3 months later

So its near the end of the semester and the end of JUS494. It was probably obvious that I was a very technology oriented invdividual. And its true, to just about every extend imaginable. I am aware of how I sometimes take it for granted. I can see how it affords me an advantage over others; and most importantly I am not blind to the inequalities that it creates.

When I first signed up for this class, my initial reacton was skepticism. Any technology or science class subtitled with inequality was bound to cast my most favorite thing in an unfavorable light. It is like telling someone that their favorite band of all time is unremarkable and derivative of some foreign group you’ve never heard of. In other words: it’s not a pleasant feeling. Still, at no point did find myself casting away the lectures or readings in the name of hubris. And yes, at times the class material was a little dense even for my tastes (no offense Merlyna!). But the thing I was constantly compelled by was the discourse. For subject matter that is very connected to modernity and up-to-date knowledge, it was appealing to me to engage in discussions.

For example, current conversations regarding sustainability are vastly different from those a mere year ago. This difference comes from the very nature of science and technology as a concept driven by constant innovation and change. Where a subject like history is debated in terms of relative accuracy and sometimes new information, science is driven by progress and thus debate often revolves around direction. But the deeper meaning to discourse is about participating in the system. That is, becoming aware of exactly how technology and science creates inequaliity so that we may not only avoid it ourselves, but to ensure that it does not reach such proporations as Robert Mosses’ bridges.

It is not important that we identify whether a law is right or wrong. Instead, it should be our goal as scholars to determine whether a law is working as intended and that the intent is indeed fair. Laws are most effictively changed by people working within the system rather than rebeling from the outside. Our politcal system relies heavily on the paricipation of its citizens. Whether or not you feel that your participation has an actual impact on the laws of our nation, it is more than can be said for other nations.

If in class we discovered that people as actors play the most significant role in creating inequalities, then there is reason to believe that we have the capacity to change that. It can be as direct as a politican writing the legislation or it can be the journalist raising awareness among the public. In the end, my skeptisicm was turned into a form of responsibility. Not that I absolutely have to rid the world of inequality, but just to be apart of the system where others will not.

Here are some other things I’ll leave you with. In no particular relevance:

In general, systems created naturally as the outcome of natural forces are superior to those created synthetically. Metals that form in nature retain a molecular skin that aids in its resilience, where man made metals are frayed and recombined at various points, compromising its integrity.

- I always think about this when I consider human governing. Based on communication research, humans behave in ways that are conducive to inequality. As such, we should not force equality in places where it is counter to human nature. It should be incorporated based on identified limitations.

The Roland TR-808 is a drum machine that was created in the late 1980s. Despite its age, it is still highly sought after for its original analog audio samples. In fact, original 808s are worth more now than they were upon release.

- Besides sounding awesome, the 808 is just one example of step backwards in technology. Even though there are countless and technically superior digital drum machines, the 808′s analog samples have a unique and very distinct sound to them that many prefer over the digital equavalent. Here, advancements in sound processing technology were made in a market that wasn’t looking for it. So yeah drum machines might not create inequalities but there are easy parrellels to be made. Sometimes markets alone create the demand.

The Prius. I think we all know what a Prius is.

- Very rarely does a car spark such huge debates. Some people say its such an irony that an “economic” car costs so much. This and many factors are lead to a circular argument. You save gas and money > the saving don’t match up to the initial costs > its about the environment! less emissions > the cars are shipped from overseas, shipping emmissions incur > and the points go on. But look, if theres anything the Prius did, it was creating the market for hyrid and unconventional cars. For the first time ever companies could no longer ignore the demand for hyrid and alternative fuel vehicles. Whether the Prius’ themselves actually helped or hindered the environment is made less important by the sudden and increased research into sustainable vehicles. Toyota proved that the car industry could bear a hyrid vehicle. When profit yeilds are the only factor in a corporate action, that is a pretty significant influence.

Lastly,

Going off the previous section, there is a contingent of theorist that believe that companies (and by extension, individuals) were only capable of taking a risk on a hyrid vehicle only after thier previous success which may or may not be in the same mindset of the Prius’ semi-green revolution (and maybe opposing if you consider Toyota’s high car sales as the proliferation of emissions and iold dependancy). In other words, if not for Toyota’s success at selling gas guzzlers, they might not have been able to create the Prius.

