharedandconvertedtointellectualproperty,andtoxinsarecon-tained,mitigatedagainstanddisposed.Asnationalandglobalinterestscompetewithoneanother,theveryinstitutionsandpoliciesthathavebeenconstructedtodealwiththeensuingconflicts,suchastheWorldTradeOrganization,findthemselvesobjectsofcontroversy.Evenwithinlocalcommunities,citizensaroundtheworldfindthem-selvesincreasinglypolarizedaboutjobsthatarebeingexportedtoothercountriesandaboutthepopulationsofmigrantworkerswhoarenowofferingservicesthatthe“informationeconomy”hasrendered“lowskill.”As“TechnologyTransfer”clarifies,inordertograspmanyofthepoliticalissuesthatareprovingcontentiousinthecontextofcontemporaryglobalization,itisusefultounderstandthefundamentalontologicaldimensionsthatstructuretechnologicalexpe-rience.Accordingtopragmatistsandphenomenologists,thehumanexperienceoftechnologicalactivityisbothembodiedandcultured.Whilematerialconstraintsandengineeringprinciplesarecrucialcomponentsoftechnology,theexperienceoftechnologyisshapedbybackgroundconditionsthatincludeskills,knowledge,tech-niques,normsandperceptionsthatpersonalandcollectivehistoriescaninfluence.Differencesinbackgroundconditionscanpreventtechnologyfrombeingtransferredsuccessfullyfromoneareatoanother.Indeed,smoothoperationscanbecomecata-stropheswhendevicestakeonnewmeaningsandfunctions.Ultimately,theseideasprovidethebasisforthecrucialthesisof“technologicalrelativity”:technologiescantransformintodifferentdevicesthroughgeographicandtemporalcirculation.“TechnologyandCapitalism”providesthehistoricalbackgroundneededfullytoappreciatemanyoftheissuesdetailedintheprevioustwoentries.For,inordertograspthecomplexitiesthatlinkglobaleconomicactivitywithproblemsofinjustice,oneneedstounderstandtherolethatbothtechnologyandregulationhaveplayedinthehistoricalshiftsthatmarkthetransitionsfrom:•themercantilismofEuropethattranspiredduringthesixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies,•thefirstandsecondindustrialrevolutionsoftheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturiesrespectively,•thedevelopmentandimplementationofTaylorismandFordismthattypifiedearly-twentieth-centurypractices,•therecentactivityofso-called“latecapitalism.”“Energy,TechnologyandGeopolitics”clarifiessomeoftheparadigmaticwaysinwhichrelationstotechnologyandenergyinfluence(1)thetypesofidentitiesthatnations300\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page301technologyandpoliticsadoptand(2)theroutinepatternsofengagementthattheyexhibitwhencon-ductingaffairswithothercountries.Inthiscontext,asummaryofHuntington’staxonomicconceptionofgeopoliticalformationsandtypesofcontemporaryciviliza-tionsispresentedandcontextualizedintermsofhistoricalenergyneedsandenergypolicies.Suchanalysisrevealsthecomplexwaysinwhichaddictiontolimitedenergyresourcescan–touseanappropriatemetaphor–fueleconomic,socialandpoliticaltension.Thechapters“EuropeanPolitics,EconomyandTechnology,”“AsianPolitics,EconomyandTechnology”and“USPolitics,EconomyandTechnology”provideacomparativemapforunderstandingthegeoculturallydistinctrelationsbetweenthethreecrucialandrepeatingvariablesfoundineachtitle.Ofparticularinterestisthelighttheyshedonthefollowingperplexingquestions.WhydoestheUSpublictendtoviewscientificandtechnologicalinnovationinapredominantlypositivelight,whereasEuropeansoftenseeinnovationasanambivalentphenomenon,onethatgivesandtakesatthesametime,offeringthebenefitsofmodernityandprogressbythreateningtounder-minelong-standingandvaluableculturalandpoliticaltraditions?DosubstantivedifferencesbetweenUSandEuropeanviewsontechnologydeterminewhetheragiveninnovationwillbesubjecttoprotestandskepticism?HowdodifferencesbetweenChineseandIndianpolicyrevealtheflexiblewaysinwhichtensionsbetweentheurgetomodernizeandthedesiretopreservenationalidentitycanbeexploredinboththeoryandpractice?Notonlyarethesequestionscrucialtopublicpolicy;theyalsoholdaparticularsignificanceforphilosophersoftechnology.Theearlyhistoryofthephilosophyoftech-nologywasrepletewithmetaphysicalcharacterizationsoftheessenceoftechnology.Thesecharacterizationseitherpresumedthatgeoculturaldifferencesareofminorconsequencewithrespecttothematterofdeterminingwhattechnologymostfunda-mentallyisortheydepictedthebasicfeaturesoftechnologyingeoculturallyspecifictermsthroughamisleadingrhetoricthatgavetheiraccountstheappearanceoftranscendinglocalizedideals.Inlightofthecomplexculturaldifferencesthatthesethreechaptersreveal,itbecomesclearthattheearlyphilosophicalapproachestotechnologyarenolongerviable.In“TechnologyManagement”wegainadditionalinsightintothemeritsofusingacomparativeapproachtoanalyzingtechnology.Notably,theconceptof“techno-logymanagement”isclarifiedthroughgeneraldiscussionofitsdefiningfeatures,andemphasisisplaceduponsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenUSandChineseapproachestotheissue.Thecomplexpatternsthatconceptuallylinkorganizationalandgovernmentaldecisionsconcerningtechnologyaredevelopedfurtherin“TechnologyStrategy.”Here,discussionsofsuccessfulandunsuccessfulpartnershipsbetweenChinaandGermanyproveexceptionallyillustrative.Throughemphasisuponthefollowingissues,“ThePoliticsofGenderandTechno-logy”bringsthevirtueofcomparativeanalysistobearonthetopicofhowtechnologyandgendermutuallyinfluenceoneanother.Becausecertaintechnologiesareper-ceivedasmasculineandothersasfeminine,artifactshavebeenusedtomaintainaswellaschallengeexpectationsaboutgenderrolesanddefinitions.Additionally,con-ceptionsofgenderhavealsohelpeddeterminewhogetstodesignanewtechnology.Moreover,genderstereotypeshaveinfluencedthemannerinwhichtechnologies301\n9781405146012_4_050.qxd2/4/0914:00Page302evanselingeraredesigned–thatis,tastesandpatternsofbehaviorassociatedwithgenderhavefactoredintodecisionsaboutaestheticsandfunction.And,sincecertainprofessionsareassociatedwithdistincttechnologies,genderedstereotypesaboutthosetechnolo-gieshaveimpactedtheextenttowhichmenandwomenparticipateinthoseprofes-sionsandaffectedhowtheyaretreatedonceembeddedinthecorrelativeprofessionalnorms.302\n9781405146012_4_051.qxd2/4/0913:37Page30351TheIdeaofProgressDANIELSAREWITZAmongthosewhohavegivenseriousconsiderationtotheideaofprogress,virtuallyeveryconceivablepositionhasbeenstakedout:fromtheinevitabilityofprogresstoitsimpossibility;fromitsinventionasamodernidealtoitspersistencethroughouthistory;fromitsembodimentinscientifictruth-seeking,technologicaladvance,moralimprovement,ortheameliorationofhumansuffering,toitssocialconstructionasnothingmorethanacontextualillusionthatjustifiesparticularwaysofbeingand1acting.Thisdiversityofperspectivesreflectstwoattributesoftheideaofprogress.Thefirstisthatallhumanactionisinsomesenseguidedbyanexpectationofprogresstowardtheintendedgoalofthataction.Thesecondisthatthesegoalsorendpointsofprogressarethemselvesthesubjectofdisagreement.Ideasofprogressaddressthreetypesofnon-trivialgoalsorendpoints.Thefirstistruth,asapproachedbyreligiousinsight,philosophicalreasoning,orscientificinquiry.Thesecondisthevarietyofnormativeidealswhoseachievement,evenifpartial,maybesaidtoconstituteanimprovementofthehumancondition.Theseidealsencompassnotionsofbothindividualvirtueandaccomplishment(generosity,tolerance,piety,self-actualization,etc.),andmeasuresofcollectivegood(socialjustice,freedom,equality,etc.).Thethirdtypeofgoalpertainstoconcrete,specifiableoutcomestowardwhichprogresscanbemeasuredusingcontext-independent,andthustypicallyquantitative,metrics–forexamplereducedhumansufferingfromdiseasemorbidityandprematuremortality.Foreachofthesecategories,disagreementarisesoverdefinitionsofthegoalstowardwhicheffortshouldbedirected,overthepropermeansofpursuingprogresstowardthosegoals,andoverdeterminationandinterpretationofthemetricsbywhichpro-gresstowardthegoalscanbeassessed,includingtimescales.Anyassertionofprogress(oritslack),therefore,isincoherentwithoutanaccompanyingstatementofbeliefsandassumptionsabouthowthegoalsofprogressarerecognizedandhowdistancefromthosegoalsisevaluated.Scienceandtechnology,however,haveseemedtoofferastableframeofreferencefromwhichdirectionalchange–progress–couldberecognizedandmeasured.Theideathatsciencemakesprogresstowardtruthhasbeenapowerful,widelysharednotioninWesternsocietiessincetheEnlightenment.Thispowerhasreflectednotanabstractcommitmenttotheennoblingvalueoftruth,butthenotionthattheacquisitionofmoreACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks303©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_051.qxd2/4/0913:37Page304danielsarewitzscientifictruthleadstomorehumanwell-beingbyenablingactionintheworldthatisbothmorallydefensible(becauseitisbasedontruth)andpracticallyeffective(becauseitisbasedonreliableknowledgeaboutnature).Thecoherenceofthisideaofprogress,however,cannolongerbesustained–owingnotsomuchtotheinsightsofphilosophersandhistoriansaboutthecontingentnatureofscienceandtruthastotheverysuccessofscienceitselfincontinuallygeneratingnewinsightintotheintricaciesandcomplexitiesoftheworld.For,justasscienceyieldsnewfacts,itsimultaneouslyexpandstherealmoftheunknownandinturncontinuallycastsdoubton,andraisesquestionsabout,themeaningofthosefactsthatithasalreadycreated.Themostfundamentaltruthsgeneratedbyscience,sometimescalled“lawsofnature,”actuallydescribephenomenathatcanbeobservedonlyinthecontrolledenviron-mentoflaboratories,experimentsandengineeredartifacts.Suchlawsdonothavereliablypredictivepowerinthecomplexanduncontrolledworldofhumanaffairs,and2arelikelyasnottomisleadifappliedas“truth”toguidehumanaction.Whenscienceisappliedtotheunderstandingandguidanceofhumanaffairs,itsresults–whileoftenuseful–arecontextual,contingentandephemeral.Weatherforecasts,diseasediagnosesandeconomicmodels,forexample,represent–atbest–averyweaknotionoftruth,andarebetter-understoodasheuristicswhoseeffectivenessdependsasmuchonsocial3institutionsandhumanjudgmentasonscientifictruth.Intotal,scientificclaimsoftruth-makingarestrongestwhenthetruthsthemselvesarethemostdivorcedfromreal-worldcontexts.Theideaofscientificprogresstowardultimatetruthmustthereforelargelyberelegatedtothedomainofphilosophicalabstraction.Scientifictruthdoesmakeitselfstronglyfeltinhumanaffairs–notastruthquatruth,butthroughitsembodimentintechnology.Technologiesworkbecausetheytakeadvantageofthepredictabilityandreliabilityofcontrolledphysical,chemicalandbiologicalphenomena.Buttheyneednotdependonanunderstandingoftheunder-lyingtruths–onlyonthenecessitythatsuchtruthsactuallyexist.Thespecialclaimonprogressthatcanbemadeontechnology’sbehalfisoneofdirectionality,accumula-tionandeffectiveness.Technology’sevolutionthroughtimemovesawayfromsimplicity,transparency,closednessanddiscretenesstowardcomplexity,inaccessibility,ubiquity,interconnectedness.Becausetechnologyembodiesreliableactionintheworld–ratherthanreliableknowledgeasanabstractionorararifiedphenomenonofthelaboratoryexperiment,asisthecaseforscience–thosewhocanlinkwhatatechnologyortech-nologicalsystemdoestotheirowninterestsmayreasonablysaythattheirabilitytopursuetheirdesiredgoalsorendpointshasimproved:theycanmakeareasonable,ifparochial,claimtoprogress.Whensuchclaimsarestronglytiedtouncontestedandwidelydistributedincreasesinhumanwell-being–as,forexample,withindoorplumbing,moreproductivecropvarieties,obstetricforceps,childhoodvaccines,andantibiotics–itwouldbechurlishtodenysomedirectionalbettermentofthehumancondition,someprogress,forthosewhohavegainedaccesstosuchartifacts.Thecasefortechnologicalprogressismorecomplex,however,thanthesimpleaccretionofartifactsthatareindividuallydeployedforhumanbetterment.Foronething,inmoderntechnologicalsocieties,mostnewtechnologiesarenotaimeddirectlyatovercomingimportantobstaclestoanimprovedqualityoflife.Rather,theyaimatexpandingeconomicproductivity,competitivenessandconsumerchoice,andinsodoingcatalyzethecreationofnewwealththatinturnallowsproliferationof,andaccess304\n9781405146012_4_051.qxd2/4/0913:37Page305theideaofprogressto,newtechnologiesamongevergreaternumbersofpeople.Economicgrowththusbecomesaproxyforprogress.Withintheresultingaffluentandtechnology-saturatedsocieties,itbecomesimpossibleinmostcasestoisolatesimplecause–effectrelationsbetweenanygiventechnologyandhumanbetterment.Forexample,thebestpredictorofgoodhumanhealthinaffluentcountriesisnotaccesstothelatestmedicalknow-ledgeandtechnologiesbutarangeofsocialdeterminantsincludingeducationlevel4andstandardofliving.Moreover,technologicalchangealwayscreateslosersaswellaswinners,forexamplethosewhosejobsandskillsaredisplacedbymachineswithenhancedfunctionalityandautonomy.Progressforsomeiserosionforothers.Wearebacktodisagreement.Theideaoftechnologicalprogressisalsoconfoundedbythecomplexitiesthataccompanytechnologicalchange.Whiletechnologiesareintendedtosolveparticularproblemswithinarestrictedcontext,almostanywidelyadoptedtechnologywillhaveconsequences,unintendedandsometimesundesirable,outsidethatcontext.Automobiles(andthetechnologicalinfrastructurethattheyrequireandenable)areanobviousexample,ontheonehandallowingaquantumincreaseinautonomoushumanmobil-ity,butontheothercontributingtotransformationofdomainsasdisparateasthesocialfabricofcommunitiesandthechemistryandphysicsoftheatmosphere.Similarly,thehugebenefitsofantibioticsarenowbeingunderminedbytheloomingthreatofantibiotic-resistantinfections.Onemightevenobservethatnuclearweapons,whichhavebroughttohumansthecapacitytoannihilatetheirownsocieties,wereinfactastrongstabilizingforceinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturythatarguablyledtoradicallyreducedlossoflifefromorganized,internationalviolencefollowingthe5carnageoftwoworldwars.Yetthepointthattechnologicalchangeleadstoconsequencesbothgoodandbadisobviousandtrivial.Thedeeperpointisthat,whiletheintentofalltechnologiesistoexercisemorecertainandreliablecontroloversomecircumscribedfacetofreality,thecumulativeeffectofmoretechnologycontinuallybeingintegratedintocomplexhumanandnaturalsystemsisthecreationofmorecomplexityandcontingencyintheworld.Justasscienceinitsproductionofknowledgecreatesnewrealmsoftheunknown,sodoestechnologyinitsexerciseoflocalcontrolopennewterrainsofunreliabilityandunpredictability.Thus,threecenturiesofcontinualexpansionofscientificknowledgeandtechnolo-gicalcapabilitydonotadduptoaconcomitantincreaseinthecapacityaccuratelytopredictthefutureofhumanaffairs.Thisshouldbesurprisingbecausetheproliferationofreliablescientificknowledgeandreliabletechnologicalcontrolmightreasonablybeexpectedtocreateagrowingcapacityto,ontheonehand,characterizeand,ontheother,createdesiredfutureoutcomes.Theproblemisthatthesocial–naturalsystemsinwhichscienceandtechnologyactareunbounded(atleastrelativetoourcapacitytounderstandandtoact),soknowledgeandconsequencesradiateandinteractinwaysthatcannotpossiblybeanticipated.Predictability,oritsabsence,iscentraltotheideaofprogressbecausestatementsaboutprogressarenecessarilyinformednotjustbycomparisonwiththepast(itselfacontentiousenoughtask)butwithexpectationsforthefutureaswell.Thereissome-thingthatsoundsverymuchlikedirectionalchangeinthefactthattodaypeoplecan,withconsiderablereliability,manageinformationandcommunicationnetworksthat305\n9781405146012_4_051.qxd2/4/0913:37Page306danielsarewitzspantheglobe,anelectricutilitygridforacityof10millionpeople,oraglobalagricul-turalsystemthatproducessufficientfoodfor6billionpeople(distributionalproblemsaside)–capabilitiesthatwereliterallyunthinkableasrecentlyashalfacenturyago,andthatwereacquiredincrementallyandcumulativelyovertime.Yetitwaspreciselytheacquiredabilitytomanagereliablyacomplexglobalairtransportsystemthatcreatedthetechnicalconditionsthatallowedtheterroristattacksof11September2001,themselvesthestimuliforcomplexsubsequentgeopoliticalevents.So,aretechnologicaltrendsextendableintotheindefinitefuture,ordotheybringsocietyclosertocascadingdisasterscausedby,say,culturalconflict,environmentalcollapse,oracombinationofboth?Istechnologicalsocietyasturdyedificeorahouseofcards?Ideasofscientificandtechnologicalprogressarestronglyinfluencedbyexpectationsofthefuturethatmustalwayshaveaconsiderableirrationalcomponent.Theideaofprogressthuscarrieswithitaninherentcontestability.Andyet,inasensethatisatoncedefinitionalandtautological,acommitmenttoprogressisalsoboundupinallhumanaction.Humandecisions,attheindividualorcollectivelevel,aremadetoachieveanaim,andthustheypredictastatethatthedecision-makerdesirestoachieve.Itistruethattheoutcomesofdecisionsareoftendifferentfromthosethatwereintendedordesired,butthisdoesnotalterthelogicalrealitythattheintentofdecisionsistomakeprogresstowardagoalviatheactionthatthedecisioninitiates.Notionsofagencyandascertainablecause-and-effectrelations,whichlieatthecoreofmodernity,arethuslogicallytiedupwithcommitmentstoprogress.Indeed,theideaofprogressisessentialtothesustainabilityofmodernhigh-technology,market-orientedsocieties.Politicalstabilityinsuchsocietiesappearstobestronglydependentonacontinualprocessofwealthcreationwhichinturnismadepossiblebycontinualtechnologicalinnovationand,crucially,continualsocietaladoptionoftheproductsofthatinnovation.Yetpeopledonotusenewtechnologiesaspartofsomesocialcontracttohelpcreatenewwealthandcivilstability;theyusethembecausetheybelievetheywillsomehowimprovetheirlife.Theavidconsump-tionoftheproductsofinnovationisastatementofbeliefinprogress.Theresultofthisbeliefisacontinualremakingoftheappearance,mechanicsanddynamicsofdailyexistence,fromthewaypeopleenjoymusictothewaytheyeatandworkandfightwarsandhavesex.Finally,then,evenwithintherestrictedcontextofaffluentsocietieswiththeirimplicitcommitmenttotechnologicalchange,theideaofprogressmustencounterhowsuchchangeactuallymakespeoplefeel.Thedataonthissubjectarestrongandunambiguous:withinaffluentnations,people’slevelofsub-jectivewell-being,ofhowtheyperceivetheirownqualityoflife,isremarkablystable,6unperturbedbyrapidtechnologicalchangeandaccumulatingwealth.Inotherwords,thedata–measuredinsurveysfrommanycountriesoverseveraldecades–demon-stratethatpeopledon’tlikelivinginthelatestversionoftheworldanymore(orless)thantheylikedlivinginpreviousones.Levelsofhappiness,satisfactionandwellness,itturnsout,arecoupledtotechnologicalchangeandeconomicgrowthonlyviathecommitmenttopursuingamoresatisfyingfuturethatneverarrives.Yet,ifsocietygaveupontechnologicalconsumptionastheroadtoabetterlife,thenthecentrifugalforcethatholdsmodernmarketeconomiestogetherwoulddissipate.Theideaofprogressisthusessentialtosocialcohesioninmodernsocieties;therealityofprogresswillalways,however,remainacontestedandelusivedomainofthehumanimagination.306\n9781405146012_4_051.qxd2/4/0913:37Page307theideaofprogressNotes1.Forexample,see:R.Nisbet,TheIdeaofProgress(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers,1980/1998);C.Lasch,TheTrueandOnlyHeaven:ProgressandItsCritics(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1991);andDaedalus,JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences,specialissueOnProgress,Summer2004.2.e.g.N.Cartwright,TheDappledWorld:AStudyoftheBoundariesofScience(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).3.D.Sarewitz,R.A.Pielke,Jr,andR.A.Byerly,Jr(eds),Prediction:Science,DecisionMaking,andtheFutureofNature(Covelo,Calif.:IslandPress,2000).4.e.g.R.Evans,M.BarerandT.Marmor,WhyAreSomePeopleHealthyandOthersNot:TheDeterminantsofHealthofPopulations(NewYork:AldinedeGruyter,1994).5.R.Rhodes,R.,“TechnologyandDeath,”inA.Lightman,D.SarewitzandC.Desser(eds),LivingwiththeGenie:EssaysonTechnologyandtheQuestforHumanMastery(Covelo,Calif.:IslandPress,2003),pp.129–38.6.e.g.E.DeinerandE.Suh,SubjectiveWell-BeingacrossCultures(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2000).307\n9781405146012_4_052.qxd2/4/0913:37Page30852TechnologyandPowerDANIELSAREWITZPoweristheprojectionofhumanintentoverotherpeople,animalsorthings.Techno-logymagnifiesintentandmakesitmorereliable.Ifwesaythatanartisthaspoweroverhismedium,wemeanthattheartistsuccessfullytranslatescreativityandvir-tuositytotheworkofartviaatechnologysuchasbrush,sculptingtoolorcamera.Yettheartifactofthecameraclearlyembodiesmoreoftheartist’spowerthanthebrushorthetool.Michelangelospokemetaphoricallyinsayingthatinproducinghissculptureshewasmerelyliberatingtheformthatresidedintheblockofmarble.Forthephotographer,however,themetaphorbecomesreality;theimageactuallydoesresideinthecamera.Thisincreasedtakingonoftheessenceofpowerbythetechno-logytellsuslessabouttheskilloftheartistthanaboutthecapacityofthetechnologytotranslatetheskillofapractitionerintosomethingthatcouldnotexistwithoutit–toexpandtherealmofplausibleintent.Thus,alongbowmanprovidesbothskillandpowerinlaunchinganarrowtowarditsintendedmarkperhaps–ifthebowmanhasgreatskill–ahundredmetersaway.Atechnicianonamissilecruiserpressesabuttonandlaunchesacomputer-guidedcruisemissilethatstrikesafive-foot-widetargetahundred(orathousand)milesaway.Inthecaseofthesculptorcomparedtothephotographer,andthebowmancomparedtothesailor,moreofthecause-and-effectconnectingintenttopowerisembodiedinthetechnology,thoughallthesepractitionersmayrequireahighdegreeofskilltofulfilltheirintent.Politicallyandmilitarilydominantsocietieshavealmostalwaysbeenthosethathavechosentotakeseriouslythepursuitoftechnologicaladvantage.Indeed,historycanbetoldasastoryofevolvingtechnologyappliedtotheexerciseofpower.David’sslingshot,theTrojanHorse,thelongbowsofAgincourt,Britishships-of-the-line,thetanksoftheBlitzkrieg,andtheA-bombatHiroshimaarethemythicallyfamiliarinstantiationsoftherelationoftechnologyandpower.Ofcourse,technologyhasalsobeenappliedtotheexerciseofpowerthroughmeansthatarenotexplicitlymilitary,suchassuperiormodesoftransportation,communicationandinformationdissemination,productionofgoods,andproductionofenergyfordoingvariouskindsofworkmoreefficiently.Yetadvancesintheserealmshavealsooftensupportedtheexerciseofmartialpower.Powerandtechnologygrowtogether;theyco-evolve.Thecompetitivenatureofhumansandsocieties,andtheincrementalessenceoftechnologicalinnovationfeed308ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_052.qxd2/4/0913:37Page309technologyandpowerbackoneachotherandaremutuallyenhancing.Thatis,thequestforpowerisinherentlyservedthroughtheadoptionandimprovementoftechnologiesthatcanincreasinglyembodythatpower.Throughoutmuchofhistorythisfeedbackprocesswastemporallyspasmodicandgeographicallyspecific;overthepastseveralcenturiesithasbecomerapid,continualandincreasinglycosmopolitan.Militarypowerandeconomicpowerareespeciallycloselytiedtogetherthroughtheroleoftechnology.Historically,superiortechnologyinarmsandtransportallowedthegeographicprojectionofmilitaryandpoliticalpowerthatinturncatalyzedeco-nomicpowerlargelyviacontrolofnaturalresources(ore;arableland;spices)andtraderoutes,asexemplifiedbythefar-flungEuropeancolonies,andChinesecoloniesbeforethat.Butindustrialism–theapparentlylimitlessindigenouswealth-creatingcapacitycreatedbytheapplicationoftechnologicalinnovationtoproductionofgoodsandservices–hasamplifiedandacceleratedthesynergiesbetweenmilitaryandeconomicpower.ThisinterdependencereacheditsmostconspicuoushighpointintheColdWar,duringwhichtheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnion(aswellastheirrespectiveallies)investedsignificantproportionsoftheirwealthinthedevelopmentofbothmilitaryandnon-militarytechnologiesaspartofacompetitionforglobalmilitaryandeconomicsupremacy.Theobviousproductofthiscompetitionwasthearsenalofincreasinglypowerfulandaccuratenuclearweaponscapableofdestroyingtheworldmanyhundredsoftimesover.Buttransformationaladvancesincomputingandinformationtechnologies,materials,communications,biotechnologies,andavionicsandaeronauticswerealsoproductsoftheColdWarandthelinking,bothdirectandindirect,ofmilitaryandnon-militarytechnologicalinnovationprocesses.Forexample,theutterpervasivenessofcomputersinsocietytodayisanoutgrowthofevolvingnetworksofgovernmentmilitary,private-sectorindustrial,andacademicresearchinstitutionsthatwereknittedtogetherduringtheColdWarandwhichcouldsimultaneouslyservegoalsofnationaldefense,wealthgeneration,andknowledgecreation.Indeed,themorerapid,pervasiveandall-encompassingtechnologicalchangeenabledintheWestthroughlinkinginnovationtocompetitiveeconomicmarketswasarguablyakeyelementintheWest’sColdWarvictory–avictorythatwasachieved,needlesstosay,withoutactuallyemployingtheweaponrythedevastatingpowerofwhichwasthesymbolictechnologicalproductofthatcontest.TheColdWar,thatis,oughttohavemadecompletelycleartherealitythatpowerinitsmilitary,political,economicandculturalguises,whileintimatelyrelated,arenotthesamethings,andthatthesuccessfullinkingoftechnologytopowerinoneoftheserealmsdoesnotautomaticallyconferdominanceintheothers.Yetdeepconfusionabouttechnologyandpowerremainsakeyattributeofworldaffairs,andisonconspicuousdisplayintheongoingwarinIraq.TheUnitedStates,owingtoitsabsolutesupremacyinmilitarytechnology,vanquishedtheIraqiarmyinshortorderandwithfewUScasualties.Butthesubsequent“missionaccomplished”pronouncementbyUSpresidentGeorgeW.Bush,standingonthedeckofanaircraftcarrier–itselfapalpablesymboloftheweddingofpowerandtechnology–cannowbeunderstoodasaninadvertenttestimonytothelimitsofthetechnology–powernexus.Theproximalobjectivesenabledbyatechnology–killingasoldierordestroy-ingabuilding,forexample–saylittleifanythingaboutthepowerofthattechnology309\n9781405146012_4_052.qxd2/4/0913:37Page310danielsarewitztofacilitatebroaderoutcomes–thecomplianceofonesocietytothewillofanother,forexample.Technologyandpowerareinextricablylinkedtoeachotherthroughthecom-petitiveandinventivenatureofthehumanspecies.Thissynergisticessenceseemsnot,however,tobematchedbyanevolvingwisdomastotheproperandeffectiveapplicationoftechnologicallyenabledpowerinhumanaffairs.310\n9781405146012_4_053.qxd2/4/0913:37Page31153TechnologyandCultureLUCIENSCUBLATheimpressivedevelopmentoftechniquesoverthecourseofthelastfewcenturieshasnotbeenaccompaniedbyabetterunderstandingofwhattechnicalactivityentails.WhereasAristotlesawinitan“imitationofnature,”modernthoughtreadilypicturesitasademiurgicpower:thepowerto“makeoneselfmasterandpossessorofnature”(Descartes),tocaptureor“enframe”it(Heidegger),sometimeseventodestroyit.AlthoughaSamuelButleroranAndréLeroi-Gourhanhadnotroubleshowingthateverytechnique,ancientormodern,isanaturalextensionofthelivingorganism,theoppositeviewtendstoprevail.Conventionalwisdomnolongerplacesmanwithinnature,butface-to-facewithit,theauthorofhisownessenceandabletoreshapeitatwill,replac-ingit,forbetterorworse,withawhollyartificialworld.ThisvisionwasembracedbytheyoungMarx,elaboratedbyexistentialistphilosophers,andevensanctionedbyacertainanthropologywhich,revivingtheolddistinctionbetweennomosandphusis,setsupanoppositionbetween“Culture”asthetotalityofspecificallyhumancreationsand“Nature”conceivedasanalienreality.ThisresurgenceoftheSophists’pointofviewinthecontemporaryworldisareminderthatthePrometheanconceptionofHomofaberhasrootsdeepinthepast.Itisnotduetoabelatedlyachievedawarenessofthe“essenceoftechnique,”butrathertoaperennialmisapprehensionthatisexacerbatedinourdaybythescientificdivisionoflabor.Althoughitmighthaveservedtomaintainacloselinkbetweenmanandtherestofthenaturalworld,technology,bybecomingautonomous,separatesitsobjectfromtheothercomponentsofcultureandfurtherexpandsthegapbetweenthesciencesofmanandthesciencesofnature.Asaresultofspecialization,ethnographersmaydescribeapeoplewhileignoringitsmaterialculture,andtheoreticalanthro-pologistsmayneglecteventomentiontechnology.WhereasMarxreducedthemostoriginalfeaturesofculture(religion,politics,law,etc.)tomerereflectionsofmaterialproduction,socialanthropology,havingattaineditsindependence,mayfallintotheoppositeerrorofelevatinghumaninstitutionstothestatusofpureproductsofthehumanmind.Thisdisciplinaryisolationisallthemoredetrimentaltotheknowledgeofmaninthattechnicalactivitylendsitselfbettertoobjectiveobservationthandootherkindsofactivity,anditismorespecificallyhumanthanorganizedsociallife,whichiscommontootherspecies.AwidespreadintellectualistprejudicegiveslanguageandACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks311©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_053.qxd2/4/0913:37Page312lucienscublarepresentationsprecedenceovertechniqueandactions.Inreality,manobjectifieshispotentialitiesinhistoolsnolessthaninhiswords,andiflanguageisthepre-eminentlocusofreflexivity,doubtlessadefiningfeatureofhumanthought,itisnottheonlyone,for,justaswordsareusedtospeakofotherwords,sotoolsareusedtomanu-factureothertools.ThestudyofHomofaberandofmaterialculturegivesnotonlyaricherbutalsoamoreexactideaofHomosapiensandofcultureasawhole.Byestablishingprecisehomologiesbetweentechnicalactivitiesandbiologicalactivities,theworksofaLeroi-Gourhanundermineassumptionsthathavegovernedanthropologyfordecades:theunreservedrejectionofevolutionism,whichdiscreditsanymorphogeneticapproachtoculture;culturalrelativismwhich,elevatedtoadogma,obstructsanylarge-scalecomparativeanalysis;nottomentiontheoverdrawnoppositionbetweennatureandculture,whichrulesouttheexistenceofprinciplescommontoculturalandnaturalformsandmakestheveryideaoftransculturalinvariantsproblematic.Afewelementarytruthssufficetorectifytheseideas.Againstthosetemptedtorejectanyformofevolutionism,culturaltechnologyremindsusofthefactthattoolscannotappearorsucceedoneanotherinanyrandomorder:forinstance,theuseofawood-chiselpresupposestheacquisitionoftwodifferenttypesofpercussion,sincethesteadypressureofthechiselpushingagainstthewoodmustbecombinedwiththehurlingforceofthehammerswungthroughtheairtopoundit.Againstrelativists,inclinedtoregardculturesas“incommensurable,”itdemonstratesthatthestructuralandfunctionalpropertiesoftechnicalobjectsareuniversal,andthatthedifferent“technicalmilieux”inwhichtheyarefoundcanbepartiallyordered,inthemath-ematicalsenseoftheterm,byinclusion.Farfromestablishingaradicalbreakbetweennatureandculture,itshowstechnicalobjectstobeprojectionsandextensionsoftheorganism–thethrowing-stick,forexample,addsathirdimmovableelementtotheupperarmandtheforearm,writinganexternalmemorytothatofthebrain,andthecomputeranexternalcalculatortothoseinherentinneuralnetworks–and,withoutcallingintoquestionthespecificityofhumantechnicalcapability,itrevealsthatcer-tainanimalspecies,suchasants,inventedelaborateformsofbreedingoragriculturebeforewedid.Lastbutnotleast,againstthosewhomakecultureouttobeapureproductofthehumanmind,technologyexhibitsnumerousinvariantsthatderivefromgeo-metricalandtopologicalpropertiestotallyindependentofmen’sintellectualcapacitiesorevenoftheirbiologicalfeatures.Thisistruefordifferentmodesandtypesofper-cussion(diffuse,linearorpointed;pushingorhurling;longitudinalortransversal,etc.–cf.Leroi-Gourhan,L’HommeetlaMatière,1943)characterizingtechnicalobjects;fordifferentwaysofplaitingorweaving;forthelimitednumberofelementarydecorativemotifs,etc.Theevolutionoftechniques,whichLeroi-Gourhansoaptlydescribedintermsofsuccessive“liberations”–thoseoftools,gestures,forcesandprograms(cf.LeGesteetlaParole,1966:35–62)–lendssupporttothisideaandevensuggestsacertainonto-logicalautonomyofculturalphenomena.Not,ofcourse,that,fromthemostmodestchoppinginstrumenttothemostcomplexautomaticmachine,technicalobjectscouldhavecomeintobeingontheirown,unaidedbyhumanintelligenceandwill:butbecause,overthelongrun,theirappearanceanddevelopmentseemultimatelytobe312\n9781405146012_4_053.qxd2/4/0913:37Page313technologyandcultureguided,irrespectiveofmen’smotivations,byaninternallogicthatgivestheliebothtotheutilitariandoctrinethattechniquesarebornofneed,andtheotherwisemorecogentopposingviewsthatmakethemtheproductsofdesire(Bachelard)orofritualnecessities.Thecontributionoftechnologyisnotconfinedtotheboundsofmaterialculture.Studyingtechniquesandtechniciansgivesusabettergraspofcultureasawholeandofmaningeneral.Itsufficestocomparehumantechniqueswiththoseofanimalsinordertoshiftfromculturaltechnologytogeneralanthropology,foritisprobablythesurestmeansofdeterminingwhat,inman,isproperlyhuman.Whatsuchacomparisondemonstratesisnotthatartificialproductionisfundamen-tallydistinctfromnaturalproduction,orthattheproceduresemployedbymenarealwaysorevenoftenoriginal.Inreality,theyrarelyorneverare,forwehavegoodreasontosupposethatthereisalwayslessinamachine,howevercomplexitmaybe,thaninanorganism–muchless,forexample,inacomputerthaninthebrainofitsinventor.No,asAristotletaughtlongago,andasLeroi-Gouhransocarefullyestablished,whatcharacterizeshumantechniquesistheirexteriorization,theirprogressive“imple-mentation”ininertmatter.Itisthefeatthatconsistsingettingtechnicalobjectstocarryoutoperationswhichmaninitiallyaccomplishedhimselfusingnothingbuthisownorganism.Itisanactivitywhich,inasense,amountsto“rediscovering”and“redoing”intheexternalworldoperationswhichhepreviouslyhadtobeabletodoinordertoconstructhisownorganism,themachineofhisownbody–and,therefore,toprojectinganevermorecompleteself-imageintotheworldoutsidethisorganism.Thisprocessofexteriorizationhastwoconsequences:itsetsmanatadistancefromtheworld,throughtheintermediaryofthetechnicalobjectsthatheinterposesbetweenhishandandthematerialhefashions,anditsetshimatadistancefromhimself,byallowinghimtocontemplatehisownimageintheobjectsheproduces.Remarkably,thesametypeofsettingatadistanceisaccomplishedbywritingand,evenearlier,byspeech,bothofwhichgivethoughtanobjectiveform:languageis,inthissense,lessameansofcommunicationthanameansofinterruptingcommun-ication(cf.RaymondRuyer,L’Animal,l’Homme,laFonctionSymbolique,1964:97)byinterposingwordsbetweenusandtheworld,therebycreatingabarrieragainstthealienatingeffectsoffascination(cf.RenéThom,ParabolesetCatastrophes,1983:154)ormimeticcontagionthatwemayexperiencewhenexposedtotheimmediatepres-enceofthingsorfellowhumanbeings.Technicalactivityandlanguagethusappearastwodifferentaspectsofaself-samecapabilitythatisconstitutiveofthehumanityofmanandthatcouldbecalled,inaccordancewithanthropologicalusage,the“symbolicfunction”–providedthattheword“symbolic”isdefinedinsuchawayastopreservethemeaningimplicitinitsetymology.Herewearethinkingoftheriteassociatedwiththesumbolon,whichconsistedinestablishingabondbetweentwoindividualsthroughtheintermediaryofanobjectcutintotwoparts.Inotherwords,thesymbolshouldbedefinedasthatwhichunitesandseparatesatonce,throughitstwofoldcapacitytorenderpresentthingsthatareabsent,andtosetatadistancethingsthatarepresent.Theclosekinshipbetweentechnicalactivityandlanguage,whichLeroi-Gourhandemonstrated,leadsustolookformoregeneralconnectionsbetweenculturaltechno-logyandsocialanthropology.Theaimisnottoreducesocialinstitutionsandstructures313\n9781405146012_4_053.qxd2/4/0913:37Page314lucienscublatothestatusofby-productsofmaterialculture,butrathertoconceiveofthemasspecifictechniques,subjecttocommonprinciples.Inthisway,wemightregardsocialorganizationsas“techniquesforterritorialcontrol”(inPierreGourou’sphrase)orassystemsfortheself-regulationor“self-domesticationofman”(inRenéGirard’sphrase),andconjecturethatwhatiscalledthe“symbolic”efficacyofritualsis,asinthecaseoftools,primarilyafunctionoftheirform,thatistosay,oftheirtopologicalandgeometricalproperties(thepositionandstructureofceremonialsites,thespatialdistribution,gesturesandmovementsoftheactors,etc.).Letustakeasanexampleinvestiture,aritualfoundtheworldoverinwhichanindividualaccedingtoanewfunction(especiallythatofking,priestorjudge)donsaceremonialgarment.Itwouldbeamistaketosaythatthisrite“expresses”achangeinstatus.Rather,byconcealingfromtheeyesofthepublicthebodyofthenewoffice-holder,investitureturnshimintoanarbiterintheoriginalsenseoftheterm,meaningonewhoseeswithoutbeingseen,andcanthereforeactasathirdparty,standingoutsidetheface-to-faceconfrontationsofcommonmortals.Inshort,itdoesnot“symbolize”thearbiter’sfunction;itcreatestheantisymmetricalrelationshipwhichmakesthisfunctionpossibleinasocietyruledbyaprincipleofreciprocity.Orletustakeaunanimousoath,suchastheSermentduJeudePaumeswornbythedeputiesoftheThirdEstateduringtheFrenchRevolution:suchanoathimmediatelycreatesaunifiedgroupsolelyinvirtueofthefactthatallmustsimultaneouslyraisetheirarmsinthesamedirection.Theyneednotshareabeliefinanydivinity;thesimpleconvergenceoftheirhandsisenoughtodesignateasitedestinedtobecomeatranscendentpoletowhichthegroupmayperiodicallyreturninordertore-establishitsunity.Or,finally,letustakeatypeofsacrifice,quitewidespreadinAfrica,inwhichthebodyofthesacrificialvictimiscutintwoinordertoterminateanincestuousrelation-shiporavendetta.Theobjectofthisritualisnottomarktheendofanillicitliaisonbetweentworelativesortheendofhostilitiesbetweentworivalgroups,butrathertoobtainthisresultbyre-creatingtheborderlineandthedistancenecessarytoimproverelationsbetweenthepartiesconcerned.Itfollowsthatsacrifice,contrarytowhatfamousdefinitionswouldleadonetobelieve,islessariteofcommunionthanofseparation,maintainingmenandgods(whosewrathmustbekeptatbaybyofferingthemtheexpiatoryvictim)attherightdistancefromoneanother.Inalloftheseexamples,theso-calledsymbolicefficacyoftheritedependsontheprecisionofthetechnicalgesture,onwhichresponsibilityfortheregulationofactionsandrepresentationsrests.Letuscomebacktolanguage.Sinceritualformsturnouttobelessarbitrarythanonemighthavebelieved,oneistemptedtochallengethedogmaoftheconventionalnatureofsignswhich,fromAristotletoSaussure,hasdominatedthehistoryofWesternthought.SucharevisionwouldfindsupportintheworkofPierreGuiraud.InanarticlesummarizinganexhaustiveFrenchvocabularystudy(Languefrançaise,1969,4:67–74),thislinguistshowedthatthegreatmajorityofwordsdesignatingtheactof“strikingablow”areformedonthebasisofaverysmallnumberofonomatopoeicroots.Onecountsmorethan500termsconstructedaroundtheelementTK,anddistributedacrossthevocaloppositionsTIK–TOK–TAK,dependingonwhethertheblowispiercing,cuttingorcontusing.HereweencounteroncemorethethreegreatmodesofpercussiondefinedbyLeroi-Gouhran:pointed,linearanddiffuse,analogically314\n9781405146012_4_053.qxd2/4/0913:37Page315technologyandculturerepresentedbythesoundsTIK,TOKandTAK.Henceeverythingoccursasifthesamereasonsledustohavethreetypesofteeth(canines,incisorsandmolars),tomanu-facturethreetypesoftoolsandtocreatethreeclassesofwordstodesignatethediffer-enttypesofblows:notbecauseculturalformsareamereextensionoflivingforms,butbecausebothhumaninstitutionsandlivingorganismsaresubjecttocertainuniversalformalconstraintswhichnomatterorsubstratummayelude.For,toborrowafamousphrase,itisnotaquestionofexplainingfeudalsocietybythehand-millandstatesocietybythesteam-mill–inotherwords,ofdenyingthespecificityofhumaninstitutionsandofsocialanthropology–butonlyofsuggestingthata“technologicaldetour”couldhelpanthropologybettergrasptheorganizationofculturalphenomenawhileapproachingcloser,inanon-reductionistspirit,totheothersciencesofnature.Wedonothavespaceenoughtoshowhowestheticphenomenainteractwithtechnicalphenomenatogiveeachethnicgroupitssingularidentity.Here,again,aLeroi-Gouhran,bydemonstratingthatphenomenaofthesametype(e.g.plumageandsongsinthecaseofbirds,ornamentsandmusicalrhythmsinthatofpeople)serveasoperatorsofidentityinbothspeciesandethnicities,isableinourviewtoaccountatoncefortheunityandtheculturalorspecificdiversitydisplayedbyboththehumanandtheanimalworlds.TranslatedbyMarkR.Anspach.315\n9781405146012_4_054.qxd2/4/0913:38Page31654TechnologyManagementRICHARDLI-HUAWhatIsTechnologyManagement/ManagementofTechnology(MOT)?Technologymanagementcanbeviewedfrommanydifferentperspectivessincetheword“technology”itselfissubjecttovariousinterpretations.However,theauthorofthisthe-sisapproachesthetopicsfromdifferentexperiencesthatareassociatedwithdifferentenvironmentsandbackgrounds.Itishopedthatthisthesiswillpresentthemanyfacetsoftechnologymanagement.Thetwowords“management”and“technology”notonlycarrytheburdenofmanydifferentmeaningsbutalsopresentadditionalsophis-ticationowingtotheanthropologicaldiversity.Tomany,MOTmeansmanagingengineeringandtechnology.Toothers,MOTindicatesmanagingknowledgeandinformation,managingresearchanddevelopment,managingmanufactureandoper-ation,managingtheactivitiesofengineersandscientists,ormanagingthefunctionalactivitieswithoutconcernforthetotalofactivitiesthatencompassthebusiness-concepts-to-commercializationprocess.AccordingtoGaynor(1996),theseinterrelatedactivitiesmustbeintegratedintoatechnologysystem.MOTmeansnotonlymanag-ingthesystembutalsomanagingthepieces,whichinvolvesintegratingthe“pieces”intoanacceptable“whole”byfocusingattentionontheinterdependenceofthepieces.However,theseelaborationsareonlypartoftheprocessofMOTbythisthesis.Accordingtothe1987workshopreportoftheNationalResearchCouncil(NRC)oftheUSA,“ManagementofTechnology”isthehiddencompetitiveadvantagebridg-ing“theknowledgeandpracticegap”betweenscience,engineeringandbusinessmanagement(Khalil2001).ManagementofTechnology(MOT)asafieldlinks“engineering,science,andmanagementdisciplinestoplan,develop,implementtech-nologicalcapabilitiestoshapeandaccomplishthestrategicandoperationalobjectivesofanorganisation.”TheNRCreportsummarizesimportantcontributionstoindustrythatmanagementoftechnologyknowledgecanmakeasfollows:Howtointegratetechnologyintotheoverallstrategicobjectivesoforganization;Howtogetintoandoutoftechnologiesfasterandmoreefficiently;Howtoassess/evaluatetechnologymoreefficiently;Howbesttoaccomplishtechnologytransfer;316ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_054.qxd2/4/0913:38Page317technologymanagementHowtoreducenewproductdevelopmenttime;Howtomanagelarge,complexandinter-disciplinaryorinter-organizationalprojects/systems;Howtomanagetheorganization’sinternaluseoftechnology;HowtoleveragetheeffectivenessoftechnicalprofessionalsToputitinasimpleway,technologymanagementisaboutgettingpeopleandtech-nologiesworkingtogethertodowhatpeopleareexpecting,whichisacollectionofsystematicmethodsformanagingtheprocessofapplyingknowledgetoextendthehumanactivitiesandproducedefinedproducts.Effectivetechnologymanagementsynthesizesthebestideasfromallsides:academic,practitioner,generalistortechnologist.SignificanceofTechnologyManagementItisarguedthattherearethreemajorfactorsstrategicallyinmodernorganizationsthatunderpinthecreationofcompetitiveadvantages.Thefirstoftheseisstrategicleader-ship.Theeffectiveleadershipensuresthattheenterprisewilldevelopitselfintherightdirectionandtheproductionofproductwillmeetthedemandofthemarket.Thesecondfactorishavingastaffwithmotivationandempowerment.Theyarethedrivingforcesoftheorganization.Thethirdfactoristhepropermanagementoftechnology.Itisimport-antthatthecompany’stechnologybeappropriatelyandproperlymanagedsoastoachieveeffectiveandcompetitivestatus(HarrisonandSamson2003).Leadershipandmotivationofemployeeshavebeenwidelyrecognizedassuccessfactors.Therehavebeensignificantadditionstotheoriesandpracticeregardingimprove-mentinthemanagementofpeople.Therefore,strategically,theremainingbattlefieldbeingcompetitivedependsonpropermanagementoftechnology.Toputitdifferently,thestrategicissuewillbehowacompanycoulddevelop,acquire,shareandmanagetechnologyappropriatelyandeffectively.ItisinterestingthatthisargumenthasbeenincongruencewiththeAmericanhistoricalexperience.TheUnitedStatesofAmericaexperiencedanincreasingglobalcompetitionwhichresultedinlossofmarketshareinseveralindustrysectorsinthe1970sand1980s.Thisbecameaconcernnotonlytoindustriesbutalsotogovern-mentandeducationalinterests.ToidentifyreasonsforthedeclineinUSindustrialcompetitiveness,andtoformulatearesponsetothechallengeswithinglobalcom-petition,seriousworkandeffortshadbeencontributedinthesearchforexplanationsandsolutions.DiscussionswereinitiatedbymajorestablishmentssuchastheNationalResearchCouncil(NRC),theNationalScienceFoundation(NSF),theAmericanAsso-ciationofEngineeringSocieties,theAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTech-nology,theAmericanAssemblyofCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness,OakRidgeAssociatedUniversitiesandothers.Aseriesofworkshopswereorganizedandattendedbyexpertsforthediscussionofchangingparadigmsinbusinessandtechnology(KhalilandBayraktar1988).Aresultingconsensuswasthatgreatattentionandasignificantamountofeffortshouldbedirectedtowardmakingimprovementsinthemanagementoftechnologyandinconductingresearchanddevelopingeducationalprogramsinthisemergingfieldofknowledge.317\n9781405146012_4_054.qxd2/4/0913:38Page318richardli-huaKhalil(2001)highlightsthateffortstoimprovetheUSpositionintheglobaleco-nomywerebeinginfluencedbytheunderstandingthatmoreorganizations,includinggovernmentagencies,highereducationalinstitutions,enterprisesandfoundingagen-ciesbecomeawareofissuesinvolvedintheinternationalarena.Today,rapidchangesinthetechnologyandbusinessenvironmentcontinuetooccur.Thesechangesrequirecontinuousupdatingofmethodsandtechniquesofbusinesspractice.Forexample,measuringthevalueofabusinessaccordingtoassessmentofphysicalassetsorbasedontraditionalaccountingorfinanceformulasisinadequateintheknowledgeeconomy.Educationandtraininginstitutionsneedtotakeintoconsiderationthechangingenvironmentintechnologyandbusiness,andrespondbychangingtheirprogramsaccordingly.Khalil(2001)arguesthatinternationalbusinessandengineeringschoolsneedtogiveconsiderationtoincorporatingintotheircurriculaeducationalmodulesrecognizingtheimportanceoftheknowledgeeraandthetechnologyrevolution.Theintangibleassetssuchasintellectualcapital,intellectualproperties,serviceinnovation,informationtechnologyandmanyoftoday’srapidlygrowingarenasshouldberecog-nized.Furthermore,manyoftheexistingmodelsandthetraditionalprogramsneedtotakeintoaccounttheappropriatenessandeffectivenessoftechnologyandinnovationaswellasthevolatilitiesoftheenvironmentinwhichthetechnologyiscreatedandapplied.Inaddition,inthetwenty-firstcentury,technologyassumesgreatimportanceinadvancingeveryaspectofhumanendeavor.MOTassumesevengreaterimportanceinthecapacity-buildingofcountries,companiesandindividualstoembracetechno-logicalchangesinordertoadvancetheircompetitivestatusinaglobalmarketplace.Ithasbeenrecognizedthatinterestinthefieldofmanagementoftechnologyhasmush-roomedsincetheinceptionofthemovementtointroduceMOTasanewfieldofstudyandresearchinthe1980s.TheapplicationofMOTprincipleshasmadeasignificantimpactonthewealth-creationabilityoftheUSandalargenumberofothercountries.NewEndeavorsinManagementofTechnologyIthastobeacknowledgedthatthereareanumberofendeavorstoembracethechallengesthattheworldisfacingintermsofmanagementoftechnology.TheInternationalAssociationforManagementofTechnology(IAMOT),foundedintheearly1980s,hasbecometheleadingandlargestinternationalprofessionalassociationsolelydevotedtothepromotionofmanagementoftechnologyeducation,researchandapplication.IAMOTiscurrentlyundertakingamajorinitiativetocreateguidelinesforacademicprogramsinMOTandcertification/accreditationguidelinestorecognizethequalityofacademicprograms.Thispromisestobeastrongsteptowardestablishingformalmanagementoftechnologyeducationgloballyonasoundacademicbasis.InaddressingtheChineseexperienceintermsofmanagementoftechnology,Li-HuaandKhalil(2006)arguethatappropriateinfrastructures,strategiesandmechanismformanagementoftechnologyneedtobeestablishedinordertosupportthediffusionofmanagementoftechnologyprinciplesthroughoutChina.Theconceptualframe-workforthefuturedirectionandneedshasbeenproposedbasedontheUSresearchandeducationexperiencesoverthepasttwodecades.Itisdebatablewhetherbusiness318\n9781405146012_4_054.qxd2/4/0913:38Page319technologymanagementandengineeringschoolsneedtointroduceMOTcurriculafollowingtheUSmodelordevelopanewmodelshapedbytheChineseculture.ItdrawsupontheexperienceoftheUSinmanagementoftechnologyoverthepasttwodecadesandprojectswhatmaybeneededforChinatocontinueitsdevelopmentandeconomicgrowthinthefuture.Itis,however,evidentthatthecurrentsituationinChinaintermsofMOTpresentsbothopportunitiesandchallengesnotonlytoChinesebusinessbutalsotoWesternbusiness.Today,increasedlevelsofcompetitiondiscussedinthisthesisinthewakeofChina’sentryintotheWTOhaveresultedinexperimentationandrisk-takingaswaysofdoingbusinessinChina.However,theuncertaintiesandambiguitiesprevalentintheChinesebusinessenvironment–inparticular,intheareaoftechnologymanage-ment–areneitherwellunderstoodnoreffectivelynegotiatedbytheinternationalinvestmentcommunity.Inaddition,thecomplexitiesoftechnologyandknowledgetransferhaveledtomisunderstandingintheoperationandtheimplementationofinternationaljoint-ventureprojectsinChina(Li-Hua2006).Therefore,astotheinter-nationalinvestors,China’sbusinessenvironmentcontinuestopresentmanychallenges,particularlyinhowtomanageeffectivebusinessnetworksandensuresmoothknow-ledgetransfer,especiallyininternationaljoint-ventureprojects.Inresponsetothesechallengesandopportunities,thereisaninitiativethat,followingthesuccessfullaunchingoftheJournalofTechnologyManagementinChina,inlate2005theChinaAssociationforManagementofTechnology(CAMOT)wasestablished.CAMOTisaninternationalorganizationcommittedtoencouragingandsupportingresearchersandprofessionalswhoareengaginginresearchinmanagementoftech-nologyinChina.CAMOTaimstoestablishnational,regionalandinternationalcol-laborativeresearchprogramsinthefieldoftechnologymanagement,technologyinnovation,technologytransferaswellasknowledgetransferbyengaginggovernmentagencies,fundingagencies,educationalinstitutions,state-ownedenterprises(SOEs)aswellasprivatesectorsinChina.CAMOTstressestheimportanceofkeepingupwiththefastpaceoftechnologicalchangeandtheemergingnewglobalparadigmsofthebusinessenvironment.Managementoftechnology(MOT)isanimportantstrategicinstrumenttoimprovecompetitivenessandcreateprosperityinChina.CAMOTbelievesthatthereisaneedtoaddresstheexistinggapsintheprocessoftechnologymanage-ment,whichwillassistinimplementingmoreasustainablearrangementforsuccessfultechnologytransferanddevelopment.ThevisionofCAMOTistoinspireexcellenceformanagementoftechnologyandpromotetheappropriatediffusionofmanagementoftechnologyprinciplesthrough-outChina.ReferencesandFurtherReadingGaynor,G.H.(1996).HandbookofTechnologyManagement(NewYork:McGraw-Hill).Harrison,N.andSamson,D.(2003).TechnologyManagement(NewYork:McGraw-Hill).Khalil,T.(2000).ManagementofTechnology:TheKeytoProsperityandWealthCreation(NewYork:McGrawHill).Khalil,T.(2001).“FutureDirectionandNeedsintheManagementofTechnology,”InT.Khalil,R.M.MasonandL.A.Lefebvre(eds),TheKeytoProsperityintheThirdMillennium(Oxford:Pergamon).319\n9781405146012_4_054.qxd2/4/0913:38Page320richardli-huaKhalil,T.andBayraktar,B.(1988).“ChallengesandOpportunitiesofResearchintheManagementofTechnology.”NSF/UniversityofMiamiReport.Li-Hua,R.(2006).“WhatIsTechnologyManagement?,”editorial,JournalofTechnologyManagementinChina,2:1.www.camot.orgLi-Hua,R.andKhalil,T.(2006).“TechnologyManagementinChina:AGlobalPerspectiveandChallengingIssues,”JournalofTechnologyManagementinChina,1:1.www.camot.org320\n9781405146012_4_055.qxd2/4/0913:38Page32155TechnologyStrategyRICHARDLI-HUATechnologystrategyisnodoubtanimportantbutoftenignoredlinkinthestrategicformulationsystem.Comparedwiththepositionofdevelopmentandmarketingstrat-egy,technologystrategyappearstobeinafragmented,piecemealfashion.However,ithasbeenhopedthatthisthesisaddressesthesignificanceoftechnologystrategyintheprocessofthecreationofcompetitiveadvantageandhighlightsthecrucialissuesconcerningtechnologystrategy,suchasthedefinition,briefhistory,features,principles,processesandstepsofformulationoftechnologystrategy.Astrategyofanationisameansbywhichtheinternalstrengthsandweaknessesarelinkedwiththeopportunitiesandthreatsprovidedbyitsenvironment.Technologiesbythemselvesdonotestablishtheoverallstrengthsofanation.However,theappro-priateandeffectivetechnologystrategyisakeycomponentanddrivingforceinattain-ingcompetitiveadvantage.Byintegratingpropertechnologystrategyintoitsoverallstrategy,anationcandevelopawell-definedtechnologypolicytowardtechnologydevelopmentandinnovation(De2004).Technologystrategyisarelativelyrecentconceptintheareaoftechnologymanagement.AftertheSecondWorldWar,firmsintheUSsuchasWestinghouseandGeneralElectricpursuedpathsofdiversificationthroughinternalresearchanddevelopment(R&D)efforts(Narayanan2001).Thoughtheconceptoftechnologystrategywasnotprevalentatthattime,theoriginoftheconceptcanbetracedtotheR&DactivitiesandtheargumentabouttechnologystrategyadoptedtomanageR&Dinlargediversifiedfirms.Porter(1988)describes“technologicalstrategy”as“avehicleforpursuinggenericcompetitivestrategiesaimingatfundamentallydifferenttypesofcompetitiveadvant-ages”intryingtoestablishaconceptuallinkbetweentechnologicalchangeandthechoiceofcompetitivestrategybytheindividualfirm.Hefurtherelaboratesthattech-nologicalstrategymustbeabroaderconceptofoverallcompetitivestrategy,whichisanintegratedsetofpoliciesineachfunctionalactivityofthefirmthataimstocreateasustainablecompetitiveadvantage.Technologicalstrategyisbutoneelementofanoverallcompetitivestrategyandthusmustbeconsistentwithandreinforcedbytheactionsofotherfunctionaldepartments.MaidiqueandFrevola(1988)define“technologicalstrategy”as“thepatternofchoicesthatthefirmsmakeregardingtechnologydirection.”Intheirview,technologicalstrategyaddressesadistinctsetofACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks321©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_055.qxd2/4/0913:38Page322richardli-huadecisions;itshouldbedifferentiatedfromothermanufacturingstrategies.Further-more,itisconcernedwithchoicesbetweenalternativenewtechnologies,themannerinwhichtheyareimplementedintonewproductsandprocesses,andtheutilizationofresourcesthatwillallowtheirsuccessfulimplementation.Rosenbloom(1993)regards“technologystrategy”as“therevealedpatterninthetechnologychoicesoffirms,whichinvolvethecommitmentofresourcesfortheappropriation,maintenance,deployment,andabandonmentoftechnologicalcapacity.”Thesetechnologicalchoicesdeterminethecharacterandtheextentofthefirms’principaltechnicalcapac-itiesandthesetofavailableproductandprocessplatforms.AccordingtoNarayanan(2001),inreflectionofthesedefinitions,technologystrat-egyshouldhavethefollowingfeatures:Technologystrategyfocusesonthekindsoftechnologiesthatafirmselectsforacqui-sition,development,deployment,etc.;Technologystrategyrequirescommitmentssurroundingtechnologyselection;Technologystrategyisnotconfinedtohigh-technologyindustries.Evenacapacity-drivenoracustomer-drivenindustryrequiresatechnologystrategy.Suchstrate-giesmaybeimplicitandmaynotreflecttheconsciousdecisionsbyexecutives,butnonethelesstheydeterminethechoiceofthetechnicalcapacitiesandavail-ableproductandprocessplatformsofthefirms.Forexample,abankingfirmorahotelinaserviceindustrymaydecidetoinvestininformationandcommun-icationtechnology(ICT)asawayofcommunicatingandinterfacingwiththeircustomers;Technologystrategyhastoembraceboththehardwareandsoftwareelementsoftech-nology.Itisspeciallythecaseinthesedays.Withconsiderationofthesefeatures,therefore,therearefourmajortypesoftech-nologystrategy.Theseincludetechnologyleadership,niche,technologyfollowerandtechnologyrationalizer.Technologyleadershipstrategyconsistsofestablishingandmaintainingthroughtechnologydevelopment,innovationanddeploymentapre-eminentpositioninthecompetitivedomaininallthetechnologiesforadominantmarketposition.Ingeneral,thewell-developedcountriesoftenfollowthisstrategy.Nichestrategyconsistsoffocusingonaselectednumberofcriticaltechnologiestoseekleadership.Technologyinnovationanddevelopmentareselectiveandorientedtobuildtechnologicalcapacityinordertocreatecompetitiveadvantage.Forexample,thenewlydevelopedcountriesoftenfollowthistechnologystrategy.Followerstrategyisoftenadaptedbythedevelopingcountriesinordertoavoidtheriskofbasicresearch.Technologyrationalizationinvolvesmaintainingadequatelyonlyaselectedsetoftechnologies.Narayanan(2001)proposesthattherearefourstepsinformulatingatechnologystrategy.Thefirststepconsistsofdiagnosis,understandingtheenvironmentalcontextandthefirm’sstrategicposition.Second,itinvolvesthecommitmentofresourcestocertaintechnologychoices.Third,ithastoconsiderthemodeofimplementation,322\n9781405146012_4_055.qxd2/4/0913:38Page323technologystrategyintellectualpropertyprotectionplansandorganizationforexecutionofthetechnologychoices.Finally,itinvolvestheexecutionofthechoicesandtheimplementationofthetechnologystrategy.Facedwithaturbulentbusinessenvironment,collaborativearrangementoftech-nologystrategyhasbecomeatrendthesedays.Collaborativearrangementinvolvestwoormorefirmsinwhichthepartnerswishtoinvolvetechnologytransferandtolearnfromeachotherthetechnologies,skillsandknowledgethatarenototherwiseavail-able.Thepartnersmayrangefromsuppliersandcustomerstoevencompetitors.Oneofthemajorfeaturesinthecollaborativearrangementisknowledgetransfer,whichisviewedasstrategicallyimportant.Thecollaborativearrangementisoftendeterminedbecauseofthestrategicreasons.Thoughpartnersmaytrytoavoidcom-petitionintheirday-to-dayoperations,however,manytechnology-relatedcollabor-ativearrangementsareactuallybetweencompetitors.TakeShanghaiAutomobileforexample.ThefactoryoncewastheflagshipofChina’scarmanufacturingindustry,whichproducedthefirstcarin1958.IntheearlyyearsofChina’seconomicreform,thefirstjointventurewasestablishedin1991betweenShanghaiAutomobileandVolkswagen,whichtosomeextenttakesaleadingroleinChina’scarindustry.ThetechnologycollaborationbetweenShanghaiAutomobileandVolkswagenbegunintheearly1990shasbroughtthecompanyintothetop500intheworld.Ithasbeenrecognizedthattherehasbeencloseandsuccessfulcollaborationbetweenthetwostrategicpartners.However,whenShanghaiAutomobilewishedtocreateitsownbrandandintendedtoacquirecoretechnologyfromitsGermanpartnerthiswasrejectedbyVolkswagen.ThisclearlyindicatesthatShanghaiAutomobileandVolkswagenarepursuingdifferenttechnologystrategies.Inthisthesis,weusetheterm“technologystrategy”todescribethestrategicallyimportanttechnologychoicesmadebyafirmorastate.Itisastrategicinstrumentinachievingsustainablecompetitiveadvantage.Thus,thecooperationinMaglevrailwayinShanghaibetweenChinaandGermanyisanothercaseofcollaborativearrange-mentoftechnologystrategy.In2003,theGermantechnologyofmagnetictrainsinShanghaihadcreatedthefastestspeed(500kilometersperhour)onthefirstmagneticrailwayintheworld.KnownastheMaglev(magneticlevitation),China’sflagshiptransportsystemtakeseightminutestohurtlealonga28.5kilometertrackthroughthepaddyfieldssurroundingShanghaiPudongInternationalAirport.Thisjourneynormallytakesuptoonehourbycar.Fromthepointofviewoftechnologystrategy,Germany’sMaglevtechnologywastestifiedandmadeknownthroughtechnologycollaboration,whileChinahassortedoutitstransportationproblemfromShanghaiLongyangStationtoPudongInternationalAirport.Thisisaso-calledwin–winsolu-tion.Furthermore,theChinesegovernmentiscurrentlyconsideringanextensionintothecityandpossiblyfurthertotheneighboringcityofHangzhou,intimeforShanghai’shostingoftheWorldExpoin2010.AstheGermantechnologybeingtransferredtoChinahashadapositiveeffect,theMaglevisnowhavingfollowersacrosstheworld.AccordingtoClark(2005),GermanywantstobuildoneMaglevforanairportlinkinMunich.TheUSgovernmentisalsoevaluatingMaglevschemes.Morerealistically,theUKgovernmentplanstobuildaMaglevfromLondontoScotland,whichwillcostatleast£16billion.323\n9781405146012_4_055.qxd2/4/0913:38Page324richardli-huaReferencesandFurtherReadingClark,A.(2005).TheGuardian,6June2005.De,P.K.(2004).“GapbetweenStrategyandManagementofTechnology:AReviewofIndianScenario,”inY.A.HosniandT.Khalil(eds),ManagementofTechnology:InternetEconomy:OpportunitiesandChallengesforDevelopedandDevelopingRegionsoftheWorld:SelectedPapersfromtheEleventh...ConferenceonManagementofTechnology(Oxford:Elsevier).Maidique,M.A.andFrevola,A.L.Jr(1988).“TechnologicalStrategy,”inR.A.BurgelmanandM.A.Maidique(eds),StrategicManagementofTechnologyandInnovation(Homewood,Ill.:RichardD.Irwin),pp.233–5.Narayanan,V.K.(2001).ManagingTechnologyandInnovationforCompetitiveAdvantage(UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall).Porter,M.E.(1988).“TheTechnologicalDimensionofCompetitiveStrategy,”inR.A.BurgelmanandM.A.Maidique(eds),StrategicManagementofTechnologyandInnovation(Homewood,Ill.:RichardD.Irwin),pp.211–32.Rosenbloom,R.S.(1993).“RethinkingTechnologyStrategy,”paperpresentedattheAcademyofManagement,Atlanta,Ga.324\n9781405146012_4_056.qxd2/4/0913:38Page32556TechnologyandGlobalizationDAVIDM.KAPLANGlobalizationtypicallyreferstotheprocessbywhichacapitalistworldsystemspreadsacrosstheglobeandconsolidatestheeconomic,culturalandpoliticalorderofnationsintoaworldsociety.Globalizationinvolvestheexpansionofgloballinkages,theliber-alizationoftradeandcurrencies,thedominanceofWesternculturallife,increasedinter-nationaltravelandimmigration,andproliferationofinformationtechnologiesleadingtotheinterdependenceofnationsand,eventually,asingleglobalcommunity.Sincethe1970s,theindustrializedworldhasestablishedprogressivelyclosercontactwithandinvolvementinthedevelopingworld,thankstoacombinationofnewtechnolo-giesandspecificeconomicandpoliticalpolicies.Localeventsareshapedbydistantevents,andviceversa.Asaresult,distanceisbecominglessimportant,timeisaccelerat-ing,andpoliticalcommunitiesarelosingtheirtraditionalauthorityasfundamentalchangesinthelaws,economiesandculturesoccurwithineverysociety.Globalizationreferstoanumberofphenomenarelatedtothesocialandpoliticalintegrationofgeographicallyremotelocations.TechnologyandtheGlobalPoliticalEconomyTechnologicalinnovationshave,inlargepart,fueledglobalization.Innovationssuchasjetairplanes,wirelesstelephones,email,computersandglobaltelecommunica-tionsinfrastructureallowmoney,technology,rawmaterialsandfinishedproductstomovefreelyacrossnationalborders.Informationandcommunicationtechnologies,however,standoutasthemostimportanttechnologiesdrivingglobalization.Theincreasingspeedofsocialinteractionsandthedecreasingdistancesamongpeopledependonthepresenceofinformationandcommunicationtechnology.Thegenera-tionandtransmissionoftechnologicalknowledgeisalsotransformedbyglobalization,whichhasmadetheworldseemsmallerandmoreinterdependentaspeoplewhowerepreviouslyseparatedbygreatdistancesarenowabletoshareinthesameeconomic,politicalandsocialformsoflife.Informationtechnology(IT)isarguablythekeytotheprocessofglobalization.Innova-tionsincomputerhardwareandsoftwareintheearly1990sallowedforatremendousincreaseinthescaleofinformationgathering,storage,andspeedofdistribution.AtACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks325©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_056.qxd2/4/0913:38Page326davidm.kaplanthesametime,improvementsintelecommunicationstechnologyallowedforincreasedaccesstoinformation,creatingmoreeffective,andlessexpensive,meansofcommun-ication.Theabilitytoprocessinformationandcommunicateindigitalformhasdriventhe“ITrevolution.”Microprocessors,thetinydevicesthatpowerdigitaltechnologies,progressivelyincreasedtheirprocessingpowerandspeedwhilebecomingsmallerandlessexpensive.Microprocessorspowerpersonalcomputersandcomputernetworks,cellulartelephonesandcommunicationsnetworks,televisions,videogamesandvisualdisplays,andareincreasinglyfoundinmoreordinarydevices,likeautomobilesandrefrigerators.Innovationsinfiberopticsalloweddatatobetransformedintodigitalform,convertedintoimpulsesoflight,andthentransmittedatgreatspeedsovergreatdistances,markedlyincreasingthecapacityoftelecommunicationsnetworks.Improve-mentsinwirelessnetworksallowedforgreaterflexibilityincommunicationsandinformation-processingoverdistances.AdvancesinITfacilitatethetransfer,storageandprocessingofinformation,andhelptofurthertheprocessofglobalization.ITtechnologyhashadaprofoundinfluenceonglobalizingbusinesspractices.TheInternet,forexample,hastransformedthenatureofexchangesbetweenbuyersandsellers,eliminatingtheneedforface-to-faceinteractions,andallowingconsumersmoreaccesstoretailersandbusinesstoexpandtheirmarketshare.BusinessesusetheInternetfor“e-commerce”tofindotherbusinessestobuyorselltheirproductsorservices.“Business-to-business”commercestreamlinestheinteractionsbetweenwholesalers,retailers,producersanddistributorsofgoodswithinandamongbusinessenterprises.E-commercefacilitatescommunicationandaccesstomarketsonascalepreviouslyunrealized.ITtechnologyhascreatednewindustries,fosterednewkindsofwork,andtransformedthenatureofmanagement,manufacturing,distributionandservices.Ithascreatedthedemandfornewcomputerhardwareandsoftwaredevelopment,technicalexpertiseandsupport,informationmanagementand“knowledgeworkers.”ITtechnologychangesthenatureoftheglobalworkforceasiteliminatestheneedforworkersinoutdatedindustriesanddemandsworkerswiththeknowledgeandtrainingrequiredforjobsincomputingandtelecommunications.Changesinthenatureoftheworkforce,awayfromphysicalworktoknowledgework,inturnpushthedemandforhigh-techworkers,high-techmachinery,andtheinfrastructurenecessarytosupportthem.AsIT-drivensectorsoftheeconomycreatenewservicejobsanddestroyoldmanufacturingjobsinadvancedindustrializednations,thenatureofeconomiesandworkforceschangeindevelopingnationsaswell.PartofthedynamicsofITtechnologyandglobalizationistheintimaterelationshipsnowaffordedbycomputingandtelecommunicationtocoordinatecommerceacrossnationalboundaries,creatingnewpatternsofeconomicactivitieswhileeliminatingothers,bothdomesticallyandinternationally.ITtechnologyisakeyingredientin“leanproduction,”themanufacturingsystemthatcharacterizesthelate-capitalist(“post-Fordist”)globalsystemofproductionanddistribution.Leanproductionaimsatstreamliningmanufacturingtoeliminateexcessesandinefficienciesrelatedtooverproduction,inflexibledesign,slowproductdevelop-ment,excessiveinventory,unresponsivemanagement,lackofinformation,andahostofotherproblemsassociatedwithFordistmassproduction.IT-basedinventorysystemshelpmanufacturerscoordinatetoreducethetime,wasteandcostsofproductionbyreducingproductassemblyanddeliverytimes,andbyreducingproductinventoriesheld326\n9781405146012_4_056.qxd2/4/0913:38Page327technologyandglobalizationinwarehousesinbetweenthefactoryandretailoutlets.Thetechniqueisknownas“just-in-time”production,astrategyofreducinginventorybeforeandaftermanu-facturinginordertoreducecosts,maximizeprofitsandimprovereturnoninvestment.Just-in-timeimprovestheflowofgoodsbymanagingthesegmentsofthesupplychaininabusiness(whatmaterialsareused,howmuch,deliveredwhenandwhere,forwhatexactpurpose)co-coordinatedwithknowledgeaboutthedemandforaparticularproduct.Just-in-timeproductiondependsonfastandaccurateinformation-sharingupanddownthesupplychain.Late-twentieth-centurydevelopmentsinITtechnologyhelpedtoestablishleanproductionasacentralingredientinaglobaleconomy.Anotherareaprofoundlyimpactedbyinformationtechnologyisfinancialmarkets.Fast,reliableinformationisvitalforallinteractionsamongbanks,financialinstitu-tionsandlenderswithindividuals,investors,shareholdersandborrowers.MarketplaceinstitutionshavebenefitedfromimprovementsinITtechnology,includingthestockmarket,bondmarket,futuresmarkets,optionsmarket,foreignexchangemarket,tonamejustsomeamongmanyinstrumentsforbuying,selling,borrowing,lendingandinvestinginimportantsegmentsoffinancialmarkets.ITinnovationsininformation-processingspeed,storage,memory,dataanalysiscapacity,andsecurityhaveallowedfinancialmarkettobecomeinternational.ITinnovationsininformation-gatheringand-managementallowactorsseparatedbygreatdistancestohaveinformationandcoordinateactionsbasedoninformationonanew,increasingscale.Theresultisaglobalfinancialmarketinwhichindividualsandinstitutionshaveaccesstomoreinformationmorerapidlythanbefore,andgreateraccesstopreviouslyremotebanks,lenders,governmentsandforeignmarketstoinvestorraisecapital.Thecurrentlyexist-ingglobalfinancialmarketowesitsexistencetoacombinationofITinnovationsandinternationalregulatoryreformsthathaveopenedupfinancialmarketstoforeign(i.e.global)participation.TheGlobalPoliticalEconomyandTechnologyTechnologyisanecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforglobalization.Avarietyofnationalandinternationallaws,policies,practicesmustalsobeinplace.Themostimport-antconditionsincludethedominanceofcapitalistmarkets,increasinginfluenceofinternationalfinancialmarketsovernationalpolicies,adecreasinginfluenceoftheStateoverinternationalfinanceandcommerce,privatizationofservices,deregulationofeconomicactivities,andanincreasingroleofprivateactorsandbusinesscorpora-tionsinsocialandeconomiclife.ThemostpowerfulandimportantorganizationdealingwithglobaleconomicregulationsamongnationsistheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO).ThepurposeoftheWTOistoprovideanegotiatingforumfornationstoformagreementstolowertradebarrierstoensurethattradeflowsasfreelyandpredictablyaspossible.Inadditiontotradeingoodsandservices,theWTOregulatesbankingandfinance,intellectualproperty,disputesettlement,andtradepolicyreviews.Forthe150membernations,theWTOisthemostinfluentialinstitutionofinternationalcommerce.TheWTOaimstolowertradebarrierssuchascustomsduties,importbansorquotas,aswellaslimitstonon-tarifftradebarriersthatnationsmayimplementandenforce,327\n9781405146012_4_056.qxd2/4/0913:38Page328davidm.kaplansuchasdomesticlawsregulatingproductstandardsandliability,environmentalpro-tections,useoftaxrevenuesforpublicservices,andotherdomesticlawsregulatinginvestmentandtrade.ThroughtheWTODisputeSettlementProcess,nationscanchallengeeachother’slawsonbehalfoftheircommercialinterestsiftheybelievebarrierstotradeexist.IfmembernationsdonotconformtoWTOregulations,theyfacepossibleeconomicsanctions.ManyoftheWTOagreementsaffectthescienceandtechnologylawsandpracticesofmembernations.TheSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresAgreement(SPS)setsfoodsafetyandanimalandplanthealthstandards,includingquarantine,inspections,andtestingrequirements.TheaimoftheSPSAgreementistoestablishstandardsbasedonacceptedsciencetoallowcountriestosetreasonablehealthandsafetyregulationsbutonlytotheextentnecessarytoprotecthuman,plant,oranimallifeorhealth.TheSPSagreementpreventscountriesfromusinghighersanitaryandphytosanitarymeas-uresinordertoprotectdomesticproducers.Theresultisanenforceableprocedureforestablishingglobalhealthstandardsandacceptablescientificpractice.TheAgreementonTechnicalBarrierstoTrade(TBT)ensuresthatproductstandards,regulations,testingandcertificationonallgoods,includingindustrialandagricul-turalproducts,donotbecomeobstaclestotrade.TheTBTAgreementsetslimitsonthestandardsgovernmentsmayenforcetoachievesocial,environmental,consumer,orpublichealthobjectives.Theaimistopreventnationaltechnicalregulationsandindustrialstandardsfrombeingusedforprotectionismandinsteadtofosterthedevel-opmentofsingular,globallyacceptedregulationsandstandards.TheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualProperty(TRIPs)estab-lishesthelevelsofprotectiongovernmentshavetogivetheintellectualpropertyrightsofothergovernments.Theagreementcoverscopyright,trademarks,geographicalindications,industrialdesigns,patents,tradesecrets,andintegratedcircuitlayoutdesigns.TRIPsextendsintellectualpropertyrightstoincludepharmaceuticals,plantvarieties,humanandplantcelllines,micro-organisms,andgenes.Theagreementdefineswhatcountsasintellectualproperty,howgovernmentsshouldenforcerights,andhowtosettledisputesoverrightsbetweenmembernations.Throughtheseagreementsandothers,theWTOfunctionsasthesinglemostimportantinstitutionenablingtheglobalizationofscienceandtechnologypractice.ProponentsoftheWTOandeconomicglobalizationmaintainthatloweringimporttariffsand“harmonizing”theinternationalrulesofcommercewillmaketrademorecompetitiveandmorebeneficialforallnations,especiallylessdevelopednations.Opponentsworrythatitsagreementsprivilegeprivatecorporateandfinancialinterestgoalsoverpublicinterestgoalsofsovereignnations.Asaresult,theprocessofglobal-izationtendslesstowardpositive“harmonization”ofinternationalpoliciesandmoretowardnegative“homogenization”ofregionalculturalandenvironmentaldifferencesthataresacrificedforthesakeoffreetradeingoods,servicesandinvestment.Othertheoristsbelievethattheimpactofglobalizationisgreatlyexaggeratedandthatmostoftheworld’spopulationremainsimmunefromtechnologicalinnovationsandinternationaleconomicinstitutionsandfinancialmarkets.Despitethecontroversiessurroundingglobalization,thereiswidespreadagreementthatthecombinationofnewtechnologiesandtheexpansionoffinancialandeconomicmarketsischallenginglocalandnationalboundarieswithfar-reachingimplicationsforhumanity.328\n9781405146012_4_057.qxd2/4/0913:38Page32957TechnologyTransferEVANSELINGERThephrase“technologytransfer”hasmultiplemeanings.Thetwodominantusescon-cernanticipatorythinking:onereferstoemployeesworkinginofficesoftechnologytransferwhoattendtopatentingandlicensinginventionssothatnewscientificdis-coveriescanbetransformedintotechnologicalapplications;theotherreferstopeopleworkingondevelopmentprojectswhotrytodiscernandimplementnewapplicationsfortechnologiesthatalreadyexist.Giventheenthusiasmforacceleratingthepaceoftechnologicalprogressindevel-opingcountries,itisthelatterendeavor–particularlywhendesignedtoassistimpoverishedregionsto“leapfrog”fromapre-modernmilieuintothedigitalage–thatisattheforefrontofmanyprivateandpublicprograms.Evenwhenwellintentionedandcarefullyorchestrated,theuseoftechnologytransferasadevelopmenttoolroutinelyprovokesinternationalcritiqueinadditiontopraise.Thisisbecausethestandardsforjudgingregionalsuccessandthefeasibilityforexpansionthroughreplicationaresubjecttodebate–debatethattypicallycontainsontological,ethicalandpoliticaldimensions.Inordertounderstandthecentralmotifsaroundwhichmanyofthedebatesrevolve,itwillbeusefulfirsttodiscusshowtounderstandtechnologytransferquapractice.Owingtoanthropologicaldiversity,thethesisoftechnologicalrelativityholdsthekeytothisendeavor.Accordingtothisthesis–expressedbypragmatistssuchasJohnDeweyandphenomenologistssuchasDonIhde–technologicalactivityisanembodiedexperi-encethathasineliminableculturaldimensions.Notonlydoesthescopeoftechnologyincludemachines,artifactsandengineeringprincipals;italsoextendstobackgroundconditions,includingskills,knowledge,techniques,socialnorms,andperceptionsthatareshapedbypersonalandcollectivehistories.Inshort,withouttheregulatingstructureofpractice,artifactsandmachineswouldsimplybeuselessjunk–or,atbest,materialentitiesthatcould,someday,potentiallybecometechnologies.Indeed,eventheeffectiveuseof“found”or“proto”technologies,suchasthetubesofgrassthatchimpsusetocoaxinsectsoutoftheground,requiresuserstopossessviabletechniques–andthesetechniques,inturn,aretypicallyacquiredthroughthediscipliningofnaturaltalentthroughhabituation.Whenitcomestoimportinganewtechnology,somesimplecontexts,suchaseatinganddrinking,arewidespread;asaconsequence,theyoftentransfereasily.OtherACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks329©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_057.qxd2/4/0913:38Page330evanselingercontexts,however,aremorecomplex;inthesecases,technologytransfercanprovedifficult.Insomeinstances,technologiesthataparticularculturefindsusefulcannotbetransferredatall;here,differencesinbackgroundconditionstendtobeattherootofthediscrepancy.Forexample,asHubertDreyfusnotes,itwouldbedifficulttoimagine,giventhewaymaterialcultureembodiesandshapesculturalidentity,atraditionalJapaneseteaceremonyoccurringaroundStyrofoamcups.Styrofoamcupsarenotaestheticallypleasing;andtheirprimaryfunction,managingtemperatureefficiently,isachievedinadisposableandinterchangeableform.Bycontrast,“theteacupdoesnotpreservetemperatureaswellasitsplasticreplacement,andithastobewashedandprotected,butitispreservedfromgenerationtogenerationforitsbeautyandsocialmeaning.”Caseslikethelattersuggestthat,whenitcomestounderstandingandassessingtechnologytransfer,categoriessuchas“culturalspecificity”arelikelytobemorerelevantthanwhatoftenturnouttobeprimarilyergonomicmattersof“simplicity”and“complexity.”Sinceatransferabletechnologycancountasbeingadoptedonlyonceitscomponentsareinstantiatedintoculturalpracticesthrough“integration”aswellas“translation,”newagendasandnovelusagecanalwaysturnagivenartifact,machine,andevensystemintoadifferent“being.”Twoexamplesoftechnologytransfercanproveillustrativehere.First,considerthewidespreaduseoftext-messaging.Itmaybetemptingtoimaginethatthistrendhasbecomeubiquitousowingtouniversalproclivities.Perhapsitishumannaturetowanttoavoidgenuineintimacywhilesimultaneouslygeneratingtheillusionofinter-subjectivebonding.But,inadditiontobeingculturallyinsensitive,suchgrandspecula-tionwouldbedifficult,ifnotimpossibletoprove.Inordertoexplainthepopularityoftext-messaginginChina,forexample,onewouldneedtoexaminehowtheprospectofleavingatext-messageaccordswithorchallengesextantperceptionsofhierarchicalbehavior.Forexample,ithasbeenallegedthat,owingtotraditionalvalues,manypeopleinChinaviewtext-messagingasacommunicativeactthatcanpreservedignity.Thisisbecausetheyconsideritrudetoleavevoice-mailmessages,andtheyfurtherviewtheprospectofconversingwithanintendedrecipient’sassistanttobeundignified.Thus,whiletext-messagingmaybeprimarilyageneraltechnologyofidlechatteroremergencycontactinoneculturalcontext,itcanbeprimarilyadignity-preservingtechnologyinanother.ThesecondexampletoconsideristheVillagePhoneProgram.CreatedundertheauspicesoftheGrameenBankin1997,thisendeavorusesmicro-creditprincipalstoloanBangladeshiwomenmoneyforacquiringmobilephonesthatcanberentedouttovillagersonacall-by-callbasis.ThisprogramhasalreadymadeitpossibleforwomenlivinginapredominantlyMuslimandexplicitlypatriarchalsocietytogainnewlevelsofincome,respectandgeographicmobility.IthasalsoenabledthemostlyilliterateBangladeshistoacquireimproved“connectivity”that,inturn,hashelpedmerchantsofallsortsconductmoreefficientandinformedbusinesstransactions,helpedpeoplestayintouchwithrelativeswhomovedabroad(primarilytoacquireemploy-ment),andhelpedpeopleimprovetheiraccesstomedicaladviceandmedicaltreatment.Asaconsequenceofthesegains,neo-classicaleconomiststypicallycharacterizetheprojectasproducing“empowered”and,comparativelyspeaking,“independent”agents.Indeed,ifsuchadescriptionwereunproblematic,theVillagePhoneProgramwould330\n9781405146012_4_057.qxd2/4/0913:38Page331technologytransferdeserveunqualifiedpraiseforeffectivelypromotingtwooftheUnitedNationsMillenniumGoals:combatingextremepovertyandpromotinggenderequalitythroughtheempower-mentofwomen.And,eveniftheVillagePhoneProgramismorecomplicatedthanthedominantdevelopmentnarrativesacknowledge,itstillmakessensetocharacterizemobilephonesas“weaponsagainstpoverty”inthiscontext,butnotinothers.Again,thecriticalpointhereisthatculturallyspecificreasonsexplainwhymobilephoneshavebecomedevelopmenttoolsinBangladeshbutnotinUSslumsandghettos.Havingbrieflydetailedtherelativisticdimensionoftechnologytransfer,itwillbeusefultodiscusssomeoftheleadingethicalandpoliticalissues.Forthesakeofcon-tinuity,BangladeshandChinawillagainbeusedasparadigmcases.Withrespecttothetransferofchemicals,nuclearpowerandbiotechnology,oneofthecentralproblemsthatdevelopingcountrieshavefacediscontextualinsensitivityonthepartofthedevelopers.OneillustrativecaseisdiscussedbyBillMcKibbeninEnough:StayingHumaninanEngineeredAge(2000).Thereheanalyzestheimpactofthe1960sGreenRevolutioninGorasin,Bangladesh,judgingtheprojecttobeaninstanceofWesternhubris.Attheprogram’sinception,compliancewasachievedbyinformingtheBangladeshisthat,iftheyimportednewhigh-yieldricestrainsproducedin“Westernlabs,”progresswouldbemadeincombatingtherampanthungerproblem;indeed,thepredictedoutcomewasabundantandconsistentfoodsources.Whatthedevelopersdidnotsufficientlyconsider,however,isthatBangladeshis“asmuchwaterasitisland”andalsoexperiencesfloodsregularly.Asaconsequence,byplantingmore“‘improved’seedsinsteadofdozensofdifferentvarieties,”theinhabitantsofGorasinwouldcometoacquireanincreasedneedforpesticides,andpeopleaswellasanimalswereexposedtodangeroustoxins.Becausethewomenwhocollectedwaterforthevillagecameintodirectcontactwithharmfulchemicals,theydevelopedgastricandskinproblems.Thecowsandfishbecamediseasedaswell–andthisprovedtobeasignificantblowtoBengalidietandculturalidentity.Inordertopreventfurtherdevastation,itwasdecidedthatthehigh-techagendaneededtoberevisited.InMcKibben’sparlance,theBangladeshissaid“enough”toatechnologythatcouldnotbesuccessfullyintegratedintotheirlocalnorms.Aboutadecadeagotheyimportedlow-techorganicfarmingzonesinthehopeofmovingtowardamoresustainablesolution.ThegenerallessonthatMcKibbendrawsfromthinkingaboutGorasinisthattheverypursuitofadevelopmentalgoal(e.g.improvinghealth)can,ironically,inhibitthatgoal(e.g.fosteringdisease).Sincecomparableexamplesofdramaticandunforeseenresultsarisingfromtechnologytransferabound,thetaskofcreatinganempiricallysensitivedevelopmentethics,onethatdealsappropriatelywithbothtechno-scientificuncertaintyandmulti-culturalsensitivity,remainsanimportantpriority.Onthemoreexplicitlypoliticalsideofthespectrum,humanrightsissuesarealsotakingcenterstageincurrentdiscussionsabouttechnologytransfer.Whilesomeoftheparadigmcasesconcernthetechno-economicerosionofindigenousvalues,othersemphasizeaproblemattheotherendofthepoliticalspectrum.Intheseinstances,criticsareconcernedabouttechno-economicforcesentrenchingunjustlocalnorms.Forexample,Microsoft’sdecisioninearly2006toshutdowntheMSNSpaceswebsiteofapopularBeijingjournalist–ZhaoJing(aliasMichaelAnti)–becamemired331\n9781405146012_4_057.qxd2/4/0913:38Page332evanselingerincontroversy.Chinesecensorswereconcernedaboutthesubversivecontentthatwasbeingdisplayedonhisblog;andMicrosoft,inturn,respondedbytoutingacorporateethosthatemphasizedclientautonomyandculturalrelativism.BrookRichardson,agroupproductmanageratMSN,notedthatMicrosoftandothermultinationalcom-paniesareobligatedtoensurethattheir“productsandservicescomplywithlocallaws,norms,andindustrypractices.”BecausesuchpolicyisbeingenactedduringatimeinwhichChinaalreadyexhibitsstrict–ifnotrepressive–guidelinesforInternetuse,concernisbeingexpressedthatAmericancompaniesmaynotsimplybeignoringhumanrightsviolationsbutcould,infact,befortifyingthem.Yahoo,forexample,recentlyprovidedChineseauthoritieswiththenameofan“anonymous”emailerwhohaddisseminatedanopinionatedmessageaboutTiananmenSquare.Asaconsequence,thatpersonisservingaten-yearprisonterm.Furthermore,MSN’sfilterforChineseusepre-ventscertaincontroversialphrases,including“DalaiLama,”“humanrights,”“freedom”and“democracy,”frombeingincludedinprominentplaces,suchasblogheaders.InlightofsuchevidenceconcerningChina’scommitmenttocurbing“cyberdissidents,”somecriticssuggestthatmultinationalcorporationsneedtobecome“bettercorporatecitizens.”Stepsneedtobetaken,theyinsist,toensurethatfundamentalhumanrightsareprivilegedoverprofiteering.Forinstance,ReportersWithoutBorders,aninter-nationalnon-governmentalorganization,arguesthatcorporationsshouldadoptcodesdesignedtoenablethefreedomofexpressionandthefreeflowofinformation.Theproblemofdigitalinformationandhumanrightscanbeexpectedtocontinuetogeneratecontroversy.Forexample,althoughGoogleisknownforitscorporatemantra“Don’tbeevil,”itistooearlytopredictwhatitslong-termsearchenginepolicywillbeinChina.332\n9781405146012_4_058.qxd2/4/0913:39Page33358TechnologyandCapitalismDAVIDM.KAPLANCapitalismisaneconomicsystembasedontheprivateownershipofthemeansofproduction,amarketsystemforthedistributionandexchangeofgoodsandservices,andanallocationofresourcesalsobasedonthemarket.Capitalismistypicallyjustifiedbyanappealtotherightsofindividualsorgroupsofindividualsactingas“legalpersons”(orcorporations)tobuy,sell,tradeorgive(asgifts)products,labor,moneyinaneconomicsystemthatisrelativelyfreeofgovernmentcontrol.Acapitalisteconomicsystemisdedicatedtoproductionforprofitandtheaccumulationofvalueandmarketsharebyindividualsorcorporatebusinessentities.CapitalismhasbeenthedominantsystemintheWesternworldsincethedeclineofmercantilismintheeighteenthcenturyandtheriseoftheindustrialrevolutioninthenineteenthcentury.Technologyhasbeenvitaltothedevelopmentandsuccessofacapitalisteconomyfromitsbeginningsandcontinuestobesotoday.TechnologyandtheDevelopmentofCapitalismEarlycapitalisteconomicpracticesappearedthroughoutEuropefromthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcenturiesduringaperiodknownas“mercantilism”or“merchantcapitalism.”Mercantilismwasasystemunderwhichnationstradedforprofitbyexchangingmanufacturedgoodsforgoldandsilverbullion.Mercantilismreliedonextensivestateregulationofeconomicactivity,theestablishmentofcoloniesforrawmaterialsandlabor,andmanufacturingandtradegearedtowardasurplusofexportsoverimports.Themercantilisterahelpedgiverisetocapitalismthroughthecreationofstrongnationalstates,uniformmonetaryandlegalsystems,andtheaccumulationofvastamountsofcapital.Mercantilismwascriticized,mostfamously,byAdamSmithinhisTheWealthofNations(1776)forsupportingtoostrictcontrolsovertheeconomy,formaintainingprotectionisttariffs,andforfocusingonmanufacturingandmoneysupplyratherthanonconsumptionandtrade.Mid-eighteenth-centuryeconomictheoriesandtheriseofpoliticalliberalism,withitsemphasisonindividualliberty,helpedtotransformEuropeaneconomiesfrommercantilisttocapitalist.PerhapsevenmoreimportanttotheriseofcapitalismthanconceptualdevelopmentsinpoliticaleconomyandtradeliberalizationwasthedevelopmentofanumberofkeyACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks333©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_058.qxd2/4/0913:39Page334davidm.kaplantechnologies.Advancesinmechanizedagriculture,steam-poweredmachineryandsemi-automaticfactoriesfueledtheEuropeanindustrialrevolutionandtransformedthenatureofproductionfrommanualtomechanical.Industrializedproductionwasmadepossiblebysuchinnovationsasthesteamengine,improvediron-smelting(basedoncokeratherthanoncharcoal),andmachinetools.Theseinnovationsledtothemechanizedproductionoftextiles,coal-mining,andfactory-basedmanufacturing.Laterinnovationsintransportation(railways,canals)andcommunication(telegraph)ledtoexpansionandtradewhichadvancedandspreadtheindustrialrevolutionthroughEuropeandtheUnitedStates.Asthenewproductiveforcesoftheindustrialmanufacturingsystemreplacedfeudalism,agrarianismandguilds,anewsocialclassemerged:thebourgeoisieandtheirpoliticalorder.Thebourgeoisiesupplantedthearistocracyasthedominanteco-nomicandpoliticalclassinindustrializednations.Theyacquiredtheirwealthandpowerfromprofitsaccumulatedduringproduction,or,asKarlMarxexplainsit,fromsurplusvalueappropriatedfromunremuneratedwagesofworkerswhogeneratewealth.Thebourgeoisieandworkers(alsoknownascapitalistsandproletariat,orcapitalandlabor)aredefinedbytheirdifferentrelationstothemeansofproduction:capitalistsownthemeansofproduction,hireworkersinexchangeforwages,andstriveforprofitsandincreasedmarketshare;proletariatsselltheirlaborpower,receivewages,andproducesurplusvalueforthecapitalists.SurplusvalueisthekeytoMarx’scritiqueofcapitalism.Profit(alongwithrentandinterest)isderivedfromunpaidsurpluslaborperformedbytheproletariatforthecapitalist.Itisvalueaccumulatedbeyondthecostsofrawmaterialsandmachinery(constantcapital)andwages(variablecapital).Itiscapital,notparticularcapitalists,thatisresponsibleforconstantlyexpandingwealthandmarkets.Theindustrialrevolutionandcapitalismdevelopedalongsideoneanother.Industrialmanufacturingreliesoncheap,available,unskilledlaborandthusdependsuponthedivisionoflabor(i.e.thecommodificationoflabor)foritssuccess.Thetransformationoflaborintoacommodity,inturn,presupposesacomplexnetworkofsocial,politicalandtechnologicalpreconditionsincludingtheavailabilityofmachineryforfactorymanufacturing,areliablesupplyoflabor,thelegalsanctionforprivateownershipofthemeansofproduction,thesocialsanctionforwagelabor,andsoon.Earlycapitalismwasgearedtowardtheproductionofcommodities,usingcommodifiedlabor,mechan-icaltechnicalproductionapparatus,orientedtotheproductionofsurplusvalue.Technologicalinnovations,whilenotthecauseofthedevelopmentofeighteenth-centurycapitalism,were,alongwithvarioussocialandpoliticalconditions,essentialtoitscreationandsubsequentsuccess.Theso-called“secondindustrialrevolution”occurredneartheendofthenineteenth-century,andfurthertransformedtheeconomiesofEurope,theAmericasandmuchoftheworld.Importantdevelopmentsofthistimeincludetheinternalcombustionengine,whichledtotheautomobile,motorcycle,boats,pumps,machineryandfactories;steel-makingimprovedtomakelargequantitiesavailableinexpensively;innova-tionsinthechemicalindustryandchemicalengineeringledtodevelopmentsintheproductionofsulfuricacid,sodiumbicarbonate,ammonium,andnitrogencom-pounds,includingexplosivesandfertilizers;advancesinpetroleum-processingand-drillingledtotheproductionoffuels,lubricantsandotherpetrochemicals;thedevelopmentof334\n9781405146012_4_058.qxd2/4/0913:39Page335technologyandcapitalismtheelectricityindustryledtothereplacementofgaslighting,heatingandindustrialpower;andcommunicationtechnologiessuchasthetelegraph,thetelephone,thegramophone,theradioandthecinemafurthercontributedtomassproductionandtheformationofamasssociety.Inadditiontotechnologicalinnovations,severaldevelopmentsintechniquesofproductiondevelopedalongsidewidespreadsocialchange.Onesuchtechniquewas“scientificmanagement,”popularizedbyFrederickTaylor’sThePrinciplesofScientificManagement(1911).Alsoknownas“Taylorism,”theaimofscientificmanagementwastoimproveproductiveefficiency,maximizeoutputanddeveloptechniquestomotivateemployees.Taylorintroducedpracticessuchasmanagementstandardization,taskspe-cialization,workdesignandworkmethodanalysis,andstopwatchtimingofproductionactivities.Subsequentresearchinscientificmanagementincludedstudiesofhumanmotionandtheprinciplesofmotioneconomy,rational-economicincentiveschemesforworkers,andpersonnelmanagementandhumanresourcesdevelopment.Anotherimportanttechniqueofproductionwasthedevelopmentofassembly-linemanufacturingprocesses.Intheassemblyline,interchangeablepartsareassembledbyseveraldifferentindividualsinanordered,routinizedfashiontocreateaproduct.Theaimofassembly-linemanufacturingistoproducemoreunits,faster,inamorecost-effectivewaythanifanentireproductwerefashionedbyasingleperson.In1913,HenryForddesignedautomobilefactoriesusingassembly-lineproductionandiswidelycreditedwithperfecting,ifnotinventing,thepractice.Earlytwentieth-centurycapitalismissometimesknownas“Fordism,”aneconomicsystemthatespousedthevirtuesofhighproductivity,highprofits,inexpensiveprod-uctsandhighwagesthatwouldenableworkerstopurchasewhattheyproduced.Fordismdependedonautomated,standardizedindustrialproductiongearedtowardamassconsumermarket.usingtheassemblylinewithrelativelyhighwagescomparedtoothereconomicsectors.Fordismintensifiedtheaccumulationofcapitalbyvalueandfurtherentrenchedthedivisionoflaborbydeskillingworkersandheighteningcapitalistcontroloverthemeansofproduction.MonopolyandWelfareStateCapitalismInthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcentury,theownershipoflarge-scaleindustriesbecameincreasinglyconcentratedintoindustrialtrustsormonopolies.Atthesametime,banksandfinanciersassumedincreasingcontrolovertheproductionprocessandbegantoservetheinterestsofspeculatorsandfinancialinterestsratherthantheneedsofproducersandconsumers.Bankingsystems,equitymarketsandstockexchangeswereestablishedinEuropeandtheUnitedStates,furthertransformingtheaimofcapitalismfromasystemofproductiontowardameansofaccumulatingprofit.Inresponsetotheriseofmonopoliesandlarge-scalefinanciers,whichunderminedcapitalistgrowth,andrenderedtheeconomyvolatileandpronetorecessionsanddepres-sions,weretwoimportantsocial–politicaldevelopments:theriseofthelabormovement,andincreasedgovernmentinterventionineconomicactivities.Thefactorysystemofproduction,inspiteofitsFordistpretensions,tendedtopro-ducealargepopulationofunderpaidworkers,typicallyworkinglonghoursinpoor335\n9781405146012_4_058.qxd2/4/0913:39Page336davidm.kaplanconditions.Inresponse,varioustradeunionsbegantoformthroughtheearly-to-mid-nineteenthcentury.Bytheendofthecentury,labormovementsthroughouttheindustrializedworldbegantodemandimprovedworkingconditionsandaworkingdaynolongerthaneighthours.Asstrikesandboycottsbecamemorecommon,govern-mentswereforcedtointervene,oftenbysupplyingmilitaryforcetobreakstrikes,butjustasoftenbymediatingconflictsandofferingarbitration.Thelabormovementledtoreformsinlaborlaws,occupationalsafety,collectivebargainingrights,eliminationofchildlabor,ashortenedworkingweek,andotherprogressivelegislationdesignedtoimprovethelivesofworkers.Theriseoflabormovementsinternationally,coupledwiththechallengetocapitalismposedbycommunismanddemocraticsocialism,compelledgovernmentstoregulatecapitalisteconomiesinordertomaintaineconomicandpoliticalstability.WelfarecapitalismreferstothepracticethatappearedintheUnitedStatesfromthe1880stothe1920sthatprovidedprivate,employer-basedsocialwelfareservicestoworkers.Welfarecapitalismwasaresponsetothewidespreadworkerdiscontentandsocialreformactivistsinanattempttoplacateemployeeswhileresistinggovernmentregulationofmarketsandunionorganization.Employersbegantoprovidesuchthingsasmealplans,recreationalactivities,languageclasses,religiousservices,aswellasmoremeaningfulservicessuchasretirementbenefits,healthcare,andhousing.Themostextensivewelfarecapitalistprojectsweretheshort-lived“companytowns”wherecompaniesownedandprovidedforeverythingworkersneededinordertolive,includinghousing,food,medicalcare,recreationandothernecessitiesoflife.TheGreatDepressionofthe1930srevealedinherentlimitationsofwelfarecapitalism,whichcouldnotprovideadequatesocialwelfareprotectiontonearlyenoughworkers.PresidentFranklinD.Roosevelt’sNewDealprograms(1933–7)intheUnitedStatesweredesignedtorescuethecollapsedcapitalisteconomywhileprovidingavastsocialwelfaresystemforcitizens.NewDealprogramsprovideddirectrelieftoworkersandfarmersintheformoflabor,food,housingandloans;recoverytothefragilecapitalisteconomythroughan“emergencybudget”toovercometheeffectsofthedepression;andnationalreformstostabilizetheeconomy,setminimumwages,manageagricul-turalproduction,insurebanks,andprotecttherightsofworkerstoorganize.Ratherthannationalizebanks,railroadsandothermajorindustries,Rooseveltattemptedtobalancetheinterestsofworkersandcapitalistsinaconceptofgovernmentknownas“welfarestatecapitalism,”inwhichthestateplaysacrucialroleinprotectingthestabilityofmarkets,facilitatingcapitalistaccumulation,andensuringtheeconomicandsocialwelfareofitscitizens.PresidentLyndonB.JohnsonfurtherextendedtheroleofthewelfarestatewithhisGreatSocietyprograms,whichincludededucation,medicalcare,transportation,civilrights,environmentalprotectionsandthearts.Thewelfarestatealsosupportedresearchanddevelopmentinscienceandtechno-logy.IntheUnitedStates,theNationalInstitutesofHealthprovidedmedicalresearch;theUSAtomicEnergyCommissionnuclearandparticlephysicsresearch;theNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministrationspacescienceandexploration;theNationalScienceFoundationgeneralscientificandengineeringresearch;andtheDefenseAdvancedResearchProjectsAgencyprovideddefenseresearch.Thesearejustsomeamongmanypubliclyfundedprogramsgearedtowardadvancingthedevelopmentofscienceandtechnology.336\n9781405146012_4_058.qxd2/4/0913:39Page337technologyandcapitalismWelfarestatecapitalistgovernmentsexistthroughouttheworld.Germanyisgen-erallybelievedtobethefirstwelfarestate;otherwelfarestatesdevelopedduringtheearlytwentiethcenturyasacapitalistcompromisebetweencommunismandfascism.WesternEurope,Scandinavia,Canada,AustraliaandNewZealandarenotedforhavingmoreextensivewelfareprovisionsthantheUnitedStates.TechnologyandLateCapitalismBythe1970sacrisishademergedintheglobalcapitalistsystemmeasuredbyadeclineinthegeneralrateofprofitowingtoanincreaseinoilprices,increasedcompetitionfromAsianmarkets,andadeclineinwelfarestateeconomicprotectionswhilesupport-ingincreasedprivatizationofgoodsandservices.Fordismwasplaguedbyhighrawmaterialcosts,highinventorycosts,andfactorysystemsofproductionthatwereslowtorespondtochangesinthemarket;circulationtimeandcostswereasslowasthemachinerytheyused;technologicalresearchanddevelopmentwassacrificedunderFordismforshort-termprofit;consumerswerereactingagainstmass-produced,standardizedproducts;andtherelationshipsamongsuppliers,engineers,producersanddistributorsweretoopoorlyintegratedtoinnovateasrapidlyasthemarketdemanded.Whatevolvedwasaneconomicsystem,foundinmostindustrializedcountriestoday,knownas“latecapitalism.”Alsoknownas“post-Fordism,”thecurrentmodeofproductionisbasedonthewidespreaduseofinformationtechnologies,a“justintime”systemofproductionanddistributionofcommodities(i.e.fewerrawmaterials,morepartiallyassembledparts),theeliminationofnon-“value-adding”positionsinproduction(i.e.management,qualitycontrol),masscustomizationtailoredtomeetmoreindividualizedconsumerdesires,thecreationof“knowledgeworker”jobs,andcooperationamongandwithinfirms.Thecurrenttrendinproductionistowardsmaller,morespecializedmarkets,flexibilitydesignedintoproductionanddistributionsystems,andintegratedclustersofspecializedfirms.Advocatesofthisformof“leanproduction”claimthatitwillgreatlyimprovecapital–laborrelations,capital–consumerrelations,andeventuallycapitalismitself.Criticsofleanproductionmaintainthat,althoughitstechnicalandsocialconditionsdifferfromthoseofFordism,itdoesnotdiffersubstantiallywithrespecttothebasiccharacterofcapitalism,andthusfundamentalantagonismscontinuetoexistbetweenlaborandcapital,consumersarenotappreciablymoreempowered,economicpowerismore(notless)asymmetricalbetweencapitalandconsumers,andtheconnectionbetweeneconomicexpansionandglobaljusticeis,forbetterorworse,thesameasitwasintheFordistproductionera.337\n9781405146012_4_059.qxd2/4/0913:39Page33859ThePoliticsofGenderandTechnologyELISABETHK.KELANAlthoughtechnologiesareapervasivepartofoureverydaylife,werarelythinkabouttechnologyasgendered.Ifwelookattoysforchildrenalone,itisveryevidentthatboystendtogetgameconsolesandremote-controlcarswhilegirlsgetdollstoplaywith.Fromanearlyage,weareconfrontedwithsubtlemessagesaboutwhichtech-nologiesaredeemedappropriateforwhichgender.Whilementendtobeassociatedwithtechnologieslikespacecraft,fastcarsandadvancedcomputing,thetechnologiesassociatedwithwomenarethingslikekitchentools,whichoftendonotqualifyasrealtechnologyatall.Inthisarticlethispoliticsofgenderandtechnologyisdiscussed.Theareaofgenderandtechnologystudieshasbeenflourishinginrecentyears,andscholarshavedevelopedsophisticatedapproachestounderstandbetterthegender–technologyrelation(GillandGrint1995;Wajcman1991,2004).Theseapproachesstartfromtheassumptionthatgenderandtechnologyareco-producedandmutuallyshaping.Thismeansthattechnologyinfluencesgenderrelationsandgenderrelationsinfluencetechnology.Thenotionofco-productionofgenderandtechnologyneedssomeunpacking.Faulkner(2001:83)distinguishesbetweenthegenderintechnologyandthegenderoftechnology.Thelatterreferstothesymbolicassociationbetweengenderandtechnology.Certaintechnologiesareperceivedasmasculineinsociety,suchascomputingtechnology,fastcars,spacecraftorconstructiontools;whereasothertechnologies,likekitchentoolsorbeautytools,arecommonlyassociatedwithfemininity.Howpeopleenactandusethesetechnologiesoftenreflectsthesegenderassociations.Researchhasfoundthatmenworkinginhigh-techenvironmentswhoseethem-selvesastechnologicallywellversedalsoconstructthemselvesastechnologicallyincompetentwhenitcomestooperatingthemicrowaveinthehome(Massey1996).Anotherexampleisthetelephone.Thetelephonewasinitiallymarketedforusebybusinessmen(atthattimealmostexclusivelymen)tocommunicatewiththeofficewhileathome.However,womenquicklytookoverthetelephoneandmadeittheirown.Thishasmeantthatnowthetelephoneisstronglyassociatedwithfemininity(Rakow1988).Thiscanbeillustratedthroughresearchwhichhasshownthatmendescribetheiruseofthetelephoneasmoretask-orientedthanthechattyusewhichisassociatedwithwomen(Lohan2001).Throughtheassociationwithtechnology,genderisenacted.338ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_059.qxd2/4/0913:39Page339thepoliticsofgenderandtechnologyGenderintechnologyrefersincontrasttohowgenderentersthedesignoftech-nology.Lookingbackintime,itappearsthatmostinventorsoftechnologiesweremen.Developingtechnologyisanendeavorlargelyundertakenbymen.Whendesigningtechnologiespeoplebringtheirpersonalexperiencewiththem,andthisflowsintothedesignoftechnologies.Thesemechanismsmaybeverysubtle,inthatdesignersusethemselvesasthetemplatefortheidealuser,ashappenedinthedesignofadigitalcityintheNetherlands(Rommesetal.2001).Thisimplicitlyexcludedwomen,andfewwomenparticipatedintheInternetforum.Theperceivedgenderoftheuseroftechnologyhasinfluencedhowtechnologiesdevelop.Eventhoughuserscansubverttechnologiesbyusingtheminwaysnotorigin-allyintended,designershaveconsiderablepowerininscribinggendertotechnicalartifacts.Thishasbeencalled“genderscripts”(Rommesetal.2001).Theconstructionoftheuserisoftenveryflexible.ResearchbyHofmann(1999)showshow,inthedesignofinterfaces,secretariesareeitherconstructedasabletolearnshortcutkeystrokes,orasunabletonavigateindependently,andarethereforeprovidedwithmenus.Webster(1996)inturnhasdemonstratedhowtheimageofthefemaleuserofofficetechnologymeantthatthefirstgenerationofwordprocessorswasdevelopedfromofficeequipmentratherthanfromcomputing.Theseexamplesshowthatgenderishighlyrelevantwhentechnologiesaredesigned.Researchongenderandtechnologyhas,however,shownthatnotalldesignersandinnovatorsaremen,andrecentfeministresearchhasstartedtouncoverwomeninventorswhohavenotenteredthehistorybooksorwhoseinventionsarenotasso-ciatedwiththem.Anexampleofthiscanbefoundinearlycomputing.Someoftheearliestcomputerprogrammerswerewomen,whichispartlybecauseatthistimeprogrammingwasseenasaclericaltaskandnotofhighstatus(PerryandGerber1990).However,assoonastheimportanceofcomputerprogrammingrose,thestereotypicalprogrammerbecamemoreamanthanawoman.ThecontributionofwomenlikeAdaLovelancetocomputingisincreasinglyrecognizedaftermuchworkhasgoneintouncoveringhercontributiontothedesignandconstructionofearlycomputers(Stanley1993).Onedimensionofthepoliticsofgenderandtechnologyisthereforetouncoverwomeninventorsoftechnologywhohavebeenforgottenbyhistory.Thatwomeninventorsareoftenwrittenoutofhistoryreflectsgenderrelations,aswomenarenotassociatedwithtechnologies,andground-breakingtechnologiesarecommonlyassociatedwithmen.Thatcomputerprogramminghaschangedgenderfrombeingassociatedwithwomentobecomingamaleendeavorisimportantasitreflectsthatduringthattimetheeconomicpotentialofcomputersroseandimportantthingsinsocietyarecommonlyassociatedwithmen.Technologyreflectsgender;butgenderalsoshapestechnology,andthisisanimportantprocesstostudyasittellsussomethingaboutpowerrelationsinsociety.Inrecenttimesmuchdebatehasarisenabouthowgenderisrelevantintheinforma-tionandknowledgesociety.TherewasmuchdiscussionaboutwomenlaggingbehindinelementslikeInternetuseandparticipation.Itwasperceivedasaproblemthatmorementhanwomenwere“online,”andithasbeensuggestedthatmendominatecomputer-mediatedcommunicationandaresaidtoexcludewomenthroughusingcrudelanguage(Herring2000).However,inrecenttimesthefiguresforInternetuseinmanyWesterncountriesaremoregender-balanced(fortheUSA,Fallows2005).Thiscould339\n9781405146012_4_059.qxd2/4/0913:39Page340elisabethk.kelanmeanthatgenderandtechnologyinrelationtonewtechnologiesisnolongeraprob-lemasequalparticipationissupposedlyensuredintheWest.However,thiswouldmeanneglectingthataccessisnottheonlyissuebuthowtechnologiesareusedisequallyimportant(Henwoodetal.2000).Thedesignanduseoftechnologyisstillgendered.Researchongenderandtechno-logyhas,forinstance,foundthatwomenintechnicaleducationandprofessionsdistancethemselvesfromtechnology,whilemenconstructacloserelationshipwithtechnology(Corneliussen2004;Henwood1998).Whenengagingwithtechnology,peopleareenactinggenderbecauseitiscommonlyassumedthatmenareclosetotechnologywhilewomenarenot.Thesegenderrelationsseemtore-establishthem-selvesevenwhenwomenhavechosentechnicaleducationandprofessions.Thisassumptionthatpeopleare“doinggender”whileengagingwithtechnologylinkswellwithcurrentgendertheories.Incurrentgendertheories,genderisperceivedassomethingthatis“done”ininteractions.Thismeansthatmenandwomenengageincertainactivitiesthataregenderedmasculineorfemininetocountaspropermenorwomen.Thisperspectivemayexplainwhywomendonotentertechnicalprofessionswhichareassociatedwithmasculinity.Althoughinearliertimesitwasnotallowedthatwomenentertechnicaleducation,orboardspaceshipsforthatmatter,todaydespitethefewinstitutionalizedbarriersforwomen’sentrywomenoftenselectnon-technicalpro-fessions.Thiscanbeinterpretedasamovetocountasaproperwomanwhoisnotinterestedintechnology.Aswehaveseen,thiscontinuesevenintechnicaleducationandprofessionswhenwomendistancethemselvesmorefromtechnologybydefiningitasnotpartoftheiridentity.Womenthereforearestillunder-representedintechnicalfieldswhichcommonlyattracthighstatus,prestigeandremuneration.Itthusper-petuatesgenderrelationsinwhich,ingeneral,themasculinesideisvaluedoverthefeminineside.Thisraisesthequestionwhichpoliticsmaybeusefultochallengeandchangethesegenderandtechnologyrelationships.Seeinggenderandtechnologyasmutu-allyshapingmeansthatgenderandtechnologyareconstantlyinfluxandcanberedefined.Thisredefinitiontakesplacethroughpracticinggenderinsuchawaythatitcounteractsandpotentiallysubvertscurrentgenderexpectationsinrelationtotechnology.Forinstance,thatwomenusecertaintechnologiesorarepresentincertaintechnicalprofessionswhicharegenderedmasculinechallengesthehegemonicgenderorder.Itisoftenexpectedthatthegoalsofanewpoliticsofgenderandtechnologyistomakemenandwomenmorealikeandeliminategenderdifferencesthroughthis.However,theissueappearstobetoopenequalopportunitiesformenandwomenbyallowingthemtoenactdivergentrelationshipswithtechnology.Ratherthanmakingwomenmorelikemenorviceversa,onepossibleavenueforchangewouldbetoallowformultipledifferencesandsimilarities.Thismeanstoacceptthatmenandwomenarenothomogenousgroups,butthattherearedifferencesbetweenandamongmenandwomen.Individualsshouldbegiventhechoicetoenactdifferentpositionssuchasenjoy-ingthistechnologyornot,butthesemaynothavetobelinkedtogender.Itwouldthenbepossibletointerrogatecriticallythegender–technologyrelationshipandtoseekwaystodevelopanalternativepolitics.340\n9781405146012_4_059.qxd2/4/0913:39Page341thepoliticsofgenderandtechnologyReferencesandFurtherReadingCorneliussen,H.(2004).“‘IDon’tUnderstandComputerProgramming,BecauseI’maWoman!’NegotiatingGenderedPositionsinaNorwegianDiscourseofComputing,”inK.Morgan,C.A.Brebbia,J.SanchezandA.Voiskounsky(eds),HumanPerspectivesintheInternetSociety:Culture,PsychologyandGender(Southampton:WITPress),pp.173–82.Fallows,D.(2005).“HowWomenandMenUsetheInternet,”http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/171/report_display.asp,28December2005.Faulkner,W.(2001).“TheTechnologyQuestioninFeminism:AViewfromFeministTechno-logyStudies,”Women’sStudiesInternationalForum,24(1):79–95.Gill,R.andGrint,K.(1995).“TheGender–TechnologyRelation:AnIntroduction,”inK.GrintandR.Gill(eds),TheGender–TechnologyRelation:ContemporaryTheoryandResearch(London:Taylor&Francis),pp.1–28.Henwood,F.(1998).“EngineeringDifference:DiscoursesonGender,SexualityandWorkinaCollegeofTechnology,”GenderandEducation,10(1):35–49.Henwood,F.,Wyatt,S.,Miller,N.andSenker,P.(2000).“CriticalPerspectivesonTechnologies,in/EqualitiesandtheInformationSociety,”inS.Wyatt,F.Henwood,N.MillerandP.Senker(eds),Technologyandin/Equality:QuestioningtheInformationSociety(London:Routledge),pp.1–18.Herring,S.C.(2000).“GenderDifferencesinCmc:FindingsandImplications,”TheCPRSNewsletter,18(1).Hofmann,J.(1999).“Writer,TextsandWritingActs:GenderedUserImagesintheWordProcessingSoftware,”inD.MacKenzieandJ.Wajcman(eds),TheSocialShapingofTechnology(Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress).Lohan,M.(2001).“Men,Masculinitiesand‘Mundane’Technologies:TheDomesticTelephone,”inE.GreenandA.Adam(eds),VirtualGender:Technology,ConsumptionandIdentity(London:Routledge),pp.189–206.Massey,D.(1996).“Masculinity,DualismandHighTechnology,”inN.Duncan(ed.),BodySpace:DestabilisingGeographiesofGenderandSexuality(London:Routledge),pp.109–26.Perry,R.andGerber,L.(1990).“WomenandComputers:AnIntroduction,”Signs,16(1):74–101.Rakow,L.F.(1988).“WomenandtheTelephone:TheGenderingofaCommunicationsTechnology,”inC.Kramarae(ed.),TechnologyandWomen’sVoices–KeepinginTouch(London:Routledge),pp.207–29.Rommes,E.,Oost,E.vanandOudshoorn,N.(2001).“GenderintheDesignoftheDigitalCityofAmsterdam,”inE.GreenandA.Adam(eds),VirtualGender:Technology,ConsumptionandIdentity(London:Routledge),pp.239–61.Stanley,A.(1993).MothersandDaughtersofInvention(NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress).Wajcman,J.(1991).FeminismConfrontsTechnology(Cambridge:Polity).Wajcman,J.(2004).Technofeminism(Cambridge:Polity).Webster,J.(1996).ShapingWomen’sWork:Gender,EmploymentandInformationTechnology(NewYork:Longman).341\n9781405146012_4_060.qxd2/4/0913:39Page34260EuropeanPolitics,EconomyandTechnologyERIKJONESTechnologyplaysanambivalentroleinEuropeanpoliticsandeconomics.Itisasourceofmodernityandprogressbutitisalsoathreattotraditionandtoequality.Europeanscelebratetheinfluenceoftechnologyoneconomiccompetitivenessandexpressconcernaboutitsimpactonenvironmentalsustainability.TechnologyhasshapedthedevelopmentofEuropeanpoliticalideology,andithasthreatenedtounderminethelegitimacyandoverwhelmthecapacityoftheEuropeannation-state.ModernEuropeisbornofthetechnologicaladvanceswhichconstitutetheindustrialrevolution.ThespreadofindustrialtechnologychangedfundamentallythestructureoftheEuropeaneconomyandsocietyinwhichitwasembedded.NewfactoriesdrewEuropeansfromthelandintothecityevenasimprovementsintravel,communicationandsanitationfacilitatedagradualexpansionofurbanareastomatchthenewurbanpopulation.Whiledramaticandunprecedented,thetransformationofEuropewaslessshockingperhapsthantheimpactoftheindustrialrevolutionelsewhere.TheindustrialrevolutionwasgroundedinEurope,andsoEurope’seconomicandpoliticaltransformationmovedatthepaceoftechnologicalchange.Thispacewasrevolutionaryatthetimeandyetcontrastssharplywiththesuddenintroductionof“industrialization”outsideEuropeandtheconsequenturbanexplosionexperiencedbythedevelopingworldtoday.EvenwithinEurope,theinfluenceandtimingoftechnologicalinnovationwasnoteverywherethesame.Moreover,theconsequencesofthisdifferentialdevelopmentwerehistoricallyimportant,asisclearinthewritingsofAlexanderGerschenkron.Gerschenkronarguedthattherewereeconomicadvantagesto“backwardness,”aslater-developingcountriesbenefitfromtheadoptionoftechnologicalinnovationsmadebyearly-industrializingnations.Moreover,thelatedeveloperscanleapaheadbyavoidingfaileddevelopmentaltrajectoriesandbyinvestinginthemostadvancedproductivemachinery.ThismodelexplainsnotonlythebelatedsurgeofGermanyasanindustrialpowerinthelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturybutalsothemir-aculousrecoveryoftheGermaneconomyaftertheSecondWorldWar.Bycontrast,GreatBritain,Europe’searliestandmostestablishedindustrialcountry,experiencedarelativedeclineinitsGreatPowerrivalrywiththeGermanEmpireinthelate–nineteenthandearly-twentiethcenturiesandafurtherrelativedeclineduringthefirstthreedecadesaftertheSecondWorldWar.342ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_060.qxd2/4/0913:39Page343europeanpolitics,economyandtechnologyThelinkbetweentechnologyandmodernityinEuropewasideologicalaswellasphysical.ThewidespreadadoptionofFordistmanufacturingtechniquesintheearlypartofthetwentiethcenturynurturedtheriseofpowerfultradeunions,amongbothChristianDemocratsandSocialDemocrats.Inturn,theseunionsbecamedeeplyinvolvedinthestabilizationofmacro-economicperformancethroughconcertedwagebargaining(usuallyatthenationallevel)andinthedevelopmentoftheEuropeanwelfarestate.Asaresult,EuropeanconceptionsofChristianandSocialDemocracyshareacommitmenttoworking-classsolidaritybothacrosssocietyandovertime.Suchcommitmentsgobeyondrhetoric.Socialsolidaritycanbeseeninthewagecom-pressionacrossdifferentcategoriesofworkersthatresultsfromnationallyconcertedbargaining.SolidarityovertimeisexpressedontheContinentintermsofentitlementsarisingfromthepaymentofsocialinsurancepremiumsandintheUnitedKingdominthewillingnesstofinancewelfarestatebenefitsfromgeneralrevenues.ThelinkbetweentechnologyandmodernityinEuropehasnotalwaysbeenpositiveeitherintermsofideologicalcommitmentor,morebroadly,intermsofeconomicandsocialstructure.ThespreadofmassmanufacturingaftertheSecondWorldWarsparkedagrowthinconsumptionthatdramaticallyincreasedstandardsoflivingandraisedlifeexpectations.Atthesametime,however,thisconsumerismwhittledawayatclassdistinctions–particularlythosebasedonMarxistnotionsofrelationshiptothemeansofproduction.Inturn,thisweakenedthepoliticalbondsholdingvoterstoeitherChristianDemocraticorSocialDemocraticpoliticalparties.Theeffectsmanifestedinthreedifferentways:throughincreasingcompetitionbetweenthetraditionalparties,throughincreasedopportunitiesfornewpoliticalmovementstoemerge,andthroughdecliningvoterparticipationatelectiontime.TraditionalEuropeanpoliticalpartiesadaptedbyde-emphasizingtheirideologicalappealsandinsteadfocusingonissuesandpersonalities.Theresultswereonlypartlysuccessful.Whilethemajorpartieswereabletostabilizetheirrelativedecline,theydidsoattheexpenseoflonger-termvoteridentificationandcommitment.Thestructuralshiftineconomicswasevenmoremarked.AchangeintheindustrialpatternsfromFordistmassemploymentinmassmanufacturingtoamorecapital-intensiveandflexible“post-Fordist”paradigmpresentedEuropeantradeunionswithtwodifferentchallenges.Thefirstwastoadapttothedeclineinthemanufacturingshareinemploymentrelativetothepublicandservicesectorsoftheeconomy.Sinceproductivityisgenerallyhigherinmanufacturingthaninthepublicorservicesectors,thisrelativedeclineinmanufacturingemploymentcreatedariftbetweenmanu-facturingemployeeswhocoulddemandhigherwagesandservice-sectoremployeeswhocouldnot.Nationaltradeunionsthattriedtoputupwardpressureonwagesacrossbothcategoriesofworkerssoonfoundthemselvesinconflictwithgovernmentseagertoholddownpriceinflation.Meanwhile,nationaltradeunionsthattriedtomaintainwagedisciplinefaceddefectionsfrommanufacturingunionsandalossofmembershipoverall.ThesecondchallengeforEuropeantradeunionspresentedbytheshiftfromFordisttopost-Fordistmanufacturingwastoaccommodatetheincreasinglydifferentiatednatureofmanufacturingworkandthestructuralbasisformanufacturingunemploy-ment.AlthoughEuropeantradeunionstriedtomaintainacommitmenttoworkersolidarity,suchcommitmentnolongertranslatedeasilyintowage-bargainingclaims343\n9781405146012_4_060.qxd2/4/0913:39Page344erikjonesevenatthesectorallevelletaloneacrossthecountryasawhole.Instead,sectoralwagebargainsgavewaytowagedriftasemployersreclassifiedworkerstorewardhighlypro-ductiveindividualswithimplicit“efficiency”wages.Theresultwasbothtoencouragewagedifferentiation(asopposedtowagecompression)andtostimulatefurtherinvest-mentincapitaldeepeningandproductivitygrowth.Thenumberofmanufacturingjobsdeclinedevenasmanufacturingoutputcontinuedtoincrease.Europeantradeunionmembershipandwage-bargainingcoverageretreatedasmanufacturingtechnologycontinuedtoadvance.Bythe1970s,Europeansbeganopenlytoquestionthemeritsofcontinuedtechno-logicaladvance.Politiciansexpressedconcernaboutthegovernabilityoftheirsocieties,employerscomplainedaboutthemilitancyofthetradeunions,laborleadersworriedaboutthespreadofstructuralunemployment,andeconomistsbegantodebatethelimitstogrowth.DevelopmenteconomistslikeFritzSchumacherhadparticularinflu-enceinthiscontext.Schumacherarguedthateconomicsshouldberecast“asifpeoplemattered”andmanufacturingshouldbebasedon“intermediatetechnologies”thattreatedmaterialproductivityasonlyoneofmanygoalsinmanufacturing.SuchclaimsresonatedstronglywithinthenascentEuropeanenvironmentalistmovementandplayedanimportantroleintransformingthatmovementintopoliticalpartiesabletoaddressarangeofissuesbeyondenvironmentalconservation.TheemergenceoftwonewissuesreinforcedEuropeanambivalencetowardtechno-logy:the1973energypriceshockandtheintroductionofintermediate-rangenuclearweaponsintotheEuropeantheateroftheColdWar.Theenergypriceshockgavedramaticemphasistoconcernsaboutthelimitsofgrowth,particularlyasEuropeisdependentuponimportedhydrocarbonstomeetitsenergyneeds.MostEuropeancountriesrespondedbypromotinggreaterenergyefficiency.InFrance,theyalsoinvestedheavilyinthedevelopmentandexpansionofciviliannucleartechnologyasanaltern-ativeenergyresource.FrenchpromotionofnuclearenergywasfacilitatedbytheeffortsmadebypreviousgovernmentstounderscoretheprestigeadvantagesofFrance’sindependentnucleardeterrent.Othercountriesdidnothavethistraditionfornationalgrandeurortheaspirationtojointhenuclearclub,andsotheyresistedeffortstoexpandciviliannuclearuse.ResistancetonucleartechnologyincreaseddramaticallyonceWestEuropeansdiscoveredthattheSovietUnionhadinstalledintermediate-rangeSS-20missilesinCentralandEasternEurope.TheseSS-20sthreatenedtounderminethedelicatebalanceofEast–WestdeterrenceandsototriggeradestabilizingarmsraceinEurope.TheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)respondedwithadouble-trackstrategyofnego-tiatingthewithdrawaloftheSS-20sandthreateningtoinstallanewgenerationofintermediate-rangenuclearweaponsinWesternEuropeshouldthenegotiationsfail.However,thesuccessofthisdouble-trackstrategydependeduponthewillingnessoftwoNATOallies–WestGermanyandItaly–toaccepttheinstallationofAmericanintermediate-rangenuclearweaponsontheirsoil.MassivepeacedemonstrationsbrokeoutinoppositiontothismovebothinthecountriesaffectedandacrossEuropeasawhole.Inturn,theseanti-nuclearmovementsdividedmuchoftheEuropeanpoliticalleftbetweenthosewhoweremoreconcernedabouttraditionaleconomicissuesrelatedtoincomeandemploymentandthosemorefocusedonissuesrelatedtonucleartech-nology,theenvironment,andthelimitstogrowth.344\n9781405146012_4_060.qxd2/4/0913:39Page345europeanpolitics,economyandtechnologyThedivisionoftheEuropeanleftattheendofthe1970scoincidedwithathirdphaseinattitudestowardtechnology:movingfrommodernization,toconservation,tocom-petition.TheriseofJapanasaworld-beatingeconomyduringthe1970sandearly1980sunderscoredtheimportanceoftechnologicalinnovationtoEuropeanprosperityandemployment.Thejobscrisiswasnotjusttheresultofmanufacturingemployersreplac-ingworkerswithmachines;itwasalsotheconsequenceoflow-costandhighlypro-ductivemanufacturingcompetitionfromabroad.Thisnewchallengecouldonlybemetthroughcombinedresearchanddevelopment.HenceEuropeanleaders–spurredbyFrenchpresidentFrançoisMitterrand–beganeffortstopromotegreater“pre-competitive”researchcollaborationacrossEuropeancountriespriortoamoregeneralre-launchingoftheprocessofEuropeanintegration.Mitterrand’sargumentwasthatnationalresearcheffortswerenolongersufficienttoachieveandmaintainacom-petitiveadvantageintheglobaleconomy.OnlycombinedEuropeanresearcheffortsinaEuropeansinglemarketwouldsuffice.ThisnewattentiontoeconomiccompetitivenessdidnotresolveallofEurope’scon-cernsabouttechnologyandyetitdidpavethewayforare-prioritizationofinterests.CompetitivenessthroughincreasedproductivityisoneissuewhereEuropeanmanu-facturingemployersandtradeunionscouldfindcommonground.Hencethe1980ssawaresurgenceofconcertedwagemoderationinordertofreeupfinancialresourcesforproductiveinvestment.ThistrendwasmorepronouncedinmanyofthesmallerEuropeancountriesthaninthelargeronesanditwasalsomoreevidentontheCon-tinentthanintheUnitedKingdom(wherewagemoderationwasenforcedagainsttheoppositionofthetradeunions).Ascompetitivenessbecamemoreimportant,othertechnologicalissuesbecamelessso.TheprogressofarmscontrolinEuropebothbeforeandaftertheendoftheColdWarsappedmuchoftheconcernfornuclearweapons.Meanwhile,Europeananxietyaboutthelimitsofgrowthsoftenedtofocusonbroadernotionsof“sustainability,”whetherinreferencetoenergyresources,thenaturalenvironment,orthewelfarestate.ConcernforsustainabilitywaxedwiththegrowthofevidenceabouttheeffectsofglobalwarmingandyetitnevereclipsedtheimportanceoftechnologyforeconomiccompetitivenessinEurope.Ifanything,therevolutionininformationandcommunicationstechnologyandtheresurgenceofAmericancompetitivenessinthe1990sonlyreinforcedtheneedforcombinedEuropeaninvestmentinresearch.Yetsustainabilitydidnotdisappearasafocusforattention,either.Instead,thefusionofcompetitivenessandsustainabilityliesatthecenterofEurope’scurrentcon-sensusontechnology–atleastinbroadeconomicandpoliticalterms.Itcanbefoundinthe1993EuropeanCommissionWhitePaperonJobs,Growth,Competitiveness,anditismanifestintheMarch2000commitmentattheLisbonEuropeanCouncilsummittofocustheenergiesoftheEuropeanUniononbuildingtheworld’smostcompetitiveanddynamicknowledge-basedeconomywithinthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury.TheEuropeanUnionisfarfromachievingthestrategicobjectiveitannouncedinLisbon.InpartthisisduetotheweaknessofEurope’straditionalpoliticalpartiesastheytrytoimplementnecessarymarketstructuralreforms.AlthoughEuropeansmayhaveadaptedtheirprioritiesinlightofchangesintechnology,theyhavebeenslowertoadapttheirpoliticalstructures.Europeandemocracywasinstitutionalizedintheearly345\n9781405146012_4_060.qxd2/4/0913:39Page346erikjonesdaysoftheindustrialrevolutionandconsolidatedintheageofwidespreadFordistmanufacturing.Asaresult,itisill-suitedtotherequirementsfordynamicflexibilityoftheinformationage.Politicalprocessesaretooslowtoholdontothepopularatten-tion,andpoliticalpartiesaretooweak,bothorganizationallyandfinancially,tobringaboutanyradicalrestructuring.ThegapbetweenthetechnologythatpredominatesineconomicsandinstitutionsthatframeEuropeanpoliticsisgrowingandnotshrinking.Evenworse,thetensionbetweentechnologyandpoliticsisslowingdownthepaceoftechnologicaladapta-tionelsewhere.Thistensioncanbeseeninthe“digitaldivide”betweenthosewhohaveunfetteredaccesstotheinformationandresourcesmadeavailableviatheInternetandthosewhodonot.Itismanifestinthesuddenemergenceandimplosionofpolit-icalmovementslikethatsurroundingtheDutchpopulistPimFortuyn.Itisapparentinthewidespreadconcernsarisingaboutthepermeabilityofnationalborderstoforeignmigrants.Anditisunderscoredbytheextremedifficultyofprovidingsecurityinthecontextofaglobalwaronterror.ThechallengeEuropeansfaceistoadaptpoliticalinstitutionsinordertoensurethatissueslikethoserelatedtoincomedistribution,politicalparticipation,migrationandsecuritycanbeproperlymanaged.Thischallengeisbothfacilitatedandcom-plicatedbytheemergenceofnewtechnologies.Nevertheless,itisnotaproblemoftech-nologyitself.Europe’schallengegoesbeyondeithersustainabilityorcompetitivenesstotouchonthecorelegitimacyoftheEuropeannationalstate.Technology’sroleinEuropeanpoliticsandeconomicsremainsambivalent.346\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page34761AsianPolitics,EconomyandTechnologyKEEKOKLEEIntroduction1“Asian,”inthisessay,refersprimarilytoChinaandIndia,asJapan,sinceitsregen-erationaftertheendoftheSecondWorldWar,countsasanhonorary“Western”nation,amature,developedeconomywithdemocraticpolitics.Furthermore,Japan’ssystem-atictransformationfromagrarianfeudalismtobecomeamodernsocietyandeconomyhasahistoryofatleast150years,beginningwiththeMeijiRestorationaround1868.Bycontrast,ChinaandIndia,inspiteoftheirverydifferenthistories,maybesaidonlyrecentlytobesystematicallyenroutetotransformingthemselvesfromanagriculture/2peasant-basedsociety/economytobecomeindustrializedeconomies.Eachcountryhasmorethanabillionpeople;betweenthem,theyareresponsibleforathirdoftheworld’spopulation.RecentHistoryandPoliticsIndiaachievedindependencewiththewithdrawaloftheBritishRajin1947.ChinadefeatedtheJapaneseintheSecondWorldWarbutwasimmediatelyengulfedinthelaststagesofalong-drawn-outcivilwar,endingwiththeretreatoftheKuomintangtoTaiwanandtheestablishmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChinabytheChineseCommunistPartyledbyMaoZedongin1949.Indiaissaidtobetheworld’slargestdemocracyandiscelebratedassuchbytheWesternpress,althoughitsdemocracyaswellasitshumanrightsrecordmaybeflawedinmanyaspects.Incontrast,Chinaissaidtobetheworld’slargestauthoritarianaswellastotalitarianstate,andisoftenvilifiedassuch.Bothcountriesmaybesaidtohavebeenscarredbytheirrespectivehistoriesbeforeindependence.SomeIndianelitesresent(ed)havingbeencolonizedfortwohundredyears;however,theresentmentcouldbesaidtoberelativelymuted,comparedwiththatoftheirChinesecounterpart;theBritishRajhasleftthemalastinglegacy,theEnglishlanguage.TheChinese–eliteorordinary–feltandstillfeelhumiliatedbytheunequaltreatiesentailingthelossofsovereigntyduringtheperiodoftheOpiumWars,thefirstofwhichwassignedin1842,theannexationofChineseterritorybyJapanACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks347©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page348keekokleeandotherWesternpowersattheendoftheFirstSino-JapaneseWarin1894–5,andthentheinvasionandformaloccupationofnorthernandevenpartsofcentralChinabyJapanduringtheSecondSino-JapaneseWar(1937–41).Furthermore,manylead-ingmembersoftheIndianrulingélite–fromJawaharlalNehru,toIndiraGandhi,tothepresentprimeminister,DrManmohanSingh,areallOxbridge-educated,whereastheChineserulingclass,toamanorwoman,areprimarilyhome-educatedproducts(MaohimselfhadneverseentheneedtoleaveChina,unlikesomeofhiscolleagueswhowentforshort,limitedperiodstostudyorworkinforeigncountries,suchasJapanandEurope);henceso-calledWestern–politicalandeconomic–values,viewedasapackage(colonialism,militarism,exploitation,capitalism,democracy,freedom)areperceivedwithfargreatersuspicionthaninIndia,especiallywhentheChineseconsider/consideredtheircivilization/culturetobesuperior,asevidencedbythename“China,”whichmeans“thecountryatthecenter”oftheworld.TheWest:Politics,EconomyandTechnologyThereisacommonlyheldsimplisticviewofthemodernhistoryoftheWest(WesternEurope)thatthetriadofdemocraticpolitics,free-marketcapitalismandscience-drivenhightechnologywentinextricablyhandinhand.Thisisnottheplacetoexaminethisthesisindepth.Sufficeittomakethefollowingbriefobservations:modernsciencemaybesaidtohavebeguninseventeenth-centuryEurope,butittooktwocenturiesatleastbeforethefundamentaldiscoveriesofphysicsandchemistryinducedwhattodaywecallhightech.Beforethat,farfromscienceleadingandinventionfollowing,inventionswereautonomousofscience;and,inonespectacularinstance,itwastheinventionofthesteamenginewhichledtothefundamentalscienceofthermodynamics.Indus-trializationtookoffinEurope,onthewhole,withoutthebenefitsofmodernbasicscienceanditsapplicationtoindustry.Thefirstindustrialrevolution–water–wind–woodcomplex–restedonwhatmaybecalledcraft-basedtechnologyandinventionswhichfoundtheirwaytoEurope,inmanyinstances,fromChina,viatheMiddleEast.Thesecondindustrialrevolution–steam–coal–ironcomplex–wassimilarlybased.Science-led/-inducedhigh3techdidnotmakeanappearancetillthe1840s.Thehistoryofcapitalismisascomplexasthatoftechnology.Inbrief,financecapitalismbeganasearlyastheItaliancitystatesduringtheRenaissancewhichhadnothingtodowiththeriseofProtestantism,Webernotwithstanding.Laissez-fairecapitalismwas/is,inanycase,moreassociatedwiththeAnglo-SaxonworldthanwithcontinentalEurope,especiallyFrancewhichhasastrongtraditionofétatisme.ThebeginningsofmassdemocracyintheUKonlyoccurredwiththeReformActof1832,andfulladultsuffragewasnotavailableuntilwomenweregiventhevotein1928–and,inSwitzerland,onlyin1971.Inotherwords,historically,capitalisminitsvariousformsintheWestneededneitherscience-inducedtechnologynordemocracy(universaladultsuffrage),norwhatwe,today,callhumanrightstodevelopandflourish.ModernscienceinWesternEuropebeganintheseventeenthcentury,aperiodnotnotedeitherforhumanrightsorfordemo-cracy,whileappliedscienceleadingtohightech,asalreadyobserved,didnottakeofftillthemid-nineteenthcentury.348\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page349asianpolitics,economyandtechnologyNationalism,ModernizationandWesternizationThebriefesthistoricaloutlineofthevariouscomplexthematicdevelopmentsgivenaboveshowsthatitwouldbeimprudenttounderstand“Westernization”tomeanthatChina(ifnotIndia)wouldbehappytobuy“offthepeg”Westernpolitical,economicandculturalvalueswithoutfurtherscrutiny.ThecaseofChinaparallelsthatofnineteenth-centuryJapan–theMeijireformswerenotaboutWesternvaluesperse,butaboutmodernization,thatis,theattempttorestructurethefeudal/agrarianorgan-izationofsocietybasedonthewarriorsamuraiclasstoonewhichemphasizedeconomicgrowth,industrialismandmilitarypower,thistimerestingnotonthetraditionalswordbuthightech.Inthislimitedsenseonly,“Westernization”maybesaidtoequal“modernization,”howtobringone’scountryuptotheeconomicstrengthoftheWest,sothatitmaybeabletocompetewiththeWestonmoreorlessequaltermsand,therefore,toberespectedbyWesternpowers.Inotherwords,modernizationgoeshandinhandwithnationalism–inthisproject,IndiaisasnationalisticasChina,althoughitremainstruethattheirrespectivenationalismsassumedifferentaspectsgiventhedifferencesintheirhistories.TheintellectualdebateaboutmodernizationinthecontextofnationalisminChinaaswellasattemptsatmodernizationbeganinthenineteenthandcontinuedintothetwentiethcentury,althoughtheprojectwasmuchinterrupted,firstbytheJapaneseandWesternoccupationofpartsofChina,andthenlaterbythenextwaveofJapaneseconquestwhichconstitutedtheSecondSino-JapaneseWar,aftertheso-called“Lugouqiao(MarcoPoloBridge)”Incident,in1937tobefollowedin1941byChina’sformalentryintotheSecondWorldWaraftertheJapanesebombingofPearlHarbor.In1949,theprojectwasresumedinearnest,firstbyfollowingtherouteofstatecapitalism(thecommandeconomy)andthen,afterthedeathofMao,bytheeconomicreformsassociatedwithDengXiaoping.Chineseintellectualsconsidered/considermodernscienceanditstechnology,thoughinitiatedbytheWest,asinstitutionsandvalueswhicharedetachablefromtheusuallyconceivedpackageof“Westernvalues”saidtoconsistofmassdemocracywithitsassociatedfreedomstoformatleasttwopoliticalpartiesofmoreorlessequalpolitical/economicstrength,tovote(intermittently)forthem,tohavesomefreedominthemediatoexpressdisagreementsandcriticismsofgovernmentpolicies,etc.Insuchananalysis,Westerncountriesgrowstrongandpowerful,economicallyaswellasmilitarily,primarilythroughthediscoveriesofbasicscienceandtheirinducedtechnologies.Itfollowsthatonecanfollowthescientific/technologicalpathinpursuitofmodernizationwithoutnecessarilyjeopardizingmoretraditionalculturalvalues–inthenineteenthcentury,theJapanesedidjustthatandweresuccessful.Theintel-lectualdebatewhichbeganduringthelateQingDynasty(1644–1911)threwupa“couplet”elegantlyexpressedinthetraditionalfour-wordformatwhichsumsupthisspiritofdevelopmentandmodernizationinthecontextofnationalism:guweijinyong;yangweizhongyong,whichfreelytranslatedmeans“Ancientknowledge/wisdomtoservecontemporaryinterests;WesternknowledgetoserveChina’sinterests.”Thisexpres-sionwasmadepopularwhenMaoadopteditanditbecameoneofthemuch-citedslogansduringtheCulturalRevolution(1966–76);itremainsabidingcurrency.349\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page350keekokleeFromsuchaperspective,theeconomicreformsofthelasttwenty-fiveyearsarelessofarupturefromwhathasprecededthanmightappearatfirstsight.Thefirststageofmodernizationanddevelopment,whichbeganwiththeestablishmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,rested,byandlarge,onthecommandeconomy,aformofcapitalismpioneeredbytheWestintheformoftheSovietUnion,andusinginthemainthehightechalsodevelopedbytheSovietUnion.However,simultaneously,italsoencouragedlow-tech,labor-intensiveactivities.Thisstagepavedthewayforthenext,whenChinaoutgrewthecommandeconomy/labor-intensive-low-techmodel,andoptednotsomuchforthelaissez-fairefreemarket/privateenterprisemodelassociatedwiththeAnglo-Saxoneconomiesasforthedirigisme/étatismeoftheEuropeancontinentalmodel,inpar-ticulartheFrench.Thismorerecentborrowingisalsoinkeepingwiththespiritoftheaxiomcitedabove,touseWesterntools,modifyingthemwheneverandwherevernecessary,inordertoserveandpromoteChineseneedsandinterests.Todate,theChinesegovernmenthasseennoneedtoborrowtheWesternnotionofmassdemocracyandsomeofitsassociatedideastoserveChineseneedsandinterests(asperceived,atleast,bytherulingelites).Whetheritwouldeverdosoremainsthe$64,000question;Chineseintellectualsarebusytryingtorevamptraditionalcultural,social,politicalideastocopewiththeChinaofthetwenty-firstcentury.Whetherandhowtheywillsucceedisoneofthemostfascinatingissuesofthisnewcentury.InIndia,MohandasGandhiformulatedanalternativetothestandarddevelop-mentroute.However,India,afterindependence,didnotfollowthatphilosophy;instead,itpursuedwhatmaybecalledtheFabiansocialistroute,implementingimportsubstitution,centralplanningwithstrictcontroloftheprivatesectoroftheeconomy,foreigntradeandforeigndirectinvestment.Thegovernment,liketheChineseoneduringroughlythesameepoch,pursuedsimultaneouslycapital-intensive/high-techaswellassubsidizinglabor-intensive/low-tech(althoughthelatterwasonalimitedscale,almostonlyasatokengesturetotheGandhianphilosophyperhaps).However,by1990,theeconomywasperceivedtobeincrisis,whichledtoaseriesofreformscen-teredonliberalization(theremovalofregulatoryconstraints),privatization(reducingtherolesoftheStateandthepublicsectorinbusiness)andglobalization(facilitatingtheexpansionandpenetrationofmultinationalcorporations).Fromthebriefsketchabove,itappearsthatChinaandIndia,inspiteofobviousdifferences,havepursuedbroadlythesameeconomicpathsintransformingtheirrespectivecountriesfromanagrariantoamoreindustrializedsocietyand,asaresult,arefacingroughlythesamekindofsocialproblems,namely,anincreaseofinequalitybetweentheindustrialized/urbanpartsandthenon-industrialized/ruralpartsduringaperiodofhigheconomicgrowth.Bothcountriesarewellawarethatthissetofissueshastobeaddressed;theChinesegovernmentinitsrecentfive-yearpreviewhasexplicitlysetoutcertainremedialpolicies.Inthelastfifteenyearsorso,India,capitalizingonitsheritageoftheEnglishlanguage,haschosentoentertheglobalizedmarketmainlyviatheservicesector,welcomingtheelectronicoutsourcingofWesternenterprisestoBangaloreandothercentersofelectronicexcellenceinthecountry.China,ontheotherhand,hasoptedtogodownthemanufacturingroute,tobecomeonceagaintheso-calledmanufacturingcenteroftheworld,apositionithadoccupiedforcenturiesuntilBritain(followedbyotherWesterncountries)beganitssecondindustrialrevolutioninthenineteenthcentury.350\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page351asianpolitics,economyandtechnologyLikealldevelopingeconomiesinrecentyears(SouthKorea,Taiwan),Chinahasclimbedtheladderbyconcentratinginthefirstinstanceoncheap,low-qualityproducts;but,asmorerecentexperienceshows,itiscapableoflearningfastandofmanufacturinghigh-qualitygoodswhichrelynotmerelyonitslowlaborcostsbutalsoonitsgraspandimplementationofhightech.(ThissametendencyalsoobtainsinIndia.)Indeed,foreignfirmswishingtoinvestinChinamustbepreparedtododealswiththeChinesegovernmentregarding(cutting-edge)technologytransfer;withoutwillingnesstoenterintosuchagreements,thebillioncustomersawaitingtheforeigninvestorwouldforevereludethem.ItwouldbewiseforthemtobearinmindthatthestrategytheChinesedeployiswhatoneChinesescholar,LiYining,atBeijingUniversity,hascalledyishichang4huanjishu–usingthemarketasanexchangefortechnology.ConclusionThecaseofChinashowsclearlythat“Westernization”atmostequals“modernization”butalwayswithinthecontextofnationalism.ScienceanditstechnologyareperceivedtobedetachablefromtherestofthepackageofWesternvalues/culture,includingmassdemocracyanditsassociatedpractices.Fromthisperspective,itwouldbenaïvetoimaginethatChinawouldsimplyunfoldinthewaythatMarxhasordained,namely,thatthesuperstructurewouldchangeinaccordancewithchangesintheeconomicbase.However,thisshouldnotbeinterpretedtomeanthatChinawouldnotnecessarily,inthelongerterm,evolvetoaccommodatecertainselectedpolitical/culturalfeaturesfromtheWest;thedirectionandpaceofsuchevolutionwouldnotbeatthebehestoftheWest(unlesstheWestwere,unwisely,tochoosetoimposethemdirectlyonChina)butonlyinawayinwhichforeignvaluescanbecomfortablydomes-ticatedor“sinicized.”Chinahasalonghistoryofsuchdomesticationandsinicization–witness,theabsorptionofBuddhistvaluesintoChinese–ConfucianandDaoist–cultureandcivilization.Thelong-standingintellectualdebateinvolvingthecontestbetweenti(referringtothepoliticalandeconomicsystemsinthisinstance)andyong(referringtoanyusefulknowledge,especiallyhigh-tech)continuesapacetodaywithinacontextwhosespiritmaybesummedupbytheoutlook:Chineselearningasessence,5Westernlearningasutility.Inthisrespect,IndiadiffersprofoundlyfromChina,asIndia,byvirtueofitsrecentcolonialpast,hasformallyembraceddemocracy,and,asaresult,itson-goingdebate(amongstitsintellectuals)aboutthisaspectofsocietalvaluesdifferssomewhatfromthatoftheirChinesecounterparts.Notes1.Somerecentwritingsofinterestare:JamesMcGregor,OneBillionCustomers:LessonsfromtheFrontLinesofDoingBusinessinChina(London:NicholasBrealeyPublishing,2005);AmartyaSen,TheArgumentativeIndian:WritingsonIndianHistory,CultureandIdentity(London:AllenLane,2005),chs8and9;PankajMishra,“TheWesternViewoftheRiseofIndiaandChinaIsaSelf-AffirmingFiction”http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1794502,00.html[published10/06/06;accessed10/07/06]351\n9781405146012_4_061.qxd2/4/0913:40Page352keekoklee2.Indiadidhavethrivingcottageindustriessuchasincottonwhichwere,however,destroyedbytheBritishRaj.BeforetheOpiumWars,ChinadidhavethrivingcommerceinHongKong,whichthenmigratedtoShanghai(whenHongKongwascededtoBritain)–asaresult,ShanghaigrewanddevelopedtobethecommercialandindustrialcenterofChina,untilforeigninvasions/occupations,warsandthencivilwarinterrupteditsgrowthanddevelopment.3.Fordetails,seeKeekokLee,PhilosophyandRevolutionsinGenetics:DeepScienceandDeepTechnology(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2005).4.SeeTanChung,“ChinaundertheImpactofModernCivilization,”http://ignca.nic.in/cd_05006.htm[accessed07/2006]5.SeealsoLiHongtu,“China’sModernization:AHistoricalSurvey,”http://w1.ens-Ish.fr/colloques/chine2004/china_modernization.pdghttp://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:MQ663mRNGUUJ:w1.ens-lsh.fr/colloques/chine2004/china_modernization.pdf+Modernization+and+China&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=7[accessed07/2006]352\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page35362USPolitics,EconomyandTechnologyDAVIDM.HARTTechnologicalchangeisasocialprocess.Individualswhoaretheagentsofsuchchangearegenerallyembeddedinorganizations,whicharethemselvesstructuredbyinstitutions,whichareinturnembeddedinculturalsystemsofmeaningandvalue.Together,theselayersofgovernanceregulatethepaceoftechnologicalchangeanddetermineitsdirection.Thelayersinteractcontinuously,usuallyreinforcingoneanother,therebyproducingcharacteristicpathsofdevelopmentatthenationallevel.IntheAmericancontext,governanceinthisbroadsenseconspirestofosterrel-ativelyrapidandoccasionallyradicaltechnologicalchange.Americanculturetendstobeacceptingofnewtechnologiesandisoftenenthusiasticaboutthem.TheseculturalbiasesandtheirexpressioninlawandinpublicpolicysupportwhatNathan1Rosenbergcalls“economicexperimentation,”adiversityofprivateeffortstocombineandrecombinetechnologicalsystemswithorganizationalschemesforproducingandexchangingnewgoodsandservices.Themarketgenerallydecideswhichofthese“experi-ments”deservetobecontinuedandwhicharetoberelegatedtothedustbin.Untilthetwentiethcentury,theUSfederalgovernmentdidlittlemorethanpassivelycountenancethisdollar-basedprocessofgeneratingandselectingnewtechnologies.SincethecountryattainedGreatPowerstatus,andespeciallysincetheSecondWorldWar,whenitassumedadominantroleintheinternationalsystem,thegovernmenthasincreasinglyaddedtothediversityofexperimentationandacceleratedthepaceofchange.Exceptionalcasesnotwithstanding,therearefewsignsthatthisaccelerationhasbumpedupagainstcultural,politicaloreconomiclimitsintheearlytwenty-firstcentury.AmericanLiberalismTheUSisatrootaliberalsociety.Americanstendtovaluetheindividualoverthecollectiveinterestandtoprivilegenegativefreedomoverpositivefreedom–“freedomfrom,”asIsaiahBerlinwouldhaveit,over“freedomto.”PremodernstatusdistinctionserodedmorequicklyintheUSthaninEuropeandotherEuropeancolonies;politicalrightsandentrepreneurshiptrumpedaristocracyandguild.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks353©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page354davidm.hartTobesure,theseidealswereoftenabridged,nowheremoresothanintheslave-holdingSouthofthepre-CivilWarera.Nonetheless,inthecontextofabundantnaturalresourcesandashortageoflabor,theyhelpedtoanimatearelativelyhighlevelofpopularengagementinwhatthepatentclauseoftheUSConstitutionlabeledthe“usefularts.”“TheannalsofAmericaninvention,”writesB.ZorinaKhanofthenine-teenthcentury,“werenotlimitedtothewealthy,corporateentities,orotherprivileged2classes,butreflectedabroadspectrumofsociety.”Theobjectiveofsuchinventionwasusuallytogetrichquick.Machinesthatcoulddosomethingneworbetterthanbeforeprovidedplatformsforenterprisesthatcouldbankonatastefornoveltyamongbuyers.AsthepaceofimmigrationquickenedaftertheCivilWar,newlyarrivedAmericansreinforcedthereceivingculture’sopennesstonovelty,sheddingtheirtraditionalwaysandadoptingwithalacritythemeanssuppliedbytheemergingmass-productionsector.Thegiantcorporationsthataroseinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcen-turiestofeedthismassmarketarousedsomemisgivingsamongAmericans.PopulistsandProgressivesgavevoicetoconcernsaboutthedestructionoftraditions,livelihoods,andplaceslikeJohnMuir’sbelovedHetchHetchyValley,nearthepresent-dayYosemiteNationalPark.Yetitwasnotthetechnologiespersethatborethebruntoftheseattacks,butratherthefirmsthatproducedthem.Indeed,theshort-livedTechnocracymove-mentoftheearly1930srevealedadeep-seatedsuspicionthatbigbusinesswassup-pressingtechnologicalchangeandthatsolutionstothenation’sproblemscouldbefoundbyunleashingit.ThetechnologicalenthusiasmoftheJazzAgeofthe1920s,withitsradiosandautomobiles,foundexpressiononceagaininthepost-SecondWorldWarconsumerculture.Foralltheironyof“plastics,”aswhisperedintheearof“TheGraduate”inthemovieofthatname,Americanconsumerscontinuedtofindthepullofthenewirresistible.Thepopularcultureoftechnologicalproductionwasrenewedaswellinthepostwarperiod,especiallywiththeappearanceofhackersliketheHomebrewComputerClub,whichgestatedtheideaofthepersonalcomputerinthelate1970sinSiliconValley.Hackerculturecameintofullflowerduringtheboomofthelate1990s,reinterpretingtheAmericanliberalcreedonceagain.“Cyberlibertarians”construedtheInternetasanewfrontierfortheimaginationthatwasungovernablenotsimplyinpracticebutinprincipleaswell.Evenpropertyrights,thecollectivecapacityonwhichindividualeffortisbasedinLockeantheory,presentedproblemsforsomeofthem.Althoughthejuxtapositionofextremeanti-statismandunbridledtechnologicalfreedomofcyber-libertarianismneverwonovermainstreamAmerica,itdistilledpowerfultendenciesthathavealwaysbeenlatentwithinAmericansociety.TheConstitutionalSystemTheinstitutionalframeworkthatnurturedtheliberalcultureanditszealforthenew–andwhichwasinturnreinforcedbythatculture–wassetinplacebytheConstitution.ThefoundersoftheUSpolitydividedgovernmentalpowerhorizontallyandvertically,anddiluteditbyestablishingindividualrightsagainsttheState.Theseconstraintson354\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page355uspolitics,economyandtechnologythefederalgovernmentfosteredpoliticalandeconomiccompetitionthatwasoftenexpressedintechnologicalform.ThestateswithintheUnioncompetedforbusinessfromthestart,subsidizingturn-pikesandcanalsand,beforelong,steamboatsandrailroads.Thefederalgovernmentwasprecludedfrominvestinginsuch“internalimprovements”intheantebellumperiod.Forinstance,althoughCongressbrieflysupportedSamuelMorse’sresearchonthetelegraphinthe1840s,itdeclinedanopportunitytoacquireanddevelopthefinishedinvention.Thelackofcentraldirectionandcoordinationmadeforchaosandduplicationinthenewtechnologiesoftransportationandcommunication,butalsospedtheirdeploymentanddiffusionasalternativeapproachesweretriedoutbyentrepreneursandtheirbackersatthestatelevel.TheCivilWarremovedsomeconstraintsonthefederalgovernment,asevidencedin1862bythebeginningsofauniquepartnershipwiththestatestocreate“collegesforthebenefitofagricultureandmechanicarts.”Buildingonatraditionofwidespread,locallygovernedpubliceducation,the“A&Ms”broughthighereducationtoabroadstratumofthepopulation.Theyalsobecamevaluableknowledgeresourcesforlocalindustries,engagingintargetedresearchaswellasineducation.Agriculturalexperimentstations,whichwerelinkedtogetherandsupportedbytheUSDepart-mentofAgriculture,werejoinedatmanypublicuniversitiesbystate-fundedengineeringexperimentstations.Thevarious“internalimprovements”ofthepostbellumeraknittedtogethertheworld’slargestfree-tradezone.Thismarketstimulatedprivateinvestmentsinproduc-tivecapacityofunprecedentedscale,alongthewayacceleratingproductivitygrowthinonemanufacturingindustryafteranother.Thefinancialandlegalinstrumentsthatevolvedtoenableandinsuresuchrisk-takingwereinpartproductsofcompetitionwithinthefederalsystem.Mostnotably,thegenerouslawsofstateslikeNewJerseyandDelawarebroughtintobeingtheprivatecorporationasweknowit.Thelong-termsecurityandlarge-scalecapitalmadepossiblebythisinstitutionalformenabledthecreationofthecorporateR&Dlaboratory,thehuboftechnologicaldevelopmentintheearlytwentiethcentury.Thesystemofconstrainedanddividedgovernmentalpowermadeitdifficultforthoseharmedbytechnologicalchangeintheageofindustrializationtogetrecompense,andpre-emptiveactiontoheadoffsuchchangewasnearlyunheardof.Thecourtsweretheprimaryvenueforthesekindsofclaims,andtheyactedafterthefactandslowly,ifatall.Onlyattheendofthenineteenthcentury,afterdecadesofpoliticalagitation,didCongressbegintocreateafederaladministrativestructurethatevenremotelyresembledtheidealtypeofbureaucracyenvisionedbyMaxWeberaroundthesametime.Thenewagencieswerefrequentlysaddledwithmixedpromotionalandregulatorymissions,andprovedvulnerableto“capture”bytheindustriesthattheyoversaw.Still,technologiestosafeguardhumanhealth,publicsafetyandthenaturalenviron-mentbegantoattractsubstantialpublicinterestandsupportaroundtheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Newcommunitiesofpracticeinsuchfieldsaspublichealthandcivilengineeringexplicitlyalignedprofessionalinterestwiththecommongood.Thesepro-gressiveengineersenvisionedasocietyoperatingalongscientificprinciples,reducingthe“waste”(awordwithdiverseconnotations)theysawasinherentinthemarketsystemthathaddominatedthecenturyjustpast.355\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page356davidm.hartFederalPatronageBusinessinsuchascientificallymanagedsocietywouldnotbereplacedbygovernment,butwouldinsteadpractice“self-governance”throughthecreationofaconsensusthatspannedthepublicandprivatesectors.Theleadingexponentofthisviewclaimedthepresidencyin1928.UnfortunatelyforPresidentHerbertHoover,theGreatDepressionderailedhisattempttoimplementsuchavision.TheNewDealstatethatemergedinitsplaceunderhissuccessor,PresidentFranklinD.Roosevelt,presumedtension,ifnothostility,betweenbusinessandgovernment.Anditshatteredmostoftheremainingconstraintsonfederalauthority,carryingoutprogramsof“internalimprovement”inavarietyoftechnologicalfields,suchasruralelectrificationandsoilconservation.AlthoughtheNewDealdrewmanytechnicalexpertsintopublicservice,itwasnotasextensiveorasfocusedonscienceandtechnologyascognatedevelopmentsinEurope;thevastbulkoftechnologicalcapabilityintheUSremainedoutsidethecom-passofthestate.TheSecondWorldWarchangedthat.UnderRoosevelt’sproddingandwiththecreativeeffortsofHooveriteslikehisscienceadvisorVannevarBush,theUSmilitarymovedfromconservatismtoaradicalembraceoftechnologyduringthecourseofthewar.EmployingwhatpioneeringsciencepolicyanalystDonK.Pricelatercalled“federalismbycontract,”thearmedforcesengagedtheknowledgeandskillsof3thecountry’smostadvancedfirmsandmostprestigiousuniversities.TheColdWarthatfollowedsustainedtheseinstitutionalinnovations.Yettheydidnotamounttoa“military–industrialcomplex”dominatedbya“scientific–technologicalelite”thatPresidentDwightD.Eisenhowerspokeofwithanxietyinhis1961farewell4address.Militarysupportfornewtechnologiesremaineddecentralizedandpluralistic,notleastbecauseofthewaythattheConstitutiondividedpower.Thecontractorsfavoredbythenewfederalpatronsincludedstart-upfirmsaswellascorporategiants.Technologicalknow-howwaswidelydiffusedbothforsecurityreasonsandbecausetheliberaltraditionseemedtodemandit.Thesepolicies,backedbyamassiveamountoffederalspending,producednot5onlythe“baroquearsenal”ofICBMs(intercontinentalballisticmissiles)andMIRVs(multipleindependentlytargetablere-entryvehicles)butalsothepassengerjet,computer-controlledmachinetoolsand,eventually,theInternet.Suchcivilian“spinoffs”frommilitaryR&Dandtheacademic–venture-capital–entrepreneurshipcomplexthattheyhelpedgiverisetoinplaceslikeSiliconValleyprovidedpowerfulimpulsestotheAmericanhigh-technologyeconomyinthepostwarperiod.Liketheirmilitarycounterparts,themainfederalcivilianscienceandtechnologyagencieswerebornintheearlyColdWar,andtheyoperatedinasimilarfashionwithsimilarresults.TheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH)isparadigmaticinthisregard.OppositiontofederalpatronageofbiomedicalresearchmeltedawayduringtheSecondWorldWar,andbythe1950stheexecutiveandlegislativebrancheswerecompetingtoseewhichcouldproposealargerbudgetforthispurpose.Meanwhile,individualmembersofCongressscrambledtobuildupresearchcentersintheirhomedistricts.NIH’sR&DspendingstimulatedrapidgrowthintheUSpharmaceuticalandmedicaldeviceindustries,spinningofftheextraordinarynewfieldofbiotechnologyinthe1970sand1980s.356\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page357uspolitics,economyandtechnologyAsinthelatenineteenthcentury,technologicalchangeinthelate-twentieth-centuryUSwasnotwithoutitscritics.The“affluentsociety,”asJohnKenneth6Galbraithcharacterizedit,providedthemwithmorepoliticalresourcesandpublicsupportthantheirpredecessors.Inthe1960sandearly1970s,Congressrespondedtothese“newsocialmovements”withpioneeringhealth,safetyandenvironmentallegislationthatforcedindustrytoadoptthe“bestavailablecontroltechnologies”and,insomecases,todevelopnewones.Nuclearpowerwasthefocalpointofmuchofthiscriticism,anditsdiffusionwashaltedintheUSinthelate1970sbypublicoppositionandskyrocketingcosts.Butitwouldbeamistaketogeneralizefromthisuniquecaseandthisexceptionalperiodtoconclude–forbetterorforworse–thatAmericaninstitutionsforgoverningnewtech-nologieshadbeentransformed.EvenastheThreeMileIslandaccidentwasputtingthefinalnailinthenuclearcoffinin1979,recombinantDNAandthepersonalcomputerwerecapturingpublicenthusiasm,sparkingentrepreneurshipandspawningnewmillionaires.LookingForwardCross-nationalsurveysconductedbetween2000and2004suggestthattheUSpubliccontinuestoviewscienceandtechnologymorefavorablythantheEuropeanorJapanesepublics.USgovernmentagencies,business,universitiesandcharitablefoundationscontinuetofinanceR&Datarecordpace,stillaccountingformorethanathirdofthe7globaltotalin2000.Americanpoliciesandinstitutionsthatfostertechnology-basedentrepreneurshipareenviedandemulatedtheworldover.Evennuclearpowerisgettinganewlook,aspolicy-makersbegintoexploretheoptionsforaddressingclimatechangerealistically.Voicesofdissenthavebecomefainterinrecentyears,withoneprominentexcep-tion.Christianfundamentalistshaveblockedfederalfundingforembryonicstemcellresearch,whichtheyseeasmurder,forseveralyears.YetthissuccessisquicklycrumblingasothercountriesandevenUSstatesleapintothevoid.Theliberalregimeofinternationaltrade,investmentandcommunication,ofwhichtheUShasbeentheprimarysponsor,hasstrippedfromthiscountrythepowertocontrolthepaceanddirectionoftechnologicalchange.Tounderstandgovernanceoftechnologicalchangeinthecomingcentury,weshallneedtounderstandculture,institutions,organizationsandindividualbehavioronaglobalscale.Notes1.N.Rosenberg,ExploringtheBlackBox(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),pp.87–108.2.B.Z.Khan,“TechnologicalInnovationsandEndogenousChangesinUSLegalInstitu-tions,1790–1920,”NationalBureauofEconomicResearch,workingpaper10346,March2004,p.11.3.D.K.Price,GovernmentandScience(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1954).357\n9781405146012_4_062.qxd2/4/0913:40Page358davidm.hart4.D.D.Eisenhower,“FarewellRadioandTelevisionAddresstotheAmericanPeople,”17January1961,availableathttp://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm,accessed27November2006.5.M.Kaldor,TheBaroqueArsenal(NewYork:Hill&Wang,1981).6.J.K.Galbraith,TheAffluentSociety(NewYork:HoughtonMifflin,1958).7.NationalScienceBoard,ScienceandEngineeringIndicators2006(Washington,D.C.:NationalScienceBoard,2006),pp.7–23andpp.4–40.358\n9781405146012_4_063.qxd2/4/0914:03Page35963Energy,TechnologyandGeopoliticsJOHNR.FANCHIQualityoflife,energysupply,andthedistributionofenergysourcesareimportantcomponentsofglobalpolitics.Geopoliticsisthestudyofhowtherelationshipsbetweennationsdependongeography,demographyandeconomics.Inthisarticle,wediscusstherelationshipbetweenenergy,technologyandgeopolitics.Thisarticleisanexten-sionofthediscussionfoundinHuntington(1996)andFanchi(2004,2005).Energyhashadasignificantimpactonsociety.Deforestationinsixteenth-centuryEnglandmotivatedthesearchforanewprimaryfuel:coal.Thediscoverythatrockoil–asoilwascalledinthenineteenthcentury–couldbeusedasanilluminantmaderockoilaviablesubstituteforwhaleoilandreducedtheneedtohuntwhales.TheneedforoilencouragedJapaneseexpansionthroughoutAsiainthe1930sandwasoneofthecausesoftheSecondWorldWar.The1973Arab–Israeliwarledtothefirstoilcrisis,withashort-termbutsignificantincreaseinthepriceofoil.Thisoilpriceshockwasfollowedbyanotherin1979afterthefalloftheShahofIran.Theseoilpriceincreasesareconsideredshocksbecausetheywerelargeenoughtocauseasignificantdeclineinglobaleconomicactivity.Theirglobalimpactshowedtheinterdependenceofnationsandtheneedtounderstandhownationsinteract.Theworldhasbeenundergoingasocio-politicaltransitionthatbeganwiththeendoftheColdWarandiscontinuingtoday.Huntington(1996)providedaviewofthistransitionthathelpsclarifyhistoricalandcurrentevents,andprovidesafoundationforunderstandingthesocio-politicalissuesthataffectenergydemand.Huntingtonarguedthataparadigmshiftwasoccurringinthegeopoliticalarena.Aparadigmisamodelthatisrealisticenoughtohelpusmakepredictionsandunder-standevents,butnotsorealisticthatittendstoconfuseratherthanclarifyissues.Aparadigmshiftisachangeinparadigm.Huntingtonidentifiedfourgeopoliticalmodelsthatletusordereventsandmakegeneralstatementsaboutreality.Themodelsshouldhelpusunderstandcausalrelationshipsbetweeneventsandcommunities.Thecom-munitiescanrangeinsizefromorganizationstoalliancesofnations.Eachgeopolit-icalmodelshouldhelpusestablishtheimportanceofinformationinrelationtothemodel,letusanticipatefuturedevelopments,makepredictionsinsomecases,andshowuspathsthatmighthelpusreachourgoals.TheColdWarbetweentheSovietUnionandtheWesternallianceledbytheUnitedStatesestablishedaframeworkthatallowedpeopletounderstandbettertherelationshipsACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks359©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_063.qxd2/4/0914:03Page360johnr.fanchiTable63.1Huntington’spossiblegeopoliticalparadigms1OneUnifiedWorld2TwoWorlds(Westversusnon-West)3Anarchy(184+nation-states)4ChaosbetweennationsfollowingtheendoftheSecondWorldWarin1945.WhentheColdWarendedwiththefalloftheBerlinwallandthebreak-upoftheSovietUnioninthelate1980sandthe1990s,itsignaledtheendofoneparadigmandtheneedforanewparadigm.Severalgeopoliticalmodelshavebeenproposed.Huntingtonconsideredfourpossibleparadigmsforunderstandingthetransition(Table63.1).TheparadigmsinTable63.1coverawiderangeofgeopoliticalmodels.TheOneUnifiedWorldparadigmassertsthattheendoftheColdWarsignaledtheendofmajorconflictsandthebeginningofaperiodofrelativecalmandstability.TheTwoWorldsparadigmviewstheworldinan“usversusthem”framework.Theworldwasnolongerdividedbypoliticalideology(democracyversuscommunism);itwasdividedbysomeotherissue.Possibledivisiveissuesincludereligion,richversuspoor(generallyaNorth–Southgeographicdivision),andgeographicaccesstonaturalresources(havesandhavenots).Theworldcouldalsobesplitintozonesofpeaceandzonesofturmoil.Thethirdparadigm,Anarchy,viewstheworldintermsoftheinterestsofeachnation,andconsiderstherelationshipsbetweennationstobeunconstrained.AccordingtoHuntington,thesethreeparadigms–OneUnifiedWorld,TwoWorlds,andAnarchy–rangefromtoosimple(OneUnifiedWorld)totoocomplex(Anarchy).TheChaosparadigmsaysthatpost-ColdWarnationsarelosingtheirrelevanceasnewloyaltiesemerge.Inaworldinwhichinformationflowsfreelyandquickly,peopleareformingallegiancesbasedonsharedtraditionsandvaluesystems.Thevaluesystemsarenotablyculturaland,onamorefundamentallevel,religious.Thenewallegiancesareinmanycasesarebirthofhistoricalloyalties.Newalliancesareformingfromthenewallegiancesandemergingasasmallsetofcivilizations.Theemergingcivilizationsarecharacterizedbyancestry,language,religionandwayoflife.Table63.2presentssomecharacteristicsofmajorcontemporarycivilizationsidentifiedbyHuntington.TheexistenceofadistinctAfricancivilizationhasbeenproposedbysomescholars,butisnotaswidelyacceptedasthecivilizationsidentifiedinthetable.Thegrowthofmulticulturalisminsomestateshasestablishedcommunitieswithinthosestatesthatmaynotsharethevaluesandallegiancesofthehoststate.Amulti-culturalstateinthiscontextisamemberstateofonecivilizationthatcontainsatleastonerelativelylargegroupofpeoplethatisloyaltomanyofthevaluesofadifferentcivilization.Forexample,SpainisamemberstateofWesternCivilizationwithasizableIslamicpopulation.AfterthecollapseoftheSovietUnion,somemulticulturalstates(e.g.YugoslaviaandCzechoslovakia)thatwereonceboundbystrongcentralgovern-mentsseparatedintosmallerstateswithmorehomogeneousvalues.Huntingtonconsideredthefourthparadigm,Chaos,tobethemostaccuratepictureofcurrenteventsandrecenttrends.Hearguedthatthepoliticsofthemodernworld360\n9781405146012_4_063.qxd2/4/0914:03Page361energy,technologyandgeopoliticsTable63.2Huntington’smajorcontemporarycivilizationsCivilizationCommentsSinicChinaandrelatedculturesinSoutheastAsiaJapaneseThedistinctcivilizationthatemergedfromtheChinesecivilizationbetween100and400ceHinduThepeoplesoftheIndiansubcontinentthatshareaHinduheritageIslamicAcivilizationthatoriginatedintheArabianpeninsulaandnowincludessubculturesinArabia,Turkey,PersiaandMalaysiaWesternAcivilizationcenteredaroundthenorthernAtlanticthathasaEuropeanheritageandincludespeoplesinEurope,NorthAmerica,AustraliaandNewZealand.OrthodoxAcivilizationcenteredinRussiaanddistinguishedfromWesterncivilizationbyitsculturalheritage,includinglimitedexposuretoWesternexperiences(suchastheRenaissance,theReformationandtheEnlightenment)LatinAmericaPeopleswithaEuropeanandRomanCatholicheritagewhohavelivedinauthoritarianculturesinMexico,CentralAmericaandSouthAmericacanbebestunderstoodintermsofamodelthatconsidersrelationshipsbetweenthemajorcontemporarycivilizationsshowninTable63.2.Eachmajorcivilizationhasatleastonecorestate(Huntington1996,ch.7).FranceandGermanyarecorestatesintheEuropeanUnion.TheUnitedStatesisacorestateinWesternCivilization.RussiaandChinaarecorestates,perhapstheonlycorestates,inOrthodoxCivilizationandSinicCivilizationrespectively.Corestatesaresourcesoforderwithintheircivilizations.Stablerelationsbetweencorestatescanhelpprovideorderbetweencivilizations.Withinthecontextofthemulti-civilizationgeopoliticalmodel,theFirstWorldWarandtheSecondWorldWarbeganascivilwarsinWesternCivilizationandengulfedothercivilizationsasthehostilitiesexpanded.Thetwoworldwarsinthetwentiethcen-turydemonstratethatcivilizationsarenotmonolithic:stateswithincivilizationsmaycompetewitheachother.Indeed,thegrowthofmulticulturalismandlargemigrantpopulationsinsomestatesismakingitpossibleforstateswithinacivilizationtochangetheirculturalidentityascultureswithinmemberstatescompetefordominance.Thechangeinculturalidentitycanleadtoachangeinallegiancetoacivilization.TheColdWarandtheoilcrisesinthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcenturywereconflictsbetweencivilizations.WesternCivilizationhasbeenthemostpowerfulcivilizationforcenturies,wherepowerinthiscontextreferstotheabilitytocontrolandinfluencesomeoneelse’sbehavior.ThetrendinglobalpoliticsisadeclineinthepoliticalpowerofWesternCivilizationasothercivilizationsdeveloptechnologicallyandeconomically.Energyisakeyfactorinthismodelofglobalpolitics.Thiscanbeseenbyanalyzingtheenergydependenceandrelativemilitarystrengthofcorestates.Forexample,considertherelationshipbetweenWesternandIslamicCivilizations.WesternCivilizationisanimporterofoil,andmanystatesinIslamicCivilizationareoilexporters.Theresultisthetransferofwealthfromoil-importingstatesofWestern361\n9781405146012_4_063.qxd2/4/0914:03Page362johnr.fanchiCivilizationtooil-exportingstatesinIslamicCivilization.Bycontrast,theUnitedStates,aleadingcorestateinWesternCivilization,istheleadingmilitarypowerintheworldwithalargearsenalofnuclearweapons.MostcorestatesinIslamicCivilizationarerelativelyweakmilitarilyanddonothavenuclearweapons.ThewealthbeingacquiredbyIslamicCivilizationisbeingusedtoalterthebalanceofmilitarypowerbetweenWesternCivilizationandIslamicCivilization.Iran,acorestateinIslamicCivilization,isusingitsoilwealthtoimproveitsarsenalofconventionalweaponsandacquirenucleartechnologyfromcorestatesinothercivilizations.Ideologicaldifferencesbetweencivilizationscanleadtoastruggleforglobalinflu-encebetweencorestates.Thebattlefieldsinthisstrugglecanrangefromeconomictoideologicaltomilitary.Theoutcomeofthisstruggledependsonenergy.Energy-importingstatesinonecivilizationrelyonaccesstoenergysourcesfromenergy-exportingstatesinothercivilizations.Iftherelationshipbetweenenergy-tradingstatesishostile,energybecomesaweaponinthestrugglebetweenciviliza-tions.Forexample,thegrowthofnon-Westerncivilizations,suchasSinicandHinduCivilizations,hasincreaseddemandforafinitevolumeofoil.Thisincreasesthepriceofoilasagloballytradedcommodityandincreasestheflowofwealthbetweenoil-importingcivilizationsandoil-exportingcivilizations.Oil-importingnationsmaytrytoreducetheirneedforimportedoilbyfindingenergysubstitutesorbyconservation.Thesocialacceptabilityofenergyconservationvarieswidelyaroundtheworld.Insomecountries,suchasGermany,energyconservationistsandenvironmentalistsareapoliticalforce(theGreenParty).Inothercountries,suchastheUnitedStates,peoplemayespouseconservationmeasuresbutbeunwillingtoparticipateinorpayforenergyconservationpractices,suchasrecyclingordrivingenergy-efficientvehicles.Energyproductiondependsontheabilityofenergyproducerstohaveaccesstonaturalresources.Accessdependsonthenatureofrelationshipsbetweencivilizationswiththetechnologytodevelopnaturalresourcesandcivilizationswithterritorialjurisdictionoverthenaturalresources.MuchoilproductiontechnologywasdevelopedinWesternCivilizationandgaveWesternCivilizationtheenergyitneededtobecomethemostpowerfulcivilizationintheworld.AsWesternCivilizationconsumeditssupplyofoil,itbecamereliantonothercivilizationstoprovideitwiththeenergyitsstatesneededtomaintaintheiroil-dependenteconomies.Thisdependenceintimesofstressbetweencivilizationscanleadtosocialturmoilandconflictbetweenstatesthataremembersofdifferentcivilizations.Energyisneededforqualityoflife,butitmayalsobeasourceofeconomicdis-parityandsocialstressbetweencivilizations.TheUnitedNationsadoptedapolicyofsustainabledevelopmentfollowinga1987reportpreparedbytheUnitedNationsWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopmentundertheleadershipofchair-womanGroHarlemBrundtlandofNorway.Thepolicyofsustainabledevelopmentencour-agessocietytomeetitspresentneedswhilepreservingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds(WCED1987).Wearelivingintheperiodoftransitionfromenergybeingdominatedbyfossilfuelstoanemergingenergymix.Somegovernments,especiallyinenergy-importingnations,areencouragingorrequiringthedevelopmentofenergy-conservingandalternativeenergytechnologies.362\n9781405146012_4_063.qxd2/4/0914:03Page363energy,technologyandgeopoliticsReferencesandFurtherReadingFanchi,J.R.(2004).Energy:TechnologyandDirectionsfortheFuture(Boston,Mass.:Elsevier-AcademicPress).Fanchi,J.R.(2005).Energyinthe21stCentury(Singapore:WorldScientific).Huntington,S.P.(1996).TheClashofCivilizations(London:Simon&Schuster).WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(WCED),G.Brundtlandchairwoman(1987).OurCommonFuture(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).363\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page365PartVITechnologyandEthicsACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page36764TechnologyandEthics:OverviewCARLMITCHAMANDKATINKAWAELBERSSincethemid-twentiethcentury,technologicalchangehasincreasinglyledtopublicdebate.Concernshavebeenraisedaboutthelegitimacyofnucleardeterrence,dangersofenvironmentalpollution,informedconsentinmedicine,privacyandcomputing,thesafetyanddesirabilityofgeneticengineering,intellectualtechno-propertyrights,andnanotechnologicalrisks.Giventhelargeandincreasingnumberofthesemoraldiscussions,onecouldanticipatethatanycompaniontothephilosophyoftechno-logywouldincludeanalysesofadiversityofethicalissues.Thetwenty-threechaptersincludedhere,coveringtopicsfromagriculturalethicstowatertechnology,confirmsuchexpectation.Newtechnologies,nowaffectingandaffectedbyallaspectsofthehumanlifeworld,openupandhavebecomemanifoldopportunitiesforphilosophicalnegotiationandcriticalreflection.Intheregionalizedfieldoftechnologyandethicsdiscussions,therearetwodistincttypesofinteractions.Onefocusesontheethicsoftechnicalprofessionals,thatis,thespecializedethicalcodesappropriatetophysicians,engineers,computerscientistsandthelike.Criticalreflectiononhowtechnologicalchangeinfluencessuchcodesofcon-ducthasbecomeanincreasinglyprominentaspectoftheethicsoftechnicalpro-fessionals.Anotherfocusesonhowbesttoextendethicsingeneralfromitstraditionalfocusonhuman–humaninteractionstohuman–technology–worldinteractions,withtheworldincludingbothhumansandthenon-humanenvironment.Questionshavealsobeenraisedaboutthepossibilityofspecificallyethicaldimensionstosomehuman–artifactinteractions,especiallywithartifactsthatmaybesocomplexorsophisticatedastoacquireapparentlyhuman-likepropertiesofintelligenceoremotionalresponsiveness.Athirdandquitedifferentinteractionbetweentechnologyandethicshasattemptedtoturnethicsitselfintoatechnology.Inthepresentoverview,however,emphasiswillbeplacedongeneraldiscussions,withoutmeaningtodenythelegitimacyandimport-anceofprofessionaltechnicalethics,human–artifactinteractions,oreffortstocreateatechnologyofethics.Thereareneverthelessdangersingeneralethicalreflections,notjustwithregardtotechnologybutinanymoralassessmentthattooquicklyinterpretschallengesinpositiveornegativeterms–orevenneutralones.Anyjudgmentdeservestobeprecededbycarefuldescription.AstheplaywrightHaroldPinterwrote,“Tosupplyanexplicitmoraltagtoanevolvingandcompulsivedramaticimage[is]facile,ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks367©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page368carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersimpertinent,anddishonest”(Pinter1998:18).WhattheNobelPrize-winningBritishauthormaintainedwithrespecttohisownplaysappliesequallywelltodramaticunfoldingsinthetechno-lifeworld.Astheessayscollectedhereshow,weareinthemidstnotonlyofmajorplotdevelopmentsinthehumanconditionbutalsoofwhatmightbecalledarelightingoftheveryworldstageonwhichwe“allplayourparts.”Togivetooquicklyadeterminatemoralinterpretationtothisevolvingandcom-pulsivenarrativewouldbefacile,impertinentanddishonest.Indeed,philosophymustworktoappreciatetheenlightenmentsofhistoryandthedramaticideasbeingplayedouttherein.1.FromCulturalCriticismtoCulturalLagTwoinfluentialandrelatedgeneraldescriptionsofthenewstagelightinginwhichweperforceassumeourrolesemergedinthelate-nineteenth-andearly-twentieth-centurysocialsciences.InEurope,akeyfigureinthedevelopmentofwhatbecameknownastheculturalcriticismofmoderntechnicswasGeorgSimmel.AshasbeenarguedbyJoséLuisGarcia(2005),Simmel’ssocio-philosophicalstudyofmoneyanalyzedhowwhatbeganasasimpleenhancementofthemeansofexchange,throughthemonetiz-ingofallexchanges,fundamentallyalteredsocio-culturallife.Thisalteration,whichSimmelidentifieswiththeparticulartechnicalmeansknownasmoney,appliesevenmoretomoderntechnicsasawhole.Theresultofindustrialproduction,massconsumerism,and“creativedestruction”–touseJosephShumpeter’silluminatingdescriptorfortheunificationofthetechnicalinventiveandcommercialimpulses–neverthelesstempersanyunqualifiedEnlightenment,liberalorsocialistbeliefinpro-gress.Technologicalprogressappearstobringnotonlythegoodsofincreasedwealth,reducedphysicallaborandextendedlifespanbutalsothemoreproblematic,unintendedandnoteasilycontrolledconsequencesofalienation,bureaucratizationandintensifieddecision-making–nottomentionenvironmentalpollutionandtransformation.ForSimmel,MaxWeber,WalterBenjamin,RomanoGuardini,GünterAndersandothers,thecombinationwascreatinganewtypeofculturallifethatappearsincommensur-ablewithallthathasbeenknownuptothispointinhumanhistoryandwithinwhichpeoplethusstruggledformoralorientation.Arelatedargumenttookmoreprogrammaticforminculturallagtheory,whichcanbefoundadumbratedinMarxistanalysesoftheneedforaproletarianrevolutiontotakefulladvantageoftheliberatingpotentialcreatedbycapitalism,butwasgivendistinctlyAmericanformulationbysociologistWilliamFieldingOgburnandphilo-sopherJohnDewey.AccordingtoOgburn(1922),socialordersareconstitutedbysemi-independentelementsthatnormallyreinforceoneanother,aswhenreligionandsciencepresentcompatiblecosmologiesorgovernmentsfundteachingrespectforexistingpoliticalarrangements.Maladjustmentoccurswhenaculturalecologyexperi-encesdifferentialchangeinitselementssuchthatdisharmoniesareintroduced.Leadingexamplesareassociatedwithnewinventionsinmaterialculturethatnolongermesheasilywithexistingsocio-culturalhabits,whichthenrequireperiodsofsometimesdifficultadjustment.Oneexampleofsuchtechnologicallygeneratedculturallag(fromOgburn1964)wastheperiodduringwhichthesocialinstitutionsandcustomsof368\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page369technologyandethics:overviewroad-buildingand-usehadtoadapttotheincreasingspeedofautomotivetravel.EstablishmentoftheUSFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)intheearlypartofthetwentiethcenturyprovidesanothercase;priortotheindustrialprocessingoffoodandmassmarketingofdrugs,nogovernmentalagencywasnecessarytosupplementtraditionsofexperienceandpersonalassessmenttoinformpatternsofuse.FromtheperspectiveofDewey,culturallagpresentsspecialchallengesfordemocratictheory,whichcaneasilyfailtoappreciatehowtheunityofthemodernstatedependsonnewtransportationandcommunicationstechnologies.AsDeweyobserved,“Politicalandlegalformshaveonlypiecemealandhaltingly,withgreatlag,accommodatedthemselvestotheindustrialtransformation”(1927:114).