Notes
from Chapter 20: Society
and Technological Change
The
ideas and examples referenced below are notes compiled by Robert Keel from his reading of Volti, Rudi. 2014. Society and Technological Change. 7th edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. They are intended for classroom
use.
Government and the Control of Technology
To
an increasing extent, governments are controlling the pattern of technological
change.
Does government
involvement in the development of technology necessarily result in more beneficial
technologies?
Are democratic
ideals realized in the operation of govt policies and processes?
Government
Actions and The Shaping of Technology
Government involvement
in technology is nothing new.
Government granting
patents
has provided a legal framework for technological innovation.
Government has
provided infrastructure essential to the development of new technology.
Schools funded
by government become a source of transmitting technology information.
Government provides
auxiliary goods and services needed for technology.
Airplanes require
regulation, air traffic controllers, etc.
Extensive government
involvement surrounding automobile.
Government tax
policies affect technological
advance by (dis)encouraging capital investment.
Innovation does
not always respect existing social and legal arrangements:
TV and VCRs being used to videotape movies infringement of copyright. Now, peer-to-peer file sharing and CD/DVD ripper software are being used to go around existing copyright laws.
Government involvement
in technological research has been heavily skewed toward defense and space
exploration.
But Is It Necessary?
Why has government involvement
increased to such a marked degree?
Our wealth is tied to
our ability to advance technologically.
Free market cannot stimulate
every type of technological advance.
We need some technology
but few are willing to pay for it.
e.g. technology creating
a cleaner environment is needed. Yet, no one wants to pay for it. Yet, if
it is initiated, everyone will benefit from it ("free-ride").
Thus, social benefits
may be great, but benefits to industry may be small and unprofitable.
This is why 2/3 of "pure"
science is financed by the federal government.
Government
Institutions for the Guidance of Technology
A nations economic
and military security is directly tied to its ability to produce new technology.
Special government departments
are established to meet this need.
There is no Department
of Technology, per se, only a collection of committees dealing with various
technological issues.
1957-1973: the Presidential Science Advisory Committee (defense and space--abolished when ran afoul of Nixon's policies).
National Science Foundation--advice on scientific and technological advice to president--reconstituted in 1976.
Provided information
on technology to congress. Helped to guide its decisions and gain more leverage over
the president in matters relating to technology.
OTA overseen
by board of 6 congressmen and 6 senators.
Unclear whether OTA
has had any impact on guiding technological policy.
Criticism of OTA
"does not always find the perfect balance between the goals of its
political masters in Congress and the goals of objectivity and neutrality
that are more common to the scientists and engineers who perform its tasks."
(page 285, 4th edition)
Otherwise--government oversight and budgeting handled by over a dozen committees and sub-committees (armed services to agriculture)
Processes
Congress most directly
affects technology through its passage of laws.
Congress also affects
technology through its control over budgets.
Technologies that are
large scale failures (nuclear reactor accidents) are more likely to catch
attention of government than supposedly innocuous technologies.
Widespread public debate
over new technology is rare, most emerge with little public attention.
Since there is no central
authority for technology, many decisions are made by mid-level government
officials
Often, technologies are
supported by the government because of the powerful lobbies who have a stake
in their success
Also, once technology
is underway, it builds momentum by the people who have interest in seeing
it to fruition.
Thus, a "bad"
technology may make it to the market because of influential people and organizations.
Once a technology is on the market it is difficult to reverse.
Thus, governance
of technology is faced with a paradox:
"Change is easiest
in the beginning, but this is when the need cant be foreseen."
(page 398)
"Technologies do
not simply stand or fall on their own merits; their success or failure can
often be attributed to the political support that they receive." (pages 398-399)
The
Democratic Control of Technology
Decisions are made by
experts, managers, and government officials.
The larger society is
typically little more than a consumer of technology.
Whether technology is
"good" or "bad" can be determined only by ones values
and beliefs.
As individuals, are we
destined to live out a passive acceptance of the technology that is given
to us?
A democratization of
technology may be appealing but it also has its costs.
The greater the number
of people involved, the more likely the order will be disrupted.
Is it possible to reconcile technological advance and democratic particiation in decision-making?
It might depend on how one defines democracy
"the people as a whole are able to participate in making meaningful choices
about the things that affect their lives." (page 400)
The people do make choices
that affect technology, but it is usually "after the fact"
People favored videocassettes
over videodiscs, and now streaming over discs. But the choices were made from existing alternatives.
In some ways, technology
has increased democratization.
TV made current
events and politics accessible to public. Now may be leading to apathy.
Vietnam War protests
were often in response to TV coverage of War. Operation Desert Storm was a media event.
BUT, exposure does
not guarantee an intelligent response.
Many critics say TV has
defiled the political process, turning candidates into sound bites
Can the individual affect
technological change?
Democracy
works best, perhaps, at a local level, when individual can get directly involved. (page 401)
Many technological issues
take the back burner to a person's family, home, and job
Given overall voter apathy in the political arena, people are, perhaps, less likely to involve themselves
in this arena
Even if electorate became
highly involved in technological concerns...
"No
system of guiding technology will guarantee a utopia." (page 402)
Watch human population grow from 1 CE to present and see projected growth in under six minutes. One dot = 1 million people. Video via WorldPopulationHistory.org. (WorldPopulationHistory)
BUT...
Technology is
a human creation and we have a responsibility to direct its course.
One challenge
to this is a lack of a knowledgeable citizenry.
"If
we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with
a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion." Thomas Jefferson (quoted in Volti, page 403).
Do you think that the government should establish an agency similar to Japan's
METI as a way of stimulating technological advance? What obstacles would
such an agency confront in the American political climate?
Very few elected officials in America have professional training in science
or technology. Does this inhibit the effective governance of science and
technology? Do you think that American government would be substantially
different if most senators and representatives previously worked as scientists or
engineers instead of as lawyers, as is the case today?
Can you think of any potentially important technologies that have languished
because they have lacked political support? How could they gain this support?
What is your definition of democracy? On the whole, has technological advance
increased or decreased the amount of democratic participation in modem society?
In the text it is argued that citizen involvement in local issues will aid in the
democratic shaping of technology. But local concerns have at times blocked
technologies such as wind power installations that may contribute to the general good. Is it possible to address local concerns when pursuing projects that
may benefit the nation as a whole?
Which emerging technologies will have the greatest impact on life during the
opening decades of this century? Will they have any unfortunate consequences?
Should the government restrict or prevent any of them? Do you intend to exert
any influence over these decisions? How will you do it?