This is similar to how I have veiwed the US. Inequalites are easy for us as educated American to see and affect becuase we were perhaps in a position that benefited from inequalities. Developing countries rarely have the time or resources to begin thinking about inequalities- certainly not global inequalities. This is important to realize because it implies that the massive inequalities seen by the US in its early stages have allowed us to become the economic titan we are. And based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, our global lead in power (security, peace of mind) now gives us the authority (leisure time, resources, etc) to solve inequalities (self actualization).

So even though we have come a long way in alleviating many equalities, there might have been a lot of injustices created for us to do so. This is difficult, and somewhat of a paradox, but don’t let it deter you- progress is progress and we should never discredit our efforts.

- Tony

East is East

I’ve been to Singapore- its crazy beautiful and a really nice vacation spot. As a country part of the countries that make up the Southeast Asian area, Singapore is just one of many places home to the rising acclimation to globalization. Places like Vietnam and Taiwan are becoming major market leaders.  The technology is advanced and the people are kind. Still I can only consider Singapore and its surrounding nations as a vacation spot- for now.

I say this because, despite a growing penchant for “Western ideals” the countires of Southeast Asia are still vastly different than the US. I think its important to realize just how religion and culture has shaped thier worlds. A lot of times we look at the economic growth of a nation apart from thier cultures and history. It is not enough to rate a nation based purely on its GDP or number of multinational corporations. For a place like China to declare Atheism in the name of economic growth is a huge paradigm shift.

Here in America with clauses like the separation of church and state, religion has often been characterized as illogical and at times a liability. What are the implications of an atheist country- both economically and socially? I don’t really know how these countries have adapted such new policies but I can’t imagine that its easy. The bottom line is- if ever there was a case for money steering our lives, this seems like it.

Time for vacation…

One Degree and a side of Reference Points

Technology’s role in the education system provides another case of technology as an objective instrument shaped by the way it is used by people. Is not the point of education to facilitate learning and make complex or difficult concepts easier to understand? If this were truly the case, technology is almost more at home in education than it is an industry like transportation. Personally, I doubt how I would have ever came to appreciate chemistry without the technology that allowed me to actively observe it.

With technology’s presence in school and especially universities, it is easy to see how technology may present an inequality. More dramatically, the ability to “buy” a degree brings into light the numerous faceless classrooms and computer heavy class curriculums. But what is really going on here?  A “bought” degree gets you exactly that: a piece of paper that helps you get a hired. What really matters are the things you’ve learned and the challenges you’ve overcome. Technology can only make that part better.

A friend of mine, who happens to be a physics professor will argue that physics is indeed a complex field of study but it is not too far above the heads of high schoolers and maybe even elementary level children. Because physics is abstract and indeed figurative at times, the most difficult part for learners, he would say, is applying it to themselves. Psychology would tend to agree with this basis as well. Psychological research suggests that people are more likely to remember theories and concepts when they can effectively relate it to their own interests and lives. He would recommend a digital physics book that would change the variables and situations of the problems based on the preferences of the owner. This book would update formulas and findings (eliminating the costs and resources of new edition textbooks) and keep itself relevant to culture. This futuristic “book” may be somewhat of a dream, but in actuality the technology is already there- it just needs a little help.

A digital book similar to the one my colleague envisioned would most likely use electronic ink technology for the pages, lithium-ion batteries, wireless antennae for updating, and polymer or alloy material for its casing, All of these advanced technologies already exist. Whats missing are the actors. A self updating book probably opposes publishing companies and textbook manufacturers. Any company willing to make these books would probably realize these same parts could make more profitable laptops.

It is amazing that I can connect to my computer remotely and play music off it from just about anywhere in the country on a device as small as a notepad. Yet at the same time, learning appears restricted to heavy books and archaic 2D diagrams. How much easier is it to learn about protein synthesis with a 3D figure?