“Culturallag”praiseforandrelianceonformsofschoolingandfreedomofthepressthathavebeenweakenedorcapturedbyspecialinterests“iseverywhereinevidence”(Dewey1939:48).Numerousothercasesinwhichscienceandtechnologyhaveoutstrippedthesocial,politicalorintellectualcapacitiesofaculturehavebeendocumentedbyanthropologicalstudiessuchasthosecollectedbyEdwardH.Spicer(1952)andH.RussellBernardandPerttiJ.Pelto(1987).Oneofthemostpressingmid-twentieth-centuryexampleswastheadventofnuclearweapons,whichpresentedanenormousleapinscientificknowledgeandtechnolo-gicalpowerpriortoanypoliticaladjustmentsthatwouldensurewiseorprudentuse.AsAlbertEinsteinputit,“Theunleashedpoweroftheatomhaschangedeverythingsaveourmodesofthinking,”thuscallingfor“anewtypeofthinking”–or,equallyimportant,ofacting.Moregenerally,accordingtophilosopherHansJonas,“Moderntechnologyhasintroducedactionsofsuchnovelscale,objects,andconsequencesthattheframeworkofformerethicscannolongercontainthem”(Jonas1984:6).Morepositively,however,onecanidentifyduringthelasthalfofthetwentiethcenturyinmanyEuro-Americancountriesdiversepragmatic,institutionalresponsestotechno-culturalimbalances.Recognitionoftheproblemofenvironmentalpollution,stimulatedbypublicationofRachelCarson’sSilentSpring(1962),ledtoestablishmentoftheClubofRome(1968)–whichproducedaninfluentialseriesofstudiesonthelimitstogrowth(seeMeadowsetal.1972fortheinitialvolume,andSimon1981foravigor-ousresponse)–andtheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(1970).Additionally,intheUnitedStates,theCongressionalOfficeofTechnologyAssessmentwascreated(1972–95)to“assistCongresswithcomplexandhighlytechnicalissuesthatincreas-inglyaffectoursociety”;inEuropesimilarinitiativeswerebothadoptedandmaintained,withtheDutchRathenauInstitute(1986–present)beingonegoodcaseinpoint.Inthe1980s,challengesassociatedwithadvancingbiomedicaltechnologiesledtothedevelopmentofInstitutionalReviewBoards(IRBs)andInstitutionalBiosafetyCommittees(IBCs)toensurethefreeandinformedconsentofhumanexperimenta-tionparticipantsaswellasthehealthandsafetyofthoseworkinginoraffectedbythisexpandingtechnologicalsector.Sincethe1970s,professionalethicsinscienceandengineeringhasalsofocusedreflectiononsuchissues.Finally,thefundingofEthical,LegalandSocialImplications(ELSI)researchaspartoftheHumanGenomeProject,andthedevelopmentinEuropeofnewdemocratizingpracticessuchascitizenparticipationprojects(Netherlands)andconsensusconferences(Denmark),witnessedcreativeeffortstobridgegapsbetweentechnologicalchangeandsocio-culturalpatternsofactionandideas.369\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page370carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersBroadlyspeaking,muchoftheappliedethicsmovement–fromenvironmentalandbioethicstoengineering,computerandnanoethics–canbeinterpretedasaresponseatthelevelofintellectualculturetotechnologicalchangesinmaterialculture.Post-1980,optimismabouttheabilityoffreemarketstomediateadjustmentscanbereadequallyasanappliedethical–politicaltheoryabouthowtoaddressculturallagphenomena–anoptimismthatneverthelessdeservestobequalified,asmuchasthegovernmentalresponseitseekstoreplace,bythecontinuingemergenceofproblemsassociatedwithnaturalresourceutilization,energyproductionandhuman-inducedclimatechange.Indeed,thesometimesambiguousnotionofculturallagitselfdeservestobequali-fied,inordertoavoidassumingtheprimacyoftechnology.Isitnotpossibleforintellectualculturetoleadaswellasfollowmaterialculture?HistoricalanalysesoftheriseofscienceandtechnologyinEuropeduringthe1500s,suchasWeber(1904)andLynnWhite,Jr(1978)–aswellasofthedifferenttrajectoryofhistoricaldevel-opmentinChina(see,e.g.,Needham1954)–arguethatideasandidealscanbemajorinfluencesontechnologicalchange.Thusitneednotalwaysbeassumedthat“lagging”aspectsofculturemustsimplybealteredinorderto“catchup”withtechnology.Whenapplieduncriticallyandinterculturally,culturallagtheorycanthreatentorationalizeEurocentricassumptionsabout“underdevelopment”andforcedtransferoftechno-logy–inaccordwiththeideologyoftecho-economicdevelopmentputforthby“pointfour”inPresidentHarryTruman’s1949inauguraladdress(seeTruman1949andSachs1992).Torepeat:Itmaybeintuitivethatvariousaspectsofculturechangeatdifferentialrates.Butthisneednotimplythatoneaspect(whetherbehavioralorintellectual)simplylagsbehindanotherorhasfailedtoadjusttoaninevitableornon-problematicchangeinmaterialculture,asiftherewerenochoiceotherthanrunningtoremainuprightonthetreadmilloftechnology.FuturistAlvinToffler,forinstance,hasarguedforrecognitionofaphenomenonheterms“futureshock”or“theshatteringstressanddisorientationthatweinduceinindividualsbysubjectingthemtotoomuchchangeintooshortatime”(1970:4).BuildingoffOgburn’stheory,Tofflersuggests“theremustbebalance,notmerelybetweenratesofchangeindifferentsectors[ofsociety],butbetweenthepaceofenvironmentalchangeandthelimitedpaceofhumanresponse”(1970:5).Culturallagtheorycanhighlightthevaluesofpreservingpro-portionality,equilibriumandharmony(therightadjustment)amongthepartsofculture.ForToffler:Theonlywaytomaintainanysemblanceofequilibrium...willbetomeetinventionwithinvention–todesignnewpersonalandsocialchange-regulators.Thusweneedneitherblindacceptancenorblindresistance,butanarrayofcreativestrategiesforshaping,deflecting,accelerating,ordeceleratingchangeselectively.(1970:331)Achievingthisselectivechangeisnosimple,technicalissueof“catchingup,”butselectivedecision-makingaboutwhatconstitutesthegoodlifeandtheidealsociety.Itmayalsohappenthatalteredelementsbecomeinteractiveinsomenewandequallybalancedwaythatawaitsrecognition.370\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page371technologyandethics:overview2.DramaticTensionsOnthestagelightedbytechnologicalchangeanditsculturalconcomitantstherehaveemergedanumberofnotnecessarilymutuallyexclusivedramaticideas.Giventheirdiversity,itisdifficulttoparsetheseideasortoattachtothemclearanddistincttypo-logicaltagsfortrackingtheemerginginteractivenarrativetensions.Butconsiderenactingalternativeresponsestothefollowingcloselyrelatedquestions:(a)Towhatextentdohumansshapetechnologicalproductsorprocesses?(b)Inwhatwaysdotech-nologicalproductsorprocessesshapehumanactionandperception?Tothefirstquestion,responsesrunagamutfrombeliefsthattechnologiesarethefreecreationsofhumanstothoseemphasizinganinnerlogicordeterminationintechnology.Whatmightbecalledvoluntarismarguesthatpeoplefreelycreatetechnologicalartifactsandseetechnologicaldevelopmentascompletelymalleable.This,ofcourse,tendstobeacorollarytopopularexpressionsoffaithincreativityandinnovation.Bycontrast,whatisoftencalleddeterminismseestechnologicaldevelop-mentasfollowingitsowninnerlogic,withhumansfunctioningassomethinglikevehiclesforitsexpression.Justashumanbeingsarenotfreetothinkanythingotherthan2+2=4(althoughtheyare,ofcourse,freetospeakotherwise),sotheyarenotfreetocreateaperpetualmotionmachine(howevermuchtheymightaspiretodoso).Suchhistoricalphenomenaasrepeatedsequencesofinvention(stoneagesalwayscomebeforeironages),multipleinvention(thewheel)andsimultaneousinvention(thetelephone,motionpicture,andairplanewereallindependentlyinventedataboutthesametime)suggestdeterminatepatternsorautonomytotechnologicalhistory.Tothesecondquestion,responsesagainspreadoutacrossaspectrum.Whatmightbetermedsubstantivismisthepositionthattechnologicalchangestronglyshapesorinfluencessocial,politicalorhumanaffairs;allstoneageculturesarebasicallythesame,and,astechnologyglobalizes,socio-culturalordersconverge.Bycontrast,instrumentalismviewsartifactsastoolsthatcanreflectandbeusedinmanydifferentwaysbydivers-itiesofhumanlifeworlds;thatThomasEdisoninventedthetelephoneforbusinesscommunicationsdidnotprohibititssubversivedeploymentforprivatetalk.Peopleshapetheirlivesandcultures,thenasindividualsorgroupsincorporateandadapttechnologiesinwhateverwaystheychoose–aperspectiveespeciallycongenialwiththeresearchofMicheldeCerteau(1980).Combiningthesetwospectraofideasyieldsatwo-axesmatrix.One(thex-axis)wouldconcerntheextenttowhichhumansshapetechnology;another(they-axis)wouldfocusontheextenttowhichtechnologyshapeshumans(Figure64.1).Thebetter-knownphilosophicalargumentshavebeeninsupportofpositionsthatfitmostcomfortablyinquadrantsIIandIII.QuadrantIIinvolvesacombineddeterministinterpretationoftechnologicalchangeandsubstantivistassessmentoftheinfluenceoftechnologyonsociety.ThethoughtofJacquesEllul,forinstance,istypicallyinterpretedasrepresentativeofthisquadrant.QuadrantIII,bycontrast,involvessomecombinationofavoluntaristinterpretationoftechnologicalchangeandinstrumentalistassessmentoftheinfluenceoftechnologyonsociety.SamuelFlorman(1976),alongwithmostengineers,nottomentionmostpeople,wouldplacethemselvesinthisquadrant.371\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page372carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersSubstantivismTechnologiesshapesocietyIIIVoluntarismDeterminismHumansdeveloptechnologyTechnologicaldevelopmentisatownfreewilldeterminedbyaninnerlogicIIIIVInstrumentalismTechnologicalartifactsareneutraltools,passivelytobeusedbyhumansFigure64.1ThisdoesnotmeanthatquadrantsIandIVareempty.Forinstance,DavidCollingridge(1980)couldbeinterpretedasrepresentingthequadrantthatcombinesavoluntaristpositionconcerningthecreationoftechnologybutasubstantivistposi-tionwithregardtoitssocietalinfluence,oncecreated.Whathasbecomeknownasthe“Collingridgedilemma”statesthatearlyinitsdevelopmentanewtechnologyisquitemalleableorsubjecttoafreeshapingbyhumanbeings,although,oncecreated,thetechnologytakesonamomentumandinfluencethatcanbedifficulttoalter.Thecon-structionoftheinterstatehighwaysystemintheUnitedStatesisoneexample:therewasconsiderablefreedominitsinitialdesign,butsincebeingputinplaceithasstronglyinfluencedlandscape,commercialactivities,andpatternsoftravel.AnotherphilosopherwhoholdsasimilarpositionisJonas,withhis“contentionthatwithcer-tain[free]developmentsofourpowersthenatureofhumanactionhas[necessarily]changed,”which“callsforachangeinethicsaswell”(Jonas1984:1).Asforthecombinationofdeterminismandinstrumentalism,thethoughtofthinkersasdiverseasKarlJaspers,DonellaMeadowsandcolleagues,JulianSimonandNickBostrommightservetoillustrateanideathatmayinitiallyseemanomalous.Jaspers,Meadows,SimonandBostromallarguethattechnologyisameansthathumanscanuseinmanydifferentways,yetonethatneverthelessexhibitsadevelopmentallogicallitsown.ForJaspers(1949),thecourseofhistorymanifestsadegreeofindependence,butinitsdifferentstagesandespeciallywiththearrivalofmodernscienceandtech-nology,mostexplicitlywiththeatomicbomb(Jaspers1958),presentschallengestohumanfreedom;inthepresenthumanbeingsmuststruggletomaintainTechnikalsMittel,ortechnologyasmeans.Meadowsetal.(1972)andSimon(1981)botharguesomedegreeofinevitabilityabouttechno-socialprogress,butdivideradicallyontheirinterpretationsofthehumanmeaningandappropriateresponse.Bostrom(2005)372\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page373technologyandethics:overviewarguesfortakingadvantageoftechnologicalopportunitiesthathaveappearedforhumanself-transformation,tobecometranshumans.Muchethics-relevantworkintheinterdisciplinaryfieldofscience,technologyandsociety(STS)studieshasneverthelesschallengedtheadequacyofoneormoreofthebasicideasconstitutiveofthesequadrants.Forinstance,accordingtoEllul’sadumbrationofSTSscholarship,analysisofthecharacterofmoderntechnologyrevealsittobedis-tinguishedbysuchkeyfeaturesasautomatismandself-augmentation.Technologicaldecision-makingexhibitsapursuitofefficiencysuchthatwhenengineersseeonetech-nologyasmoreefficientthananother–thatis,asincreasingoutputrelativetoinput,inrelationtosomecontext–theirchoiceisdetermined;theyautomaticallychoosethemoreefficienttechnology.Moreover,whatEllultermsthetechnicalsystemre-enforcesitselfinaquasi-deterministmanner.Newtechnologiesoftenandunintentionallyhaveconsequencesthatonlyseemtocallforthedevelopmentofevernewertechnologies.Examplesareeasytofind:classicindustrialmanufacturingtechnologycausedenviron-mentalpollution,whichthenstimulatedthedevelopmentofclean-uptechnologies,medicaltreatmenttechnologiestodealwithhealthproblemsthatarise,andnew,less-pollutingtechnologies.Theextentanddensityoftechnologicalartificeseemsonlytoincrease.Fromindustrialproductiontomedicinetowarfare,humanactivitybecomesevermoretechnologicalandtherebytoengenderatechnologicalmilieuthatreplacespreviousnaturalandsocialmilieux.Whatappearspersuasivefromoneperspectivehasneverthelessbeencontestedbyanother.Arguingthesocialconstructionoftechnology,subsequentSTSscholarshavedescribedindetailhowonetechnologydoesnotalwaysreplaceanothersimplybecauseitismoreefficient;technologicaladoptiondependsfundamentallyonsomedegreeofacceptanceorappreciationbyhumans,betheyengineers,marketersorconsumers.Indeed,differentgroupsofpeoplearealwaysredefiningwhatcountsasefficiency.Accordingtoonehighlyinfluentialstudyofthehistoricaldevelopmentofthebicycle,forinstance,itstechnicalevolutionwasmorearesultofcompetitionbetweensocialgroupsforhowthebicyclewastobedefinedthanthepursuitofanythingthatcouldbecalledthemostefficienttwo-wheeledmeansoftransportation(Bijker1995).Fromthisperspective,increasesinthetechnologicalcharacterofthehumanlifeworldaremoretheresultofsocialcommitmentstotechnologythanofanydominationbytechnology.Inthemarketplace,sometechnologiessucceedwhileothersfail–butthereasonchoiceskeepbeingmadebetweenonetechnologyandanotherratherthanbetweenmoreorlesstechnologyissimplythattechnologiesthemselvestakenasawholearesociallydesired.Atthesametime,complementarySTSstudieshavearguedthattechnologicaldevel-opmentisnotalwaysasfreeasitmayappearinthequasi-voluntaristaccountsofsocialconstructivism.Technologicaldevelopmentsdependnotjustonthelawsofnaturebutalsoonwhathavebeenidentifiedas“orgware”and“hardware”(SmitsandLeyten1991).Orgwareisconstitutedbytheorganizationalandinstitutionalconditionsthatinflu-encethedevelopmentandapplicationofaninvention,fromengineeringstandardsandgovernmentalregulationstosuppliersofmaterials,distributorsandcustomers.Hardwareisconstitutedbythephysicaltechnologiesalreadyinvented,regulated,dis-tributedandpurchased.Insum,althoughefficiencymaynotdetermineeverything,neitherarethemakersandusersoftechnologyasfreeastheymightsometimesthink.373\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page374carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersNeitherdeterminismnorvoluntarismseemsafullyadequateaccountofthecomplex-itiesofthetechno-lifeworld.Relatedargumentshavebeenbroughttobeartoquestionthesubstantivism-versus-instrumentalismdivide.Substantivismappearstoreifyifnotanthropomorphizetechnology.Instrumentalismissomewhatidealisticabouttheabilitiesofhumanstounderstandwhattheyarereallymakinganddoing.Asanoutgrowthofsuchcontestingarguments,anumberoftheorieshaveemergedthatattempttointegrateormovebeyondtheparticularinsightsofdifferentquadrants.3.DramaticTheoryIdeationaltensionsintheethicsoftechnology,justlikeobservationstensionsinempiricalscience,aresynthesizedindramatictheories;and,eventhoughthedramasthemselvesaremorerichthananytheoreticalmodelsmeanttocapturethem,thetheoriesprovidepathwaystoenhanceddramaticappreciation.Twomajortheoristsoftechnologyandethicstensionswhohavealsochallengedtheoppositionsbetweenthefourquadrantsdefinedbysubstantivism,determinism,instrumentalismandvoluntarismareLangdonWinnerandBrunoLatour.Giventheirinfluenceacrossawidevarietyofdiscussions,itisworthconsideringeachinmodestdetail.Winneraimstogobeyonddescriptionsofmakingandusinginorderto“examinecriticallythenatureandsignificanceofartificialaidstohumanactivity”(Winner1983:749).Thereismoreinvolvedwithtechnologythancommonlyrecognizedinthewaysinventors,engineers,operators,repairtechniciansandthelikemakeandmaintainartifactsthatotherscanpickup,useandthensetaside.ForWinner,bothvoluntaristandinstrumentalistviewsconstitutea“technologicalsomnambulism”inwhichwesleepwalkthroughandfailtorecognizetheextenttowhichtechnologiesreshapehumanactivityanditsmeanings.AdaptingatermfromLudwigWittgenstein,Winnerarguesthatautomobiles,electriclightsandcomputershavebecome“formsoflife”–creatingaculturethatisscarcelythinkablewithoutthem.Takingtheexampleoftele-vision,Winnernoteshow“noneofthosewhoworkedtoperfectthetechnology...initsearlyyearsandfewofthosewhobroughttelevisionsetsintotheirhomeseverintendedthedevicetobeemployedastheuniversalbabysitter.”Additionally,“ifanyoneinthe1930shadpredictedpeoplewouldeventuallybewatchingsevenhoursoftelevisioneachday,theforecastwouldhavebeenlaughedawayasabsurd”(Winner1983:257).ButWinnerisalsocriticalofsubstantivismanddeterminism.Watchingtelevisionisachoice,evenwhenturningitoffmaynotbeaseasyasinstrumentalistscustomarilyassert.Televisioniswovenintothefabricofdailylifewithprogramsthataretopicsofofficeconversationandnewssourcesandastheheartharoundwhichhouseholdfurnitureisarranged.High-definitiontelevisionwasasmuchacreationofmarketing,especiallythemarketingofsportsprogramming,asoftechnicalinvention.Suchobser-vationsinviteconsiderationofwhatCarlMitcham(2002),respondingtoargumentsbyIvanIllich,hascalledtechnologicalasceticism.Withsomenuance,Winnerneverthelessobserveshowartifactscan“embodyspecificformsofpowerandauthority”inatleasttwoways.Inone,theinvention,designorarrangementofatechnologyfunctionstoenforceanoftenhiddenpoliticaldecision.374\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page375technologyandethics:overviewHisexampleisbridgesonaLongIslandroadwaythatweremadesolowastoexcludethebusesAfricanAmericanswouldmostlikelyneedtorideinordertoaccesspublicbeaches,thuseffectivelypromotingsegregation.(Theparticularexamplehasbeencontested;but,evenifsomedetailsaremistaken,thecasewellillustrateshowartifactscanenforcepoliticalbeliefs.)Thiscaseofwhatmightbecalledavoluntary,instrumentalsubstantivismiscomplementedbycasesofwhatWinnercalls“inherentlypoliticaltechnologies”ortechnologieswithakindofexistentialinfluence.Assemblylines,forinstance,demandthatlaborbebrokendownintosimple,mind-numbingroutinesandrequirerigidworkplacediscipline;itishardtoimaginenuclearpowernotimplicatingauthoritariansystemsofcontrol.Winner’sexamplesarguehowsocialarrangementsthatprecedeartifactscanbereifiedintheirdesignandhowtechnologiescanhavetheirownsocial-orderingeffects.Inbothcases,artifactscanbesaidtohavepolitics.Tociteanothereasilyappreciatedexample,moststairsandcurbsareseriousobstaclesforlessmobilepeople.AsWinnerputsit,suchartifactsarepoliticalinthesensethattheyhave“powerandauthorityinhumanassociationsaswellastheactivitiesthattakeplacewithinthosearrangements”(Winner1980:290).Suchanargumentfallsbetweenyetcombinesdeterminism,voluntarism,instrumentalismandsubstantivism.YetWinnerhasprovidedlittleinthewayofresponse,otherthantocallformoreconsciousnessandpublicparticipationinthedesignanduseoftechnologies.Latour’sdevelopmentofactornetworktheory(ANT)canbereadasanotherefforttoprovideasystematicframeworkfordealingwiththekindsofissuestowhichWinnerattends.CertainlyitisthecasethatLatourstrivestoavoid“technologicalsomnambulism”ordeterministicpessimism–butinawaythat,moredramaticallythanWinner,offersanewontologyofartifacts(orwhathepreferstocallananthropology).RatherthanseekingtosteeracoursebetweentheScyllaandCharybdisofvoluntarism-determinismandsubstantivism-instrumentalism,Latourrejectstwobasicassumptionssharedbyallfouropposingpositions.Actor-networkanalysisfocusesonthecontinuousreassemblingofthesocial.InLatour’swords,hisconcernis“howtoresumethetaskoftracingassociations”(Latour2005:ch.1).Thisconcerndevolvesintotwofurtherquestions,thefirstofwhichaskswhatismeantbyassociations.ForLatour,technicalandhumanassociationscannotbedis-tinguishedfromeachotherwhenitcomestotheirsocialormoralroles(Latour2002).Bothareagents,orwhathepreferstoterm“actants,”insofarastheybothexhibitfiguration(shape)andtraceability(tracesofmakingadifference).Whenitcomestofigurationandtraceability,theactionsofhumansandartifactsareassociationsthatarethemselvesassociated.Inotherwords,Latourfundamentally(dis)solvesargumentsbetweenvoluntarismversusdeterminismandinstrumentalismversussubstantivismbysimplydenyingthemodernistpresuppositionthatonecandistinguishsubjectsandobjects,andthenargueaboutwhichinfluencestheothertowhatextent.Asecondquestionfocusesonhowtotracethetrailofassociations,andthecontinu-ouschangeofthesocial.Effectiveactivity(thatis,agency,whetherofhumansorofartifacts)isalwaysfoundinashiftingnetwork.Agenciescontinuouslyform,changeandbreakoffassociations.Understandingthesocialroleofanythingrequiresappre-ciatinghowarrangementsshiftandinteract.Thepresumptionthatthetwoaxesofthematrixareseparable(voluntarism-determinismversusinstrumentalism-substantivism)375\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page376carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersisnottenable.Thereisnosubstantialdistinctionbetweentechnologicalandsocietaldevelopment.Thetrailofatechnologychangingshapeisinextricablyintertwinedwiththetrailofsocietalchange;socialandtechnologicalevolutioncannotbedistinguishedbecausethetwoarenotdistinct.Latourevendeniesthedistinctionbetween“making”and“using.”Tosummarize:TwoargumentsarecentraltoANT.First,asocialroleisgrantedtonon-humans.Thesubject–objectdichotomyisdissolvedsothatartifacts(andevennaturalobjects)areconceivedasagenciesalongwithhumans.Second,whatiscalledthesocialneverstabilizes,butiscomposedofassociationsthatform,change,breakoffandre-formacrosstime.Therolesofdifferentactantsandtheactantsthemselvesarenotfixed,butthenetworkisacontinuouslyco-evolvingcomplexity.4.TheoryandDescriptionInactant-networktheory,whatareconstitutivefeaturesofactantagency?Asalreadynoted,thesearefigurationandtraceability–whichneithersinglynortogethercon-stituteautonomy,oneofthefoundationsofmodernistmoraltheory.Technologicalartifacts,justlikepeople,becomeagentswhentheyexistinaformthatmakesadifferenceintheexistencesandactionsofothers.Toelaborate,Latouradaptsanana-lysisfromMarilynAkrich(1992),whohasarguedthatthedesignersoftechnicalartifactsplaceinthemscriptsindicatingtheirfunctionsoruses.Engineers,inventorsandothersinscribeworldviewsandtherebydefineactantartifactswithspecificcom-petences,motives,aspirations,politicalprejudicesandmore.Buttechnicalartifactsfunctionlikefilmscripts:theyprovideframeworksforinteractionswithotheractants;theydonotfullydeterminesuchactions.Likeapieceofmusicoradrama,theyrequiretheinterpretationofperformance.Whenatechnologyisusedorperformed,itisalsopossibleforde-scriptiontotakeplace,withnewassociationsbetweenhumansandnon-humansleadingtotheemergenceofnewandoftenunpredictableagencies.Artifactsandhumansaredescribedasco-shapingthesocialbymeansofmultiplemediations:translation,composition,blackboxinganddelegation.Mediationbytranslationoccurswhenahumanactant,attemptingtoreachsomeendthatitmaylack–forinstance,sufficientstrengthtoachieve–utilizesanother,oftennon-human,actant.But,whenthisdetourtowardanendtakesplace,theinitialendoftheoriginalactantischangedbytheinvolvementofthenewactant,andbothwillreachtheircommunalnewgoalinsteadofthefirstactant’soriginalgoal.Inmediationbycom-position,manyactionsandactantsarealreadytheresultofacollectionofhumanandnon-humanactants.Forinstance,inthemanufacturingofanautomobile,multipleartifactssuchaschassis,wheelsandaxles,engines,sheetmetal,andmorearecombined.Thedevelopmentofthesetechnologies(whichareallactants)dependsonmultiplenegotiationsbetweendifferenthumansandnon-humans.Mediationbyblackboxingisaprocessthatmakesthejointproductionofactantsopaque.Theactsofadriver(normallyahumanactant)aretheresultoftheautomobile,roadconstruction,trafficlaws,thebehaviorofotherautomobilecompositions,andmore.Thatadriverwasinahurryisaninadequateexplanationforsomeactofspeeding.Otherusersoftheroadcanmakespeeding(im)possible,andsocantheroadand/or376\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page377technologyandethics:overviewthecar,allofwhicharetypicallyplacedinamentalblackbox,nottobeconsidered.Beinginahurryisnotevenanecessaryconditionforspeeding,sinceroadscanbedesignedtokeeptrafficatacertainspeed.Infact,theaffordancesdesignedintoroadsandmanyautomobilesarescriptsforspeedingasdefinedbytrafficlaws.Finally,throughthemedia-tionofdelegation,actantstakeonmeaningsinthesensethattheyproducespecialtypesofarticulationthatcrosstheboundariesbetweensignsandthings.Consideracom-parisonbetweenaspeedbump,atrafficsignandapoliceofficer;theregulationofspeedcanbedelegatedfromthepolicemantoatrafficsignoraspeedbump.Appreciatingthesefour,interactingtypesofmediationintroducesashiftinhowactionisperceivedanddescribed.Theworldcomestobeseenasaconstructed“concatenationsofmediators”oraslinksofeverchangingassociations.Eachpointinthenetworkrepresentsanactingagent,likeactorsinastageplayorlikepuppetsconnectedtotheirpuppeteers.Butthereisnorealauthoroftheplay.Noristhereapuppeteerwhopullsthestringsorascriptthatfullydeterminestheplay.Theonlyscriptsarethe“programmesofaction”ofthedifferentagencies(Latour1994:40).Action(oragency)“isdistributed,variegated,multiple,dislocatedandremainsapuzzlefortheanalystsaswellasfortheactors”(Latour2005:60).Summarizingagain:Inanactantnetwork,thesocialroleoftechnologicalartifactsisequivalenttothatofhumans.Relationsbetweentechnologiesandhumansarecom-parabletorelationsbetweenhumans.Additionally,bothhumansandnon-humansareagencies,butneitherareautonomousagents.Actantagentsactastheydoasaresultofassociationswithotheragents,humanandnon-human.Humanagentsarenotuniquesourcesofaction,butneitherarenon-humanagents.Abriefbutimportantaside:AlthoughLatouriscriticalofmodernism,heisnotpostmodernist.Postmodernism,onLatour’sreading,seekstodeconstructthemodernistsocialprojectandarguesagainstthepossibilityofformulatingatheoryofthesocialorofthetechnical.Socialagencyisnotpossible;andsocietyandnature,iftheyexistatall,cannotbeobjectivelyunderstoodorstudied.Contrarytosuchpostmodernistclaims,thea-modernityofANT“retracesthesocialandsocietybysubtlechangesinconnectingnon-socialresources”(Latour2005:36).WithinANT,agencycontinuestoexistbutwithnewanddifferentmeanings.Twootherphilosopherswhoseworkintersectsincriticalwayswiththisnewtheoryofdescriptions,especiallyinsofarasthedescriptionscontributetoadvancingtheregionalizedfieldoftechnologyandethics,areDonIhdeandPeter-PaulVerbeek.Ihde’sphenomenologyofhuman-technologyoriginatedinprimarilytheoretical(insteadofsocialtheoretical)interests.IndependentandinanticipationofLatour,Ihdethematizedasetofhuman–technology–worldmediationsinwhichtechnologyinfluencednotactionbutperceptionsofworldandself.Inthetwobasictypesofmediations,technologycouldbeincorporatedintothehumanortakenaspartoftheworld.Theformer,symbolizedbyIhdeas“(human–technology)–worldrelations,”withoneexamplebeingtheuseoftelescopes,constituteembodimentrelations;thelatter,symbolizedas“human–(technology–world)relations,”andillustratedbythether-mometer,constitutehermeneuticrelations.Inembodimentmediations,atechnologybecomesakindofextensionofthebody;inhermeneuticmediations,thetechnologyhastobereadorinterpreted.Othermediationsareconstitutedbyalterityorothernessandbackgroundexperiencesoftechnology.But,moreimportantly,inembodimentand377\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page378carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbershermenuticmediationsIhdeidentifiesaninvariantamplification–reductionstructure.Thetelescopeamplifiesperceptionofthingsatadistancewhilereducingtheconeofvision;thethermometeramplifiesaccuracyofmeasurementwhilereducingsensoryengagementwiththeworld.Allmediations,thatis,arenon-neutralinamplifyingsomeexperienceswhilereducingothers.AlthoughIhdedoesnotdevelopthepossibility,onecouldimagineanethicalargu-mentforthepursuitofthosetechnologicalamplificationsinwhichreductionisitselfminimizedorexhibitsadistinctlymarginalcharacter;insofarasamplificationdoesnotcarrywithit,humanexperienceundergoesanunqualifiedenlargement.Thiswouldbeanalogoustoeffortsinrisk–benefitanalysisoftechnologicalactionstominimizeriskswhilemaximizingbenefits.Asalimitcase,suchamplifyingtechnologiesaseyeglassescouldbecomesointegratedintobodyfunctioningthatthe(human–technology)–worldrelationwouldbebetter-representedasatechnobody–worldrelation(eyeglassesbecomingcontactlens“I-glasses”)withhumansascyborgs(Haraway1985).BothLatourandIhdeareonrecordasseeingtheirtheoriesofmediationsforactionsandforperspectives,respectively,asatodds(seeLatour1991,IhdeandSelinger2003).ForVerbeek,however,LatourcanbereadaspickingupwhereIhdeleavesoff,asmovingfromperceptiontoaction.Whereasphenomenologyingeneralattacksthesubject–objectdichotomybyexplaininghowrealityarisesthroughrelationsbetweenhumansandtheirenvironment,Ihde’sparticularcontributiontothistradition(whichIhdecalls“post-phenomenology”)istonotehowtheserelationsaremediated(co-shaped)bytechnologicalartifacts.Ihde’smediationofperceptioncanbeeasilyseenascom-plementedorextendedbyLatour’sanalysesofmediationinsocialaction.“Technologymediatesourbehaviorandourperception,andtherebyactivelyshapessubjectivityandobjectivity:thewayinwhichwearepresentintheworldandtheworldispresenttous”(Verbeek2005:203).Themediatingroleofartifactsshouldnotbeunderstoodasintermediatebetweenhumansandtheworld.Instead,mediationconstitutesbothsubjectandobject.“Humansandtheworldtheyexperiencearetheproductsoftechnologicalmediation,andnotjustthepolesbetweenwhichthemediationplaysitselfout”(Verbeek2005:130).Atthesametime,IhdeandLatourseektoovercomethesubject–objectgapinquitedifferentways:Ihdebridgesthegapnotbydenyingitbutbyshowinghowmutualengagementsconstitutesubjectsandobjects.InsupportofIhde,Verbeekthenarguesthat“itisindeedmeaningfultomakeadistinctionbetweensomeonewhoexperiencesandsomethingthatisexperienced,someonewhoactsandaworldinwhichactiontakesplace–regardlessofhowinterwovenandmutuallyconstitutedtheyare”(Verbeek2005:166).5.DescriptionPlusThisoverviewoftechnologyandethicsbeganbydrawingonanobjectionbyHaroldPintertothosewhowouldreducedramastomoraldidacticism,tosuggestthattosomeextentmoraljudgmentsoftechnologyoughtalsotobesuspendedinfavorofcarefulobservation.Descriptiveethicsisanecessaryprolegomenontoprescriptiveethics.However,inhisNobelPrizeacceptancespeech,Pinter(2005)makesadistinctionbetween378\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page379technologyandethics:overviewhow,forhimasawriter,moralitymustremainanopenquestion,whileforhimasacitizenitcannot.Intheplayitself,“Sermonizinghastobeavoidedatallcost”;butinlife,incontrasttoart,sermonizingcannotbeavoided.ForPinter,hispointhadtodowithwhatheconsideredaresponsibilitytoexposetheliesandmendacityofUnitedStatesforeignpolicysincetheendoftheSecondWorldWar.Inlikemanner,analystsofthetechnology-ethicsdramahaveoftenfeltcalledtocriticizemoderntechnologyonsuchgroundsasitsdisruptionsoftraditionalculture,alienationandthelossofhumanautonomyinmasssociety,destructionofanaturalenvironment,multiplerisksanddangers(materialandpolitical),oritsdehumanizing(includingpost-humanizing)tendencies.Incounterpoint,othershavecelebratedtechnologyforitscontributionstohumanwelfare,freedomandprogress.Pinterhasbeenlambastedforhismoralisticsermonizingintermsthatechothecastigationdirectedatmanycriticsoftechnologyfortheirallegednaïveromanticismofthepastoridealisticandunrealisticproposalsforsuchreformsasdemocraticparticipationintechnicaldecision-making.(Interestinglyenough,thecelebrationsoftechnologyaremuchlesscommonlycriticizedfortheirnaïveoptimismsorunrealisticforecasts.)Thereneverthelessremainsaphilosophicalobligationnotonlytomovebeyondthecelebrationoftechnologicalchangewithitsattendantideologies,butalsotoweaveethicalanalysisintonormativediscoursethatcancontributetotheabilitiesofcitizenstoappreciatebenefitswhileexposinganddelimitingortransformingwhereverpossibleitsself-regardingdominationsorpublicandprivateharms.HowtosquaremoralphilosophicalanalysisandreflectionwithnormativeassessmentisasdifficultasPinterfounditwastobridgethehiatusbetweenartandpolitics.ThetheoriesofethicaldramathathavebeenassociatedherewithWinner,Latourandtheirfollowersarecumulativeproductsofatrajectoryofdialogueonrelationsbetweentechnologyandethicsthatremainrichbutlargelydescriptiveincharacter.FromWinnerthroughLatour,challengeshavebeenformulatedtoanynarrativethatwouldsimplyenactdistinctionsbetweenvoluntarismversusdeterminismorinstrumentalismversussubstantivism.Therelationbetweenhumansandartifactsneedstobeunder-stoodasafluidnetwork,inwhicharigiddistinctionbetweenthetechnologicalandthesocialdisappears.Butaretherenodownsidestosuchasophisticatedtheory?Winnerhimselfhasraisedonewhenarguingthevacuousnessof“openingtheblackbox”ofthesocialconstructionoftechnologyinwaysthatcanleaveinplaceuncriticizedexistingpowerrelations(Winner1989).AnotherimportantobjectionisthatLatour’ssymmetrybetweenhumansandnon-humansatonceanthropomorphizesartifactsandobjectifieshumans(CollinsandYearley1992).Ifhumansareco-constitutedbynon-humans,thenitbecomesuncleartowhatextenthumanscanformtheirownmoralcharacter,theideaofnormativeethicswithers,andanyargumentthatactantsshouldbehaveonewayratherlosesforce.Moralresponsibilityseemstodisappear.Howcouldsomeonebepraisedorblamedforanactionorintentioniftheseareconstitutedbyacontinuouslyshiftingnetworkofassociations?Onebodyofworkthatseekstonegotiateaclearerpathfromdescriptiontoprescription–thatengagesdescriptivecomplexitiesinthetechnology-ethicsdramawhilearguingtheneedfornormativeorientation–canbefoundintheworkofAlbertBorgmann.InRealAmericanEthics(2006),forinstance,BorgmannagreeswithLatourthattheinsistentmediationsofartificeundermineanysimpleautonomyasaprecondition379\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page380carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersofethicsandproposeswithWinnerapoliticsbasedinwhatheproposestocall“Churchill’sprinciple.”In1943,whentheNazi-bombedHouseofCommonsneededtoberebuilt,WinstonChurchill,asprimeminister,arguedagainstanarchitectureofthenewandinfavorofreconstructingwhathadbeen,onthegroundsthat“Weshapeourbuildings,andafterwardsourbuildingsshapeus.”AsBorgmannalsoemphasizes,itisnottheindividualwhoshapesbuildings;instead,“Wedoittogether,afterdis-agreements,discussions,compromises,anddecisions”(Borgmann2006:5).GivingChurchill’sprincipleamoregeneralarticulation,Borgmanncontinues:[T]heIndustrialRevolutionchangedthestageoflifefromthegroundup,andnowthetechnologicaldevicesthatsurrounduschannelthetypicalwayswebehave.Ethicshastobecomerealaswellastheoreticalandpractical.Ithastobecomeamakingaswellasadoing.Realmeanstangible;realethicsistakingresponsibilityforthetangiblesettingoflife.Realalsomeansrelevant,andrealethicsisgroundingtheoreticalandpracticalethicsincontemporarycultureandmakingthemthriveagain.(Borgmann2006:11)Recallingthematrixthatprovidedorientationtothedramatictensionsoftechnologyandethicsnarratives,itispossibletoimagineananalogoussituatingofethicsitself.Onthex-axiswouldbetheextenttowhichhumansvoluntarilyadopttheirethicalguidelinesorhavethesedeterminedforthem,ifnotbynaturethenbyreasonorsocialinstitutions.Onthey-axiswouldbestretchedoutanoppositionbetweensubstantiveandproceduralmoralities.Aswiththepreviousmatrix,itisthesecondandthirdquadrantsthatwouldseembest-populated.Conservativefundamentalistsarguedeter-minationbysomesubstantiallydelimitingmoralcode,liberalconstructivistsforaninclusiveproceduralismadoptedinsomethinglikeasocialcontract.Borgmann,how-ever,criticizesliberalproceduralismasitselfmanifestingasemi-deterministinfluenceofthethinwayoflifetypicalofthecultureofhigh-techconsumerismandaspiresinsteadforthefreeaffirmationofamoresubstantivevisionofthegood.Wemust,Borgmannargues,recognizetheextenttowhichhumanfreedomisarealitythatleavesusable–andevencallsusforth–toargueaboutwhatconstitutesthegoodlifewithinthatmaterialcultureassociatedwithadvancedandeveradvancingtechnology.Theproceduralismofpublicparticipationisnotenough.InaseriesofworksthatbeganwithhisphilosophicalstudyofTechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife(1984),Borgmannhasarguedrepeatedlyforasubstantiveviewofthegoodascomposedofengagementwithrealityinbothnatureandartifice,andhassoughttospellthisoutwithbothdescriptiverichnessandnormativedepth.Atthesametime,Borgmannrecognizesthatphilosophyengagesthegoodbywayofneithertheapodeicticcausalexplanationsofsciencenorthedeicticwitnessofpoetry;instead,inethics,philosophycanonlypresentthegoodinaparadeicticorparadigmaticformthatatoncethrowsintounifyingreliefanapparentlychaoticworldwithanattractivenessthatperhapscanopenthemindandhearttogreaterthings.ForBorgmann,thisgreatergoodistheconsciousdesignofanartificethatrecognizesitsownlimitationsandpromotesinsteadnotsimplymorehumanfreedomandmasteryofexperiencebutwhathecallsfocalthingsandpracticessuchasthoseexemplifiedbywell-wroughtmaterialobjectsandthefestivemeal.Ethics,inBorgmann’sterms,is380\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page381technologyandethics:overviewconstitutedbyrecognizingandrespondingtotheclaimsofrealitiessuchasnaturalbeautiesandhumanvirtuesthat,weretheytobeignored,woulddiminishusaspersonsinourparticularitiesasmembersofcommunitiesnaturalandsocial–thatis,inlandscapeandcountry.InAmerica,Borgmannfindsrealethicsdispersedinthenewurbanism,environmentalist,andvoluntarysimplicitymovements,andinhisconceptoffocalrealityheseekstherebytoconcentrateandilluminatethemultipleintuitionsattheircore.EventhosewhoremainunpersuadedbyBorgmann’sownparadigmfortherealizationofamoresubstantiveethicsinthemidstofAmericantechnologicalprowess,whocriticizeitperhapsasaromanticidealizationofthepast,maystillbeattractedtohisapproachasprovidingaparadigmofdescriptivesensitivitywoventogetherwithanenrichedandenrichingnormativeseriousness.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAkrich,Marilyn(1992).“TheDe-scriptionofTechnicalObjects,”inWiebeBijkerandJohnLaw(eds),ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety:StudiesinSociotechnicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.205–24.Bernard,H.RussellandPelto,PerttiJ.(eds)(1987).TechnologyandSocialChange,2ndedn(ProspectHeights,Ill.:WavelandPress).Bijker,Wiebe(1995).OfBicycles,Bakelites,andBulbs:TowardsaTheoryofSociotechnicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Borgmann,Albert(1984).TechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife:APhilosophicalInquiry(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Borgmann,Albert(2006).RealAmericanEthics(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Bostrom,Nick(2005).“TranshumanistValues,”ReviewofContemporaryPhilosophy,45(5):1–11.Carson,Rachel(1962).SilentSpring(Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin).Certeau,Michelde(1980).L’Inventionduquotidien,Vol.1,Artsdefaire(Paris:Gallimard).Trans.StevenRendallasThePracticeofEverydayLife(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1984).Collingridge,David(1980).TheSocialControlofTechnology(London:FrancesPrinter).Collins,HarryandYearley,Steven(1992).“EpistemologicalChicken,”inAndrewPickering(ed.),ScienceasPracticeandCulture(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress),pp.301–26.Dewey,John(1927).ThePublicandItsProblems(London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin),inCollectedWorks,LaterWorks,Vol.2,1925–1927.Dewey,John(1939).FreedomandCulture(NewYork:Putnam),inCollectedWorks,LatterWorks,Vol.13,1938–1939.Einstein,Albert(1946).TelegraminsupportoftheEmergencyCommitteeofAtomicScientists,inOttoNathanandHeinzNorden(eds),EinsteinonPeace(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1960),p.376.Florman,Samuel(1976).TheExistentialPleasuresofEngineering(NewYork:StMartin’sPress).Garcia,JoséLuís(2005).“SimmelonCultureandTechnology,”SimmelStudies,15(2):123–78.Haraway,Donna(1985).“ManifestoforCyborgs:Science,TechnologyandSocialistFeminisminthe1980s,”SocialistReview,15,2(80):65–108.IncludedinHaraway’sSimians,Cyborgs,andWomen:TheReinventionofNature(NewYork:Routledge,1991),pp.149–82.Ihde,Don(1990).TechnologyandLifeworld:FromGardentoEarth(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).Ihde,DonandSelinger,Evan(eds)(2003).ChasingTechnoscience:MatrixforMateriality(Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress).381\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page382carlmitchamandkatinkawaelbersJaspers,Karl(1949).VomUrsprungundZielderGeschichte(Zurich:Artemis).Trans.M.BullockasTheOriginandGoalofHistory(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1953).Jaspers,Karl(1958).DieAtombombeunddieZukunftdesMenschen(Munich:Pieper).Trans.E.B.AstonasTheFutureofMankind(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress,1961).Jonas,Hans(1984).TheImperativeofResponsibility:InSearchofanEthicsfortheTechnologicalAge(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Latour,Bruno(1991).WeHaveNeverBeenModern(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Latour,Bruno(1994).“OnTechnologicalMediation:Philosophy,Psychology,Geneaology,”CommonKnowledge,94(4):29–64.Latour,Bruno(2002).“MoralityandTechnology:TheEndoftheMeans,”Theory,CultureandSociety,19(5–6):247–60.Latour,Bruno(2005).ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActor-NetworkTheory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Meadows,DonellaH.,Meadows,DennisL.,Randers,JorgenandBehrens,WilliamH.(1972).TheLimitstoGrowth:AReportfortheClubofRome’sProjectonthePredicamentofMankind(NewYork:UniverseBooks).Mitcham,Carl(2002).“TheChallengesofThisCollection,”inLeeHoinackiandCarlMitcham(eds),TheChallengesofIvanIllich:ACollectiveReflection(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress),pp.9–32.Needham,Joseph(1954).ScienceandCivilizationinChina(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Ogburn,WilliamF.(1922).SocialChangewithRespecttoNatureandOriginalCulture(NewYork:Viking).Ogburn,WilliamF.(1964).OnCultureandSocialChange,ed.OtisDudleyDuncan(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Pinter,Harold(1998).VariousVoices:Prose,Poetry,andPolitics,1948–1998(London:Faber&Faber).Pinter,Harold(2005).“Art,TruthandPolitics,”7December.Availableatnobelprize.org.Sachs,Wolfgang(ed.)(1992).TheDevelopmentDictionary:AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower(London:ZedBooks).Simon,Julian(1981).TheUltimateResource(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress);2ndedn,TheUltimateResource2(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996).Smits,R.andLeyten,A.(1991).TechnologyAssessment:Waakhondofspeurhond:Naareeninte-graaltechnologiebeleid(Zeist:Kerckeboschb.v.).Spicer,EdwardH.(ed.)(1952).HumanProblemsinTechnologicalChange:ACasebook(NewYork:RussellSage).Toffler,Alvin(1970).FutureShock(NewYork:RandomHouse).Truman,HarryS.(1949).InauguralAddress,20January.Availableathttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/truman.htmVerbeek,Peter-Paul(2005).WhatThingsDo:PhilosophicalReflectionsonTechnology,Agency,andDesign(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennStateUniversityPress).Weber,Max(1904–5).DieprotestantischeEthikundderGeistdesKapitalismus.ArchivfürSozialwissenschaftenundSozialpolitik,Vols20–1.Trans.TalcottParsonsasTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism(NewYork:Scribners,1930).White,Lynn,Jr.(1978).MedievalReligionandTechnology:CollectedEssays(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Wilson,EdwardO.(1975).Sociobiology:ANewSynthesis(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).382\n9781405146012_4_064.qxd2/4/0914:03Page383technologyandethics:overviewWinner,Langdon(1980).“DoArtifactsHavePolitics?,”Daedalus,109(1):121–36.IncludedinWinner’sTheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchforLimitsinanAgeofHighTechnology(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986),pp.19–39.Winner,Langdon(1983).“TechnologiesasFormsofLife,”Epistemology,MethodologyandtheSocialSciences,71:249–63.IncludedinWinner’sTheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchforLimitsinanAgeofHighTechnology(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986),pp.3–18.Winner,Langdon(1993).“UponOpeningtheBlackBoxandFindingItEmpty:SocialCon-structivismandthePhilosophyofScience,”Science,Technology,&HumanValues,18(3):pp.362–78.383\n9781405146012_4_065.qxd2/4/0913:41Page38465AgricultureEthicsDAVIDM.KAPLANAgricultureethicsisabranchofappliedethicsthatdealswithawiderangeofissuesrelatedtothefarmingoffood,ranchingandprocessinglivestock,andthecultivationofcropsforfiber,fuelandotherproducts.Thehistoryofagricultureisinseparablylinkedtohumanhistoryandthehistoryoftechnology.Itiswidelybelievedthattechnologicaldevelopmentsrelatedtoanimaldomestication,irrigationandstorageonceenabledfarmerstoestablishpermanentsettlements.Stablecommunitieswerethenabletodevelopmeasuringtechniques,constructiontechnologies,legalsystemsandothertechnologiesandsocialpracticesnecessaryforpermanentlarge-scalecivilizations.Inthetwentiethcentury,themethodsandmachineryofindustrializationwereappliedtoagricultureculminatinginthe“GreenRevolution,”amid-to-late-centuryperiodofgreatincreasesinproductivityinboththeindustrializedandthedevelopingworlds.TheGreenRevolutionbroughtgreatsocialandenvironmentalchangesandraisednewmoralquestionsinagricultureethicsrelatedtoappropriateuseoftheland,environmentalharms,hungerandtradepolicy,agriculturalbiotechnology,andtheethicaltreatmentofanimals.HealthandEnvironmentTwentieth-centuryagricultureintroduced“intensivefarming,”ahighlyproductivesystembasedontheuseofagriculturalmachinery,chemicalfertilizers,pesticidesandherbicides,mechanizedprocessing,plant-breedingandmonoculturecrops.Intensiveagricultureisaformofhigh-inputagriculture,asopposedtolow-inputnon-industrializedfarmingpractices.Whileintensiveagriculturehasundoubtedlyresultedinhigheryields,increasedproductivity,greateravailabilityandlowerprices,ithasalsoraisedsignific-anthealthandenvironmentalconcernsstemmingfromtheuseofchemicalfertilizers,pesticidesandherbicides,allofwhichcanpollutetheairandsoil,andcontaminatewatersupplies.Thesecontaminantsoftenenterthefoodsupplyandposehealthriskstohumansandanimals,andthreatenaquatichabitatsandecosystems.384ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_065.qxd2/4/0913:41Page385agricultureethicsTopsoilErosionIntensiveagriculturealsoresultsintopsoilerosion.Inadditiontolossesinarableland,erosionwashesvastamountsofsiltintobodiesofwater,damagingplantandanimallife.Erosionincreasestheamountofdust,whichcarriesinfectiousdiseasesandcostsnationsbillionsofdollarseachyearinproductivitylosses.Nutrientslosttoerosionmustbereplaced,usuallybychemicalfertilizers.Excessesinphosphorus,potassiumand,especially,nitrogenreducewaterquality,reducebiodiversity,anddiminishtheavailabilityandqualityofthesoilasdemandforfoodandagriculturalproductscontinuetoincrease.MonocropsThepracticeofplantingmonoculturecrops,singlecropsgrownoverthousandsofkilometers,reducesthegeneticdiversityofaregionofland,createsanecologicalvacuumthatinsectsanddiseaseexploit,reducingthequalityofthesoilwhileincreas-ingthechanceofcropfailure.AccordingtotheUnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganization,theworldhaslost75percentofitscropdiversityowingtoagriculturalmonoculture.Thesereductionsinbiodiversityhaveconsequencesthroughoutthefoodchain.Farmersmustincreasinglyrelyonchemicalfertilizersandpesticidestocompensateforthelackofgeneticdiversity.Insectsanddisease,however,formresist-ance,necessitatingfurtherchemicalintervention.GlobalTradeTradeandtheglobalizationofagricultureisincreasingly“delocalizing”theoriginoffoodandthepoliticalauthorityoverfoodpolicy.Producersandconsumersareoftenvulnerabletoeventsthattakeplacefarawayandsubjecttodecisionsoverwhichtheyhavelittlecontrol.Transnationalagribusiness,andtheglobalpoliticalandfinan-cialinstitutionsthatsupportit,exercisestremendousinfluenceoverfoodproduction,oftenwithgreatconsequencesforfoodsecurity,foodsafetyandthesocialfabricofcommunities.Onesocialconsequenceofintensiveagricultureistheconsolidationofsmallfarmsintolarge,monocropfarms.Asindustrializedfarmingreplaceshumanlaborwithmachinery,millionsofpeopleeveryyeararedisplaced,eradicatingsocietiesbasedonruralfarming,wherehalfoftheworld’spopulationstilllivesandworks.Thesefarmsdonotproducefoodforlocalpeopletoeat,butinsteadgrowsinglecropsforexport,usuallyluxuryitemslikecoffee,sugar,cotton,fruitandflowers.Asfarmingcommunitiesdwindleinthefaceofcompetition,peoplearedrivenofftheirlandandintopoverty,usuallysettlinginurbancenters.Poverty,notthelackoffoodproduction,iswidelybelievedtobethecauseoffoodinsecurityandfamine.385\n9781405146012_4_065.qxd2/4/0913:41Page386davidm.kaplanGeneticallyModifiedFoodGeneticallymodified(GM)foodsareplantsandanimalsthathavebeenalteredusingrecombinantDNAtechnologywhichcombinesDNAmoleculesfromdifferentsourcesintoasinglemolecule.AdvocatesofGMcropsmaintainthattheyposeneitherhealthnorenvironmentalrisks.CriticswarnthatGMfoodswereprematurelydeterminedbytheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)tobenodifferentfromconventionalfoodsandthusdeterminedtobeGRAS(generallyregardedassafe)withouthavingundergoneindependentsafetytesting.Criticsalsowarnofpotentialcross-pollinationtriggeringirreversiblegeneticcontamination.OthercriticsareconcernedthatGMseedsarepatent-protected,makingitillegalforfarmerstosaveandstoreseedswith-outpayingroyaltyfees.AnimalsTheindustrializedproductionoflivestock,poultryandfish,alsoknownas“factoryfarming,”hasmanyofthesamebenefitsandharmsassociatedwithintensivefarming.Thebenefitsincludeefficiency,highyields,availability,lowprices,andcontributionstolocalandnationaleconomies.Theharmsoffactoryfarmingareanimalwelfare,environmentalhazards,andhealthriskstofarmworkersandfoodsafetyriskstoconsumers.Criticsofintensivefarmingmethodsusedintheproductionofeggs,poultry,pork,beef,dairy,vealandfishmaintainthatthepracticeiscruelandcausesunnecessarysuffering.ConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperation(CAFO)maximizesproductionbyconfininglargenumbersofanimalsindoors,limitingtheirspaceandmovement.ThedietofananimalinaCAFOistypicallysupplementedwithhormonesandantibiotics,andisunlikeitsnaturaldiet,diminishingthehealthoftheanimalsandofthefoodproducts.Livestockprocessingplantsarenotoriouslyhazardousworkplaceenvironmentsandarethemostcommonsourceoffoodborneillnessesandfoodsafetyrisks.CAFOsrequirelargeamountsofenergyandwater;theyproducelargeamountsofanimalwasteandareamongtheprincipalcausesofairpollutionandwatercontamination.386\n9781405146012_4_066.qxd2/4/0913:41Page38766ArchitectureEthicsWARWICKA.FOXNotwithstandingthemassiveimpactthatarchitectureand,moregenerally,thebuilt,orhuman-constructed,environmenthasonpeopleandtheplanet,seriousattemptsexplicitlytoaddressethicalissuesassociatedwitharchitectureandthebuiltenviron-menthavethusfarbeenfewandfarbetween,whetherweconsiderapproachestothistopicfromthephilosophicalsideorthedesignandarchitectureside.Thusthestudyofarchitectureethics,theethicsofarchitectureor,moregenerally,theethicsofthebuiltenvironment,theethicsofthehuman-constructedrealm,ortheethicsofdesign,isstillinitsinfancy(seetheintroductiontoFox2000formoreonthispointaswellasafairlycompletelistingofthefewbooksandpaper-lengthcontributionsonarchitectureethicsthatprecededthatpublication).Whyisthisimportantfieldofarchitectureethicssounderdeveloped?Onthearchitec-tureside,wecanciteseveralpossiblereasons.First,wecannoteFisher’s(2000:123)pointthatarchitecture“haslongbeenviewedasabranchofaestheticsratherthanethics.Ifanything,ethicshasbeenthoughtofasapplyingtoarchitectsandnottoarchitecture,totheactionsofprofessionals,notthetraitsofbuildings.”(Fisherimmediatelyproceedstowarnthat“Ourprofession,however,hasnotattendedenoughtotheconnectionbetweenbuildingsandethics,andthathasgottenusintrouble,”andcallsinhiscon-cludingchapterfor“aconversationaboutethics”withinthearchitectureprofession.)Second,totheextentthatarchitectsdothinkaboutethicalissuesintheirwork,theymightconsidertheseissuestoboildowntolittlemorethantheneedtofollowone’s“commonsense”ortocomplywith–oratleastnotfallfoulof–acodeofprofessionalconductsuchasthatdevelopedbytheAmericanInstituteofArchitects(AIA)orbytheRoyalInstituteofBritishArchitects(RIBA)(bothofwhicharereadilyobtainableonline).Third,andpotentiallyinsignificantcontrastwiththesecondpoint,architectsmightconsidersomecomplexethicalissues–includingthewiderethicalimplicationsofwhattheydo–astoomessytoexploreindetail(“Let’snotopenthatcanofworms”)orasa“luxurywecan’tafford”inthecontextofbusyworkinglives.And,finally,totheextentthatarchitectsdowish“toopenthatcanofworms”andenterintoaserious“conversationaboutethics,”wecancitethefactthattheyaretrained,obviouslyenough,inarchitecture,notintheformalstudyofethics.Thus,althoughthoughtfularchitectur-allyschooledcommentatorswillsometimesgestureinethicaldirectionsintheirlecturesandwritings,thesegesturesaregenerallyviewedfromtheperspectiveofformallytrainedACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks387©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_066.qxd2/4/0913:41Page388warwicka.foxethicistsasamountingtolittlemorethanthat.Theyareeithernotexplicitlyadvancedwithinadevelopedethicalframework(suchasthoseaffordedbythemajorethicaltheories)or,inanycase,arenotsystematicallyargued.Turningtotheneglectofarchitectureethicsfromthephilosophicalside,wecancitethefactthatWesternethicshas,atleastforallearthlypurposes(i.e.settingasideanyputativedutieswehaveinrespectofGod),beenoverwhelminglyfocusedonourobligationsinrespectofpeople.ThisanthropocentricfocusofinteresthasrunfromtheoriginsofWesternethicsinAthensinthefifthcenturybc,throughtheChristian-dominatedperiod(initiatedbytheRomanemperorConstantineinthefourthcentury)untiltheRenaissanceandbeyond,andonthroughthedevelopmentofthemoresecular,rationallygroundedformsofethicsthathavecharacterizedphilosophicaldiscus-sionsfromtheeighteenthcenturytothepresent.Indeed,itisonlysincethe1970sthat(some)philosophershavebeguntodevoteserious,systematicattentiontoethicalquestionsinrespectofnon-humanentitiessuchasothersentientbeings,livingthingsingeneral,andecologicalsystems.Thesepost-1970sdevelopmentshavegoneunderthegeneralnameenvironmentalethics.However,intheirconcerntoescapetheanthro-pocentriclegacyofWesternethics,environmentalethicistshavebeenoverwhelminglyconcernedwiththeethicsofthenaturalenvironment(includingnon-humananimalsandotherlivingthings)andhavelargelyignoredthebuiltenvironment.Thus,justasthenon-humanworldhasconstitutedamajorblindspotintheorizingassociatedwithtraditional,anthropocentricallyfocusedformsofethics,sothebuiltenvironmenthasconstitutedamajorblindspotintheorizingassociatedwiththedevelopmentofenvir-onmentalethicstodate.Theupshotisthatthefieldof“environmental”ethicshasnotyetrealizedthefullimplicationsofitsownname.But,evenifarchitectureethicsisstillinitsinfancyasaformalfieldofinquiry,itisundeniablethattheactualpracticeandproductsofarchitecturalworkdoissueinagreatmanyethicallyrelevantconcerns.AsWasserman,SullivanandPalermo(2000:31)stateintheirfirst-of-its-kindtextbookEthicsandthePracticeofArchitecture:“Architecture,initsmanymanifestations,isasmuchanethicaldisciplineasadesigndiscipline.”Ifwethinkofethicsasbeingconcernedwiththevaluesweshouldliveby,thenitishelpfultothinkofthekindsofethicalconcernsthatareraisedbythepracticeofarchitec-tureasfallingintoatleastsix(notentirelyexclusiveandnotalwayscompatible)categories:(1)Basicformsofprofessionalconduct.Thiscategorycoversissuesthatarerelevanttoprofessionallifeingeneralsuchashonesty,fairdealing,honoringcommitments,gainingandmaintainingsufficientskillstoperformtaskscompetently,respect-ingandadvancingtheprofession,andsoon.(2)Physicalimpactoftheproductofarchitecturalpractice(i.e.abuiltformofsomekind)uponpeoplewhohavedirectcontactwithit(becausetheyliveorworkinit,useitinotherways,orlivecloseenoughtobedirectlyaffectedbyit).Manyofthesekindsofissuesaredealtwiththesedaysundertherubricof“healthandsafety.”(3)Psychologicalimpactofthebuildinguponpeoplewhohavedirectcontactwithit(again,becausetheyliveorworkinit,useitinotherways,orlivecloseenoughtobedirectlyaffectedbyit).Thiscategoryisconcernedwithsuchthingsaswhether388\n9781405146012_4_066.qxd2/4/0913:41Page389architectureethicsabuildingisexperiencedinaquitestraightforwardwayas,say,drab,drearyanddepressingorinspiringandenlivening.Needlesstosay,thesematterscanaffectpeople’s“qualityoflife”justassurelyasthosecoveredinthepreviouscategory.(4)Whatwemightcall“culturalfit”or“symbolicresonance”(e.g.buildinganimmigrationcenter–oranybuildingforthatmatter–intheshapeofaswastikawouldbewidelyregardedasdeeplyoffensive).Thisisdistinguishablefromthepreviouspointinthatabuildingcouldbeexperiencedasinspiringandenliven-ingwereitnotfor–orperhapseveninspiteof–itsoffensiveculturalorsymbolicresonances.(5)Physicalimpactupontheenvironment.Thisconcernisclearlyofimmenseimportancetothefutureoftheplanetandhasspawnedtheburgeoningfieldofsustainableor“green”architecture.(6)Whatwemightcallabuilding’s“designfit,”thatis,theextenttowhichabuildingfitswithitsnatural,socialandbuiltcontextswhenconsideredpurelyintermsofitsdesignratherthanintermsofitsactualphysicalimpactoreventhepreferencesthatpeoplemighthaveinregardtoit.Whatresourcescanthefieldofethicsbringtobearonthesekindsofissues?Themainapproachestoethicsarereferredtoasvirtueethics,deontologicalethics,andcon-sequentialistethicsorjustconsequentialism.Virtueethicsisconcernedwithidentifyingthekindsofvirtuousqualitiesofcharacterthatweoughttodevelop;deontologicalethics(fromdeon,duty)isconcernedwithidentifyingthoseprinciplesthatweareobliged(i.e.haveaduty)torespectinourconduct(independentlyofconcernsaboutconse-quences);consequentialismisconcernedwithidentifyingthekindsofoutcomesthatweshouldstrivetomaximize(thebest-knownformofconsequentialismisutilitarianism,whichenjoinsustomaximizethegeneralhappiness).Theseformsofethicsareallhighlydeveloped–especiallyinregardtointer-humanethics–andtheycanallbeemployedtoaddresstheabovecategoriesofissues.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwesimplycrankanethicalhandleandgetanethicalanswer;thereisasmuchdisputationinethicaldis-courseasinotherhigh-levelformsofdiscourse.(Thatsaid,thisfactofintellectuallifeshouldnotobscurethefactthat,asinotherhigh-levelformsofdiscourse,fromsciencetolaw,therearealsosubstantialareasofagreement.)Rather,itmeansthatwecanaddressethicalquestionswithinsystematicallydevelopedframeworksofthoughtthatenableustoofferwell-developedreasonsforourviewsandsoenterintoreasoneddiscussionwithothers.Inregardtothesixcategoriesofissueslistedabove,wecannotethatestablished,anthropocentricallyfocusedformsofvirtueethicsareespecially(butnotonly)applic-abletotheissuescoveredbythefirstcategory,thatis,thecategoryofbasicformsofprofessionalconduct.Similarly,established,anthropocentricallyfocusedformsofdeontologicalandconsequentialistethicsareespecially(butnotonly)applicabletothesecond,thirdandfourthcategoriesIhavelistedabove,thatis,thecategoriesofdirectphysicalimpactsuponpeople,directpsychologicalimpactsuponpeople,andimpactsuponpeoplethataremoreobviouslyculturally/symbolicallymediated.Thefifthcateg-ory–thatofphysicalimpactupontheenvironment–canbeaddressedeitherindirectlybyestablished,anthropocentricapproachestoethics(i.e.byfocusingontheindirectimpactthatthebuiltenvironmenthasonpeoplethroughitsdirectimpactsuponthe389\n9781405146012_4_066.qxd2/4/0913:41Page390warwicka.foxwidernaturalenvironment)ordirectlybytheapproachesthatarebeingdevelopedwithinenvironmentalethicsfromanimalwelfareethicstolife-basedethicsto(especially)eco-logicalintegritybasedethics.Atthispoint,however,acriticmightsay:“OK,Icanseethatthepracticeofarchi-tectureraisesagreatmanykindsofethicallyrelevantquestions,butitturnsoutthatthesequestionscanallbedealtwithintermsofeitherestablished,anthropocentricapproachestoethicsorthenewerapproachesbeingdevelopedinregardtotheethicsofthenaturalenvironment;so,althoughweneedtodiscussethicalquestionsconcerningarchitecture,thesequestionsdonotconfrontthefieldofethicsitselfwithanygenuinelynewkindsofchallenges.Questionsconcerningtheethicsofarchitecturearesimplyreducibletootherapproachestoethicssuchasthoseconcerningourobligationsinrespectofotherpeople,othersentientbeings,otherlivingthings,orecosystemintegrity.Thus,architectureethicscannotbethoughtofasagenuinelyindependentfieldofinquiry;itisjustanotherfieldthatisripefortheapplicationofethicalapproachesthathavebeenorarebeingdevelopedelsewhere.”Thiscriticismmighthavesomeforcewereitnotforthesixth–“designfit”–categorylistedabove.Ifpeopleseeabuildingthat“sticksoutlikeasorethumb,”theywilloftenspontaneouslyexclaimwordstotheeffectthat“Thereoughttobealawagainstit”(andsometimesthereis).Moreover,evenifitturnsoutthatthebuildinghasarelat-ivelylowenvironmentalimpactinmeasurable,physicaltermsandis,onthewhole,acceptedbyothers(e.g.perhapsotherpeople“don’tmindit”inpartbecauseitpro-videsmorecarparkingspacethanotherbuildingsorperhapstheytakesomekindofperverseprideinthefactthatithashelpedto“puttheplaceonthemap”),someonemightstillobjecttothisbuildinginprincipleonthegroundsthatitsdesigndoesnotfititscontext.Isthis“just”anaestheticreaction?Orisitamorestronglynormativelyladenreaction–astheexpression“Thereoughttobealawagainstit”suggests?Thisisakeyquestionforarchitectureethicsforthisreason:ifweagreethatthevaluesweshouldliveby(whichistosay,theethicsweshouldadopt)aresuchthatweshouldobjecttothiskindofbuildingregardlessofboththepreferencesofothersandthe(phys-ical)environmentalimpactofsuchabuilding,thenitmeansthatthefieldofarchi-tectureethicsdoesindeeddealwithquestionsthatarenotreducibletotraditional,anthropocentricapproachestoethicsorthenewerapproachesbeingdevelopedinregardtotheethicsofthenaturalenvironment(or,forthatmatter,aesthetics,sincethestipu-lationthatweareconcernedwiththevaluesweshouldlivebyspecifiesthatwearedeal-ingwithconcernsthatare,atbase,ethicalratherthanaesthetic,oronlyaesthetic).Itmeans,inotherwords,thatarchitectureethicsmustbeconsideredasafieldofinquiryinitsownright.Indeed,itmightevenbethatintacklingthistheoreticallychalleng-ing–butarchitecturallycentral–“designfit”issueethicistsareforcedtodevelopnewapproachesnotjusttoarchitectureethicsbuttoethicsingeneral(seeFox2006foranapproachtoethicsthatproceedsonthisbasis).390\n9781405146012_4_066.qxd2/4/0913:41Page391architectureethicsReferencesandFurtherReadingFisher,T.(2000).IntheSchemeofThings:AlternativeThinkingonthePracticeofArchitecture(Minneapolis,Minn.:UniversityofMinnesotaPress).Fox,W.(ed.)(2000).EthicsandtheBuiltEnvironment(London:Routledge).Fox,W.(2006).ATheoryofGeneralEthics:HumanRelationships,Nature,andtheBuiltEnviron-ment(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Wasserman,B.,Sullivan,P.andPalermo,G.(2000).EthicsandthePracticeofArchitecture(NewYork:JohnWiley).391\n9781405146012_4_067.qxd2/4/0913:41Page39267BiomedicalEngineeringEthicsPHILIPBREYBiomedicalengineeringistheapplicationofengineeringprinciplesandtechniquestomedicine.Itcombinesexpertiseinengineeringwithexpertiseinmedicineandhumanbiologytodeveloptechnologiesandtechniquesforhealthcareandpatientcare.Bio-medicalengineeringemergedasafieldaftertheSecondWorldWarandhasexpandedeversince.Asafield,itisverybroad,withapplicationsrangingfrommolecularimagingtotheconstructionofartificialhearts.Biomedicalengineeringis,however,narrowerinscopethanbioengineering,orbiologicalengineering,withwhichitissometimesequated.Bioengineeringfocusesontheengineeringofbiologicalprocessesandsystemsingen-eral,andincludesnotonlybiomedicalengineeringbutalsoagriculturalengineering,foodengineeringandbiotechnology.Inpartbecausebiomedicalengineeringititselfanewfield,thereiscurrentlynodistinctacademicfieldofbiomedicalengineeringethics.Ethicalissuesinbiomedicalengineeringarecurrentlystudiedinthefieldsofbioethics,medicalethicsandengineeringethics.Yetprofessionalethicalissuesinbiomedicalengineeringareoftendifferentfromtheonestraditionallydiscussedinthesefields.Biomedicalengineersdifferfrommedicalpractitioners,andaresimilartootherengineers,inthattheyareinvolvedinresearchforanddevelopmentofnewtechnology,anddonotengageinthestudy,diagnosisandtreatmentofpatients.Biomedicalengineersdifferfromotherengineers,andaresimilartomedicalpractitioners,inthattheyaimtocontributetogoodpatientcareandhealthcare.Theethicalresponsibilitiesofbiomedicalengineersthuscom-binethoseofengineersandmedicalprofessionals,includingaresponsibilitytoadheretogeneralethicalstandardsinresearchanddevelopmentoftechnologyandtodoR&Dthatadherestothespecificstandardssetforthbymedicalethicsandbioethics.Althoughbiomedicalengineersarenotmedicalpractitioners,onecouldsaythattheyareindirectpractitioners,sincethetechnologiesandtechniquestheydevelopco-determinemedicalpractice.GeneralEthicalIssuesInbiomedicalengineering,adistinctioncanbemadebetweenethicalissuesintheR&Dpracticeitselfandethicalissuesregardingtheimplicationsofdevelopedtechniquesand392ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_067.qxd2/4/0913:41Page393biomedicalengineeringethicsdevicesformedicalpractice.WithinR&Dthereareethicalissuesregardinghumanandanimalexperimentationandtheuseofbiomaterials,aswellasgeneralissuesofR&Dethicsliketruthfulnessandtheavoidanceofconflictsofinterest.Nexttosuchissuesinherenttotheirownpractice,biomedicalengineershavearesponsibilitytoanticipatetheconsequencesoftheirdesignsformedicalpracticeandtoensurethattechnologiesandtechniquesaredesignedinamannerconsistentwithandsupportiveofethicalprin-ciplesformedicalpractice.Suchprinciplesincludebeneficence(benefitingpatients),non-maleficence(doingnoharm),patientautonomy(therighttochooseorrefusetreatment),justice(theequitableallocationofscarcehealthresources),dignity(dignifiedtreatmentofpatients),confidentiality(ofmedicalinformation)andinformedconsent(consenttotreatmentbasedonaproperunderstandingofthefacts).Particularethicalquestionsariseinrelationtohumanenhancement.Whereasthedevicesandtechniquesdevelopedbybiomedicalengineersareusuallydesignedtosupporttherapyordiagnosis,theymayalsobedesignedtoenhancehealthyhumantraitsbeyondanormallevel.Thisiscalledhumanenhancement,anditismorallycontroversialbecauseitmovestraitsbeyondboundariesofthehumanspecies,andthereforehasthepotentialtocreatesuperhumans.Ifmedicineweretoengageinhumanenhancement,itwouldmovebeyonditstraditionalmission,whichismerelycurativeandpreventive.Enhancementmayevenrequiretheimpairmentofhealthyhumantissueororganstofitaugmentations.Itthereforeremainscontroversialwhetherbiomedicalengineers(andmedicalpractitioners)shouldengageinhumanenhancement.Letusnowturntosomespecificfieldsofbiomedicalengineeringandconsidermajorethicalissuesinthem.Cellular,GeneticandTissueEngineeringThesefieldsinvolverecentattemptstoattackbiomedicalproblemsatthemicroscopiclevel.Cellularengineeringisafieldthatattemptstocontrolcellfunctionthroughchemical,mechanical,electricalorgeneticengineeringofcells.Itattemptstounderstanddiseaseprocessesatthecellularlevelandtointervenebymeansofminiaturedevicesthatstimulateorinhibitcellularprocessesattargetlocationstopreventortreatdisease.Geneticengineeringspecificallyaimstocontrolthegeneticmaterialincells.Mostresearchgoesintosomaticcelltherapy,whichisthegeneticmodificationofbodilycellsotherthanspermoreggcellsinordertoreplacedefectivegeneswithfunctionalones.Itisbeingclinicallytestedtotreatinheritablediseases,cancer,diabetesandvariousneurodegenerativedisorders.Thereisnowconsiderableagreementthatsomaticcellgenetherapytotreatseriousdiseasesisethical.Germlineengineering,whichisnotcurrentlyusedtherapeuticallybutwhichisbeingstudied,isamorecontroversialpracticeinwhichgenesineggs,spermorveryearlyembryosaremodified.Itiscontroversialbecauseitleadstoinheritablemodificationsofthegenomethatarepassedontofuturegenerations.Thelong-termside-effectsofsuchengineeringarecurrentlyunpredictable,andtherearealsoconcernsthatsuchengineer-ingviolatestherightsoffuturegenerationsoramountsto“playingGod.”Alsocon-troversialisgeneticengineeringtoenhancehumantraitssuchasintelligenceorstrength,393\n9781405146012_4_067.qxd2/4/0913:41Page394philipbreywhetherpracticedonsomaticcellsorongermlinecells.Suchgeneticenhancementiscontroversialforthesamereasonsthatapplytoothertypesofhumanenhancement.Tissueengineeringisafieldthataimstorestore,maintainorimprovethefunctioningoftissuesorwholeorgansbymeansofbiologicalsubstitutesthatrepairorreplacethesetissuesororgans.Oneofthegoalsoftissueengineeringistocreateartificiallygrownorgansforpatientsthatneedorgantransplants.Tissueengineeringstronglydependsoncellularengineeringaswellasonbiomaterialsscience.Majormoralcontroversiesintissueengineeringconcerntheuseofxenogenic(animalorvegetative)andhumanembryonictissue(stemandgermcells).Theuseofxenogeniccellsandcellmaterialiscontroversialbecausespeciesboundariesarecrossedintheprocess:itinvolvesthecreationandmedicaluseofcellsandtissuesthat,byorigin,areparthuman,partanimalorplant.Theuseofembryonictissueiscontroversialbecausecellsareharvestedfromhumanembryos,whicharedestroyedintheprocess,orfromabortedfetuses.Ithasbeenobjectedthatitisunethicaltokillordestroyhumanembryosandthereforetohaveamedicalpracticethatinvolvesit,andthereareworriesthatademandforhumanembryonictissuepromotesthelarge-scalecultivationofhumanembryosspecificallyforthispurpose.Otherethicalissuesintissueengineeringconcernthequestionwhetherandhowspecifictypesoftissuescanbepatented,thequestionwhetherhumandonorsofcellsshouldbeabletoprofitfromtheiruse(whichiscurrentlynotthecase)andwhetherdonorshavearighttoinformedconsentforeveryuseoftheircells(whichiscurrentlythecase).Theprotectionofprivacyofdonorsisanotherissue.Tissuesofdonorsarestoredinso-calledbiobanks,repositoriesforthestorageofbiospecimensthatareusedforclinicalorresearchpurposes.Publicandprivateorganizationsthatownsuchbiobanksareresponsibleforprotectingtheprivacyandconfidentialityofdonors,buttherearedisagreementsabouttheextentandmannertowhichthisshouldbedone.Afinalethicalissueconcernsthequestionofhowtobalancetheprolongingoflifewiththequalityoflifeintissueengineering.Towhatextentshouldlengtheningthelifespanofhumansbeagoaloftissueengineering,andhowshouldsuchagoalbebalancedagainstthegoalofimprovingthequalityoflife,asthesegoalsmaysometimesconflict?Biomaterials,ProsthesesandImplantsSeveralbiomedicalengineeringfieldshaveapartialfocusonthedevelopmentofprostheticdevicesandimplants.Inthefieldofbiomaterials,whichiscomplementarytotissueengineering,non-biologicalsyntheticornaturalmaterialsaredevelopedandusedtointerfacewithbiologicalsystemstoreplace,treat,augmentorsupporttissues,organsorfunctionsofthebody.Thefieldofbiomaterialscontributessubstan-tiallytothedevelopmentofprosthesesandimplantsinbiomedicalengineering.Thedevelopmentanduseofprosthesesandimplantsisamajorconcernofrehabilitationengineering,afieldconcernedwithdevelopingtechnologicalsolutionsforproblemsofpeoplewithdisabilitiesandfunctionimpairments.Prosthesessuchasartificialhips,artificiallimbs,pacemakers,speechsynthesizersandretinalimplantsareusedtorestorefunction.394\n9781405146012_4_067.qxd2/4/0913:41Page395biomedicalengineeringethicsTheuseofprosthesesandimplantsraisesissuesofhumanidentityanddignitybecauseitinvolvestheadditionofartificialstructuresandsystemstohumanbiology,oreventhereplacementofhumantissuesandorganswithartificialversions.Theuseofpros-thesesandimplants,particularlyonesthathavefunctioningparts,makeshumansintocyborgs:beingsthatareparthuman,partmachine.Cantheresultingpersonstillbecalledfullyhuman?Cantheadditionofartificialpartscauseatransformationorevenalossofidentity?Arehumansstillautonomouspersonswhentheyrelyonelec-troniccircuitryintheirbodies?Shouldcertainorgansorfunctionsnotbereplacedbyartificialsystems?Inaddition,thepossibilitythatprosthesesandimplantsaredevelopedforhumanenhancementhasalsometwithcontroversy.Amoremundaneissueconcernstheuseofbiomedicaldevicesandimplantsinclinicaltrials:whatconditionsmustbemetfortheethicalandresponsibletestingofnewbiomaterialandprosthesesinhumans,andhowthoroughlyshouldmaterialsandimplantsbetestedbeforetheygoonthemarket?BiomedicalImagingandOpticsBiomedicalimagingistheapplicationofengineeringmethodstodetectandvisualizebiologicalprocesses.Biomedicalimagingtechniquesareusedclinically,todetectanddiagnosediseases,andinbasiclifesciencesresearch,tostudynormalanatomyandfunction.Biomedicalimagingisusuallynon-invasiveorminimallyinvasiveandinvolvestheradiationordetectionofaknownphysicalquantity,likesound,ultrasound,radiationormagnetism.Electronicdataprocessingandanalysisisthenusedtogen-eratevisualimages.Biomedicalimaginghasobviousbenefitsforscienceandhealthcare.Concernshavebeenraisedwithdiagnosticimaging,however.Ithasbeenworriedthatimagingforthispurposemayleadtoanexcessofdiagnoses.Diseasesmayberevealedthatwerenotunderinvestigationorforwhichnotherapyisavailable,orconditionsmaybecomevisiblethatindicateanincreasedprobabilitytodevelopadisease.Thismayconfrontmedicalspecialistsandpatientswithinformationand(moral)choicestheymaynotwishtohave.Patientsmaynotwanttoknowthattheyhaveadiseaseforwhichnogoodtherapyisavailable,orbeconfrontedwithapainfuluncertaintywhethertheyhaveorcouldcontractacertaindisease.Thisraisesmoralissuesaboutnotonlytheusebutalsothedesignofimagingtechnologies:shouldtheybedesigned,forexample,sothatbodilyconditionsaremadevisibleselectively?Moralcontroversyalsoextendstobrainimaging,whichisreachingthepointthatitcanrevealinformationaboutaperson’smentalstatesorplansforaction.Thesedevelopmentsraisesignificantprivacyconcernsandthefrighteningpossibilitythatmind-readingisusedtomanipulateandcontrolpeople.Athirdandfinalethicalissueconcernstheethicsofdatamanipulationinbio-medicalimaging.Images,whetherforclinicalstudyorforscientificanalysis,areexpectedtobetruthfulandreliable,whichrequiresthatnoimagingoperationsareperformedthatmanipulatedataandprovidefalseinformation.Yetsomeimagingoperations,suchasbrightnessandcontrastadjustments,areclearlyacceptableand395\n9781405146012_4_067.qxd2/4/0913:41Page396philipbreysometimesnecessary.Thisraisesthequestionwhatimagingoperationsarepermiss-ibleandtowhatextentimagingoperationsmustbereportedtothirdparties.NeuralEngineeringNeuralengineeringisanewfieldattheintersectionofengineeringandneurosciencethatusesengineeringtechniquestostudyandmanipulatethecentralorperipheralnervoussystems.Itsgoalsincludetherestorationandaugmentationofhumanfunc-tion.Thisisusuallyachievedviadirectinteractionsbetweenthenervoussystemandartificialdevices.Inneuroprosthetics,neuralprosthesesaredevelopedthatreplaceorimproveneuralfunctionofanimpairednervoussystem.Anotherareaofneuralengineeringisthatofbrain–computerinterfaces,inwhichexternalcomputingdevicesarehookeduptothebrainsothatsignalscanbeexchanged.Neuralengineeringalsoincludesthedevelopmentofbrainimplantsforfunctionalelectricalstimulationofnervoustissuetorestorefunction.Besidesinvolvingcontroversialformsofanimalandhumansubjectresearch,neuralengineeringhasraisedethicalquestionsregardingtheintegrityanddignityofpersons,asartificialneuraldevicesmayaffectpersonalidentityandmakethehumanmindorbrainpartiallyartificial,thusturninghumansintocyborgs.Inaddition,individualautonomycouldbeunderminedasneuraldevicescouldbeusedtocontrolcognition,moodandbehavior.Thisalsoraisesquestionsofresponsibility:canhumansstillbeheldmorallyresponsiblefortheirbehaviorwhentheirbrainhasbeenengineeredbyotherstofunctioninacertainway?Thepossibilityofneuro-enhancementalsoraisessignificantethicalissues:shouldneuralengineeringbeusedtodevelopartificialdevicesthatallowhumanstohavesuperiorperception,cognitionormotorcontrol,orpositivemoodsandattitudes?ReferencesandFurtherReadingFielder,J.(2007).BiomedicalEngineeringEthics(SanRafael,Calif.:Morgan&Claypool).Varello,D.(2007).BiomedicalEthicsforEngineers:EthicsandDecisionMakinginBiomedicalandBiosystemEngineering(NewYork:AcademicPress).396\n9781405146012_4_068.qxd2/4/0913:42Page39768BioethicsPAULB.THOMSONTheterm“bioethics”isoftencreditedtoVanRensalaerPotter(1911–2001),whose1971bookBioethics:BridgetotheFuturearguedthatincreasesintechnologicalpoweroverthehumanbodyandtheEarth’snaturalprocessesmakeitnecessarytodevelopnewnormativeunderstandingsofbiologyatorganismal,regionalandglobalscales.Potterlinkedadvancesinmedicaltechnologyandnutritiontotherapidgrowthofhumanpopulation,foreseeingtheneedtodevelopanewdomaininethicsthatwouldarticu-lateaconceptionofethicalresponsibilityforreproductiveprocessesataglobalscale.Potter’sconceptionofbioethicswasdevelopedinthecontextofalreadythrivingdebatesonpopulationandworldhungerinwhichGarrettHardin(1915–2003),PaulR.Ehrlich(b.1938)andJosephFletcher(1905–91)wereprominentfigures.HardinandEhrlichtookanecologicalperspectiveonpopulationgrowth,stressingthenotionofcarryingcapacity(thenumberofindividualsinagivenspeciesthatcouldbesup-portedbyagivenregion).Theynotedatendencyformanyspeciestoenjoytemporarysurgesinpopulationthatwouldexceedlong-termcarryingcapacity,leadingeventu-allytowidespreaddiebacks.Thenexusbetweentechnologyandethicsinthesedebatesisrootedintheviewsofnineteenth-centuryphilosopherThomasMalthus(1766–1834),whopostulatedthelawthatpopulationwouldnaturallyincreaseatageometricrate,whiletechno-logywouldincreaseresourceavailabilityatonlyanarithmeticrate,necessitatinghumansufferingduetostarvation,diseaseandwarfareoverresources.Thetwentieth-centuryecologicalviewrepresentedbyHardinandEhrlichtendedtoseetechnolo-gicaladvance–especiallyinthemedicalsciences–asaprimarycauseofpopulationgrowth.Fletcheradaptedutilitariananalysestosocialissuessuchasabortionandeuthanasia,usingtheterm“situationalethics”todescribehisapproach.HisroleinthepopulationdebateswasinsupportofHardin’sviewthatitwasimmoraltogivefoodtopopulationsthathadalreadyexceededthetechnicalcarryingcapacityoftheirlocalenvironment.Theseglobalresourcedebatesofthe1960sandearly1970swerepursuedintheworkofHansJonas(1903–92),whowasalsoafoundingfigureinbioethics.Jonas’sbookTheImperativeofResponsibility:InSearchofanEthicsfortheTechnologicalAge(1984)offeredanearlystatementoftheprecautionaryprinciple.However,technology’simpactonspecificmedicalprocedureshasprovedtobeamoreenduringmodelforlinkingACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks397©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_068.qxd2/4/0913:42Page398paulb.thomsonbioethicsandtechnology.Bioethicistshaveconductedvigorousphilosophicaldebatesontheethicalacceptabilityofproceduressuchasinvitrofertilization,cloningandstemcellresearch,aswellasondrugs(suchasmisoprostolandmifepristone)thatcanbeusedtoterminatepregnancyordrugprotocolsforeuthanasia.Eachoftheseprocedureshasbecomethesubjectofdebatewithinthemedicalprofessiononlyinthewakeoftechnologicaldevelopmentsthathavevastlyimproveditsefficiencyandreliability,butthenatureortrajectoryoftechnologicalinnovationinmedicinehasnotgenerallybeentakentobeasignificantthemeinthesedebates.Instead,eachprocedurehasbeendiscussedintermsoftheethicaljustifiabilityofthemedicalendbeingsought.Technicalmeanshavebeenseenasrelevantonlytotheextentthattheyinvolverisksthatmightoffsetintendedbenefits.Forexample,invitrofertilizationisaprocedurethatrequiresanumberofdistincttechnicalachievementsincludingovarianstimulation(ahormonalinjectiontechno-logy),oocyteretrieval(anultrasound-guidedsurgicaltechnology),intracytoplasmicsperminjection(alaboratorymicromanipulationtechnology)andembryotransfer(asurgicaldeploymentofflexibleplasticcatheters),aswellasattendantdrug,hormoneandacupuncturetechnologiesintendedtoimprovesuccessrates.Eachofthesespecifictechnologieshasinvolvedthedevelopmentofbothmaterialsandtechniques,butitisonlywiththeircombinationthatso-called“test-tubebabies”havebecomeareality.Assuch,itisaclassicexampleofwhatThomasP.Hughes(1983)hascharacterizedasatechnologicalsystemsupportedanddevelopedbynetworksofactors,astheorizedbyMichelCallonandBrunoLatour(1981).Withinbioethics,however,invitrofertiliza-tionisdebatedprimarilyeitherintermsoftheethicalacceptabilityof“bypassingnaturalconception”(aphrasethatimpliesacleardistinctionbetweennatureandtechnology)orintermsofunintendedconsequencesthatarecausalconsequencesoftechnicalmeans,butthatareviewedashavingethicalsignificancelargelyindepend-entfromtechnicalpracticesinthemselves.Intrinsicobjectionstoinvitrofertilizationincludeworriesaboutthemoralstatusofembryoscreatedthroughintracytoplasmicsperminjectionandthefateofembryosthatarenoteventuallyimplantedthroughembryotransfer.Concernsaboutitsunnaturalcharacterinvoketraditionalnotionsoffamilyandmotherhood.Debatesoverunintendedconsequencesbeginwithbirthdefects,multiplebirthsandriskstowomenduringresearch,butmovequicklytounequalaccesstomedicaltechnologiesandimpactontheallocationofscarceresourcesformedicalresearchandtreatment(Heitman1999).Abortion,euthanasia,end-of-lifemedicineandstemcellsareeachasso-ciatedwithanextensiveliteraturerecountingbothintrinsicobjectionstothemedicalgoalssoughtbytheprocedureandtheirtendencytoviewhumanlifeorlifeprocessesasameanstoachievingtheseends,aswellasanextensiveliteratureweighingrisksandbenefitsoftheprocedure,includingbroadsocialimpactonhealthcaredelivery.Thisdiscussionofinvitrofertilizationisanexemplarforaveritableavalancheofbioethicswritingsonothertechnicallybasedmedicalprocedures.Thepatternforframingtechnologicalissuesintermsofacontrastbetweenintrinsicobjectionstoatechnicalpracticeandconsequentialistorrights-basedanalysisofatechnologyhasbeenespeciallyimportantasbioethicshasmovedtoconsidergeneticsandthepossibilityforgeneticengineering.Someliteratureinthisdomainfocusesonspecifictechnicalapplicationssuchasgenetictestingforsusceptibilitytodiseaseand398\n9781405146012_4_068.qxd2/4/0913:42Page399bioethicsthepotentialformisuseofgeneticdatabases.Here,philosophicalanalysismaybeginwithacost–benefit-styleaccountingofpossibleconsequences.Benefitsincludeenhancedmedicaldiagnosisandthepotentialforbetterriskmanagement,whilerisksincludeinvasionofprivacy,theuseofgeneticinformationfordiscriminatorypurposes,andthepotentialforracial,genderorethnicstereotyping.Aswithinvitrofertilization,concernsaboutequitableaccessarequicklyaddedtothislist,butinthecaseofgenetictestinganddatabasesthisharmisportrayedashavingthepotentialtoinscribeeconomicinequalitiesinthegeneticcharacteristicsoffuturegenerations:the“geneticdivide.”PhilipKitcherhasarguedthatbeneficialapplicationsofgenetictechnologyshouldbepursuedonlyundertheconditionthatsocialinstitutionstomitigatetheserisksaccompanyit(Kitcher1996).Alongwithdirectgermlinegeneticengineering,suchimpactsareseenashavingsuchpervasiveimpactonhumannatureastoconstitutethebasisforanintrinsicobjectiontogenetictechnology.A2002statementfromtheVaticanholdsthat“Changingthegeneticidentityofmanasahumanpersonthroughtheproductionofaninfrahumanbeingisradicallyimmoral.”PhilosopherssuchasMaryMidgely(1991),LeonKass(2001)andFrancisFukuyama(2002)haveassembledabatteryofargumentsintendedtosuggestthatsuchextensivegeneticchangeinanyportionofthehumanpopulationisintrinsicallywrong,whetherbroughtaboutintentionallyorthroughthecumulativeresultofotherwiseunobjectionablepractices.Thislineofargumentisopposedbybioethicists,whoviewtheseargumentsassimilartoprotestsabouttheunnaturalcharacterofracialmixing,womenintheworkforceandvariousformsofsexuality,orasanewformofthegeneticdeterminismthataroseintheeraofeugenics.Initsplace,philosopherssuchasAllanBuchanan,DanW.Brock,NormanDanielsandDanielWikler(2001)haveinterposedphilosophythatdrawsuponutilitarianandrights-basedargumentswhichclaimthat,whiletheremustbesocialpoliciestoguardagainstabuse,denyingaccesstothosedesirousorneedfulofgenetictechnologiesisconsistentneitherwithsocialutilitynorwithbasicliberty.Inshort,medicalbioethicshasevolvedapatterninwhichneo-Kantian,religiousandtradition-basedviewsofintrinsicvalueandthenaturalorderaresetagainstmoreliberalphilosophiesthatutilizeeitherstraightforwardutilitarianweighingofcostandbenefit,ontheonehand,orrights-basedtheoriesforconceptualizingdistributivejustice,entitlementsornon-interferencerights,ontheother.Whiletechnologicalinnovationsandnetworksmaybeacknowledgedashavinggivenrisetothespecificcircumstancesthatstimulatedebate,thephilosophicaltermsinwhichtheyarecon-ductedarederivedfromthemostvenerablephilosophicalandtheologicaltraditionsofthemodernera.Analystsofethicalissuesassociatedwithpharmaceuticalsandmedicalprocedurestendtointerprettheworkthatprecipitatestheirdebatesintermsofscience,ratherthanoftechnology.Theimplicitassumptionisthatthesetechnolo-gicalcapabilitiesexistasformsofknowledge:astheoriesandbeliefsthatresideinthemindwheretheymaybeheldinabeyanceawaitingthedeterminationofadiscreteethicalinquirythatprecedesaction.Assuch,whilemainstreammedicalbioethicshasbeenthesiteforextendedphilosophicalanalysisofspecifictoolsandtechniques,practitionershavenotengagedinorbeenmuchinfluencedbyviewsonthenatureandsignificanceoftechnologythathavederivedfromtheviewsoftechnologicalessentialistssuchasMartinHeidegger,socialtheoristssuchasKarlMarxorMaxWeber,oreven399\n9781405146012_4_068.qxd2/4/0913:42Page400paulb.thomsontheglobaltechnologicaldevelopmentconcernsoftheirownfoundingfiguressuchasPotter,HardinandJonas,muchlessmorerecentworkinphenomenology,criticaltheoryandthesocialconstructionoftechnicalsystems.Thisframinghasextendedbeyondthemedicalbioethicsfieldinphilosophicaldebatesoveragriculturalbiotechnologyorso-calledGMOs,anacronymfor“geneticallymodifiedorganisms,”thathasbeenwidelyusedtoindicateproductsofgeneticengineer-ingintheagrifoodsector.Followingthepatterninmedicalbioethics,philosophicalanalysisofthedebatehasinterpretedresistancetoGMOsasareflectionofintrinsicvaluesandobjectionstotheir“unnatural”character.PhilosopherssuchasMichaelReissandRogerStraughan(1996)orGregoryPence(2002)regardsuchconcernsasflatlyincoherentoratbestreligious,tradition-boundandoftenreflectingthesamestrandofnon-reflectiveconservatismthatmedicalbioethicistsassociatewithunnaturalpracticesinhumansocialorsexualpractice.MaryMidgely(2000)hasdefendedtheideathatthe“monstrous”natureofthesefoodsisasufficientreasontoopposethem.InthecaseofGMOs,however,itmayprovemoreappropriatetoseebiotechnologyasaclusteroftechniquesandapplicationsthathastheabilitytomobilizefairlycomplexnetworksofactorsinpursuitofdiverseandpotentiallyfluidsocialgoals.Thusthetimingofkeyinnovationsinplanttransformationcoincideswithchangesinintellectualpropertylaw,creatinganopportunityformergersbetweenpharmaceut-icalcompanies,agro-chemicalcompaniesandseedsuppliers,ontheonehand,andforactiveentryintopatentactivitybynon-profitagriculturalresearchagencies,ontheother.Thisconsolidationofpowerprecipitatedanewallianceamongcivilsocietygroupsfocusedonconsumer,environmentalandruraldevelopment.Thisconsortiumutilizedaformofrisk-basedmicro-politics(inthemodedescribedbyUlrichBeck)tomobilizeresistancetoGMOsasacounterweighttotheindustry–universityalliancesformingaroundtheagricultural/pharmaceuticalbiotechnologycomplex.Onthisview,thebioethicsofGMOshaslittletodowiththeclassicphilosophicaloppositionsofmodernphilosophywherereligiousbeliefsjointheforcesoftraditiontooppose“unnatural”behaviorwhileprogressivesutilizeconsequentialismandhumanrightstopromoteenlightenment.Instead,technologymobilizestheformationofnetworksandcounter-networkstoproducecontingentandinherentlyunstabledialectics.Onlyadetailedandempiricalstudyoftheactualtechnicalcapacitiesexistingwithinrealsocialcontextscanadequatelyaddresstheethicsofagriculturalbiotechnology(Thompson2007).ReferencesandFurtherReadingBuchanan,A.,Brock,D.W.,Daniels,N.andWikler,D.