In the worlds of Douthwaite, he claimed that technology would be necessary to fix all social issues, but others believe that his claim is off. Many say that the repercussions of any technological advance would not be worth the troubles, or that they will create new issues. It is shown with “Huesemann and Huesemann’s” article that with no matter how many solutions you create there will always be another issue created. The trolley car experiment is a great example to this statement, there is a step, but it is illegal to stand on it even though trolleys are used in large cities with large populations. People don’t have time so engineers made them bigger cars, but people would still stand on them. Even though it wasn’t a crime anymore, it was still against the rules. The fix to that is close the trolley cars with doors and no more ledges.
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, this works when they say that making technological fixes to social issues cause negative repercussions. Though there may not be any intended negative actions one cannot know what they will be or if they will happen. But that is a risk I believe is well worth the advances made in the world. Without the technological fixes to everyday social issues the world wouldn’t look the way it would today. The Automobile was a fix to issue of traveling long distances for a cheaper cost of relying on trains or planes. The Automobile industry is now one of the largest employers of the modern age. Thought they started off inefficient, cars get better gas mileage now and give off much less pollution. Even though in the beginning there may be a repercussion, there will be another solution.
I agree with you on your point that there will always be another solution, but do you think we should be looking at longer term solutions to problems rather than the short term? And that is the issue with many technological fixes, it solves problems ‘now’ and leaves the root cause unchanged; only to cause more problems in the future. In regard to your comment about all risks being worth it, do you think technological advancements and ‘fixes’ are worth the risk if they have the potential to cause irreversible harm to the environment or humans as a species? I feel as though there is a line that technological fixes shouldn’t cross especially if they have the potential to cause irreversible damage.
I agree that the risk of unintended consequences is worth the scientific innovation. I can see that the whole idea of a “technological fix” is to solve problems that arise, regardless of the initial cause (such as a previous technological fix) and I have no doubt that is the future our society is heading towards. However, I additionally think that more caution must be had. I think that adding band-aid on top of band-aid is similar to adding lie on top of lie to avoid the consequences. It won’t always work out, and certainly not forever. Eventually we will find ourselves with a quandary so big, science won’t be able to save us. Future generations, just like our generation, will be cursing those that came before for not trying to solve the root of the problem.
I definitely agree with the statement that there will always be another solution to any problem, however I feel as if short-term fixes are perhaps the better answer. Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like whenever an epidemic (like the flu) reappears, we learn from the last time. It seems to me that nature is always changing; just like sickness and other forms of threatening scenarios. It sounds morbid, I know, but maybe our best shot at fixing our problems is trial and error.
Bryce Dawkins
Hi Chisum I enjoyed your read and agree with your points. The world cam not be fixed by technology. I understand that technology helps us in our everyday lives we basically live in one big machine. But I have to agree with you Chisum with every action there is an opposite reaction. This statement holds so much truth behind it, we use paper every day, paper is great paper serves a purpose but in the end we lose millions of trees because of our apparent need for paper. In one of the articles it was said that military men didn’t want to use only technology to track and combat the enemy stating that if the technology could be simply out maneuvered by the enemy then what is the point of having it. Another example you stated was the automobile, we still use this today and as the years have gone by a great technological fix has caused some global warming issues we are paying for today. Agree with what you said, if we stop the production of automobiles to stop the harmful effects it has on the environment we may be contributing to the down fall in employment in the world. I feel we have come to a point that without technology we are in trouble and with it we are still in trouble.