I suppose we can argue as to whether or not all these fancy gizmos and acronyms actually make learning better. If you go as far back as ancient Greece, there is evidence of mechanical devices using relational gears to chart the lunar cycle. These devices didn’t exist in revenue based industries or resource rich environments. Rather, these early forms of technology were used to better understand something that, at the time, was beyond the scope and understanding of singular Greek Citizen. Of course, many of these artifacts were lost to impracticality and the need for weapons and tools. I guess humans are technology’s worse enemy.

As for Curitiba, the tube bus stops are ingenious. Of the 6 tenants to the Master Plan (1965) the last one is very important: To create The Institute of Urban Research and Planning of Curitiba. Forming a new, dedicated resource to provide for a long term plan is crucial in meeting the dynamic needs of a developing country and the implications that new technology brings.

“Creativity starts when you cut a zero from your budget.” Indeed.

Election Day

Arrested Politics: The State of the Vote

What does it matter the pigmentation of Obama’s skin? How much difference does McCain’s numerical rank among his peers mean? I feel that these have become such controversial issues because of the effects they may have on targeted individuals. Who does not fear a vote made under the wrong impression- an exploitation of the democratic process. And so we argue about these seemingly arbitrary things when we know better.

When I bring up the dimension of educated voting, I hope to inspire that individuals who are sufficiently educated would be intelligent enough to choose a president who would act in the way best suitable for the entire nation, including consideration of Tim in the service industry and Jim at the steel mill. Now I realize that it is a lot to assume that these qualified individuals would choose impartial to their individual needs, but is it that much different from our current system of Electoral College and congress representations. If anything it might minimize the dollars, manpower and absurd tactics of campaigning.

Sure this sounds like Elitism, but if we take a deeper look, who are we to say that a president is elected wrongfully because he was able to take advantage of a broken system. Our individual right to vote then yields exactly what it was intended to.

I have faith in the capacity of human beings, but when I look at humans historically, all I can see is our penchant for difference and domination. In a human rights campaign I recently did, it became painfully clear that many people’s favorite right was the right to do nothing and be neutral. Maybe this is the change from our days as violent and controlling individuals; and our days of altruism are yet to come. Maybe not. But there are more pressing matters at hand.

What happens now is a very important decision that involves every one of us. We must choose a 44th president of the United States.

A Modest Endorsement: Let the issues be the issues.

It turns out, in this election, the issues should still be the issues. Barack Obama’s push for change stretches out in all of its ambiguity to reach everyone in some way. Whether that way for you is an unnecessary or unwarranted “change back” to a stagnant political course that was derailed with our most recent head of the state, or a novel change in the face of an increasingly dynamic world; in the end, who among us will argue that change is the last thing we need?

In the past centuries we have documented the countless changes survived by our nation. Each one in many ways defined by technological advances. The way we fight wars, alternative fuels, and the very innovation that propels our capitalist economy- all are increasing influenced by technology, if not already inherently bonded. It takes someone well connected to modern technology to understand how it impacts the world both negatively and positively; and work within those constraints for a better tomorrow. To even stand a chance at solving some of our national issues we must first identify the problem and then work within the limitations of the social structure that helped foster the injustice. Only then can we work to change that social structure. All too often do we attempt to change solidified structures from the outside; this runs the risk of exhausting all of our resources in a preliminary stage that already has ideas put in place for it to fall back on.

I’ll be the first to say that anyone who believes that science and technology will solve all our problems is naive. We still need our courage and decisiveness, our learned history and our camaraderie. I am merely presenting a new viewpoint apart from what has undoubtedly been drilled into our heads by media and fear. Let’s not continue to govern ourselves in a way that promotes apathy and disconnect.

I consider myself rational, I am invested in the logical- my heart systematically pumps blood at a rate I can quantify and that is all the allowance I give to that organ. So in choosing to endorse Senator Obama as President, logic dictates a preference for a man with uncompromisable intellect, a qualified vice presidential nominee, and above all a conviction that speaks for itself.

There is no way I expect this note to change anyone’s mind. I would like to think your decision could not be moved so easily. But consider for a second who and what you endorse and why your endorsement has meaning. The countless Nobel prize winning scientist and engineers that endorse Obama indicate educated support by minds we have ascribed as brilliant.