(2001).FromChancetoChoice:GeneticsandJustice(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Callon,M.andLatour,B.(1981).“UnscrewingtheBigLeviathan:HowActorsMacro-StructureRealityandHowSociologistHelpThemtoDoSo,”inK.Knorr-CetinaandA.Cicourel(eds),AdvancesinSocialTheoryandMethodology:TowardIntegrationofMicro-andMacro-Sociologies(Boston,Mass.:Routledge),pp.277–303.Fukuyama,F.(2002).OurPosthumanFuture:ConsequencesoftheBiotechnologyRevolution(NewYork:Picador).Heitman,E.(1999).“SocialandEthicalAspectsofInvitroFertilization,”InternationalJournalofTechnologyAssessmentinHealthCare,15:22–35.400\n9781405146012_4_068.qxd2/4/0913:42Page401bioethicsHughes,T.P.(1983).NetworksofPower:ElectrificationinWesternSociety,1880–1930(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).InternationalTheologicalCommission(2002).CommunionandStewardship:HumanPersonsCreatedintheImageofGod.Retrieved24November2006athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.htmlJonas,H.(1984).TheImperativeofResponsibility:InSearchofanEthicsfortheTechnologicalAge(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Kass,L.(2001).“PreventingaBraveNewWorld:WhyWeMustBanHumanCloningNow,”TheNewRepublic,21March2001.Kitcher,P.(1996).TheLivestoCome:TheGeneticRevolutionandHumanPossibilities(NewYork:Simon&Schuster).Midgley,M.(1991).ScienceasSalvation(London:Routledge).Midgley,M.(2000).“BiotechnologyandMonstrosity:WhyWeShouldPayAttentiontothe‘YukFactor’,”TheHastingsCenterReport,30:7–15.Pence,G.(2002).DesignerFood:MutantHarvestorBreadbasketoftheWorld(Lanham,Md:Rowman&Littlefield).Potter,V.R.(1971).Bioethics:BridgetotheFuture(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall).Reiss,M.J.andStraughan,R.(1996).ImprovingNature?:TheScienceAndEthicsofGeneticEngineering(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Thompson,P.B.(2007).FoodBiotechnologyinEthicalPerspective,2ndedn(NewYork:Springer).401\n9781405146012_4_069.qxd2/4/0913:42Page40269Biotechnology:PlantsandAnimalsBARTGREMMENBiotechnologycanbedefinedasthescienceandtechnologyaimedatunderstandingandusinglivingorganismsorpartsthereoftoimprovetheorganismforspecifichumanusesortomakeormodifyaproduct.Inthissetting,manyhumanactivitiesshouldbeconsideredpartoftherealmofbiotechnology,butthisistoogeneral.Soweshallusethemorespecificterm“geneticmodification”:thescienceandtechnologyaimedatintro-ducinganyalterationofgeneticmaterial(DNAorRNA)ofanorganismbymeansthatcouldnotoccurnaturallythroughmatingorrecombination.Theresultingorganismsarecalledtransgenicorganismsorgeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs).In1996thefirstgeneticallymodifiedcropsappeared,thirteenyearsafterthefirstdescriptionofthistechnology.ThisyearincountriesliketheUS,ChinaandIndiamorethan85millionhectaresarecoveredwithgeneticallymodifiedcrops,likesoya,cottonandmaize.Thetotalmarketvalueisestimatedtobe$4.5billion.ThefirstGMOcrops,developedbyMonsanto,wereresistantagainsttheherbicideofthiscompany.Nowadaystherearealsoallkindsofinsect-andvirus-resistantcropsinmanypartsoftheworldwiththeexceptionofEurope.Transgenicanimalsareusedinmedicalresearch,andthereareonlyafewexamplesoftransgenicanimalsinagriculture(forexampletrans-genicsalmon),whilethereisaworldwidebanontransgenichumans.Onlywithinthelastfewdecades,developingtransgenicorganismshasbecomeroutineandhasraisedalotofethicalconcerns.Becausegeneticmodificationmaybeusedindifferentkindsofagriculture,itwillhavetofacealltheethical,moral,socialandtechnicalissuesassociatedwithagricultureingeneral.Geneticmodificationcontributestoimportantsocietalvalueslikesustainability,biodiversityandhealth.Thisisdonebyresearchondroughtandsaltresistance,thereductionofpesticidesandviruses.Basicethicalquestionsareaboutintrinsicvalue,environmentalandhealthrisks,andtheproblemofhumanhungerandbenefit-sharing.IntrinsicValueFundamentalethicalconcernsofbiotechnology,likerespectfornature,andnatural-ness,oftenarecalled“intrinsic”becausegeneticengineeringoforganismsisthoughttobeproblematicinitself.Intrinsicvaluereferstothequalitiesoflife,freedomandhealth.402ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_069.qxd2/4/0913:42Page403biotechnology:plantsandanimalsThereforeitbelongstothedeontologicalpartofethicsinwhichgeneralvaluesserveasprinciples.DuringthelastagriculturalcrisesinvolvinganimalsinEurope,likeBSEandpigdiseases,manygroupsinsocietycriticizedthepolicyofthegovernmentandtheEUusingtheirownversionofintrinsicvalue.Theconceptisnowalsoappliedindis-cussionsonthegeneticmodificationofplants,whereitisinvokedtocriticizegeneticmodification.Forexample,theadherentsoforganicagricultureconsidertheintroductionoftransgenicmaterialinaplantasaviolationofitsintrinsicvalue.Theconceptofintrinsicvalue,formerlystrictlyreservedforhumans,isonlyrecentlywellestablishedinanimalethics.Theconceptmeansthatanimalshaveanethicalstatus,avalueoftheirown,independentoftheinstrumentalvalueforhumans.IntheNetherlandstheconceptofintrinsicvalueisevenincorporatedinthelawontheprotectionofanimals.Withouttheintrinsicvalueofnature,environmentalethicsbecomesaparticularapplicationofhuman-to-humanethics.Inthistraditionalkindofethicstheterm“intrinsicvalue”isusedtorefertocertainconsciousexperiencesofhumans,andisthusanthropocentric.Inthisviewthereisacentraldifferencebetweenhumansandnon-humans:onlyhumanshavemoralrelevance,andeverythingelsehasinstrumentalvalue.WarwickFoxarguesthatitmakesahugepracticaldifferencewhenwegrantintrinsicvaluetonature.Inthatcasetheburdenofproofwouldshiftfromthecon-servationiststothepeoplewhoaredestroyingnature.Peoplewouldhavetogotocourtseekingpermission,forexample,tofelltrees.Asaconsequence,peoplewouldalsohavetoseekpermissiontoperformactivitieslikegeneticmodification.Withtheriseofenvir-onmentalethicsattheendofthe1960s,theterm“intrinsicvalue”wasalsoappliedtotheso-called“higher”animals(closesttohumans)thatalsohaveaconsciousaware-nessbecausetheycanexperiencepain.Thatiswhyhumansonlyneedtoshowrespecttosentientanimalsandalsowhyanimalhusbandrythatmakesuseoftransgenicanimalsviolatestheintrinsicvalueofanimals.Becauseplantsarenotsentientanimals,itisalsointhisviewimpossibleforplantbiotechnologytoviolatetheintrinsicvalueofplants.Thenextstepinthedevelopmentoftheconceptofintrinsicvalueisanenlargementofthedomainofintrinsicvaluetoalllivingbeings.Inthisextremeview,sharedonlybyaminorityofpeople,intrinsicvalueisanabsolutevalue,withoutdegrees,andnotconnectedtosubjectivehumanexperience.ThismeansthatallGMactivitiesinagricul-turewouldviolatetheintrinsicvalueofalllivingbeingsinthoseactivities.EnvironmentalandHealthRisksStraughanreferstoethicalconcernsabouttheconsequencesofthedevelopmentanduseofgeneticallymodifiedorganisms,likeenvironmentalrisksandhealthrisks,as“extrinsic”concerns.Theybelongtotheteleologicalpartofethicswhichfocusesontheconsequencesofouractions.Atthemomentthereisglobalconsensusthattheenvironmentdeservesmoralconsideration.TheenvironmentalrisksareaboutthereleaseofGMOsinthefield.Somepeoplehavecalledthis“geneticpollution”becauseofthepossibletransgenicgeneflowintofarmingandnaturalenvironments.Theuseofherbicide-resistantcropshasledtoquestionsabouttheeffectsofherbicideresiduesandthepossibilityofthedevelopmentof“killer”weedsthathavebecomeresistantto403\n9781405146012_4_069.qxd2/4/0913:42Page404bartgremmenherbicides.Theuseofmalesterilityincropscouldreducethegeneflowintotheenvir-onment.ThiswouldalsohelporganicagricultureinitsstruggletoremainfreeofGMOs,because,surroundedbyGMOfields,itisdifficultfororganicfarmerstoguaranteecon-sumersafreechoicebetweenorganicandGMproducts.Also,inthecaseoftransgenicanimals,geneflowintothewildpopulationislikelytooccurwhenthenetfitnessof,forexample,atransgenicfishisequaltoorhigherthanthenetfitnessofawildmate.Mayweallowalastinggeneticeffectonwildanimals?Kaiserevendescribestheso-called“Trojangenescenario”whichsuggeststhatenhancedmatingsuccesscoupledtoreducedadultviabilitywouldresultinarapiddeclineofthewildpopulation.Thenumberofuncertaintiesabouttheenvironmentaleffectsinthesedebatesishigh,andtheassess-mentoftheserisksentailsanimplicitvaluestance.AccordingtoKaiser,thisfollowsdirectlyfromwhatkindofharmoneiswillingtotestforandimpliesthatthemethodsemployednecessarilydisplaysomekindofbias.Thekindofneedthatissatisfied,andwhobenefits,arecrucialaspectsforethicalacceptance.AlthoughpeopleexpectacertainlevelofsafetyforGManimals,otherconsiderations,likemedicalbenefitsforhumans,oftenprevailoveranimalwelfare.HumanHungerandBenefit-sharingAccordingtosomecalculations,theworldpopulationwillhavegrownto10billionpeoplein2050,whileatthemomentthereisfoodfor6.4billionpeople.ThedemandformorevarietyinfoodwillincreaseinChinaandIndia,andalso42percentofthecropswillbelostbecauseofpests,drought,salt,heatandcold.Geneticallymodifiedorganismscouldbeoneoftheimportantwaystomeetthischallenge,byusingthesameamountoflandinworsenedcircumstances.Inthisrespect,geneticmodificationmaybecalledaglobaltechnology.Individualcountriescannotdevelopandusethistech-nologyontheirown.Internationalcooperationandnetworksarenecessarytokeepthedevelopmentofthistechnologygoing.Countrieswillhavetomakelargelong-terminvestmentstoparticipateingeneticmodification,andThirdWorldcountrieswillnotbeabletoparticipate.TherearetwoconditionsthathavetobefulfilledinorderforThirdWorldcountriestobeabletojoingeneticmodification:thebuildingofaninfrastructureandtheowner-shipofgeneticresources.Thepoorcountriescannotfulfillthefirstconditionbecausetheirveryrestrictedbudgetdoesnotallowequippinglaboratorieswithadvancedandexpensivecomputersandallkindsofmachines.Althoughmanypoorcountrieshaveabundantgeneticresources,theyarenotabletoprofitbecausethesegeneticresourcesalsoarepresentinothercountries(likepotatoandtomatointheAndes),andtherearealsolargecollectionsofgeneticresourcesinthegene-banksofthedevelopedworld.Indebatesontheprotectionofbiodiversity,theThirdWorldcountrieskeepinsistingonafaircompensationfortheuseof“their”geneticresources.Aninternationaltreatyof2004(FAO)regulatesthecompensationincaseofpatents,butinthecaseof“breeders’rights”therearestillethicalquestionslike:WhatisthebenefitofthefarmerswhentheyhavetherighttousetheseedsofthecompaniesintheWestandtheylackthespecificknowledgeandmeanstousetheseseedsintheirplant-breeding?Ifthesefarmerscannotdevelopseedsoftheirown,cantheyusetheseedsfromthebiotechnologyindustry?404\n9781405146012_4_069.qxd2/4/0913:42Page405biotechnology:plantsandanimalsThisisoftendifficultbecausegeneticmodification,untilnow,hasonlydevelopedseedsthatareimportantintheeconomyoftheWestandnotlocal“orphan”seedsthatareimportantinThirdWorldcountries.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBurkhardt,J.(2000).“AgriculturalBiotechnology,Ethics,FamilyFrames,andIndustrialization,”inT.MurrayandM.Mehlman(eds),EncyclopediaofEthical,LegalandPolicyIssuesinBio-technology(NewYork:JohnWiley).Fox,W.(1993).“WhatDoestheRecognitionofIntrinsicValueEntail?,”inTrumpeter,10.Gremmen,B.(2005).“GenomicsandtheIntrinsicValueofPlants,”Genomics,SocietyandPolicy,1(3).Kaiser,M.(2005).“AssessingEthicsandAnimalWelfareinAnimalBiotechnologyforFarmProduction,”inOIEScientificandTechnicalReview,24(1):75–87.Straughan,R.(1991).“SocialandEthicalIssuesSurroundingBiotechnologicalAdvance,”inOutlookonAgriculture,20:89–94.Thompson,P.B.(1998).FoodBiotechnologyinEthicalPerspective(London:BlackieAcademic).405\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page40670ComputerEthicsPHILIPBREYComputerethicsisanewfieldofappliedethicsthataddressesethicalissuesintheuse,designandmanagementofinformationtechnologyandintheformulationofethicalpoliciesforitsregulationinsociety.Forcontemporaryoverviewsofthefield,seeTavani(2007),Weckert(2007),SpinelloandTavani(2004),andHimmaandTavani(2007).Computerethics,whichhasalsobeencalledcyberethics,emergedinthe1980s,togetherwiththeriseofthepersonalcomputer.Earlyworkinthefield,however,hadalreadystartedinthe1940s,soonaftertheinventionofthecomputer.Thebirthofcomputerethicsasafieldisoftenfixedat1985,theyearthatsawtheappearanceofseminalpublicationsbyJimMoor(1985)andDeborahJohnson(1985).Thefieldissometimesalsodefinedtobeapartofamoregeneralfieldofinformationethics,whichincludescomputerethics,mediaethics,libraryethicsandbio-informationethics.Whywouldtherebeaneedforcomputerethics,whilethereisnoneedforaseparatefieldofethicsformanyothertechnologies,likeautomobilesandappliances?JimMoor(1985)hasarguedthatthecomputerhashadanimpactlikenootherrecenttechnology.Thecomputerseemstoimpacteverysectorofsociety,andseemstorequireustorethinkmanyofourpolicies,lawsandbehaviors.AccordingtoMoor,thisgreatimpactisduetothefactthatcomputershavelogicalmalleability,meaningthattheirstructureallowsthemtoperformanyactivitythatcanbespecifiedasalogicalrelationbetweeninputsandoutputs.Manyactivitiescanbespecifiedinthisway,andthecomputerthere-foreturnsouttobeanextremelypowerfulandversatilemachinethatcanperformanincredibleamountoffunctions,fromwordprocessortocommunicationdevicetogamingplatformtofinancialmanager.Theversatilityofcomputersisanimportantreasonfortheoccurrenceofacomputerrevolution,orinformationrevolution,thatisnowtransformingmanyhumanactivitiesandsocialinstitutions.Manyimportantthingsthathumansdo,includingmanythatraisemoralquestionslikestealingfromsomeone,defamingsomeone,orinvadingsome-one’sprivacy,nowalsoexistinelectronicform.Inaddition,thecomputeralsomakessubstantiallynewtypesofactivitiespossiblethataremorallycontroversial,suchasthecreationofvirtualchildpornographyforwhichnorealchildrenwereabused.Becausemanyoftheactionsmadepossiblebycomputersaredifferentandnew,weoftenlackpoliciesandlawstoguidethem.TheygeneratewhatMoorhascalledpolicyvacuums,beingthelackofclearpoliciesorrulesofconduct.Thetaskofcomputerethics,then,406ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page407computerethicsistoproposeanddevelopnewethicalpolicies,rangingfromexplicitlawstoinformalguidelines,toguidenewtypesofactionsthatinvolvecomputers.Computerethicshastakenoffsinceitsbirthinthemid-1980s,andhasestablisheditselfasamaturefieldwithitsownscientificjournals,conferencesandorganizations.Thefieldinitiallyattractedmostinterestfromcomputerscientistsandphilosophers,withmanycomputersciencecurriculanowadaysrequiringacourseormoduleoncomputerethics.However,giventhewideimplicationsforhumanactionsketchedbyMoor,computerethicsisalsoofinteresttootherfieldsthatfocusonhumanbehaviorandsocialinstitutions,suchaslaw,communicationstudies,education,politicalscienceandmanagement.Moreover,computerethicsisalsoanimportanttopicofdebateinthepublicarena,andcomputerethicistsregularlycontributetopublicdiscussionsregardingtheuseandregulatingofcomputertechnology.ApproachesinComputerEthicsComputerethicsissometimesdefinedasabranchofprofessionalethicssimilartootherbrancheslikeengineeringethicsandjournalismethics.Onthisview,theaimofcomputerethicsistodefineandanalyzethemoralandprofessionalresponsibilitiesofcomputerprofessionals.Computerprofessionalsareindividualsemployedintheinformationtech-nologybranch,forexampleashardwareorsoftwareengineer,webdesigner,networkordatabaseadministrator,computerscienceinstructororcomputer-repairtechnician.Computerethics,onthisview,shouldfocusonthevariousmoralissuesthatcomputerprofessionalsencounterintheirwork,forinstanceinthedesign,developmentandmaintenanceofcomputerhardwareandsoftware.Withinthisapproachtocomputerethics,mostattentiongoestothediscussionofethicaldilemmasthatvarioussortsofcomputerprofessionalsmayfaceintheirworkandpossiblewaysofapproachingthem.Suchdilemmasmayinclude,forexample,thequestionhowoneshouldactasawebdesignerwhenone’semployerasksonetoinstallspywareintoasitebuiltforaclient,orthequestiontowhatextentsoftwareengineersshouldbeheldaccountableforharmincurredbysoftwaremalfunction.Nexttothediscussionofspecificethicaldilemmas,thereisalsogeneraldiscussionoftheresponsibilitiesofcomputerprofessionalstowardvariousotherparties,suchasclients,employers,colleaguesandthegeneralpublic,andofthenatureandimportanceofethicalcodesintheprofession.Arecenttopicofinteresthasbeenthedevelopmentofmethodsforvalue-sensitivedesign,whichisthedesignofsoftwareandsystemsinsuchawaythattheyconformtoadesiredsetof(moral)values(Friedman,KahnandBorning2006).Whiletheprofessionalethicsviewofcomputerethicsisimportant,manyinthefieldemployabroaderconceptionthatplacesthefocusongeneralethicalissuesintheuseandregulationofinformationtechnology.Thisapproachmaybecalledthephilosophicalethicsapproachtocomputerethics.Thisconceptionholds,followingMoor(1985),thatcomputerethicsstudiesmoralissuesthatareofbroadsocietalimport-ance,anddevelopsethicalpoliciestoaddressthem.Suchpoliciesmayregulatetheconductoforganizations,groupsandindividuals,andtheworkingsofinstitutions.Thephilosophicalapproachfocusesonlargersocialissueslikeinformationprivacyand407\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page408philipbreysecurity,computercrime,issuesofaccessandequity,andtheregulationofcommerceandspeechontheInternet.Itaskswhatethicalprinciplesshouldguideourthinkingabouttheseissues,andwhatspecificpolicies(laws,socialandcorporatepolicies,socialnorms)shouldregulateconductwithrespecttothem.Althoughmostethicalcommentaryinthephilosophicalapproachisdirectedtotheuseofcomputersbyindividualsandorganizations,attentionhasalsostartedtobepaidtosystemsandsoftwarethemselves,asithasbeenrecognizedthatthesearenotmorallyneutralbutcontainvaluesandbiasesintheirdesignthatmustalsobeanalyzed.Approachesthatemphasizethisangleincludevaluesindesignapproaches(Nissenbaum1998)anddisclosivecomputerethics(Brey2000).Anotherdevelopmentinthefieldthatisofmorerecentoriginistheemergenceofinter-culturalinformationethics(Capurro2007),whichattemptstocompareandcometogripswiththevastlydifferentmoralattitudesandbehaviorsthatexisttowardinformationandinformationtechnologyindifferentcultures.TopicsinComputerEthicsPrivacyPrivacyisatopicthathasreceivedmuchattentionincomputerethicsfromearlyon.Informationtechnologyisoftenusedtorecord,storeandtransmitpersonalinformation,anditmayhappenthatthisinformationisaccessedorusedbythirdpartieswithouttheconsentofthecorrespondingpersons,thusviolatingtheirprivacy.Privacyistherightofpersonstocontrolaccesstotheirpersonalaffairs,suchastheirbody,thoughts,privateplaces,privateconduct,andpersonalinformationaboutthemselves.Themostattentionincomputerethicshasgonetoinformationprivacy,whichistherighttocontrolthedisclosureofpersonaldata.Informationtechnologycaneasilybeusedtoviolatethisright.Privacyissuesplay,amongstothers,ontheInternet,wherecookies,spyware,browser-trackingandaccesstotherecordsofInternetprovidersmaybeusedtostudytheInternetbehaviorofindividualsortogetaccesstotheirPCs.Privacyissuesalsoplayintheconstructionofdatabaseswithpersonalinformationbycorporationsandgovern-mentorganizations,andthemergingofsuchdatabasestocreatecomplexrecordsaboutpersonsortofindmatchesacrossdatabases.Othertopicsofmajorconcernincludetheprivacyimplicationsofvideosurveillanceandbiometrictechnologies,andtheethicsofmedicalprivacyandprivacyatwork.Ithasalsobeenstudiedwhetherpeoplehavealegitimateexpectationtoprivacyinpublicareasorwhethertheycanbefreelyrecorded,screenedandtrackedwhenevertheyappearinpublic.SecurityandcrimeSecurityhasbecomeamajorissueincomputerethics,becauseoframpantcomputercrimeandfraud,thespreadofcomputerviruses,malwareandspam,andnationalsecurityconcernsaboutthestatusofcomputernetworksasbreedinggroundsforterroristactivityandasvulnerabletargetsforterroristattacks.Computersecurityis408\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page409computerethicstheprotectionofcomputersystemsagainsttheunauthorizeddisclosure,manipulationordeletionofinformationandagainstdenialofservice.Breachesofcomputersecuritymaycauseharmsandrightsviolations,includingeconomiclosses,personalinjuryanddeath,whichmayoccurinso-calledsafety-criticalsystems,andviolationsofprivacyandintellectualpropertyrights.Muchattentiongoestothemoralandsocialevaluationofcomputercrimeandotherformsofdisruptivebehavior,includinghacking(non-maliciousbreak-insintosystemsandnetworks),cracking(maliciousbreak-ins),cybervandalism(disruptingtheoperationsofcomputernetworksorcorruptingdata),softwarepiracy(theillegalreproductionordisseminationofproprietarysoftware)andcomputerfraud(thedeceptionforpersonalgaininonlinebusinesstransactionsbyassumingafalseonlineidentityorbyalteringormisrepresentingdata).Anotherrecentlyimportantsecurity-relatedissueishowstateinterestsinmonitoringandcontrollinginformationinfrastructuresthebettertopro-tectagainstterroristattacksshouldbebalancedagainsttherighttoprivacyandothercivilrights(Nissenbaum2005).FreeexpressionandcontentcontrolTheInternethasbecomeaveryimportantmediumfortheexpressionofinforma-tionandideas.Thishasraisedquestionsaboutwhetherthereshouldbecontentcon-trolorcensorshipofInternetinformation,forexamplebygovernmentsorserviceproviders.Censorshipcouldthwarttherighttofreeexpression,whichisheldtobeabasicrightinmanynations.Freeexpressionincludesbothfreedomofspeech(thefreedomtoexpressoneselfthroughpublicationanddissemination)andfreedomofaccesstoinformation.Severaltypesofspeechhavebeenproposedascandidatesforcensorship.Theseincludepornographyandotherobsceneformsofspeech,hatespeechsuchaswebsitesoffascistandracistorganizations,speechthatcancauseharmorunderminethestate,suchasinformationonhowtobuildbombs,speechthatviolatesprivacyorconfiden-tiality,andlibelousanddefamatoryspeech.Studiesincomputerethicsfocusonthepermissibilityofthesetypesofspeech,andontheethicalaspectsofdifferentcensorshipmethods,suchaslegalprohibitionsandsoftwarefilters.EquityandaccessTheinformationrevolutionhasbeenclaimedtoexacerbateinequalitiesinsociety,suchasracial,classandgenderinequalities,andtocreateanew,digitaldivide,inwhichthosewhohavetheskillsandopportunitiestouseinformationtechnologyeffectivelyreapthebenefitswhileothersareleftbehind.Incomputerethics,itisstudiedhowboththedesignofinformationtechnologiesandtheirembeddinginsocietycouldincreaseinequalities,andhowethicalpoliciesmaybedevelopedthatresultinafairerandmorejustdistributionoftheirbenefitsanddisadvantages.Thisresearchincludesethicalana-lysesoftheaccessibilityofcomputersystemsandservicesforvarioussocialgroups,studiesofsocialbiasesinsoftwareandsystemsdesign,normativestudiesofeducationintheuseofcomputers,andethicalstudiesofthedigitalgapbetweenindustrializedanddevelopingcountries.409\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page410philipbreyIntellectualpropertyIntellectualpropertyisthenameforinformation,ideas,worksofartandothercrea-tionsofthemindforwhichthecreatorhasanestablishedproprietaryrightofuse.Intellectualpropertylawsexisttoprotectcreativeworksbyensuringthatonlythecreatorsbenefitfrommarketingthemormakingthemavailable,betheyindividualsorcorporations.Intellectualpropertyrightsforsoftwareanddigitalinformationhavegeneratedmuchcontroversy.Therearethosewhowanttoensurestrictcontrolofcreatorsovertheirdigitalproducts,whereasothersemphasizetheimportanceofmaintainingastrongpublicdomainincyberspace,andargueforunrestrictedaccesstoelectronicinformationandforthepermissibilityofcopyingproprietarysoftware.Incomputerethics,theethicalandphilosophicalaspectsofthesedisputesareanalyzed,andpolicyproposalsaremadefortheregulationofdigitalintellectualpropertyinitsdifferentforms.MoralResponsibilitySocietystronglyreliesoncomputers.Itreliesonthemforcorrectinformation,forcollaborationandsocialinteraction,foraidindecision-making,andforthemonitoringandexecutionoftasks.Whencomputersystemsmalfunctionormakemistakes,harmcanbedone,intermsoflossoftime,money,property,opportunities,orevenlifeandlimb.Whoisresponsibleforsuchharms?Computerprofessionals,end-users,employers,policy-makersandotherscouldallbeheldresponsibleforparticularharms.Ithasevenbeenarguedthatintelligentcomputersystemscanbearmoralresponsibilitythemselves.Incomputerethics,itisstudiedhowthemoralresponsibilityofdifferentactorscanbedefined,andwhatkindsofdecisionsshouldbedelegatedtocomputerstobeginwith.Itisstudiedhowaproperassignmentofresponsibilitycanminimizeharmandallowsforattributionsofaccountabilityandliability.OtherTopicsTherearemanyothersocialandethicalissuesthatarestudiedincomputerethicsnexttothesecentralones.SomeoftheseincludetheimplicationsofITforcommunity,identity,thequalityofworkandthequalityoflife,therelationbetweeninformationtechnologyanddemocracy,theethicsofInternetgovernanceandelectroniccommerce,theethicsoftrustonline,andmeta-ethicalandfoundationalissuesincomputerethics.Theconstantadditionofnewproductsandservicesininformationtechnology,andthecomingintobeingofnewusesandnewsocialandculturalimpacts,ensuresthatthefieldkeepsmeetingnewchallenges.410\n9781405146012_4_070.qxd2/4/0913:42Page411computerethicsReferencesandFurtherReadingBrey,P.(2000).“DisclosiveComputerEthics,”ComputersandSociety,30(4):10–16.Capurro,R.(2007).“InterculturalInformationEthics,”inR.Capurro,J.FrühbaureandT.Hausmanningers(eds),LocalizingtheInternet:EthicalIssuesinInterculturalPerspective(Munich:FinkVerlag).Friedman,B.,Kahn,P.H.,JrandBorning,A.(2006).“ValueSensitiveDesignandInformationSystems,”inP.ZhangandD.Galletta(eds),Human–ComputerInteractioninManagementInformationSystems:Foundations(Armonk,NY/London:M.E.Sharpe),pp.348–72.Himma,K.andTavani,H.(eds)(2007).InformationandComputerEthics(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Johnson,D.(1985).ComputerEthics(UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall).Moor,J.(1985).“WhatIsComputerEthics?,”Metaphilosophy,16:266–75.Nissenbaum,H.(1998).“ValuesintheDesignofComputerSystems,”ComputersandSociety,March,pp.38–9.Nissenbaum,H.(2005).“WhereComputerSecurityMeetsNationalSecurity,”EthicsandInformationTechnology,7:61–73.Spinello,R.A.andTavani,H.(eds)(2004).ReadingsinCyberethics(Sudbury,Mass.:Jones&Bartlett).Tavani,H.(2007).EthicsandTechnology:EthicalIssuesinanAgeofInformationandCommunica-tionTechnology,2ndedn(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Weckert,J.(ed.)(2007).ComputerEthics,InternationalLibraryofEssaysinPublicandPro-fessionalEthicsSeries(Aldershot:Ashgate).411\n9781405146012_4_071.qxd2/4/0913:43Page41271ConsumerismEDWARDJ.WOODHOUSEConsumerismisawayoflifecombiningmaterialaffluencewithsymbolic–emotionalattachmentstoshopping,possessionsand“waste.”Scholarlycommentarytendstodepictglobalconsumerismasculturallycorrosive(Satterthwaite2001)andenvironmentallyunsustainable(CrockerandLindman1998,Rosenblatt1999).Eventhoseskepticalofsuchclaimsmustacknowledgethatconsumerismislinkedinextricablywithscienceandtechnology.StudiesbearingonconsumerismbeganwithThorsteinVeblen(1899)acenturyago,tookfirmrootinthemid-twentiethcentury(Riesman1950,Potter1954,Frazier1957,Galbraith1958),builtgraduallythereafterthanksespeciallytoBaudrillard(1968,1970),andthenburgeonedafterthefalloftheSovietUnionleftaffluentdemo-craciesastheprimaryoccupantsofthepolitical–economicstage.Contemporaryscholar-shiprangesfromupdatesonconspicuousconsumption(Varul2006),totheethosofconsumers(Ci2006),todebatesaboutwhetherazero-growtheconomywouldbetechnicallyfeasibleandmorallysuperior(Daly1977).Theliteratureincludesgeneralmeditationsontheroleoftechnologyinthegoodlife(Higgsetal.2000)aswellasspecificcritiquesimplicatingconsumerismin“identitymorphing,aesthetizationoflife,andadenialoflife’stragicdimensions”(Brinkman2006:92)andasan“ideologyenablingandsupportingU.S.capitalism”(Wolff2005:223).IssuesconnectedwithconsumerismincludeMcDonaldization,therationalizationofeverything(Ritzer2004),andDisney-ization,theprepackagingofleisureandentertainment(Bryman2004).Althoughthevariegatedscholarshiphasnotyetcoalescedintoacoherentsubfield,thereareatleastfivequestionspoliticalphilosopherscanhelphumanityposesoastoclarifyandpossiblyreformthedynamicsofconsumerism.First,giventhatscientistsandtechnologistscreatedthepossibilityofwidespreadmaterialaffluence,isonelogicallyforcedtotraceproblemsofconsumerismpartlytotechnoscientificinstitutionsandpractices(SwearengenandWoodhouse2001)?Forexample,oughtchemistsandchemicalengineerstobeconsideredculpableforhelpingpopulatehomes,landfillsandevenoceanswithplasticartifactsandtoxicchemicals?Whatistobemadeofthefactthatelectronicengineersandinformationtechnologistswerecrucialtothedistributionofadvertising,pornographyandtrivialentertainmentsviamassmedia?Howmightacommendablecivilizationarrangeto412ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_071.qxd2/4/0913:43Page413consumerismholdtechnoscientistsaccountableforsuchsecondaryandtertiaryconsequencesoftheirwork?Asecondsetofquestionspertaintogrossinequalitiesamongcitizenconsumers.Themostaffluent20percent–concentratedintheUS,theEUandJapan–haveapproximatelyahundredtimesthespendingpowerofhumanity’sleastaffluentquintile.Theprivilegedminorityeffectivelydeterminesthe“consumerdemand”stimulatingbusinessestoinnovate,andpurchasesbytheaffluentsubstantiallyreshapeeverydaylifeforevery-oneelse.Thesesamepeopleprovidethetaxrevenuesandvoterexpectationsthatencouragegovernmentofficialsinaffluentnationstoprovidegeneroussupportforscientificresearchandpre-competitivetechnologicalR&D.Theaffluentlikewisearebest-positionedtousenewknowledgeandtechnicalcapacities,byreadingaboutpopu-larizedscienceorbyupgradingtothelatestgadget–meaningthatscientificinquiryandtechnologicalinnovationtypicallymaintainorexacerbateinequalities(SarewitzandWoodhouse2007).Aretherelinesofphilosophicalinquirythatcanjustifysuchastateofaffairs,orisaphilosopheroftechnologyboundtoadvocateredistributionofincome,wealthandpoliticalpowerwithinandamongnations(Hayward2006)?Third,alongwithaffluentconsumers,itisbusinessexecutiveswhoaretheproximatedecision-makersofconsumerculture.Theyroutinelyactinethicallyindefensibleways,asbydeceivingandseducingbuyers,andotherwiseplacingprivatevaluesoverpublicones.OneneednotdisparageR&D-drivenproductivitygains,consumerlibertiesandcontemporaryaffluencetorecognizethatbusinessesinmarket-orientedsocietiesmakemoneybyfindingwillingbuyers,notbyattendingtotheneedsofthegeneralpublic.Governmentregulationoncewasbelievedananswertotheproblem,butpoliticalscientistsandeconomistshaveconvincinglyshownthat“governmentfailure”isalmostasbigaproblemasmarketfailure.Theelectoral-political,legislative,bureaucraticandotherobstaclestoimplementingappropriateregulationaresufficientlysystematicandseverethatitmakessensetolookforsupplementalapproaches:Howcanbusinessexecutivesbeincentivizedtomeldtheirconcernsforsalesandprofitswithequivalentconcernsforthepublicsphere(Woodhouse2006)?Fourth,inasmuchasmostadultsarebothconsumersandworkers,howmightacommendablecivilizationstructurenegotiationsbetweenourconsumer-selvesandourworker-selves?Theworkplaceisamoreimportantsourceoflifesatisfactionandcognitivedevelopmentthanthemarketplace(onceaperson’sbasicneedshavebeenmet),soautilitarianmighturgedevelopingworkplacetechnologiesandpracticesthatincreaseworkersatisfactionevenathighexpense.Yetconsumersactuallyundermineworkers’well-beingbymakingpurchasesatstoresofferingthelowestprices,whichputspressureonbusinessexecutivestocutcosts,whichcontributesalongwithotherfactorstounderinvestinginworkersatisfaction(Lane1991).Ahugeirony,littleremarked(butseeCohen2003onchangingincarnationsoftheconsumer/citizen/taxpayer/voter).Clarifyingtheproblemandoptionsforaddressingitmaybeoneofthemoreimportanttasksthatscholarsofconsumerismcouldtackle.Fifth,inalengthyencyclopediacoveringtechnologyasasocialphenomenon,itisstrikingthatnoentrypertainsdirectlytothesubjectiveexperienceoflifeincontem-porarycivilization.Doesanyonedoubtthattherapidpaceoftechnoscientificchangehelpedcreatetheconditionsforpsychosocialstressandforthewidelysharedsensethat413\n9781405146012_4_071.qxd2/4/0913:43Page414edwardj.woodhousethereis“notime”(Menzies2005)?Toreachsuchissues,wemayneednewapproachestoscienceandengineeringethics,becausetheunintendedspeed-upofeverydaylifeisnotamatterofmalfeasancebyindividuals;ratheritisasystemicphenomenonpartiallybeyondanyone’scurrentunderstandingorcontrol.Inconclusion,farfrombeingsimplyamatterofmoreversuslessstuff,consumerisminvolvesallthemajorinstitutionsandprocessesofcontemporarycivilization.Itthere-forebelongsnearthecoreofphilosophicalinquiryregardingtechnology.Canhighlevelsofconsumptionandproductionbemadecompatiblewithstrongercommunity,moreeffectivedemocracy,moresustainableenvironmentand,mostgenerally,asatisfyingwayoflife?Howoughtpolitical–economicinstitutionsbedesignedtopromotereflective,public-regarding,just,andenvironmentallysustainablepublicandprivatechoicesaboutgoodsandservices?Eventhosewhobelievethatmaterialaffluenceiswonderfularguablyhavearesponsibilitytoinquireintohowhumanitymightmovetowardwiserandfairerconsumerism.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBaudrillard,J.(1968;2005).LeSystèmedesobjets(Paris:Galimard);TheSystemofObjects(London:Verso).Baudrillard,J.(1970;1998).LaSociétédeconsommation:sesmythes,sesstructures(Paris:Denoël);TheConsumerSociety:MythsandStructures(ThousandOaks,Calif.:Sage).Brinkmann,S.(2006).“QuestioningConstructionism:TowardanEthicsofFinitude,”JournalofHumanisticPsychology,46(1):92–111.Bryman,A.(2004).TheDisneyizationofSociety(ThousandOaks,Calif.:Sage).Ci,J.(2006).“PoliticalAgencyinLiberalDemocracy,”TheJournalofPoliticalPhilosophy,14(2):144–62.Cohen,L.(2003).AConsumer’sRepublic:ThePoliticsofMassConsumptioninPostwarAmerica(NewYork:BasicBooks).Crocker,D.A.andLindman,T.(1998).EthicsofConsumption:TheGoodLife,Justice,andGlobalStewardship(Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield).Daly,H.E.(1977).Steady-StateEconomics:TheEconomicsofBiophysicalEquilibriumandMoralGrowth(SanFrancisco,Calif:W.H.Freeman).Frazier,E.F.(1957).BlackBourgeoisie(Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress).Galbraith,J.K.(1958).TheAffluentSociety(Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin).Hayward,T.(2006).“GlobalJusticeandtheDistributionofNaturalResources.”PoliticalStudies,54(2):349–69.Higgs,E.S.,Light,A.andStrong,D.(eds)(2000).TechnologyandtheGoodLife?(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Lane,R.E.(1991).TheMarketExperience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Menzies,H.(2005).NoTime:StressandtheCrisisofModernLife(Toronto:Douglas&McIntyre).Potter,D.M.(1954).PeopleofPlenty:EconomicAbundanceandtheAmericanCharacter(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Riesman,D.(1950).TheLonelyCrowd:AStudyoftheChangingAmericanCharacter(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress).Ritzer,G.(2004).TheMcDonaldizationofSociety(ThousandOaks,Calif.:PineForgePress).Rosenblatt,R.(ed.)(1999).ConsumingDesires:Consumption,Culture,andthePursuitofHappiness(Washington,D.C.:IslandPress).414\n9781405146012_4_071.qxd2/4/0913:43Page415consumerismSarewitz,D.,andWoodhouse,E.J.(2007).“SciencePoliciesforReducingInequities,”ScienceandPublicPolicy,34(April).Satterthwaite,A.(2001).GoingShopping:ConsumerChoiceandCommunityConsequences(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress).Swearengen,J.C.andWoodhouse,E.J.(2001).“CurbingOverconsumption:ChallengeforEthicallyResponsibleEngineering,”IEEETechnologyandSocietyMagazine,20(Fall):23–30.Varul,M.Z.(2006).“Waste,IndustryandRomanticLeisure:Veblen’sTheoryofRecognition,”EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory,9(1):103–17.Veblen,T.(1899).TheTheoryoftheLeisureClass(NewYork:Macmillan).Wolff,R.D.(2005).“IdeologicalStateApparatuses,Consumerism,andUSCapitalism:LessonsfortheLeft,”RethinkingMarxism,17(2):223–35.Woodhouse,E.J.(2006).“TechnologicalMalleabilityandtheSocialReconstructionofTechnologies,”inT.Veak(ed.),DemocratizingTechnology:AndrewFeenberg’sCriticalTheoryofTechnology(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress),pp.153–73.415\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page41672DevelopmentEthicsTHOMASKESSELRINGDevelopmentaidpolicy(DAP)takesplaceatthepointofintersectionofanumberofethicalissues:(1)Whatdoes“development”meanandinwhichdirectiondoesitpoint?(2)Whatpurposedoesdevelopmentcooperation(DC)have,whatroledorightsandobligationsplay,andwhatmotivesisitbasedon?(3)Whohastosupportwhomwithdevelopmentaid?(4)Whichgoalsshoulddevelopmentaidpolicyaimat?Thisarticleleavesasideissuesaboutindividualdevelopmentandaboutpedagogy(i.e.concertedsupportofindividualdevelopment)andconcentratesonDAP.At(1).Involvementsindevelopmentcooperationpresupposeagradientbetweenthecooperatinggroups.Membersofasocietyconsideredhigherdeveloped(donor)sup-portoneormoregroupsofasocietyconsideredlessdeveloped(recipient).Theaimofthesupportistominimizethedevelopmentdeficit.Inpracticethequestionthenariseswhodefinesdirectionandaimofthedevelopmentprocess.Fromanethicalaswellasapracticalstandpoint,itstandstoreasonthatthegroupsinvolvedtakejointaction.DCinthestrictsensepresupposesasymmetricalrelationandajointdecision-makingprocess.Otherwisetherelationisasymmetrical(i.e.“developmentaid”),andtherecipientsremainheteronomous.Forinstance,developmentaidbasedonconditionsisasymmetrical.Developmentisfrequentlyequatedwitheconomicgrowthandjudgedbythegrossnationalproduct(TheWorldBank:WorldDevelopmentReports).Accordingly,developmentmeansincreaseinmaterialprosperitybyconstructionofanindustrialservicesectoraswellaspolitical–particularlydemocratic–institutions.Thisconcep-tioncompeteswithtwootherswhichwereintroducedmorerecently:(a)in1990thedevelopmentprogramoftheUNcreatedasubtlydifferentiatedindexforhumandevelopment(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram,UNDP)basedonseveralfactors–namely(i)grossnationalproductperperson(asanindicatoroflivingstandard),(ii)lifeexpectancy(inwhichhealthcare,nutritionandhygienefindexpression),and(iii)rateofprimaryschoolenrolmentandrateofliteracy(expressingeducationallevel);(b)Theconceptofsustainabledevelopmentwasintroducedintothediscussion416ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page417developmentethicsin1987,whentheBrundtlandreport(WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevel-opment1987:ch.1,§27)waspublished.Sustainabledevelopment“ensure[s]thatitmeetstheneedsofthepresentgenerationwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.”Becausetechnologyandlifestyleofindustrialnationsdonotmeetthisdefinition,thelevelofdevelopmentofthesenationslosesitsexemplarycharacter.Therealizationofthedevelopmentaidpolicyprogramofthe1960s,scheduledforall“underdeveloped”countries,thattheyshouldcatchuponthedevelopmentwouldinevitablyleadtoecologicalcollapse.Thetaskofbringingtogetherhumandevelopmentandsustainabledevelopmentremainsachallengeforallsocieties–especiallyforthosesocietiesthatarehighestdevelopedaccordingtotheolddefinition.At(2).DChasbeensubjecttoethicaldiscussionstimeandtimeagainsincethe1960s.Atfirstcriticismconcernedthenon-intendedside-effectsofDC:itisnotfreeofcorruption,itmakesthepartnersdependent,andpresentingWesternlifestyleawakenstheircravingforemigration(Kesselring2003:ch.11).ButethicalcontroversyhasalsobrokenoutabouttheaimofDCitself.Inthiscontroversy,fourpositionscanbedistinguished:(a)TheadherentsofthefirstevaluateDCpositivelyonethicalgrounds,butholdthatnobodyisobligedtoparticipateinDC.Thismeansatthesametimethatnounder-developedsocietyhasalegallyenforceablerighttoforeignhelp.Somebodywhohelpsothersisadmittedlydoingsomethinggoodandpraiseworthy,accordingtoa(supererogatory)virtue,buthedoesnottherebyfollowamoralimperative.ThisgoeswellwiththefactthattheUNrecommendationtotheindustrialnationsinthe1960stospendatleast0.7percentoftheirGNPonDCneverwasobligatoryandveryfewcountriescompliedwithit.Mostofthecountriesconfinedthemselvestohalfofthisquotaandevencutbacktheircommitmentfurtherduringthe1990s.MotivesforvoluntarycommitmenttoDCare,e.g.,solidarity,charitableattitudeorsympathyforthedisadvantaged(cf.“optionforthepoor”acknowledgedbytheLatinAmericanbishops’conferenceattheirgeneralassemblyinMedellinin1968).(b)Accordingtoasecondposition,itistheobligationofprosperoussocieties(ortheircitizens)tobecomecommittedtothereliefofpovertyortomakefinancialcontributionstodevelopmentcooperation.Thisobligationconformstoamoral(butnotlegallyenforceable)rightofthedisadvantagedforassistance.Thisthesisisadvocatedbyutilitarian(Singer1979,Unger1996)aswellasnon-utilitarianorientedauthors(Pogge1987).ThemostradicalviewsaredefendedbySingerandUnger,whoclassifyfailuretogiveassistanceasmurder.Thisopinionisnotheldbyanypartyinthepracticeofdevelopmentpolicy.Atbestthepracticeofchurchwelfareorganizationsinsomecountriescomesclosetoit.AccordingtoO’Neill(1986)andRawls(1999),intheendnoprivateindividualbutratherstatesareobligatedtoDC.(c)Autilitarianviewopposedto(b)isheldbythebiologistHardin(1977):develop-mentaidshouldbeomitted,becauseitsresultsarecounterproductive:Bystimu-latingpopulationgrowthinpoorcountries,itcontributestomakingthesituationforthenextgeneration(s)considerablyworsethanitistoday.However,sincethe1970sthisthesishasbecomeoutdated:first,becausefamilyplanningitself417\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page418thomaskesselringconstitutesaprimaryconcernofmanydevelopmentaidprograms;and,second,sincemanygovernmentsofreceivingcountriesactivelypursueapopulationcontrolpolicyoftencarriedthroughmorerigorouslyiftheythemselvestaketheinitiativethaniftheyareforcedtodosobyexternalfinancialbackers.(d)Today’smostcommonpositionisafourth:ThereisneitheranobligationtoDCnortoitsomission.Neverthelessthereareanumberofrationalmotivesforbecominginvolvedindevelopmentaidpolicywhicharebasedonwell-understoodpersonalinterests.Forinstance,DCopensupnewmarkets.DuringtheColdWar,DCalsoservedWesternpowersandEastern-blocstatestoextendorconsolidatetheirpoliticalpower.Todaysomemultinationalcompanies,too,invest–directlyorviafoundations–indevelopmentaidprogramsandhumanitarianprojects.Suchinvestmentshaveapositiveimpactontheimageofthefirm,althoughthecontributionsareoftenplainlyunder0.7percentofthenetprofit.Developmentaidpolicydoesalsobecomemoreandmoresignificantinthecontextof“GlobalGovernance.”Inparticular,itisofincreasingimportanceforcopingwithaseriesofchallengesthatrichaswellaspoornationsfaceequally,suchasecologicalcrisis,climatechange,atomicradiation,AIDS,risksofunstablefinancialmarkets,andter-rorism.Thesechallengesdepictfactualconstraintswhichrelativizethesignificanceofnationalborders,reducethelatitudeofnationalpolitics,andrestrictthesovereigntyofstates(Messneretal.2005).Agrowingnumberofproblemsindividualstatesarefacing–pressurebymigration,unemployment,weatherdamageconditionedbyclimatechange,drinking-watershortage–demandalsofortheirsolutionacoordin-atedinternationaleffort(“GlobalGovernance”).Obviously,poornationshavetobeinvolvedinthecollectivefightagainstworldproblems,too.Developmentaidpolicyhasespeciallytobeorientatedtowardthem–thoughwithoutfocusingonlyuponthosepoorcountriesfromwhichthelargestcontributionstothesolutionofinternationalproblemsaretobeexpected.At(3).Agentswithindevelopmentaidpolicyareusuallyeitherstatesornon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs),clericalorotherreligiousgroupsorprivatepersons.Manyindustrialnationsmaintainveryclosecorporaterelationsregardingdevelop-mentaidpolicytocertaindevelopingcountries.Thechoiceofthosecountriesnormallydoesnotprovokeanyethicaldebates.Notwithstandingaiddoesapplyselectively–despitetheuniversalvalidityofthedemandtohelp.Ifthereoccursurgentneedofhelpsomewhere,theUNwithitsorgansusuallygetsactive,andoftenalotofgovernmentscommitthemselvesspontaneously,butoftentheseinitiativesaredrivenbynationalinterests.Afterthetsunamicatastropheof26December2004theWesterndonorcountriesalmostcompetedwitheachotherregardingtheamountoftheirdonations.Ninemonthslater,however,aftertheearthquakeinIslamicPakistan(October2005)thenecessarymoneyhardlycamein.Itismorelikelythatpeoplearewillingtohelptheirfamilymembersorcloserelativesthannon-relatedpersons,evenifthelatteraremuchmoreinneedofhelp.Itisnocoincidencethat,intheparable,theSamaritanwhocametotheassistanceofaJewwhohadbeenassaulted,andrenderedhimfirstaid,eventhoughhehimselfwasamemberofagroupofethnicalforeigners,isportrayedasexemplaryandworthyof418\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page419developmentethicsadmiration(Luke10:29–37).Apparentlyitalreadysurpassedcustomarypracticeandexpectationsinthosedays.Somethingsimilarisvalidforredistribution:insmall,manageablegroupsorsocietieswithstrongcommunityspirititiseasiertoenforcethaninpluralisticsocietieswithoutaclearunity.Redistributionofgoodsacrossnationalbordersisevenlesscapableofconsensus,sinceacommonconceptionofjusticeisoftenmissing(Walzer1994).Involvementindevelopmentaidpolicyisthereforemorelikelycapableofobtainingamajorityifitappliestogroupsrelatedethnically,closetradingpartnersorallies.At(4).ForDAPaclarificationofprioritizedgoalsisperempting.Rawlsaddressedthisissueintwoofhislatestpapers(1993,1999).Inparticular,heformulatedaprincipleofassistancestressingthattheobligationtosupportdisadvantagedsocietiesisrestrictedtotheestablishmentofconditionsinagreementwithhumanrights.Thisprinciplecorrespondstothefirstofthreecriteriaofjusticewhichheproposedaspartofnational-staterules–asystemofequalfundamentalrightsandlibertiesforeveryoneguaranteedbythesocietyorstate.Ataninternationallevel,thiscriterionissatisfiedifallstatesrespectthehumanrights–oratleastitshardkernel.Obtainingthisgoal,though,presupposesstateswithanassertivegovernmentandwithfinancialresourcessufficienttocarryoutthecorrespondingtasks.AccordingtoRawls,internationalsup-portaimedatincreasingprosperitybeyondtheprotectionoffundamentalrightscannotbethegoalofdevelopmentaid.Attheinternationallevel,Rawlsattachesnosignificancetotheprincipleofdiffer-ence(statingthatoftwosocialorderstheoneismorejustinwhichthegroupofdis-advantagedisbetteroff).Hegivestworeasonsforthis:Ontheonehand,notallstatesagreewiththisprincipleand,ontheotherhand,materialaidorredistributionofgoodsisonlydemandedifitisrequiredinordertoestablishasocialorderguarantee-ingelementaryhumanrightsforeveryone.Forinstance,fromasocietywhichhasachievedprosperitybymeansofsuccessfuldemographicmeasureswecannotdemandthatithastomakefinancialcontributionstoanothersocietywhichconsciouslyhasrefrainedfromfamilyplanningandforthatreasonhasremainedpoor(Rawls1999:118).Suchaidwouldbecounterproductiveandunsuitableforchangingthecausesofpoverty.Rawlsalsodeniesequalityofopportunity(i.e.hissecondcriterionforsocialjustice)tohaveanysignificanceattheinternationallevel.Thisisrelatedtothefactthatheconceivesinternationaleconomicrelationsone-sidedlyasacooperativesystemanddoesnottakeintoaccountthateconomicexchangetakesplaceonthebasisofaglobal(ousting)competitionand,moreover,thatthepowerofdecision-makingwithrespecttopoliticalissuesisdistributedunequally.Beitz(1985)andPogge(1989)thereforedemandthatweshouldholdontotheprincipleofequalityofopportunityattheinter-nationallevel,too.Thisprinciplecouldindeedgetrelevantattwoplaces:(a)whendecisionsonconcernsofglobalinterestareatstake,and(b)inthecaseofintegratingindividualcountriesintotheworldeconomy.Ifitisadmittedthatnotallstatescanhavethesameinfluenceondecisionsregardingtheregulationofinternationalcon-cernsandaffectingallhumanbeings,thentheprincipleofdifferencemaybeappliedforestablishingdifferentdegreesofinternationaljustice:thebetterthechancesarethateventheweakeststates(presupposingthattheirgovernmentsconvincinglyrepresenttheinterestsofthepeople)canmakethemselvesheardandtheirlegitimateinterests419\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page420thomaskesselringaretakenintoaccount,themorejustisthepoliticalworldorder.And,analogically,thebettertheintegrationoftheeconomicallyweakestcountriesintotheworldmar-ket,themorejustistheeconomicworldorder(Kesselring2006).TheattitudeofAmartyaSen(1999)todevelopmentaidpolicyisdirectedmorestronglytowardtheneedsoftheinvolvedpeoplethanRawls’s.SenhascriticizedRawlsforrestrictingtransnationalobligationstowarddevelopmentaidpolicytotheaimof(re-)establishingasystemofhumanrights.Persons,Sendemands,musthaveattheirdisposaltheabilitiesandthematerialprerequisitesthatarenecessaryforexercisingtheirfundamentalrights.Forinstance,aparalyticpersoncannotexerciseherfreedomofmovementunlessshehasmeansoftransportatherdisposal.Hencesheisinneedofmoreresourcesthannon-disabledpersons.Thisexamplecanbegeneralized.Thefundamentalright,say,togetaneducationisonlybeneficialforthepersonconcernedwhenthereexistschoolswithinreachandwhenthewaytoschoolissafe.Moreover,fundamentalrightsareonlyofuseiftheyarelegallyrecoverable–thisneedsefficientexecutivebodies,incorruptibleattorneys,faircourts,competentlegaladvice,andtheaccesstotheseserviceshastobeaffordableforeveryone.DevelopmentmeansforSensomethinglikeanexpansionoffreedoms(cf.thetitleofhismajorwork,DevelopmentasFreedom).ContrarytoLatinAmericanliberationtheology,Senunder-stands“freedom”notonlyinthenegativesenseastheabsenceofobstaclesbutalsopositivelyasthedisposalof“capabilities,”i.e.abilities,knowledge,information,socialinfluence,accesstoresourcesandinfrastructure.Themostimportantcapabilityisself-determination–itisanindispensablepreconditionfortheresponsibleuseofallotherabilitiesandfundamentalrights.ObviouslytheacquisitionofthesespecialabilitiesisevenmoredemandingthantheprotectionofWesternfundamentalrights.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBeitz,Charles(1985).“JusticeandInternationalRelations,”inCharlesBeitzetal.(eds),Inter-nationalEthics:APhilosophyandPublicAffairsReader(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).Hardin,Garrett(1977).“LifeboatEthics:TheCaseagainstHelpingthePoor,”inWilliamAikenandHughLaFollette(eds),WorldHungerandMoralObligation(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:PrenticeHall);2ndedn,WorldHungerandMorality(UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall1996).Kesselring,Thomas(2003).EthikderEntwicklungspolitik(Munich:Beck).Kesselring,Thomas(2006).“EntwicklungshilfeundEntwicklungspolitikausethischerPerspektive,”inHartmutIhneandJürgenWilhelm(eds),EinführungindieEntwicklungspolitik(Münster:LIT),pp.323–45.Messner,Dirketal.(eds)(2005).ZukunftsfragenderEntwicklungspolitik(Baden-Baden:Nomos).O’Neill,Onara(1986).FacesofHunger.AnEssayonPoverty,Justice,andDevelopment(London:Allen&Unwin).Pogge,Thomas(1989).RealizingRawls(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress).Pogge,Thomas(1997).“AGlobalResourcesDividend,”inDavidCrockerandTobyLinden(eds),EthicsofConsumption:TheGoodLife,Justice,andGlobalStewardship(Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield).Rawls,John(1993).“TheLawofPeoples,”inStephanShuteandSusanHurley(eds),OnHumanRights(NewYork:BasicBooks).Rawls,John(1999).TheLawofPeoples(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).420\n9781405146012_4_072.qxd2/4/0913:43Page421developmentethicsSen,Amartya(1999).DevelopmentasFreedom(NewYork:Knopf).Singer,Peter(1979).PracticalEthics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Unger,Peter(1996).LivingHighandLettingDie(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram(UNDP).HumanDevelopmentReport.Appearsannually(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Walzer,Michael(1994).ThickandThin:MoralArgumentatHomeandAbroad(NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress).TheWorldBank.WorldDevelopmentReport.Appearsannually(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(1987).OurCommonFuture(Oxford/NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).421\n9781405146012_4_073.qxd2/4/0913:43Page42273EnergyEthicsKIRSTENHALSNÆSEnergyisakeyfactorineconomicdevelopmentandhumanwell-being,andenergyprovisionthereforehasmanyethicaldimensions.Furthermore,energyconsumptionhasmanyindirectimpactsontheenvironment.Theethicaldimensionsofenergyconsumptionincludevariouselements.Energygenerallysupportseconomicgrowth,andisakeyproductionfactorthatenhancestheproductivityoflabor,machineryandland.Atthesametime,energyisakeyelementinthewell-beingofindividualsandhouseholds;itprovideslighting,comfort,enter-tainmentservices,cooling,warming,andreducesmanualwork.Energyconsumptionalsohasinter-generationalimpactswhenexhaustibleresourcesareused.Theethicaldimensionsofenergyalsoincludevariousenvironmentalimpactsandrisks.Theycanbeintra-generationalimpactswherepollutionexternalitiesinfluenceotherpeople’sutilityfunction,and/orcanbeinter-generationalimpactsexemplifiedbyglobalwarmingthatemergesfromatmosphericgreenhousegasconcentrationswithuptoahundred-yearlifetime.Considerationsaboutenergyethicsrelatedtothesedimensionsdependontheequityparadigmapplied.Someoftheparadigmsthathavebeenappliedtotheassess-mentofenergyethicsare:Utilitarian-basedapproachestoequitythatfocusontheconsequencesofenergyconsumptiononwell-being.Thisapproachisthebackboneofwelfareeconomicsincludingtheuseofcost–benefitanalysisandvariousenergyeconomicmodels.Right-basedapproachesthatarebasedontheviewthatsocialactionsaretobejudgedonwhetherornottheyconformtoa“socialcontract”thatdefinesrightsanddutiesofindividualsinsociety.Capability-basedapproaches,asforexamplerepresentedbyAmartyaSenwhoarguesthatoptionsshouldbejudgednotonlyintermsoftheirconsequencesbutalsointermsofprocedures(Sen1999).Capabilitiesfocusontheextenttowhichindi-vidualscanchoosealifethatonehasreasontovalue.Inwhatfollowsweshallprovideanumberofexamplesoftheethicalconsequencesofenergyconsumptionandshowhowassessmentwilldependontheequityapproachtaken.422ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_073.qxd2/4/0913:43Page423energyethicsEnergyandEconomicGrowthEnergyisakeyproductionfactor,andempiricalresearchconfirmsthisrole(HalsnæsandGarg2006).Basedonthis,developingcountriestodayhaveenergysecurityintermsofreliablesupplyandlowcostsasamajorpolicypriority.However,energysecurityischallengedbythevolatilityofinternationaloilmarkets,andbyinternationalrequestsforcleanerenergysourcesinordertopreventglobalwarmingandotherenvironmentalimpacts.Theseinternationalrequestscouldimplydepressedenergysupplyandincreas-ingcostsifdomesticsourceslikecoalareexcluded.Seeninrelationtotheperspectiveofenergyaccessandaffordabilityofprivateconsumers,environmentalconcernscanbeinconflictwithenergydemand.Itishereimportanttorecognizethatinparticularlow-incomehouseholdspresentlyhavelowenergyaccess,sothereisaspecialequitydimensionrelatedtoaccess.Furthermore,energyexpendituresarearelativelyhighshareofhouseholdexpendituresoflow-incomefamilies,whichcanmakeitcontroversialtoincreaseenergycostsseenfromanequityperspective(HalsnæsandGarg2006).Autility-basedequityapproachwouldinthiscontextfocusonthewelfareconse-quencesofincreasedenergyconsumptionatmacro-economiclevelandinrelationtohouseholds.TheseconsequencescanbemeasuredintermsofGDPimpacts,andcostsandbenefitstohouseholdsandcompaniesofincreasedenergyconsumptionversusthecostsandbenefitsofenvironmentalimpacts.Altogether,thiswillprovideanestimate1ofwhetherthereisanetsocialdeficitorgainofincreasedenergyconsumption.Basedonthedistributionoftheconsequences,equityargumentscouldbeusedtosuggestthattheonesthatgainfromincreasedenergyconsumptionshouldcompensatethosethatsufferfromenvironmentalimpacts.Suchaprincipleissometimestalkedaboutas“thepolluterpaysprinciple.”Aright-basedapproachdifferentlycouldarguethatagivenenergyconsumptionpercapitaisabasicright,andpeoplelivingindevelopingcountriesshouldbeallowedtoincreasetheirconsumption,andtherebytheirpollution,uptoacertainlevelbeforetheyareforcedtotakeenvironmentaltargets.Severalsuggestionshavebeenforwardedalongthislineofthinkinginrelationtoglobalwarmingandenergyconsumptionincludingthebasicneedsapproachandequalpercapitaemissionrights.Intermsofcapabilities,energyaccesscanbeunderstoodasanoptionthatshouldbeavailabletoindividuals,buttheequityoutcomeoftheavailabilitywilldependonthecapabilityoftheindividualstousetheenergyandtheroleitplaysinhis/herwell-being.Amongotherfactors,thiswilldependontheeducation,possibilitiesforincomegenerationandemployment,andontheavailabilityofvariousenergy-consumingtechnologies.TransportationAccessEnergyintermsoftransportationisakeycomponentinthedemandformobilityincludingfreighttransport,marketaccess,transporttowork,andallsortsoftransportforprivatepurposes.Ifweherefocusonroadtransport,thereareanumberofequitydimensionsofthisactivity.423\n9781405146012_4_073.qxd2/4/0913:43Page424kirstenhalsnæsMobility,ononehand,initselfhasmanyequitydimensionsintermsofwhohasaccesstotransportandhowthisaccessisinfluencingvariousdimensionsofhumanwell-being.Atthesametime,transportationcausesmanyexternalitiesincludingenvironmentalimpactsaswellasaccidentsandnoise.Thosewhosufferfromtheseexternalitiesinmanycasesaredifferentfromthosewhoenjoythebenefitsoftrans-portation.ArecentstudyaboutairpollutionfromtransportationinNewDelhicon-cludesthatinparticularpoorfamiliessufferfromhighmortalityandmorbidityratesbecausetheyliveinheavilypollutedareasandhavepoorhealthconditions,thoughtheydonotbenefitfromthetransportthatiscausingthepollution(Garg2006).Onlyabout38percentofthehouseholdsownedcarsand/ormotorcyclesinDelhiandmostofthemarehigh-incomefamilies.Autility-basedapproachwouldherefocusonthenetsocialcostsandbenefitsofthemobilityversusexternalitiesfromtransport.Incasethereisanetsurplus,traditionalcost–benefitanalysiscanconcludethatthewinnerscancompensatethelosers,andtheactivitythereforehasapositiveimpactonsocialwelfare.Whetherthiscompensationactuallyisgiventotheloserswilloftenbeunderstoodasanequityissueorapoliticalissuethatisbeyondthescopeofcost–benefitanalysis.Differently,aright-basedapproachcouldarguebothfromtheperspectiveoftheusersofthetransportandfromthosethatareaffectedbyexternalities.Thefirstgroupcouldarguethattransportationisabasicright,andtheaffectedcouldarguethatcleanair,quietnessandlowrisksareabasicrightforpeoplelivinginagivenarea.Inthecasewherepropertyrightsarewelldefinedfortheenvironmentalquality,anagreementcanbeestablishedthroughbargainingamongtheinvolved(basedontheso-calledCoasePrinciple:Coase1960).Thecapabilityapproachinthiscasewouldsuggestthattransportationshouldbeavailableforallincomegroups,andtheycanchoosetousethisoptionifitservestheirneeds–sotheyarenotonlyallowedtousetransportationoptions;theyarealsoabletodoitbecauseitisaccessibleandaffordable.Alongthesamelinesofthinking,peopleshouldhaveaccesstosafeandcleanlivelihoodswithoutserioushealthimpactsfromtransportation.ExhaustibleResourcesEnergyconsumptioninfluencesthewelfareoffuturegenerationswhenitisbasedonfossilfuelsthatareexhaustible,sincetheywillhavelessenergyresourcesavailablethancurrentgenerations.Issueslikethatareaddressedintheveryrichinternationalliteratureonsustain-abledevelopment.Thisliteraturetoalargeextentemergedasareactiontothegrow-inginterestinconsideringtheinteractionsandpotentialconflictsbetweeneconomicdevelopmentandtheenvironment.SustainabledevelopmentwasdefinedbytheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopmentinthereportOurCommonFutureas“developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds”(WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment1987).424\n9781405146012_4_073.qxd2/4/0913:43Page425energyethicsAcoreelementintheeconomicliteratureonsustainabledevelopmentistheextenttowhichdifferentcapitalformscansubstituteeachother.Inthecaseofexhaustibleenergyresources,theissueistowhatextentfossilfuelsinthefuturecanbesubstitutedbyotherenergysources,andthecostsofthesealternatives.Inpracticetheequitydimen-sionofwelfareeconomicswillthensuggestthat,ifexhaustionoffossilfuelsimposeshigherenergycostsonfuturegenerations,non-decliningconsumptionpossibilitiescanbemaintainedifinvestmentsthatoffsettheexhaustionenablefutureavailabilityoflow-costoptions.Inthisway,currentgenerationsshouldtransferresourcestofuturegenerationsforequityreasons.Itismoredifficulttointerpretwhataright-basedequityapproachwouldrecommendhere.Itdoesnotmakemuchsensetosuggestthatallfuturegenerationsshouldhavetherighttouseexactlythesameamountoffossil-fuelresourcesascurrent,sincethatwillnotworkforinfinity.Finally,thecapabilityapproachcouldinthiscontextbeinterpretedasarecom-mendationofbothaccesstoenergyresourcesandaffordabilityincludingfossilfuelsandsubstitutesforcurrentandfuturegenerations.Note1.Socialcostsandbenefitsincludethevalueofallenvironmentalimpactsandaremeasuredfromthesociety’spointofview.ReferencesandFurtherReadingCoase,R.H.(1960).“TheProblemofSocialCost,”JournalofLawandEconomics,October1960.Garg,A.(2006).“Pre-equityEffectsofAncillaryBenefitsofClimateChangePolicies:ACaseStudyofHumanHealthImpactsofOutdoorAirPollutioninNewDelhi.”DraftpapersubmittedfortheWorldDevelopmentJournal,UNEPRisøCentre,Denmark.Halsnæs,K.andGarg,A.(2006).“AssessingtheRoleofEnergyinDevelopmentandClimatePolicies–ConceptualApproachandKeyIndicators.”DraftpapersubmittedfortheWorldDevelopmentJournal,UNEPRisøCentre,Denmark.Sen,Amartya(1999).DevelopmentasFreedom(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(1987).OurCommonFuture.425\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page42674EngineeringEthicsCHRISTELLEDIDIER1.TheBirthofaDisciplineEngineeringethicsisanacademicresearchfieldwhichcanbefirsttracedbacktotheUnitedStatesattheendofthe1970s.Inthisspecificcontext,thisdisciplinehastakenitsrootsinaformerethicalreflectiondevelopedbyprofessionalorganiza-tions.FollowingthemodeloftheBritishInstituteofCivilEngineers,theAmericanassociationsdraftednumerous“codesofethics”atthebeginningofthetwentiethcen-tury(AICEin1911,AiChEandAIEEin1912,ASMEandASCEin1914).Theyalsoattempted,unsuccessfully,toreachanagreementonacommontext.Inthemiddleofthe1970s,mostofthemconvergedonthecodeputforwardbytheEngineers’CouncilforProfessionalDevelopment(nowtheAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTechnology[ABET]).Theendofthe1970smarkedaturning-pointforengineeringethics,thankstothefinancialsupportoftheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF),whichallowedthecreationofteamsmadeupofphilosophersandengineers.Theseteamsachievedthefirstspecializedconferences(CSEPoftheIllinoisInstituteofTechnologyin1982:Weil1983),publishedmanuals(BaumandFlores1978,SchaubandPavlovic1983,MartinandSchinzinger1983–95,Harrisetal.1995,Whitbeck1998)andessays(Unger1994,Davis1998).Theyputonlinemanycodesofethics(CSEP)aswellascasestudiesforpedagogicaluse(MurdoughCenterofTexasA&MUniversity1992,CSESWesternMichiganUniversity1995).TheNSFalsocontributedtothecreationofawebsitewhichhasbecomeareferenceinthedomain(onlineethics.org).ThisdisciplinealsodevelopedoutsidetheUnitedStates.InCanada,whereprofessionalethicshastheforceoflaw,severalworkswerepublishedwiththesupportofthepro-fessionalassociations:theEngineers’OrderofQuebec(Racineetal.1991)andtheprovincialAssociationofOntario(AndrewsandKemper1999).InFrance(andinEuropemoregenerally),thepublicationsaremorerecentthaninNorthAmerica:Ethiqueindus-trielle(Didieretal.1998)isacollectionofclassicandoriginaltextsandcasestudiesselectedbyafellowshipofteachersandengineers.ItprolongsthereflectionconductedintheformofanessaybyanengineerandphilosopherwhohaddiscoveredthefieldofengineeringethicsintheUSA(HériardDubreuil1997).BooksarealsopublishedinotherEuropeancountriessuchasSpainandtheNetherlands.426ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page427engineeringethicsSeveralprojectssupportedbytheEuropeanCommission(SOCRATESprogram)haveledtotheorganizationofconferences(EuropeanEthicsNetworksince1996)andthepublicationofworks(GoujonandHériardDubreuil2001).OneofthechaptersofPhilosophyinEngineering(Christensenandal.2007),alsoanoutcomeofaSOCRATESprogram,explicitlyconcernsengineeringethics.Withregardtoresearch,thepresenceofactiveteams,particularlyintheNetherlandsatthe3TUEthicsandTechnologyCenter(www.ethicsandtechnology.eu),canbenoted.InFrance,themajorworkoftheCETSresearchersoftheInstitutCatholiqued’ArtsetMétiers(www.cets.groupe-icam.fr)bearsupontechnicaldemocracy.ThoseoftheethicsdepartmentoftheUniversitéCatholiquedeLille(www.univ-catholille.fr)alsotakeaninterestinthearticulationbetweenengineers’ethics,sustainabledevelopmentandcor-poratesocialresponsibility.InJapan,onecanfindevidenceoftheemergenceofthedisciplineinviewoftheparticipationofJunFudanoandothersscholarsininternationalconferencessuchastheoneorganizedin1999inClevelandbyCarolineWhitbeck,andmorerecentlytheWPE(WorkshoponPhilosophyandEngineering)organizedbytheDelftTechnologyUniversityintheNetherlands.TheworksofMartinandSchinzinger,Harrisetal.,andalsoWhitbeckweretranslatedinJapan.SeveralworkswerealsopublishedbyJapaneseauthors(SaitoandSakashita2001,Ohnukietal.2002,Nakamura2003).Concerningpublications,wecanquotethepresenceofarticlesonengineeringethicsinprofessionaljournalsofengineers(IEEETechnologyandSocietyMagazine)orrelatedtoengineers’training(ASEE’sJournalofEngineeringEducation,SEFI’sEuropeanJournalofEngineeringEducation,thejournaloftheJapaneseSocietyofEngineeringEducation)andinjournalsongeneralethics(JournalofBusinessEthics,EEN’sEthicalPerspective).Since1995,manyarticleshavebeenpublishedinScienceandEngineringEthics.Iftheexistenceofamoreandmorevisibleactivescientificcommunitycanbepointedout,engineeringethicsasanacademicdisciplineremainsunderestimated,criticizedorevendisputed.Technologiescanraisemoralproblemstothesociety(thisisnotmuchquestioned)withoutposinganytotheengineerswhocontributetotheirdevelopment.2.StatusandStakesofEngineeringEthics?2.1Professional,appliedethicsorsomethingelseIntheUnitedStates,engineeringethicsisoftenclassifiedamong“professionalethics.”ThegreatmajorityofNorthAmericanengineeringethicsmanualsexplainwhystu-dentsshouldrankengineersamongthe“professionals.”Infact,thisinsistenceonre-demonstrationshowsthedifficultyindefiningthestatusofengineers.Inordertounderstandthisdiscussion,itisnecessarytoplaceitinitslegalcontext:theTaft–Hartleylaw(1947).Thislawdistinguishes,intheUnitedStates,theattributesandtheprerog-ativesofthe“professions”byopposingthemtomere“occupations.”Neverthelesstheexistenceofethicalstakesboundtothepracticeoftheengineeringprofessionhasperhapsnolinkwiththefactthatengineeringisorisnota“profession.”ItwasalreadytheopinionofKarlPavlovic(1983),whoconsideredita“parasitic”question.InCanada(atleastinsomeregions),Spain,PortugalandItaly,whereengineersneedtoberegistered,thereisnodoubtthatengineersare“trueprofessionals.”InFranceandGermany,thequestiondoesnotarisebecauseitisnotrelevant:thereisneitheralegal427\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page428christelledidierstatusnoraspecificsocialrecognitionfortheso-called“professionals.”Thestakeofeng-ineers’deontologydiffersaccordingtotheculturalandlegalcontexts:inQuébecthecodeofethicshasalegalstatus,butnotintheUSA,theNetherlandsorFrance;thereisnocodeofethicsinSpainandItaly.Ethicalstakes,ontheotherhand,areveryoftensimilar.Toclassifyengineeringethicsamongthe“appliedethics”hasotherdrawbacks(whicharenotspecifictothisfield).Thisoptionimpliesthatitwouldbepossibletodefinebeforehand“the”moraltheoryorthecodearticlewhichisadvisabletouse.Italsosupposesthattheworkofethicsconsistsinsolvingproblems.Thisisthepositionofcertainauthors:accordingtoHarrisetal.(1995),itisaquestionofapplyingcodes;accordingtoMartinandSchinzinger(1983),itisamatterofapplyingmoraltheories.AsforMitcham(1997),heconsidersthattheroleofengineeringethicsisneithertopromoterespectforaprofessionalethicsandbehavioralrighteousnessnortoapplytheories.Itisareflectiveworkconcerningaspecificcontextof“humanactions”:engineer-ing.Thefocalpointofengineeringethicsisneitherastatus(a“profession”)noraknowledge(“techno/logy,”“engineeringsciences”),buta“practice,”aformofaction.2.2Whatarethespecifictraitsofthispractice?Engineeringpresentsthecharacteristicofbeingbothscientificandeconomic:thetestoftheengineers’workdoesnottakeplaceinthelaboratory,butonthemarket(Layton1986).Itisalsoacombinationbetweentheworkandthecapital(DowneyandLucena1995).Itisfinallya“situatedpractice,”bothtechnicalandnon-technical,whichcontributestobuildingupa“conceptualandpoliticalnetwork”(BijkerandLaw1992).Engineeringmustbeunderstoodasahybrid(socialandtechnical)formofactiondevelopinginacomplexcontext(andnotmerelycomplicated)wherepolitical,socialandeconomicstakesareintermingled.Althoughhavingsomethingtodowiththesciences,theengineer’sworkisnotthatofthescientificresearcher:engineeringisa“socialexperimentation”(MartinandSchinzinger1983).Theproductofengineeringisnotknowledge,butanobjectwhichtransformstheworld:“whensciencetakestheworldintoitslaboratory,engineeringtakestheworldforalaboratory”(Mitcham1997:138).Engineeringgeneratesallkindsofrisks:social,sanitary,political,environmental,economic.Itischaracterizedbypotentialpoweranditsuncertainimpactsonitsnaturalandhumanenvironment,todayaswellasinthefuture.Finally,engineeringisnotasimpleresolutionofproblems:itisanartwhichrequiresimaginationandcreativity(Davis1998).Theactivityofindustrialdesignisconsideredbymostresearchersasthecentralandmostspecificengineeringact.Theactivityofdesignistheprocessbywhichideas,objectivesorfunctionstakeshapeintheplansforimplementinganobject,asystemoraservice,aimingatattainingtheobjectiveorperformingthisfunction.2.3EachofthesecharacteristicsraisesethicalquestionsComplexity:wherearethespacesforfreedomintheseintermingleddecisions?Whatarethespaceswhereethicalactsremainpossible?Howtoassumearesponsibilitythatisdilutedinthemass?Howtodefinethelimitsofhumanresponsibilitiesinaction?428\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page429engineeringethicsImpactandirreversibility:onwhatgroundsshouldweaccepttheexistenceofrisksresultingfromthemultiple“socialexperimentations”whichsurroundus?Whocanandwhomustdecideonit?Whatisasociallyandmorallyacceptablerisk?Design:howtoestimatethe“ethicality”ofthecreativeactswhichareattheheartofengineeringandconsistintransformingideasintoforms,objects,programs,processes?Howarevaluesandstandardsembodiedintheseobjects,programsandprocesses?3.TheMoralResponsibilityofEngineersEngineeringdesignatesatypeofactionwhichtakesplaceinacomplexsocialandtechnicalnetwork,jeopardizingmultipleanimateandinanimatebeingsandconsist-ingfundamentallyintransformingideasintoconcreteforms.Thedesigningactentailsaspecificresponsibilityofitsauthorsbecausesocietyisdependentonengineersinthisdomain.Theintensityofthisresponsibilityisproportionaltothenumberofbeingswhoseexistence,health,qualityoflife–evenlifeexpectation–areatstake.Certainly,theengineers’obligationisdifficulttoapprehendowingtotheengineer-ingcontext.DennisThompson(1980)gavethenameof“problemofmanyhands”tothephenomenonofdilutionoftheindividualresponsibilityinlargeorganizationswhereitisdifficulttoidentifywhoismorallyresponsible,becausemanydifferentpersonsinvariousmannerscontributetothedecisions.Neverthelessengineers,owingtotheirtraining,theirmissionandtheirpositioninthesocialspace,contributecollectivelytothecreationofphenomenawhoseeffectsonthesocialandnaturalenvironmentareimportant,andsometimesirreversible.Todrawthebordersoftheengineers’moralresponsibilityamountstoraisingthreequestions:Whatistheirspecificknowledge?Whataretheirconcrete“degreesoffree-dom”?Whatistheirmorallegitimacytotakeintoaccounttheengineeringethicalstakeswithintheframeworkoftheirprofessionalactivities?3.1TheknowledgeofengineersOnecannotbeheldresponsibleforwhatonedoesnotknow,butsomegapsinknow-ledgearemoremorallyacceptablethanothers.Theimpactsoftechnologiesarepartiallyuncertain.Manymanufacturersareworriedabouttheextravagantpleafora“precautionaryprinciple”whichwouldconsistinrestraininganyinnovationforfearofpossibleundesirableconsequences.Engineershavenovocationtobetransformedintoexpertsinethics.Ontheotherhand,theyprobablyhavethemoralobligationnottobeignorantofthedebatesuponthecontroversiesarousedbytheprojectsinwhichtheytakepart.Theyprob-ablyhavetheobligationtobeamongthebest-informedoftheirfellowcitizens.Moregenerally,theycanbeexpectedtohaveanopiniononthegoalsofthecompanyemployingthem.Finally,giventheintrinsicallyriskynatureofengineering,theycanalsobeexpectedtohaveanopinionontheimportantissuesraisedbyour“risksociety”:Arethepar-tiesexposedvolunteeringandproperlyinformed?Whataresocialprofitsworthinviewoftheresultingsocialcosts?Isthedistributionofrisksfair?429\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page430christelledidier3.2Theengineers’powerAnotherreasonforclaimingthatthereisnoplaceforethicsinengineeringpracticerestsuponthefactthattheengineers’statusasemployeeswouldnotgivethemenoughfreedom.Thisold-timeargumentisevoked,eithertostatethat,onprinciple,theposi-tionofemployeeisincompatiblewiththepracticeofaprofessionalethics,forlackofautonomy,ortosaythatitisoftentrueinpractice.(Nader1967,Noble1979).Theworkingcontextofengineersisnearlyalwaysalargecompanyoranorgan-izationworkingforoneorseveralbigcompanies.Theproblemof“manyhands”canleadtothedevelopmentofafeelingofimpunity.Theresponsibilitydilutionisallthemorelikelyasthereisnotalwaysacontinuityintheprojects.Thedecisionsaresometimespassedonfromoneindividualtoanotheroccupyingthesamepostsuccessively.Engineersarenotalwaystheretowitnessandassumetheconsequencesofthedecisionsinwhichtheytookpart....Moreover,certainchoiceshaverepercussionsinnewtimescales.Neverthelessengineerscanbeexpectedtofeelaccountablefortheiractivities,tofeelconcernedeveniftheyarenotliable,andnottobenefitfromthedifficulttraceabilityofthedecisionstoloseinterestinthe(short-andlong-term)consequencesoftheirprofessionalwork.Thespaceoffreedomwithinorganizationsemployingengineersmaynotbesonarrow.Therealpowerofengineers,whichbindstheirmoralresponsibility,istobelookedforbeyonditsmostvisibleaspects,i.e.thesetofauthorityrelations.WiebeBijkerandJohnLawcompareengineersto“socialactivists”becausetheydesignthesocietiesandorganizationssothattheyadapttomachines.LangdonWinner(1989)observedthattheconceptionofnuclearpowerstationshadimplicationsontheverystructureofsocieties,onsocialrolesandtheirdistribution.3.3ThelegitimacyofengineersTheAmericanengineerandessayistSamuelFlormanisveryskepticalabouttheobligationimposedonengineers,throughthemostrecentAmericancodesofethics,toprotectthepublicfromtheharmfuleffectsoftechnicaldevelopments,particularlyinthedomainsofhygiene,health,safetyanddamagetotheenvironment.Accordingtohim,engineersarenomorequalifiedthannovelists,dentistsorphilosopherstodeterminewhatitisadvisabletodo(Florman1987:30).“Afeastistobeappreciatedbytheguest,notbythecook,”alreadysaidAristotle(Politics,bk3).Ifalltheactors–technical,economic,politicalorevensocial–havearoletoplayintechnicaldevelopment,engineersstandinapositionwhichgeneratesquitespecificobligations.Atthebeginningofthedevelopmentofanynewdevice,thereisawidepaletteofpossibletechnologicalchoices,eachrespondingtotheinterestsofoneorseveralgroupsconcerned(thecontractors,theircustomers,theengineers,thepoliticalleaders).Thedefinitionoftheoptionwhichwillberetainedistheobjectofanegotiationbetweenthesegroups.Intheend,thetechnologychosenbecomesa“blackbox.”Engineershavenolegitimacytodecidefortheothersbutstandinthistechnicaldeadangle.Theydonotknoweverything,butsometimesknowthingsthattheyaretheonlyonestoknow.430\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page431engineeringethicsOneoftheirobligationsperhapswillbeinextremecasestobewhistleblowers.Inamoretrivialway,societyisentitledtoexpectthemtotakeanactivepartinthedebatesontechnicalchoicesinthediversescaleswheretheytakeplace,insideaswellasoutsidethecompanieswhichemploythem.Therearenumerousplaceswheretheengineers’wordsareabsent,thoughquitejustifiable,besidethoseofother“stakeholders”oftechnicaldevelopment.ReferencesandFurtherReadingAndrews,GordonC.andKemper,JohnD.(1999).CanadianProfessionalEngineeringPracticeandEthics,2ndedn(Scarborough,Ont.:NelsonThomsonLearning).Baum,RobertJ.andFlores,Albert(eds)(1978).EthicalProblemsinEngineering(Troy,N.Y.:CenterfortheStudyoftheHumanDimensionofScienceandTechnology,RensselaerPolytechnicUniversity).Bijker,WiebeE.andLaw,John(eds)(1992).ShapingTechnology/BuldingSociety:StudiesinSocio-technicalChange(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Christensen,SteenHildegard,Meganck,MartinandDelahousse,Bernard(eds)(2007).PhilosophyinEngineering(Aarhus:Academia).Davis,Michael(1998).ThinkinglikeanEngineer:StudyintheEthicsofaProfession(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Didier,Christelle(2008).Penserl’éthiquedesingénieurs(Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance).Didier,Christelle,Gireau-Geneaux,AnnieandHériardDubreuil,Bertrand(eds)(1998).Ethiqueindustrielle:Textespourundébat(Brussels:DeBoeckUniversité).Downey,GaryLeeandLucena,Juan(1995).“EngineeringStudies,”inSheilaJasanoff,GeraldE.Markle,JamesC.PetersonandTrevorPinch(eds),HandbookofSciencesandTechnologicalStudies(ThousandOaks,Calif.:Sage),pp.168–88.Florman,SamuelC.(1987).TheCivilizedEngineer(NewYork:StMartin’sPress).Goujon,PhilippeandHériardDubreuil,Bertrand(eds)(2001).TechnologyandEthics:AEuropeanQuestforResponsibleEngineering(Brussels:Peeters).Harris,CharlesE.Jr,Pritchard,MichaelS.andRabins,MichaelJ.(1995).EngineeringEthics:ConceptsandCases(Belmont,Calif.:Wadsworth).HériardDubreuil,Bertrand(1997).Imaginairetechniqueetéthiquesociale:Essaisurlemétierd’ingénieur(Brussels:DeBoeckUniversité).Layton,EdwinT.(1986).TheRevoltoftheEngineers,2ndedn(Baltimore,Md./London:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress).Martin,MikeW.andSchinzinger,Roland(1983).EthicsinEngineering(NewYork:McGraw-Hill);2ndedn1995.Mitcham,Carl(1997).ThinkingEthicsinTechnology:HennebachLectures,1995–1996(Golden,Colo.:ColoradoSchoolofMines).Nader,Ralph(1967).“TheEngineer’sProfessionalRole:Universities,CorporationsandPro-fessionalSocieties,”EngineeringEducation(Février):450–7.Nakamura,Shuzo(2003).PracticalEngineeringEthics:Short,EasyandUseful(Kyoto:Kagaku-dojin).Noble,David(1979).AmericabyDesign,2ndedn(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Ohnuki,T.,Sakashita,K.andSeguchi,M.(2002).KougakuRinrinoJouken[EngineeringEthics:PremisesandPerspectives](Kyoto:KoyoShyobo).Pavlovic,Karl(1983).“AutonomyandObligations:IsThereanEngineeringEthics?,”inJamesSchaubandKarlPavlovic(eds),EngineeringProfessionalismandEthics(NewYork:JohnWiley),pp.223–32.431\n9781405146012_4_074.qxd2/4/0913:44Page432christelledidierRacine,Louis,Legault,GeorgesA.andBégin,Luc(1991).Ethiqueetingénierie(Montreal:McGraw-Hill).Saito,N.andSakashita,Koji(2001).Hajimete-no-Kougakurinri[EngineeringEthicsforBeginners](Tokyo:Showa-do).Schaub,JamesandPavlovic,Karl(1983).EngineeringProfessionalismandEthics(NewYork:JohnWiley).Thompson,DennisF.(1980).“MoralResponsibilityofPublicOfficials:TheProblemofManyHands,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,74(4):905–16.Unger,StephenH.(1994).ControllingTechnology:EthicsandtheResponsibleEngineer,2ndedn(NewYork:JohnWiley).Weil,Vivian(ed.)(1983).BeyondWhistleblowing:DefiningEngineersResponsibilities.ProceedingsoftheSecondNationalConferenceonEthicsinEngineering,CSEP,Chicago,March1982.Whitbeck,Caroline(1998).EthicsinEngineeringPracticeandResearch(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Winner,Langdon(1989).TheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchfortheLimitsintheAgeofHighTechnology(Chicago,Ill./London:UniversityofChicagoPress).AbbreviationsAICEAmericanInstituteofConsultingEngineersAIChEAmericanInstituteofChemicalEngineersAIEEAmericanInstituteofElectricalEngineersASCEAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineersASEEAmericanSocietyforEngineeringEducationASMEAmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineersCSEPCenterfortheStudyofEthicsintheProfessionsCSESCenterfortheStudyofEthicsinSocietyEENEuropeanEthicsNetworkIEEEInstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineersJSEEJapaneseSocietyforEngineeringEducationNSFNationalScienceFoundationSEFISociétéEuropéennepourlaFormationdesIngénieurs432\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page43375EnvironmentalEthicsTHOMASSØBIRKPETERSEN1.IntroductionOuruseoftechnologyhaschangedandcontinuestochangethenaturalenvironment.Whiletechnology–medicine,transportationtechnologiesandinformationtechnologyandsoon–canhelpustoprosper,thereisalsonodoubtthattheproductionanduseoftechnologycanhaveanegativeimpactontheenvironmentandthereforeonus.Thepollutionofrivers,oceansandtheairposesanimmediatethreattothehealthofhumans;andthebuild-upofgreenhousegases,depletionoftheozonelayer,anddeforestationmayeachposeathreat,notonlytothehealthofhumans,butalsotothesurvivalofthehumanspecies.Ontheotherhand,innovationwithintechnologycanalsobeusedtoremoveormitigatesomeoftheseman-madethreats,andtominimizetheimpactofsomenon-man-madethreatssuchashugemeteors,volcanoes,earthquakes,tsunamisanddiseases.Ourimpactonthenaturalenvironment,andthewayinwhichthisaffectshumans,otheranimalsandplants,raisesimportantethicalquestions.Thesequestions,whichareoftendealtwithundertheheadingofenvironmentalethics,include:Ishumanwelfareallthatmattersmorallywhenweevaluate,say,deforestationortheeliminationofaspecies?Shouldweaimtodecreasethenumberofhumansonourplanetinordertomakeotherspeciesflourish?Shouldacompanybeallowedtoopenamineinanationalpark?Whatoughtwetodoaboutglobalwarming?Therelevanceofenvironmentalethicsisobvious.Sincethe1960ssuchethicshavehadamoreorlessstrongfootholdinmostsocieties.Theyarenowpartofthe1internationalpoliticalagenda,theKyototreatybeingaclearexamplehere.Almosteverypoliticalpartyandlargecompanyhasformulatedpoliciesontreatmentofthe2naturalenvironment.Furthermore,journalsdedicatedtoenvironmentalethicshave3emerged,ashaveNGOslikeGreenpeaceandEarthFirst.Environmentalethicsisamultidisciplinaryactivity.Itdrawsonexpertiseinphysics,biology,economics,law,sociology,psychologyandphilosophy.Roughlyspeaking,wecandistinguishbetweendescriptiveandnormativeenvironmentalethics.Thedescrip-tiveaimistodescribeandexplainwhatattitudespeoplehavetoquestionslikethose4mentionedabove.Thispartisusuallyundertakenbysociologistsandanthropologists.5Thenormativeaimistoassesscriticallytheattitudespeoplehaveontheseissues.ThisACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks433©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page434thomassøbirkpetersentaskdependsonscientificknowledgeandphilosophicalconsiderationsaboutlogic,valuetheory,normativeethicaltheoryandtheclarificationofcentralconceptslikethoseofwelfare,valueandnature.InlinewiththetitleofthisCompanion,thefocusinthis6entrywillbeonsomeofthephilosophicalperspectivesonenvironmentalethics.Inwhatfollows,then,“environmentalethics”referstodiscussionsofhowhumansought7totreatthebuiltandnaturalenvironment.2.TheAxiologyofEnvironmentalEthicsAmongphilosophersandenvironmentalists,muchdiscussionhascenteredontheproblemofwhatmattersmorallyinevaluatingactswithanimpactontheenviron-ment.Isitonlythehumansthatmatter,orisitalsoothersentientbeings?Alternatively,shouldmoralconcernbeextendedtoalllivingthingsandperhapsalsotomountainsorevenecosystems?Thesequestionsconcernwhatwecancalltheaxiology(orvaluetheory)ofenvironmentalethics.Atfirstglance,thisendeavormayseemtobeofpurelyacademicinterest.Butitisnot.One’sviewofwhatmattersmorallyhasacriticalbearingonthewayinwhichonewillargueindiscussionsabouttheethicalaspectsofpollution,globalwarmingortheextinctionofspecies.Tosomeextent,itaffectstheconclusionsonewillreach.Forinstance,ifonebelievesthatalllivingthingshavevalueinthemselves,anormativediscussionaboutthepreservationofaforestwillnotbewhollycontingentonwhateffectpreservation(ornon-preservation)canbeexpectedtohaveonhumanwelfare.Theaxiologicalliteraturecontainsagreatvarietyofpositions,butthesefallunderthreegeneralheadings:anthropocentrism,sentientismandecologism.Accordingto89anthropocentrism(orhuman-centeredethics),onlyhumanshaveintrinsicvalue.Thismeansthathumansshouldnotcaredirectlyaboutnon-humanentities,althoughtheymaycareifthiswillfurthertheirowninterests(e.g.inrespectofwelfareorrights).Thusanthropocentristsareonlyconcernedwiththenon-humanpartofnatureinaninstrumentalway:thepollutionofariverisonlyofmoralconcernifitsetsbacktheinterestsofhumans;so,ifthefishinariverdie,thatisonlymorallyproblematicifpeoplearetherebyharmedinsomeway–e.g.byeatingthem.Note,however,thatitiswrongtoassumethatanthropocentrismreadilyjustifiesthepollutionofriversorthedestructionofwilderness–atanyrate,aslongasweagree(aswesurelyshould)thatwildernesscanbringhumansmanydeep,lastingandwonderfulexperiences.Acentralchallengeforanthropocentrismistogiveaconvincinganswertothequestion:Whyarehumansallthatmatter?Oneansweristosaythathumanwelfareisaloneinhavingvalueinitselfbecausehumanshaveamorallyrelevantfeaturethatdifferentiateshumansfromotherbeings.Thatfeaturemightberationality.Thechallengestothiskindofansweraremany.Forinstance,itfollowsfromthisviewthathumanswhoarenotrational(newborninfants,peoplewithdementia,etc.)donothavemoralvalueinthemselves.Furthermore,someanimals,likeapesorhorses,seemtobemorerationalthanaone-day-oldinfant,sowhynotincludetheseanimals?Anotheransweristosaythatonlyhumanshavevalueinthemselves,becausetheybelongtothespeciesHomosapiens.Butthisseemslikeaformofunjustifieddiscrimina-tion.Ifhumanwelfare,say,iswhatmattersmorally,thenwhatissospecialabouthumans434\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page435environmentalethicsthatweshouldonlytakethewelfareofhumansintoaccount?Whynotincludeanimals10thathavetheneurophysiologicalcapacitytoexperiencewelfare?Considerationslikethishaveledsometoadoptsentientism,whichclaimsthatsentientbeingscapableof11enjoyingwelfare(andtheopposite)aretheonlysubjectsthathaveintrinsicmoralworth.Whenitcomestothevalueofthenon-sentientpartofnature,sentientismcoincideswithanthropocentrism,asbothpositionsimplythatthenon-sentientpartofnatureonlyhasinstrumentalvalue.Someobjectionstosentientismaskhowweknowthatanimalshavewelfareand,inkeepingwithonewayofdefiningwelfare,areabletofeelpleasureandpain.But,althoughwecannotdirectlyexperiencethepainorpleasureofothers,includingotheranimals,wecanobservewhethertheybehaveinawaythatisevidenceofpainorpleasure.Alternatively,fromourscientificknowledgeofthenervoussystemwecaninferthatallmammalsandbirdswithanervoussystemlikeourscanexperiencepleasureandpain.Aswehavenoreasontoclaimthatplantscanfeelpain,humanshave,accord-12ingtothesentientist,nodirectmoralobligationstowardplants.Othershavearguedthatthenotionofharmtoanentityisnotcapturedproperlybyassumingthattheentityinquestionmusthavethecapacitytoexperiencepainorareducedlevelofpleasure.Onthisview,itmakesperfectsensetoclaimthataplantcanbeharmedif,say,throughpollutionorvandalismitispreventedfromflourishingaccordingtoits13telos(Greektelos=goal)oritspotentialforbiologicaldevelopment.Dissatisfactionwithanthropocentrismandsentientismhasledtoavarietyofposi-tionsfallingunderthegeneralheading“ecologism.”Ecologistsbelievethat,apartfromhumansandanimals,weshouldalsobeconcernedwithnatureforitsownsake.Biocentrism(life-centredethics)impliesthatonlylivingorganismshaveinherent14value.Ecocentrism(Earth-centredethics)implies,roughlyspeaking,thatentities15suchasrainforests,riversandmountainshaveinherentvalue.Someecocentristsbelieve16thatthewholebiospherehasvalue.Aseriouschallengeforecologistsistoinfer,inaplausibleway,fromthesensible-lookingideathattreesandecosystemscanhavesetbacksaccordingtotheirnaturalpotentialfordevelopment(thus,inonesense,beingharmed)totheclaimthattheyhaveintrinsicmoralvalue.Byanalogy,mycomputercanbreakdown,andanaero-planecancrash,andinthatsensetheycanbesaidtohavebeenharmed.Butwoulditfollowfromtheseconsiderationsthatthecomputerortheaeroplanehasvalueinitself?Elaboratingthischallenge,wemightaddthatitisnotatalleasytoknowwhenapartofnaturehasbeenharmed.Isgrassharmedwhenalawnismowed?Ifthegrassisharmed,becauseithasvalueinitself,doesitfollowthatwehaveamoralreasonnottomowthelawn?Andhow,inanycase,coulditbearguedthatonlynaturalentitieshavemoralvalueinthemselves?Whataboutartifactslikepaperclipsorpoolsofspiltmilk?Cantheyalsobeharmed?Again,ifwesaythattheycan,dowehaveamoralreasonnottoharm(bendoutofshape?)paperclips?3.NormativeTheoriesandEnvironmentalEthicsInordertohaveafullydevelopedenvironmentalethics,itisnecessarytocombineone’spreferredaxiologywithanormativetheorythattellsushowtoact.Foraxiology435\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page436thomassøbirkpetersenisconcernedwithwhatkindsofthingareofvalue,andwhy,andnot,atleastdirectly,withhowweoughttoact.Inotherwords,axiologypointstokindsofthingsthatwehaveamoralreasontobeconcernedabout,butithasnothingtoofferonthequestionhowweoughttoactallthingsconsidered.And,althoughitisnotalwaysobvious,peoplewhoengageinnormativedebateabouttheenvironmentoftenbasetheirreasoningonsomekindofnormativetheorywhich,inmoregeneralterms,tellsushowweoughttoact.Normativetheoriesareusuallydividedintothreecategories:consequentialism,deontologyandvirtueethics.Consequentialismistheviewthatanagentismorallyrequiredtoperformtheactwiththebestconsequences.Manyconsequentialistsareutilitarians.Theyfocusonwelfareandinsistthatthebestcon-sequencesarethosecontainingmaximumwelfare.Butconsequentialismcanbe17combinedwithanyoftheaxiologiesmentionedabove.Abiocentricconsequentialistcould,forexample,claimthatthebestoutcomeofanactionorpolicyistheoneinwhichthereisthemostfullyrealizedequality(ofpotentialtoflourish)betweenhumansand18otherlivingcreatures.Deontology,ontheotherhand,istheviewthatcertaintypesofact(e.g.harminginnocentsor,perhaps,renderingaspeciesextinct)aremorallyforbiddenevenwhentheperformanceofthoseactswouldbringaboutthebestconsequences.Inprinciple,deontologistscandisagreeoverwhetherthedeonticrulesfunctionasabsoluteprohibi-19tionsoraresomewhatweakerandcanbebrokenifenoughisatstake.Theycanalso,ofcourse,disputethekindsofactionthataremorallyforbidden.And,likeconsequen-tialism,deontologycanbecombinedwithanyoftheaxiologiessketchedabove.Intheliteratureonenvironmentalethics,deontologyhasbeencombinedwithanthro-2021pocentrismandwithbiocentrism.Abiocentricdeontologistmightclaimthatwearemorallyforbiddenfromkillinglivingorganismsintentionally.Invirtuetheory,thefocusisnotsomuchonwhatkindsofactareright,butonwhatavirtuouspersonwoulddo.Inenvironmentalethics,thevirtueethicistmightclaimthatthemoralevaluationofsomethinglikedeforestationcannotbebasedexclusivelyonconsiderationofwhatconsequencesthatwouldhave,oronthequestionwhetherthereisaconstraintonactswhichleadtodeforestation.Insteadwemustlookatthecharacterofthepersonwhoperformstheact.Ifdeforestationisaresultofvandalismorviciousegoism,itisthekindofactionavirtuouspersonwouldnotengagein.Ecofeminismcanbeinterpretedasakindofenvironmentalvirtueethics.Onecanseethiswhenitsdefenderssuggestthatourdespoliationoftheenvironmentpointsupproblemswith“malecharacter,”withitstendencytodominate,andwithitslimited22capacityforcaringandappreciationoftheaestheticbeautyofnature.Thisoverviewoftheethicalpositionsavailableinenvironmentalethicswill,Ihope,makeiteasiertounderstandwhypeopledisagreeovertheethicsoftheenviron-ment.Amajorsourceofdisagreementis,ofcourse,scientificdisputeoverempiricalfacts–e.g.thecausesandconsequencesofozonedepletion.Isdepletionoftheozonelayercausedbyhumanactivity,orjustpartofanaturalprocessinwhichhumanemissionofcarbondioxidedoesnotmatteratall?But,asphilosophicaldiscussioninenvironmentalethicshasshown,thereisplentyofroomforethicaldebateevenifpeopleagreeontherelevantempiricaldata.Thoseengagedwithenvironmentalissuesmightbenefit,therefore,fromraisedawarenessoftheiraxiologicalandnormativecommitments.Thesetendtobelessapparentthanthescience,andinenvironmental436\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page437environmentalethicsmatters,aselsewhere,thefirststeptowardafruitfuldialogueisusuallytolocatethesourceofdisagreement.Notes1.TheKyototreatyisanagreementreachedundertheUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(UNFCCC).The164countries(asofJuly2006)whichhaveratifiedtheKyotoProtocolare,amongotherthings,committedtoreducingtheiremissionsofcarbondioxideandfiveothergreenhousegases,ortoengageinemissiontradingiftheymaintainorincreaseemissionsofthesegases.Fordetailsoftheprotocol,see:http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.htmlorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol2.Consult,e.g.,theUKLabourPartyofficialwebsitehttp://www.labour.org.uk/environ-ment04.See,e.g.,www.shell.com(Shell’sofficialwebsite)forexamplesoftheirviewsonenvironmentalissues.3.e.g.EnvironmentalEthics,EnvironmentalValuesandJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics.4.See,e.g.,W.S.Kempton,J.M.BosterJ.A.Hartley(1997)EnvironmentalValuesinAmericanCulture(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1997).5.See,e.g.,A.LightandH.Rolston(eds),EnvironmentalEthics:AnAnthology(Oxford:Blackwell,2002),orR.Elliot(ed.),EnvironmentalEthics(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).6.Foranexcellentintroductiontothedebateaboutthescopeanddifferentvarietiesofenvir-onmentalethics,seeA.Light,“EnvironmentalEthics,”inR.G.FreyandC.H.Wellman(eds),ACompaniontoAppliedEthics(Oxford:Blackwell,2003),pp.633–49.7.Foradefenceoftheviewthatcitiesandnotonlythenon-builtpartoftheenvironmentshouldfallundertheheadingofenvironmentalethics,seeA.Light,“UrbanEcologicalCitizenship,”JournalofSocialPhilosophy,vol.34(2003),no.1,pp.44–63.8.AnthropocentrismisacentralpartofwesternChristianthinking:seeGenesis1:26–8.ModernadherentsofanthropcentrismincludeL.Ferry,TheNewEcologicalOrder(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995),originallypublishedasLenouvelorderécologique:L’arbre,l’animaletl’homme(Paris:BernardGrasset,1992)andR.G.Frey,Rights,KillingandSuffering(Oxford:Blackwell,1983).9.Animportantissuethatdividesanthropocentrists(aswellassentientists)isthemoralstatusoffuturegenerations.Shouldthewelfareoffuturegenerationsbetakenintoaccountinenvironmentalethicsand,ifso,how?Shouldtheirwelfarebesubjecttoakindofdiscountrate?Foradiscussionofthesequestions,seeD.Parfit,ReasonsandPersons(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1984),andJ.Broome,CountingtheCostofGlobalWarming(Newbury:TheWhiteHorsePress,1992).10.Forcriticismofanthropocentrism,seee.g.P.Singer,“EqualityforAnimals?,”inPracticalEthics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993).11.See,e.g.,P.Singer,“EnvironmentalEthics,”inibid.12.ibid.13.See,e.g.,R.Attfield,“TheGoodofTrees,”JournalofValueInquiry,vol.15(1981),pp.35–54andP.Taylor,RespectforNature(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986).14.InfluentialbiocentristsincludeTaylor,RespectforNature,andA.Schweitzer,CivilisationandEthics,2ndedn(1929).15.See,e.g.,Elliot“FakingNature,”inEnvironmentalEthics.437\n9781405146012_4_075.qxd2/4/0913:44Page438thomassøbirkpetersen16.See,e.g.,J.Lovelock,Gaia:ANewLookatLifeonEarth(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1978).17.Thisalsogoesforutilitarianism!See,e.g.,T.Sprigge’sutilitariandefenceofecocentrismin“AreThereIntrinsicValuesinNature?,”JournalforAppliedPhilosophy,vol.4(1987),no.1,pp.21–8;reprintedinB.AlmondD.H.Hill(eds),AppliedPhilosophy:MoralsandMetaphysicsinContemporaryDebate(London/NewYork,Routledge,1991),pp.37–44.18.Themovementknownas“leftbiocentrism”is,asfarasIcansee,aconsequentialistpositionwhich,unlikeutilitarianism,saysthatweoughttobeconcernedaboutthedistributionofwhatisvaluable.ForreferencestoliteratureonleftbiocentrismseeP.Curry(2006)EcologicalEthics:AnIntroduction(Caambridge:PolityPress,2006).19.TheGermanphilosopherImmanuelKantisawell-knowndefenderofthisposition:seehisGrundlegungzurMetaphysikderSitten,1785.20.See,e.g.,Ferry.21.See,e.g.,Taylor.22.Foranexampleofecofeminism,seeV.Plumwood,“Nature,Self,andGender:Feminism,EnvironmentalPhilosophy,andtheCritiqueofRationalism,”inElliot(ed.)EnviromentalEthics.438\n9781405146012_4_076.qxd2/4/0914:05Page43976FoodEthicsDAVIDM.KAPLANFoodethicsisabranchofappliedethicsthatdealswithawiderangeofissuesrelatedtotheproduction,distributionandconsumptionoffood.Inadditiontoprovidingnourishment,foodhasrelevanceforthemoralcharacterofourlives,forourobliga-tionstoothers,toanimalsandtonaturalenvironments.Asfood-manufacturingbecomesincreasinglyindustrialized,foodandfoodethicsalsobecomeincreasinglyboundupwithfoodscienceandtechnology.Severalissueshighlightthemoraldimensionsoffood,scienceandtechnology,andpolicy.FoodSafetyNearly2millionpeopledieeachyear,mostlychildren,fromfood-andwater-bornedis-easesasaresultofunsafefoodproduction,processing,preparationanddistribution.Technologiesplayapivotalroleinensuringsafety.Theyareneededtokeepfoodandwaterclean,tocookfoodthoroughly,tokeepfoodatsafetemperature,toextendshelflife,andreducespoilageandcontamination.Foodsafetyisimportantforensuringthenutritionalqualityoffood,preventingfood-bornedisease,healthhazards,andforpreventingmalnutritionandstarvation.Properfoodsafetymanagementisvitaltopub-lichealth,humanwelfareandeconomicdevelopment.Theresponsibilityforensuringfoodsafetyissharednotonlybyproducersandconsumersbutalsobypolicy-makinginstitutions.Local,nationalandinternationalinstitutionscanplayacrucialrolebysettingregulatoryprocessesthatensurefoodsafetystandardsaremet.Althoughsomecontendthatfree-marketmechanismscanensurepublichealthandconsumerprotection,mostagreethatfoodsafetyrequiresatleastsomeregulatoryregimes.Policy-makersmustbalancecompetingneeds,interestsandvaluesoffoodproducers,distributorsandconsumersusingscientificknowledge,technologies,andethicaljudgments.FoodProcessingAlmosteverythinghumanseathasbeenprocessedinsomewayusingtechnologiesandtechniquestoalterrawingredientsoranimalsintofood.Food-processingtechniquesACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks439©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_076.qxd2/4/0914:05Page440davidm.kaplanincludecooking,drying,fermenting,slicing,peelingandbutchering.Moretechno-logicallycomplexprocessingincludespasteurizing,canning,freezing,irradiatingandartificiallysweetening.Someprocessedfoodinvolvesfoodadditives,substancesdesignedtohelppreventspoilageorcontamination,ortomakefoodlookandtastebetter.Addi-tivesarethingslikeflavorenhancers(MSG),artificialcolorsandflavors,preservatives,stabilizers,sulfitesandnitrates.Someprocessedfoodsincludedietarysupplements,addi-tionalingredientswithnutritionalproperties,suchasvitamins,minerals,proteins,herbs,enzymesorextracts.Thebenefitsoffood-processingincludeimprovedpreservation,increaseddistributionpotential,fortification,consumerchoice,andconvenience.Theharmsandrisksoftenassociatedwithprocessedfoodarereducednutritionalvalueandadversehealtheffects.Heavilyprocessedfoodswith(chemical)artificialingredientsandhigh-fructosecornsyrup,likecarbonatedbeveragesandfastfood,havebeenlinkedtotheriseinobesity,typeIIdiabetes,andheartdisease.Ethicalquestionsaboutprocessedfoodhingeonconsumersovereigntyandtherighttochoose,governmentregulationandthedutytoprotect,andcorporateresponsibilityandliability.GeneticallyModifiedFoodGeneticallymodified(GM)foodsareplantsandanimalsthathavebeenalteredusingrecombinantDNAtechnologywhichcombinesDNAmoleculesfromdifferentsourcesintoasinglemolecule.Thepurposeofgeneticmodificationistoproducenewandusefultraitsotherwiseunattainablethroughconventionaltechniques.Themostcom-mon(98percent)GMfoodsarecorn,soy,canola,andcottonseedoil.Mostoftenfoodsaregeneticallymodifiedtocontaintheirownpesticidesortobeherbicide-resistant.Occasionallytheyareengineeredtobenutritionallyenhanced,forexample,Vitamin-A-enrichedricethatreducesblindnessinmalnourishedchildren,milkandpeanutsthatareallergen-free,tomatoeswithaddedlycopene,carrotsandpotatoeswithvaccinesforhepatitis-Bandcholerarespectively.ControversyhassurroundedGMfoodssincetheirintroductioninthelate1990s.Criticswarnofunknownhealthrisksfromaller-gens,andunknownenvironmentalconsequences,suchasgenetictransferandnewformsofpesticide-andherbicide-resistantweeds.Criticsalsoworryabouttheabuseofintellectualpropertyrightslawstoprivatizeandpatentlifeforms.FunctionalFoodAfunctionalfood,or“nutraceutical,”isafood-basedproductthathasaddedingredi-entsbelievedtoprovideadditionalhealthbenefits.Functionalfoodsaredesignedtoassistinthepreventionortreatmentofdisease,ortoenhanceandimprovehumancapacities.Theyincludeproductslikevitamin-fortifiedgrains,energybars,low-fatorlow-sodiumfoods,andsportsdrinks.Functionalfoodshaveexistedsincetheearly1900swheniodinewasfirstaddedtosalttopreventgoiter.VitaminDhasbeenaddedtomilksincethe1930s,extravitaminsandmineralstobreakfastcerealssincethe1940s,andwaterfluoridatedshortlythereafter.Thedifferencebetweenolderfortifiedfoodsandnewerfunctionalfoodsisthatthelatteraredesignedtoreplacemedicinewithfood,or440\n9781405146012_4_076.qxd2/4/0914:05Page441foodethicssometimestoeliminatequalitiesfromthefoodtomakeitmorenutritious.Thekeymoralissuewithfunctionalfoodsisthewayinwhichtheyclaimtofunctionasmedicine,blurringtheboundariesbetweenfoodanddrugs.Publichealthandsocialjusticequestionsremainabouttheirappropriateuse,distributionandregulation.Currently,eachnationmaydeterminewhatkindofhealthclaimsafunctionalfoodproductisallowedbylawtomake.Typically,foodcompaniescanproduceitemsthatmakegeneralhealthclaims(topromotehealth)solongastheymakenospecificclaims(totreatdiseases).ThereisnolegaldefinitionforfunctionalfoodsintheUnitedStates,andneitherpre-marketapprovalforsafetynorproofofgeneralhealthclaimsisrequired.FoodNanotechnologyNanotechnologydealswithobjectsthataremeasuredinnanometers,oramillionthofamillimeterinsize.Nanotechnologyisbeingappliedtofoodproductionandfoodpackaging.Applicationsofnano-particlestofoodincludeantimicrobialfilterstoimprovefoodsafety;Smart(spatiallydirected,time-controlledrelease,intelligentcontrol)deliveryofnutrients,proteinsandantioxidantsdirectlytotargetedbodypartsandcells;foodproductsthatremainfreshlongerandthatinhibittheabsorptionofharmfulelements;andimprovedfoodpackagingtoincreaseshelf-lifeanddecreasespoilageandcon-tamination.Nanotechnology,however,mightposeapotentialdangerwhenintroducedintotheair,water,soilandfoodpreciselybecauseofitsminutesize.Safetytopersonsandenvironmentsremainsthemostimportantethicalquestionaboutnanotechnology.Currently,nanotechnologyinfood-manufacturingismorepoorlyregulatedintheUnitedStates,EuropeandJapanthanconventionalfood.441\n9781405146012_4_077.qxd2/4/0914:05Page44277FutureGenerationsJESPERRYBERGDevelopmentofnewtechnology,andpoliticaldecisionsaboutimplementingit,mayhaveanimpactonthelivesofmanypeopleandotherlivingcreatures.Infact,thosewhoselivesmaybeaffectedarenotlimitedtopeoplepresentlyexisting.Newtech-nologymayaffectthelivesofmanygenerationstocome.Usingtechnologytocounterdepletionoftheozonelayerortoreducetheincreaseinglobalwarmingmayhavelong-termeffects.Buteventechnologiesintroducedformoreimmediatepurposesmayhaveconsequencesreachingfarintothefuture.Anethicalassessmentoftechnology,therefore,givesrisetoseveralrelatedquestionsconcerningthemoralstatusoffuturegenerations.1.Dowehaveanobligationtofuturegenerations?Sometheoristshavedefendedtheviewthattheanswershouldbeinthenegative.Argumentstothiseffecthavebeenbasedonthepremisethatpartiestowhomwehaveobligationsmustbeabletoclaimtheirrightsorthatmoralobligationspresupposecertainpersonalrelationswhichcannotbeobtainedwithpresentlynon-existingpersons(DeGeorge1981,Macklin1981).Anotherargumenttothesameeffect,sometimespresentedundertherhetoricalheading“Whathasposterityeverdoneforus?,”istoholdthatmoralobligationsshouldberegardedassomesortofmutualexchangepresupposingreciprocityofactions(Heilbroner1981).Despitethesearguments,itisfairtosaythatmosttheoriststodaydefendtheviewthatwedohaveanobligationtofuturegenerations.Thefactthatfuturepeople’slivesmaybeaffectedfortheworseorthebetterbypresentacts,combinedwiththeviewthatmeretemporaldistanceperseisconsideredmorallyinsignificant,providesthegroundforwhichanaffirmativeanswerisadvocated(Kavka1978,LaslettandFishkin1992,De-Sharlit1995).2.Howshouldtheinterestsoffuturepeoplebeweighedrelativelytotheinterestsofpresentlyexistingpeople?Intherealmofeconomicsitisstandardproceduretoaccessthevalueofcostsandbenefitsrelativelytotheirtemporallocation.Moreprecisely,thestandarddeviceusedtohandlequestionsofinter-temporaleconomicbenefitsandcostsistime-discounting.However,besidesdiscountingeconomicbenefitsandcosts,economistsalsofrequentlyemploywhatissometimesreferredtoasapurediscounting,thatis,theydiscountfuturewell-being(Broome1994).Apurediscountrateindicatestherateatwhichthevalueofwell-beingdecreasesaswe442ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_077.qxd2/4/0914:05Page443futuregenerationslookforwardintimefromthepresent.Suchadiscountratemayhaveasignificanteffect,forinstance,intheassessmentofnewtechnologywhichcontributeswithanimmediategainintermsofwell-beingforthepresentgenerationbutwhichmay–owing,forinstance,tolong-termeffectsofpollution–threatenthewell-beingoffuturegenerations.Thephilosophicaldiscussionofapurediscountrateconcernsthemorallegitimacyofthiskindofdiscounting.Forinstance,ithasbeenarguedthattraditionalargumentsinsupportoftime-discountingofeconomicbenefitsandcosts–forinstance,basedonconsiderationsofopportunitycostsortimeprefer-ences–cannotbeextrapolatedto,andtherebyjustify,apurediscountrate(Parfit1984,CowenandParfit1992,Broome1994).3.Dopossiblepeoplehavemoralstanding?Whenweconsiderpresentobligationstofuturegenerationsthereisapparentlyatendencytoimaginefuturepeoplewhoselivesmaybeaffectedbypresentactions.Ifweactinoneway,theymaybebetteroff;ifweactinanotherway,theymaybeworseoff.However,ifthisishowwethinkoffuturepeople,thenitisobviousthatwehavemissedanimportantpoint,namelythattheidentityoffuturegenerationsmayitselfbecontingentonpresentactionsanddecisions.Acouple’sdecisionsastowhetherornottheywillpro-create,orwhethertheywilldosoatonepointinliferatherthanatanother,areobviousexamplesofhowdecisionscanaffecttheidentityoffuturepeople.Anotherexampleistheinventionandimplementationoftechnologiesdesignedspecificallytoassistorpreventreproduction.Moreover,onreflectionitisobviousthattherearemanypoliticaldecisionsconcerningtechnology,whichonthesur-facehavenothingtodowithprocreation,whichmayneverthelesshaveimpactonwhowillexistinthefuture.Ifonebearsinmindthatmajorpowercutsincapitalcitiescanberegisteredinthebirthstatisticsninemonthslater,thenitnolongerseemsmysteriousthatdecisionsconcerningnewtechnology–e.g.aspartofanewenergypolicy–whichhaveamuchlargerimpactonsocietythanatemporarypowercutmayhaveasignificantimpactontheidentityoffuturegenerations.Ifwedefinepossiblepeopleasthosewhowillcomeintoexistenceifweactinonewaybutwhowillnotcomeintoexistenceifweactinanotherway,thenweareleftwiththequestionastohowpossiblepeopleshouldfigureinourtechnologicaldecision-making.Accordingtooneviewonthematter,thereisnogroundfortakingtheeffectsonpossiblepeopleintoaccountwhenweconsiderhowtoact.Thereasonisthatifapersonwillexistifweactinonewaybutnotifweactinanother,thenthisperson,ifactuallybroughtintoexistence,cannotproperlybeheldtobeworseoff(orbetteroff)thanhewouldhavebeenhadweacteddifferently(i.e.ifoneassumesthatcomingintoexistencecannotbenefitorharmsomeone).Thealternativeforthispersonwouldhavebeennonexistence.Thus,onthegroundoftheviewthatwhatmattersmorallyiswhetherindividualsarebenefitedorharmedfromouractions,possiblepeopledonothavemoralstanding(Narveson1973,1978;Heyd1992;butalsoRoberts1998).Infact,thisviewhasbeenusedtodefendtheconclusionthatweneednotcareatallaboutthenon-immediatefuture(Schwartz1978).Analternativeansweristoadoptwhathasbeenreferredtoasthe“no-difference”view,namelythatchangesofidentitybetweenpossibleoutcomesdonotmakea443\n9781405146012_4_077.qxd2/4/0914:05Page444jesperrybergdifferencewithregardtohowtheyshouldbeassessed(Parfit1984).Forinstance,thiswouldbethecaseifoneholdsthatthebestoutcomeistheoneproducingthegreatestquantityofwhatevermakeslifeworthliving.Thoughthispositionseemsappealinginmanynon-identitycases,itsuffersfromtheapparentdrawbackthatitimpliesthatforanypopulationofpeoplewithaveryhighqualityoflifetheremustbesomemuchlargerpopulationwhoseexistencewouldbebetter,eventhoughitsmembershavelivesthatarebarelyworthliving.ThisimplicationisknownastheRepugnantConclusion(Parfit1984,Arrhenius2000,RybergandTännsjö2004).Thequestionastohowoneshouldmorallydealwithcasesinvolvingchangesinidentityandinthenumberofpeoplefromdifferentoutcomesconstitutesamajorchallengewhichhasbeentheobjectofmuchdiscussionoverthelatestfewdecades,usuallyconsideredundertheheadingpopulationethics.ReferencesandFurtherReadingArrhenius,G.(2000).FutureGenerations:AChallengeforMoralTheory(Uppsala:UniversityPrinters).Broome,J.(1992).CountingtheCostsofGlobalWarming(Cambridge:WhiteHorsePress).Broome,J.(1994).“DiscountingtheFuture,”PhilosophyandPublicAffairs,23(2).Cowen,T.andParfit,D.(1992).“AgainsttheSocialDiscountRate,”inLaslett,P.andFishkin,J.(eds)(1992).DeGeorge,R.T.(1981).“TheEnvironment,Rights,andFutureGenerations,”inPartridge,E.(ed.)(1981).De-Sharlit,A.(1995).WhyPosterityMatters(London:Routledge).Heilbroner,R.L.(1981).“WhatHasPosterityEverDoneforMe?,”inPartridge,E.(ed.)(1981).Heyd,D.(1992).Genethics:MoralIssuesintheCreationofPeople(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Kavka,G.(1978).“TheFuturityProblem,”inSikora,S.andBarry,B.(eds)(1978).Laslett,P.andFishkin,J.(eds)(1992).JusticebetweenAgeGroupsandGenerations(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress).Macklin,R.(1981).“CanFutureGenerationsCorrectlyBeSaidtoHaveRights?,”inPartridge,E.(ed.)(1981).Narveson,J.(1973).“MoralProblemsandPopulation,”Monist,vol.57.Narveson,J.(1978).“FuturePeopleandUs,”inSikora,S.andBarry,B.(eds)(1978).Parfit,D.(1984).ReasonsandPersons(Oxford:ClarendonPress).Partridge,E.(ed.)(1981).ResponsibilitytoFutureGenerations(NewYork:PrometheusBooks).Roberts,M.(1998).ChildversusChildmaker(Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield).Ryberg,J.andTännsjö,T.(2004).TheRepugnantConclusion:EssaysonPopulationEthics(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Ryberg.J,Tännsjö,T.andArrhenius,G.(2006).“TheRepugnantConclusion,”StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(entry).Schwartz,T.(1978).“ObligationstoPosterity,”inSikora,S.andBarry,B.(eds)(1978).Sikora,S.andBarry,B.(eds)(1978).ObligationstoFutureGenerations(Philadelphia,Pa:TempleUniversityPress).444\n9781405146012_4_078.qxd2/4/0914:06Page44578GenethicsNILSHOLTUG1.Genes,IdentityandEthicsThegeneticrevolutionhasbroughtustechnologiessuchasgeneticscreening,geneticpre-implantationandpre-nataldiagnosis,genetherapy,cloningandgeneticpharma-cology.Suchtechnologiesraiseallsortsofethicalissues.Someofthemostprofoundissuespertaintotheimpactofgenetictechnologiesontheidentityofhumanbeings.Forinstance,perhapsgenetherapyandgeneticpharmacologymaybeusedtotreatseverediseasessuchascysticfibrosis,Tay-SachsdiseaseandHuntington’schorea,andeventoenhancehumancharacteristicsinthe“normal”range,includingheight,memoryandintelligence.Suchgeneticinterventionswillaffecttheidentityoftheirrecipientsinthattheywillgivethemcertainproperties(say,betterhealthormemory)thattheywouldnototherwisehavehad.Butwhereexactlydowedrawthelineforsuchgeneticinterventions?Someusesofgenetictechnologywillaffecthumanidentitiesinadeepersensethanthis.Ifapersonissuccessfullytreatedfor,e.g.,Huntington’schorea,thiswillimprovehishealthandsogivehimcertainnewqualities,butitwillstillbehewhoreceivesthesenewqualities.Inotherwords,hisnumericalidentityisnotaffected.Butnowsupposeinsteadthatapre-nataldiagnosisrevealsthatafetuscarriesthegeneforHuntington’schorea,andhisparentsthereforedecidetohaveanabortionandtrytohaveanother(healthy)childlater.Here,onechildisreplacedwithanotherthathasdifferentproper-ties(and,inparticular,isnotdisposedtodevelopHuntington’schorea),implyingachangeinbothqualitativeandnumericalidentities.Therefore,suchageneticinterventionraisesseparateethicalissues.2.Identity-affectingGeneticInterventionsIshallcallgeneticinterventionsthataffectwho(inthenumericalsense)comestoexistidentity-affectingandthosethatdonotidentity-preserving(althoughtheywill,ofcourse,affecttherecipient’squalitativeidentity).Bothpre-implantationandpre-nataldiagnosismaybeidentity-affectingbecausetheymayleadtoselectiveimplantationandselectiveabortionrespectively.Likewise,perhapscertainformsofgenetherapywould,ifperformedACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks445©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_078.qxd2/4/0914:06Page446nilsholtugonaconceptusorembryo,havesuchmassiveeffectsonits–ortheresultingchild’s–propertiesthatanumericallydifferentchildwouldbecausedtoexist.Medicalinterventionsusuallyaimtobenefittheirrecipientsbut,settingasidecasesof“wrongfullife”(seebelow),identity-affectinggeneticinterventionswilloftennotachievethis.Forinstance,afertilizedeggthatisnotimplantedbecauseithasthegeneforcysticfibrosisorafetusthatisabortedbecauseithasthegeneforHuntington’schoreawillnotbenefitfromtheseprocedures.Butthingsmaybedifferentif,e.g.,afertilizedeggisimplantedafteradiagnosisrevealsthatitishealthy.Somewillobjecttocertaingeneticinterventionsbecausetheyinvolvethekillingofafetus(fertilizedegg,embryo).Otherswillarguethatsuchbeingshavenomoralstand-ingandthatkillingthemcanbejustifiedonthebasisoftheinterestsoftheparents(andperhapssocietalinterestsaswell).But,evenifweconcedethattheinterestsofthefetusorchildshouldbetakenintoconsideration,thisdoesnotautomaticallyspeakagainstsuchinterventions.Thussomearguethatthehealthychildthattheparentsmayhaveinsteadofthechildwithaseriousgeneticdiseaseislikelytobenefitfromcomingintoexistence,andmoresothantheunhealthychildwould.Othersdenythatitcanbenefitachildtocomeintoexistence,butclaimthattheinterestsofthechildcanneverthelessbetakenintoaccount“impersonally,”i.e.intermsofthewelfarethischildcontributestotheworld.Asimilarquestionarisesinrelationtoso-called“wrongfullife”cases,where,e.g.,achildsuesherparentsforbringingherintoexistencewithaterriblediseaseratherthanabortingher.Somehavearguedthatsuchcasesmakenosensebecausethechildcannotbeharmedbybeingcausedtoexist(Heyd1992:29–33).However,othersarguethatitmayinfactbenefitorharmapersontocomeintoexistence(Holtug2001),sothat,insofarasachildhasalifethatisworsethannolifeatall,sheisharmedbyexisting.Identity-affectinginterventionsraiseafurtherissueofwhethersomeformsof“selection”amounttoobjectionablediscrimination.Itmaybearguedthattoselectagainstafetus(fertilizedegg,embryo)thatwilldevelopadisabilityistodiscriminateagainstherand/ortoexpressademeaningviewofthedisabled.Thereareseveralissuesthatneedtobeaddressedhere.Dofetuses(fertilizedeggs,embryos)haveamoralstandingthatmakesthemcapableofbeingdiscriminatedagainst?Doesselectionnecessarilyexpressademeaningviewofthedisabled,ormightitjustexpressthathealthisbetterthandisease?Also,ithasbeenarguedthatatleastsomeoftheargumentsforwhywediscriminateifweselectagainstdisabilityimplausiblyimplythatitshouldbepermissibletoselectfordisability(McMahan2005).3.Identity-preservingGeneticInterventionsExceptperhapsinexceptionalcases,geneticpharmacologyandgenetherapywillbeidentity-preserving.Therefore,suchinterventionsusuallybenefittheirrecipients.Forthisreason,manywillconsiderthemlesscontroversialtechnologies,atleastaslongastheyareconsideredsufficientlysafe,donotpassongeneticmodificationstofuturegenerations,andaimonlytotreatdisease.Oneworrythatsomeneverthelesshaveaboutgeneticpharmacologyandgenetherapyisthattheyareaslipperyslopetowardlessacceptableformsofgeneticintervention,446\n9781405146012_4_078.qxd2/4/0914:06Page447genethicssay,memoryorintelligenceenhancements.Thisraisestwoseparatebutrelatedissues.Oneishowstrongthisslippery-slopeargumentisasageneralargumentagainstgeneticpharmacologyandgenetherapy.Perhapssometimeinthefuture(brain)surgerymayalsobeusedtoenhancememoryorintelligence,butitisdoubtfulifthisisagoodreasontobansurgery(Holtug1993:417).Theotherissueiswhatsortofgeneticinterventionsshouldbeconsideredmorallyimpermissibleandsopossibleundesirableend-resultsofaslipperyslope.Somehavedrawnadistinctionbetweenthetreatmentofdisease,ontheonehand,andenhance-ments,ontheother,whereadiseasemaybedefinedasadeparturefromspecies-typicalnormalfunctioning.Itisthenclaimedthatonlytheformerinterventionsareper-missible.Nevertheless,suchaclaimwouldruleoutatleastsomeinterventionsthatmayseemratherdesirable,forinstanceageneticvaccineagainstHIVthatwouldenhancetherecipient’simmunesystembecauseitwouldgiveherapropertythathumansdonotnormally(ornaturally)have(Holtug1998:211).4.JusticeAccordingtoluckegalitarianism,weshouldcompensatevictimsofthegeneticlotterytotheextentthattheyhaveacquiredasetofgenesthatrendersthemworseoffthanothers.Thusweshouldcompensateatleastsomepeoplewhohavegenesthatcausethemtohaveadisease.Usually,luckegalitarianshaveaimedtoredistributesocialassets(e.g.money)toachievethis,butgenetictechnologieshavemadeitpossibletocom-pensatebydistributingnaturalassetsinstead.Furthermore,luckegalitarianismwouldseemtorequirenotonlythetreatmentofdiseasebutalsoenhancements,namelyinsofarastherearepropertiesthatarenotdeparturesfromspecies-typicalfunctioningbutmayneverthelessrenderpeopleworseoffthanothers(Holtug1999).Anexampleofthismaybeaboywithapredictedadultheightof160centimeters(5feet3inches).Someegalitarianshaveneverthelessgivenaqualifieddefenceofthetreatment/enhancementdistinction(Buchananetal2000:chs3–4).Theyarguethat,whilejusticerequirescompensatingvictimsofthesociallottery,itrequiresonlylimitedcompensationofvictimsofthegeneticlottery.Thelattershouldonlyberestoredtothelevelof“normal”(notequal)competitorsforadvantages,wherenormalcompetitorsmaywellsufferdisadvantagesthatcomefromnormalbutnotoptimalorevenaveragecapabilities.Roughly,thismeansthatjusticerequiresgenetictreatments,notgeneticenhancements.Luckegalitarians,ontheotherhand,willinsistthatvictimsofthesocialandthegeneticlotterysuffertheverysameformofinjustice.Theyareworseofthanothersthroughnochoiceorfaultoftheirown.Nevertheless,suchegalitariansmayagreethattreatmentsshouldgenerallyhavepriorityoverenhancementsbecauseitismosturgenttobenefittheworstoff,includingpeoplewithseriousdiseases.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBuchanan,A.,Brock,D.W.,Daniels,N.andWikler,D.(2000).FromChancetoChoice:GeneticsandJustice(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).447\n9781405146012_4_078.qxd2/4/0914:06Page448nilsholtugHeyd,D.(1992).Genethics:MoralIssuesintheCreationofPeople(Berkeley,Calif.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Holtug,N.(1993).“HumanGeneTherapy:DowntheSlipperySlope?,”Bioethics,7:402–19.Holtug,N.(1998).“CreatingandPatentingNewLifeForms,”inH.KuhseandP.Singer(eds),ACompaniontoBioethics(Oxford:Blackwell).Holtug,N.(1999).“DoesJusticeRequireGeneticEnhancements?,”JournalofMedicalEthics,25:137–43.Holtug,N.(2001).“OntheValueofComingintoExistence,”JournalofEthics,5:361–84.McMahan,J.(2005).“CausingDisabledPeopletoExistandCausingPeopletoBeDisabled,”Ethics,116:77–99.448\n9781405146012_4_079.qxd2/4/0914:06Page44979TechnologyandtheLawRICHARDSUSSKINDThetechnologythathasexertedthegreatestimpactsofaronthepracticeoflawandtheadministrationofjusticeisinformationtechnology(IT).Itisbothintuitivelyobviousandjurisprudentiallysoundtorecognizethatthelaw,withitsheavydepend-encyondocuments,informationservicesandknowledgeresources,isafertileapplica-tionareaforIT.However,thefullpotentialofIThasnotyetbeenrealizedinmostlegalsystems,partlybecauseofunderinvestmentbygovernmentsandprivate-sectorlegalbusinessesandalsobecauselawyers,ingeneral,areoftenlateadoptersofnewtechnology.Inrecentyears,therehasbeengrowinguptakeofITbylegalpractitioners,includ-inglawyerswhoworkinlawfirms,advocateswhospecializeincourtwork,andlegaladviserswhooperatein-housewithinbusinessesandgovernments.Inthe1970sand1980s,thedominantusesofITbytheselawyerswereinthebackoffice–forwordpro-cessing,accountingandadministrativepurposes.Itwaslaterrecognized,inthe1980sandsince,thatinformationsystemscouldbeusedtocaptureandsharethecollectiveknow-howandexperienceofalegalteam,sothatdatabasesofstandard-formdocu-mentsandlegalopinionsweredevelopedandmadeeasilyaccessibletolawyersfromtheirdesktops.Aselsewhere,however,itwastheadventoftheInternetthatledtoITbecomingmainstreamamongstpracticinglawyers.Sincethelate1990s,emailhasbecomethedominantwayinwhichlawyerscommunicatewiththeirclients,whilehand-heldmachinesareusedextensively(somewouldsayobsessively)tomaintaincontactwhileoutoftheoffice.TheWorldwideWebandGooglehavetransformedtheinformation-seekinghabitsoflawyers,withlegalresourcesandinformationaboutorganizationsandmarketsnowbeingreadilyavailable.Thenextstepintheevolutionoflegaltechnologyisonlinesystemsthatactuallyundertakelegaltasks–providinglegalupdates,draftingdocuments,offeringadvice,andsolvinglegalproblems.Themostwidelyusedofthesesofarareautomaticdocument-assemblysystems.JudgesinmostadvancedlegalsystemsarealsousingIT.Emailandwordprocessingbyjudgesarenowfirmlyestablishedapplications.Manyjudgesuseawidevarietyofonlineresearchresources,whilesomearebenefitingfromjudicialintranetsasamechanismforsharinginformationwithoneanother.Wherethecourtsaresuitablyequipped,judgesmayalsohaveaccesstocase-managementsystems,whichenablethemtomonitorandprogressthecasesbeforethem.CourtroomsareincreasinglybeingACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks449©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_079.qxd2/4/0914:06Page450richardsusskindequippedwithIT,includingdocument-andexhibit-displaysystems,wall-screenandlargemonitors,video-linkingforremoteevidence,computer-assistedrealtimetran-scription,wirelessnetworkswithInternetaccess,andtools(fromcomputergraphicstovirtualreality)forthepresentationofevidence.Moreambitiousandcontroversialistheideaofthevirtualhearingoronlinedisputeresolution–somelawyersandlegaltechnologistsarechallengingtheassumptionthatcourtworkrequiresthegatheringofpartiesinasingle,physicalspaceandaredevelopingsystemstoallowlitigantstopresentevidenceandargumentsviaonlinesystems.Currently,thesesubmissionsareadjudicateduponremotelybyhumanbeings,butartificialintelligencespecialistscontinuetospeakaboutcomputersreplacingjudges.LegaleducationandresearcharealsobeingsignificantlyaffectedbyIT.Theemer-genceofmultimediae-learningsystems(fromwebcaststhroughtovirtuallegalenvir-onments)arecomplementingtraditionalteachingandsometimesreplacingmethodsofthepast.Studentscanattendandreplayonlinelecturesandtutorialsattheircon-venience.Andtheyhaveawealthofprimarymaterials(legislationandcaselaw)andsecondarymaterials(articlesandbooks)attheirdisposalontheWorldwideWeb.Legalscholarshipisalsoundergoingsubstantialchange.Asidefromunprecedentedaccesstolegalsources,legalacademicsalsoenjoyeasyaccesstofellowscholarsaroundtheworld.Whileconventionalconferencesandsymposiaremainimportantforpersonalcontact,ongoingdialoguebyemailisnowpervasive.Thecitizen,too,isabeneficiaryoflegaltechnology.Inthepast,citizensgenerallyhadtoconsultlawyersiftheywantedadviceonmostlegalproblems.Today,thesenon-lawyerscanobtainlegalguidanceonawiderangeoflegalissuesfromwebsitesdeveloped,amongstothers,byconsumerbodies,tradeassociationsandgovernmentagencies.Whilethecounselprovidedbythesesitesmaybelesstailoredandrigorousthanthatofferedbytraditionallawyers,theycanprovideusefulbriefingsforpeoplebeforetheyseekformallegaladvice.And,whereitisnotfeasibleforcitizenstoobtainlawyers’helpdirectly,thesewebsitesaregenerallyfarmoreusefulthanhavingnoguidanceatall.Oneaspectofthelegalsystemthathasremainedrelativelyuntouchedbytechno-logyisthelegislativeprocess,eventhoughlaw-makingcouldbesubstantiallysupportedbyIT.Variousemergingtechnologiescouldbeusedtoinvitegreaterparticipationinlegislatingbyallmembersofsociety.Historically,inrepresentativedemocracies,citizenshaveelectedpoliticianstorepresenttheirinterestsinparliaments.Itwasnotpracticableinthepastfortheindividualviewsofcitizenstobesolicitedandthenreflectedinpolicy-makingandlegislating.However,therearenowtechniquesandtech-nologies(blogs,wikisandothersocialsoftware)thataredesignedpreciselytoenableandencourageInternetuserstoexpresstheirviews,discusstheirvaluesandarguments,buildcommunitiesofinterest,andconveythesepositionstothosewhomakenewandchangeoldlaw.Inbroadterms,thisisknownase-democracy;andwhilethereareunderstandableconcernsaboutthereliabilityandsecurityofrelatedsystems,especiallyonlinevoting,therearestrongargumentsinfavorofinvestingconsiderableresourcesinsystemsthatenhancedemocraticparticipation.Anotherunderexploitedapplica-tionoftechnologyforuseinlegislatingiscomputer-assisteddrafting.Therewascon-siderableacademicinterestinthisfieldinthe1980s,whenvariousscholarspointedtothesimilaritiesbetweendraftinglegislationandwritingsoftwareandsuggestedthat450\n9781405146012_4_079.qxd2/4/0914:06Page451technologyandthelawprogrammingtechniques,ifappliedtothelaw,couldbringaboutmoreconsistent,lessambiguousandbetter-structuredlegislation.However,thisearlypromisehasnotyetbeenfulfilled.AsITadvances,moreapplicationsforlawyersandcitizenswillemerge.Withsuffici-entinvestmentandcarefulplanning,ITcouldgreatlyenhancetheefficiencyoflawyersandsubstantiallyincreaseaccesstojustice.451\n9781405146012_4_080.qxd2/4/0914:06Page45280MediaEthicsDENIELLIOTTMediaethicsisthestudyof(1)howmediapractitionersactwhenmakingdecisionsthataffectotherpeople,speciesornaturalsystems,and(2)howmediapractitionersshouldactinmakingthesedecisions.Thefirstisdescriptiveethics;thesecondisnormativeethics.Choiceofactionsmaybeexaminedonanindividualpractitioner(micro)leveloronanorganizationalorinstitutional(macro)level.Judgmentsofwhatisethicallyprohibited,permitted,requiredandidealinaspecificsituationarebasedonunderstandingsfromphilosophicaltheoryaswellasonpro-fessionalconventionsandcodes.Newtechnologiesthataffordopportunitiesoutsidetraditionalboundariescomplicatethedevelopmentofandadherencetoprofessionalconventionsbecausenewtechnologiesallowforbehaviorsthatarenotanticipatedoraddressedbyassumedconventions.Philosophicaltheoriesthatserveasthefoundationformediaethicsdrawfirstonliber-tariandoctrinesthatemphasizefreedomofexpressionasessentialforself-governingcitizens.However,theoriesthatfocusonfreedomsarepairedwiththosethatempha-sizesocialresponsibilityandcommunitarianconcerns,owingtotheharmsthatcanbecausedtoindividualsandvulnerablegroupsbymasscommunication.TwothousandyearsofWesternmoralphilosophycanbesummedupasphilosophersfindingdifferentwaystoarticulateasinglemantra:“Doyourjobanddon’tcauseunjustifiedharm.”Philosophicaltheoriesarticulatedeterminationsforwhatcountsasdoingone’sjob,i.e.articulatingthespecialrole-relatedresponsibilitiesassociatedwithaparticularprofession.Forexample,thespecialjobofjournalistsistoseekandprovideinformationthatcitizensneedforself-governance.Thetheoriesalsohelppractitionerstoclarifyharmsthatcanbecausedbythosewithintheirprofessionsandhowtodifferentiateharmsthatarejustifiedfromthosethatarenot.Itisjustified,forexample,forjournaliststocauseharmtocorruptpoliticiansthroughmediaexposurebecauseinformationaboutcorruptionamonggovernmentalleadersisessentialforcitizenstohavetomakeeducatedchoicesforself-governance.Traditionally,mediapractitioners,andtheirethicalissues,couldbedistinguishedfromoneanotherbytheirintentofmediumuse:toinform,topersuade,ortoentertain.Role-relatedresponsibilitiesofpractitionersderivedfromtheintent.Professionalstand-ardsandconventionsadheretothemeansandproductsthatcomefromactingonthoseintents.452ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_080.qxd2/4/0914:06Page453mediaethicsJournalisticpracticesandproductswerejudgedbyhowwellpractitionersandorgan-izationsdidinprovidingtimely,non-biasedaccountstoamassaudience.Publicrela-tionsandadvertisingpracticesandproductswerejudgedbyhowwellpractitionersandorganizationsprovidedopinionwithoutfalsity.Broadcasttelevisionandradio,filmsandmusic,booksandmagazinesintendedforenjoymentwerejudgedethicallybyhowwelltheyentertainedwithoutcausingharmtovulnerablesubjectsoraudiences.Technologyinthelatetwentiethandearlytwenty-firstcenturyhasstrainedtradi-tionalconceptsofmediaintentandwithitthetraditionalwaysofjudgingmediaethics.Newmedia,includingsatellitetechnologyandtheWorldwideWebhavepro-videdtheopportunityforeveryindividualtoproducevisualandtextualmessagesformassconsumptionandtoaccessmessageswithouttheinvolvementofmediaorgan-izationsandtheirgatekeepers.Bloggers,forexample,simultaneouslyprovideinformation,expressopinion,andsecretlyembedpaidadvertisementsintheircopy.WebsitessuchasYoutubeentertain,advertise,informandprovideaccesstoaworldofopinions.Virtualcommunities,suchasSecondLife,areusedforentertainmentandeducation,aswellasprovidingtheformationofgroupsforthosewithsharedopinions.Thefluidityofcommunicationhasledsometoarguethatmediapractitioners–journalistsinparticular–arenolongernecessary.Othersnotethatbloggersaredevelopingstandardsofconductthatbringtheirconventionsmoreinlinewithtradi-tionaljournalists.Virtualcommunitiesrequireparticipantstofollowrulesthatpromotesocialorder.Technologyhascreatedtensionsforthepracticeofmasscommunicationsothatcon-ventionalstandardsarecurrentlyinflux.Practitionersintraditionalmediastrugglewiththeexpectationthattheywillfollowconventionalstandardswhennon-professionalpractitionersarenot.Despitetheblurringoflinesamongthethreemediaintents,andtheblurringoflinesbetweenprofessionalandamateurinformation-giversandgatekeepers,commonareasofethicalconcerncanbeidentifiedthathavepersistedovertimeandtechnology.Thosewhowishtohavecredibilityasinformation-givers–journalists–needtobeawareofconflictsofinterestthatmaybiasorappeartobiastheirpresentations.Theyneedtoavoidfalsificationandfabrication,andprovidenewsproductsthatarebalanced,accurate,relevantandcomplete.Journalistsmustalsobeprotectiveofthemeansbywhichtheyacquiretheirstories.Confidentialitytosourcesshouldbemaintained,ifpromised;subjectsandsourcesoughtnottobedeceived.Opinion-givers,suchaspublicrelationsandadvertisingpractitioners,aswellasthoseproducingeditorialsinvariousmedia,shouldarticulatetheirloyaltiesandbeclearwiththeaudienceaboutthereasonfortheloyalty,whetheritbepurchasedorpersonalcon-viction.Theyoughtnottolieintheprocessofpresentingtheirmessage;but,unlikejournalists,theyarenotethicallycompelledtoprovideacompleteaccountingthatmightdilutetheirmessage.Theyshouldbeawareofanyspecialvulnerabilityofaudiencesthattheyaddress.Thosewhousemediaprimarilyasavehicleforentertainmentalsoneedtobeawareofthevulnerabilityoftheaudiencesthattheyaddress.Farethatcontainssex,violence,oracceptanceofdrugsorotherharmfulproductsismoresuitableforcontrolledcon-sumption(suchascableorsatellite)thanitisforbroadcast.Thosewhohavepowerhaveanethicalresponsibilitytousethatpowerjudiciously.453\n9781405146012_4_080.qxd2/4/0914:06Page454denielliottLawprovidestheminimalrequirementstowhichmediapractitionersmustadhere,butethicsaddressesbehaviorsthatriseabovethelegalminimums.Noonecouldlivewellinacommunityinwhichothersadheredonlytothelegalminimum.Ethicsprovidesabasisforthedevelopmentofvoluntarystandardsforselfandforindustry.Becauseofdemocracy’scommitmenttofreeexpression,governmentregulationofmasscommunicationistobeavoidedwhenpossible.Inrecognitionofthepowerofmasscommunicationandtoforestallgovernmentalinterferencewithfreeexpres-sion,mediapractitioners,whetheractingontheirownorthroughindustry,shareanobligationtoupholdethicalstandardsratherthanpushtheenvelopeoflegallimitations.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBivens,T.(2004).MixedMedia(Mahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaum).Christians,C.G.,Rotzell,K.B.andFackler,M.(eds)(1991).MediaEthics:CasesandMoralReasoning(NewYork:Longmans).Elliott,D.(1986).ResponsibleJournalism(ThousandOaks,Calif.:Sage).Elliott,D.(2007).EthicsintheFirstPerson(Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield).Land,M.andHornaday,B.(2006).ContemporaryMediaEthics(Spokane,Wash.:MarquetteBooks).Mill,J.S.(1863).Utilitarianism(multipleeditions).Mill,J.S.(1869).OnLiberty(multipleeditions).454\n9781405146012_4_081.qxd2/4/0914:07Page45581MedicalEthicsSØRENHOLMMedicalethicsisthatbranchofappliedethicsthatisconcernedwiththeethicalproblemsofhealthcareprofessionalsandhealthcaresystems.Itisasubsetofbioethics,andcanitselfbefurtherdividedinmedicalethics(narrowlydefined),nursingethics,publichealthethics,researchethics,managementethics,etc.Thereareextensiveoverlapsbetweenthefieldofmedicalethicsandcognatefieldssuchastheethicsofgenetics(genethics),theethicsofnewtechnologies,andprofessionalethicsingeneral.HistoryThehistoryofmedicalethicscanbetracedtotwosources.Thefirstoftheseistheprofessionalethicsofthemedicalprofession,itsinternalrulesofconduct.Thesecondisgeneralmoralphilosophyandtheology.Althoughtherehasbeenmutualinfluencebetweenthesetwolinesofthoughtandpracticethroughouthistory,stronginteractionbetweenmoraltheoryandmedicalethicsisarelativelyrecentphenomenon.WithinmedicalhistoriographysomehavetriedtotraceanunbrokenlineofrulesorprinciplesofconductfromtheHippocraticOath(seeBox6.1)attributedtotheGreekphysicianHippocrates(c.460–370bc)tocurrentrulesofconduct,ofteninordertobeabletoclaimthatmedicinestandsinanunbrokenHippocratictraditionandshouldfollowtheprinciplesintheoath(e.g.itsprohibitionagainstprescribingabortifacients).SomeevenseemtothinkthatalldoctorsstillsweartheOath.Butbothclaimsarefallacious.OnlyaminorityofmoderndoctorssweartheHippocraticOath,andevenwithinWesternmedicinetherehavebeenlongperiodsinwhichtheOathplayednoroleinsettingthestandardsformedicalconduct.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks455©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_081.qxd2/4/0914:07Page456sørenholmBox6.1TheHippocraticOathIswearbyApolloPhysicianandAsclepiusandHygieaandPanaceiaandallthegodsandgoddesses,makingthemmywitnesses,thatIwillfulfillaccordingtomyabilityandjudgmentthisoathandthiscovenant:Toholdhimwhohastaughtmethisartasequaltomyparentsandtolivemylifeinpartnershipwithhim,andifheisinneedofmoneytogivehimashareofmine,andtoregardhisoffspringasequaltomybrothersinmalelineageandtoteachthemthisart–iftheydesiretolearnit–withoutfeeandcovenant;togiveashareofpreceptsandoralinstructionandalltheotherlearningtomysonsandtothesonsofhimwhohasinstructedmeandtopupilswhohavesignedthecovenantandhavetakenanoathaccordingtothemedicallaw,butnooneelse.Iwillapplydieteticmeasuresforthebenefitofthesickaccordingtomyabilityandjudgment;Iwillkeepthemfromharmandinjustice.Iwillneithergiveadeadlydrugtoanybodywhoaskedforit,norwillImakeasuggestiontothiseffect.SimilarlyIwillnotgivetoawomananabortiveremedy.InpurityandholinessIwillguardmylifeandmyart.Iwillnotusetheknife,notevenonsufferersfromstone,butwillwithdrawinfavorofsuchmenasareengagedinthiswork.WhateverhousesImayvisit,Iwillcomeforthebenefitofthesick,remainingfreeofallintentionalinjustice,ofallmischiefandinparticularofsexualrela-tionswithbothfemaleandmalepersons,betheyfreeorslaves.WhatImayseeorhearinthecourseofthetreatmentorevenoutsideofthetreat-mentinregardtothelifeofmen,whichonnoaccountonemustspreadabroad,Iwillkeeptomyself,holdingsuchthingsshamefultobespokenabout.IfIfulfillthisoathanddonotviolateit,mayitbegrantedtometoenjoylifeandart,beinghonoredwithfameamongallmenforalltimetocome;ifItrans-gressitandswearfalsely,maytheoppositeofallthisbemylot.FromLudwigEdelstein,TheHippocraticOath:Text,Translation,andInterpretation,Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsPress,1943ThehistoryofmodernmedicalethicsisusuallytracedbacktothepublicationbytheBritishphysicianThomasPercivalin1803ofabookentitledMedicalEthics(towhatextentthisisaresultofacademiclinguisticAnglo-centrismisamatterfordebate),butitisprobablymoreaccuratetosaythatthecurrentformofmedicalethicsdebateshadtheirbeginninginthe1960sandearly1970s(forviewsonthehistoryfromthetwosidesoftheAtlantic,seeCampbell2000,Jonsen1998).Atthattime,generalsocialdevelopmentsmadeitlegitimatetocriticizethemedicalprofessionforitspaternalismandargueforagreaterroleforpatientsindecision-making,andthedevelopmentofnewmedicaltechnologiescreatednewmoralproblemssuchas“Whoshouldhaveaccess456\n9781405146012_4_081.qxd2/4/0914:07Page457medicalethicstokidneydialysisifnotallcangetit?Andwhoshoulddecidethis?”and“Whatshouldwedoinasituationwhererespiratorscankeeppeopleinacomaaliveindefinitely?”Inthe1960sand1970stwopartlyoverlappingconservativestreamswereevidentinmedicalethics,onereligiousandonebasedonasecularskepticismtowardmedicaltechnologyandthe“medico-industrialcomplex,”butthesehavebecomelessandlessprominentovertimeinacademicmedicalethics.Todayliberalargumentsaremuchmoreprevalent,especiallyinNorthAmericaandNorthernEurope.TheliberalargumentsoftendrawonelementsfromAmericanpragmatism,classicalpoliticalliberalismandmodernpreferenceconsequentialism.SpecificFeaturesofMedicalEthicsMedicalethicsdiffersfromotherbranchesofappliedethicsinsomerespects.Anum-berofethicalframeworkshavebeendevelopedthattrytomediatebetweenabstractethicaltheoryandhealthcarepracticebyprovidingasimpleandstructuredmethodforanalyzingandevaluatingmoralissues.Themostprominentoftheseframeworksisthefour-principlesapproachdevelopedbyTomBeauchampandJamesChildress(BeauchampandChildress2001).AccordingtoBeauchampandChildress,fourprin-ciplesarecentraltomedicalethics:RespectforautonomyNon-maleficenceBeneficenceJusticeTheseprinciplesaremid-levelinthesensethattheyareatalevelbetweenethicaltheoryandconcretemoraldecisions.Theyarebothjustifiedfromabove–anyplaus-ibleethicaltheorywillsupportsomeversionofeachofthefourprinciples–andfrombelow–criticalreflectiononourday-to-daydecision-makingwillshowthatitadherestotheseprinciples.Althoughthereisdisagreementatthelevelofethicaltheory,andatthelevelofunreflectiveday-to-daydecision-making,thesefourmid-levelprinciplescanthereforeformarelativelystablegroundforresolvingethicalconflict.Whenhealthcareprofessionalsencounteramoralproblemtheyshouldthereforeidentifyalltherelevantactors,analyzehowtheproblemengageseachofthefourprinciplesandreachadecisionbasedonbalancingthefourprinciplesagainsteachotherintheconcretesituation.Manypapersonethicalissuesingeneralmedicaljournalsusethisorothersimilarapproachesratheruncriticallyandwillthereforeoftenseemverysimplistictosome-onewithabackgroundinmoralphilosophy.Criticsofthefour-principlesapproachandothersimilarapproacheshavepointedoutthattheclaimedagreementonthefourprinciplesisnotanagreementontheircontentorsubstance,butonlyanagreementattheleveloflabels(Holm1995).Wecanallagreethatweshoulddogood–theprincipleofBeneficence–butwedonotagreeonwhatthisactuallyentails.Anothercommoncriticismisthattheprocedureforbalancingthefourprinciplesagainsteachotherisvagueandwillnotleadtodeterminateresults.457\n9781405146012_4_081.qxd2/4/0914:07Page458sørenholmAnotherspecificfeatureofmodernmedicalethicsisthatithasdevelopedinanintensiveinterplaywithregulatoryefforts,firstintheareaofresearchethicsandmorerecentlyintheareasofhuman(assisted)reproductionandend-of-lifedecision-making.Thishasmeantthatmanyquasi-legalconceptsandmodesofargumentationhaveenteredmedicalethics,especiallyinUSmedicalethicsbecauseofthepracticalimportanceofUSSupremeCourtdecisionsinthesefields(therighttoabortionintheUS,forinstance,comesfromaSupremeCourtdecisionnotfromlegislationpassedbyCongress).Conceptslike“privacy,”“freedomofspeech”and“separationofchurchandstate”havethusbeenpressedintoserviceinethicalarguments,insteadofconceptsthataremorebasictoethicaltheoryandpoliticalphilosophylike“liberty”or“liberalism.”RecentDevelopmentsInrecentyearsmanyhavearguedthatmedicalethicshasbeentoopreoccupiedwiththeethicalissuesactualizedbymoderntechnologies,andwiththeethicalproblemsthatarecommoninaffluenthealthcaresystems.Therehasthereforebeenacalltoglobalizemedicalethicsandfocusmoreonissuesofjustice,powerandexploitationrelevanttothedevelopingworld.Theemergingdebateontheseissueshasshownthatthereisanunderlyingindi-vidualisminthemostprominentapproachestomedicalethicsthatmakesitdifficulttoengagewithmoresystemicissues.Manymedicalethicistsagreethatthedistribu-tionofresourcesintheworldisgrosslyunjustandinequitable,andthatthisshouldberectified,butstilldefendtherightofthosewhohaveresources(therich)toengageinexchangeswiththosewholackthem(thepoor)wheretheresourcedisparitiesareusedbytherichtoextractmuchbetterbargainingoutcomesforthemselvesthantheycouldhaveextractedunderconditionsofjustice.Anotherrecentdevelopmentistheformalinternationalcodificationofmedicalethics,oftenunderthelabelofbioethics.TheCouncilofEuropeagreedonthe“ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandDignityoftheHumanBeingwithRegardtotheApplicationofBiologyandMedicine:ConventiononHumanRightsandBiomedicine”in1997,andtheGeneralAssemblyofUNESCOadoptedthe“UniversalDeclarationonBioethicsandHumanRights”in2005.Thedevelopmentoftheseformaldocumentsisseenbysomeaspartofawideningsplitbetweenofficialandacademicmedicalethics.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBeauchamp,T.L.andChildress,J.F.(2001).PrinciplesofBiomedicalEthics,5thedn(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Campbell,A.V.(2000).“‘MyCountryTisofThee’:TheMyopiaofAmericanBioethics,”Medicine,HealthCareandPhilosophy,3(2):195–8.Holm,S.(1995).“NotJustAutonomy:ThePrinciplesofAmericanBiomedicalEthics,”JournalofMedicalEthics,21(6):332–8.Jonsen,A.R.(1998).TheBirthofBioethics(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Kuhse,H.andSinger,P.(eds)(1998).ACompaniontoBioethics(London:Blackwell).Steinbock,B.(ed.)(2007).OxfordHandbookofBioethics(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).458\n9781405146012_4_082.qxd2/4/0914:07Page45982NanoethicsJOHNWECKERTNanoethicsistheethicsofnanotechnologyor,better,ofnanotechnologies.Whatiscallednanotechnologyisasetofenablingtechnologiesthatareused,forexample,inmater-ials,medicaltechnologyandelectronics.Isnanoethicsabranchofappliedethicssimilarto,forexample,bioethicsorcom-puterethics?Itcanbeargued,quiteplausibly,thatitisnot,butitisnotclearthatthismatters.SwierstraandRip,forexample,arguethat,whiletheremightnotbeananoethics,thereisanethicsofnewandemergingtechnology(NESTethics),andSchmidetal.arguethattheethicalissuesthatariseinconnectionwithnanotechnologyare,byandlarge,notnewethicalproblemsbutneverthelessmustbeexaminedbecausetheycanariseinnewormoreurgentways(Schmidetal.2006:433).Onedifficultyisthatmanyoftheethicalissuesinnanotechnologyareinareaswheretherehasasyetbeenlittledevelopment,sodiscussionofthemmustbebasedonprediction,whichofcourseisnotoriouslyunreliable,andthisisparticularlytrueofpredictionsaboutthedirectionsofscientificandtechnologicaldevelopments.However,whileitmustbedonewithcare,somepredictionaboutthedevelopmentandlikelyimpactsofnanotechnologyisbothnecessaryandpossible,andthisinitselfhasbecomeatopicinnanoethics.Whileitistruethatmost,perhapsall,oftheethicalissuesraisedbynanotechnologyarenotnew,andmanyinvolvepredictionoffuturedevelopments,itdoesnotfollowthatweshouldnottalkaboutnanoethics.Thereisaclusterofethicalissuessur-roundingnanotechnologiesthatarebothimportantandinterestingandthatrequireexamination.Oneofthemostpressingcurrentonesisconcernaboutpossiblerisks,bothtohealthandtotheenvironment,associatedwithnanoparticletoxicity.Theethicalconsiderationsariseinconnectionwiththelevelofriskthatshouldbetolerated.Theproblemisnotsomuchthatthereareknowntobedangersbutratherthat,becauseofthewiderangeofdifferentnanoparticleswithdifferentproperties,thereareinherentdifficultiesinassessingrisksandinformulatingregulationstocontrolthem.Thereisdebate,too,aboutwhethercurrentregulationsareadequatetocovermaterialsatthenanoscaleorwhethernewregulationsarerequired.Manyotherproblemswillbeexacerbatedandmademoreurgentbydevelopmentsinnanotechnology.Agoodexampleisprivacy.Giventhefactthatnanotechnologieswillenablemoresophisticatedmonitoringandsurveillancetechnology,particularlyACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks459©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_082.qxd2/4/0914:07Page460johnweckertintheformofmoresensitiveandmuchsmallersensingdevicestogetherwithincreasedcomputingpower,bothprocessingspeedandmemorysize,thecapacitytocollectinforma-tiononindividuals,andgenerateinformationthroughdata-mining,willincreaseandwithitimplicationsforcivilliberties.Nanotechnologyispromisingmanymedicalbenefits,forexample,newlab-on-a-chiptechnologyfordiagnosis,andtargeteddrugdelivery.Whiletheseareundoubtedlytobewelcomed,associatedrisksmustbeassessed,andsomusttheissueofthediagnosisofdiseasesforwhichtherearenocures.Thereisagrowingliterature,too,onthemoralissuesinvolvedinhumanenhance-mentandlongevitythatisatleastpartiallyenabledbynanotechnology.Therapeuticimplants–forexample,computerchipstoovercomeblindnessandsomepsychiatricconditions–willalmostcertainlybefurtherenabledbydevelopmentsinnanotechnologyandmostlikelyleadtoimplantsforenhancements.Thereisalreadyresearchoncognitiveenhancementinvolvingmemoryandreasoningabilityandnewlearningtechniques;theenhancementofoursenses;directbrain-to-braincommunication,andbrain-to-machinecommunication.Mostofthecurrentdevelopmentsinnanotechnologyareinrichcountries,andperhapsthesedevelopmentswillonlyhelptherich,therebycreatingananodivide.Oneoftheissueshereconcernsintellectualproperty.Ifmostpatentsareheldinrichcountries,developingcountriesmayhaveonlylimitedaccesstopotentiallyextremelybeneficialproductsandtechnologies.Variouspotentialmilitaryusesofnanotechnologiesareofconcernandperhapscouldleadtoanotherarmsrace.Examplesofsuchweaponsincludeweaponswithsomeabilitytomakeautonomousdecisions,tinymissilesofperhapsonlyafewmillimetresinlength,enhancementofsoldierperformancethroughimplants,sensorsandsoon,andsmallanimalsorinsectswithsensororevenexplosiveimplants.Finally,otherethicalproblemsarisefromamoreradicalandmuchcontestedviewofnanotechnology:molecularmanufacturing,aviewwheremechanicalengineeringprinciplesandself-replicationcouldbeusedatthenanoscaletobuildinexpensivelyjustaboutanyproduct.Uncontrolledself-replication,however,somebelieve,couldleadtotheso-called“greygoo”problem.Thereis,however,skepticismthatthisisarealproblem.Giventhatdevelopmentsinnanotechnologiesarestillintheirinfancy,thereisconsiderablediscussionregardingboththedirectionthatresearchanddevelopmentshouldtakeandhownanoethicsshouldbedone.Regardingtheformer,therehavebeenvariouscallsfortheprecautionaryprincipletobeappliedtocertainresearchanddevelopment,andmuchoppositiontothesecalls.Thisraisesissuesaboutwho,ifanyone,shouldcontrolorregulatethedirectionofresearchordevelopmentinnanotechnologyandwhatresponsibilitiesscientistshavefortheconsequencesoftheirresearch.Nanoethics,therefore,currentlyincludesexaminationofthecontrolandregulationofresearchdirectionsandtheresponsibilityofnanotechnologyscientistsanddevelopers,anddiscussionofmethodologiesforassessingfuturedevelopments,aswellasissuessuchasthosementionedpreviously.460\n9781405146012_4_082.qxd2/4/0914:07Page461nanoethicsReferencesandFurtherReadingAllhoff,F.,Lin,P.,Moor,J.andandWeckert,J.(eds)(2007).Nanotechnology:TheEthicalandSocialImplicationsofNanotechnology(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Altmann,J.(2006).MilitaryNanotechnology:PotentialApplicationsandPreventativeArmsControl(London:Routledge).Baird,D.,Nordmann,A.andSchummer,J.(eds)(2004).DiscoveringtheNanoscale(Amsterdam:IOSPress).Cameron,N.M.deS.andMitchell,M.E.(eds)(2007).Nanoscale:IssuesandPerspectivesfortheNanoCentury(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Drexler,K.E.(1986).EnginesofCreation:TheComingEraofNanotechnology(NewYork:AnchorPress/Doubleday).Schmid,G.etal.(2006).Nanotechnology:AssessmentsandPerspectives(Berlin:Springer).Schummer,J.andBaird,D.(eds)(2006).NanotechnologyChallenges:ImplicationsforPhilosophy,EthicsandSociety(Singapore:WorldScientific).Swierstra,T.andRip,A.(2007).“NanoethicsasNESTEthics:PatternsofMoralArgumentationaboutNewandEmergingScienceandTechnology,”Nanoethics:EthicsforTechnologiesthatConvergeattheNanoscale,1:3–20.461\n9781405146012_4_083.qxd2/4/0914:07Page46283NuclearEthicsKOOSVANDERBRUGGENIntroductionFormorethanfortyyears(1945–89)mostoftheworldwasdividedinabipolarpowersystem:ontheonehand,theUnitedStateswithitsalliesinthe“Westernorfreeworld”;ontheotherhand,theSovietUnionwithitsalliesinthe“communistworld.”Inthesameyear,1945,thattheworldbecamedivided,anewweaponwasinvented:thenuclearbomb.TheweaponwasusedtwiceduringtheendofthewaragainstJapan.HiroshimaandNagasakiwerecompletelydestroyed.Fromthebeginningofthenucleareratheatomicbombgaverisetovehementpoliticalandethicaldisputes.Justafter1945,differentopinionsroseaboutnuclearweapons:Justanotherweapon.Theatomicweaponofcourseismuchstrongerthantheweaponsthathadexisteduntilthen,butitsfunctionanditspossibilitiesarenotessentiallydifferent:itis“justanotherweapon.”Acounterforceweapon.Thisweaponshould(only)beusedtodestroytheweaponsoftheenemy.Aweaponofterror.AswasseeninHiroshimaandNagasaki,nuclearweaponsareweaponsofterrorthatdestroypopulations.Aweaponunderinternationalcontrol.TheAmericandiplomatBernardBaruchpres-entedaplantotheInternationalAtomicAgencyinwhichheproposedtoputtheknowledgeofatomicweaponsunderinternationalcontrol.TheRussiansrejectedthisproposal.Aweaponofdeterrence.ItwasBernardBrodiewhowasthefirstonetosaythattheatomicweaponcouldonlybeaweaponofdeterrence:itsonlyfunctioncouldbetopreventotherstatesfromusingtheirnuclearweapons.EthicsandtheUseofNuclearWeaponsMoralthinkingaboutweapons,soaboutnuclearweaponsaswell,impliesmoralthinkingaboutwar.Thatiswhythe“justwar”traditionisastarting-pointformanyconsiderationsonnuclearweaponsandnucleardeterrence.“Justwar”traditionhas462ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_083.qxd2/4/0914:07Page463nuclearethicsahistoryofcenturiesandhasitsrootsinreligionandtheology,philosophy,knight-hoodtraditionand(international)law.Ithastwomainelements:iusadbellumandiusinbello.Theiusadbellumdealswithmoralconditionsforstartingawar.Themaincriteriaare:legitimateauthority:onlysovereignstatesareallowedtowagewar;justcause:inlinewiththeUNCharter,onlyareactiontoforeignaggressionandactionsthataresanctionedbytheSecurityCouncilareseenasajustcause;chanceofsuccess:theconsequentialistargumentthatawarthatcannotbewonshouldnotbewaged;lastresort:noothersolutionisstillpossible;proportionalityofwar:themeansshouldbeinaproportionaterelationtothegoalsofwar.Theiusinbellodealswithmoralconsiderationsthathavetoberespectedduringawar.Maincriteriaoftheiusinbelloare:proportionalityinwar:actionsduringawarmustbeinaproportionaterelationtothegoalsofthatactionandofwarassuch;discriminationornon-combatantimmunity:directorindirectthreatorviolenceagainstthecivilpopulationisnotallowed.Applying“justwar”criteriatotheuseofnuclearweaponsleadsalmostinevitablytotheconclusionthatsuchauseismorallyunacceptable:itisdisproportional,theweaponsdestroywhattheyshouldprotect;non-combatantsarealmostbydefinitionvictims;thedamagecanlastdecades.Butwhatifnuclearweaponsareusedasacoun-terforceweapon(andnotdirectedatnon-combatants;whatifitisonlya“mininuke,”anuclearweaponwithasmallnucleardeviceandbecauseofthatlessdevastating;andwhatifusinganuclearweaponisseenastheonlywaytoendanongoingwar(Hiroshimaargument)?Althoughtheseconsiderationsaretobeweighedcarefullyineachindividualcase,mostethicistsconcludethatnoneoftheseconsiderationsiscompellingenoughtomaketheuseofnuclearweaponsmorallyacceptable.Theforeseenandunforeseenconsequencesaretoogreat;collateraldamageisalmostunavoidable;thereistheriskofescalationandretaliation.SotherearestrongreasonstosticktoanunconditionalNototheuseofnuclearweapons!Andhistorysince1945seemstoconfirmthatpoliticianssharethisview.For,despitealldeclaratorypolicy,ataboohasgrownonusingnuclearweapons.Untilnownobodyhasdaredtobreakthattaboo:notoneoftheso-calledroguestates(Iran,NorthKorea),northeUSoranyoftheothernuclearstates.Havingnuclearweaponsseemstobemoreapoliticalthanamilitarygoal.EthicsandthePossessionofNuclearWeaponsIfusingnuclearweaponsismorallyunacceptable,whatabouthavingnuclearweapons?Atfirstsightitseemsevidentthatpossessingnuclearweaponsshouldbeunacceptable,463\n9781405146012_4_083.qxd2/4/0914:07Page464koosvanderbruggentoo.Butrealityisnotthatsimple.Nuclearweaponsexist,andtheknowledgetomakethemwillalwayscontinuetoexist.Theseweaponscannotbe“uninvented.”Moreover,inlinewiththepropheticwordsofBernardBrodie,thenuclearweaponhasaboveallbecomeaweaponofdeterrence:preventingotherstatesfromusingtheirnuclearweapons.Someevensaythathavingnuclearweaponsassuchisdeterringalready.Nuclearweaponsimplydeterring,preventingothersfromusingnuclearweapons.Ifthisisthecase,possessioncouldbemorallyacceptable.Butimmediatelythenextquestionrises:Istheriskygameofdeterrencereallyworking?Andthereisalwaystheissueofaccidentaluseofnuclearweapons.Sothecrucialquestionremains:Isdeter-ringwithnuclearweaponsmorallyacceptableifusingthemismorallyunacceptable?TowardaTheoryofJustifiedDeterrenceForaconsideredmoraljudgmentonthepossessionofanddeterrencewithnuclearweapons,anethicaltheoryisneededthatcancatchtheparadoxesthat“justwar”criteriacannotcatch.Suchatheoryofjustifieddeterrencehasparallelsanddifferenceswith“justwar”tradition.Aparallelisthedistinctionbetweenaiusaddissuasionem(therighttoinitiateasituationofdeterrence)andaiusindissuasione(rightsanddutiesinasituationofdeterrence).Possiblecriteria:iusaddissuasionemOnlyalegitimateauthoritymaycarryoutapolicyofdeterrence.Deterrenceshouldbeaimedonlyatpreventingmilitaryaggressionbyotherstatesornon-stateactors.iusindissuasioneThestrategyandmeansofdeterrencemustbesuchthattheeffectofthethreatofdeter-renceismaximal(principleofeffectiveness).Thestrategyandmeansofdeterrencemustbesuchthatafterapossiblefailureofdeter-rencethelevelofviolenceisminimaloratleastproportionatetothegoalsofthewartobefought(principleofexternalproportionality).Quantitativelyandqualitativelythemeansofdeterrencehavetobeminimaloratleastproportionatetothegoalsofdeterrence(principleofinternalproportionality).Inanythreatofdeterrenceadistinctionshouldbemadebetweenmilitaryandnon-militarytargets.Civiliansmaynotbecomethetargetofathreat(principleofdiscrimination).Thethreatofdeterrencemaynotbemisleadingorambiguous.Thesecriteriaarenottobeseenasunchangeableandnotdebatable.Likethe“justwar”criteria,thesecriteriaarenodogmas.Theyareandshouldbeadaptedtonewmilitary,politicalandtechnologicalcircumstances.ApplyingJustifiedDeterrenceTheoryCannucleardeterrenceduringtheColdWarbejustifiedinretrospect,whenapplyingthetheoryofjustifieddeterrence?Lookingatthecriteria,thisisverydoubtful.Infact464\n9781405146012_4_083.qxd2/4/0914:07Page465nuclearethicsonlythreecriteriaaremoreorlessrespected:bothcriteriaoftheiusaddissuasionemcriteriaandtheprincipleofeffectiveness.Inaconsequentialisticwayofreasoning,thisprincipleofeffectivenessisthemostimportantone.Evenfornon-consequentialistsitmaybeadefensiblethesisthatfromamoralpointofviewnucleardeterrenceduringtheColdWarwasnotbydefinitionunjustified,ifitcanbeshownthatthisdeterrenceindeedwaseffectiveinpreventingarealnuclearwar,whichalwayswouldhavebeenagreaterevil.Butcanhavingnuclearweaponsbejustifiedinthepost-ColdWarandpost-9/11world?Bipolardeterrencedoesnotprovideanylegitimationanymore.Butsomeformofdeterrencestillexists.Havingisdeterring,evenifthatisnotexpressed.Andhavingisprovidingstatusininternationalrelations.ThatisoneofthemainreasonsforcountriessuchasNorthKoreaandIrantobecomeamemberofthenuclearclub,buttheparadoxicaleffectisthatthemoremembersthisclubhas,thegreaterthechanceofintendedorunintendeduseofnuclearweapons.Thisriskmayevenincreaseifnon-stateactorssuchasterroristgroupsgetnuclearweapons.Giventheimpossibilityof“uninventing”nuclearweapons,theworldwillnevercom-pletelygetridofthem.Butapplyingthecriteriaforjustifieddeterrencetheresurelyaresomemoralprescriptionsinthepost-9/11era.Measuresshouldbetakentomakethechanceofintendedorunintendeduseofnuclearweaponsassmallaspossible.Suchmeasuresarethepreventionofthefurtherspreadofnuclearweapons,andanultimategoalcouldandperhapsevenshouldbetoreplacethepresentmultipolardeterrencebythedevelopmentofakindofanewBaruchplanforanewsupra-nationaldeterrencestructure.ReferencesandFurtherReadingThereisahugeamountofbooksandarticleson(theethicalaspectsof)nucleardeterrence.Thisarticledirectlyorindirectlyrefersto:BenthemvandenBerg,G.van(1988).“TheTamingoftheGreatPowers.NuclearWeaponsandGlobalIntegration,”Dissertation,UniversityofAmsterdam.Brodie,B.(ed.)(1946).TheAbsoluteWeapon:AtomicPowerandtheWorldOrder(NewYork:HarcourtBrace).Ethics95(1985),no.3.Specialissueonethicsandnucleardeterrence.Hymans,J.E.C.(2006).ThePsychologyofNuclearProliferation:Identity,EmotionsandForeignPolicy(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).Johnson,J.T.(1984).CanModernWarBeJust(NewHaven,Conn./London:YaleUniversityPress).vanderBruggen,K.(1986).Verzekerdevredeofverzekerdevernietiging,Ontwikkelingvaneentheorievangerechtvaardigdeafschrikking[AssuredPeaceorAssuredDestruction:DevelopmentofaTheoryofJustifiedDeterrence](Kampen).Englishsummaryinbook.Walzer,M.(1980).JustandUnjustWars:AMoralArgumentwithHistoricalIllustrations(Harmondsworth:Penguin).465\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page46684ReligionandTechnologyCARLMITCHAMTherelationbetweenreligionandsciencehasbeenthesubjectofextendedphilo-sophicaldiscussions,thatbetweenreligionandtechnologymuchlessso.Whenreli-giousbelief(inoneEuropeanversion)isboundupwithanEarth-centeredcosmologyortheologyofcreationandopposedbyheliocentricastronomyorevolutionarybiologyrespectively,problemsreadilyarise.Eitherthebeliefneedspurificationorthescienceismistaken;boundariesmustbeadjudicatedandinteractionsanalyzed.Yet,insofarastechnologyissimplyaninstrumentalmeans,anyoppositionwouldseemtobedown-gradedfromthelevelofanalysistooneoftemptationtomisuse–withtemptationsbeingadequatelyaddressedsimplywithmoreresolutefaith.Existentially,however,technologiescanbedesignedtoappealtolowerorhigherhumaninclinationsinwaysthatenhanceoneovertheother,sothatinpractice,ifnotintheory,therecanexistproblematicrelationsbetweenreligionandtechnology.Inaddition,thereistheproblematicclaimthatoneparticularreligion(namelyChristianity)contributeduniquelytotheriseoftechnologyinitsmodernform.Torestate,fromtheperspectiveofethicsalone:Bothhistoricallyandculturally,moralpracticeiscloselyassociatedwithreligion.Thisistrueintwosenses:Manypeoplefinditdifficulttoimagineamoralitythatisnotreligiouslybased.Virtuallynoonecanimaginereligionsthatdonotincludesubstantivecomponentsofmorality,eveniftheiradherentsmayfailtoliveoutthemoralidealstowhichtheyarecommitted.Indeed,virtuallyallreligionsseemtoposesomedegreeoftensionorconflictbetweenalternativewaysoflifeandtoargueforoneofthesewaysashigherorsuperior.Insofarastechnologyitselfcanconstituteawayoflife,itisthussubjecttoreligiousorspiritualassessment.Tosomeextent,then,thequestionoftherelationbetweenreligionandtechnologycanbeconsideredasaspecialversionoftherelationbetweenmoraltheoryorethicsandtechnology.Religionandtechnology,likeethicsandtechnology,canbeanalyzedintermsofhistoricaltraditions,basicfeatures,orparticularissues.Intermsofhistoricaltraditions,itwouldbenecessarytoconsiderwhatdifferentreligions,fromHinduismtoIslam,mighthavetosayabouttechnology.Intermsofbasicfeatures,religionandtechnologyare,indifferentsenses,fundamentallyrelatedandopposed,sothatthekeyphilosophicalchallengeistoidentifyandassessthesedifferentrelations.Withregardtoparticularissues,fromindustrializationtonuclearweapons,environmentalpollution,artificial466ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page467religionandtechnologycontraception,medicalizedabortionandeuthanasia,computerizedcommunication,andspacetravelthediscussioncouldeasilyexpandbeyondtheconfinesofanintroductoryoverview.Historico-theologicalDebatesOneprominentinstanceofanalyzingwhathistoricaltraditionshavetosayabouttechnologycentersaroundthequestionofwhetherChristianitymadeadistinctivecontributiontotheriseofmoderntechnology.TherelationbetweenChristianityandtechnologywasinitiallybroachedinscholarlyformbythesocialscientistMaxWeber(1864–1920),whofocusedonthecontributionofProtestantChristianitytothedevelop-mentofcapitalistindustrialization.ByattributingtoChristianitysomeresponsibilityfortheriseoftechno-capitalistcivilization,WeberpopularizedacriticismpreviouslyadvancedbyphilosopherFriedrichNietzsche(1844–1900),thatbourgeoisculturewassimplyChristianmoralitywritelarge.Priortotheinitialstirringsofdistinctlymodernattitudes,mostreligiousphilo-sophieswereatleastminimallywaryofwhatisnowcalledtechnology.Theargumentwasfundamentallyquitesimple:thatthepursuitandpracticeoftechnicsdistractsfromhigherthings.ThisideacanbefoundintheJewish–ChristianscripturesaswellasinDaoistandBuddhistteachings.Inthefirstcase,onemaycitethestoriesofaconflictbetweentheshepherd,Abel,andthebuilderofcities,Cain(Genesis4),andoftheattemptbyhumanstoaggrandizethemselvesthroughthetechnicalconstructionofatowerthatwouldunderminedependenceonthedivine(Genesis11:4–9).Inthesecond,astoryfromChinarelatesthatthesageChuangTzu(fourthcenturybce)oncesawapeasantirrigatinghisgardenwithabucketandexplainedhowirrigationcouldbedonemoreeasilywithamachinecalledashadoof.Theoldpeasantdeclinedtheadvice,contendingthat“wherethereareingeniousmachines,therearesuretobecraftyactions[and]aschemingmind[thatundermines]simplicity....TheunsettledspiritisnottheproperresidenceoftheDao”(seeMuller1891:bk12,sect.11).Withconsciousoppositiontosuchtraditions,modernityaroseduringthelongsixteenthcenturyinassociationwithargumentsforthepriorityoftechnologyinhumanaffairs.Theseargumentsatoncetendedtocriticizetraditionalreligiousbeliefsandreinter-prettheminradicalways.Forinstance,FrancisBacon(1561–1626)arguedthatthepracticeofChristiancharityrequiredpursuitofthecontrolofnatureforreliefofthehumanestate.Weber’sTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism(1904–5)foundinCalvinisttheologyanothersourceofcommitmenttothis-worldlytransformation.AccordingtoWeber,culturesarecharacterizedbythepresenceofnumeroustech-niques.“Thereare,”Weberobserved,“techniquesofeveryconceivabletypeofaction,techniquesofprayer,ofasceticism,ofthoughtandresearch,ofmemorizing,ofeduca-tion,ofexercisingpoliticalorhierarchicdomination,ofadministration,ofmakinglove,ofmakingwar,ofmusicalperformance,ofsculptureandpainting,ofarrivingatlegaldecisions”(EconomyandSociety,Vol.1,p.65).Inpremodernculturesthesetechniquesareneverevaluatedsolelyintheirownterms,thatis,intermsofeffectivenessortheir“rational”relationtosomewell-definedmaterialproduct.Thetechniqueofbutcher-ing,forinstance,wascustomarilyorientednotsolelytowardthepreparationofmeat,467\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page468carlmitchambutalsoinvolvedplacatingthegodsoractinginharmonywithvariousritualprescriptions.OnlywiththeriseofProtestantismdidreligion,economics,politics,thearts,andotherdimensionsofculturegetspunoffintosemi-autonomousspheres,thusmakingpossibleanassessmentoftheirtechniquesinstrictlyrationalterms–andtherebygivingbirthtowhatwenowappropriatelycall“technology.”TheWeberthesishasbeencriticizedbythosesuspiciousofmono-causalexplanationsanduneasywithgivingsuchstrongweightto“idealtypes”andpersonalagency.WhileRobertMerton(1938)offeredcomplementaryconfirmationtoWeber,othershavechal-lengedWeber’sunderstandingofProtestantism,whichprivilegedinterpretationsonthebasisoftheirinfluencenottheirorthodoxy.Inreality,accordingtotheChristiansocio-logistJacquesEllul,“ThetechnicalmovementoftheWestdevelopedinaworldwhichhadalreadywithdrawnfromthedominantinfluenceofChristianity”(1954:35).JustastheWeberdebateseemedtohaveexhausteditself,thehistorianoftechno-logyLynnWhite,Jr(1907–87)expandedanalysisoftheChristianity–technologyrelationshipbypushingtheargumentforapositiverelationshipbetweencertainkindsofreligiousasceticismandthepursuitoftechnicalprowessbackintomedievalLatinCatholicismandcriticizingnotitspromotionofbourgeoisvaluesbutasacauseoftheenvironmentalcrisis.WhiteexcludedonlyEasternOrthodoxChristianitybecauseofitsinterpretationofChristianteachingasmoreagnosis,orspiritualenlightenment,thanadiscipliningofthewill,anditsresistancetothecontaminationofsacredspacewithmechanicaldevicessuchastheorganandtheclock.Hisessayon“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicCrisis”(1967)creditedWesternChristianitywithalargemeasureofresponsibilityforenvironmentalpollutionbecauseofitsemphasisonactiveconformitytoGod’swillandasympathyforpowertechnologies.TheimpactofWhite’scriticism,especiallyinsofarasitwasusedtodevelopapro-paganenvironmentalismcriticalofChristianity(contrarytoWhitehimself,whoarguedforareformChristianitywithappealtoFranciscanrespectfornature),wasthestimulationofadoubledefense.OnedefensechallengedWhite’scharacterizationofChristiantheology,theotherhisassumptionsabouttheenvironmentalcrisis.AgainstWhite’sclaimthatChristianitypromotedtechnologicalexploitationofnatureandwasthustoblamefortheenvironmentalcrisis,aspectrumoftheologiansfromCatholictoevangelicalreplied,inargumentsreminiscentofearlierresponsestoWeber,thatWhitehadfailedtodistinguishtrueChristianityfromitsculturalperversions.TheauthenticChristianteaching,suchapologistsmaintained,wasenvironmentalsteward-ship.AseconddefensearguedagainstWhitethattechnologywasnotproperlychar-acterizedascausinganenvironmentalcrisis,butinsteadhaddonemoretobenefithumanityinwaysconsonantwiththerequirementsofChristiancharitythanallenvironmentaliststogether–andwasactuallyovercomingtheallegedenvironmentalproblemsattributedtoit.Nobookhasbetterdocumentedthepro-technologyresponsethanDavidNoble’sTheReligionofTechnology(1997).FromHistorytoPhilosophyThehistoriologicalproblemofaccountingfortheuniquelyEuropeanoriginsofmoderntechnologyremainsasomewhatparochialdiscussioninregardtotheattitudesof468\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page469religionandtechnologyvariousworldreligionstowardtechnology.Abroaderdiscussionofreligionandtech-nologyattemptstoanalyzeandconsiderintrinsicaffinitiesortensionsbetweenthetwokeyphenomena,thedefinitionsofwhichmanifesttheirownproblematics.Indeed,argumentshaveevenbeenmadethatthereisnosuchthingaseitherreligionortech-nology,thatthereareonlyreligionsandtechnologies.Yeteventoapplythetermsintheirpluralformsimpliessomethingincommonamongthediversephenomenasonamed.Ineachcaseitisthusreasonabletoinquireabouttheunifyingfeatures.Consider,first,thecaseoftechnology,becauseitisslightlyeasier.Technology–whoseetymologyderivesfromacombinationoftheGreektechne,artorskill,andlogos,speechorreason–hasbeenvariouslyunderstoodtoberestrictedtoortoincludetechniqueortechnics,machinesandstructures,themechanicalartsandcrafts,appliedscience,invention,engineering,thepursuitofpowerorefficiency,anymeanstoanend,andmore.Oneunifyingfeaturethusreadilyappearstobephysicalobjectsmadeandusedbyhumanbeings,withanimportantdistinctiontobemaintainedbetweenpremodernorhandcrafttechnicsandmodernengineeringormass-productiontechnology.Never-theless,thestrictdemarcationoftechnologyasthemakingandusingofartifactsinanyofitsmanifestingmodesasobject,knowledge,activityandintentionfromothertypesofobject(suchasnaturalones?),knowledge(versusscientific?),activity(versusplay?)andintention(versusaesthetic?)remainsdifficult(Mitcham1994).With“religion,”eventheetymologyiscontested.CiceroderivedtheLatinreligiofromre,“again,”pluslegere,“toread,”thusreferencingtherepetitiousreadingofsacredtexts;Augustinefromreplusligare,“toconnect,”meaningtoreconnecthumanstothedivineortobindthemincommunitythroughacommoncommitmenttothesacred.TheEnglishtermhasbeendifferentiallyidentifiedwithfaith,beliefsystem,orhumanbehaviorsrelatedtothesacred,divineorsupernatural.OnesyntheticdefinitioncanbeadaptedfromNinianSmart(1984):Areligionisasetofsociallyinstitutionalizedrituals(activities)expressingand/orevokingexperiencesofthetranscendentunderstoodintermsofmythsanddoctrines(knowledge)andimplicatingmorals(intentions).AsSmartfur-therremarks,themythsandritualsalsoengendersymbolicproductsinart,music,poetryandarchitecture(artifacts).Thesetwoconceptualanalysessuggestatleastfourmodalitiesinwhichreligionmayintersectwithcrafttechnicsorscientifictechnology,possibilitiessummarized(andmodestlyexpanded)bymeansofTable84.1.Table84.1OpportunitiesforcollaborationandoppositionReligionCrafttechnicsScientifictechnologyPhysicalobjectsParticulartemplesHand-craftedpotsMass-producedcarsorandpaintingscomputersTypesofknowledgeRevelationsandIntuitiveskillsEngineeringsciencesteachingsFormsofactivityPrayingandHolisticprocesses:Analysisandsynthesis:worshippingconstructingandusingconstructingandusingIntentionsTranscendenceParticularproductsMassproductionandconsumerproducts469\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page470carlmitchamItisthuspossibletoconsiderinturnpossiblearguments,oftenofanexistentialcharacter,betweenvariousaspectsofreligiousexperienceanddifferentmodesofthemanifestationoftechnology,highlightingopportunitiesforcollaborationandopposi-tion.Amongthemoresystematicphilosophicaleffortstoexploreaspectrumofinter-actionsarethosebyCarlMitchamandJimGrote(1984),WilliamJonesandWarrenMatthews(1990),FrederickFerré(1993),JayNewman(1997)andothers.Drawingontheseandrelatedapproaches,whilekeepinginmindthedistinctionbetweencrafttechnicsandscientifictechnology,onecanventureanumberofobservationsaboutrelationshipsthatplayoutacrossanindefinitenumberofparticularissues.Withregardtothosematerialobjectsorartifactsconstructedandusedasritualinstru-mentsorstructuresforworship,onewouldexpectlittleifanyoppositionbetweenreligionandtechnics–exceptinsofarastechnicscanonoccasionhaveunintendedconsequences.Thereplacementofsuchcraftedritualinstrumentsbyscientificallyengineeredproducts,however,aswhencandlesarereplacedbyelectriclightsimitatingcandles,mayposequestions.Indeed,sinceartifacts–aswellasknowledge,activityandintention–can,alongsideunintendedconsequences,serveasvectorsfordiverseexplicitorimplicitrestructuringsoftheworld,thesedimensionsoftechnologyrunthechanceoftransformingoropposingreligiousexperience.Attemptstoadapttechnologicalproducts,processesandsystemstofacilitatereligiouspracticeshaveneverthelessbeenpursuedespeciallybyorthodoxJews(seeGerstenfeldandWyler2006)andProtestantChristians(seeSpyker2007).Consideralsotheissueoftechnologicalknowledge.Here,too,thereisprobablylessroomforconcernatthelevelofcraftknowledge,althoughsuchknowledgeisoftenhedgedinbyreligiousmores,aswhenmedicaloralchemicalknowledgeisembeddedinreligioustraditionsasdiverseasHinduismandIslam.Inthemodernworld,althoughtheengineeringsciencesmaynotbelogicallyatoddswithrevelationorworship,therearecertainlyindividualswhohaveknownwhatmightbedescribedasexistentialtensionsbetweenthespiritengagedinthemeditativereadingofsacredtexts,theconductofworship,oreffortstoopenoneselftotranscendentexperiencesoftheselforworldandthosehumanexperiencesmanifestanddrawnforthbyadvancing,say,fluidmechanics,orinutilizingfluidmechanicsindesignwork.Someengineersandinventorscertainlyexperiencetheactofinventionanddesignasitselfinvolvingakindofself-transcendence.(Forsomepapersthattouchonthistopic,seeMitchamandRichardson1999.)Issueswithregardtoactivityareperhapsthemostextensive.First,atthecraftlevel,religiousactivitiesoftenoverlapwithtechnique.Butattheleveloftechnolo-gicalactivities–aswithindustrializedproductionandconsumption;thedesign,constructionandoperationoftechnologicalsystems;andthedevelopmentofdiversetechnoscientificpractices–numerousquestionsarise.Religiousactivityitselfmaybesaidtotakethreeprimaryforms:ritualperformance,prayerorcontemplation,andgoodworks(meaningespeciallyworksofcompassionandcharity).Withregardtoritualperformance,competitionsarisebetweenthedemandsoflifeinatechnologicalsocietyandthoseofritual;thereisnotalwayssufficienttimeforboth.Withregardtoprayerandcontemplation,notonlyaretheretimecompetitions,butalsothepracticesoftechnologicalwork,fromtheindustrialtoserviceandinformationsectors,cantendtounderminethehabitsandattitudesonwhichtheydepend.Forinstance,prayerand470\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page471religionandtechnologycontemplationseemquitecompatiblewiththeslowplaceofplowingafield,butnotwithassembly-linelabororfastfoodpreparationandcustomerdelivery.Withregardtogoodworks,issuesofsocialjusticebecomeprominent.Indeed,Christiansocialismwasoneoftheprimarydriverstoaddresseconomicinequitiesandthesufferingsoftheworkingclassduringtheindustrialrevolution.ForGandhi,Hinduism(despiteitsownproblemswiththecastesystem)servedasaresourceforaddressingpoliticalinjusticecloselyassociatedwithtechnologicalexploitationintheformofcolonialismandprovidedinspirationforavisionofcrafttechnicsrevival.Atthesametime,manyHindus,Jews,Christians,Muslimsandothershavearguedthatthemassproductionofgoodsandservicesisapracticalrealizationofspiritualconcernforthewelfareofothers.Thissametensionappearsequallydramaticallyintherealmofmedicalpracticeastransformedbyadvancesinmedicalscienceandtherapeuticpractice.Ontheonehand,therearethosewhoseeallmedicine,fromlow-tohigh-tech,astheexerciseofloveandconcernforothers;ontheother,thereareselectedcriticsfromvirtuallyallreligiouscommunitieswhoseeatleastcertaintechno-medicalpractices(e.g.artificialbirthcontrolandmedicalizedabortion)asinherentlyevil.Theintentionatworkintechnologyhasbeenvariouslycharacterizedasthepursuitofpowerorefficiency.Nomatterhowitisdescribed,clearlytechnologyinitsmostobviousformsaimsattransformingthephysicalworld.Itisdifficultnottoseethisintentionasdeeplyatoddswiththeaspirationfortranscendencefoundattheheartofmanyreligions.TakeBuddhismasacaseinpoint.ThewayoftheBuddhaissummarizedintheteachingoftheFourNobleTruths.Firstisthetruththatalllife,notjusthumanlife,isDukkha,sufferingorlackofsatisfaction.Secondisthetruththatsufferinghasanoriginincravingordesiring.Thirdisthetruththatsufferingcanceaseorfadeawaywiththeabandonmentofcravinganddesiring.FourthisthetruthoftheNobleEightfoldPaththatcanleadtotheabandonmentofcravinganddesir-ing.TheNobleEightfoldPathinvolvesthepracticeofrightview,rightintention,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,rightmindfulness,andrightconcen-tration.InBuddhismitisdifficultnottodetectadeepoppositiontotechnology,insofarastechnologyaimsnottoabandondesiresbuttosatisfythemthroughmoreeffectiveviewsandactions.Thisisanopposition,forinstance,onwhichE.F.Schumacherhasdrawninhisessay“BuddhistEconomics”(1973),insupportofanotionofaltern-ativetechnology.Bycontrast,ofcourse,ashasalreadybeenmentioned,intheChristiantraditiontherewouldseemtobeintentionalcommitmentstocaringforothersphysicallythatwouldbeabletomakecommonalliancewithtechnology.Similarintentionscanbearguedaspresentinotherreligionsofthebook,thatis,inJudaismandIslam.ConclusionsInsofarasthereligion–technologyrelationislinkedtotheethics–technologyrelation,whatmightthereligion–technologyadd?Thereareatleasttwopossibilities.First,becausereligionaddstoethicsbothaffectiveandinstitutionalcomponents,itprovidessupple-mentaryresourcesfordealingwiththemoralchallengesoftechnology.Religionhas,471\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page472carlmitchamforinstance,madesignificantcontributionstodealingwiththemoralissuesandsub-stantivethreatsraisedbynuclearweaponsandenvironmentalpollution.Ofcourse,atthesametime,religionhasoftencomplicatedsecularapproachestoothermoralissuessuchaspopulationcontrol.Second,andperhapsmoreimportantphilosophically,criticalreligiousreflectionontechnologycanwidenanddeepenethicalperspectives.Mostperspicaciously,criticalreligiousthoughtcanexaminetheextenttowhichtechnologyitselfmightfunctionasorattempttoreplacereligion.Suchanapproachmightmoderatesomereligiousenthusiasmswithregardtotechnology.Finally,itisworthconsideringwhichreligioustraditionsmightofferthebestcomplementstoethicsfromanynumberofperspectives.Suchreflections(asin,e.g.,Szerszynski2005andWaters2006)mightwellfunctionasacreativecontributiontothemultipledimensionalencountersbetweenreligionsthatareenfoldedintheglobalizationthatisitselfpromotedbytechnology.ReferencesandFurtherReadingEllul,Jacques(1954).LaTechniqueoul’enjeudusiecle.(Paris:A.Colin,1954).Englishversion:TheTechnologicalSociety,trans.JohnWilkinson(NewYork:Knopf,1964).Ferré,Frederick(1993).HellfireandLighteningRods:LiberatingScience,Technology,andReligion(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis).Gerstenfeld,ManfredandWyler,Avraham(2006).“TechnologyandJewishLife,”JewishPoliticalStudiesReview,18(1–2).Jones,WilliamB.andMatthews,A.Warren(1990).“TowardaTaxonomyofTechnologyandReligion,”ResearchinPhilosophyandTechnology,10:3–23.Merton,RobertK.(1938).“Science,Technology,andSocietyinSeventeenth-centuryEngland,”Osiris(Bruges:StCatherinePressandHistoryofScienceSociety,1938),4(2).Mitcham,Carl(1994).ThinkingthroughTechnology(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).Mitcham,CarlandGrote,Jim(eds)(1984).TheologyandTechnology:EssaysinChristianAnalysisandExegesis(Lanham,Md.:UniversityPressofAmerica).Mitcham,CarlandMarkRichardson(eds)(1999).“Science,TechnologyandtheSpiritualQuest,”TechnologyinSociety,guest-editedthemeissue,21(4).Muller,Max(ed.)(1891).TheSacredBooksoftheEast,Vols39and40:TheWritingsofChaungTzu,trans.JamesLegge(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Newman,Jay(1997).ReligionandTechnology:AStudyinthePhilosophyofCulture(Westport,Conn.:Praeger).Noble,DavidF.(1997).TheReligionofTechnology:TheDivinityofMantheSpiritofInvention(NewYork:Knopf).Schumacher,E.F.(1973).“BuddhistEconomics,”inSmallIsBeautiful:EconomicsasifPeopleMattered(NewYork:Harper&Row),pp.56–66.Smart,Ninian(1984).TheReligiousExperienceofMankind3rdedn(NewYork:Scribner).Spyker,StephenK.(2007).TechnologyandSpirituality:HowtheInformationRevolutionAffectsOurSpiritualLives(Woodstock,Vt.:SkylightPaths).Szerszynski,Bronislaw(2005).Nature,Technology,andtheSacred(Malden,Mass.:Blackwell).Waters,Brent(2006).FromHumantoPosthuman:ChristianTheoryandTechnologyinaPostmodernWorld(Burlington,Vt.:Ashgate).472\n9781405146012_4_084.qxd2/4/0914:08Page473religionandtechnologyWeber,Max(1905).ProtestantischeEthikundderGeistdesKapitalismus.Englishversion:TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism,trans.TalcottParsons(NewYork1930).White,Lynn,Jr(1967).“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicCrisis,”Science,155:1203–7.Reprintedintheauthor’sMachinaExDeo:EssaysintheDynamismofWesternCulture(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1968),whichwasitselfrepublishedasDynamoandVirginReconsidered:EssaysintheDynamismofWesternCulture(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1971).473\n9781405146012_4_085.qxd2/4/0914:10Page47485TechnologyandPersonalMoralResponsibilityJESPERRYBERGThedevelopmentofnewtechnologygivesrisetoseveralethicalquestionsconcerningthemoralresponsibilityofthosewhocarryoutthedevelopment,i.e.thescientists(obviously,suchworkmayinvolvetraditionalscientists,engineersandseveralothergroups;however,forreasonsofeaseinexpositionIshallhereuse“thescientists”).Onetypeofquestionconcernsthemorallegitimacyofthescientificworkitself.Forinstance,towhatextentisitacceptabletoperformexperimentsonanimalsorhumans?Whatistheproperbehaviorwhenscientistsarecompetingwithotherscientists?Howandtowhatextentoughtnewresultstobepresented?Suchquestionshaveoverthelastdecadesbeentreatedwithindifferentfieldsofethicssuchastheethicsofanimals,medicalethicsand,morerecently,whathasbecomeknownasresearchethics(seeErwin,GendinandKleiman1994).Anothertypeofquestion,however,concernsnotthescientificprocessitself,buttheapplicationoftheresultsofthescientificresearch.Thefactthatthescientificwork,especiallytheworkthatleadstonewtechnology,mayenduphavingasevereimpactonmanypeople’slivesraisesthequestionconcerningtheextenttowhichscientistsshouldberegardedaspersonallyresponsiblefortheconsequencesoftheirwork.Thisisthequestiontobedealtwithhere.ShortlyaftertheendoftheSecondWorldWaracorrespondencetookplacebetweenAlbertEinsteinandtheAmericanQuakerA.J.Muste(seeChalk1989).ThebackgroundforthiscorrespondencewasanappealinwhichEinsteinurgedthepublicfordonationstosupportscientistsintheirattemptstodevelopcontrolslimitingtheuseofnuclearweapons.ThepointmadebyMustewasthatiftheappealweretobetakenseriously,thenwhatEinsteinandotherscientistsshoulddowouldbetorenounceanyinvolve-mentinconstructingsuchweaponsinthefirstplace.Heconcludedbyasking:“Asforthemasses,howcantheybeexpectedtobelievethatatomicweaponsareasworthlessandhorribleasthescientistssaytheyare,whenthescientistscontinuetomakethethings...,”and,furthermore,hedeclaredthatthis“cannotmakesensetoordinaryhumanbeings”(Chalk1989:61).Thequestionthatconstitutesthecoreofthiscorrespondence,andonewhichhasoftenlaterbeenposed,is:Doscientistshaveamoralresponsibilityfortheconse-quencesoftheirwork–forinstance,thedeathofpeoplethatmightfollowfromtheconstructionofcertaintypesofweapons?Naturallythequestioncanbeposedposit-ively,suchaswhetherthereisanobligationforthescientisttotakepartinresearch474ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_085.qxd2/4/0914:10Page475technologyandpersonalmoralresponsibilitythatwillbetothebenefitofmanypeople.However,sincescientistsusuallyhavevariousincentives–forinstance,whatJ.R.Oppenheimeroncereferredtoasthe“sweetness”ofscientificproblemsorsimplytheirsalary–toengageinscientificwork,thequestionhastypicallybeenphrasednegatively,suchaswhetherthereexistsamoralobligationtoabstainfromcarryingoutorparticipatingincertainkindsofresearch.Accordingtoonestand,thisquestionshouldbeansweredinthenegative.Inacademicdiscussions,aswellasinbroaderpublicdiscussions,severalargumentshavebeenpresentedtothiseffect.Followingonesuchargument,theideaofthemoralrespons-ibilityofscientistsrestsonmisrepresentationofthenatureofscientificwork.Correctlyperceived,scientificinquiryisanactivitythatseekstoeliminateanundesirablechar-acteristicofasituation.However,sincethescientistcannotforeseethespecifictruthhisworkwillyield–otherwisewhyshouldhehaveengagedininquiryinthefirstplace?–itmakesnosensetoholdhim/herresponsibleforresultsthatfollowfromtheresearch(seeHoffman1975).Tothisargumentitmightbeobjectedthat,eventhoughsomescientificresearchispureorfundamental,inthesensethatfromtheoutsetitisnotclearwhattheprecisepurposeoftheinquiryconsistsin,thereisalsoscientificworkthatis“mission-oriented,”inthesensethatthescientisthasaverygoodideaofwhathe/sheislookingfor.Thisisespeciallythecasewhenitcomestothedevelopmentofnewtechnology:oneoftenknowswhatoneisaimingat,butnothowtoreachorconstructit(Belsey1978).Moreover,eventhoughscientificworksometimesproducestotallyunexpectedresults,thisdoesnotindicatewhetherornotthescientistoughttocommunicatehis/herresults(Ryberg2003).Anotherargumenttotheeffectthatthescientistshouldnotbeheldmorallyrespons-ibleproclaimsthatquestionsofrightandwrongarestatematters,notmattersthatlieinthehandsofindividualscientists.ThisargumentwaspresentedbyseveralscientistsintheirobjectiontoMuste’sappeal.Forinstance,W.Higginbothamcontended:“Webelieveingovernmentofthepeople...ifscientistsweretowalkoutonallmilitaryprojectstheywouldbetakingthelawintotheirownhandsjustassurelyastheKuKluxKlan”(Chalk1989:69).Moregenerally,theviewisthatmoralityshouldbehandledbythestate.Thisargumentraisesseveralquestions.Forinstance,isitnotthefactthattherearemanycaseswherewehaveapersonalmoralresponsibilityindependentlyofwhatastatedecides?Anddoestheargumentpresupposethatstatedecisionsarealwaysright?Ifso,aretherenotmanyexamplesinourhistorythatbringthisassumptionintoquestion?Perhapstheargumentwhichmostnaturallycomestomindistheonethatclaimsthatscientistsshouldnotbeheldresponsible,forthesimplereasonthattheydonotdecidehowtheresultsoftheirworkshouldbeapplied(Hoffman1975).Responsibilityforuseisrightlyascribedtowhoeverformulatesapolicyandwhoevermakesthedecisions,andthisgroupalmostneverincludesscientistsbutratherpoliticians.Thisargumentleadsonetowonderwhetherthefactthatonecouldhavepreventedacertainundesirableoutcomefromhappeningisnotsufficientfortheascriptionofresponsibility,nomatterwhetherotherpeople’sdecisionsinterveneintheseriesofeventsleadingtothisoutcome(Ryberg2003).Afurtherargumentworthmentioninghasbeenreferredtoasthe“replaceabilityargument”(seeLackey1994).Inshort,theargumentsaysthat“IfIdidnotdoit,some-oneelsewould”and,therefore,“Ididnotreallydoanythingwrong.”Ifanundesirable475\n9781405146012_4_085.qxd2/4/0914:10Page476jesperrybergoutcomefollowsfromascientist’swork,butthisworkwouldhavebeencarriedoutbyanotherscientisthadthefirstrejectedit,then,theargumentgoes,thefirstscientisthadnotmadethingsworsethantheywouldhavebeen,andhe/sheshouldthereforenotbeheldresponsible.Onewayofchallengingthisargumentwouldbetoholdthattherearecertainactsthatarewrongtoperformindependentlyoftheconsequencestheyproduce.Aswellastheabove-mentionedarguments,otherargumentshavebeenpresentedindefenceoftheviewthatscientistsdonothavemoralresponsibility(Lackey1994,Ryberg2003).Ifoneinsteadleavesasidethenegativeanswersinfavoroftheoutlookthattheinitiallymentionedquestionshouldbeansweredintheaffirmative,thenumberofargumentsismuchmorelimited.Themainargument,ofcourse,isthatinsofarasscientistsengageinworkthatmayhaveimportantconsequencesforotherpeople’slivestheydocarryamoralresponsibility.Oneofthepracticalchallengesthatfollowsfromthispointofviewisthatitmaybeverydifficultfortheindividualscientisttoforeseetheconsequencesofhis/herwork.Tosticktogeneralrulessuchasthatitiswrongtocontributetothedevelopmentofmilitarytechnologyisprobablymuchtoosimplistic.Weaponsandothermilitarytechnologiesmaybeusedtoprotectpeopleandtopreventundesirableconsequences.Moreover,technologiesmayturnouttohaveconsequencesthatreachfarbeyondthemorenarrowpurposeforwhichtheywereinitiallyconstructed.Forinstance,itiswellknownthat,whilenuclearpower,andalsodrugs,pesticides,aircraft,radar,processedfood,satellites,computers,transistors,lasersandmanyothertechnologieshavebeendevelopedformilitarypurposes,theyhavehadobviousbeneficialcivilianapplicationsaswell.Thustransformingmoregeneralconsiderationsonresponsibilityintosomethingthatcanguidetheindividualscientistinhis/herdailyworkmaywellbeacomplicatedchallenge.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBelsey,A.(1978).“TheMoralResponsibilityoftheScientist,”Philosophy,vol.53.Chalk,R.(1989).“DrawingtheLine:AnExaminationofConscientiousObjectioninScience,”inMircham,C.andSiekevitz,P.(eds)(1989).Erwin,E.,Gendin,S.andKleiman,L.(eds)(1994).EthicalIssuesinScientificResearch(NewYork/London:Garland).Hoffman,R.(1975).“ScientificResearchandMoralRectitude,”Philosophy,vol.50.Lackey,D.P.(1994).“MilitaryFunds,MoralDemands:PersonalResponsibilityoftheIndividualScientist,”inErwin,E.,Gendin,S.andKleiman,L.(eds)(1994).Mitcham,C.andSiekevitz,P.(eds)(1994).“EthicalIssuesAssociatedwithScientificandTechnologicalResearchfortheMilitary,”AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofScience,vol.577.Ryberg,J.(2003).“EthicsandMilitaryResearch:OntheMoralResponsibilityofScientists,”inB.Booss-BavnbekandJ.Højrup(eds),MathematicsandWar(Basel:BirkhäuserVerlag).476\n9781405146012_4_086.qxd2/4/0914:10Page47786Value-sensitiveDesignJEROENVANDERHOVENANDNOEMIMANDERS-HUITSValue-sensitivedesign(VSD)isanapproachtosystemsdevelopmentandsoftwareengineeringwhichwasfirstintroducedinthelastdecadeofthetwentiethcenturyasanapproachforincorporatinghumanvaluesintothedesignof(information)technology.VSDwasdevelopedbyBatyaFriedmanandothers,buildingoninsightsofthehuman–computerinteractioncommunity(HCI)todrawattentiontothesocialandmoraldimensionsofdesign.Otherinitiativeshadalsobeenstudyingthesocialimplicationsofcomputertechnology,suchascomputerethics,computer-supportedcooperativework(CSCW)andparticipatorydesign(PD).Someoftheseresearchcommunities,likevalue-sensitivedesign,havealsotriedtoincorporatevaluesintothedesignoftechno-logicalsystemsatanearlystage;however,whereastheseapproachestendtofocusonfunctionalandinstrumentalvalues(e.g.user-friendliness),value-sensitivedesignfocusesprimarilyonaddressingvaluesofmoralimport,suchasprivacy,trustandautonomy.Althoughbuildingauser-friendlytechnologymightalsoincreaseauser’ssenseofauto-nomyortrust,invalue-sensitivedesigntheattentionformoralvaluesistheprimarygoal.AccordingtoFriedman:Value-SensitiveDesignisprimarilyconcernedwithvaluesthatcenteronhumanwell-being,humandignity,justice,welfare,andhumanrights.Value-SensitiveDesignconnectsthepeoplewhodesignsystemswiththepeoplewhothinkaboutandunderstandthevaluesofthestakeholderswhoareaffectedbythesystems.Ultimately,Value-SensitiveDesignrequiresthatwebroadenthegoalsandcriteriaforjudgingthequalityoftechno-logicalsystemstoincludethosethatadvancehumanvalues.(FriedmanandKahn2000)Severalauthorsinthefieldofvalue-sensitivedesigndrewattentiontohumanandmoralvaluesasanintegralpartoftheconception,designanddevelopmentoftechnologicalartifactsandsystems.Theseincludedesignforvalues(Camp2007),valuesatplay(Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005;Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum,inpress),value-sensitivedesign(Friedman1999;Friedman,KahnandBorning2002)anddis-closivecomputerethicsdevelopedbyPhilipBrey(2000).Eachoftheseframeworksseeks(1)tobroadenthecriteriaforjudgingthequalityoftechnologicalsystemstoincludetheadvancementofmoralvalues,and(2)topromulgatetheproactiveinfluencingofACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks477©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_086.qxd2/4/0914:10Page478jeroenvanderhovenandnoemimanders-huitsthedesignoftechnologiestoaccountforsuchvaluesduringtheearlyphaseofthedesignprocess.Systemdevelopers,informationarchitectsanddesignersinotherdisciplinesaretraditionallyprimarilyinterestedinfunctionalrequirements(e.g.speed,capacity,cost,durability,robustness)andrelatedvaluessuchasusability,efficiency,reliabilityandaffordability.Value-sensitivedesigndrawsattentiontotheimpacttechnologieshaveonhumanwell-beingandthequalityofhumanlives.Theunderlyingideaofvalue-sensitivedesignisthattechnologyisnotvalue-neutral.Technologyisboundtohavemoralandpoliticalimplicationsforthoseaffectedbyit.Furthermore,muchofourtech-nologyisnotmerelyenablingbutconstitutive.Itshapesourpracticesandinstitutionsinimportantways.Itchangesourwayoflifeandthewaywethink,ineducation,business,healthcareandscience,vandenHovenargues(2005).Decisionsmadeindesigndeterminefutureopportunitiesandpossibilitiesofthosewhoworkwithit.AsFriedmanpointsout,however(FriedmanandKahn2003),valuesareneithersolelydesignedintotechnology,norsolelyconveyedbysocialdriversandforces.Influenceisexertedbi-directionally.Newtechnologiesmaybeappliedandusedforpurposesotherthanthoseintendedindesign,andtechnologiesareadjustedandchangedinadynamicaldevelopmentprocess.Thisiswhatiscalledaninteractionalposition.Anadequateaccountoftechnologyneedstoaccommodatebothdesignandsocialcontextandtheinteractionbetweenthem(FriedmanandKahn2003).Manysocialandphilosophicalscholarsoftechnologyhaveattemptedtoexposethesocialandpoliticalbiasesembeddedintechnicalsystemsandartifacts(see,forexample,Berg1998;Latour1992,1985;Mumford1964;Winner1980).Theyarguethattech-nologiestendtopromotecertainideologies,whileobscuringothers.Scholarsinethicsofinformationtechnologyhaveextendedthisresearchintoquestionsofhowinformationtechnologiesspecificallyexemplifyethicalandvaluebiases(see,forexample,Friedman1997,2005;Moor1985;Nissenbaum2001;Tavani2004).Value-sensitivedesignrecognizesthatthedesignoftechnologiesbears“directlyandsystematicallyontherealization,orsuppression,ofparticularconfigurationsofsocial,ethical,andpoliticalvalues”(Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005).Inordertodojusticetothesemoralandpoliticalimplications,value-sensitivedesignisemployedasamethodologyofsystemsdesignthat“seekstodesigntechnologythataccountsforhumanvaluesinaprincipledandcomprehensivemannerthroughoutthedesignprocess”(FriedmanandKahn2000).Itisatthesametime,aspointedtobyvandenHoven(2005),“awayofdoingethicsthataimsatmakingmoralvaluespartoftechnologicaldesign,researchanddevelopment.”Severalvalue-sensitivedesigninitiativesshareasimilarmethodologicalstructure,anintegrativeanditerativetripartitemethodologyconsistingofconceptual,empiricalandtechnicalinvestigations(seeFriedman,KahnandBorning2002,2006;orFlanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005).Eachoftheconceptual,empiricalandtechnicalinvestigationsandanalysesarecarriedoutiteratively,mutuallyinformingandbeinginformedbytheotherinves-tigation.TheseinterdependenciesaremetaphoricallydescribedbyNissenbaumas“ballsinplay”(Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005),whereattentiontothreedif-ferentmodes(balls)ofinvestigationmustbemaintainedandbalancedforsuccessfulimplementation.“Conscientiousdesignersmustjuggleandkeepintheplaytheresults478\n9781405146012_4_086.qxd2/4/0914:10Page479value-sensitivedesignofatleastthreemodes,”i.e.theresultsofempirical,conceptualandtechnicalresearch(Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005).Thefirst“ball,”theconceptualanalysis,isinformedbyethicsandmoralphilosophyregardingparticularvalueconstructsrelevanttothedesigninquestion.Thisconnectstothedevelopmentinethicstermed“TheDesignTurninAppliedEthics”byvandenHoven(2007).Thisreferstothewayinwhichmoralphilosophersarestartingtothinkaboutthewayinwhichtheiranalysescanbesuccessfullyimplementedandexpressedininstitutionalarrangements,infrastructure,artifactsandsystems,andcantherebycontributetodesirablemoralchangesintherealworld.“Value-SensitiveDesignpro-videsuswiththeopportunitytodealwiththeseethicalissuesinanewandfreshway:by‘frontloadingethics’bymeansofproactiveintegrationofethicalreflectionintheearlystagesofdesign”(vandenHoven2005).Thesecondballinplayistheempiricalmodeofinvestigation,providingempiricaldatainsupportofthevaluesinvestigatedintheconceptualmode,aswellasempiricaldataprovidingfeedbackinsupportofthetechnicalinvestigationofaparticulardesign.Finally,thethirdball,thetechnicalanalysis,investigatesparticulartechnicaldesignspecificationsandvariablesthatmightpromoteorobscuregivenvalueswithinthecon-textofthetechnologybeingdesigned.Decisionsduringthedesignprocessknowinglyorunknowinglydeterminetoalargeextentthemoralandpoliticalimplicationsatech-nologymayhaveinpractice.Anyparticulardesignenablesfeatures,opportunitiesandpossibilities,whileplayingoffothers.Inthetechnicalanalysisthefocusisprimarilyonhowtechnologiescansupportorcompromisehumanvalues.Subsequently,ittriestoincorporatetheresultsoftheconceptualandempiricalphasesintodesigninginaproactivemanner(Friedman2004).Thevaluesatplay(VAP)approachoffersasimilartripartitemethodologicalframeworkconsistingofdiscovery,translationandverificationphases(Flanagan,HoweandNissenbaum2005).Thegoalofthediscoveryphaseistoidentifythevaluesthatmightberelevanttothedesignofaparticulartechnology,includingthoseexplicitintheaspirationsofthetechnology’sdesigners,aswellasthosethatonlyemergewhenthetechnologicaldesignprocessisunderway.ThetranslationphaseofVAPistheactivityinwhichdesignerstranslatethevalueconsiderationsidentifiedinthediscoveryphaseintothearchitectureandfeaturesofthetechnology.Thefinalphaseisverification,ensuringthatthedesignershavesuccessfullyimplementedthevaluesidentifiedthroughoutthediscoveryprocess.InboththeVSDandVAPversions,thesethreemodesofinvestigationareintendedtoformanintegrativeanditerativemethodologicalframeworkforembodyinghumanandmoralvaluesintothedesignoftechnology.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBerg,M.(1998).“Thepoliticsoftechnology:Onbringingsocialtheoryintotechnologicaldesign,”inScience,Technology,andHumanValues,23(4):456–490.Brey,P.(2000).“MethodinComputerEthics:TowardsaMulti-levelInterdisciplinaryApproach,”inEthicsandInformationTechnology,2(2):125–9.479\n9781405146012_4_086.qxd2/4/0914:10Page480jeroenvanderhovenandnoemimanders-huitsBrey,P.(2001).“DisclosiveComputerEthics,”inR.A.SpinelloandH.T.Tavani(eds),ReadingsinCyberethics(Boston,Mass.:Jones&Bartlett),pp.51–62.Camp,L.J.(2007).DesignforValues,DesignforTrust.Retrieved18September2007,fromhttp://www.ljean.com/design.htmlCummings,M.L.(2006).“IntegratingEthicsinDesignthroughtheValue-SensitiveDesignApproach,”ScienceandEngineeringEthics,12:701–15.Flanagan,M.,Howe,D.andNissenbaum,H.(2005).ValuesatPlay:DesignTradeoffsinSocially-orientedGameDesign.ConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems,pp.751–60.Flanagan,M.,Howe,D.andNissenbaum,H.(inpress).“ValuesinDesign:TheoryandPractice,”inJ.vandenHovenandJ.Weckert(eds),InformationTechnologyandMoralPhilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Friedman,B.(1997).HumanValuesandtheDesignofComputerTechnology(CSLIlecturenotes;no.72)(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).Friedman,B.(1999).Value-SensitiveDesign:AResearchAgendaforInformationTechnology.NationalScienceFoundation,ContractNo:SBR-9729633.Friedman,B.(2004).“ValueSensitiveDesign,”inW.S.Bainbridge(ed.),BerkshireEncyclopediaofHuman–ComputerInteraction(BerkshirePublishingGroup).Friedman,B.andKahn,P.(2000).NewDirections:AValue-SensitiveDesignApproachtoAugmentedReality.ProceedingsofDARE2000onDesigningaugmentedrealityenviron-ments,pp.163–4.Friedman,B.andKahn,Jr,P.H.(2003).“HumanValues,Ethics,andDesign,”inJ.A.JackoandA.Sears(eds),TheHuman–ComputerInteractionHandbook(Mahwah,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaum),pp.1177–1201.Friedman,B.andKahn,Jr,P.H.(inpress).“AValue-SensitiveDesignApproachtoAugmentedReality,”inW.E.Mackay(ed.),DesignofAugmentedRealityEnvironments(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress).Friedman,B.,Kahn,P.andBorning,A.(2002).ValueSensitiveDesign:TheoryandMethods(TechnicalReport02-12-01).Friedman,B.,Kahn,Jr,P.H.andBorning,A.(2006).“Human–ComputerInteractionandManagementInformationSystems–Foundations,”inP.ZhangandD.Galetta(eds),AdvancesinManagementInformationSystems,Vol.4(Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe).Johnson,D.andNissenbaum,H.(eds)(1995).Computers,EthicsandSocialValues(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:PrenticeHall).Latour,B.(1992).“Wherearethemissingmasses?Thesociologyofafewmundaneartifacts,”inW.Bijker,andJ.Law(eds),Shapingtechnology/buildingsociety:Studiesinsociotechnicalchange(Cambridge,MA:MITPress),pp.225–258.Moor,J.(1985).“WhatIsComputerEthics?,”Metaphilosophy,16:266–75.Mumford,L.(1964).“AuthoritarianandDemocraticTechnics,”TechnologyandCulture,5(1):1–8.Nielsen,J.(1993).UsabilityEngineering(Boston,Mass.:AcademicPress).Nissenbaum,H.(2001).“HowComputerSystemsEmbodyValues,”IEEEComputer,34(3):118–20.Tavani,H.T.(2004).EthicsandTechnology:EthicalIssuesinanAgeofInformationandCommun-icationTechnology(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).vandenHoven,M.J.(2005).“DesignforValuesandValuesforDesign,”InformationAge,August–September,pp.4–7.vandenHoven,M.J.(2007).“MoralMethodologyandInformationTechnology,”inH.TavaniandK.Himma(eds),HandbookofComputerEthics(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley).Winner,L.(1980).“DoArtifactsHavePolitics?,”Daedalus,109(1):121–36.480\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page481PartVIITechnologyandtheFutureACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page48387Technology,ProsperityandRiskSVENOVEHANSSON1.IntroductionOwingtotheincreasingpaceoftechnologicalinnovation,everygenerationismoreawarethanitspredecessorsthattheworldtheyleavebehindwillbedifferentfromtheonetheytookover.Technologyradicallychangesthehumancondition,anditdoessoinwaysthatwecannotforesee.Canwegainmorecontrolandforesightinthisprocess?Twomajorattemptshavebeenmadetodealsystematicallywiththeuncertaintiesthattechnologygivesriseto,namelyriskanalysisandtechnologyassessment.Theybotharoseinthe1970sinresponsetopublicconcernwithnegativeaspectsofnewandemergingtechnologies.Riskanalysisandtechnologyassessmentaretwoperspectivesonthesamebasicproblem,namelyourlackofknowledgeabouttheeffectsoftechnology.Theyareusu-allydealtwithbydifferentgroupsofexperts,andoneseldomseesthemtreatedinoneandthesamecontext.Inthissection,theywillbejuxtaposedandcombinedinaseriesofchaptersthatreflectthewiderangeofongoingphilosophicaldiscussionsabouttheuncertaintiesassociatedwithcurrentandfuturetechnologies.2.TechnologicalRisks2.1Whatisrisk?Themostbasicphilosophicalquestioninconnectionwithriskisofcourse:Whatisrisk?Unfortunately,thisquestionisfarfromeasytoanswer,sincetheterm“risk”hasseveralwell-establishedusages.Often,“risk”isusedtodenote,ingeneral,asituationinwhichsomethingunwelcomemayormaynotoccur,butwedonotknowwhetherornotitwill.Thisishowweusethetermwhenwesay,forinstance,thatsmokingisamajorhealthrisk.Onotheroccasions,“risk”denotestheprobabilityofanunwelcomeevent.Thisishowyouusetheword,forinstance,ifyouaskadoctorhowlargetheriskisthatatreatmentwillfail.Thisisalsothestandardmeaningofthetermindecisiontheory;by“decisionunderrisk”ismeant“decisionwithdeterminateprobabilities.”ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks483©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page484svenovehanssonAthirdusageiscommoninprofessionalriskanalysis.Inthatdiscipline,“risk”oftendenotesanumericalrepresentationofseveritythatisobtainedbymultiplyingtheprobabilityofanunwantedeventwithameasureofitsdisvalue(negativevalue).When,forinstance,therisksassociatedwithnuclearenergyarecomparedinnumericaltermstothoseoffossilfuels,“risk”isusuallytakeninthisthird,technicalsense.Inallthedifferentsensesof“risk,”referencestoriskinvolveasubtlecombinationofknowledgeandlackthereof.Whenthereisarisk,theremustbesomethingthatisunknownorhasanunknownoutcome.But,forthislackofknowledgetoconstituteariskforus,somethingmustbeknownaboutit.Tohaveknowledgeaboutariskmeanstoknowsomethingaboutwhatitisyoudonotknow.Thisisthereforeanunusuallydifficulttypeofknowledgetoassessandtoactupon.2.2RiskanduncertaintyIndiscussionsontheeffectsoftechnology,theterm“uncertainty”isequallyimport-antas“risk.”Thedistinctionbetweenthesetwotermsoriginatesindecisiontheory.Adecisionissaidtobemade“underrisk”iftherelevantprobabilitiesareknown,and“underuncertainty”iftheyareunknown.Inoneofthemostinfluentialtextbooksindecisiontheory,thetermsaredefinedasfollows:Weshallsaythatweareintherealmofdecisionmakingunder:(a)Certaintyifeachactionisknowntoleadinvariablytoaspecificoutcome(thewordsprospect,stimulus,alternative,etc.,arealsoused).(b)Riskifeachactionleadstooneofasetofpossiblespecificoutcomes,eachoutcomeoccurringwithaknownprobability.Theprobabilitiesareassumedtobeknowntothedecisionmaker.Forexample,anactionmightleadtothisriskyoutcome:arewardof$10ifa“fair”coincomesupheads,andalossof$5ifitcomesuptails.Ofcourse,certaintyisadegeneratecaseofriskwheretheprobabilitiesare0and1.(c)Uncertaintyifeitheractionorbothhasasitsconsequenceasetofpossiblespecificoutcomes,butwheretheprobabilitiesoftheseoutcomesarecompletelyunknownorarenotevenmeaningful.(LuceandRaiffa1957:13)Threeadditionalcommentsareinplaceaboutthenotionofuncertainty.First,uncer-taintydiffersfrom“risk”innotimplyingundesirability.Wecanhaveuncertainty,alsointhistechnicalsense,aboutdesirablefutureevents.Second,itiscommontouse“uncertainty”inlieuof“riskoruncertainty,”i.e.todefineuncertaintyaslackofknowledge(whetherprobabilisticornot)andriskasaspeciesofuncertainty.Third,theterm“uncertainty”oftenalsocoversdecision-makingunderunknownpossibilities,i.e.caseswithignoranceaboutwhatthepossibleoutcomesare.Whendiscussingtheeffectsoffuturenanotechnology,ourproblemisnotthatwedonotknowwhatprob-abilitiestoassigntothepossibleeffects.Insteadtheproblemisthatwedonotevenhaveaworkablelistoftheseeffects.Thistypeofdecision-makinghasbeencalled“decision-makingundergreatuncertainty”(Hansson1996).484\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page485technology,prosperityandrisk2.3Isrisksubjective?Aswehavealreadyseen,“risk”denotessomethingundesirable.Thetouristwhohopesforasunnyweektalksaboutthe“risk”ofrain,butthefarmerwhosecropsarethreatenedbydroughtwillrefertothepossibilityofrainasa“chance”ratherthana“risk.”Sincethenotionofriskincludesacomponentofundesirability,itisvalue-laden.Thisvalue-ladennessisoftenoverlookedsincethemostdiscussedrisksrefertoeventssuchasdeath,diseasesandenvironmentaldestructionthatareuncontroversiallyundesirable.However,fromaphilosophicalpointofview,itisimportantnottocon-fuseuncontroversialvalueswithnovaluesatall.Itisequallyimportantnottoconfusevalue-ladennesswithlackoffactualorobjectivecontent.Riskisnotonlyvalue-laden;itisalsofact-laden.Thestatementthatyourisklosingyourlegifyoutreadonalandminehasbothafactualcomponent(landminestendtodismemberpeoplewhotreadonthem)andavaluecomponent(itisundesirablethatyouloseyourleg).Thepropensityofthesedevicestomutilateisnomoreasubjectiveconstructthanthesedevicesthemselves.Therearediscussantswhodenythisdoublenatureofrisk.Somemaintainthatriskis“objective,”devoidofanysubjectivecomponent.Othersclaimthatriskisplainlya“subjective”phenomenon,notconcernedwithmattersoffact.Thesearebothattemptstoridacomplexconceptofmuchofitscomplexity.Neitherissuccessful.Anynotionofriskthatconnectsinareasonablewaytotheconditionsofhumanlifewillhavetoadmitthedoublenatureofrisk,andnottrytomakeriskeithervalue-freeorfact-free.2.4Aretherisksincreasing?Inmanydiscussionsofrisk,includingsomeofthecontributionstothisvolume,itistakenforgrantedthatweliveinasocietywithincreasingrisks.Butisthisreallyso?Havewenotalwayslivedwithtremendousuncertainties?Isnotthecurrentattentiontoriskanduncertaintytheresultofashiftinfocusratherthanarealincreaseinrisks?Thisisnotaneasyquestiontoanswer.Clearly,technologicaldevelopmentshaveimposednewrisksonhumanity.Mostoftherisksthatwediscusstodaydidnotexistfiftyorahundredyearsago–GMOs,nuclearpowerplants,organicpesticides,air-trafficaccidents,etc.Others,suchasglobalwarming,haveonlyrelativelyrecentlybecomesufficientlyunderstood.But,ontheotherhand,manyriskshaveadecreasingtrend.Forgoodreasons,wepaymoreattentiontoincreasingthantodecreasingrisks.Intheindustrializedpartsoftheworld,famineisnolongeraseriousthreat,andneitherarealargenumberofpreviouslyincurablediseasesforwhichcureshavenowbeenfound.Whensomerisksareincreasingandothersdecreasing,howdowemeasurethetotalamountofrisk?Onereasonablemeasure,asfarashealthrisksareconcerned,islifeexpectancy.Measuredinthatway,totalriskshavedecreasedinthericherpartsoftheworldsincewetendtolivelonger.Woulditperhapsbemoreadequatetocharacterizeourtimeasoneinwhichwehavefewerrisksthanbefore,butaremoreawareofthem?Notnecessarilyso.Inadditiontotheindividualrisksofeverydaylife,wealsohavetoconsiderthecollectiverisksthataffectthefutureexistenceofhumanity.Anuclear485\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page486svenovehanssonholocaustwasthefirstsuchrisktobepubliclydiscussedonabroadscale;globalwarmingiscurrentlytheonemostdebated.Ifsuchlarge-scaleglobalrisksaretakenintoaccount,weareundeniablyinanewsituation,ascomparedtoacoupleofgen-erationsago.2.5ProbabilisticriskanalysisInprofessionalriskanalysis,riskisusuallytakeninthequantifiedsensereferredtoinsection2.1,namelyasthestatisticalexpectationvalueofanunwantedeventthatmayormaynotoccur.Inotherwords,riskisidentifiedwiththemeasurethatisobtainedbymultiplyingtheprobabilityofanunwantedeventwithameasureofitsdisvalue(negativevalue).Ifonlydeathrisksareconsidered(whichisasurprisinglycommonrestriction),thismeansthatriskisidentifiedwiththestatisticallyexpectednumberofdeathscausedbyapossibleeventorclassofpossibleevents.Hence,if200deep-seadiversperformanoperationinwhichtheindividualriskofdeathis0.1percentforeachindi-vidual,thentheexpectednumberoffatalitiesfromthisactivityis0.001×200=0.2.Expectationvalueshavetheimportantpropertyofbeingadditive.Supposethatacer-tainactivityisassociatedwitha1percentprobabilityofanaccidentthatwillkillfivepersons,andalsowitha2percentprobabilityofanothertypeofaccidentthatwillkilloneperson.Thenthetotalexpectationvalueis0.01×5+0.02×1=0.07deaths.Althoughexpectationvalueshavebeencalculatedsincetheseventeenthcentury,theuseoftheterm“risk”todenotethemisrelativelynew.ItwasintroducedintoriskanalysisintheinfluentialReactorSafetyStudy(WASH-1400,theRasmussenreport)from1975(Rechard1999:776).Todayitisthedominanttechnicalmeaningoftheterm“risk.”Someauthorsevenclaimthatthisistheonlyrationalapproachtotech-nologicalrisk:Theonlymeaningfulwaytoevaluatetheriskinessofatechnologyisthroughprobabil-isticriskanalysis(PRA).APRAgivesanestimateofthenumberofexpectedhealthimpacts–e.g.,thenumberofinduceddeaths–ofthetechnology,whichthenallowscomparisonstobemadewiththehealthimpactsofcompetingtechnologiessoarationaljudgmentcanbemadeoftheirrelativeacceptability.Notonlyisthatprocedureattractivefromthestandpointofscientificlogic,butitiseasilyunderstoodbythepublic.(Cohen2003:909)PRAisincreasinglyoftencombinedwiththeeconomicdisciplineofrisk–benefitana-lysis,inwhichrisksareweighedagainsttheeconomicgainsoftakingthem(orriskreductionsagainstthecostsofachievingthem)(Hansson2007a).Thisapproachhastheadvantageofbeingsimple,operativeandmathematizable.Itreducesproblemsoftechnologicalriskfromissuesofsocialcontesttooptimizationproblems–oratleastittriestodoso.Unfortunately,thisreductionisproblematiconseveralaccounts.2.6ThetuxedofallacyInreallife,uncertaintiesaremuchmorecommonthan(probabilistic)risks.Few,ifany,decisionsinactuallifearebasedonprobabilitiesthatareknownwithcertainty.Strictlyspeaking,theonlyclear-cutcasesof“risk”(knownprobabilities)seemtobeidealized486\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page487technology,prosperityandrisktextbookcaseswithdevicessuchasdice,coinsorroulettewheelsthataresupposedlyknownwithcertaintytobefair.Thegambler’sdecisionsattheroulettetableareascloseaswecancometodecision-makingunderrisk,i.e.withknownprobabilities.Giventhatthewheelisfair,theprobabilitiesofvariousoutcomes–gainsandlosses–areeasilycal-culable,andthusknowable,althoughthegamblermaynottakethemintoaccount.Foranexampleofadecisionunderuncertainty,thinkofanexplorerwhoconsidersenteringadistantpartofthejungle,previouslyuntroddenbyhumanfoot.Therearemanydangersinthejungle,butnoestimatesbetterthanguessescanbegivenoftheirprobabilities.Inaddition,theremaybeunknowndangersaboutwhichweknownothing.Thereisastrongtendencyindecision-supportingdisciplines,includingriskana-lysis,toproceedasifreasonablyreliableprobabilityestimateswereavailableforallpossibleoutcomes.Thishasbeencalledthetuxedofallacy.Itconsistsintreatingalldecisionsasiftheytookplaceunderepistemicconditionsanalogoustogamblingattheroulettetable.Thetuxedofallacyisdangeroussinceitmayleadtoanillusionofcon-trolandtoneglectofuncertaintiesthatshouldhaveasignificantimpactondecisions.Intheanalysisofwell-knowntechnologies,probabilisticriskanalysiscanoftenbeperformedwithreasonableaccuracy.Whenthereisstatisticallysufficientexperienceofanevent-type,suchasamachinefailure,thenwecandetermineitsprobabilitybycollectingandanalyzingthatexperience.However,fornewandemergingtechnologies,thisisoftennotthecase.Asoneexampleofthis,thefuturerisks–andfuturepossibil-ities–oftheconvergenceofnano-andbio-technologycannotbeexpressedmeaning-fullyinprobabilisticterms.Whatfuturetechnologiesofferusismuchmoresimilartoanadventureinthejunglethantoavisittothecasino.Evenforwell-establishedtechnologies,dataareofteninsufficienttodeterminethefrequenciesofunusualtypesoffailures.Asoneexampleofthis,therehave(fortunately)beentoofewsevereaccidentsinnuclearreactorstomakeitpossibletoestimatetheirprobabilities.Inparticular,mostofthereactortypesinusehaveneverbeeninvolvedinanyseriousaccident.Itisthereforenotpossibletodeterminetherisk(probability)ofasevereaccidentinaspecifiedtypeofreactor.2.7TheethicsofriskAssessmentsintermsof“risk”inthetechnicalsense,astheproductofprobabilityandseverity,havetheobviousadvantagethattwoimportantfactorsinariskysituation,namelytheprobabilityandtheseverityofdamage,arebothtakenintoaccount.How-ever,ifstrictlyapplied,thismodeofassessmentalsoleadstotheexclusionofotherfactorsthatmightinfluenceariskmanagementdecision.Risksareinextricablycon-nectedwithmorallyrelevantinterpersonalrelationships.Asanexampleofthis,itmakesabigdifferenceifapersonrisksherownlifeorthatofsomebodyelseinordertoearnafortuneforherself.Person-relatedaspectssuchasagency,intentionality,consent,voluntariness,equity,etc.,willhavetobetakenseriouslyinanyreasonablyaccurategeneralformatfortheassessmentofrisk(Hansson2003).ThestrongfocusinPRAonprobabilitiesandoutcomes,totheexclusionofethicalfactorsthatcouldlegitimatelyinfluencedecisions,maywellbeamajorreasonwhyriskanalysishashadsuchgreatdifficultiesincommunicatingwiththepublic.Instead487\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page488svenovehanssonofblamingthepublicfornotunderstandingprobabilisticreasoning,riskanalystsshouldlearntodealwiththemoralandsocialissuesthatthepublicsooften–rightly–putsontheagenda.3.FutureTechnology3.1TechnologyassessmentAttemptstopredictfuturetechnologiesareatleastasoldassciencefiction.(Thebegin-ningofsciencefictionisacontestedissue;perhapsthefirstnovelwithanuncontestedsciencefictionstatusisMaryShelley’sFrankensteinfrom1818.)However,systematicattemptstopredicttechnologyinascientificmannerareofratherrecentorigin.Theterm“technologyassessment”wasintroducedin1966byPhilipYeager,whoworkedfortheAmericanCongressmanEmilioQ.Daddario(Ropohl1996).DaddarioproposedthecreationofaCongressionalagencythatwouldhelpidentifyconsequencesofnewtechnologiesinadvance,sothatnegativeeffectscouldbeavoidedorlimited,andpos-itiveeffectsamplifiedandpromoted.Asaresultofhisendeavors,theAmericanOfficeofTechnologyAssessment(OTA)wasestablishedin1972.Itstaskwastoanalyzeandpredicttheconsequencesoffuturetechnologicaldevelopment.In1995,whenOTAwascloseddownforpoliticalreasons,ithadpublishedover700reportsonawidevarietyoftopicsrelatedtoscienceandtechnology.OTAassessmentswerebasedonextensiveresearch,involvingscientistsfromawidevarietyofdisciplines.Typically,thereportsdidnotofferspecificrecommendations,butinsteadpresentedalternativeoptionsandappraisalsoftheirconsequences.Today,themainsceneforTAactivitiesisinEurope,perhapsinparticularGermany.SeveralEuropeancountrieshavetheirownparliamentaryTAoffices,andsincethebeginningofthe1990stheimportanceofTAactivitieshasalsobeenemphasizedwithintheEuropeanParliament,resultinginitsofficialTAorganScientificTechnologicalOptionsAssessment(STOA)andintheEuropeanParliamentaryTechnologyAssessmentNetwork(EPTA).TheEuropeanTechnologyAssessmentNetwork(ETAN)wasinitiatedbytheEuropeanCommission.Technologyassessment(TA)startedasanattempttogainpoliticalcontroloverthepotentialnegativeeffectsoftechnologicaldevelopment.Itwasexpectedtorevealfutureconsequencesofnewtechnologythatwouldnototherwisehavebeenforeseen.However,theoriginaloptimismwithrespecttotechnologicalpredictionswasnotsubstantiated.Technologyassessorshavebeenabletohighlightimportantaspectsoftechnologicaldevelopmentandtobringthemoutforpublicdiscussion–whichisimportantenough–buttheyhavenotbeenabletopredictfuturetechnologies.Inpractice,TAhasretreatedfromtheambitiontopredict.Thefocushaslargelyshiftedtocarefulanalysisofspecificaspectsofexistingtechnologies.OnevariantofTAthatdoesthisisenvironmentalimpactanalysis(EIA).3.2WhywecannotpredictfuturetechnologyTherearefourmajorsourcesofuncertaintythatcombinetomakefuturetechnologiesunpredictable.488\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page489technology,prosperityandriskThefirstistheinherentuncertaintyinthebehaviorofthetechnologicaldeviceitself.Asanexample,consideraproposaltodevelopananotechnologicaldevicethatcanbeinjectedintothebodyofacancerpatient,whereitwillbetriggeredbythecancercellstoreleaseasubstancethatkillsthem.Thisisoneofmanypotentialusesofnano-technologythathasbeenproposed.Sincethetechnologyishypothetical,andnotyetspecifiedinitsdetails,itisdifficulttoidentifythepossibledangersthatmaybeasso-ciatedwithit.Therefore,adiscussionintermsofquantitativeapproachestoriskwouldbepremature,andtherelevantriskconceptisratherthatofeventtypes.Althoughameaningfullistcanbemadeofnegativeeventtypes(typesofdevicefailure),thereisnowaytoknowthatsuchalistiscomplete.Thesecondsourceofuncertaintyisthebehaviorofindividualusersofthetechno-logy.Asoneexampleofthis,userssometimes“compensate”forimprovedtechnicalsafetybymorerisk-takingbehavior.Driversareknowntohavedrivenfasterordelayedbrakingwhendrivingcarswithbetterbrakes(Rothengatter2002).Thethirdsourceofuncertaintyisthedevelopmentofnewsocialandculturalpatternsinresponsetothetechnology.Experienceshowsthatsocialandculturaldevelopmentsarealmostimpossibletopredict.AfamousexampleisthereplyachiefofficialoftheBritishPostOfficegavetotheHouseofCommonsin1879concerningthepossiblefutureofthetelephone.HepredictedthatthetelephonewouldhaveverylittleuseinBritainsincetherewasnoshortageofmessengerboysinthecountry(deSolaPool1983:65).Todayittakessomereflectiontounderstandwhysuchananswercouldatallbegivenbyanintelligentandwell-informedperson.Thereasonisthatthetelephoneconversation,todayamajorformofhumancommunication,wasyetunknown.Thetelephonewasthereforefirstseenasamoreconvenientversionofthetelegraph.Similarly,intheearlydaysoftelevisionitspotentialuseforliving-roomentertainmentwasnotrealized(deSolaPool1983:99).Thefourthsourceofuncertaintyistheinteractionoftechnologieswithcomplexnaturalsystems,inparticularecosystems,thatarealsoinpracticeunpredictable.Manyenvironmentalproblemsaretheresultofsuchunpredictedinteractionswithnaturalmechanisms.Twoofthebest-knownexamplesaretheeffectsoforganohalo-gencompoundsontheozonelayerandofgreenhousegasesontheglobalclimate.4.DealingwithTechnologicalUncertaintyWehaveseenthatthetwotraditionalmethodsfordealingwithtechnologicaluncer-taintiesbothhaveseverelimitations.Riskanalysis,initstraditionalform,isbasedonquantitativemeasuresofriskintheformofexpectationvalues.Inordertoobtainthesemeasures,probabilityvaluesthatarerequiredareoftenunavailableevenfortechnologiesinuse,andalwaysunavailableforfuturetechnologiesthatdifferintheirbasicstructuresfromthetechnologiesalreadyinplace.Technologyassessment,asoriginallyconceived,shouldforeseethedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandtheirsocialconsequences.Ithasnotdeliveredsuchpredictions,althoughithascontributedtopublicdiscourseontechnologyinmanyotherusefulways.Wethereforeneedtodevelopnewframeworksthatcanprovidepolicyguidanceinthedifficultissuesthattechnologicaldevelopmentgivesriseto.Inwhatfollows,three489\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page490svenovehanssonpossiblebeginningsforsuchdevelopmentswillbementioned.Thefirstofthemmaybeasurprisesinceitismucholderthantechnologyassessmentorriskanalysis.Itmayneverthelesshavesomeoftheanswersforwhichwearesearching.4.1SafetyengineeringSincethenineteenthcentury,engineershavespecializedinworkers’safetyandothersafety-relatedtasks.But,althoughsafetyengineeringistaughtattechnologicalcollegesanduniversities,ithasamuchlowerprofilethanriskanalysis.Oneofthereasonsmaybethatwhereasriskanalysisisprogrammaticallyunified,coveringallsortsofriskwiththesamemethodology,safetyengineeringisfragmentedbetweendifferentareasoftechnology.Butacloserstudywillrevealthatthevariousformsofsafetyengineeringexhibitsimilarwaysofthinkingaboutriskandsafety.Here,weshallshowthisbypresentingthree(ofthemany)principlesthatareappliedbysafetyengineers.Inherentsafety,alsocalledprimaryprevention,consistsintheeliminationofahazard.Itiscontrastedwithsecondarypreventionthatconsistsinretainingthehazardbutreducingtheriskassociatedwithit.Forasimpleexample,consideraprocessinwhichinflammablematerialsareused.Inherentsafetywouldconsistinreplacingthembynon-inflammablematerials.Secondarypreventionwouldconsistinremovingorisolatingsourcesofignitionand/orinstallingfire-extinguishingequipment.Asthisexampleshows,secondarypreventionusuallyemploysadd-onsafetyequipment.Safetyengineers,inparticularinthechemicalindustry,havedevelopedmethodstoachieveasmuchinherentsafetyaspossibleinanindustrialplant.Proponentsofinherentsafetymaintainthat,otherthingsbeingequal,ifwehaveachoicebetweeneliminatingandmanagingahazard,theneliminationisthebetteroption.Themajorreasonforthisisthat,aslongasthehazardstillexists,itcanberealizedbysomeunanticipatedtriggeringevent.Evenwiththebestofcontrolmeasures,someunforeseenchainofeventscangiverise,forinstance,toafire.Eventhebestadd-onsafetytechnologycanfail,orbedestroyedinthecourseofanaccident.Evenifthecalculatedriskisverylow,thiscalculationmaybeuncertain,andthisuncertaintycanbesufficientreasontoeliminatethehazard.Multiplesafetybarriersarebasedonprinciplesthatareatleastasoldasthefortressesofantiquity.Iftheenemymanagestopassthefirstwall,thereareadditionallayersthatprotectthedefendingforces.Someengineeringsafetybarriersfollowthesameprincipleofconcentricphysicalbarriers.Asoneexampleofthis,modernnuclearreactorshaveaseriesofphysicalbarriersagainstradioactiveleakage.Inothercases,thesafetybarriersareconsecutiveinatemporalratherthanaspatialsense.Consider,forinstance,theprotectionofworkersagainstadangerousgas,suchashydrogensulfide,thatcanleakfromachemicalprocess.Thefirstbarrierconsistsinconstructingthewholeplantinawaythatexcludesuncontrolledleakageasfaraspossible.Thesecondbarrieriscarefulmaintenance,includingregularcheckingofvulnerabledetailssuchasvalves.Thethirdbarrierisawarningsystemcombinedwithroutinesforevacuationofthepremisesinthecaseofaleakage.Thefourthbarrierisefficientandwell-trainedrescueservices.Thebasicideabehindmultiplebarriersisthat,evenifabarrieriswellconstructed,itmayfail,perhapsforsomeunforeseenreason,andthatthenextbarriershouldthenprovideprotection.490\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page491technology,prosperityandriskSafetyfactors,finally,arenumericalfactorsthatareusedtodimensionasafetyreserve.Theuseofsafetyfactorsoriginatesinthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Safetyfactorsnowhaveacentralroleinstructuralmechanicsandinitsmanyapplica-tionsindifferentengineeringdisciplines.Elaboratesystemsofsafetyfactorshavebeendeveloped,andspecifiedinnormsandstandards.Mostcommonly,asafetyfactorisexpressedastheratiobetweenameasureofthemaximalloadnotleadingtothespecifiedtypeoffailureandacorrespondingmeasureoftheappliedload.Hence,wemaychoosetobuildabridgesothatitresiststwicethehighestloadthatwepredictthatitwillbesubjectedto.Wehavethenusedasafetyfactorof2.Accordingtostand-ardaccountsofstructuralmechanics,safetyfactorsareintendedtocompensateforfivemajorcategoriesofsourcesoffailure:higherloadsthanthoseforeseen,worsepropertiesofthematerialthanforeseen,imperfecttheoryofthefailuremechanisminquestion,possiblyunknownfailuremechanisms,andhumanerror(e.g.indesign)(Knoll1976,Moses1997).Thelastthreeofthesefailuretypesareerrorsinourtheoryandinourapplicationofit.Thus,safetyfactorsaimnotonlyatcalculableriskbutalsoatnon-numericaluncertainties.(Itisnotinpracticefeasibletoadjustacalculationtocompensateself-referentiallyforanestimatedprobabilitythatthecalculationitselfmaybewrong.)Aswesawinsection2.2,intheassessmentofnewandemergingtechnologies,uncer-taintyisoftenmoreimportantthancalculablerisks.Therefore,itspeaksmuchinfavourofsafetyengineeringthatitsmajorguidingprinciplesareaimedatcopingnotonlywithrisksbutalsowithuncertainties.Forafurtherexample,supposethataship-buildercomesupwithaconvincingplanforanunsinkableship(muchbetterthanTitanic).Aprobabilisticriskanalysisshowsthattheprobabilityoftheshipsinkingisincrediblylow.BasedonthePRA,arisk–benefitanalysisisperformed.Itshowsthatthecostoflifeboatswouldbeeconomicallyindefensible.Therisk–benefitanalysisthereforeclearlyshowsusthattheshipshouldnothaveanylifeboats.Wouldasafetyengineeraccepttheprob-abilisticanalysisandexcludelifeboatsfromthedesign?Theanswerisno,ifshefollowsthetraditionsofherprofession,andthisforaverysimplereason:thecalculationsmaypossiblybewrong,andiftheyare,thentheoutcomecanbedisastrous.Theadditionalsafetybarrierintheformoflifeboats(andevacuationroutinesandalltherest)shouldnotbeexcluded,inspiteoftheprobabilityestimatesshowingthemtobeuncalledfor.4.2ScenariosandcontingencyplanningInmilitaryplanning,thereisalongtraditionoftestingalternativescenarios,basedonpossiblestrategychoicesbytheenemy.Inthe1950s,theuseofalternativescenariosinordertopreparefordifferentpossiblefutureswasdevelopedinAmericanthink-tankssuchastheRANDcorporation.Inthe1970stheRoyalDutch/Shellcompanytookupthismethodologyandstartedtousescenariosinthestrategicplanningofthecompany.Brainstormseminars,withparticipantsfromdifferentmanagementlevels,wereusedtodevelopthescenarios.Thisparticipationwasconsideredimportanttoensurethatthescenarioswillbeconsideredrelevantbythosesupposedtousetheminplanningactivities.Inadditiontobrainstorming,severalmoremethodshavebeendevelopedfortheconstructionofplausiblescenarios.Onesuchmethodistodevelop,separatelyfor491\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page492svenovehanssonrecombination,(1)internalelements,consistingindevelopmentsthattheplanningentity(thecompany)hasinitsowncontrol,(2)transactionalelements,consistingindevelopmentsthattheplanningentityhasinfluencebutnotfullcontrolover,and(3)contextualelementssuchasthedevelopmentoftheglobaleconomythattheplanningentityhasatmostmarginalinfluenceover.Othermethodologieshavebeendevelopedforthecombinatorialcombinationofsuchelementsintofullscenarios(Dreborg2004:24–8).IthasbeenreportedthatShell,usingscenariomethodology,wasabletoforeseetheoilcrisisin1973andthereforemadeadjustmentsthatputthematadvantageinrelationtocompetitorsduringthiscrisis.Othercompanies,andsomepublicagencies,havetakenupthesamemethodologyanddevelopeditfortheirownpurposes.Althoughithasonoccasionsbeenappliedtoissuesoftechnologicalrisk,thisisyetlargelyanunexploredapplicationareaforscenario-basedplanning.4.3NewdeliberativeprocessesInthe1980s,participatoryTechnologyAssessment(pTA)cameupasanalternativetotraditionalTA,foremostinDenmarkandtheNetherlands.Thiswasaresponsetodemandsforamoresociallyorientedapproachtotechnologyandforincreasedpublicinfluenceandparticipationindecision-making.Typically,pTAinvolvesabroaderspectrumofactorsthantraditionalTA,suchaspoliticians,NGOs,tradeunions,journalists,scientists,technologydevelopers,andlaypeople.Atthesametime,riskcommunicationdevelopedintoamajorbranchofriskanalysis.Riskcommunicatorshavedevelopedproceduresfordialoguethataimatdecreasingthedistancebetweendecision-makersandthepublic.Whathasusuallybeenmissinginthesediscussionsisasystematicapproachtoplanningforthefuture.Proceduresneedtobedevelopedthatfacilitatedeliberationonriskanduncertainty.Arecentproposalistobasesuchdiscussionsonhypotheticalretrospection,i.e.onproceduresinwhichweplaceourselveshypotheticallyinthefutureinordertofindouthowwemightinthefuturecometoevaluatewhatwedonow(Hansson2007b).Onewaytoorganizehypotheticalretrospectionisthroughconvergenceseminars.Thisisaprocedurecontainingtwophasesofdiscussionsbasedonfuturescenarios.Inthefirstphase,theparticipantsaredividedintoscenariogroups.Eachsuchgroupisassignedthetaskofdiscussionofoneparticularscenario.Thedifferentscenarioscoin-cideuptoapointintimeatwhicharisk-relateddecisionismade,buttheydifferinwhatdecisionismadeandinwhathappensafterthedecision.Hence,inadiscussiononmedicalenhancement,onegroupmaydiscussascenarioinwhichadecisionismadetoallownewenhancementmethodssuchasdrugsthatimprovementalfaculties,andasaresultofthisdecisionnewsocialpatternsdevelopthatgiverisetoseveretensionsbetweensocialgroups.Anothergroupdiscussesascenarioinwhichthesamedecisionismade,andsomeoftheenhancementmethodsturnouttohavesevereside-effects,butlargesegmentsofthepopulationstillfeelapressuretousethem.Athirdgroupcandiscussascenarioinwhichthenewenhancementmethodsareinsteadforbidden,butanuncontrolledblackmarketresultsinmuchmoredangerouspracticesthanwouldotherwisehavebeenthecase.Thediscussionsinthesegroupsarebasedonquestionsstructuredtoclarifystandpointsaboutthedecisioninquestion.492\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page493technology,prosperityandriskInthesecondphase,theparticipantsareregroupedintoconvergencegroups,eachofwhichcontainsparticipantsfromthedifferentscenariogroups.Inthesegroups,eachparticipantreportsthediscussioninthescenariogroupofwhichshewasamember.Afterthatthegroupdiscussestheissueathand,againwiththehelpofquestionsstructuredtoclarifystandpointsaboutthedecision.Tofinishoff,ajointsessionisheldwithalltheparticipantsfromdifferentgroups,andhereeachconvergencegroupreportsitsconclusions.Thismethodologycanbeseenasafurtherdevelopmentofthescenariomethodo-logydescribedinsection4.2,adjustingitspecificallytodealwiththesubjectmatteroftechnologicalrisks.Convergenceseminarshavebeentriedoutwithgoodresultsindiscussionsonthepossiblerisksandbenefitsoffuturenanotechnology(GodmanandHansson,inpreparation).Itshouldbeobservedthatthismethodgoesintheoppositedirectiontothattakenincommonlyuseddecisiontoolssuchasriskanalysis.Riskanalysisabstractsfromindividualsandtheirrelationshipsandcountsstatisticallivesofnon-identifiedpersons.Incontrast,hypotheticalretrospectionaddsconcretenesssothatourdeliberationswillbebasedon“thefullstory”ratherthanoncurtailedversionsofit.Morespecifically,thisprocedurebringstoourattentioninterpersonalrelationsthatshouldbeessentialinamoralappraisalofriskanduncertainty,suchaswhoexposeswhomtoarisk,whoreceivesthebenefitsfromwhoseexposuretorisk,etc.Itisonlybystayingoffsuchconcretenessthatstandardriskanalysiscanremainonthedetachedanddepersonalizedlevelofstatisticallivesandfree-floatingrisksandbenefits.5.HowSpecialIsTechnology?Itisacommonviewamongriskanalyststhatallriskissuesshouldbetreatedwithuniformcriteria.Ifthisisdone,thenriskmanagementdecisionscanbesoadjustedthatthe(marginal)pricepaidforasavedlifeisthesameinallsocialsectors.Thismayseemfineintheory,butinpracticeanyattempttoimplementthisideawillrunintoseveredifficulties.Riskissuesaredispersedoverthewholesocialagenda;moreoftenthannot,theyarepartsofvariouslargerandmorecomplexissues.Trafficsafetyiscloselyconnectedtoissuesoftrafficandcommunityplanning.Itisoftenimpossibletodividethecostsofatrafficinvestmentinanon-arbitrarywaybetweencostsofimprovedsafetyandcostsofimprovedaccessibility.Workplacesafetyissuesaresimilarlyinteg-ratedwithissuesofindustrialproductivity,etc.Inshort,theriskissuesofdiffer-entsocialsectorsallhaveimportantaspectsthatconnectthemtootherissuesintheirrespectivesectors.Therefore,wecannotbaseriskdecisionsonaunifiedcalculationforallsocialsectorswithoutintroducingafar-reachingsystemofcentralplanningforallthesesectors.Themoregenerallessontobelearnedfromthisisthatissuesofriskandourtech-nologicalfuturecannotbeisolatedfromothersocialissues.Theyhavetobetreatedinthesamedecisionproceduresasotherissues.Inparticular,thereisnoreasontoreferthemtomoretechnocraticorexpert-dominatedforumsthanotherpolicyissues.Insteadweneedmethodstoincludethespecialcharacteristicsofrisk-relatedissuesinourgeneraldecision-makingprocesses.Thismaysoundtrivial,butitrunscontrarytothereceivedviewintherisksciences.493\n9781405146012_4_087.qxd2/4/0914:10Page494svenovehanssonReferencesandFurtherReadingCohen,B.L.(2003).“ProbabilisticRiskAnalysisforaHigh-levelRadioactiveWasteRepository,”RiskAnalysis,23:909–15.deSolaPool,Ithiel(1983).ForecastingtheTelephone:ARetrospectiveTechnologyAssessment(NewYork:AblexPublishing).Dreborg,KarlHenrik(2004).“ScenariosandStructuralUncertainty:ExplorationsintotheFieldofSustainableTransport,”PhDthesis,RoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm.Godman,M.andHansson,S.O.(inpreparation).“ConvergenceSeminarsonFutureNanotechnology.”Hansson,S.O.(1996).“Decision-makingunderGreatUncertainty,”PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences,26:369–86.Hansson,S.O.(2003).“EthicalCriteriaofRiskAcceptance,”Erkenntnis,59:291–309.Hansson,S.O.(2007a).“PhilosophicalProblemsinCost–BenefitAnalysis,”EconomicsandPhilosophy,inpress.Hansson,S.O.(2007b).“HypotheticalRetrospection,”EthicalTheoryandMoralPractice,inpress.Knoll,F.(1976).“CommentaryontheBasicPhilosophyandRecentDevelopmentofSafetyMargins,”CanadianJournalofCivilEngineering,3:409–16.Luce,R.D.andRaiffa,H.(1957).GamesandDecisions(NewYork:JohnWiley).Moses,F.(1997).“ProblemsandProspectsofReliability-basedOptimisation,”EngineeringStructures,19:293–301.Rechard,R.P.(1999).“HistoricalRelationshipbetweenPerformanceAssessmentforRadio-activeWasteDisposalandOtherTypesofRiskAssessment,”RiskAnalysis,19(5):763–807.Ropohl,G.(1996).EthikundTechnikbewertung(Frankfurt:SuhrkampVerlag).Rothengatter,Talib(2002).“Drivers’Illusions–NoMoreRisk,”TransportationResearch,partF,5:249–58.494\n9781405146012_4_088.qxd2/4/0914:11Page49588WorldRiskSocietyULRICHBECKModernsocietyhasbecomearisksocietyinthesensethatitisincreasinglyoccupiedwithdebating,preventingandmanagingrisksthatititselfhasproduced.Thatmaywellbe,manywillobject,butitisindicativeratherofahysteriaandpoliticsoffearinstigatedandaggravatedbythemassmedia.Onthecontrary,wouldnotsomeone,lookingatEuropeansocietiesfromoutside,havetoacknowledgethattheriskswhichgetusworkedupareluxuryrisksmorethananythingelse?Afterall,ourworldappearsalotsaferthanthat,say,ofthewar-tornregionsofAfrica,AfghanistanortheMiddleEast.Aremodernsocietiesnotdistinguishedpreciselybythefactthat,toalargeextent,theyhavesucceededinbringingundercontrolcontingenciesanduncer-tainties,forexamplewithrespecttoaccidents,violenceandsickness?Recenteventshaveonceagainremindedus,withtheTsunamicatastrophe,thedestructionofNewOrleansbyHurricaneKatrina,thedevastationoflargeregionsinSouthAmericaandPakistan,howlimitedtheclaimtocontrolofmodernsocietiesinthefaceofnaturalforcesremains.Butevennaturalhazardsappearlessrandomthantheyusedto.Althoughhumaninterventionmaynotstopearthquakesorvolcaniceruptions,theycanbepredictedwithreasonableaccuracy.Weanticipatethemintermsbothofstructuralarrangementsaswellasofemergencyplanning.Astrueasallsuchobservationsmaybe,theymissthemostobviouspointaboutrisk:thatis,thekeydistinctionbetweenriskandcatastrophe.Riskdoesnotmeancata-strophe.Riskmeanstheanticipationofcatastrophe.Risksexistinapermanentstateofvirtuality,andonlybecome“topical”totheextentthattheyareanticipated.Risksarenot“real”;theyare“becomingreal”(JoostvanLoon).Atthemomentatwhichrisksbecomereal–forexample,intheshapeofaterroristattack–theyceasetoberisksandbecomecatastrophes.Riskshavealreadymovedelsewhere:totheanticipationoffurtherattacks,inflation,newmarkets,warsorthereductionofcivilliberties.Risksarealwayseventsthatarethreatening.Withouttechniquesofvisualization,withoutsymbolicforms,withoutmassmedia,etc.,risksarenothingatall.Inotherwords,itisirrelevantwhetherweliveinaworldwhichisinfactorinsomesense“objectively”saferthanallotherworlds;ifdestructionanddisastersareanticipated,thenthatproducesacompulsiontoact.Thisinturnconcealsanirony–theironyofthepromiseofsecuritymadebyscientists,companiesandgovernments,whichinwondrousfashioncontributestoanACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks495©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_088.qxd2/4/0914:11Page496ulrichbeckincreaseinrisks.Findingthemselvesaccusedinpublicofcountenancingrisk,ministersjumpintoriversorgettheirchildrentoeathamburgers,inorderto“prove”thatevery-thingis“absolutely”safeandundercontrol–fromwhichfollows,assurelyasnightfollowsday,thateverydoubtcast,everyaccidentviolatesthebasisoftheunshakeablerighttosecuritythatappearstobepromised.Inmyfirstpublication,in1986,IdescribedRiskSocietyas“aninescapablestructuralconditionofadvancedindustrialization”–andcriticizedthe“mathematicizedmorality”ofexpertthinkingandpublicdiscourseon“riskprofiling.”Whilepolicy-orientedriskassessmentpositedthemanageabilityofrisks,Ipointedoutthat“eventhemostrestrainedandmoderate-objectivistaccountofriskimplicationsinvolvesahiddenpolitics,ethicsandmorality.”Risk“isnotreducibletotheproductofprobabilityofoccurrencemultipliedwiththeintensityandscopeofpotentialharm.”Rather,itisasociallyconstructedphenomenon,inwhichsomepeoplehaveagreatercapacitytodefinerisksthanothers.Notallactorsreallybenefitfromthereflexivityofrisk–onlythosewithrealscopetodefinetheirownrisks.Riskexposureisreplacingclassastheprincipalinequalityofmodernsociety,becauseofhowriskisreflexivelydefinedbyactors:“InrisksocietyrelationsofdefinitionaretobeconceivedanalogoustoMarx’srelationsofproduction.”Theinequalitiesofdefinitionenablepowerfulactorstomaximizerisksfor“others”andminimizerisksfor“themselves.”Riskdefinition,essen-tially,isapowergame.ThisisespeciallytrueforworldrisksocietywhereWesterngovernmentsorpowerfuleconomicactorsdefinerisksforothers.RiskmakesitsappearanceontheworldstagewhenGodleavesit.Riskspresupposehumandecisions.Theyarethepartlypositive,partlynegative,Janus-facedconsequencesofhumandecisionsandinterventions.Inrelationtorisksthereisinevitablyposedthehighlyexplosivequestionofsocialaccountabilityandresponsibility,andthisisalsotruewheretheprevailingrulesallowforaccountabilityonlyinextremelyexceptionalcases.Theacknowledged,decision-governedsocialrootsofrisksmakeitcompletelyimpossibletoexternalizetheproblemofaccountability.Someone,ontheotherhand,whobelievesinapersonalGodhasathisdisposalaroomformaneuverandamean-ingforhisactionsinthefaceofthreatsandcatastrophes.ThroughprayersandgoodworkspeoplecanwinGod’sfavourandforgiveness,andinthiswayactivelycontributenotonlytotheirownsalvationbutalsotothatoftheirfamilyandcommunity.Thereis,therefore,acloseconnectionbetweensecularizationandrisk(JoostvanLoon).WhenNietzscheannouncesthatGodisdead,thathasthe–ironic–consequencethatfromnowonhumanbeingsmustfind(orinvent)theirownexplanationsandjustificationsforthedisasterswhichthreatenthem.Thetheoryofworldrisksocietymaintains,however,thatmodernsocietiesareshapedbynewkindsofrisks,thattheirfoundationsareshakenbytheglobalanti-cipationofglobalcatastrophes.Suchperceptionsofglobalriskarecharacterizedbythreefeatures:De-localization:Itscausesandconsequencesarenotlimitedtoonegeographicallocationorspace;theyareinprincipleomnipresent.Incalculableness:Itsconsequencesareinprincipleincalculable;atbottomitisamatterof“hypothetical”risks,which,notleast,arebasedonscience-inducednot-knowingandnormativedissent.496\n9781405146012_4_088.qxd2/4/0914:11Page497worldrisksocietyNon-compensatibility:Thesecuritydreamoffirstmodernitywasbasedonthescientificutopiaofmakingtheunsafeconsequencesanddangersofdecisionsevermorecontrollable;accidentscouldoccur,aslongasandbecausetheywereconsideredcompensatible.Iftheclimatehaschangedirreversibly,ifprogressinhumangeneticsmakesirreversibleinterventionsinhumanexistencepossible,ifterroristgroupsalreadyhaveweaponsofmassdestructionavailabletothem,thenitistoolate.Given1thisnewqualityof“threatstohumanity”–arguesFrançoisEwald–thelogicofcompensationbreaksdownandisreplacedbytheprincipleofprecautionthroughprevention.Notonlyispreventiontakingprecedenceovercompensation;wearealsotryingtoanticipateandpreventriskswhoseexistencehasnotbeenproved.Worldrisksocietyisfacedbytheawkwardproblemofhavingtomakedecisionsaboutlifeanddeath,warandpeace,onthebasisofmoreorlessunadmittednot-knowing.Becausethedilemmaliesalsointhefactthattheoptionwhichreliesontherebeingnodangerisequallybasedonnot-knowingandisequallyhigh-risk,inthesensethatterroristsreallycouldacquireweaponsofmassdestruction,anddosopreciselybecausewebelieveinnotbeingabletoknowandhencedonothing.Inotherwords:Thenon-compensatibilitycomestoaheadintragicfashion;ifrisksareheldtobenon-compensatible,theproblemofnot-knowingisradicalized.Ifcatastrophesareanti-cipatedwhosepotentialfordestructionultimatelythreatenseveryone,thenariskcalculationbasedonexperienceandrationalitybreaksdown.Nowallpossible,moreorlessimprobablescenarioshavetobetakenintoconsideration;toknowledge,there-fore,drawnfromexperienceandsciencetherenowalsohastobeaddedimagination,2suspicion,fiction,fear.Theboundarybetweenrationalityandhysteriabecomesblurred.Giventherightinvestedinthemtoavertdangers,politicians,inparticular,mayeasilybeforcedtoproclaimasecuritywhichtheycannothonor,becausethepoliticalcostsofomissionaremuchhigherthanthecostsofoverreaction.Infuture,therefore,itisnotgoingtobeeasy,inthecontextofstatepromisesofsecurityandamassmediahungryforcatastrophes,activelytolimitandpreventadiabolicalpowergamewiththehysteriaofnot-knowing.Idonotevendarethinkaboutdeliberateattemptstoinstrumentalizethissituation.Fromtrusteetosuspect:Globalrisksaretheexpressionofanewformofglobalinter-dependence,whichcannotbeadequatelyaddressedbywayofnationalpolitics,noroftheavailableformsofinternationalco-operation.Allofthepastandpresentpracticalexperiencesofhumanbeingsindealingwithuncertaintynowexistsidebyside,withoutofferinganyreadysolutiontotheresultingproblems.Notonlythat:keyinstitutionsofmodernitysuchasscience,businessandpolitics,whicharesup-posedtoguaranteerationalityandsecurity,findthemselvesconfrontedbysituationsinwhichtheirapparatusnolongerhasapurchaseandthefundamentalprinciplesofmodernitynolongerautomaticallyholdgood.Indeed,theperceptionoftheirratingchanges–fromtrusteetosuspect.Theyareseennolongeronlyasinstru-mentsofriskmanagementbutalsoasasourceofrisk.Tragicindividualization:Asaconsequence,everydaylifeinworldrisksocietyischarac-terizedbyanewvariantofindividualization.Theindividualmustcopewiththeuncertaintyoftheglobalworldbyhimselforherself.Hereindividualizationisadefault497\n9781405146012_4_088.qxd2/4/0914:11Page498ulrichbeckoutcomeofafailureofexpertsystemstomanagerisks.Neithersciencenorthepoliticsinpower,northemassmedia,norbusiness,northelaworeventhemilitaryareinapositiontodefineorcontrolrisksrationally.Theindividualisforcedtodistrustthepromisesofrationalityofthesekeyinstitutions.Asaconsequence,peoplearethrownbackontothemselves,theyarealienatedfromexpertsystemsbuthavenothingelseinstead.Disembeddingwithoutembedding–thisistheironic–tragicformulaforthisdimensionofindividualizationinworldrisksociety.Forexample,responsibilityforthedecisionongeneticallymodifiedfoodsandtheirunforeseeable,unknowablelong-termconsequencesisultimatelydumpedontheso-called“responsibleconsumer.”(Consumerchoicerules.)Theappealto“responsibility”isthecynicismwithwhichtheinstitutionswhitewashtheirownfailure.However–andthisisalsopartofthetragicironyofthisindividualizationprocess–theindividualwhosesensesfailherinthefaceofungraspablethreatstocivilization,who,thrownbackonherself,isblindtodangers,remainsatthesametimeunabletoescapethepowerofdefinitionofexpertsystems,whosejudgmentshecannotyetmusttrust.Sustaininganindividualselfofintegrityinworldrisksocietyisindeedatragicaffair.Worldrisksocietyproducesnewlinesofconflict:Unlikethenationalindustrialsocietyoffirstmodernity,whichwasmarkedbysocio-economicconflictsbetweenlaborandcapital,andunliketheinternationalconflictconstellationsoftheEast–Westconflict,whichwerecharacterizedbyquestionsofpoliticalsecurity,thelinesofconflictofworldrisksocietyareculturalones.Totheextentthatglobalrisksevadecalcula-tionbyscientificmethods,areamatterofnot-knowing,thentheculturalperception,thatis,thepost-religious,quasi-religiousbeliefintherealityofworldriskassumesakeysignificance.Central,however,arenot,aswithHuntington,traditionalreligiouslygrounded“civilizations,”butopposingriskbeliefreligions.Wearedealing–toadaptHuntington–withtheclashofriskcultures,riskreligions.So,forexample,thedominantriskbeliefandrisktendenciesofEuropeandtheUSgovernmentaredriftingveryfarapart;becausetheriskreligionscontradictoneanother,EuropeansandAmericansliveindifferentworlds.ForEuropeans,riskbeliefissueslikeclimatechange,perhapseventhethreatswhichglobalfinancialmovementsposeforindividualcountries,aremuchmoreimportantthanthethreatofterrorism.While,asfarastheAmericansareconcerned,theEuropeansaresufferingfromanenvironmentalhysteria,manyEuropeansseetheAmericansasstruckbyaterrorismhysteria.Thereversaloftheterms“secularism”and“religiosity”isalsostriking.Itseemsthatreligiousculturesaremarkedbya“risksecularism.”WhoeverbelievesinGodisariskatheist.Likereligiouswarsinpre-modernityortheconflictofinterestbetweencapitalandlaborinfirstmodernity,thatis,classconflicts,theclashofriskculturesisthefunda-mentalconflictofsecondmodernity:(1)thisisamatteroflifeanddeath,notofindividualsorindividualnations,butpoten-tiallyofeveryone;(2)preciselythesedecisionscentraltothephysicalandmoralsurvivalofmankindhavetobemadewithinahorizonofmoreorlessadmittedanddisputednot-knowing,andtheyaresociallynotassignable.498\n9781405146012_4_088.qxd2/4/0914:11Page499worldrisksociety(3)Inmanyareastheexperimentallogicoftrialanderrorbreaksdown.Itisimposs-ibletopermitjustasmallamountofgeneticallymodifiedfood,justasmallamountofnuclearenergy,justasmallamountoftherapeuticcloning.Giventheculturaldifferencesinriskperception,thequestionisposed:Howmuchtoleranceinthefaceoftheignoranceofotherscanweafford?Or:Howcanbindingproceduresandstandardsofregulationbeagreedgivenculturaldifferencesinperceptionandnot-knowingwithrespecttotheconsequencesofdecisions,whichchangetheanthropologicalcharacterofbeinghuman?Heretwocontradictoryriskphilo-sophiescomeintoconflict:Thephilosophyoflaissez-faire–itissafeaslongasithasnotbeenprovedtobedangerous;andthephilosophyofprecaution–nothingissafeaslongasithasnotbeenprovedharmless.BSEisanexplosivereminderoftheinabilityofbothnation-statesandtransnationaldecision-makingbodiesliketheEUtomanageriskinachaoticallyinteractingworldrisksociety.Butthisisonlythebeginning.Indevelopingthetechnologiesofthefuture–genetictechnology,nanotechnologyandrobotics–weareopeningupaPandora’sBox.Geneticmodification,communicationstechnologyandartificialintelligence,nowalsobeingcombinedwithoneanother,underminethestate’smonopolyoftheuseofforceandleavethedoorwideopentoanindividualizationofwar–unlesseffectivemeasuresaretakensoonatgloballeveltoboltitshut.Letmesummarize:Thetheoryofworldrisksocietyaddressestheincreasingrealizationoftheirrepressibleubiquityofradicaluncertaintyinthemodernworld.Thebasicinstitutions,theactorsoffirstmodernity–scienceandexpertsystems,thestate,commerceandtheinternationalsystem,includingthemilitary–responsibleforcalculatingandcontrollingmanufactureduncertaintiesareunderminedbygrow-ingawarenessthattheyareinefficient,theiractionsevencounterproductive.Thisdoesnothappenhaphazardly,butsystematically.Radicalizationofmodernitypro-ducesthisfundamentalironyofrisk:science,thestateandthemilitaryarebecomingpartoftheproblemtheyaresupposedtosolve.Thisiswhat“reflexivemoderniza-tion”means:Wearenotlivinginapost-modernworld,butinamore-modernworld.Itisnotthecrisisbutthevictoryofmodernitywhichthroughthelogicsofunintendedandunknownside-effectsunderminesbasicinstitutionsoffirstmodernity.Notes1.Ewald,François(2002).“TheReturnofDescartes’sMaliciousDemon:AnOutlineofaPhilosophyofPrecaution,”inTomBakerandJonathanSimon(eds),EmbracingRisk:TheChangingCultureofInsuranceandResponsibility(Chicago,Ill.:UniversityofChicagoPress).2.ibid.499\n9781405146012_4_089.qxd2/4/0914:11Page50089RiskAnalysisSVENOVEHANSSONInthelate1960s,increasedpublicattentiontotechnologicalrisksgaverisetoawaveofacademicactivitiesrelatedtorisk.Scientistsandscholarsfromawiderangeofdisciplines,ofteninnewinterdisciplinarycombinations,startedtoinvestigaterisksandrisk-takinginnewperspectives.Muchofthefocuswasonchemicalsandonnucleartechnology,thesameriskfactorsthatpublicoppositionhadtargeted.Thenewfieldwasinstitutionalizedasthedisciplineof“riskanalysis,”withprofessionalsocieties,researchinstitutesandjournalsofitsown.Themajorjournalinthefield,RiskAnalysis,waslaunchedin1981.Theleadingprofessionalsociety,theSocietyforRiskAnalysis,seesriskanalysisas“broadlydefinedtoincluderiskassessment,riskcharacterization,riskcommunication,riskmanagement,andpolicyrelatingtorisk”(www.sra.org).Riskanalysishasseveralsubdisciplines.Probabilisticriskanalysis(PRA)isprimarilydevotedtotheanalysisoftechnologicalsystems.Oneofitsmajortoolsisfaulttreeanalysis,inwhichthevariouschainsofeventsthatmayleadtoanaccidentareiden-tified,andtheirprobabilitiesestimated.Themajorproblemwiththismethodologyisofcoursethatthereisnomethodbywhichwecanidentifyallchainsofeventsthatmayleadtoamajoraccident,forinstance,inanuclearreactororinanyothercomplextechnologicalsystem.Inspiteofthis,theconstructionandanalysisofsucheventchainscanbeanefficientwaytoidentifyweaknessesinacomplextechnologicalsystem.Healthriskanalysisidentifiestherisksthatvarioushealthhazards,suchaschemicals,radiation,unhealthydiet,etc.,cangiveriseto.Inmostcases,healthriskanalysisbeginswithhazardanalysis,i.e.aninventoryofpossiblenegativehealtheffectsoftheagentinquestion.Thisisfollowedbyanestimateofdose–responserelationships,i.e.ofwhateffectscanbeexpectedatdifferentlevelsofexposure.Insomecases,estimatesofhazardsanddose–responserelationshipscanbebasedonstudiesofexposedhumanpopulations,butmorecommonlyanimalexperimentsprovidethebestavailabledatafortheseestimates.Finally,exposureanalysisisanindispensablepartofhealthriskanalysis.Inordertodeterminetheriskstoexposedhumans,boththeexposureandthedose–responserelationshipshavetobeknown.Ecologicalriskassessmentidentifiestheriskstowildlifeandtoecologicalsystemsfromexposuretochemicalsubstances.Themajorscientificdisciplinesthatcontributetoecologicalriskassessmentareecotoxicology,whichinvestigatestheeffectsofchemical500ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_089.qxd2/4/0914:11Page501riskanalysissubstancesonnon-humanorganisms,andenvironmentalchemistry,whichinvest-igatesthefateofchemicalsinthenaturalenvironment.Risk–benefitanalysisisasubdisciplineofeconomicsthatmakescalculationsthatcanbeusedtoweighrisksagainstbenefits.Thestudyofeconomicrisk-taking(wheretherisksareeconomiclosses)ispartofmainstreameconomicsandisusuallynotcountedaspartofriskanalysis.Riskperceptionisasubdisciplineofpsychology,devotedtostudiesofhowpeopleperceivetheseverityofdifferenttypesofriskandofthefactorsthatinfluencetheirappraisalsofrisk.Riskcommunicationisanotherbehavioralsubdisciplineinriskanalysis.Itinvestigatestheeffectsofvarioustypesofcommunicationonthepublic’sperceptionofrisk.Inrecentyears,therehasbeenashiftoffocusinriskcommunicationstudiesfromone-sidedtodialogicalcommunication.Practicalapplicationsofriskanalysistodecision-makinghaveusuallybeenbasedonathoughtmodelthathasbeendevelopedoutofattemptstosystematizetheworkcarriedoutbyregulatoryagenciesandsummarizedinaninfluential1983reportbytheAmericanNationalAcademyofSciences(NAS)(RiskAssessmentintheFederalGovernment:ManagingtheProcess).Thecharacteristicfeatureofthisapproachisthedivisionofriskdecisionproceduresintotwodistinctpartstobeperformedconsecutively.Thefirstofthese,commonlycalledriskassessment,isascientificundertaking.Itcon-sistsofcollectingandassessingtherelevantscientificandotherfactualinformationandonthisbasecharacterizingtherisks.Thesecondprocedureiscalledriskmanagement.Contrarytoriskassessment,thisisnotascientificundertaking.Itsstarting-pointistheoutcomeofriskassessment,whichitcombineswitheconomicandtechnologicalinformationpertainingtovariouswaysofreducingoreliminatingtheriskinquestion,andalsowithpoliticalandsocialinformation.Basedonthis,adecisionismadeonwhatmeasures–ifany–shouldbetakentoreducetherisk.Thisconsecutivemodelhasservedtheimportantpurposeofsystematizingapre-viouslymuchtoounsystematicundertaking.Inparticular,ithasservedtodefendtheintegrityofscienceandtopreventimproperpracticessuchaslettingestimatesofriskdependonwhetherornotriskreductionisconsideredfeasible.Ontheotherhand,arigidimplementationofthismodelalsohasseveraldisadvantages.Perhapsmostimportantly,themodelhasoftenbeeninterpretedassayingthatriskassessmentmustbe“completed”beforeriskmanagementcanstart.Thiscansometimesleadtounnecessarydelaysofriskabatement.Modificationsofthemodelthatfacilitatedeci-sionsbasedonpreliminaryconclusionscanincreasetheefficiencyofriskmanagement.501\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page502901ProsperityandtheFutureofTechnologyWILLIAMSIMSBAINBRIDGEFromtheverybeginningofhumanhistory,technologicalprogresshasbeenanessen-tialpreconditionforeconomicdevelopment,andprosperoussocietieshavehadtheresourcestoinvestinawiderangeofnewtechnologies.However,thehistoricalconnectionsamongtechnologicalchange,prosperity,andhumanwell-beinghavebeencomplexandoftenindirect.Whatwastrueinthepastmaynotbetrueinthefuture,andsomecriticshavesuggestedthatscientificandtechnologicalinnovationmaybecomingtoahalt,evenasothersarguethatitisnearingasingularityatwhichtheconditionsofhumanlifewillchangeutterly,perhapsthroughacombinationofinformationtechnologyandnanotechnology.EconomicProsperityandInnovationProsperityhaseconomicconnotations,butitsdictionarydefinitionisbroader,referringtothrivingandsuccessratherthantojustmonetaryriches.Formostofprehistoricdays,prosperitymeantlivinginabenignclimatewithamplewildgame,abundantplantresources,andsecurityfromattackbyotherbandsofhumans.TheNeolithicrevolution,asclassicallydescribedbyV.GordonChilde,waslaunchedbytheinventionofagricul-ture,leadingtopopulationgrowth,politicalandmilitaryinstitutionstodefendland,divisionoflaborproducingagreatervarietyofgoodsandservices,andculturaladvancessuchaswritingandorganizedreligion.Occurringfirstaroundtenthousandyearsago,theNeolithicrevolutiongraduallybuiltthetechnical,demographicandeconomicbasisfortheindustrialrevolution,startingaround250yearsago.Ifprosperityisthegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber,thenthemillennia-longprogressoftechnologysymbolizedbytheseputativerevolutionshasincreasedhumanprosperitybysomethinglikeamilliontimes,fromahunter-gathererpopulationoftenortwentythousandatthedawnofhumanityto6billiontoday,roughlytwo-thirdsofwhomcouldbedescribedasfabulouslywealthybyancientstandards.Itisnotatallclearthattechnologicalprogressisfastertodaythandecadesago,northatinnovationiscurrentlyplayingagreaterroleinpromotingprosperity.AcasecanbemadethathouseholdelectrificationintheearlytwentiethcenturywasmoreimportantintransforminglifethanthespreadoftheInternetattheendofthecentury,502ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page503prosperityandthefutureoftechnologyandthattheintroductionoftelephonesandautomobileswasmoreimportantthanemail.Therateofincreaseofthelifespanwasgreateracenturyagothantodayinindustrialnations.AlexanderFieldhasarguedthatthe1930swerethedecadeinwhichtech-nologicalinnovationhadthegreatestimpactonAmericaneconomicgrowth.JohnHorganoffersevidencethatthescienceonwhichtechnologicalinnovationisbasedhasneareditslimitsinmanyfields.Grantingthatwecannotbecertainaboutsuchmatters,whattechnologicalfactorsmightaffectprosperityinthefuture?EvanSchofer,FranciscoRamirezandJohnMeyerhaveshownthatscience,andthustechnologiesbasedonit,canhavecontraryeffectsoneconomicgrowth.Notably,sciencecanretardshort-termeconomicgrowthwhenitenergizespolicyreformsaboutenvironmentalpollution,humanrights,andwelfare.Ontheotherhand,majorinnovationscancreateentirelynewindustriesthatcauseawaveofeconomicadvanceuntiltheyhavebecomewellestablished,forexamplesaturatingthemarketwiththeirproducts.KennethBrownhasexaminedwhatwouldhappenifAmericaninvestmentinscienceweretodeclinemarkedly.Becauseotherfactors,suchassavingsandcapitalinvestment,promotegrowth,thelackofnewtechnologiesmightnotseemsignificantatfirst.Scientificandtechnologicalstasiswouldsetaceilingonlong-termeconomicgrowth,however.Economistsgenerallybelievethatinternationaltradehelpsunderdevelopednationsgrowtowardprosperity,andglobalizationdependsuponmoderntransportationandcommunicationtechnologies.Acrucialfactorcausinggrowthinpoorbuteconomic-allyopencountriesmaybetheinfluxofscientificandtechnicalknowledgethatcomesalongwithinternationaltrade.Impoverished,poorlyeducatednationsmustimporttheirscienceiftheyaretohaveanyatall.Knowledgeentersanopennationthroughthetechnologybroughtinbyforeigncompanies,acrosstheimportedtraintracksandphonelines,inthemindsofstudentssentabroadfortheireducation,andeveninthepagesofforeignbooksandontheWorldwideWeb.Thus,thetechnologiesthatalreadyexistcouldsupportmanydecadesofcontinuedeconomicprogressontheglobalscale.TheInformationAgePeopleshouldbewaryofanyonewhoproclaimsthedawnofanewera.The“AtomicAge”andthe“SpaceAge”werequicklyforgottenwhenthetechnologiesafterwhichtheywerenamedstalledinthe1960sand1970s.Thesameinnovationsthatgaveusnuclearpowerplantsandspacesatellitesalsogaveusatomicwarheadsoninter-continentalballisticmissiles,perhapstothenetharmofhumanity.ThuswecandoubtwhethertheInformationAgeisarealrevolutioninthebasicconditionsofhumanlife,or,ifitis,whetheritisonbalanceabenefitforprosperityandwell-being.Economistshavecometorecognizethevalueofinformationinmarkets.Companiesneedtodistinguishgoodfrompoorpotentialemployees,andsotheeducationalsystemactsasthecredentialinginstitution.Consumerswantreliablemeansofidentifyingproductsthatmeettheirowncost–qualitytradeoff,sobrandloyaltyarises.Informa-tioniscostly,bothdirectlytothepersonseekingitandindirectlythroughthecostofsocietalinstitutionslikeschoolsthatsupportit.Brandloyaltyiscostlybecausebrandsdemandapremiumprice.Thereissomequestionwhethermarketscouldfunction503\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page504williamsimsbainbridgeifeverybodyhasperfectinformation.Forexample,ifonlinereputationsystemslikethatusedbyeBayworkverywell,thencompetingmanufacturersanddistributioncompaniesmaynotbeabletochargeenoughtoprovideprofitstotheirowners,inaracetothebottominwhichthelowestpriceattractsallconsumersseekingproductsorservicestheyeasilylearnareequalinquality.In1983,WassilyLeontiefnotedthetransformationthatinformationtechnologyhadbeguntoachieve,andpredicted:“Assoonasnotonlythephysicalbutalsothecontrolling‘mental’functionsinvolvedintheproductionofgoodsandservicescanbeperformedwithouttheparticipationofhumanlabor,labor’sroleasanindispensable‘factorofproduction’willprogressivelydiminish”(p.405).Hearguedthathumanscouldbetreatedashorseswerewhengasoline-poweredvehiclestookovertheirtasks:dispensedwith.Theresultcouldbeincreasedunemployment,orunderemploymentwhenpeopletakeverylow-payingservicejobsinpreferencetonojobsatall.Atsomepointinthisprocessofdevaluinghumanwork,alargeenoughfractionofconsumerscouldbepoorenoughtoputthebrakesoneconomicgrowth.Alternatively,thewealthyclassescouldkeeptheirownprosperitygrowingbyinvestinginlargeprojectsthatoperatedabovethemassconsumereconomy,suchasarchitecturalextravaganzas,lavishvices,ormilitarycampaigns.Amorerecentperspectiveholdsthattheeffectofnewtechnologiesonworkorgan-ization,andtheeffectsthatworkhasonhumanlives,iscontingentuponanumberoffactors,includingpolicydecisionsabouthowtherolesoftechnologyandworkersaredefinedwithrespecttoeachother.Thismaybewhyresearchontheintroductionofcomputersintotheworkenvironmentgivescomplexandoftencontradictoryresults,notablytheparadoxthatproductivitydoesnotautomaticallyincrease.Inthetitleofhis1964book,Psychotherapy:ThePurchaseofFriendship,WilliamSchofieldapproachedbutdidnotquitecomprehendamajorinsight.Allserviceindustriesinvolvethepurchaseoffriendship.MutuallybeneficialhumancooperationhasbeenthefoundationofsocietysincelongbeforeHomosapiensevolved;but,asGeorgeHomanspointedoutlongago,humannatureexpectspracticalservicesandemotionalfriendshiptobecombined,inthedynamicsofsmallhumangroups.Thusitispossibletoarguethatserviceindustriesshouldfirstoffloadallrepetitivetasksonmachines,andthenintentionallyusehumanlaborinan“inefficient”manner,suchthatadoctororautomechanicbehaveslikearealfriendtotheclient.TheNanotechnologyAgeAtthedawnofthetwenty-firstcentury,the“nextbigthing”wasnanotechnology,theengineeringofmatteratthescaleofindividualcomplexmolecules.VisionarieslikeEricDrexlersuggestedthatahistoricalsingularitymightbeapproaching,whenself-reproducingnanoscalerobotscouldperformpreviouslyimpossiblemanufacturingtasksatpracticallynocost,therebyproducingessentiallyinfiniteprosperity.In2000,andagainfiveyearslater,theUSgovernmentconvenedmajorconferencesofleadingexpertstoconsiderthesocietalimplicationsofnanoscienceandnanotech-nology.Thenotionthatnanobotsorsomeothersinglenanoinnovationwouldsoontransformtheeconomywasunanimouslyrejectedbyscientistsknowledgeablewiththe504\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page505prosperityandthefutureoftechnologytechnicalchallenges.However,theyidentifiedaverylargenumberofindustrieswheremethodsbasedonnanosciencecouldmarkedlyimprovetheperformanceofproducts,whetherornottheycouldalsoachievelowercost.Thetransformationofindustrywouldbewidespreadbutgradual,allowinggracefuladjustmentofemploymentandinvest-mentpatterns.Ratherthancausingarevolution,nanotechnologyisexpectedtosustainconventionaltechnology-basedeconomicgrowthforseveraldecadesintheadvancednations,withbenefitdiffusinggraduallyaroundtheworld.Theverydiversityofnanotechnologiesmakesthemverydifficulttomonopolize,thusbufferingtheirimpactontheorganizationofworkandfinancialpower.TosomeextenttheycouldreversethetrendtowardaninformationandserviceeconomythatDanielBellcalledpost-industrialsociety.Atthesametime,nanotechnologycouldfacilitateashifttowardgreateruseofsolarenergy,theuseofhydrogenorothersyntheticfuelsinsteadofgasoline,andimprovementsintheeffectivenessandefficiencyofhealthcare.In2004,theNationalCancerInstituteannouncedafive-year$144millioninitia-tivetoapplynanotechnologytothecureofcancer,aproblemthathasresistedotherapproachesforacentury.Thus,healthandenvironmentalbenefitscouldimprovewell-being,facilitatinglong-termeconomicgrowth.Informationtechnologycouldcombinewithnanotechnology,orwithlarger-scalemethodsdevelopedasspinoffsfromnanotechnology,toallowmanufacturingindustriestotranscendthedistinctionresponsiblefortheindustrialrevolution.AsBroadberry(1994:291)definesit:“Inmassproduction,specialpurposemachineryandresourcesaresubstitutedforskilledlabourtoproduceidenticalproducts,whilecraftproductionmethodsmakeextensiveuseofskilledlabourtoproducecustomizedoutput.”Now,computer-controlledfabricationmachinerycanefficientlyproducealineofproductsinwhicheachitemiscustomizedtotheuser’sneedsanddesires.Precisionmanufactureusingsyntheticmaterialscouldbedonelocallywithlocalmaterials,thusdetachingindustryfromtheglobaleconomyandembeddingitbackinthecommunityofusers.ConclusionArguably,majorsocialformsthatemergeduringthecourseofhumanhistorymaybetemporary,ratherthanbecomingthepermanentunderpinningofanincreasingcomplexsocialorder.Forexample,complex,extendedkinshipstructuresandlandedaristocracieswerenecessaryduringagrariansociety,becauseoftheneedtoholdandcultivateland,incompetitionwithothercommunitieswhowouldliketoseizeit.Priortoagrariansociety,kinshipstructuresweresmallerandmorefluid,andthesameistruetoday.Similarly,widespreadmarketstradingmanufacturedgoodsarethedominanteconomicinstitutionstoday,butmayfadeintorelativeinsignificanceinaninformationsociety.Givensecurebutmodesthousingandnutritiousbuttemperatefood,mostofaperson’swell-beingwillconsistofwarmsocialrelationsandinformationresources.Alreadymorethanenoughfinenovelshavegoneoutofcopyrightandbeenpublishedonthewebtolastareaderalifetime,sowecanimagineatimenotmanyyearshencewhentheentertainmentindustriescollapse,replacedbythistroveofInternetculture505\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page506williamsimsbainbridgeandbysemi-professionallocalartists.Manufacturecanbecarriedoutbyskilledlocalcraftsmen,usingfabricationmethodsshapedbyinformationtechnologyandnanotechnology.Serviceswillbeperformedbyfriendswhoseexpertisegivesthemanhonoredstatusinthesociety,butwhoarenevermerelydoingtheirjob.Thisisonlyoneofmanypossiblescenariosforafuturecreatedbytechnology,describingasocietythatismoreprosperousthantoday,butwithfarlessmoney.Note1.TheviewsexpressedinthisessaydonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheNationalScienceFoundationortheUnitedStates.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBell,D.(1973).TheComingofPost-industrialSociety:AVentureinSocialForecasting(NewYork:BasicBooks).Broadberry,S.N.(1994).“TechnologicalLeadershipandProductivityLeadershipinManu-facturingsincetheIndustrialRevolution:ImplicationsfortheConvergenceDebate,”TheEconomicJournal,104(423):291–302.Brown,K.M.(1998).DownsizingScience:WilltheUnitedStatesPayaPrice?(Washington,D.C.:AEIPress).Burris,B.H.(1998).“ComputerizationoftheWorkplace,”AnnualReviewofSociology,24:141–57.Childe,V.G.(1951).ManMakesHimself(NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary).Drexler,K.E.(1986).EnginesofCreation(GardenCity,N.Y.:Anchor).Field,A.J.(2003).“TheMostProgressiveDecadeoftheCentury,”AmericanEconomicReview,93(4):1399–1413.Frankel,J.andRomer,D.(1999).“DoesTradeCauseGrowth?,”AmericanEconomicReview,89(3):379–99.Gilmartin,D.(1994).“ScientificEmpireandImperialScience:ColonialismandIrrigationTechnologyintheIndusBasin,”JournalofAsianStudies,53(4):1127–49.Homans,G.C.(1950).TheHumanGroup(NewYork:HarcourtBrace).Horgan,J.(1996).TheEndofScience:FacingtheLimitsofKnowledgeintheTwilightoftheScientificAge(Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley).Kurzweil,R.(2005).TheSingularityIsNear(NewYork:Viking).Leontief,W.(1983).“TechnologicalAdvance,EconomicGrowth,andtheDistributionofIncome,”PopulationandDevelopmentReview,9(3):403–10.Liker,J.K.,Haddad,C.J.andKarlin,J.(1999).“PerspectivesonTechnologyandWorkOrgan-ization,”AnnualReviewofSociology,25:575–96.NationalCancerInstitute(2004).CancerNanotechnology:GoingSmallforBigAdvances(Bethesda,Md.:NationalCancerInstitute).Roco,M.C.andBainbridge,W.S.(2001).SocietalImplicationsofNanoscienceandNanotechnology(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Roco,M.C.andBainbridge,W.S.(2006).Nanotechnology:SocietalImplications,2vols(Berlin:Springer).Schofer,E.,Ramirez,F.O.andMeyer,J.W.(2000).“TheEffectsofScienceonNationalEconomicDevelopment,1970to1990,”AmericanSociologicalReview,65(6):866–87.506\n9781405146012_4_090.qxd2/4/0914:11Page507prosperityandthefutureoftechnologySchofield,W.(1964).Psychotherapy:ThePurchaseofFriendship(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall).Stiglitz,J.E.(2002).“InformationandtheChangeintheParadigminEconomics,”AmericanEconomicReview,92(3):460–501.Thompson,W.R.(1990).“LongWaves,TechnologicalInnovation,andRelativeDecline,”InternationalOrganization,44(2):201–33.507\n9781405146012_4_091.qxd2/4/0914:12Page508911ConvergingTechnologiesWILLIAMSIMSBAINBRIDGEAculturalmovementhasarisenwithinscienceandtechnologyaimedattheunifica-tionoftheories,methodsandgoalsacrossfields.Thisconvergencehastremendouspotentialintheso-called“NBIC”fieldsofnanotechnology,biotechnology,informationtechnologyandnewtechnologiesbasedoncognitivescience.Aseriesofconferences,someorganizedofficiallybytheUnitedStatesgovernmentbutothersorganizedbyscientistsandengineersseparatelyfromgovernmentsupport,haveespeciallyexam-inedhowconvergencecouldleveragedevelopmentsintheNationalNanotechnologyInitiativetotransformtheconditionsofhumanlife.TheNBICFieldsNanotechnology,asconventionallydefined,isaverygeneraltermforengineeringmaterials,structuresanddevicesinwhichatleastsomedimensionsarelessthan100nanometers(billionthsofameter).Bytheendofthetwentiethcentury,visionariesandscience-fictionwritershadconvincedmanypeoplethatself-reproducingnanoscalerobotsorautomaticnanoscalefactoriesformolecularmanufacturingwouldsoonbedeveloped.WhentheUnitedStatesgovernmentorganizedthefirstseriousexaminationofthesocietalimplicationsofnanotechnologyin2000,however,theconsensusofexpertopinionwasthatthesedreamswereatleastfiftyyearsinthefuture,butnanotechno-logycouldhaveagreatimpactthroughincrementalperformanceimprovementsacrossawiderangeofexistingtechnologies.Thus,“nano”wouldnotbearevolutionbutanenabler,assistingprogressthroughconvergencewithothertechnologies.Already,computerhardwareexploitsthespeedandefficiencyoftransistorswithcomponentslessthan50nanometersacross,andnanoscalelayersgiveharddiskssignificantlyincreaseddatacapacity.Ascomputingbecomesubiquitousandmobile,componentsmustbecomesmallerandlighter.Sensornetworkswillidentifyindividualmoleculesforsuchapplicationsasenvironmentalmonitoring,medicaldiagnosis,anddefenseagainstbiohazards.Thus,nano–infoconvergenceisnotonlytakingplacebutalsoreachinginthedirectionofbiotechnology.Nano–bioconvergenceisevidentintheconceptsandmethodsusedtostudythenanoscalemachineryinsidelivingcells,anditjoinswithinformationtechnologyto508ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_091.qxd2/4/0914:12Page509convergingtechnologiesenablerapidgenesequencingandgeneticengineering.Thenervoussystemsofanimalsandhumansdependuponmanyphenomenathatoperateatthenanoscale,fromthereactionofpigmentmoleculeslikerhodopsinastheyrespondtolightintheeye,totheflowofneurotransmittersacrossthegapsbetweenneurons.Thusconvergencereachesbeyondnanotechnology,informationtechnologyandbiotechnologytowardcognitivetechnology.Theinclusionofcognitivescienceiscontroversial,inpartbecausetherestillexistsconsiderableculturaloppositiontotheveryideathatthehuman“soul”or“spirit”canbestudiedscientifically,reflectedinfarlowerlevelsofpublicfinancialsupportforresearchinthebehavioralandsocialsciencesthaninthephysicalorbiologicalsciences.Therealsoexistsconsiderablepoliticalopposition,especiallyintheUnitedStateswhereRepublicanadministrationscurryingfavorwithevangelicalsandconservativescon-tinuallyseektosuppressthesocialandcognitivesciencesonthetheorythattheyaremereleft-wingideologies.Whilethiscriticismispoorlygrounded,itistruethatNBICconvergenceislikelytoundercuttraditionalbeliefs,valuesandinstitutions.PhilosophicalImplicationsofConvergenceThetechnologiescannotuniteunlessthesciencesalsodoso.Thismeansthatconvergingfieldsmustdevelopsharedlanguages,theoriesandeducationalcurricula.Theultimateresultcouldbetheemergenceofauniversalsetofscientificprinciples,theconsensusofscienceabouthowtheuniversefunctionsandtheuniversaltoolkitemployedbyen-gineerstotransformthematerialconditionsofhumanlife.Forexample,thebiologicalconceptofevolutionbynaturalselectionfromrandomvariationhasbeenadaptedbycomputerscientistsingeneticalgorithmsandevolutionarycomputingmethods.Importantly,thescientistsandengineerswhoparticipatedinthelandmarkNBICandnanoconferencesexpectsubstantialchangesinhumannaturetoresult.Notethetitlesoftwooftheconferencevolumes:ConvergingTechnologiesforImprovingHumanPerformanceandTheCoevolutionofHumanPotentialandConvergingTechnologies.Inordertocompetewitheachother,individuals,corporationsandnationsmayneedtoembraceconvergence,withtheunintendedconsequencethattherulesofcompetitionmayconstantlychangeashumannatureisalteredbytheNBICtechnologies.Already,insuchareasashuman–computerinteractionandrobotics,majorfieldsofinformationtechnologyresearchanddevelopment,thedistinctionbetweenhumanandmachinecognitionisblurring.Smartmachinesfromvideogamestoofficeinformationsystemsareprogressivelydesignedtothinkmorelikehumans,whereasthehumanswhousethemcometomirrorthemachine’smentalhabitsaswell.Arguably,onemachineisalreadymoreintelligentthananyhuman,anditsnameisGoogle;butGoogleissmartonlybecauseitexploitsthejudgmentsofliterallymillionsofpeople.Atthesametime,cyberinfrastructure(supercomputers,digitallibraries,andresearchcollaboratories)istransformingallmodesofscientificdataanalysisandtheorizingintosubsetsofcom-puterscience.Thenew“technorthodoxy”couldgaingreatsocialpowerfromeffectivetechnologiesbasedonit,notablygeneticengineeringandartificialintelligence.Influentialsocio-biologistEdwardO.Wilsonadvocatesscientificunification,callingitconsilience,and509\n9781405146012_4_091.qxd2/4/0914:12Page510williamsimsbainbridgepredictsthatreligionwillfinditselfleftoutofthisgrandconvergence.Onecouldarguethataworldwide,coherentscientificculturecouldbecomethetechnicalbasisforculturalpluralisminthehumanities,socialsystemsandmattersoffaith.Thus,itisunclearwhetherreligionandtheartswouldbesubordinatetoscienceorindepend-entfromit.Wheneverythingthatcouldbecomepossibleisactuallypossible,humanswillneedtodecidewhattheyreallywant.ConclusionThefundamentalfactaboutscientificconsilienceandtechnologicalconvergenceisuncertainty.Perhapsscienceandengineeringareundergoingamajorphasechange,afterwhicheverythingwillbedifferent.Perhapspoliticaloppositionwillpreventunification,atleastforalongtime,allowingnon-technicalfactorsconsiderablescopetoshapehumandestiny.However,onewaytodescribetoday’sworldistosaythatoldtechnologiesareconsumingnaturalresourcesandpollutingtheenvironmentatanacceleratingrate,whileterroristsseekweaponsofmassdestructionandimperialistsdevelopprivacy-destroyinginformationsystems.Fromthatperspective,itwillbenecessarytoachieveconvergencequickly,unifyinghumanityaswellasscienceandtechnologybeforetheydestroyeachother.Note1.TheviewsexpressedinthisessaydonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheNationalScienceFoundationortheUnitedStates.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBainbridge,W.S.(inpress).“ConvergingTechnologiesandHumanDestiny,”JournalofMedicineandPhilosophy.Bainbridge,W.S.(ed.)(2004).TheBerkshireEncyclopediaofHuman–ComputerInteraction(GreatBarrington,Mass.:Berkshire).Bainbridge,W.S.andRoco,M.C.(2001).SocietalImplicationsofNanoscienceandNanotechnology(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Bainbridge,W.S.andRoco,M.C.(2003).ConvergingTechnologiesforImprovingHumanPerformance(Dordrecht:Kluwer).Bainbridge,W.S.andRoco,M.C.(2006).Nanotechnology:SocietalImplications,2vols(Berlin:Springer).Bainbridge,W.S.andRoco,M.C.(eds)(2006a).ProgressinConvergence(NewYork:NewYorkAcademyofSciences).Bainbridge,W.S.andRoco,M.C.(eds)(2006b).ManagingNano-Bio-Info-CognoInnovations:ConvergingTechnologiesinSociety(Berlin:Springer).Roco,M.C.andMontemagno,C.D.(eds)(2004).TheCoevolutionofHumanPotentialandConvergingTechnologies(NewYork:NewYorkAcademyofSciences).Wilson,E.O.(1998).Consilience:TheUnityofKnowledge(Thorndike,Me.:ThorndikePress).510\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page51192NanotechnologyALFREDNORDMANNThereareatleasttwowaysofdefiningnanotechnology.Ontheonehand,itistheseeminglyunlimitedtechnicalpotentialthatwillarisefromatpresentstillrudimen-tarycapabilitiesofvisualizingandmanipulatingmolecularstructure.Ontheotherhand,itisanumbrellatermforavarietyofnanotechnologicalresearchprogramsthataimforfunctionalmaterials,fortargeteddrugdelivery,formolecularwiresandfastercomputers,forlab-on-a-chipsensors,forextremelyfinefilters,forsmarttextiles,for1taggingandmonitoring,andmuchmore.Therearealsoatleasttwowaysofposingthequestionregardingprosperityandrisk.Onecanaskwhatournanotechnologicalfuturehasinstoreforus,whatbenefitsandriskswillcomewiththedevelopmentofnanotechnology.Onecanalsoaskhowourcurrentsocietalorenvironmentalproblemsmightbeaddressedwiththehelpofthisorsomeothernanotechnologicalresearchprogram.Inbothcases,weeitherrefertoanunspecifiedfutureinwhichavastbutvaguepotentialmayormaynotberealized,orweremaininthepresentbyreferringtoongoingfundedresearchprograms,includingthevisionsofabettersocietythatmayormaynotinformthem.Intheformercase,nanotechnologyispromiseandthreatallwrappedintoone;inthelattercase,specificnanotechnologicalresearchisjustifiedtotheextentthatitbuildsonpresentlydemonstrablecapabilitiesandcontributestothesolutionofwell-definedproblems.Thetensionbetweenfuturistandpresentistconceptionsofnanotechnologyisunresolved.Thedynamicofnanotechnologicaldevelopmentfeedsonthisunresolvedtension.ReflectiononthisdynamicisthereforeamajorthemeinnanoScienceand2,3,4,5,6,7TechnologyStudies(nSTS).Thefuturistconceptionhascomeunderpressurenotonlyfortheobviousepistemologicalproblemthatonecannotpredictthefuture,butalsofor,broadlyspeaking,ethicalandpoliticalreasons:Isthereanethicallydefensiblestandpointfromwhichtojudgefuturetechnologies?Doesadiscourseaboutbroadbutvagueprospectsdetractfromparticularchoicesthatneedtobemadenow?Reflectionsonissuesofprosperity,risk,justice,orsustainabilityrequireaconceptu-allymanageablepresentationofnanotechnologicalprograms.Thepricetopayforthisistogiveuptheillusoryhopethatonecouldnowworryaboutorprepareforaremote,unknownandunknowablefuture.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks511©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page512alfrednordmannTherearefurtherreasonstointerveneinthesystematicallyambiguousrhetoricof“nanotechnology”andtodisambiguatefuturistandpresentistconceptions.Thesereasonsinvolvespecificlimitsofknowledgeandtechnicalcontrolofnanoscalephe-nomena.Here,nSTSscholarshiphasfocusedontheveryconceptionsofuncertaintyorriskandtheemergenceofnanotoxicology.Jean-PierreDupuyandSvenOveHanssonhighlightthedistinctionbetweenknown8,9andunknownrisks,betweenepistemicuncertaintyandobjectiveindeterminacy.Epistemicuncertaintyconcernsourcurrentstateofknowledge:Givenwhatispresentlyknown,wecannotexclude,forexample,thatsomechemicalsubstancemightposearisktohumanhealth.Accordingly,epistemicuncertaintyservesasanindexonpro-positions,hypotheses,orbeliefs,indicatingtheincompletenessofknowledge.Thisuncer-taintyisorientedtowardafuturestateatwhichgreatercertaintycanandwillbeachieved:Oncethedataonexposure,onfrequencyandseverityofincidentshavebeencollected,adefinitivejudgmentontherisksposedbythesubstancewillbepossible.Incontrast,objectiveindeterminacyisanirreduciblepropertyofaphysicalsystem.Thesystembehavesinsuchawaythatonecannotattainanyassurancethatwouldexcludeacatastrophefromhappening.Ifonetakestheclaimsmadeonbehalfofnanotechnologiesseriously,thereisgoodreasontoexpectthatnanotechnologicalriskassessmenttakesplaceunderconditionsofobjectiveindeterminacy.Dupuypointstotheemphasison“bottom-upengineering.”Nanotechnologiesaresaidtoharnessprocessesofself-organizationwhichallowthemtobuildstructuresthroughtheself-assemblyofmolecules.Self-organizationisfrequentlyassociatedwithnon-lineardynamicsandconceptionsoforderedstatesemergingfromchaoticstates–this,ofcourse,isalsocalled“catastrophetheory.”Indeed,atthetipping-pointofself-organizingsystemsthereisobjectiveindeterminacywhethertheemergingstateiscatastrophiccollapseoradesirablestateofgreatercomplexity.Whileitisanopenquestionwhethernanotechnologicalbottom-upengineeringactuallyinvolvessuchastrongconceptionofself-organization,theargumentregarding10,11objectiveindeterminacydoesnotdependonit.Eventhemostgeneraldefinitionsofnanotechnologyrefertoscale-dependentdiscontinuities.Nanotechnologicalresearchseekstoexploitthefactthatfamiliarsubstanceshavedifferentpropertieswhentheyarescaleddowntothepointatwhichagreatproportionoftheiratomsareclosetotheirsurface.Bulkmatterisappropriatelycharacterizedbychemicalcompositionalone,anditssurfacecanusuallybeneglected.Whenmaterialsaredominatedbysurfaceproperties,however,theirbehaviordependsnotonchemicalcompositionalonebutalsoonsize,surfacecharacteristicsandstructure.Theexpectedbehavioristhereforehighlysensitivetoawholevarietyoffactorsthataredifficulttocontrolindividually,letaloneatonce.And,evenifitwerepossibletoachievesuchcontrolandaphysicallyrobustexploitationofsomenovelproperty,itishardtolimitthescopeofthisnovelty.Ananoparticlemightbeengineeredforitsspecificabilitytoabsorblight;but,whileanentirefieldofscientificresearchisbuiltaroundthetoxicityandbiocompatibilityofchemicalproperties,thereisnosuchscienceforengineeredpropertiesandfunction-alities.Notsurprisingly,therefore,theanalogytoasbestoshasbeeninvokedrepeatedly,sinceitwasthestructureofasbestosfibersratherthantheirchemicalcompositionthat12provedtobehazardous.Aswithasbestos,itmaybedifficulttogaindefinitiveknowledgeuntilafterthefact,thatis,untilresultsareavailablefromlong-termepidemiological512\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page513nanotechnologystudiesofsufficientlylargepopulationswithsignificantlevelsofexposure.Unlikethecaseofasbestos,however,earlywarningsarenotbeingignoredandwaysarebeingsought13todealwithquestionsofriskinasituationcharacterizedbyobjectiveindeterminacy.Currentlypredominantviewsofriskandprecautionareepistemicinthattheydependonwhatiscurrentlyknownabouthazards,exposures,incidence,andwhatonewouldneedtoknowbeforegivingagreenlighttofurtherresearchormarketdistri-bution.Whenthisroadisnotavailableunderconditionsofobjectiveindeterminacy,thebestofourknowledgeisstilltakenintoconsideration,stillneedstobeupdatedandimproved.However,toxicologicalandepidemiologicalinformationcanonlycontributetoamorebroadlyconceivedprocessoftesting,observingandmonitoringtherobust-nessofatechnicalsystem.Indeed,adesideratumfornSTSistodevelopcriteriafortherobustnessofsocio-technicalsystemsintheirenvironments.Whilethesecriteriawillnotbeformallystringentlikethoseproposedfortheassessmentofpropositionalknowledge-claims,theywillincludesocialrobustness,thatis,howfirmlynanotechnological14research-programsareentrenchedwithinthelargeraspirationsofasociety.Thedemandforasociallyrobustmethodofcontinuousjustification,observation,researchanddeliberationisparticularlystrongintheemergingfieldofnanotoxico-logy.Herechemicaltoxicology,occupationalhealth,inhalationtoxicologyandvariousothersubfieldscometogethertostrengthenadisciplinaryidentitythatisbasedonthetraditionaltoolsandmethodsthathaveservedwellinthedevelopmentofregulatorymechanismsforfineparticlesandchemicalsubstances.Thefactthatthesetraditionaltoolsandmethodsreachtheirlimitsatthenanoscalecouldthreatendisciplinary15identity.Instead,itapparentlyprovidesanaddedopportunityfortheemerging16,17fieldtoreinventitselfasananoscience.Ontheonehand,toxicologymightmovefromthepositionofbeingamerelyreactivetestingsciencetoaproactiveknowledge-providerthatpavesthewayforbiocompatiblenanotechnology.Itcandosobyinform-ingnanotechnologicalresearchanddevelopmentofrelevantstrategiesforselectingits18buildingblocks,thetreatmentofsurfaces,etc.Atthesametime,toxicologymightfurtherexpanditsinterdisciplinarycharacterbyincludingthesocialsciencesand19becomingasocialscienceofnature.Epidemiologicalvigilancewouldbeframedbydeliberationsonthesocietalbenefitsandinstitutionalarrangementsthatmightjustifytheassumptionofunknownrisks.Theterm“socialscienceofnature”wascoinedinthe1980sinthecontextofthe20so-calledfinalizationthesis.Itspointofdeparturewastherecognitionthattechno-scientificresearchdoesnotrepresentauniqueandunchangeablenaturebutpursuesasitsprogramtheshapingandreshapingofaworldthatisalreadytheproductoftech-21nicalinterventions.Ifnatureisnolongerjustnaturalbutalsosocial,thescienceofnatureisalsonolongernaturalbutalsosocial.Asascienceofjudginghownanotechnicalmaterialsanddevicescanfunctioninasociallyandtechnicallyrobustmanner,nano-toxicologycanshowthewayforthelargerambitionsofembeddingnanotechnolo-gicalresearchwithinaconvergenceofenablingtechnologies(“convergingsciences22andtechnologiesforbio-andsociocompatibletechnicalsystems”).Inthediscourseoftechnologyandthefuture,thenotionsofprosperityandriskplayahighlyreductiverole.Inlightofthemanyunknownsthatthefuturemayhold,theysignalthepresumedcertaintiesthattechnologicalinnovationleadstoprosperity,thatthemostseriousobstacletothisisperceptionsofrealorimaginedrisk.Inthiscontext513\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page514alfrednordmannthemeaningofthesetermsislimitedtotheirrhetoricalandepistemologicalfunctioninapublicdiscoursethatisorientedtowardassurancesofa“sustainable”future.However,inthecontextoftheproblems,technicalcapacitiesandneedsofthepresent,prosperityandriskareimplicatedinthepiecemealtransformationsofhighlycomplexsocio-technicalsystems.Richlycontextualized,thesetermsnolongerservetoorientdiscoursetoimpoverishedconceptionsofprotectionfromphysicalharmandgrowthofGNP.AsBrianWynnehasshownfornanoethics,theevaluationofnanotechnologicaldevelop-mentmovesfromcalculatedimpactstosocialimaginationwhenitisinformedbylayethics,byrecognitionofsilent“others,”byvarioussourcesofexpertiseanddeliber-ativeprocesses.Beyondthepresumedbenefit/presumedriskcalculus,asocialscienceofnaturerequiresimaginationforthewaysinwhichnanotechnologiesmightalterthe23fabricofhumanrelations.BrianWynne’scritiqueof“risk”ismatchedbyJoachimSchummer’sworkon“prosperity”astheenvisionedaimofnanotechnology.Tobesure,visionsof“global24abundance”haveinformedfuturistvisionsofnanotechnologyfromthebeginning.Theargumentsforpublicinvestmentinnanotechnologicalresearchinvariablyrefertogrowingnumbersofpatents,anticipatedincreasesinmarket-shareandvolumeofnanotechnologicalproducts.Theseargumentshavebeenshadowedbyaconcernwhetherthedevelopingworldcanprofitfromthesedevelopmentsorwhetherthey25willwidenexistinggaps.Schummer’sreviewofnanotechnologiesforthedeveloping26countriesissoberingandhighlightsthemagnitudeofthetask.Inthemeantime,fundingfornanotechnologyraisesquestionsofdistributivejustice:Whobenefitsand27whopays?Inparticular,thisquestionmightbeaddressedtonanomedicalresearchthatisfocusednotoninfectiousdiseasesbutprimarilyoncancerandthusonanincre-mentalextensionofalready-highlife-expectancyinanaffluentageingpopulation.Andavariantofthisquestionariseswithrespecttotheenvironmentalpromisesthataremadeonbehalfofnanotechnologies.Onfuturistconceptions,environmentalproblemswilltakecareofthemselvesoncewaste-freeandresource-efficientmodesofmanufacturingareinplace.Byholdingnanotechnologicalresearchanddevelopmenttothedemandsandecologicalproblemsofthepresent,onemightinsistthatpublicinvestmentinnanotechnologyshouldbeproportionatetoitspromisesofenvironmentalremediation.Questionsofriskandofprosperityandriskcanthusbecomerichlycontextualoncewerealizethatnanotechnology’sstorylineisnotprimarilythatofhumanprogresstowardgreaterwealth,globalabundance,everexpandedscientificunderstandingandtech-nicalcontrol–butthatitsstorylineisthatofglobalization:sailingundertheflagof“nanotechnology,”wearepresentlyembarkedupontheconquestofnanospaceandthusuponacontentiousprojecttoreformthewebofhumanrelationsandtheworld28oflivedexperience.Notes1.JoachimSchummer,“IdentifyingEthicalIssuesofNanotechnologies,”inHenktenHave(ed.),Nanotechnology:Science,EthicsandPolitics(Paris:UNESCOPublishing,2007),pp.79–98.514\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page515nanotechnology2.AlfredNordmann,“NoFutureforNanotechnology?HistoricalDevelopmentvs.GlobalExpansion,”inFabriceJotterand(ed.),EmergingConceptual,EthicalandPolicyIssuesinBio-nanotechnology(Dordrecht:Springer,2008),pp.43–63.3.Jean-PierreDupuy,Pouruncatastrophismeéclairé:quandl’impossibleestcertain(Paris:Seuil,2002);“ComplexityandUncertainty:APrudentialApproachtoNanotechnology,”inFritzAllhoff,PatrickLin,JamesMoor,JohnWeckert(eds),Nanoethics:TheEthicalandSocialImplicationsofNanotechnology(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley,2007),pp.119–31.4.ArminGrunwald,“NanotechnologiealsChiffrederZukunft,”inAlfredNordmann,JoachimSchummer,andAstridSchwarz(eds),NanotechnologienimKontext:Philosophische,ethische,gesellschaftlichePerspektiven(Berlin:AkademischeVerlagsgesellschaft,2006),pp.49–80.5.AndreasLösch,“AnticipatingtheFuturesofNanotechnology:VisionaryImagesasMeansofCommunication,”TechnologyAnalysisandStrategicManagement(TASM),vol.18(2006),no.3–4,SpecialIssueontheSociologyofExpectationsinScienceandTechnology,pp.393–409;“TheDefuturizationoftheMedia:DynamicsintheVisualConstitutionofNanotechnology,”inMarioKaiser,MonikaKurath,SabineMaasenandChristophRehmann-Sutter(eds),AssessmentRegimesofTechnology:Regulation,DeliberationandIdentityPoliticsofNanotechnology(Dordrecht:Springer,2008).6.CynthiaSelin,“TimeMatters:HarmonyandDissonanceinNanotechnologyNetworks,”TimeandSociety,vol.15(2006),no.1,pp.121–39;CynthiaSelin,“ExpectationsandtheEmergenceofNanotechnology,”Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,vol.32(2007),no.2,pp.196–220;ValerieHanson,“TheRoleofAnticipatoryRhetoricsinDiscussionsofNanotechnologicalEthics,”PresentationattheNanoethicsConferenceinColumbia,SouthCarolina,March2005;MarioKaiser,“FuturesAssessed:HowTechnologyAssess-ment,EthicsandThinkTanksAppropriateNanotechnology’sFuture.”inMarioKaiser,MonikaKurath,SabineMaasenandChristophRehmann-Sutter(eds),AssessmentRegimesofTechnology:Regulation,DeliberationandIdentityPoliticsofNanotechnology(Dordrecht:Springer,2008).7.RobinWilliams,“CompressedForesightandNarrativeBias:PitfallsinAssessingHighTech-nologyFutures,”ScienceasCulture,vol.15(2006),no.4,pp.327–48.8.Jean-PierreDupuy,“ComplexityandUncertainty:APrudentialApproachtoNanotechno-logy,”inFritzAllhoff,PatrickLin,JamesMoorandJohnWeckert(eds),Nanoethics:TheEthicalandSocialImplicationsofNanotechnology(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley,2007),pp.119–31.9.SvenOveHansson,“GreatUncertaintyaboutSmallThings,”Techné,vol.8(2004),no.2;alsopublishedinJoachimSchummerandDavisBaird(eds),NanotechnologyChallenges:ImplicationsforPhilosophy,EthicsandSociety(Singapore:WorldScientificPublishing,2006),pp.315–25.10.ShuguangZhang,“AnotherBrickintheWall,”NatureNanotechnology,vol.1(2006),no.3,pp.169–70.11.G.M.WhitesidesandB.Grzybowski,“Self-assemblyatAllScales,”Science,vol.295(2002),pp.2418–21.12.AnnabelleHett,Nanotechnology–SmallMatter,ManyUnknowns(Zurich:SwissReinsur-anceCompany,2004).13.D.GeeandM.Greenberg,“Asbestos:From‘Magic’toMalevolentMineral,”inP.Harremoes,D.Gee,M.MacGarvin,A.Stirling,J.Keys,B.WynneandS.GuedesVaz(eds),ThePre-cautionaryPrincipleinthe20thCentury:LateLessonsfromEarlyWarnings(London:Sage,2002),pp.49–63.14.H.Nowotny,P.ScottandM.Gibbons,Re-ThinkingScience.KnowledgeandthePublicinanAgeofUncertainty(Cambridge:Polity,2001).15.ScientificCommitteeonEmergingandNewly-IdentifiedHealthRisks(SCENIHR),OpinionontheAppropriatenessoftheRiskAssessmentMethodologyinAccordancewiththeTechnical515\n9781405146012_4_092.qxd2/4/0914:12Page516alfrednordmannGuidanceDocumentsforNewandExistingSubstancesforAssessingtheRisksofNanomaterials(Brussels:EuropeanCommissionHealthandConsumerProtectionDG,2007).16.MonikaKurathandSabineMaasen,“DisziplinäreIdentitätsbildungneugedacht?ToxikologiealsNanowissenschaft?,”inAlfredNordmann,JoachimSchummerandAstridSchwarz(eds),NanotechnologienimKontext(Berlin:AkademischeVerlagsgesellschaft,2006),pp.397–418.17.MonikaKurathandSabineMaasen,“ToxicologyasaNanoscience?–DisciplinaryIdentitiesReconsidered,”ParticleandFiberToxicology,vol.3(2006),no.6.18.VickyColvin,“SustainabilityforNanotechnology,”Scientist,vol.18(2004),no.16,pp.26–7;compareR.Monastersky,“TheDarkSideofSmall.AsNanotechnologyTakesOff:ResearchersScrambletoAssessItsRisks,”TheChronicleofHigherEducation,vol.51(2004),no.3,p.A12.19.GüntherOberdoerster,VickiStoneandKenDonaldson,Ken,“ToxicologyofNanoparticles:AHistoricalPerspective,”Nanotoxicology,vol.1(2007),pp.2–25.20.WolfSchäfer(ed.),FinalizationinScience(Dordrecht:Reidel,1983).21.IvanAmato,Nanotechnology.ShapingtheWorldAtombyAtom(Washington,D.C.:NationalScienceandTechnologyCouncil,1999).22.HighLevelExpertGroup,“ForesightingtheNewTechnologyWave,”ConvergingTechnologies–ShapingtheFutureofEuropeanSocieties(Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,2004).23.BrianWynne,“WhatCouldtheFoundationsofNanoBioInfoethicsBe?SomeLateralThoughts,”France–StanfordFoundationWorkshoponNanotechnologyandEthics,Avignon,December2006,unpublishedmanuscript.24.B.C.Crandall,Nanotechnology:MolecularSpeculationsonGlobalAbundance(Cambridge,Mass./London:MITPress,1996).25.AniseMnyusiwalla,AbdallahS.Daaretal.,“‘MindtheGap’:ScienceandEthicsintheNanotechnology,”Nanotechnology,vol.14(2003),pp.R9–R13.26.JoachimSchummer,“TheImpactofNanotechnologiesonDevelopingCountries,”inFritzAllhoff,PatrickLin,JamesMoorandJohnWeckert(eds),Nanoethics:TheEthicalandSocialImplicationsofNanotechnology(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley,2007),pp.291–307.27.JoachimSchummer,“ForschungfürdieArmenversusForschungfürdieReichen:VerteilungsgerechtigkeitalsmoralischesKriteriumzurBewertungderangewandtenChemie,”inClemensSedmak(ed.),OptionfürdieArmen:DieEntmarginalisierungdesArmutsbegriffsindenWissenschaften(Freiburg:Herder,2005),pp.605–26.28.AlfredNordmann,“DesignChoicesintheNanoworld:ASpaceOdyssey,”inMarianDeblonde,LieveGoorden,etal.(eds),NanoResearchersFacingChoices,TheDialogueSeries,Vol.10,(Antwerp:UniversitairCentrumSint-IgnatiusAntwerpen,2007),pp.13–30.516\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page51793EnergyForecastTechnologiesJOHNR.FANCHIAnenergymixisemergingtomeetanticipatedtwenty-first-centuryenergydemand(Fanchi2004,2005).Thisarticlediscussesmethodologiesthataredesignedtofore-casttheroledifferentenergytechnologiesmaytakeinthetwenty-firstcentury.Thedemandforenergyisdrivenbyfactorssuchasincreasingglobalpopulationandenergyconsumption,thefiniteavailabilityoffossilfuels,andclimatechangeasso-ciatedwithindustrializedsociety.Theabilitytomeetthedemandforenergydependsonsuchfactorsasenergydensity,pricevolatility,supplyavailability,andefficiencyofenergyuse.Energydensityistheenergycontainedwithinavolumeofmaterial.Historically,energydensitywasoneofthemostimportantfactorsconsideredinselectingafuel.Afuelisamaterialwhichcontainsoneformofenergythatcanbetransformedintoanotherformofenergy.Coalandoilhaverelativelylargeenergydensitiesandwereoftenpreferentiallychosenastherawfuelthatwasinputtopowerplants.Rawfuelssuchasoil,coal,naturalgas,anduraniumarepresentinnatureandcanbeusedtoprovideprimaryenergy.Primaryenergyisenergycontainedinrawfuels.Ithasnotbeenobtainedbyanthro-pogenicconversionortransformationwheretheterm“anthropogenic”referstohumanactivityorhumaninfluence.Primaryenergyisoftenconvertedtosecondaryenergy,suchaselectricalenergy,formoreconvenientuseinhumansystems.Theenergytypesthatcontributedmosttotheenergymixinthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcenturywerewood,coal,oil,naturalgas,waterandnuclear.Theemergingenergymixincludesrenewableandnon-renewableenergyresources.Renewableenergyisenergythatisobtainedfromsourcesataratethatislessthanorequaltotherateatwhichthesourcesarereplenished.Renewableenergysourcesmaybeclassifiedastraditionalrenewableenergysourcesandnewerrenewableenergysources.Traditionalrenewableenergysourcesincludehydroelectricpowerandwood(abiomass).Newerrenewableenergysourcesincludewindenergyandsolarphotovoltaicenergy.Non-renewableenergyisenergythatisobtainedfromsourcesataratethatisgreaterthantherateatwhichthesourcesarereplenished.Inthefollowing,weadopttheviewthatfuelssuchascoal,oilandnaturalgasarenon-renewablefuelsandwerefertothesefuelsasfossilfuels.Theterm“carbon-basedfuels”includesanyfuelthatACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks517©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page518johnr.fanchicontainscarbon,suchasfossilfuelsandbiomass.Biomassreferstomodernwoodandotherplantoranimalmatterthatcanbeburneddirectlyorcanbeconvertedintofuels.Hubbert’sOilSupplyForecastTheemergenceofanenergymixismotivatedbyenvironmentalconcernsandbytheconcernthattheproductionofadominantnon-renewableresource,oil,iscomingtoanend.M.KingHubbertstudiedtheproductionofoil,anon-renewableresource,inthecontinentalUnitedStates(theforty-eightcontiguousstatesoftheUnitedStates)asanon-renewableresource.Hubbert(1956)foundthatoilproductioninthislimitedgeographicregioncouldbemodeledasafunctionoftime.Theannualproductionofoilincreasedsteadilyuntilamaximumwasreached,andthenbegantodeclineasitbecamemoredifficulttofindandproduceoil.Themaximumoilproductioniscon-sideredapeak.HubbertusedhismethodtopredictthatpeakoilproductioninthecontinentalUnitedStateswouldoccurbetween1965and1970,andthatglobaloilproductionwouldpeakaround2000.CrudeoilproductioninthecontinentalUnitedStatespeakedat9.4millionbarrelsperdayin1970.AsecondpeakfortheUnitedStatesoccurredin1988whenAlaskanoilproductionpeakedat2millionbarrelsperday.Manyexpertsconsiderthe1970oilpeaktobeavalidationofHubbert’smethodology.AnalysesofhistoricaldatausingHubbert’smethodologytypicallypredictthatworldoilproductionwillpeakinthefirstquarterofthetwenty-firstcentury.Forecastsbasedonananalyticalfittohistoricaldatacanbereadilypreparedusingpubliclyavailabledata.Figure93.1showsafitofworldoilproduction(inmillionsofbarrelsperday)fromtheUnitedStatesEIAdatabase.Thefitisdesignedtomatchthe80USEIADataGaussianFit7060504030WorldProduction(MMB/d)20100194019601980200020202040206020802100YearFigure93.1OilforecastusingGaussianCurve518\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page519energyforecasttechnologiesmostrecentpartoftheproductioncurvemostaccurately.ThisgivesamatchthatissimilartoresultsobtainedbyDeffeyes(2001:147).Forthisfit,peakoilproductionrateinFigure93.1occursin2010.EnergyForecastMethodologyFutureenergydemandisexpectedtogrowsubstantiallyasglobalpopulationincreasesanddevelopingnationsseekahigherqualityoflife.Energyforecasterspredicthowthisdemandwillbemet.Theforecastsvaryfromascenariothatreliesonnuclearenergy(Hodgson1999)toascenariothatreliesonrenewableenergy(Geller2003).Otherforecastsofthetwenty-first-centuryenergymixshowagradualtransitionfromthecurrentdependenceoncarbon-basedfuelstoamorebalanceddependenceonavarietyofenergysources(Schollnberger1999,Edwards2002).Theseforecastsillus-tratetherangeofperspectivesthatmustbeconsideredindecidingglobalenergypolicyandaresummarizedhere.NuclearenergyforecastHodgson(1999)presentedascenarioinwhichtheworldwouldcometorelyonnuclearfissionenergy.HedefinedfiveObjectiveCriteriaforevaluatingeachtypeofenergy:capa-city,cost,safety,reliability,andeffectontheenvironment.Thecapacitycriterioncon-sideredtheabilityoftheenergysourcetomeetfutureenergyneeds.Thecostcriterionconsideredallcostsassociatedwithanenergysource.Thesafetycriterionexaminedallsafetyfactorsinvolvedinthepracticalapplicationofanenergysource.Thisincludeshazardsassociatedwithmanufacturingandoperations.Thereliabilitycriterionconsideredtheavailabilityofanenergysource.ByapplyingthefiveObjectiveCriteria,Hodgsonconcludedthatnuclearfissionenergywasthemostviabletechnologyforprovidingglobalenergyinthefuture.AccordingtoHodgson,nuclearfissionenergyisaproventechnologythatdoesnotemitsignificantamountsofgreenhousegases.Hearguedthatnuclearfissionreactorshaveanexemplarysafetyrecordwhencomparedindetailwithotherenergysources.Breederreactorscouldprovidethefuelneededbynuclearfissionpowerplants,andnuclearwastecouldbestoredingeologicaltraps.ThesecurityofnuclearpowerplantsincountriesaroundtheworldwouldbeassuredbyaninternationalagencysuchastheUnitedNations.Inthisnuclearscenario,renew-ableenergysourceswouldbeusedtosupplementfissionpower,andfossilenergyusewouldbeminimized.Hodgsondidnotassumethattheproblemsassociatedwithnuclearfusionwouldbeovercome.Iftheyare,nuclearfusioncouldalsobeincorporatedintotheenergymix.RenewableenergyforecastThenuclearfissionscenarioarticulatedbyHodgson(1999)contrastssharplywiththerenewableenergyscenarioadvocatedbyGeller(2003).Gellersoughttoreplacebothnuclearenergyandfossilenergywithrenewableenergyonly.Animportantobjectiveofhisforecastwastoreducegreenhousegasemissionstolevelsthatareconsidered519\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page520johnr.fanchisafebytheKyotoProtocol.TheKyotoProtocolisaninternationaltreatythatwasnegotiatedinKyoto,Japan,in1997toestablishlimitsontheamountofgreenhousegasesacountrycanemitintotheatmosphere.Carbondioxideisagreenhousegas.Theaccumulationofgreenhousegasintheatmospheretendstotrapheatenergyintheatmosphere.Manyscientistsbelievethattheadditionalheatisincreasingthetemperatureoftheatmosphereandiscausingglobalwarming.TheKyotoProtocolhasnotbeenacceptedworldwide.Somecountriesbelievethegreenhousegasemissionlimitsaretoolowandwouldadverselyimpactnationalandworldeconomieswithoutsolvingtheproblemofglobalwarming.AnothercriticismoftheKyotoProtocolisthatitdoesnotapplytoallnations.Forexample,ChinaisexemptfromgreenhousegasemissionlimitationsintheKyotoProtocoleventhoughithasoneoftheworld’sfastest-growingeconomiesandtheworld’slargestpopulation.Researchisunderwaytodevelopthetechnologyneededtocaptureandstoregreenhousegasesingeologicformationsasaneconomicallyviablemeansofmitigatingtheincreaseingreenhousegasconcentrationintheatmosphere.EnergymixforecastsForecastsofthetwenty-first-centuryenergymixshowthatarangeofscenariosispossible.ThefirstenergymixforecastdiscussedhereisbasedonSchollnberger’s(1999)forecasts,whichweredesignedtocovertheentiretwenty-firstcenturyandpre-dictthecontributionofavarietyofenergysourcestothetwenty-first-centuryenergyportfolio.Schollnbergerconsideredthreeforecastscenarios:A.“AnotherCenturyofOilandGas”correspondingtocontinuedhighhydrocarbondemand;B.“TheEndoftheInternalCombustionEngine”correspondingtoalowhydrocarbondemandscenario;andC.“EnergyMix”correspondingtoascenariowithintermediatedemandforhydro-carbonsandanincreasingdemandforalternativeenergysources.SchollnbergerviewedscenarioCasthemostlikelyscenario.Itisconsistentwiththeobservationthatthetransitionfromoneenergysourcetoanotherhashistoricallytakenseveralgenerations.Leadersoftheinternationalenergyindustryhaveexpressedasimilarviewthattheenergymixisundergoingashiftfromliquidhydrocarbonstootherfuelsources.Schollnberger’sscenarioCshowsenergyconsumptionincreasingfromabout400quadsin2000toapproximately1600quadsin2100.Edwards(2002)presentedtheenergymixintermsofenergysupplyratherthanconsumption.Hisforecastisbasedontheassumptionthatglobalpopulationincreasesfromabout6billionpeoplein2000toabout10billionpeoplein2100.Italsoassumesthatenergydemandismetbytheenergysupply.Edwards’sforecastshowsenergysupplyincreasingfromabout400quadsin2000tolessthan600quadsin2100.Hisforecastresultsinamuchlowerenergyrequirementin2100thanSchollnberger’sscenarioC.Forcomparison,Geller’sforecastshowsthatenergyconsumptionin2100520\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page521energyforecasttechnologieswillbeapproximately75percentgreaterthanenergyconsumptionin2000.Thesethreeforecastsillustratetherangeofresultsthatcanappearinenergyforecasts.ValidityofenergyforecastsWecanassessthevalidityofenergyforecastsbycomparingtheearlyperiodoftheforecastwithactualdata.Forexample,oneimportanttestofthevalidityofaforecastistocomparethepredictedpeakofworldoilproductionwithactualworldoilpro-duction.Edwards(2002:43)presentedseveralpredictionsoftheyearwhenannualglobaloilproductionwouldpeak.Theforecastsrangedfrom1997to2040,withmostoftheforecastspredictinganannualglobaloilproductionpeakoccurringinthefirstquarterofthetwenty-firstcentury.Forecastsofworldoilproductionpeaktendtoshiftasmorehistoricaldataareaccumulated.Laherrère(2000)pointedoutthatcurvefitsofhistoricaldataaremostaccuratewhenappliedtoactivitythatis“unaffectedbypoliticalorsignificanteco-nomicinterference,toareashavingalargenumberoffields,andtoareasofunfetteredactivity”(p.75).Furthermore,curvefitforecastsworkbestwhentheinflectionpoint(orpeak)hasbeenpassed.EnergyForecastTrendMostforecastsshowtheeventualdisplacementoffossilfuelsbyrenewableenergysources.Thedemandbysocietyforfossilfuelsisexpectedtocontinueatorabovecurrentlevelsforanumberofyears,butthetrendseemsclear.Theglobalenergyportfolioisundergoingatransitionfromanenergyportfoliodominatedbyfossilfuelstoanenergyportfoliothatminimizesoreliminatestheuseoffossilfuels.Theemergingenergymixisexpectedtobecomeasustainableenergysupplythatwillmeetfuturedemand.Thegoalistocreateasustainableenergysystem:asystemthatsatisfiespresentenergyneedswhilepreservingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirneeds.ReferencesandFurtherReadingDeffeyes,K.S.(2001).Hubbert’sPeak–TheImpendingWorldOilShortage(Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress).Edwards,J.D.(2002).“Twenty-firstCenturyEnergy:TransitionfromFossilFuelstoRenew-able,NonpollutingEnergySources,”ProceedingsoftheArborDayFarmConference(8–11October2000)publishedinSustainabilityofEnergyandWaterthroughthe21stCentury(Lawrence,Kan.:KansasGeologicalSurvey),pp.37–48.Fanchi,J.R.(2004).Energy:TechnologyandDirectionsfortheFuture(Boston,Mass.:Elsevier-AcademicPress).Fanchi,J.R.(2005).Energyinthe21stCentury(Singapore:WorldScientific).Geller,H.(2003).EnergyRevolution(Washington,D.C.:IslandPress).Hodgson,P.E.(1999).NuclearPower,EnergyandtheEnvironment(London:ImperialCollegePress).521\n9781405146012_4_093.qxd2/4/0914:12Page522johnr.fanchiHubbert,M.K.(1956).“NuclearEnergyandtheFossilFuels,”AmericanPetroleumInstituteDrillingandProductionPractice,ProceedingsoftheSpringMeeting,SanAntonio,pp.7–25.Laherrère,J.H.(2000).“LearnStrengths,WeaknessestoUnderstandHubbertCurves,”OilandGasJournal,17April,pp.63–76;seealsoLaherrère’searlierarticle,“WorldOilSupply–WhatGoesUpMustComeDown,butWhenWillItPeak?,”OilandGasJournal,1February1999,pp.57–64,andlettersinOilandGasJournal,1March1999.Schollnberger,W.E.(1999).“ProjectionsoftheWorld’sHydrocarbonResourcesandReserveDepletioninthe21stCentury,”TheLeadingEdge,May,pp.622–5;alsoinHoustonGeologicalSocietyBulletin,November,pp.31–7.522\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page52394BiotechnologyJENNIFERKUZMASomearguethatbiotechnologybeganthousandsofyearsagowhencropswerefirstbredforspecifictraitsormicro-organismswereusedtobrewbeer.Theterm“biotechnology”wasfirstusedin1917forprocessesusinglivingorganismstomake1aproductorrunaprocess,suchasindustrialfermentation.Othersconsiderthebegin-ningastheemergenceoftechniquesallowingresearcherspreciselytomanipulateandtransfergenesfromoneorganismtoanother.Genesaremadeupofdeoxyribonucleicacid(DNA)andareexpressedintoproteins,whichdochemicalworkandformstruc-turestogiveusspecifictraits.Inthe1970s,scientistsdiscoveredandusedthepowerofnatural“scissors”–proteinscalledrestrictionenzymes–specificallytoremovegenesfromonekindoforganismandputthemintorelatedorunrelatedorganisms.ThusrecombinantDNA(rDNA)technology,or“modernbiotechnology,”wasborn.Mostdefinitionsofbiotechnologyfocusbroadlyonthemanipulationanduseofbiologicalsystemsforapurpose.However,therearenumerousdefinitionswhichvaryintheirinclusionofmoderntechniques.Thepioneersofbiotechnologycouldnothaveenvisionedourcurrentabilitiestoengineerplantstoresistdisease,animalstoproducedrugsintheirmilk,andsmall2,3particlestotargetanddestroycancercells.However,biotechnologyismorethanengineeredproducts–itisalsoasetoftoolsforunderstandingbiologicalsystems.Genomicsisbasedonthesetoolsandisthestudyofgenesandtheirfunctions.Wehavedeterminedthecompositionof,or“sequenced,”theentiresetofgenesforhumansandseveralotherorganismsusingbiotechnology.Genomicinformationishelpingustoevaluatebetterthecommonalitiesanddiversityamongorganismsandhumanbeings,andtounderstandecology,evolutionanddisease.Withintheseuncannyabilities,biotechnologyposesbothrisksandbenefits,andimportantsocialandethicalissues.Societydrivesandregulatestechnology,attempt-ingtominimizecostsandrisks,andmaximizebenefits.Fromautilitarianperspective,thisbalanceisthemostimportantconsiderationfortechnologygovernance.However,autilitarianframeworkfordecision-makingcanleadtochoicesthatmanywouldcon-4sider“unethical.”Naturalandphysicalscientiststendtofocuson“science-based”risksandbenefitsforoversightandprefertomaintainseparationbetweensocialandethicalconcernsandscientificones.Recentcontroversiesovertheuseofgeneticallyengineered5organismsinfoodandagriculturehaveillustratedthatthisboundaryisnotclear.ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks523©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page524jenniferkuzmaOthersarguethattighterinteractionsamonggovernment,industry,academeand6non-profitsnecessitateamore“sociallyrobust”approachtoscienceandtechnology.Notonlyaretheresafetyconcernsaboutbiotechnology,buttherearealsoindividualaandculturaldifferencesinacceptanceoftheapplicationsandproducts.Theissueofwhetherdiverseculturalviewsshouldbeconsideredinformaloversightremainscon-tentious.Individuals,regionsandnationsapproachthisquestioninvariousways.InTable94.1EthicalargumentDescriptionExamplesformedicalExamplesforagriculturalbiotechnologybiotechnologyIntrinsic“PlayingGod,”CloninghumanbeingsorGeneticengineeringorcreatinglifegenetherapydirectedatearlyofanimalsforformsthathumanembryosismorallypharmaceuticalnaturewouldwrong.productionismorallynothavemade,wrong.iswrong.ConsequentialistBenefitstoThelife-savingbenefitsofBenefitsofreducedhumans,xenotransplantationusingpesticidesofBtcottonanimalsorvirus-freepigorgansininChinaoutweighharmenvironmenthumansisworththetoecosystems.Economicmustoutweightransplantationrisktotheharmtosmallfarmersisharm.patientandharmtothepig.lessthaneconomicgainsPatentsonlife-savingdrugsofothersectors.stimulateinnovationandareworththecostoflimitedaccessforotherresearchersanddevelopingcountries.Rights/ConsentPeoplehaveThereshouldbegoodConsumershaveaarighttoinformedconsentduringrighttoknowthatfoodknowandclinicaltrialsofrDNA-derivedcomesfromgeneticallychoose.Theydrugs.Earlytestingforengineeredorganismsshouldhavegeneticdiseaseshouldbea–productsshouldbeautonomy.choiceforpatients.labeled.Structural/ThesystemisSharingofgeneticSafetystudiesonProceduralunethicalorsusceptibilityinformationgeneticallyengineerednotfair.withthirdpartiesshouldcropsshouldbeavailablenotoccur.Scientistswithinpublicdomain.Lackofconflictsofinterestperformtransparencyandaccessclinicaltrials.toinformationisnotjust.Note:BasedonframeworkdiscussedinJ.Burkhardt,“AgBiotechEthicsat25:WhatHaveWeLearnedandNotLearned?,”FirstInternationalIFASConferenceonFoodandNanotechnology,WhatCanNanoLearnfromBio?,MichiganStateUniversity,24–5September2005,http://www.ifas.msu.edu/presentations/Jeffrey_Burkhardt.pdf.Inmanyethicalarguments,thereisoverlapamongtheparadigms.Forexample,thesystemmightnotbefairbecauseconsumersorpatientsdonothavearighttochoose.524\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page525biotechnologythecaseofstemcellderivationandtherapies,religiousviewsoften,butnotalways,7alignwithnationalpoliciesfortheirpromotionorprohibition.Biotechnologyapplicationsarealsolayeredwiththephilosophicalquestionoftherightofhumanstointerferewithbasicnaturalprocesses.Otherethicalquestionsincludetherightsofconsumersorpatientstochoosetheirownlevelofacceptance(forexample,informedconsenttogenetherapyorlabelingofgeneticallyengineeredfoods)andtherightsofthepoortobenefitfrombiotechnologyapplications(forexample,access8torDNA-derivedHIVtreatments)(Table94.1).Thereseemtobenoeasy,universalsolutionstoaddressingrisk,societalandethicalissuesingovernanceofemergingtech-nologies,anditisevenmorechallengingtoconsideralloftheseinlocal,nationalandinternationaldecision-making.Decision-makingaboutNewTechnologiesMostagreethatbiotechnologyitselfisnotinherently“risky”or“safe,”butitsproductsare.Decision-makersarefacedwithhavingtofitregulationstonumeroustypesofproductswithuniqueriskandbenefitprofiles.Thisisespeciallychallengingwhenproductstranscenddisciplinary,sectorandagencyborders.Thesetypesofapplicationsandproductsarecategorizedas“convergenttechnologies”(Figure94.1).In1986theUSCoordinatedFrameworkfortheRegulationofBiotechnologydidnotincludeguid-ancefortheoversightofemergingorfutureproducts,leadingtouncertaintyastohowtoday’sproductslikegeneticallyengineeredinsects,fishandanimalswillberegulated9,10andstallingtheseapplications.Thishighlightstheneedtoanticipateandprepare11forthefutureindecision-makingfornewtechnologies.Perceptionissueswithconvergentandnovelapplicationsabound.Thepublicismorelikelytoperceiverisksasunacceptableiftheylackinformationabout,experience12with,andcontroloftechnologies.Riskconversionfactorshavebeenformulatedbasedonacceptabilitycriteria,includingwhethertechnologicalrisksarevoluntaryorinvoluntary,ordinaryorcatastrophic,naturalorman-made,oldornew,controlledNanotechnologyExample:ParticlecoateddevicesthatreactExample:MolecularcomputingtophysiologicalchangesinthebodyInformationTechnologyMedicalDevicesExample:DNAchipstoExample:CombinationdevicestraceoriginsoffoodtodeliverdrugsorbiologicsFoodTechnologyBiotechnologyExample:DesignermoleculesExample:todelivernutraceuticalsBioremediationinGEmicrobesHealthSciencesEnvironmentalSciencesAgriculturalExample:PharmaExample:Bioenergycrops,BiosensorsSciencesproductionincropsforpesticidesBiosensorsFigure94.1ConvergencetechnologiestoimprovehealthandtheenvironmentNote:Examplesattheintersectionofcirclesarerelatedtotheuseofbiotechnologyasbroadlydefined.Biotechnology,narrowlydefinedasrDNAtechniques,alsostandsonitsownasacircleinthediagram.525\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page526jenniferkuzma13,boruncontrolled,anddelayedorimmediate.Infact,quantitativerisk(severityofhazardcombinedwithexposure)isjustoneofthemanyfactorsthatcitizensconsiderwhentheychoosewhatisacceptabletothem.Why,then,istheresuchapushintheUSandelsewherefor“science-based”over-sight?Manybelievethat,inthefaceofthediversityofcultural,socialandreligiousviewsandthegoalsofdifferentorganizations,itisimpossibletoaccommodatethemall.Scienceisviewedasthe“rational,”fairandobjectivewaytoapproachproductsofnewtechnologies.Yet,fromasocialconstructionistviewpoint,technologydoesnotdrive14,15itsownexistence,andhumanscreateitwithinasocialcontext.Thesubsequentsectionwillfocusonthepotentialscientificrisksandbenefitsofselectedapplicationsofbiotechnologyaswellasthesocialimpacts.CaseStudiesforBiotechnologyBiotechnologycanbechanneledtoaddresschallengesinenergy,medicine,security,foodandagriculture,environmentalsustainability,andindustrialproducts(Table94.2).Forexample,fossilfuelsareafiniteenergyresource,andweareexpendingthemmorequicklythannaturecanreplenish.Researchersareusingbiotechnologytoengineerbettercellulases–enzymesthatcanbreakdownplantmaterialintobiofuelssuchasethanol.Bettercellulasescouldeventuallyleadtothemorecost-effectiveproduction16ofsustainablefuels.Otherexamplesoftheenvironmentalapplicationsofbiotechno-logyincludemicro-organismsengineeredtoproducehydrogengasfromorganicwaste;plantsengineeredtomakebiodegradablepolymers;molecularmachinesbasedonplantphotosyntheticproteinstoharnessenergyfromthesun;bacteriaengineeredtobreakdownenvironmentalpollutants;andbiosensorsdevelopedtodetectharmfulenvironmentalcontaminantsrapidly.Theenvironmentalapplicationsofbiotechno-logyareoftenoverlookedandunderfunded,yetthesustainabilityofourplanetinthefaceofanincreasingpopulationisanissueofutmostimportance.Biotechnologyhastakenoffinareasoffoodandagriculture.Forexample,cotton,soybeans,maizeandothercropshavebeenengineeredtocontainproteinsfromthebacteriumBacillusthuringiensis(Bt)thatprotectthemfrominsectpests.Thecultiva-tionofBtcottoninChinahassignificantlyreducedtheuseofchemicalpesticidesthat17aredangeroustohumanhealth,benefitingruralfarmers.Ontheotherhand,therehavebeenconcernsassociatedwithBtcrops.StarlinkwasaBtmaizevarietyapprovedonlyforanimalfeedintheUnitedStates,givenquestionsaboutitspotentialtobeahumanallergen.However,iteventuallycontaminatedsomemaize-basedproductsin18thehumanfoodsupply.Also,thegenesforBtproteinshavebeendiscoveredinMexican19maizevarieties,althoughMexicohasamoratoriumonplantingBtmaize.Thiscon-taminationhascausedconcernbecauseMexicoisthegeographiccenterofdiversityformaize,andmanywanttopreservenativevarietiesforculturalandagronomicreasons.Therefore,inordertoreapthebenefitsofgeneticallyengineeredcrops,itisimportantthatgoodbiosafetyregimesbedevelopedtoavoidfuturemishapsandenhanceconfidenceintheuseofthesecrops.Stemcellsandcloninghavegainedunusualprominenceinnationalandinter-20nationalpolitics.Stemcellsaretheearly-stagecellsinanorganismthathavebeen526\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page527NegativesocialimpactsDisplacementofotherclean-upindustries.Socialuneasewithengineeredlifeformsinenvironment.Misusefortraitsthatarenotlife-threateningorthatleadtodisability.Societalviewofdisabilityassomethingtobeavoided.Inequitabledistributionoftechnologyforthosewhocanaffordit.Lackofaccesstotherapiesinpoorruralareasaroundworld.Disregardforhumanlifeinsomereligiousandmoralframeworks.Lackoftrustinoversightsystemsduetopreviousco-mingling.Inaccessibletopoorgivenintellectualpropertyrightsandhighcost.Monopolizationoftechnologybyfewcompanies,leadingtonegativeeconomiceffectsonsmallcompanies.Limitedaccessoftechnologysystemsorbiofuelstopoorandenergy-deprivedareas.Psychologicalresponsetofalsealarms.Economicimpactsofunnecessaryrecallsordecontamination.Militaryadvantageforrichcountries.PositivesocialimpactsBetterenvironmentalhealthleadstobetterqualityoflife;fewerillnessesfrompollutionandmoretimetoworkandplay.Improvedpsychologyofmotherswithhistoryofmultiplemiscarriagesinpastduringpregnancy.Betterqualityoflifeformanyillpeople.ImprovementoflifeforpeopledealingwithAlzheimer’s.Improvedqualityoflife,especiallyindevelopingcountrieswherecoldstorageofvaccinesisaproblem.Moretimeforwork,playandeducation.Morefreetimeandlessproductioncosttofarmers,improvingtheirqualityoflife.Energysecurityforruralfarmareas.Economicdevelopmentforfarmers.Earlyresponsetobioterroristattacks.Feelingofsecurity.Fewerillnessesfromfoodsupplyleadingtobetterqualityoflife.PotentialhealthandenvironmentalrisksDeclineinnativemicrobialfauna;negativeeffectsofingestiononotherwildlifeorhumans.Harmtohealthyembryosbyremovingcellsfortesting.Destructionofhumanembryos;healthrisksofcelltransplants(e.g.infection).Impactsofgeneflowtowildrelatives,orcontaminationofgeneralfoodsupply.Riskstonon-patientsviatheseexposures.Impactsofgeneflowonweedyrelativescouldleadtouncontrollableweedsinfields.Chemicalorenergyinputsintoenzymeproductioncouldbeharmfultohealthortheenvironment.Falsenegativesleadingtomitigationmeasuresthatmayactuallyincreaserisk.PotentialhealthandenvironmentalbenefitsReducedorganicorinorganicpollution;preventingspeciesdeclineorhumantoxicity.Healthofmotherimprovedbyavoidingpregnanciesthatwillresultinmiscarriage.Preventionortreatmentofdisease.Preventdiseasethatotherwisecouldnotbeprevented.Herbicidesusedonfieldsgenerallymorebenigntohumanhealthandtheenvironment.ReducegreenhousegasemissionsleadingtomanypositiveimpactsEarlydetectionoffoodorenvironmentalcontamination,preventingillnessordeath.:Thistableisnotanexhaustivelist,butprovidesjustafewexamples.Table94.2ApplicationGeneticallyengineeredbacteriaforbioremediationPre-implantationgeneticdiagnosticsStemcelltherapyPharmaceuticalproductioninGEplantsHerbicide-tolerantGEcropsEngineeredcellulaseenzymesforbiofuelprocessingDNA-basedsensorsforpathogensNote\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page528jenniferkuzmashowntogiverisetodifferentkindsoftissues.Theyhavesuccessfullyreplacedorrepaireddamagedtissueinanimalmodels,andtheyholdpromisefortreatinghumandiseases21suchasAlzheimer’sanddiabetes.Althoughthevastmajorityofpeopleagreethatcloningtoproducehumans(reproductivecloning)isunacceptable,therapeuticcloning,22inwhichthecloningprocessisusedonlytoharveststemcells,ishotlydebated.Therapeuticcloningcouldsupplystemcellsthatexactlymatchapatient,minimizingtheseriousrisksassociatedwithtissuerejection.However,associatedethical,culturalandpolicyissuesassociatedwiththemwillcontinuetooccupyscientistsandpoliticiansintheforeseeablefuture.Afundamentalapplicationofbiotechnologytomedicineisindrugdiscovery.Humanshavediscovereddrugsfromnaturalsourcesbytrialanderrorsincethebeginningofhistory.Nowgenomicsanditscompanionfieldforproteins–proteomics–haveallowedustodiscoverdrugsmoresystematically.Theautomationofbiochemicalbindingassaysinsmallchipscalledmicro-arraysenablesscientiststoscreenthousandsofchemicalcompoundsfortheireffectivenessagainstdisease-causingproteinsina23veryshorttime.Theseassayscanalsoexploreanindividual’sresponsivenesstotreat-ment.Thereareconcernsthatthistypeofpersonalizedgeneticinformationcouldbeusedbyinsurancecompaniestodenycoverageforpre-existingconditionsorto24patientswhoareless“treatable.”Genetherapy,inwhichgenesaredeliveredtospecificdiseasedorgansortissuesinthebodytoovercomemetabolicdeficienciesorotherdisease,isanotherareaofgreatpromise.Theuseofvirusestodelivergeneshasshownriskstohumanhealth,making25ctrialswiththesevirusescontroversial.Theconvergenceofnanotechnologywithbio-technologywillallowforsafergenedeliverymethodsthatarenotbaseduponviruses.Chemicallysynthesizednanoparticlesthatcarrygenesortherapeuticsspecificallyto26diseasedcellsarebeingtestedinanimalmodels.Biotechnologyalsoplaysanimportantroleinpreventingdisease.VaccinesproducedbyrecombinantDNAmethodsaregenerallysaferthantraditionalvaccinesbecausetheycontainisolatedviralorbacterialproteins,asopposedtokilledorweakeneddisease-causingagents.However,manycitizensindevelopingnationsdonothaveaccesstoanyvaccines,letaloneonesderivedfrombiotechnology.Currently,mostvaccinesrequirecoldstorageandprofessionaladministrationthroughinjection.Therefore,researchersareworkingongeneticallyengineeredplantstodelivervaccinesthroughfood.Productioncostsofplant-derivedvaccinesareestimatedtobesignificantlylessthan27forvaccinescurrentlyproducedinbioreactors.However,aswithBtcrops,thereareconcernsaboutpharmaceuticalcropsbecauseofinadvertentcross-pollinationwith28foodcrops.GuidancefromthePublicInvestmentsinscienceandtechnologywilllikelybeareconomicfruit.However,invest-mentstoaddressthesocial,political,culturalandethicalissuessurroundingapplicationsofbiotechnologyareequallyimportant.Therearegoodwaystofosteropendialogueonsocietalissuessurroundingemergingtechnologiesamongexperts,stakeholdersand29citizens.Manyshyawayfromtheseactivities,asitisimpossibletoaccommodate528\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page529biotechnologyeveryone’spreferences.However,ifgroupsandtheirmembersareheard,andtheirinputisconsidered,notonlywilltheybemorelikelytoacceptdecisions,butalso30betterdecisionswillbemade.Weshouldneitherignorethepotentialhealthandenvironmentalrisksofbio-technology,nordismissitspromise.However,theargumentsfororagainstapplica-31tionswillbetrustedonlyifthesourcesare.Weneedtofundindependentstudiesofimpacts.Toooftenthereispolarizeddebatebecauseinformationpresentedcomesfromgroupsentrenchedintheirpositions.Neutralthink-tanks,academe,andrespectedorgan-izationsthatdonothaveconflictofinterestsorlargestakesintheoutcomes,andwherebiasescanbebalanced,seemlikegoodplacesfordialogue,policyanalysisandsafetyresearch.Currently,therearefewincentivesforpublicengagementortheindependentstudyofregulatorypolicy.Likewise,therearefewincentivesforcompaniestoprovideinformationonthedevelopmentandsafetyofpotentialproducts.Publicandstateaccesstoinformation32isdifficultatbest,yetmanyhavehighlightedtheneedfortransparencytoincrease33publictrustandproceduralfairness.Regulatorypolicyislargelynegotiatedbetweenindustryandfederalregulators.Weneedashiftinattitudeandwillingnesstoworkdwithallgroupstoresolvedifferences.Withthis,goodgovernance,andincreasedawarenessofthesocialcontextofbiotechnologyandcommitmentstoresolveexistingissues,biotechnologycanbeharnessedresponsiblyforall.NotesaForexample,genetictestingofchildrenpriortobirthmightberightforsome,butnotforothers;likewise,someconsumersmightnotwanttoeatgeneticallyengineeredfoodgiventheirbeliefsystems.bForexample,“voluntary”risksareacceptedatalevelof1,000timesmoreincomparisonto“involuntary”ones.cTheformaldefinitionofnanotechnologyincludesthe“understandingandcontrolofmatteratdimensionsofroughly1to100nanometers(nmor10–9meters).”USNationalNanotechnologyInitiative.WhatisNanotechnology?http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html(lastvisited17July2006).dForadiscussionofgoodgovernance,seeCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,EuropeanGovernance:AWhitePaper(25July2001)availableathttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf(lastvisitedAugust15,2006).ReferencesandFurtherReading1.Bud,R.(1993).TheUsesofLife:AHistoryofBiotechnology(NewYork:CambridgeUniver-sityPress).2.PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnology(2001).HarvestontheHorizon:FutureUsesofAgriculturalBiotechnology,http://pewagbiotech.org/research/harvest/,September.3.Kukowska-Latallo,J.F.(2005).“NanoparticleTargetingofAnticancerDrugImprovesTherapeuticResponseinAnimalModelofHumanEpithelialCancer,”CancerResearch,65:5317–24.529\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page530jenniferkuzma4.Kelman,S.(1981).“CostBenefitAnalysis:AnEthicalCritique,”Regulation,5(1):33–40.5.Jasanoff,S.(2005).DesignsonNature:ScienceandDemocracyinEuropeandtheUnitedStates(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress).6.Gibbons,M.(1999).“Science’sNewSocialContractwithSociety,”Nature,402:C81–C84.7.Walters,L.(2004).“HumanEmbryonicStemCellResearch:AnInterculturalPer-spective,”KennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,14(1):3–38.8.Beauchamp,T.L.andWalters,L.(1999).“EthicalTheoryandBioethics,”inT.L.BeauchampandL.Walters(eds),ContemporaryIssuesinBioethics(Florence,Ky:WadsworthPublishingCompany),pp.1–32.9.PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnology(2004).BugsintheSystem?,http://pewagbiotech.org/research/bugs/bugs.pdf10.PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnology(2005).ExploringtheRegulatoryandCommer-cializationIssuesRelatedtoGeneticallyEngineeredAnimals,http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0321/proceedings.pdf11.Kuzma,J.andVerHage,P.S.(2006).NanotechnologyinAgricultureandFoodProduc-tion:AnticipatedApplications,http://www.nanotechproject.org/50,ProjectonEmergingNanotechnologies.12.Slovic,P.(1987).“PerceptionofRisk,”Science,236:280–5.13.Rasmussen,N.(1981).“TheApplicationofProbabilisticRiskAssessmentTechniquestoEnergyTechnologies,”AnnualReviewofEnergy,6:123–38.14.Winner,L.(1993).“UponOpeningtheBlackBoxandFindingItEmpty,”Science,Technology,andHumanValues,18(3):362–78.15.Pinch,T.andBijker,W.E.(1987).“TheSocialConstructionofFactsandArtifacts:OrHowtheSociologyofScienceandtheSociologyofTechnologyMightBenefitEachOther,”inW.E.Bijker,T.P.HugesandT.Pinch(eds),TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress),pp.17–50.16.USDepartmentofEnergy(2005).“BreakingtheBiologicalBarrierstoCellulosicEthanol:AJointResearchAgenda,”AResearchRoadmapResultingfromtheBiomasstoBiofuelsWorkshop,4–5December,http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/2005workshop/b2blowres63006.pdf(2006).17.Huang,J.etal.(2002).“CropBiotechnologyinChina,”Science,295:674–6.18.Taylor,M.R.andJ.S.Tick(2001).“TheStarlinkCase:IssuesforFuture,”PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnologyIssueBrief,October,http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/starlink/starlink.pdf19.Quist,D.andI.H.Chapela(2001).“TransgenicDNAIntrogressedintoTraditionalMaizeLandracesinOaxaca,Mexico,”Nature,414:541–3.20.Dresser,R.(2005).“StemCellResearch:TheBiggerPicture,”PerspectivesinBiology,48(2):181–94.21.NationalResearchCouncilandInstituteofMedicine(2002).StemCellsandtheFutureofRegenerativeMedicine(Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress).22.Nisbet,M.C.(2004).“PublicOpinionaboutStemCellResearchandHumanCloning,”PublicOpinionQuarterly,68(1):131–54.23.Predki,P.F.(2004).“FunctionalProteinMicroarrays:RipeforDiscovery,”CurrentOpinioninChemicalBiology,8:8–13.24.Anderlik,M.R.andM.A.Rothstein(2001).“PrivacyandConfidentialityofGeneticInformation:WhatRulesfortheNewScience?,”AnnualReviewofGenomicsandHumanGenetics,2:401–33.25.Zallen,D.T.(2000).“USGeneTherapyinCrisis,”TrendsinGenetics,16(6):272–5.530\n9781405146012_4_094.qxd2/4/0914:13Page531biotechnology26.Kukowska-Latallo,J.F.(2005).“NanoparticleTargetingofAnticancerDrugImprovesTherapeuticResponseinAnimalModelofHumanEpithelialCancer,”CancerResearch,65:5317–24.27.McClosky,R.(2002),SlideforPewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnologyWorkshop,PharmingtheField:ALookattheBenefitsandRisksofBioengineeringPlantstoProducePharmaceuticals,17–18July,http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0717/ConferenceReport.pdf28.PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechnologyWorkshop(2002).PharmingtheField:ALookattheBenefitsandRisksofBioengineeringPlantstoProducePharmaceuticals,17–18July,http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0717/ConferenceReport.pdf29.Rowe,G.andFrewer,L.(2000).“PublicParticipationMethods:AFrameworkforEvalua-tion,”Science,Technology,andHumanValues,25(1):3–29.30.NationalResearchCouncil(1996).UnderstandingRisk(Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress).31.Siegrist,M.(2000).“TheInfluenceofTrustandPerceptionsofRisksandBenefitsontheAcceptanceofGeneTechnology,”RiskAnalysis,20(2):195–203.32.O’Reilly,J.T.(2006).“AgriculturalBiotechnologyInformationDisclosure:AccommodatingConflictingInterestswithinPublicAccessNorms,”PewInitiativeonFoodandBiotechno-logy,http://pewagbiotech.org/events/1214/WorkshopReport.pdf33.Jones,M.andB.Salter(2003).“TheGovernanceofHumanGenetics:PolicyDiscourseandConstructionofPublicTrust,”NewGeneticsandSociety,22(1):21–41.531\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page53295TransportationJONATHANL.GIFFORDTransportationsystems,likealltechnologicalsystems,holdgreatpromiseforfutureprosperity,andalsoharborgreatrisksforthefuture.Theyfacilitateculturalandeco-nomicexchange,specializationofproduction,accesstoopportunitiesforeducation,employment,worship,shoppingandsocialinteraction.Easeoftransportationisahallmarkofadvancedsocieties.Yettransportationsystemsalsoconsumescarcefossilfuels,producegreenhousegases,fragmenthabitat,andactasvectorsfordiseaseandinvasivespecies.Socialandeco-nomicinteractionfacilitatedbytransportationcanleadtoerosionofculturalidentityandtoculturalhomogenization.Todayefficientmovementofpeopleandgoodsisakeytoprosperityandsocialwell-being.Yetexpansionofthebenefitsofaffordableandreliabletransportationservicestoabroaderspectrumofglobalsocietyalsorequirescarefulconsiderationofsocial,economicandenvironmentalimpacts.TheTransportationSystemThetransportationsystemisacomplexsetofstructures,devices,proceduresandinstitutions.Onescholarhascalleditacomplex,large,integratedopensystem,orCLIOS(Sussman2000).Thetransportationsystemistypicallyconceivedofasconsistingofseveral“modes”:road,rail,water,airandpipeline.However,theshapeandsizeofeachmodevariesconsiderablydependingonthecontext,fromhorseandfoottrailsinremoteareastomultilanelimited-accesshighwaysinmoredevelopedlocations.Onecharacteristicofthetransportationsystemisitsdivisionintoseparatecom-ponentsofvehicles,infrastructureandoperatingprotocols(GiffordandGarrison1993).Theautomobile-highwaysystemconsistsofautomobilesandothervehicles,theroadinfrastructureuponwhichittravels,andthepolicies,norms,institutionsandpracticesthatgovernitsuse.Similarly,theairtransportationsystemconsistsofaircraft,airportsandoperatingprotocolsandinstitutions.Inmanycases,theseparatecomponentsaredesigned,operated,maintainedandretiredbywell-definedprofessionalgroups,withfinancingprovidedthroughlinkstocapitalmarketsandgovernmentalfundingprograms.Thus,thestakeholdersinanysinglemodeorindustryareoftenverynumerous.532ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page533transportationTable95.1Measuresoftransportationinfrastructurepercapita–selectedregions(km/millioninhabitants)IntercityrailUrbanrailRoadsMotorwaysEU15415189,330125CentralandEasternEuropeancountries63550+7,88024UnitedStates140*/890723,900325Japan21069,20051World21044,75035Source:EuropeanCommission(2000).*Only38,000kminpassengerservice.Oneindicatoroftheextentofthetransportationsystemisthequantityofinfrastruc-turepercapita,asshowninTable95.1.TheUSisbyfarthebest-suppliedwithroadsandmotorways,with23,900and325kmpermillioninhabitantsrespectively,comparedwith9,200and51respectivelyinJapan,and4,750and35respectivelyworld-wide.YettheUShasfarfewermilesofintercitypassengerrailthantheworldaverage.Comparablemeasuresofinfrastructuresupplyinseaports,airportsandpipelineswouldshowsimilarlyhighrelativesupplyindevelopedcountrieswithlessrelativesupplyindevelopingcountries.Anotherindicatorisdistributionofvehicles,asshowninTable95.2.Thepatternsofsupplyaresimilar.TheUShadmorethan800vehiclesper1,000residents,forexample,comparedwith20intheEastAsiaPacificregion.Table95.2Numberandtypeofvehicles(per1,000people)–selectedregions*MotorvehiclesPassengercars1990200319902003EastAsiaandPacific920414EuropeandCentralAsia9717079142LatinAmericaandCaribbean10015372108MiddleEastandN.Africa36..24..SouthAsia41026USA758808573482EuropeEMU429570379502World11814191100Source:2006WorldDevelopmentIndicators,WorldBank*Motorvehiclesincludecars,buses,andfreightvehiclesbutnottwo-wheelers.Passengercarsrefertoroadmotorvehicles,otherthantwo-wheelers,intendedforthecarriageofpassengersanddesignedtoseatnomorethanninepeople(includingthedriver).EuropeEMUisEuropeanMonetaryUnion.533\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page534jonathanl.giffordTransportationSystemBenefits,HarmsandHazardsAtitsmostbasiclevel,thetransportationsystem’sprimarybenefitisthereductionincostofmovingpeopleandmaterialbetweentwolocations.Absentatransportationsystem,peopleandmaterialwouldbeimpossibleorverydifficulttomovefromplacetoplace.Indeed,insomeAfricancountries,“headtransport,”generallybywomen,isacommonformofmovingwater,foodandothermaterials.Evenheadtransportrequiresfootpaths,althoughthesemaynotbetheproductofsystematicdesignanddeliberateimprovementandmaintenance,butmayhaveemergedthroughroutineuseovertime.Asonereducestransportationcosts,opportunitiesforeconomicandsocialexchangeexpand.Expandedexchangeoftenallowsspecializationofproduction.Thecommontext-bookexampleistwonearbyvillagesthatrequirepottery(tocookandstorefood)andcorn(toconsume)fortheirsustenance.Withouttransportation,andhencewithoutexchange,eachvillagemustproduceenoughpotteryandcorntosustainitself.Iftrans-portationallowsexchange,andifeconomiesofscalearesufficienttooffsettransportationcosts,thenonevillagemayevolvetospecializeinproductionofpottery,theothercorn,withthetwovillagestradingwitheachothertoachievesustenance.Overallresourcesdevotedtoproductionandtransportationofcornandpotterywilldeclineundersuchconditions,andsurplusincomewillallowbothvillagestobebetteroff.Asillustratedbythisexample,transportationcanhaveasignificantinfluenceoneconomicdevelopment.InTransportInvestmentandEconomicDevelopment,theauthorobservesthat“Transportationplaysamany-facetedroleinthepursuitofdevelopmentobjectives”(Fromm1965).Itmayaffectwhereorhowmuchregionalgrowthoccurs,oritmaycreateitsowndemandbystimulatingindustrialactivitiesinaregion(Kraft,MeyerandValette1971).Thustransportationisthefoundationfortradeinmodernsociety.Goodtrans-portationservicesallowtheutilizationofresourcesandmarketsinanextensiveregion.Inthatsense,“transportation‘creates’rawmaterialsbymakingotherwiseunusablecommoditiesaccessible”(WorldBusinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment2004).Forinstance,becauseofefficientandeconomicaltransportationservices,companiesmaydrawtheirworkforcesfromandexpandtheirmarketstobroaderareas;productivitymayincreasebasedonmoreefficientcombinationsoflaborandrawmaterials;andproductioncostsmayalsobereducedbecauseofeconomiesofscale.Atransportationnetworkwithahigherspeedandlargerscopehaspositiveeffectsondistributionofpopulation,industryandincomes(Fromm1965,QueirozandGautam1992,Fernald1999).Thetransportationofpeopleisfundamentallyimportantaswell.Personaltraveliscentraltomanysocialandeconomicprocesses.Indevelopedeconomies,thework-forceoftentravelssignificantdistancestojobsusingeitherpublictransportorprivatevehicles.Personaltraveliscentraltoothersocialandeconomicactivitiesaswell,includingtraveltoworship,shopping,schoolandentertainment.Personaltravelishighlyincome-elastic,thatis,individualsoftenchoosetospendproportionallymoreoftheirincomeontransportationastheirincomerises.Indevel-opingeconomies,expendituresonpersonaltraveloftenriserapidlywithdevelopment,534\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page535transportationproceedingfromhuman-poweredmodeslikewalkingandcyclingtomotorizedmeanslikemotorscooters,motorcyclesandpersonalautomobiles.Yetdemandforbothpersonaltravelandgoodsmovementisforthemostpart“derived,”thatis,itarisesoutofdemandforgoods,servicesoractivitieslocatedattheendpointofthetrip.Sometravelisundertakenforitsownsake,however–forrecrea-tionorexercise,forexample.Differentspatialconfigurationsmaygiverisetodifferentpatternsoftransporta-tionuse.ThemodernAmericansuburbansubdivisionisoftencriticizedforfosteringautomobiledependence,incontrasttourbandesignsthatfacilitatepedestrianandbicycletransportation(Duany,Plater-ZyberkandSpeck2000).Thusthekeytowell-beingisnottransportationperse,butaccesstogoods,servicesandactivities.Access,inturn,canarisefromuseoftransportation,orthroughcommunitydesign(LevinsonandKrizek2005).Indeed,theUnitedKingdomhasbeguntoassesshowdifferenttrans-portationanddevelopmentproposalsfosterorreduce“socialexclusion,”bywhichismeantthetendencyofcertainconfigurationsofland-useandtransportationtoexcludecertainsocialgroups,suchasthosewhodonotownautomobiles(see,forexample,Dobbs2005).Notwithstandingthetremendousbenefitsthatcanarisefromsafeandefficienttransportationsystems,theyalsoconfersignificantharmsandhazardsonsociety.Abriefcatalogofthesewouldinclude:tailpipeemissionsoftoxicsubstancesandgreen-housegases,dependenceonforeignsourcesofenergy(itselfaproductoftheefficiencyofthefossilfueldistributionsystem),injuries,fatalitiesandpropertydamagevisiteduponpedestrians,motoristsandcollateralparties,fragmentationofhabitat,andpollutedrunoff.Lesswidelyagreedupon,butstillaconcerntomany,areland-usearrangements(i.e.“urbansprawl”),communitypreservation,socialisolationandexclusion,andseden-tarylifestylesthatcontributetoobesity.Concernsabouttheseharmsandhazardsareheightenedbythevoracioussocialappetiteformotorizedtransportinboththedevelopedandthedevelopingworld.Ifvehicles,roadwaysandparkingfacilitiesaretobeexpandedtomeetrisingdemand,whatisthecostinhabitat,naturalresourcesanddisruptedcommunities?ConclusionsandFurtherQuestionsHere,then,isthecentralphilosophicalquestionposedbythetransportationsystemofthefuture:Howmaysocietydiscovertherighttradeoffsbetweenitsobligationtopassontofuturegenerationsahealthyandwholesomeworld,ontheonehand,andtheneedsanddesiresofthecurrentglobalpopulationontheother?ThisisthequestionposedsincethereleaseoftheBruntlandreportin1987bythoseconcernedwiththesustainabilityofthetransportationsystem(Bruntland1987).Beyonditsobligationtofuturegenerations,howshouldsocietydiscovertherightallocationofresourcesacrossitscurrentpopulation?FewwouldbegrudgetheAfricanwomanengagedinheadtransportanimprovedroadandavehicletouseforferryingwater,foodandotherresourcestoandfro.Buthowbesttoprovidethatroadwayandvehicle,whetherbywringingefficienciesoutofotherpartsofthesystem,orbyreallo-catingresourcesfromhavestohavenots,remainsapressingissue.535\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page536jonathanl.giffordFundamentallyitisaninstitutionalquestion.Aremarketsrobustenoughtomedi-atethesedecisions?And,ifnot,towhatextentshouldthefocusbeonimprovingthefunctioningofmarketsoralternativelyresortingtonon-marketmechanisms.Manyeconomistswouldsuggestestablishingclearpropertyrightsandeffectiveprocessesforprotectingthem,andlettingmarketstakecareoftherest.Yetnoeco-nomistwoulddisagreethat,inmuchofthetransportationdomain,pricesarewayoutofalignmentandpropertyrightsarebadlydefinedandpoorlyprotected,perhapsmoresointhedevelopingworld.Sohowbest,then,tobringthebenefitsofappropriatetransportationtothoseinneed,andmanagetheharmsandhazardstherebyarising?Tofocusonimprovingtheconditionsthatallowmarketstoworkefficiently,ortopromotenon-marketmechanisms?Thereisfarfromuniversalagreementonthisquestion.Manyviewthedevelopedworld,andespeciallytheUS,asprofligateenergy-usersandpolluters,consumingfarmorethantheirfairshareofglobalresources.Yettransportationcannotbeexaminedinisolationfromotherdomains.Itisinextricablyinterwovenwithmattersofglobaltrade,andhencewithdebatesabouthowtradefostersorharmsglobalwell-being.Andhowshould“Western”idealsoffreedom,democracyandself-determinationweighinthebalance?Thusthetransportationsectorcanhaveenormousimpactsonfutureprosperityandfuturerisks.Itprobablymakesmostsensetoemphasizecorrectpricingandclearandwell-protectedpropertyrights,whilerecognizingthattheinstitutionsneededtomakemarketsworkwellarenotpresentinmanyplaceswithpotentiallylargeopportunitiesforbothbenefitandharm.Becauseofpoorpropertyrightsdefinitionsandprotections,winnersinthemarketsystemoftendonotcompensatelosers,whichcreatesenormouslossesofsocialwelfare.Yettherearenoeasyanswers.Thetradeoffsacrosstoday’spopulations,andbetweentoday’spopulationandfuturegenerationsareverydifficulttoresolve.Institutionsholdthekeytodiscoveringthewayforward,sincethereisnouniversallyagreedupontech-nicalstandard,andsincevaluesplaysuchanimportantroleinmakingchoices.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBruntland,G.H.(ed.)(1987).OurCommonFuture:TheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Dobbs,L.(2005).“WeddedtotheCar:Women,EmploymentandtheImportanceofPrivateTransport,”TransportPolicy,12(3):266–78.Duany,A.,Plater-Zyberk,E.andSpeck,J.(2000).SuburbanNation:TheRiseofSprawlandtheDeclineoftheAmericanDream(NewYork:NorthPointPress).Fernald,J.G.(1999).“RoadstoProsperity?AssessingtheLinkbetweenPublicCapitalandProductivity,”AmericanEconomicReview,89(3):619–38.Fromm,G.(1965).TransportInvestmentandEconomicDevelopment(Washington,D.C.:BrookingsInstitution,TransportResearchProgram).Gifford,J.L.andGarrison,W.L.(1993).“AirportsandtheAirTransportationSystem:FunctionalRefinementsandFunctionalDiscovery,”TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,43(2):103–23.536\n9781405146012_4_095.qxd2/4/0914:14Page537transportationKraft,G.,Meyer,J.R.andValette,J.-P.(1971).TheRoleofTransportationinRegionalEconomicDevelopment(Lexington,Mass.:LexingtonBooks).Levinson,D.M.andKrizek,K.J.(eds)(2005).AccesstoDestinations(NewYork:Elsevier).Queiroz,C.andGautam,S.(1992).“RoadInfrastructureandEconomicDevelopment:SomeDiagnosticIndicators,”PolicyResearchWorkingPaperSeries921(WorldBank).Sussman,J.(2000).IntroductiontoTransportationSystems(Boston,Mass.:ArtechHouse).WorldBusinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment.(2004).Mobility2030:MeetingtheChallengestoSustainability(Washington,D.C.:WorldBusinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment).537\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page53896GlobalChallengesJENNIFERKUZMASincetheindustrialrevolution,theeconomicimportanceoftechnologicalchange1,2hasbeenwidelyaccepted,andscienceisnowbeingviewedbymanyasa“vitalpre-3condition,”ratherthanaluxury,foreconomicdevelopment.Alongsidethisshiftinthinking,over180UNmemberstatesadoptedthe2000MillenniumDeclarationtofreetheworldofextremepoverty.Thesenationspledgedtomeetcertaingoals,called4theMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),bytheyear2015(Box7.1).Thegoalsaredesignedtoaddressextremepoverty,hunger,disease,lackofadequateshelter,andexclusion,whilepromotingeducation,genderequality,andenvironmentalsustainability.Todate,significantprogresshasbeenmadeinmeetingsomeMDGs,suchaspovertyreduction,increasedprimaryeducationandgenderequality,andlowerchildmortal-ity.However,lessprogresshasbeenmadeinfightingglobaldiseaseandimprovingenvi-56ronmentalsustainability.MalariaandAIDsratesareincreasinginmanyareas,and7greenhousegasemissionscontinuetorise.Historicalandeconomicevidencesuggeststhatscienceandtechnology(S&T)cancontributetoallofthegoals,andthereisincreas-8ingattentiontotheneedtolinkMDGswithglobalagendasforS&T.However,therearesignificantchallengestothislinkage.Technologydoesnotchartitsowncoursetowardsocialgood.Itisoftendevelopedbytheprivatesector,whosemaingoalistoincreaseprofits.Leadersatcompaniesmaywanttopromoteenviron-mentalqualityandlargersocietalbenefits,butultimatelytheirsuccessismeasuredbyfinancialgains.Therearefewincentivesforcompaniestofocustechnologydevelop-mentonproblemsthatdisproportionatelyaffectthepoor,assolutionstothesearenotbigmoney-makers.Foundationsledbyphilanthropists,suchastheBillandMelinda9GatesFoundation,havecontributedgreatlyintheareaofglobalhealth.Theireffortsarecommendable,butarenotenoughtomeettheMDGsandwilltaketimetocometofruition.Developmentassistancehasrecentlyincreasedfrom2002to2005,how-ever,mostdevelopedcountriesstillcontributemuchlessthan0.7percentoftheirGross10,11NationalIncomes,theamountestimatedtoberequiredtomeettheMDGs.Evenwithsufficientfundsandassistance,thereareotherissuestoaddress.TheUNMillenniumProjectlistsfourmajorreasonsforthelackofprogresstowardtheMDGs–poorgovernance,includingcorruption,mismanagement,andcitizenabuse;povertytraps,inwhichpeoplearetoopoortomakeuseofinvestments;pocketsofpoverty,such538ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page539globalchallengesBox7.1TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals1.Eradicateextremepovertyandhunger.Reducebyhalftheproportionofpeoplelivingonlessthanadollaraday.Reducebyhalftheproportionofpeoplewhosufferfromhunger.2.Achieveuniversalprimaryeducation.Ensurethatallboysandgirlscompleteafullcourseofprimaryschooling.3.Promotegenderequalityandempowerwomen.Eliminategenderdisparityinprimaryandsecondaryeducation,preferablyby2005,andatalllevelsby2015.4.Reducechildmortality.Reducebytwothirdsthemortalityrateamongchildrenunderfive.5.Improvematernalmortality.Reducebythreequartersthematernalmortalityrate.6.CombatHIV/AIDS,malaria,andotherdiseases.HaltandbegintoreversethespreadofHIV/AIDS.Haltandbegintoreversetheincidenceofmalariaandotherdiseases.7.Ensureenvironmentalsustainability.Integratetheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopmentintocountrypoliciesandprograms;reverselossofenvironmentalresources.Reducebyhalftheproportionofpeoplewithoutsustainableaccesstosafedrinkingwater.Achievesignificantimprovementinthelivesofatleast100millionslumdwellersby2020.8.Developaglobalpartnershipfordevelopment.Developfurtheranopentradingandfinancialsystemthatisrule-based,predictable,andnondiscriminatory.Includeacommitmenttogoodgovern-ance,development,andpovertyreduction–nationallyandinternationally.Addresstheleastdevelopedcountries’specialneeds.Thisincludestariff-freeandquota-freeaccessfortheirexports;enhanceddebtreliefforheavilyindebtedpoorcountries;cancellationofofficialbilateraldebt;andmoregenerousofficialdevelopmentassistanceforcountriescommittedtopovertyreduction.Addressthespecialneedsoflandlockedandsmallislanddevelopingstates.Dealcomprehensivelywithdevelopingcountries’debtproblemsthroughnationalandinternationalmeasurestomakedebtsustainableinthelongterm.Incooperationwiththedevelopingcountries,developdecentandproduct-iveworkforyouth.Incooperationwithpharmaceuticalcompanies,provideaccesstoaffordableessentialdrugsindevelopingcountries.Incooperationwiththeprivatesector,makeavailablethebenefitsofnewtechnologies–especiallyinformationandcommunicationstechnologies.539\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page540jenniferkuzmaasslumsandothersocialgroupsthatareexcludedfromthebenefitsofinvestment;andpolicyneglect,inwhichpolicy-makersareunawareofwhattodoorignorecore12issues.Althoughscienceandtechnologycannotsolvetheseproblems,itcanleadtoreliable,appropriateandcost-effectiveinterventionsthatalleviateconditionsthatcauseextremepoverty.Yetstabilityandcapacityareessentialfortakingadvantageofinvest-13mentsandassistancerelatedtoS&T.In2003,UNsecretary-generalKofiAnnancalledforamobilizationofthescientificcommunitytohelpmeetglobalchallenges:muchofthatscience–intherealmofhealth,forexample–neglectstheproblemsthatafflictmostoftheworld’speople.Thisunbalanceddistributionofscientificactivitygeneratesseriousproblemsnotonlyforthescientificcommunityinthedevelopingcountries,butfordevelopmentitself.Itacceleratesthedisparitybetweenadvancedanddevelopingcountries,creatingsocialandeconomicdifficultiesatbothnationalandinternationallevels.Theideaoftwoworldsofscienceisanathematothescientificspirit.Itwillrequirethecommitmentofscientistsandscientificinstitutionsthroughouttheworldtochange14thatportraittobringthebenefitsofsciencetoall.The10/90Gapisoneillustrationofthecurrentinequities.Only5–10percentofglobalhealthresearchfundingisdirectedtowardhealthproblemsthataffect90percentoftheworld’spopulation,andonlyasmallproportionofthisfundinggoestoresearchers15indevelopingcountries.Inanefforttosteerthecourseofscienceandtechnologytowardgreatsocietalchallenges,theInteracademyCouncil,composedoftheheadsoffifteenworldscientificacademies,signedastatementcallingontheworld’sscientific,medicalandengineeringexpertstoidentifyandpromotewaystoreducepovertyandadvancetheMDGs.ThestatementwasdeliveredtoheadsofstateattheopeningoftheUNGeneralAssembly16inSeptember2005.Theirspecificrecommendationsincludebetterlocalinfrastruc-tureforapplyingscientificandtechnologicalknowledgetonationalproblem-solving;goodconnectivitytotheInternetforallscientistsandacademicinstitutions;centersofresearchanddevelopmentexcellenceincountrieswheretheuniversitysectorisweak;promotionoflocalenterprisesforbettermeetingtheneedsofthepoor;andinvestmentofinternationalfundstosupportinnovativecapacityindevelopingcountries.ThevisionofS&Tforthebettermentofallseemstobeinplaceamongtheworld’sexpertsandleaders;however,thepathtoachievingitseemsdifficult.ThefollowingsectionsexplorethechallengesofanS&TagendathatismorecloselytiedtoachievingtheMDGsandsummarizerecommendationsfordoingso.CasesofS&TAppliedtotheMDGs17,18,19TherehavebeenseveralreportsoutliningthecontributionofS&TtotheMDGs.Somerecommendationsseemoutofreach,inlightofthelackofbasicinfrastructureintheworld’spoorestregions.Forexample,howcangenomicsplayaroleindiagnosingillnessearlyon,ifthereisnotbasicmedicineanddoctorsinmanyruralareas?Yet,intheiroptimism,theygiveusapictureofwhatthefutureshouldbe.Therehasbeen540\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page541globalchallengesacallfora“globalgenomicspartnership,”withhighparticipationandleadership20fromtheglobalSouth,tofocusspecificallyondevelopmentneeds.Manyarguethatwithoutadvancedtechnologyfordevelopingcountriestheywillonlycontinuetolag21behind.Localtechnologydevelopmentisessentialtobuildinglong-termcapacityandappro-22priatesolutionsfordevelopingcountries.Forexample,anIndonesianresearchteamdevelopedareal-timeimmunochemistry-basedassaythatdetectsSalmonellatyphi,23thecausativeagentoftyphoidfever.Thistestcanbeperformedwithoutlaboratoryfacilities,asthereagentsarestableanditissimpletoconduct.TheIndiancompanyShanthaBiotechnicsdevelopedarecombinanthepatitisBvaccine,whichsellsfor24twentytimeslessperdosethantheUSvaccine.Medicalandhealthcaretechnologiesdevelopedlocallyaremorelikelytotakeintoconsiderationlocalfinancialandinfras-tructurechallengesandconditionsofaffectedcommunities.EnvironmentalsustainabilityislaggingbehindotherMDGs.Oneofthebiggestthreatstoourplanetisclimatechangeinducedbyanthropogenicgreenhousegasemissionsandclimatechange.Climatechangeisexpectedtoaffectthepoordisproportionately,causing,amongotherthings,croplossandfloodinginareasalreadystressedbynat-25uraldisasters.Thereisaneedforallcountriestoreducegreenhousegasemissions,especiallydevelopedcountriesthatareprimarycontributors,suchastheUS.Althoughtherearegoodargumentsastowhydevelopingcountriesshouldbeabletobase26economiesonfossilfuels,likethedevelopedworldhasoverthepastfewcenturies,renewableenergysystemsindevelopingcountriescanaccomplishmultiplegoals.Forexample,dieselgenerationsystemshavebeenemployedinWestAfricatoimprove27energyaccess.Withbettertechnologiesforfuelextractionandengines,thesesystems28couldeventuallyberunonlocalsourcesofbiodieselsuchastheJatrophacurcasshrub.Ifproperlydeployed,locallybased,renewablesystemswillboostlocaleconomies,mitigateclimatechange,andprovideenergyservicestoruralareas.AccesstoenergyisessentialtomeetingmostoftheMDGs.Forexample,withlight-ing,electric-poweredmachinery,andbettercookingfuels,moretimecanbededicatedtoeducationandincome-generatingactivities.Thisincreasedtimeisespeciallyimport-antforwomen,whodomostofthefoodpreparation,cookingandfarmingindevel-opingcountries.Liveswillalsobeimprovedwithelectricpumpsforwater,lowercrimeratesduetolightedareas,andreducedindoorairpollutionfromcleanerfuelsources29forcooking.Thereisneedtolinkeconomicdevelopmentbetterwithdistributed,sustainableenergysystemsindevelopingcountries.Applicationsofscienceandtechnologytowateravailabilityandshortages,foodandagriculturewillalsobeneeded.TheUNEnvironmentProgramlistsfreshwater30shortagesasoneofthegreatestenvironmentalproblemsforthetwenty-firstcentury.Drought-andsalinity-tolerantcropstailoredtodevelopingcountriescouldgreatlyenhancefoodsecurityinareaswhereacombinationofnaturaldisastersandmarginallandaresuretoleadtofamineinagivenyear.Throughgenomicsandmodernbiotechnology,wearegettingclosertounderstanding,identifyingandengineeringthemanytraitsthatcontrolwateruseandsaltutilizationinplants.Forexample,attheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT),abranchoftheConsultativeGroupaonInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR)system,researchersaredeveloping31drought-resistantmaizeforMexicanandotherfarmers.CGIARhasbeenacornerstone541\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page542jenniferkuzmaforagronomicresearchindevelopingcountries,butitscentershavebeensignificantly32underfunded,andmanyofitscentersandprogramsareinjeopardy.Healthierandmorenutritiousfoodsarealsobeingdevelopedviatechnology.Morethan100millionpeopleareaffectedbyvitaminAdeficiency(VAD),whichisrespons-ibleforhundredsofthousandsofcasesofblindnessannually.Researchershaveeng-ineeredavarietyofricetosupplythemetabolicprecursortovitaminA.This“goldenrice”isbeingbredwithlocalvarietiestoenhanceitspropertiesforgrowthindevelop-33ingcountries.AtleastsixteenresearchinstitutionsinIndia,thePhilippines,China,Bangladesh,Indonesia,VietnamandSouthAfricaarelicenseesandcontributetoseeddevelopmentasaconsortium,termedtheGoldenRiceNetwork.Intellectualpropertybhurdleshavebeenovercometodistributethericefreetosubsistencefarmers–thisisespeciallyimportantbecausethecostofseedcouldotherwisebeprohibitive.AlthoughgoldenricewilllikelynotbeapanaceaforVAD,oncethericecomestomarketitisexpectedtoreducesignificantlythehealthburdenandleadtoothersocialbenefits.Forexample,onecasestudyinthePhilippinesestimateda5.7–31.5percentreductioninthehealthburdenand$16–88millionworthofsocialbenefitsperyearfromadoption34ofgoldenrice.WaysForwardAsdescribedabove,therearegoodexamplesofsuccessinconnectingtheMDGswithS&Tinnovation.However,thereisalongwaytogo.TheUN’sTaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovationrecommendsafocusonplatformtechnologies(onesthathavebroadimpactsoneconomies);infrastructuredevelopmentthroughindigenousengineeringandconstructionfirms;improvementsinuniversitieswithafocusondevelopmentresearch;highereducationformoreyoungpeople,especiallywomen;35andgovernmentincentivesandprocurementfornewtechnologies.Currently,thereisasignificantdrainoftalentfromdevelopingcountriestothedevelopedworld,given36bettereconomicopportunitiesandpoliticalstabilityabroad.Developingcountries,inpartnershipwithdevelopedones,needtocreateclimatestoretaintheirscientistsandengineers.TheglobalS&Tcommunityneedstoprovideincentivesforworkonlocalissues,asresearcherswhoworkonimportantregionalproblemsoftencannotpublish37theirfindingsinmainstreaminternationaljournals.Onewaytoaddressthisproblemisforgovernmentstofundcompetitionstoaddressnationalchallenges.TheVenezuelanNationalScienceandTechnologyCouncilhasdonethistofocusresearchonchallenges38withtheoilindustry,urbanviolenceandthecacaocropvirus.Globalpublic–privatepartnerships(PPPs)areontheriseforcombatingdisease.Bigpharmaceuticalandsmallerbiotechnologycompaniesarepartneringwithgov-ernmentandacademicgroupstocombatglobalhealththreatswithfundingcoming39mainlyfromfoundations.AsofDecember2004,thereweresixty-threeprojectsofthisnature,whereasadecadeagotherewerenone.Althoughthecompaniesinvolvedarenotexpectedtomakemoneyfromthedrugstheydevelopforneglecteddiseases,benefitstothemincludecoveredorreducedexpensesforclinicaltrials,abetterpublicimage,andintroductiontodeveloping-countryresearchers.However,greatcautionmustbetakenwithperforminglarge-scaleclinicaltrialsindevelopingcountries–these542\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page543globalchallenges•Governments•Provideatleast0.7%ofGNPtoMDGs•Provideincentivesforbusinessesandscientiststoworkwithdeveloping-countyexperts•Linkdevelopmentwithenvironmentalgoals•Business•Investinprojectsindevelopingcountriesinpartnershipswithlocalownersanddevelopers•Donateenablingtechnologiesandgrantlicensesforfree•Providemedicinesatlowtonocostindisadvantagedareas•Other•Privatefoundationstocontinuetofillthefundingandresearchgaps•CitizensandNGOstocontinuetodemandpoliticalwilltoachievetheMDGsDevelopedCountriesAAchieievingiengngththheMDMDGsMDDevelopingCountriesInternationalScienceandEngineeringCommunity•Governments•Investinuniversitiesandeducationespeciallyforchildrenandwomen•Provideincentivesfordevelopingworldscientiststoworkonlocalproblems•Worktowardspoliticalandeconomicstability•Forgeinternationalcollaborationstoaddresspressingglobalchallenges•Developinfrastructuretoutilizeloansandassistance•Donateintellectualpropertytothedevelopingworldandprovideincentives•Highlighttheneedforincreasedmulti-sectorfundingtoreachtheMDGs•FocusindividualandcollaborativeresearchonmeetingMDGs•Industry•Engageininternationalcollaborativeprojects•FocusR&Dandproductsonlocalneeds•Others•Focusoneducationofchildren•Promoteequalityofwomeninsociety•LinkdevelopmentwithenvironmentalgoalsFigure96.1AchievingtheMDGsNote:Thisisnotacompletelistofrecommendationsforallsectors.trialsmustbeconductedwiththesameethicalandsafetystandardsasinthedevel-40,41opedworld.ThereseemstobethewillwithintheleadershipoftheS&TcommunitytoalignS&TwiththeMDGs.However,inordertodoso,moreoftherecommendationsofpremierinternationalbodiesneedtobeimplementedbyallsectorsofsociety(Figure96.1).Creativityinthedesignofpoliciesandimplementationofprogramsshouldbeencour-aged.Withincreasedpolitical,socialandeconomiccommitment,achievingtheMDGs,whileadvancingS&Tforallnations,seemswithinreach.NotesaCGIARisastrategicallianceofcountries,internationalandregionalorganizations,andprivatefoundationssupportingfifteeninternationalagriculturalcentersthatworkwithnationalagriculturalresearchsystemsandcivilsocietyorganizationsincludingtheprivatesector.Thealliancemobilizesagriculturalsciencetoreducepoverty,fosterhumanwell-being,promoteagriculturalgrowthandprotecttheenvironment.TheCGIARgeneratesglobalpub-licgoodsthatareavailabletoall.Excerptedfromhttp://www.cgiar.org/who/index.html.bDefinedinthiscaseasthosewhomakeunderUS$10,000peryear.543\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page544jenniferkuzmaReferencesandFurtherReading1.Ruttan,V.W.(2001).Technology,Growth,andDevelopment:AnInducedInnovationPerspective(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).2.Rosenberg,N.(1994).“Path-dependenceofTechnologicalChange,”inExploringtheBlackBox:Technology,Economics,andHistory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).3.Bernardes,A.anddaMottaeAlbuquerque,E.(2003).“Cross-over,Thresholds,andInter-actionsbetweenScienceandTechnology:LessonsforLess-developedCountries,”ResearchPolicy,32(5):865–85.4.UnitedNationsMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.LastaccessedOctober2006.5.UnitedNations(2006).MillenniumDevelopmentGoalsReport2006(NewYork:UnitedNations),http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2006/MDGReport2006.pdf6.ibid.7.EnergyInformationAdministration(2006).InternationalEnergyOutlook(Washington,D.C.),http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_10.pdf.8.UNMillenniumProject,TaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovation(2005).Innovation:ApplyingKnowledgeinDevelopment(London/Sterling,Va.:Earthscan),http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf9.Cohen,J.(2006).“TheNewWorldofGlobalHealth,”Science,311:162–7.10.OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,“AidFlowsTopUSD100Billionin2005,”http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/26/36418606.pdf11.Sachs,J.andMcArthur,J.W.(2005).“TheMillenniumProject:APlanforMeetingtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,”Lancet,364:347–53.12.ibid.13.UNMillenniumProject,TaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovation(2005).Innovation:ApplyingKnowledgeinDevelopment(London/Sterling,Va.:Earthscan),http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf14.Annan,K.(2003).“AChallengetotheWorld’sScientists,”Science,299:1485.15.GlobalForumforHealthResearch(1999).10/90ReportonHealthResearch1999(Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization).16.InteracademyCouncil(2005).Science,Technology,andInnovationforAchievingtheUNMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,September,http://www.interacademycouncil.net/Object.File/Master/9/585/UN%20Statement%20(4).pdf17.Juma,C.andYee-Cheong,L.(2005).“ReinventingGlobalHealth:TheRoleofScience,Technology,andInnovation,”Lancet,365:1105–7.18.Acharya,T.etal.(2003).“BiotechnologyandtheUN’sMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,”NatureBiotechnology,21(12):1434–6.19.UNMillenniumProject,TaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovation(2005).Innovation:ApplyingKnowledgeinDevelopment(London/Sterling,Va.:Earthscan),http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf20.Dowdeswell,E.atal.(2003).“BridgingtheGlobalDivide,”GlobalGovernance,9:1–6.21.Singer,P.andDaar,A.S.(2001).“HarnessingGenomicsandBiotechnologytoImproveGlobalHealthEquity,”Science,294:87–9.22.UNMillenniumProject,TaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovation(2005).Innovation:ApplyingKnowledgeinDevelopment(London/Sterling,Va.:Earthscan),http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf544\n9781405146012_4_096.qxd2/4/0914:14Page545globalchallenges23.Hatta,M.etal.(2002).“SimpleDipstickAssayfortheDetectionofSalmonellaTyphi-SpecificIgMAntibodiesandtheEvolutionoftheImmuneResponseinPatientswithTyphoidFever,”AmericanJournalofTropicalMedicineandHygiene,66:416–21.24.Juma,C.andYee-Cheong,L.(2005).“ReinventingGlobalHealth:TheRoleofScience,Technology,andInnovation,”Lancet,365:1105–7.25.Kuzma,J.(ed.)(2005).TheGlobalClimateandEconomicDevelopment,CenterforScience,Technology,andPublicPolicy,June,http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/9685/global_climate_econdvlp_report.pdf26.ibid.27.Havet,I.(2003).“LinkingWomenandEnergyattheLocalLeveltoGlobalGoalsandTargets,”EnergyforSustainableDevelopment,7(3):75–9.28.ibid.29.ibid.30.UNEP(2002).GlobalEnvironmentalOutlook-3,http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/index.htm31.CGIAR.DroughtTolerantCropsforDrylands,http://www.cgiar.org/impact/global/des_fact2.html32.Knight,J.(2003).“CropImprovement:ADyingBreed,”Nature,421:568–70.33.Al-Babili,S.andBeyer,P.(2005).“GoldenRice–FiveYearsontheRoad–FiveYearstoGo?,”TrendsinPlantScience,10(12):565–73.34.Zimmermann,R.andQaim,M.(2004).“PotentialHealthBenefitsofGoldenRice:aPhilippineCaseStudy,”FoodPolicy,29(2):147–68.35.UNMillenniumProject,TaskForceonScience,TechnologyandInnovation(2005).Innovation:ApplyingKnowledgeinDevelopment(London/Sterling,Va.:Earthscan).36.ibid.37.Avalos,I.andRengifo,R.(2003).“FromSectortoNetworks:TheVenezuelanCONICITResearchAgendas,”TechnologyinSociety,25(2):183–92.38.ibid.39.Cohen,J.(2006).“TheNewWorldofGlobalHealth,”Science,311:162–7.40.Lurie,P.andWolfe,S.M.(1997).“UnethicalTrialsofInterventionstoReducePerinatalTransmissionoftheHumanImmunodeficiencyVirusinDevelopingCountries,”NewEnglandJournalofMedicine,338:836–41.41.Mills,E.J.etal.(2005).“DesigningResearchinVulnerablePopulations:LessonsfromHIVPreventionTrialsThatStoppedEarly,”BritishMedicalJournal,331:1403–6.545\n9781405146012_4_097.qxd2/4/0916:52Page54697ChemicalsBRUCEE.JOHANSENArtificialchemicalsusuallyareinvented,manufactured,soldandusedunderadvertisedassumptionsthattheywillprovidehumankindwithbenefits,suchastheeradicationofharmfulpests.Insomecases,however,theuseofsuchchemicalshasbeenfoundtoprovokevariousside-effects,which,likesomedrugs,inflictproblemsforpeopleandtheenvironmentthatoutweightheirbenefits.Inseveralcasesduringthelastcentury,theuseofchemicalshasbeenrestrictedorbannedbecauseoftheirmalodorous(andoftenunanticipated)effects.Duringtheearly1960s,forexample,afurorfolloweddisclosurebyRachelCarsoninSilentSpring(1962)ofDDT’seffectsontheenvironment,largelyonbirds.UseofthechemicalwasthenbannedintheUnitedStatesandotherindustrializedcountries,althoughitcontinuestobeusedinareaswheremalaria-bearingmosquitoesareamajorhealthrisk.Duringthe1970sand1980s,theuseofCFCs(chlorofluorocarbons)asrefrigerantsandpropellantswasfoundtobeerodingstratosphericozone,whichshieldshumanlifefromcancer-inducingultravioletradiation.UseofCFCswassubsequentlybannedunderinternationallawduringthelate1980s.Restorationofstratosphericozonehasbeenmuchslowerthanexpectedundertheban,however,asscientistshavediscoveredthatmanyofthechemicalreactionswhichcauseCFCstoerodeozonearecold-activated.Ascarbondioxide,methaneandothergreenhousegasesneartheEarth’ssurfaceretainlargeramountsofheatthere,thestratospherehascooledsteadilysincethe1980s,accel-eratingozonedepletionbyremainingCFCs.Thussolutionofozonedepletiondependstoanimportantextentonhumansuccessincombatingglobalwarming.Anumberof“persistentorganicpollutants”(POPs)alsohavebeenbannedorrestrictedbytheStockholmProtocol,followingdisclosurethattheyhavebeendam-aginghumanandanimallife,mostnotablyintheArctic.Polychlorinatedbiphenyls(PCBs)anddioxinsaretwoofthemostwidespreadchemicalsthatconcentrateintheArcticowingtoprevailingwindandoceancurrents.Theylodgeinthebodyfatofmammals,andincreasesharplyinpotency(bio-magnifyor-accumulate)upthefoodchain.TheInuit,atthetopoftheArcticfoodchain,wouldeventuallyhavefacedextinc-tionifthesechemicalshadnotbeenbanned.Evenwiththeban,Inuitmothershavebeentoldnottobreast-feedtheirinfants,andtorestricttheirconsumptionofsomefishandlandmammalswhichconstitutethetraditionalInuitdiet.546ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_097.qxd2/4/0916:52Page547chemicalsToxicChemicalsintheArctic“Asweputourbabiestoourbreastswearefeedingthemanoxious,toxiccocktail,”saidSheilaWatt-Cloutier,agrandmotherwhohasalsoservedaspresidentoftheInuitCircumpolarConference.“Whenwomenhavetothinktwiceaboutbreast-feedingtheirbabies,surelythatmustbeawake-upcalltotheworld”(Johansen2000:27).ManyresidentsofthetemperatezonesholdfondstereotypesofapristineArcticlargelydevoidofthehumanpollutionthatissoubiquitousintheindustrialworld.Toatouristwithnointerestinenvironmentaltoxicology,theInuits’Arctichomelandmayseemaspristineaseverduringitslong,snow-sweptwinters.Suchscenerymayseempristine,untilonerealizesthatthepolarbears’andseals’bodyfatarelacedwithdioxinsandPCBs.Tothenaked,untutoredeye,theArcticstilllookspristine.InInuitCountrythesedays,however,itiswhatyoucannotseethatmaykillyou.ThetoxicologicalduebillsformodernindustryatthelowerlatitudesarebeingleftontheInuittableinNunavut,intheCanadianArctic.Nativepeoplewhosedietsconsistlargelyofseaanimals(whales,polarbears,fishandseals)havebeenconsumingaconcentratedtoxicchemicalcocktail.AbnormallyhighlevelsofdioxinsandotherindustrialchemicalsarebeingdetectedinInuitmothers’breastmilk.Dioxins,PCPsandothertoxinsaccumulatewitheachsucceedinggenerationinbreast-feedingmammals,includingtheInuitandmanyoftheirfoodsources.Airbornetoxicsubstancesareabsorbedbyplanktonandsmallfish,whicharetheneatenbydolphinsandwhales,andotherlargeanimals.Themammals’thicksubcutaneousfatstoresthehazardoussubstances,whicharetransmittedtooffspringthroughbreast-feeding.Seamammalsaremorevulnerabletothiskindoftoxicitythanlandanimals,sothelevelsofchemicalsintheirbodiescanbecomeexceptionallyhigh.Thelevelofthesetoxinsincreaseswitheachbreast-fedgeneration.Inuitinfantshaveprovided“alivingtesttubeforimmunologists”(Cone1996:A-1).Owingtotheirdietofcontaminatedseaanimalsandfish,Inuitwomen’sbreastmilkcontainssixtoseventimesthePCBlevelofwomeninurbanQuebec,accordingtoQuebecgovernmentstatistics.Theirbabieshaveexperiencedstrikinglyhighratesofmening-itis,bronchitis,pneumoniaandotherinfectionscomparedwithotherCanadians.OneInuitchildoutofeveryfourhaschronichearinglossduetoinfections.POPshavebeenlinkedtocancer,birthdefectsandotherneurological,reproductiveandimmune-systemdamageinpeopleandanimals.Athighlevels,thesechemicalsdamagethecentralnervoussystem.Manyofthemalsoactasendocrinedisrupters,causingdeformitiesinsexorgansaswellaslong-termdysfunctionofreproductivesys-tems.POPscanalsointerferewiththefunctionofthebrainandendocrinesystembypenetratingtheplacentalbarrierandscramblingtheinstructionsofnaturallyproducedchemicalmessengers.Thesetellafetushowtodevelopinthewombandpost-natallythroughpuberty;shouldinterferenceoccur,immune,nervousandreproductivesystemsmaynotdevelopasprogrammedbythegenesinheritedbytheembryo.“Wearetheminer’scanary,”saidWatt-Cloutier.“Itisonlyamatteroftimeuntileverybodywillbepoisonedbythepollutantsthatwearecreatinginthisworld”(Lambn.d.).“Attimes,”saidCloutier,“wefeellikeanendangeredspecies”(Personalcommunication,28March2001).547\n9781405146012_4_097.qxd2/4/0916:52Page548brucee.johansenThebodiesofsomeInuitthousandsofmilesfromthesourcesofchemicalpollutionhavethehighestlevelsofPCBseverdetected,exceptinvictimsofindustrialaccidents.SomeNativepeopleinGreenland,forexample,havemorethanseventytimesasmuchofthepesticidehexachlorobenzene(HCB)intheirbodiesastemperate-zoneCanadians(Johansen2000:27).PesticideresiduesintheArctictodaymayincludesomeuseddecadesagointhesouthernUnitedStates.TheArctic’scoldclimatealsoslowsdecompositionofthesetoxins,sotheypersistintheArcticenvironmentlongerthanatlowerlatitudes.TheArcticactsasacoldtrap,collectingandmaintainingawiderangeofindustrialpollutants,fromPCBstotoxaphene,chlordanetomercury,accordingtotheCanadianPolarCommission(PCBWorkingGroupn.d.).Asaresult,“ManyInuithavelevelsofPCBs,DDTsandotherpersistentorganicpollutantsintheirbloodandfattytissuesthatarefivetotentimesgreaterthanthenationalaverageinCanadaortheUnitedStates”(PCBWorkingGroupn.d.).StratosphericOzoneLossandGlobalWarmingAdozenyearsafterCFCswerebanned,theareaofdepletedstratosphericozoneovertheAntarcticformedearlierandenduredlongerduringSeptemberandOctoberof2000thaneverbefore–andbyasignificantextent.FiguresfromNASAsatellitemeasure-mentsshowedthattheareaofseverelydepletedozone(popularlycalledthe“ozonehole”)coveredanareaofapproximately29millionsquarekilometersinearlySeptember,exceedingthepreviousrecordduring1998.DuringearlySeptember2003,theareaofdepletedozoneoverAntarcticawasagainapproachingnear-recordsize.Bytheendofthemonth,theareaofseverelydepletedozonewasthesecond-largestonrecord,ataboutthesizeofNorthAmerica.Whyhasstratosphericozonebeensoslowtoheal,evenyearsafterCFCswerebanned?Scientistshavediscoveredthatmanyofthechemicalreactionsthatdepleteozonearecold-activated;thecolderthetemperatureinthestratosphere,themoreseveretheozoneloss.Risinglevelsofcarbondioxide,methaneandothertracegasesprovokedbyhumanburningoffossilfuelsholdheatnearthesurface,inhibitingitsradiationintospacethroughthestratosphere.Thus,thestratospherecoolsasthesurfacewarms.TheeffectofglobalwarmingonozonedepletionissignificantenoughthattherateofozonedepletionmaynotdecreaseevenaslevelsofCFCsdecline,accordingtoMarkusRexoftheAlfredWegenerInstituteforPolarandMarineResearchinPotsdam,Germany,andhiscolleagues.“Iwassurprisedtoseetheseresults,”saidDrewShindell,anatmo-sphericscientistatNASA’sGoddardInstituteforSpaceStudies,NewYork.“Weneversuspectedthe[existing]modelswerethisfaroutofwhack,”hesaid(Rexetal.2004Ball2004).Asscientistsprobetheconnectionsbetweensurfacewarmingandstratosphericcooling,theyfindmorepotentiallydangerouscomplications.Forexample,ateamofatmosphericscientistshasdiscoveredlargeparticlesinsidestratosphericcloudsovertheArcticthatcouldfurtherdelaythehealingoftheEarth’sprotectiveozonelayer.AtmosphericchemistDavidFaheyoftheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdmini-stration’sofficeinBoulder,Colorado,ledateamoftwenty-sevencolleagueswhoconcluded:548\n9781405146012_4_097.qxd2/4/0916:52Page549chemicalsArcticozoneabundanceswillremainvulnerabletoincreasedwinter/springlossinthecomingdecadesasanthropogenicchlorinecompoundsaregraduallyremovedfromtheatmosphere,particularlyifrisingconcentrationsofgreenhousegasesinducecoolinginthepolarvortexandtrendsofincreasingwatervaporcontinueinthelowerstratosphere.BotheffectsincreasetheextentofPolarstratosphericcloudformationand,thereby,denitrificationandthelifetimeofactivechlorine.Theroleofdenitrificationinthesefuturescenariosislikelyquiteimportant.(Baumgardneretal.2001:1030)FaheyandhiscolleaguesestimatedthatozonedepletionintheArcticstratospheremaynotreachitspeakuntiltheyear2070,evenwithasteadydeclineinchlorinelevels.WhilemostoftheareacoveredbytheAntarcticozone“hole”isuninhabited,asimilarArcticozone-depletionzonecouldaffectpartsofdenselypopulatedEurope,AsiaandNorthAmerica.InadditiontosevereozonelossesoverAntarctica,stratosphericozonelevels,too,havegenerallybeendecliningintheArcticforseveralyears.JonathanShanklinoftheBritishAntarcticSurvey,oneofthethreescientistscred-itedwithdiscoveringsevereozonedepletionoverAntarctica,haswarnedthatglobalwarmingthreatenstodepletestratosphericozoneovertheArcticinamannersimilartotheozone“hole”overtheAntarctic(Kirby2000).Solarflaresandfrigidstratospherictemperaturesduringthewinterof2003–4provokedtheworstdepletionofozoneabovetheArcticsincerecordshavebeenkept,accordingtoateamofscientistsreportinginthe2March2005issueofGeophysicalResearchLetters(Brohedeetal.2005).ReferencesandFurtherReadingBaumgardner,G.etal.(2001).“TheDetectionofLargeHNO3-containingParticlesintheWinterArcticStratosphere,”Science,291:1026–31.Ball,P.(2004).“ClimateChangeSettoPokeHolesinOzone;ArcticCloudsCouldMakeOzoneDepletionThreeTimesWorseThanPredicted,”Nature,ScienceUpdate,3March,http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eOCB0BfHSK0Ch0JVV0AYBrohede,S.etal.(2005).“StratosphericEffectsofEnergeticParticlePrecipitationin2003–2004,”GeophysicalResearchLetters,32(2March):L05802,doi10.1029/2004GL022003Carson,R.(1962).SilentSpring(Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin).Colborn,T.D.D.andMyers,J.P.(1996).OurStolenFuture:AreWeThreateningOurFertility,IntelligenceandSurvival?AScientificDetectiveStory(NewYork:Penguin).Cone,M.(1996),“HumanImmuneSystemsMayBePollutionVictims,”LosAngelesTimes,13May,A-1.Cone,M.(2005).SilentSnow:TheSlowPoisoningoftheArctic(NewYork:GrovePress).Johansen,B.E.(2000),“PristineNoMore:TheArctic,WhereMother’sMilkisToxic,”TheProgressive,December,pp.27–9.Johansen,B.E.(2003).TheDirtyDozen:ToxicChemicalsandtheEarth’sFuture(Westport,Conn.:Praeger).Johansen,B.E.(2006).GlobalWarminginthe21stCentury,3vols(Westport,Conn.:Praeger).Kirby,A.(2000).“CostingtheEarth.”BritishBroadcastingCorporation,RadioFour.26October,http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_990000/990391.stmLamb,D.M.(n.d.).“ToxinsinaFragileFrontier.”Transcript,CanadianBroadcastingCorporationNews,http://cac.ca/news/indepth/north/549\n9781405146012_4_097.qxd2/4/0916:52Page550brucee.johansenPCBWorkingGroup,IPEN(n.d.).“CommunitiesRespondtoPCBContamination,”http://www.ipen.org/circumpolar2.htmlRex,M.,vonderGathen,P.,Wegener,Alfred,Salawitch,R.J.,Harris,N.R.P.,Chipperfield,M.P.andNaujokat,B.(2004).“ArcticOzoneLossandClimateChange,”GeophysicalResearchLetters,31(10March).Watt-Cloutier,S.Personalcommunication,28March2001.550\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page55198TheFutureofHumanityNICKBOSTROMThefutureofhumanityhastraditionallybeenatheologicaltopic.Allthemajorreli-gionshaveteachingsabouttheultimatedestinyofhumanityortheendoftheworld.Eschatologicalthemeshavealsobeenexploredbyphilosophers,includingHegel,KantandMarx.Sciencefictionauthors,too,havehadplentytosayonthesubject.Veryoften,thefuturehasservedasaprojectionscreenforourhopesandfears,forentertainingdrama,moralitytales,andreflectionsoftendenciesincontemporarysociety.Onlyrarelyishumanity’sfuturetakenseriouslyasasubjectmatteronwhichitisimportanttotrytohavefactuallycorrectbeliefs.Mostimportantdifferencesbetweenourselvesandourforebearsareultimatelyrelatedtotechnology.Intheearlydaysofourspecies,technologicalprogresswasslow.Tensofthousandsofyearswouldpasswithoutmuchaccumulation.Onlywithinthelastcoupleofhundredyearscouldapersonexpecttoexperiencesignificanttechno-logicalchangewithinherlifetime.InventorandwriterRayKurzweilarguesthattech-nologicaldevelopmentisstillaccelerating.Onthebasisofexponentialtrendsinanumberofhigh-techareas,hepredictsatechnological“singularity”beforethemiddleofthiscentury(Kurzweil2005).Technologyinawidesense(includingnotonlygadgetsbutalsomethods,techniquesandinstitutiondesignprinciples)isthefundamentalcauseoflong-termeconomicgrowth.Economicgrowthiswhathasenabledtheworldpopulationtoincreasetoover6billionpeople;upfromthe4millionorsothatinhabitedtheplanetwhenhumanslivedashunter-gatherers.Economicgrowthhasalsoenabledcitiesandlaborspecialization,andhenceindirectlyallthephenomenamadepossiblebyhigh-densitypopulationcenterswithskilledlaborers–including,significantly,amuchfasterpaceofinnovation.Pessimistsaboutthefutureoftenfocusontheenvironmentalproblemsfacingthegrowingworldpopulation.Theyworrythatourcurrentwastefulandpollutingwaysareunsustainableandthreateningtohumancivilization.PaulEhrlich’sPopulationBomb(1968)andtheClubofRome’sreportLimitstoGrowth(1972),whichsold30millioncopies,predictedeconomiccollapseandmassstarvationbythe1980sor1990sasaresultofpopulationgrowthandresourcedepletion(Ehrlich1968,MeadowsandClubofRome1972).ThebasicideaofpopulationgrowthasthenemesisofhumanwelfaregoesbacktotheEnglishdemographerandpoliticaleconomistThomasRobertMalthus(1766–1834).MalthusarguedthatthelowerclassescouldneverpermanentlybeliftedACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks551©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page552nickbostromoutofpoverty,becauseastheirconditionimprovedtheywouldhavemoresurvivingchildrenandmoremouthstofeed.Overtime,populationwouldoutgrowfoodsupply,starvationwouldoccur,andthemajorityofmenwouldagainbereducedtosubsistence-levelincomes(Malthus1798).Inthelongrun,averageincomecanonlyincreaseifeconomicgrowthisfasterthanpopulationgrowth.Long-termeconomicgrowthisdeterminedbytechnologicalprogress.ThepredictionsofMalthusandhislatter-dayfollowersfailedbecauseeconomicgrowthhasbeenfaster,andpopulationgrowthslower,thantheyexpected.Malthuswouldhavebeensurprisedtofindthatfertilityhasdeclineddramaticallyinhigh-incomecountries.Globalpopulationgrowthiscurrentlyjustover1percent,whileglobaleco-nomicgrowthoverthelastthreedecadeshasaveragedabout3percentperyear(USCensusBureau2007;MaddisonandOrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.DevelopmentCentre2003:257–63).Thehumanspeciesisnotinanevolutionaryequilibrium.Ourcurrentreproductiveinstinctsandchild-rearingpreferencesarenotfitness-maximizing.Ittakesmanygen-erationsforbiologicalevolutiontoreshapeourbehavioraltendencies.Ifthepresentfitnesslandscaperemainedunchangedforalongtime,weshouldexpectHomosapienstoevolvenewdispositionsthatpromotefitnessundermodernconditions–suchasanaversiontocontraceptives,astrongdesireforbigfamilies,andperhapsadisinclina-tiontofitness-reducingchoicessuchasextendededucation.Memeticevolutionmightproducetheseresultsfaster.Somegroups,suchastheHutterites,anAnabaptistsect,havebeengrowingdespitehighdefectionratesbecauseoftheirextremelyhighfertil-ityrate–anaverageHutteritewomangivesbirthtoninechildren(LangandGohlen1985).TheHutteritesopposebirthcontrolandseehighfertilityasasignofdivineblessing.Bothinbiologicalandmemeticterms,humanevolutionisstilloccurring–probablyatanunusuallyfastpacesinceourhabitathaschangedsomuchinrecenttimes.Ifthehumansocio-economichabitatweremagicallyfrozeninitspresentstate,Malthuswouldeventuallybevindicated.NotallpessimistsfocusonenvironmentalproblemsorMalthusianscenarios.Manyothercatastrophescenarioshavebeenproposed.Ofthese,onecandistinguishanespe-ciallyseveresubset:existentialrisks(Bostrom2002b).AnexistentialdisasterisonewhichwouldeithercausetheextinctionofEarth-originatingintelligentlifeorpermanentlyanddrasticallycurtailitspotential.Suchaneventwouldcompletelyandirreversiblydestroyhumanity’sfuture.Existentialriskshavenotreceivedasmuchscholarlyattentionastheydeserve.Inrecentyears,therehavebeenthreeseriousbooksandonemajorpaperonthistopic.JohnLeslie,aphilosopher,putstheprobabilityofhumanityfailingtosurvivethenextfivecenturiesat30percent,partlybasedonthecontroversial“Doomsdayargument”(Leslie1996,Bostrom2002a).SirMartinRees,anastronomerandpresidentofBritain’sRoyalSociety,isevenmorepessimistic,thinkingtheoddsthatweshallsurvivethetwenty-firstcenturyarenobetterthan50percent(Rees2003).RichardPosner,aneminentAmericanlegalscholar,offersnonumericalestimatebutratestherisk“significant”(Posner2004).NickBostrom,inthepaperthatintroducedtheconceptofexistentialrisk,maintainedthatassigningaprobabilityoflessthan25percenttoexistentialdis-asterinthiscenturywouldbemisguided(Bostrom2002b).Itispossiblethatapub-licationbiasisresponsibleforthesealarmingopinions.Presumably,peoplewhothink552\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page553thefutureofhumanitythethreatsareseverearemorelikelytowritebooksonthetopic.Itisneverthelessunsettlingthatthosewhohavedoneresearchinthisareaseeminglyagreethatthereisaseriousriskthathumanity’sjourneywillcometoaprematureend.Thegreatestexistentialrisksarisefromhumanactivity.Ourspecieshassurvivedvolcanoeruptions,meteorimpactsandothernaturalhazardsfortensofthousandsofyears.Itseemsunlikelythatanyoftheseoldrisksshouldexterminateusinthenearfuture.Bycontrast,humancivilizationisintroducingmanynovelphenomenaintotheworld,rangingfromnuclearweaponstodesignerpathogenstohigh-energyparticlecolliders.Themostsevereexistentialrisksofthiscenturyderivefromexpectedtech-nologicaldevelopments.AdvancesinbiotechnologymightmakeitpossibletodesignnewvirusesthatcombinetheeasycontagionandmutabilityofinfluenzawiththelethalityofHIV.Molecularnanotechnologymightmakeitpossibletocreateweaponssystemsthatdwarfboththermonuclearbombsandbiowarfareagentsindestructive-ness(Drexler1985).Superintelligentmachinesmightbebuilt,andtheiractionscoulddeterminethefutureofhumanity–andwhetherweshallhaveone(Yudkowsky2007).Manyoftheexistentialrisksthatnowseemtobeamongthegreatestwereconceptual-izedonlyinrecentdecades,andtheremightwellbeothersthatwehavenotyetbecomeawareof.Thesametechnologiesthatposetheseriskswillalsoenableustoreducesomerisks.Biotechnologycanhelpusdevelopbetterdiagnostics,vaccinesandanti-viraldrugs.Molecularnanotechnologycouldofferevenstrongerprophylactics(Freitas1999).Superintelligentmachineswouldbethelastinventionthathumanbeingsneedtomake,sinceasuperintelligencewouldbydefinitionbefarmoreeffectivethanhumanbrainsinallintellectualendeavors,includingstrategicthinking,scientificanalysisandtechnologicalcreativity(Bostrom1998).Inadditiontocreatingandmitigatingrisks,thesepowerfultechnologicalcapabilitieswouldalsoaffectthehumanconditioninmanyotherways.Supposingweavoidexistentialdisasters,whatthenmightbecomeofhumanity?Lookingback,developmentssuchaslanguage,agricultureandperhapstheindustrialrevolutionmaybesaidtohavefundamentallychangedthehumancondition.Thereareatleastathousandtimesmoreofusnow;andwithcurrentworldaveragelifeexpect-ancyatsixty-sevenyearsweliveperhapsthreetimeslongerthanourPleistocenepredecessors.Thementallifeofhumanbeingshasbeentransformedbydevelop-mentssuchaslanguage,literacy,urbanization,divisionoflabor,industrialization,science,communications,transport,andmediatechnology.Whatdevelopmentscanweforeseethatwouldalterthehumanconditionatleastasprofoundlyasthesepasttransitions?Oneviewisthattherewillbenofundamentalchange.Manypeopleappeartoholdanimplicitlystaticconceptionofthehumancondition.Onsuchaconception,therewillsurelybechangesinpolitics,cultureandgadgetry,butthebasicparametersoflifeandhumannaturewillremainunchanged.Thestaticview,however,isimplausible.Itwouldimplythatwehaverecentlyarrivedatthefinalhumancondition,evenatatimewhenthingsseemtobechang-ingfasterthanever.Itwouldalsoimplyaradicalbreakwithseverallong-establishedtrends.Iftheworldeconomycontinuestogrowatthesamepaceasinthelasthalfcentury,thenby2050theworldwillbeseventimesricherthanitistoday.World553\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page554nickbostrompopulationispredictedtoincreasetojustover9billionin2050,soaveragewealthwouldalsoincreasedramatically(UnitedNationsPopulationDivision2004).Extrapolatingfurther,by2100theworldwouldbealmostfiftytimesricherthantoday.Asinglemodest-sizedcountrymightthenhaveasmuchwealthastheentirepresentworld.Overthecourseofhumanhistory,thedoublingtimeoftheworldeconomyhasbeendrasticallyreducedonseveraloccasions,suchasintheagriculturaltransitionandtheindustrialrevolution.Shouldanothersuchtransitionoccurinthiscentury,theworldeconomymightbeordersofseveralmagnitudeslargerbytheendofthecentury(Hanson2000).Anotherreasonforassigningalowprobabilitytothestaticviewisthatwecanforeseethatvariousspecifictechnologicaladvanceswillgivehumansimportantnewcapacities.Virtualrealityenvironmentswillconstituteanexpandingfractionofourexperience.Thecapabilityofrecording,surveillance,biometricsanddata-miningtechnologieswillincreasedramatically,makingitpossibletokeeptrackofwhatisgoingoninphysicalrealitytoanunprecedentedextent(Brin1998).Nanotechnologywillhavewide-rangingconsequencesformanufacturing,medicineandcomputing.Newinstitutionssuchaspredictionmarketsmightimprovethecapabilityofhumangroupstoforecastfuturedevelopments(Hanson1995).Theimpactsoftheseandothertech-nologicaldevelopmentsonthecharacterofhumanlivesaredifficulttopredict,butthattheywillhavesuchimpactsseemsasafebet.Historyshowsalong-termtrendtowardincreasingscalesofintegrationofhumansociety:fromtribes,tovillages,tocitystates,tokingdoms,nations,empires;and,morerecently,regionalorganizationssuchastheEuropeanUnion,andsomeverypartialandlimitedformsofglobalgovernance(Wright1999).Onepossibilityisthathuman-itywilleventuallyemergeasasingleton,aworld-orderwhereatthehighestlevelthereisonlyoneindependentagent(Bostrom2007).Asingletoncouldovercomeinternationalcoordinationproblemsthatnowplagueourspecies,suchaswars,armsraces,andfree-riderbehaviorresultinginunderproductionofglobalpublicgoods(Kaul1999).Itmightalsoincreasesomerisks.Inthepast,ifonecountryorcultureadoptedpoliciesthatstoppedgrowth,developmentwouldcontinueinothercountrieswhichwouldeventuallyattainsuchadvantagesthattheycouldeitherinvadethelaggardcountryorforceittoreform.Inasingleton,therewouldbenooutsidecom-petitor.Perhapsnewtechnologiesforsurveillanceandlawenforcementcouldalsomakeitimmunetointernalrevolt.Eventhedirectionofevolutioncouldbecontrolledbyasingleton(Bostrom2005).Amongthemostimportantpotentialdevelopmentsareonesthatwouldenableustoalterourbiologydirectlythroughtechnologicalmeans.Suchinterventionscouldaffectusmoreprofoundlythanmodificationofbeliefs,habits,cultureandeducation.Ifwelearntocontrolthebiochemicalprocessesofhumansenescence,healthylifespancouldberadicallyprolonged.Apersonwiththeage-specificmortalityofa20-year-oldwouldhavealifeexpectancyofaboutathousandyears.Theancientbuthithertomostlyfutilequestforhappinesscouldmeetwithsuccessifwedevelopsafeandeffectivemethodsofcontrollingthebraincircuitryresponsibleforsubjectivewellbeing(Pearce2004).Drugsandotherneurotechnologiescouldmakeitincreasinglyfeasibleforuserstoshapethemselvesintothekindofpeopletheywanttobe–theirpersonality,emotionalcharacter,mentalenergy,romanticattachmentsandmoralcharacter.554\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page555thefutureofhumanityCognitiveenhancementsmightdeepenourintellectuallives(BostromandOrd2006,BostromandSandberg2007).Thosewhobelievethatsuchdevelopmentswillnotoccurshouldconsiderwhethertheirskepticismisreallyaboutultimatefeasibilityormerelyabouttimescales.Someofthesetechnologieswillbedifficulttodevelop.Doesthatgiveusreasontothinkthattheywillneverbedeveloped?Noteveninfiftyyears?Twohundredyears?Tenthousandyears?Ifweavoidexistentialcatastrophe,humanitycouldhavealongfuture,anditwouldseemmyopictoassumethathumannaturewillnoteventuallybetechnolo-gicallytransformedintosomekindof“posthuman”nature(Bostrom2003b).Ifandwhenartificialintelligenceadvancestothepointwhereitmatchesthehumanmindingeneralreasoningabilities,superintelligenceislikelytofollowswiftlyfromfurtherimprovementsinsoftwareandhardware(Vinge1993,Bostrom1998).Thecreationofsuperintelligentmachineswouldbethemostmomentouseventinthehistoryofourspecies.Humanity’sremoterfuturemightbedominatedbyartificialminds,our“mindchildren”(Moravec1988).Itcouldbepossibleforbiologicalhumanbeingstobecomenon-biologicalby“uploading”theirmindstocomputers.Uploadingcouldbedonebygraduallyreplac-ingpartsofthebrainwithprostheticchips,or(morelikely)bycreatingadetailedthree-dimensionalmapoftheneuronalnetworkinaparticularbrainandemulatingthiscomputationalstructureonapowerfulcomputer.Ahumanuploadcouldhaveanindefinitelylonglifespanasitwouldnotbesubjecttobiologicalsenescence.Periodicbackupcopiescouldbecreatedforsecurity.Speed-upofthoughtprocesseswouldresultfromimplementingtheuploadonafastercomputer,soanuploadmight,forinstance,experienceayearofsubjectivetimeoverthecourseofonehour.Uploadscouldliveinvirtualrealityortheycouldusearoboticbodytointeractwiththephysicalworld.Sinceuploadscouldcreateanunlimitednumberofcopiesofthemselves,aMalthusiansituationcouldquicklyariseunlessreproductionwerelimited(Bostrom2005,Hanson1994).Itcouldalsobepossibletocreatevastnumbersofconsciouscomputer-simulatedpeoplewithexperiencessimilartothosetypicalofanearly-twenty-first-centuryhuman,raisingthepossibilitythatweourselvesmightnowbeinhabitingacomputersimula-tioncreatedbyaposthumancivilization.Importantcoherenceconstraintsontenableviewsaboutthefutureprospectsofourspecieshaverecentlybeenderivedfromthisconsideration.Theso-calledSimulationargumentpurportstoshowthateithernearlyallhuman-levelcivilizationsgoextinctbeforebecomingposthuman,orthereisastrongconvergenceamongposthumancivilizationssothatalmostnoneofthemisinterestedincreatingthiskindofancestorsimulation,orwearealmostcertainlylivinginacomputersimulation(Bostrom2003a).Withmachineintelligenceandothertechnologiessuchasadvancednanotechno-logy,spacecolonizationshouldbecomeeconomical.Suchtechnologywouldenableustoconstruct“vonNeumannprobes”–machineswiththecapabilityoftravelingtoaplanet,buildingamanufacturingbasethere,andlaunchingmultiplenewprobestocolonizeotherstarsandplanets(Tipler1981).Aspacecolonizationracecouldensue(Hanson1998).Overtime,theresourcesoftheentireaccessibleuniversemightbeturnedintosomekindofinfrastructure,perhapsanoptimalcomputingsubstrate(“computronium”).Viewedfromtheoutside,thisprocessmighttakeaverysimpleand555\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page556nickbostrompredictableform–asphereoftechnologicalstructure,centeredonitsEarthlyorigin,expandinguniformlyinalldirectionsatsomesignificantfractionofthespeedoflight(Moravec1999).Whathappensonthe“inside”ofthisstructure–whatkindsoflivesandexperiences(ifany)itwouldsustain–woulddependoninitialconditionsandthedynamicsshapingitstemporalevolution.Itisconceivable,therefore,thatthechoiceswemakeinthiscenturycouldhaveextensiveconsequences.ReferencesandFurtherReadingBostrom,N.(1998).“HowLongbeforeSuperintelligence?,”InternationalJournalofFuturesStudies,2.Bostrom,N.(2002a).AnthropicBias:ObservationSelectionEffectsinScienceandPhilosophy(NewYork:Routledge).Bostrom,N.(2002b).“ExistentialRisks:AnalyzingHumanExtinctionScenariosandRelatedHazards,”JournalofEvolutionandTechnology,9.Bostrom,N.(2003a).“AreYouLivinginaComputerSimulation?,”PhilosophicalQuarterly,53(211):243–55.Bostrom,N.(2003b).TheTranshumanistFAQ:v2.1.WorldTranshumanistAssociation.Availablefromhttp://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/Bostrom,N.(2005).“TheFutureofHumanEvolution,”inC.Tandy(ed.),DeathandAnti-Death(PaloAlto,Calif.:RiaUniversityPress).Bostrom,N.(2007).“WhatIsaSingleton?,”LinguisticandPhilosophicalInvestigations,forthcoming.Bostrom,N.andOrd,T.(2006).“TheReversalTest:EliminatingStatusQuoBiasinBioethics,”Ethics,116(4):656–80.Bostrom,N.andSandberg,A.(2007).“CognitiveEnhancement:Methods,Ethics,RegulatoryChallenges,”ScienceandEngineeringEthics,forthcoming.Brin,D.(1998).TheTransparentSociety(Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley).Drexler,K.E.(1985).EnginesofCreation:TheComingEraofNanotechnology(London:FourthEstate).Ehrlich,P.R.(1968).ThePopulationBomb(NewYork:BallantineBooks).Freitas,R.A.(1999).Nanomedicine(Austin,Tex.:LandesBioscience).Hanson,R.(1994).“WhatifUploadsComeFirst:TheCrackofaFutureDawn,”Extropy,6(2).Hanson,R.(1995).“CouldGamblingSaveScience?EncouraginganHonestConsensus,”SocialEpistemology,9(1):3–33.Hanson,R.(1998).“BurningtheCosmicCommons:EvolutionaryStrategiesforInterstellarColonization.”Availablefromhttp://hanson.gmu.edu/filluniv.pdfHanson,R.(2000).“Long-termGrowthasaSequenceofExponentialModes.”Workingmanuscript.Kaul,I.(1999).GlobalPublicGoods(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Kurzweil,R.(2005).TheSingularityIsNear:WhenHumansTranscendBiology(NewYork:Viking).Lang,H.andGohlen,R.(1985).“CompletedFertilityoftheHutterites:ARevision,”CurrentAnthropology,26(3):395.Leslie,J.(1996).TheEndoftheWorld:TheScienceandEthicsofHumanExtinction(London:Routledge).Maddison,A.andOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment,DevelopmentCentre(2003).TheWorldEconomy:HistoricalStatistics,DevelopmentCentreStudies(Paris:DevelopmentCentreoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment).Malthus,T.R.(1798).AnEssayonthePrincipleofPopulation(London:J.Johnson).Meadows,D.H.andClubofRome(1972).TheLimitstoGrowth:AReportfortheClubofRome’sProjectonthePredicamentofMankind(NewYork:UniverseBooks).556\n9781405146012_4_098.qxd2/4/0914:14Page557thefutureofhumanityMoravec,H.(1999).Robot:MereMachinetoTranscendentMind(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress).Moravec,H.P.(1988).MindChildren:TheFutureofRobotandHumanIntelligence(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress).Pearce,D.(2004).TheHedonisticImperative.Availablefromhttp://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htmPosner,R.(2004).Catastrophe(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Rees,M.(2003).OurFinalHour:AScientist’sWarning.HowTerror,Error,andEnvironmentalDisasterThreatenHumankind’sFutureinThisCentury–onEarthandBeyond(NewYork:BasicBooks).Tipler,F.(1981).“ExtraterrestrialBeingsDoNotExist,”QuarterlyJournaloftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety,21(267).UnitedNationsPopulationDivision(2004).“WorldPopulationProspects:The2004Revision,”PopulationDatabase.USCensusBureau(2007).TotalMidyearPopulationfortheWorld:1950–2006.Availablefromhttp://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.htmlVinge,V.(1993).“TheComingTechnologicalSingularity,”WholeEarthReview,Winterissue.Wright,R.(1999).Nonzero:TheLogicofHumanDestiny(NewYork:PantheonBooks).Yudkowsky,E.(2007).“ArtificialIntelligenceasaPositiveandNegativeFactorinGlobalRisk,”inN.BostromandM.Cirkovic(eds).GlobalCatastrophicRisks(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).557\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page558IndexPagenumberinitalicsrefertofigures;thoseinboldtotables.AccreditationBoardforEngineeringandappliedscience,160–2Technology(ABET),112,114,115Arctic,546–8,549acidrain,281Arendt,Hannah,215actor-networktheory(ANT),167,375–7Aristotle,95–6,100,131,165,313,430Africa,15,204,534armies,13–15,43–6agriculturaltechnologies,24,32–3,40,artifacts,100–3,113,165–9,181,186–7,286–8,400,526223,374–80andenvironment,238–9,384–5artificialintelligence,555wet-field,11,37Ashby,Ross,119agricultureassemblyline,26,335definitionsandhistory,285–6astronomers,25globalizationof,385astronomy,25,34Akrich,Marilyn,376instrument’srolein,52–3,57–8,59,al-Jazari,3595–6,97,207algorithm,216AtomsforPeace,106–7alienation,298–9automation,229–30alternativemodernity,153automatism,373alternativescenariomethodology,491–3automobiledependence,290–1AmericanNationalAcademyofSciencesautomobiles,8,150,290–1,305,335(NAS),501AmericanOfficeofTechnologyAssessmentBacon,Francis,52,131,467(OTA),488Baird,D.,73“theAmericanSystemofManufacture”,26Bangladesh,330–1analyticethics,187banking,24,335analyticphilosophy,133–4,184–8Barnes,Barry,10,75Anarchyparadigm,360Baruch,Bernard,462Angola,15Basalla,G.,166animal-poweredagriculture,286BaselActionNetwork,15animals,403,546–8Bateson,Gregory,119Annan,Kofi,540Baudrillard,Jean,157–8Antarctica,549Beard,Charles,10anthropocentrism,264,434–5Beauchamp,Tom,457anti-aircraftpredictor,118,119,154Beer,Stafford,119,120,121anti-essentialism,10BeingandTime(Heidegger),169,176,180anti-nuclearmovements,344beingofentities,198,199antibiotics,305Benz,Carl,292558ACompaniontothePhilosophyofTechnologyEditedbyJ.K.B.Olsen,S.A.PedersenandV.F.Hendricks©2009BlackwellPublishingLtd.ISBN:978-1-405-14601-2\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page559indexBerger,P.L.andT.Luckmann,88cameras,97,98Bergson,Henri,211Canada,426“BetterRedthanExpert”,13,29CanadianDeuteriumUraniumReactorBhagat,R.S.,19(CANDU),107bicycles,63,90,182,373capitalism,300,333–7,348Bigelow,Jacob,9carbon-basedfuels,517–18Bijker,Wiebe,92,430carbondioxide,270,271,272–3,276,BillandMelindaGatesFoundation,538277–9,291bioengineering,392Carothers,Wallace,125bioethics,397–400seealsomedicalethicsCarré,F.,276Bioethics(Potter),397Cartwright,Nancy,81biology,53,99,167Cassirer,Ernst,142,144–5biomaterials,394–5CastleBravo,106biomedicalengineering,392–6catastrophetheory,512seealsomedicalethicscatastrophes,211–13,495biomedicalimaging,395cavalry,44–5biotechnologies,53,101,102,287,400cellphones,8,330–1seealsogeneticengineeringcelltheory,96casestudies,526–8,527cellularengineering,393andfutureofhumanity,554–5cementproduction,291nano-bioconvergence,508–9CFCs(chlorofluorocarbons),276–7,282,public–privatepartnerships(PPPs),542546,548socialissuesof,524–6,528–9Chaosparadigm,360,361bioticartifacts,101–3chariotarmies,13,44BoiledFrogSyndrome,292chemicalindustry,123–6books,24chemicals,546–9Borgmann,Albert,156,169,379–81chemists,26Bostrom,Nick,552Childress,James,457boundary-transgressions,155China,347boundary-work,266–8Btcotton,524,526bourgeoisie,334historyandpolitics,347,348BowlingforColumbine(Moore),158historyoftechnology,11,12–13,21,bows,13,4428–30,32,34,37,39Boyle,Robert,63Internetcensorship,332brainimaging,395managementoftechnology(MOT),brain,scienceof,119318–19,323brainstormseminars,491modernization,349–50,351Bray,Francesca,12–13sunspotactivity,59Broadberry,S.N.,505text-messagingin,330Brodie,Bernard,462,464ChinaAssociationforManagementofbrokerpractice,76Technology(CAMOT),319Brown,Kenneth,503Christianfundamentalists,357Btcrops,524,526Christianity,467–8Bucciarelli,L.L.,114ChuangTzu,467Buddhism,471Churchill’sprinciple,380“BuddhistEconomics”(Schumacher),471cities,24,293builtenvironment,289–93citizens,450–1,528–9Bunge,Mario,70,78,185civilnuclearpower,106–9,344businessexecutives,413civilizations,360–2Clark,Andy,155,323calendars,57CleanDevelopmentMechanism(CDM),cameraobscura,205,206267–8559\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page560indexclimatechangeseeglobalwarmingCriticalTheoryofTechnology(Feenberg),146clock-making,11,38–9CritiqueofPureReason(Kant),196cloning,526,528croprotationalsystem,286–7cloudchamber,282culturallagtheory,368–70Clynes,Manfred,154culturalrelativism,312CO2seecarbondioxideculture,10–11,298–9,311–15,330–2cognitivecategories,196–7,200nCummins,Robert,167Cohen,B.L.,486cyberethics,406–10,460,477–9ColdWar,309,356,359–60,361cyberlibertarians,354collectivity,72cybernetics,118–21,154Collingridge,David,372Cybernetics(Wiener),118ColloquyofMobiles(Pask),121cyborgs,154–6,168,378,395,396commentarytraditions,182communicationtechnologies,228Daddario,EmilioQ.,488seealsoinformationtechnologiesDaguerre,Louis,206,208ncompasses,12Daoists,467CompendiumofTheoryandUsefulPracticeDarwin,Charles,241,242intheMechanicalArts(al-Jazari),Daubertv.MerrellDowPharmaceuticals,20334–5DDT,546competentperformance,172–4de-domestication,266competitivenessv.sustainability,345Dean,C.C.andJ.LeMaster,19computers,15democracy,149,297,345–6,348,450–1computation,229,230deontology,436ethics,406–10,460,477–9Derrida,Jacques,181andinformation,228,229–30Descartes,René,160,214logicalmalleability,406descriptions,theoryof,376–81professionals,407designerintent,181–2roleindesign,113designing,166,339,477–9seealsoroleinimagingtechnologies,207engineeringdesignroleinscience,97–8,283determinism,371Comte,Auguste,62,132developmentaidpolicy(DAP),416,418–20ConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationdevelopmentcooperation(DC),416,417–18(CAFO),386development,definitionsof,416–17TheConceptofMind(Ryle),73Dewey,John,138–9,175–8,368,369conceptualanalysis,478,479diagnosticimaging,395consciousness,144–5digitaldivide,346,409consequentialism,436Dilthey,Wilhelm,136,180constructionindustry,291dioxins,546–8consumerism,412–14Dipert,Randall,166consumption,306,343domestication,58,101,102,286context-dependentness,72dramatictheories,374–6Continentalphilosophy,133–4Drexler,Eric,504–5Contractor,F.J.andT.Sagafi-Nejad.,19Dreyfus,Hubert,330Control-VolumeAnalysis,67–8drugs,528convergenceseminars,492–3DuPontcorporation,125convergenttechnologies,525,525dualism,266–7convergingtechnologies,508–10Duhem–Quineproblem,79corestates,361Dupuy,Jean-Pierre,512CourseinGeneralLinguistics(Saussure),142creativity,116e-commerce,326criticaltheoriesoftechnology,146–7e-democracy,450–1Feenberg’sversion,147–53ÉcolePolytechnique,9560\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page561indexecologicalfootprint,289environmentalsciences,280–3ecologicalriskassessment,500epistemicuncertainty,512,513ecologism,435equalopportunities,340,419–20ecology,241–4Eratosthenes,58economicexperimentation,353essentialists,10economicgrowthethics-technologyinteractions,92,367,andenergyconsumption,423374–6andworldpopulation,551–2,553–4Ethiqueindustrielle(Didieretal.),426EconomicNotebooks(Marx),28Eurocentrism,52economicpower,309Europe,9,25,45–6,342–6,348,350ecotoxicology,500–1Ewald,François,497Edison,Thomas,206existentialrisks,552–3Edwards,J.D.,520,521expectationvalues,486Ehrlich,PaulR.,397,551expertise,202–4eideticintuition,196,200nexplicitknowledge,20,21Einstein,Albert,369,474exteriorization,313Einstein’sClocks,Poincaré’sMaps(Galison),59electromagneticspectrum(EMS),206,207factoryfarming,386ElementsofTechnology(Bigelow),9Fahey,David,548–9Ellul,Jacques,176,371,373,468farming,285–6,384–6Elvin,Mark,30,245nFaulkner,W.,72,338emails,8,449,450Feenberg,Andrew,64,178empiricalinvestigation,478,479Ferguson,E.S.,73energy,300–1seealsooilfertilizers,124,239,286accessto,541fetus,445,446density,517feudalism,13–14,45ethics,422–5fiberoptics,326forecast,517–21Fichte,JohannGottlieb,137andgeopolitics,362Field,Alexander,503source,25financialmarkets,327Engishiki,37firearms,11,14,38,45engineeringdesign,71–2,112–13,114–16,fission,104–5186,187,225Fleck,Ludwik,86engineeringethics,426–31flicker,120,121engineeringpractice,68–9,428–9floodsanddroughts,271engineeringscience,66–8,72–3Florman,Samuel,371,430engineers,66–9,70,427–8,429–31,foodethics,439–41474–6foodproduction,287,439–41,542“enlighteneddoomsaying”,211–13Fordautomobile,8,26Enlightenment,26Ford,Henry,335Enough(McKibben),331Fordism,335,337,343environment-technologyrelation,148,433formalbias,152seealsosustainabilityv.diversityForman,Paul,51inagriculture,238–41,384–6fossilfuels,235,270,272,285–6,287,425,ethicalissues,433–7517,521ingeneticengineering,403–4Foucault,Michel,199andhumanevolution,241–4four-principlesapproach,457inmilitary–industrialdevelopment,237–8Fox-Keller,Evelyn,53inminingandmanufacturing,236–7Fox,Warwick,403opposition,235–6TheFrameworkConventiononClimateEnvironmentalImpactAssessment,292Change(FCCC),272–3environmentalprotectionpolicies,248France,344,426,427561\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page562indexFrankfurtSchool,147,148,189–90internationalagreements,272–3freedomofexpression,452,453andnuclearenergy,109Frevola,JrA.L.,321–2andpolitics,203Friedman,Batya,477,478scienceof,270–1Frischtak,C.,20technologiestoreduce,279Fuchs,Klaus,105globalization,299–300,325–8,385,458,functiontheory,167503functionaldescription,114GoldenRice,542functionalfood,440Google,509fundamentalrights,420Gorasin,Bangladesh,331futuregenerations,442–4gradualization,266futuresociety,505–6graindomestication,58futurists,511–12,514GreatDepression,336GreaterLondon,289Galileo,53,59,95–6,97,135,206Greece,12Galileo(probe),97GreenRevolution,331,384–5Gehlen,Arnold,168greenhousegases,270,271,289,520Geller,H.,519–20,520–1Griesemer,James,267gender,301–2,338–40GroupforLogicandFormalSemantics,159genetherapy,446–7,528guweijinyong;yangweizhongyong,349–50genes,523GulfWar,158genethics,445–7seealsomedicalethicsTheGulfWarDidNotTakePlace(Baudrillard),geneticengineering,240,386,393,158398–400,402–5,445–7gunpowder,12,28,34–5geneticpharmacology,446–7weapons,11,14,38,45geneticpollution,403–4Gusterson,Hugh,106geneticallymodifiedcrops,402Gutenberg,Johannes,24geneticallymodified(GM)foods,386,440geneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs),400,H-bomb,105–6,107–8402,403–4Haber–Boschprocess,124,125,287geneticsseegenethicsHabermas,Jürgen,61,62–4,177,190genomics,523,540–1Hacker,Bart,13–14geocentrictheory,95–6hackerculture,354geopolitics,300–1,359–62Hacking,Ian,81GermanyHaeckel,Ernst,241,242anti-nuclearmovements,344HanaokaSeisho,40chemicalindustry,26,124Hansson,SvenOve,512economyrecovery,342Haraway,Donna,154–5,168asfirstwelfarestate,337Hardin,Garrett,397Maglevtechnology,323HCFCs(hydrochlofluorocarbons),276“returntonature”,132healthriskanalysis,500germlineengineering,393,399heat-engines,25Gerschenkron,Alexander,342heatwave,271Gettier,Edmund,73Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich,197Girardet,Herbert,289Heidegger,Martin,51–2,120,136,162,Glick,Thomas,12169,176,180,195,197–9,199n,GlobalEnvironmentalScience,282200n,201n,298globalpollution,270hepatitisBvaccine,541globalwarming,235,244,520,541hermeneutics,136,180–3actionandcosts,273–4HFCs(Hydrofluorocarbons),277andenergyconsumption,423Higginbotham,W.,475impactsof,271–2,548–9high-technology,18562\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page563indexHilpinen,Risto,165–6ImperativeofResponsibility(Jonas),293,397Hinduism,471implants,394–5HippocraticOath,455,456invitrofertilization,398historiansoftechnology,7,8,13indexicaltechnologies,143“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicCrisis”India(White),468agriculture,32,33historyoftechnology(bodyofwork),89astronomy,12,34Hobbes,Thomas,63,137economy,350Hodgson,P.E.,519historyandpolitics,347,348,351Hofmann,J.,339nuclearinterest,107Homans,George,504technicaluniversities,9Horgan,John,503indigenousculture,204horse-drawnchariot,44individualization,497–8horses,13,14,44–5,286,287Indonesia,541Houghton,John,274industrialrevolutions,99–100,334–5,342,Houkes,W.,73348,368,502Hubbert,M.K.,518–19infantry,44HubbleSpaceTelescope,97,207information,228–31,408,503–4Hughes,Thomas,8,218,219,220informationage,228,503–4humanbeingsinformationtechnologies,10,227–31,andartifacts,168–9,374–80,509299–300,309,337condition,215–16asconvergingtechnologies,508–9evolutionof,242–4ethicalissues,406–10,460,477–9foodchain,286andfutureofhumanity,555futureof,551–6andglobalization,325–7population,285,288human-computerinteraction,509andsystems,223–5andlabor,504humandevelopment,416inlegalsystems,449–51humandonors,394innanotechnologies,505humanembryonictissue,394women’srolein,339humanenhancement,393–6,447,460informedconsent,524humanenvironments,236,241,242–3infosphere,230humanintelligence,61infraredspectroscopy,126humannature,148,155,553,555inherentsafety,490humanrights,292–3,331–2,420inherentlypoliticaltechnologies,374–5Huntington,S.P.,359–61,498instrumentalrationality,115–16,189,190Husserl,Edmund,135,195,196,197,198,InstrumentalRealism(Ihde),10199n,200ninstrumentalism,146,177,371,374hybridization,101,102instrumentalization,64,150–2instruments,79–82,95–8,166IbnKhaldun,35–6inastronomy,52–3,57–8,59,95–6,iconictechnologies,14397,207ideasofprogress,297,303–6inbiology,53identity-affectinggeneticengineering,inchemistry,126445–6intellectualproperty,328,410,460identity-preservinggeneticengineering,intensivefarming,384–5,386446–7InteracademyCouncil,540Ihde,Don,135,136,168,169,178,IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange200n–1n,377–8(IPCC),272‘ilmal-miqat,34intermediatetechnologies,344images,157–8InternationalAssociationforManagementofimagingtechnologies,205–8Technology(IAMOT),318563\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page564indexInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementKahn,P.,477,478Center(CIMMYT),541–2Kaijser,Arne,221InternetKaiser,M.,404censorship,332,409Kant,Immanuel,137,196–7connections,15Kapp,Ernst,168cyberlibertarians,354Kedia,B.L.andR.S.Bhagat,19andglobalization,326Kelly,Kevin,216knowledgeandexperience,203–4Khalil,T.,316,317,318inlegalsystems,449–51KharagpurInstituteofTechnology,9masscommunication,453–4Kitcher,Philip,399privacyissues,408Kline,Nathan,154virtualcommunities,158,453Kline,Ronald,10women’suseof,339know-how,19interpretiveflexibility,90“knowing-how”typeknowledge,73intrinsicvalue,402–3KnowledgeandHumanInterests(Habermas),intuition,facultyof,19662Inuits,546–8knowledgetransfer,300,323,329–32TheInventionofModernScience(Stengers),53Korea,11Iran,362Koyré,Alexandre,71Iraq,309–10Kurzweil,Ray,551irontechnology,44KyotoProtocol,273,520irrigation,12,32–3,34,239,240,243,246n,467laborseeworkforceIslamicCivilization,12,32–6,361–2labormovement,335–6Italy,344,427laboratories,26iusadbellum,463Lackey,DouglasP.,106iusaddissuasionem,464Lagos,15iusinbello,463Laherrère,J.H.,521iusindissuasione,464landcultivation,285–6landscapepainting,157James,William,138,175Langmuir,Irving,125Japanlanguage,141,143–4,181,311–12,313,carproduction,26314–15seealsowritingsystemsengineeringethics,427LargeTechnicalSystems(LTS),218–22,historyoftechnology,11–12,37–42243–4seealsosociotechnicalsystemsmodernization,349latecapitalism,337pagersandcellphones,8Latour,Bruno,168,181,375–6,377,378,politicsandeconomy,347379transportationsystem,533Laudan,R.,70,71Jarvie,Ian,185Law,John,430Jaspers,Karl,168,372lawofproximity,195–6JiangnanArsenal,13,29laws,203,231Joe-4test,105Layton,E.T.,71Johas,Hans,372leadership,317Johnson,LyndonB.,336leanproduction,26,326–7,337Jonas,Hans,369,397Leblanc,Nicolas,124Jupiter,observationsof,96,97–8Leeuwenhoek,Antonievan(checkDutch“justintime”production,326–7,337name),96“justwar”tradition,462–3legaleducation/research,450justice/injustice,297,298legalpractitioners,449–51justifieddeterrence,464–5legaltechnology,449–51“justifiedtruebelief”,73LeMaster,J.,19564\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page565indexLeontief,Wassily,504Megantz,B.,18Leroi-Gourhan,André,298–9,312,313,Meijitechnologies,11–12,41314–15Mendelianhybridization,101,102Leslie,John,552mercantilism,333liberalism,353–4Merleau-Ponty,Maurice,135lightwaterreactors(LWRs),107metalworking,11,37,38LimitstoGrowth(ClubofRome),551metaphysics,214–17LisbonEuropeanCouncilsummit,345meteorology,282–3Little,ArthurD.,126Mexico,526,541TheLivingBrain(Walter),120Michelangelo,308London,289seealsoGreaterLondonmicro-arrays,528LongIslandbridges,168,375Micrographia(Hooke),96Lovelance,Ada,339microprocessors,326Lovelock,James,109microscopes,96–7,206,282luckegalitarianism,447Microsoft,331–2Luckmann,T.,88migrants,33–4Luxembourg,15militaryinstitutions,13–15,43–6Lyotard,Jean-François,265militarypower,309militarytechnologies,11,13–14,27,43–6,Maastrichttreaty,210237–8,299,356,460Mach,Ernst,62MillenniumDeclaration,538Macyconferenceseries,118MillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),538,Maglev(magneticlevitation),323539,540–3MagneticResonanceImaging(MRI),207mining,236–7Maidique,M.A.andA.L.Frevola,321–2Mitcham,Carl,165MakingSenseofLife(Fox-Keller),53Mitterrand,François,345Malthus,Thomas,397,551–2,553–4Mo-Tzu,205managementoftechnology(MOT),301,mobilephones,8,330–1316–19,321–3ModelTautomobile,8Mannheim,Karl,84modelingseesimulationmanufacturingandenvironment,236–7Moguls,14Marcuse,Herbert,147,148molecularmanufacturing,460Marx,Karl,28,30,132,311,334money,368Marxism,136–7,139,140,147–8Monmonier,M.,283Maskus,K.E.,19monoculturecrops,385MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology(MIT),Moon,observationsof,57,95–69Moor,Jim,406,407Massé,Pierre,212MoshoeshoeII,204materialhermeneutics,182–3motivation,317materiality,141multiculturalstates,360McCulloch,Warren,118multiplesafetybarriers,490McKibben,Bill,156,331Muqaddimah(IbnKhaldun),35means–endsreasoning,114Musicolour,120measurement,scienceof,34muskets,11media,158,452–4Muste,A.J.,474mediapractitioners,452–3mediation,150,153,376–8Nagashino,battleof,11medicalethics,203,455–8seealsoNano-Bio-Info-Cogno(NBIC)convergence,biomedicalengineering;genethics215,216MedicalEthics(Percival),456nanoethics,459–60medicalobjectivity,203nanoparticletoxicity,459MegaCities,289–90nanoscience,98,504–5565\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page566indexnanoScienceandTechnologyStudies(nSTS),oath,314511–14objectiveindeterminacy,512–13nanotechnologies,441,459–60,489,observations,81504–5,508–9,511–14andinstruments,52–3,57–8,59,95–8nanotechnologyage,504–5theory-laden,79,80–1nanotoxicology,513Ogburn,WilliamFielding,368–9Narayanan,V.K.,322–3oil,344,359,361–2,518–19,521NationalResearchCouncil(NRC),316–17Oldenziel,Ruth,9NationalScienceFoundation(NSF),426OneUnifiedWorldparadigm,360nationalism,349,351oneworldcommunity,263–4NativeAmericans,46OneWorld(Singer),263–4NaturalBornCyborgs(Clark),155ontotheology,198,199naturalevolution,100–1,203,241–2operativetheories,185naturalismseesocialconstructivismOrdinarybicycles,90naturallyoccurringbeings,100–1ordinarylanguagephilosophy,139,140navigation,25,34organ-projection,145NBICtechnologies,508–10organism,142,177,242–3seealsocyborgsNearEast,43organizationoftheproduction,19,20Needham,Joseph,28,29,30,52orgware,373Needhamquestions,12,13,28,30Ottomans,14neo-Marxism,137OwensLake,292NeolithicRevolution,285,286,502ozonedepletion,546,548–9Netherlands,25,427neuralengineering,396pagers,8neutrality,62–3paper,32,38NewDealprograms,336,356participatoryTechnologyAssessment(pTA),NewDelhi,424492–3NewExperimentalism,79–82Pask,Gordon,120NewYork,291patents,25NewYorkCity,289,292peakoilproduction,518–19,521Newcomen,Thomas,25Pearson,Ian,155Newton,Isaac,53Peirce,CharlesS.,138,142,143,175Nielsen,Keld,14performativeview,10–11Nissenbaum,H.,478–9persistentorganicpollutants(POPs),546–8nitrogenfertilizers,124,286personaltravel,534–5nomologicalmachine,81pesticides,286,384,385,440,524,525,non-propositionality,73526,548Nonaka,I.andH.Takeuchi,21phenomenology,135–6,139,169,195–7,noria,12,32–3197–9,377–8NorskHydro,277–8Phenomenology(Hegel),197NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO),phenomenon,80344philosophersofscience,54–5,131NorwegianInstituteofTechnology(SINTEF),philosophersoftechnology,7,55–6,277133–9NovumOrganum(Bacon),28PhilosophyofSymbolicForms(Cassirer),nuclearenergy,61,64,106–9,344,519142,144–5nuclearfear,106,107–8philosophyoftechnologynuclearreactors,490classicalcontributions,131–2NuclearRenaissance(Nuttall),107lackofdevelopment,132–3nucleartechnologies,97,104–9,305,344overview,55nuclearweapons,305,344,369,462,462–5sharedfeaturesof,139–40nylon,125varietyofapproaches,133–9,162–3566\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page567indexphonelines,15productionphosphorus,123in19thcentury,26photography,97,206–7,208ninMiddleAges,24physics,54,104–5organizationof,19,20Pinch,T.andW.Bijker,91–2ProjectPlowshare,283Pinter,Harold,367–8,378–9projectedtime,211–13Plato,131,205,227proletariat,334plows,286propertyrights,536Polanyi,M.,20prophecy,212politics,92–3,148–9,203,250,prosperity,502,513–14297–302prostheses,394–5polychlorinatedbiphenyls(PCBs),546–8TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalismpolyethylene,125(Weber),467polytechnics,9Psychotherapy(Schofield),504Popper,Karl,61,79,214public–privatepartnerships(PPPs),542population,285,288,289–90,417–18,purediscounting,442–3444,551–2purposiverationality,189,190PopulationBomb(Ehrlich),551Porter,M.E.,321qanat,12,32–3Portugal,25,427“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology”positivism,54,61–4,79,139(Heidegger),51–2Posner,Richard,552post-normalscience,265Rangaku(Dutch-learning),40post-positivists,134–5RatioClub,118posthumanfuture,155–6rationalityoftechnology,189–92Potter,VanRensalaer,397Rawls,John,419power,299,308–10,311RealAmericanEthics(Borgmann),379practicalchemistry,123recordingtechnologies,227–8practicalsciences,76Rees,Martin,552pragmatism,138–9,140,175–8,Rees,William,289266–8refrigerants,276–9precautionaryappraisalprocess,253,refrigerationmachine,276254,255rehabilitationengineering,394–5precautionaryprinciple,397Rein,M.,268background,248–9,272religion,93,203,466–72,469,510criticaldebate,210–11,249–51TheReligionofTechnology(Noble),468practicalimplications,251–5,429Renaissance,24–5precision,inproduction,26renewableenergy,517,519–20,541Price,D.J.deSolla,75replaceabilityargument,475–6primaryenergy,517replication,86–7primaryinstrumentalization,64,150,151ReportersWithoutBorders,332primaryprevention,490RepugnantConclusion,444principleofassistance,419researchanddevelopmentprincipleofdifference,419inbiomedicalengineering,392–3ThePrinciplesofScientificManagementEuropeancollaboration,345(Taylor),335expenditure,20printing,11,12,24,28,227inJapan,42ThePrismandthePendulum(Crease),58laboratoriesinvented,26privacy,408,459–60innanotechnologies,460probabilisticriskanalysis(PRA),486,487,andtechnologystrategy,321491,500inUS,27,356,357procreation,443inwelfarestate,336–7567\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page568indexResearchinPhilosophyandTechnologySchwann,Theodor,96(journal),7scienceresourceconsumption,292distinctionfromtechnologies,192,Rex,Markus,548192n–4nRichardson,Brook,332andengineeringscience,66–9,72–3rifleproduction,26andinstrumentsseeinstrumentsRiken(InstituteforPhysicalandChemicalinterpretationsof,54–5,185Research),41post-normalscience,265RioDeclaration,248,272,273primacy,51,52,160–1Rip,A.,75–6andreligion,203riskanalysis,483,486–8,489,493,andtruth,303–4500–1ScienceinAction(Latour),10,15nriskassessment,250–5,501TheScienceoftheExperienceofConsciousnessrisk-benefitanalysis,491,501,523–5(Hegel)seePhenomenology(Hegel)riskcommunication,501science,technologyandsociety(STS)studies,riskcultures,49889,373–4riskmanagement,501TheSciencesoftheArtificial(Simon),185riskperception,501science–technologyinterplay,73–6,161–2,riskreligions,498191–2seealsotechnosciencerisksociety,496scientificchange,95–8risks,483–6,495,496–8,512,513–14scientificchemistry,123–6ritualforms,313–14scientificconsilience,509–10ritualinstruments,470scientificknowledge,78,84–7,88rivers,240scientificmanagement,335road-transportsystem,224,225,226scientificrevolution,24robots,26scientism,61Roentgen,Wilhelm,206scientists,26–7,66–9,474–6Romantictradition,132,133sealevelrise,271Roosevelt,FranklinD.,336,356secondindustrialrevolution,334–5,348Rosen,C.M.,245n–6nsecondaryenergy,517Rosenberg,N.andC.Frischtak,20secondaryinstrumentalization,64,150,151Rosenbloom,R.S.,322secondaryprevention,490Rotblat,Joseph,105security,408–9,495–7running,156SeinundZeit(Heidegger)seeBeingandTimeRyle,Gilbert,185(Heidegger)self-augmentation,373sacrifice,314self-complexification,217safetyengineering,490–1self-replication,217Sagafi-Nejad,T.,19“self-strengthening”,12,14,28–9Saint-Simon,Henride,132semiotics,141–5SanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresSen,Amartya,420Agreement(SPS),328sentientism,435Saussure,Ferdinandde,142,143–4sericulture,40scenario-basedplanning,491–3Serres,M.,237Schatzberg,Eric,10serviceindustries,504Schleiden,MithiasJacob,96shadowtheater,205Schleiermacher,Friedrich,136,180ShanghaiAutomobile,323Schofield,William,504Shanklin,Jonathan,549Schollnberger,W.E.,520ShanthaBiotechnics,541Schön,Donald,173,267,268SHECCOTechnology,277–9Schumacher,Fritz,344Shell,491,492Schummer,Joachim,514Shindell,Drew,548568\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page569indexships,25structuraldescription,114shokuninzushiki-e,37TheStructureofScientificRevolutions(Kuhn),Sideriusnuntius(Galileo),9586signs,141,143Styrofoamcups,330SilentSpring(Carson),546substantivism,146,185,371,374silk-reeling,40sunspotactivity,59Simmel,Georg,368superintelligence,555Simon,H.A.,112,114surplusvalue,334simulation,157,158–9,208,283,555sustainabilityv.competitiveness,345Singer,Peter,263–4sustainabilityv.diversity,263–8single-worldcommunity,263–4,554sustainablecities,293Sino-JapaneseWars,348,349sustainabledevelopment,416–17,424,425Skolimowski,Henry,185symbolictechnologies,143Smart,Ninian,469syntheticindustry,124,125Snow,C.P.,104system-builders,219–20TheSocialConstructionofTechnologysystematization,150,153(PinchandBijker),182systems,27,143–4,223seealsoLargesocialconstructionoftechnology(SCOT),TechnicalSystems(LTS);sociotechnical88–93,137,167,373–4seealsosystemstechnologicaldeterminismsocialconstructionists,134,137tacitknowledge,19,20–1socialconstructivism,137–8,140Taft–Hartleylaw(1947),427socialconstructivists,63,79,88,134,152,Takeuchi,H.,21192Taylor,Frederick,335SocialDemocracy,343technicalanalysis,478,479SocialHistoryofAmericanTechnology(Cowan),TechnicalBarrierstoTrade(TBT)Agreement,10328socialinstitutions,313–15technicalcodes,151,152socialscienceofnature,513technicalpractitioners,172–4socialsolidarity,343techniques,19,20society,167–8,221–2technocracy,61–2sociologyofscientificknowledge(SSK),84–7,technologicaldeterminism,7,13,89seealso88,89socialconstructionoftechnology(SCOT)sociotechnicalsystems,223–6seealsoLargetechnologicalecology,245n–6nTechnicalSystems(LTS)technologicalframe,91–2Socrates,131technologicalknowledge,19,20–1SOCRATESprogram,427characteristics,72–3Sony,42definitionsof,70,78–9SovietUnion,105,106,309,344,350lackofinterestin,70–1spacecolonization,555–6andreligion,470–1Spain,427spreadbyprintedbooks,24SS-20missiles,344typesof,71–2stabilization,91technologicalprogress,304–6stableandreproducibletechnologies,63–4technologicalrationality,189–92Star,SusanLeigh,267technologicalrelativity,300,329Staudenmaier,J.M.,71technologiessteamengines,25asappliedscience,160–2stemcells,526,528Chineseinterpretations,30Stengers,Esabel,53definitionsof,8–10,18–21,99,160–2,Stern,Nicholas,274185stonerings,57–8historyof,99–100“thestrongprogramme”,85Islamicinterpretation,35569\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page570indexTechnologyandCulture(journal),7,185Trojangenescenario,404TechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporarytruth,67,72,303–4Life(Borgmann),380tuxedofallacy,486–7“TechnologyandWar”,13–14TwoWorldsparadigm,360technologyappraisal,250–5,501typhoidfever,541technologyassessment,483,488–9technologymanagement,301,316–19,Uexküll,Jakobvon,142321–3UKRoyalCommissionforEnvironmentalTechnologyManagement:DevelopingandPollution,108ImplementingEffectiveLicensingProgramsUNConferenceonTradeandDevelopment(Megantz),18(UNCTAD),19technologystrategies,321–3UNMillenniumProject,538,540technologytransfer,300,323,329–32uncertainty,210–11,484technology–environmentrelationseedealingwith,489–93environment-technologyrelationoffuturetechnologies,488–9technoscience,10,15n,51,53,57–9,78understanding,facultyof,196telephones,489UnitedKingdom,108–9,118,119,121,telescopes,52–3,59,95–6,97,206342,535television,374UnitedNationsWorldCommissiononTeller,Edward,283EnvironmentandDevelopment1987,Tenner,Edward,181–2362text-messaging,330UnitedStatestextualproduction,181Btcrops,526ThePsychologyofNuclearProliferationcementproduction,291(Hymans),107chemicaluse,546“TheReflexArcConceptinPsychology”civilnuclearpowerdevelopment,(Dewey),175106,107theorychange,95–8constitutionalsystem,354–5ThirdWorldcountries,404–5asacorestate,362Thompson,Dennis,429cybernetics,118TianGongKaiWu(DevelopmentoftheWorksemergentinstitutesoftechnology,9ofNature),39engineeringethics,426time-discounting,442,443federalpatronage,356–7time-keepingsystem,11–12,34greenhousegasemissions,289tissueengineering,394liberalism,353–4Toffler,Alvin,370managementoftechnology(MOT),Tokugawatechnologies,11,39–41317–18,321tomography,207militarytechnologies,27,309,356tools,175,176–7nanoconferences,508,509topsoilerosion,385nucleartests,105–6toxicdiesel,291oilforecast,518toxicology,513statusandstakesofengineers,427Trade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertytransportationsystem,533,535(TRIPs)Agreement,328welfarecapitalism,336tradeunions,336,343–4unpredictability,305–6tradition-basedaction,189uranium-235,104transgenicorganisms,400,402,403–4urbansprawl,290transgressedboundaries,155USNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH),356TransportInvestmentandEconomicusersoftechnologies,8–9,70Development(Fromm),534transportationsystem,224,225,226,424,vaccines,528,541532–6validity,63570\n9781405146012_5_ind.qxd2/4/0914:15Page571indexvaluerationality,189Westernization,349,351value-sensitivedesign(VSD),477–9wet-fieldagriculture,11,37vandenHoven,M.J.,478,479WhatEngineersKnowandHowTheyKnowItVDIphasediagram,115(Vincenti),186Veblen,Thorstein,10wheat,286Verbeek,Peter-Paul,178,377,White,LynnJr.,14,468378Whitworth,Joseph,26verumfactum,214–15Wiener,Norbert,118–19,154Vico,Giambattista,137,214Wikipedia,203–4videogames,158–9Williams,Raymond,10VillagePhoneProgram,330–1Wilson,Catherine,159Vincenti,Walter,67–8,71–2,112,114,Wilson,EdwardO.,509–10186Winner,Langdon,168,374–5,380,430virtualhearing,450wirelessnetworks,326virtualrelationships,158Wittgenstein,Ludwig,86virtuetheory,436Wittner,David,11vitaminAdeficiency(VAD),542women,79Volkswagen,323accesstoenergy,541voluntarism,371,374affectedbyGreenRevolution,331vonNewmann,John,216–17,283headtransport,534suffrage,348wages,343–5andtechnologies,338–40Walter,Grey,119VillagePhoneProgram,330–1warhorses,13,14,44–5woodworking,11,37water-controltechnologies,239–40,245n,workforce,326,334,335–6,413,534,542541worldrisksociety,496–9watermills,33WorldTradeOrganization(WTO),327–8Watt-Cloutier,Sheila,547worldwars,27,41,104–5,361Watt,James,25worldview,264–5TheWealthofNations(Smith),333writingsystems,57,59,227weaponofdeterrence,464–5“wrongfullife”cases,446Weart,SpencerR.,106Wynne,Brian,514Weber,Max,189,467–8Webster,J.,339X-ray,206,207welfarestatecapitalism,336–7xenogeniccells,394well-being,298,306,422WesternCivilization,361–2Yahoo,332WesterntechnologyYeager,Philip,488characteristics,14–15,23–4history,24–7zero,inventionsof,58–9militarysuperiority,45–6ZhaoJing,331–2571