Tony Go endorses Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Recursive

The lesson presented to us by Dr. J.W. Smith appears to paint a dark picture for our economies. Saying that the very existence of one process is the same reason why it is unjust is just hard to accept. By this logic, we are all doomed to greed and complacency. While the points are clear, my one gripe for the lecture was a lack of substantial solutions.

Proponents of capitalism maintain that free trade promotes competition which leads to innovation. When dealing only in profits and value, these arguments have clearly propelled the US economy into its powerful position today. The problem of injustice rises as we relate our market driven economy to the other aspects of our lives. Under these presented principles of neoliberlism and monopolization, social production is limited to select individuals; meanwhile poverty persists.

Indeed, our economy is intrinsically limited in its own devices. So what do we do? Dr. Smith suggests:

The elimination of those monopolies through expanding individual rights and competition through a modern commons increasing economic efficiency equal to the invention of money, the printing press, and electricity providing all with a quality life working only two to three days per week; all while protecting the earth’s resources and ecosphere.

All that am qualified to answer is the idea of two to three work days. While this is very appealing, competition surely dicates that very few companies would be willing to sacrifice a couple days off at the risk of losing grounds to those who are indifferent to holidays.

In the end, whenever you suggest that a system is wrong because of the very structures it was created upon- you beg the question of which came first. Are not those structures what enabled the system to achieve its success? Is it possible to really extract those core structures outside of hypothetical optimism? I suppose the proof is in the pudding, but I’m not buying it. Then again, this is really the first I’ve heard of this- it probably deserves more attention.

Nucleic Acids, who would’ve thought.

Cole’s article regarding the justice implications of DNA has thus far been my favorite article. Although written in a very typical manner that suggests short form magazine rather than insightful research paper, Cole still manage to provide relevant support and thought provoking ideas. First, its no big surprise that DNA has proven itself useful in the court of law, its also even less of a surprise that it is controversial. You see, as a product of biological sciences, DNA would seemingly have no place amoing laws and rules. However, as a reletively unbiased concept, DNA has instead completely changed the way law and justice is conducted. Take for example the way lawyers have shifted from the charge of just rape and into the more debatable realm of “consent”. This is indeed one of those situations marked by semantics and rhetoric, but the DNA’s role in the intitution of the court is still felt. This is science in action.

At the end of the article, Cole may have inadvertently raised an important factor of science’s inherent objectivity: It was alleged that the DNA analysis labs may have been bribed into altering information. This would suggest that, even though technology and science itself appears unbias, there are actors and participants involved that influence how science is used. And because it is nearly impossible to extract the social aspects out of science, we are left with something that, at the surface, seems unquestionable and just, yet is still plagued by individual motivation and corruptness. 

And so our court system and trials live on to see another day. For, no matter how close we are in establishing “truths” those external influences necessitate a room full of clueless people and overly prepared debators. How does this not remind you my earlier posts where I presented the idea of justice being the intersection of nature (the lies that promote self serving needs) and science (DNA’s unquestioned objectivity). The broken record spins again…

but no cigar.

What is justice? Such a question has plagued human ever since the day it decided things needed explanation.  The video we watched in class have done nothing more than to concede to the question’s inherent complexity. However, some of the dominant ideas throughout the discourse were that of context and perspectives. For this, justice is different for each individual and is shaped extensively by external variables. The discrepancy then arrives at looking at justice as a social concept. Indeed justice is a product of social interaction- that is, justice really has no value to an individual. Because of this, when we attempt to view justice quantitatively we pull even further away from identifying it.
Trying to determine what justice is lies in the benevolent idea of creating a “just” society or solving issues of inequality.  Framed by this intent, justice becomes linked to human behavior. The easiest of which is history and its precedents. Suddenly, Neanderthals, WWII, and un-socialized groups become our reference point in finding justice. But even at these moments justice was never clear. Then, almost contradictory, we contest that justice is shaped by its place in time and space at any given moment.
And so then we discover what justice is…
It is the correct thing to do based on a variety of factors including, time, place, morality, precedents, and human nature; a form of balance transcendent of individuals yet pertinent to each single person.
And that just has to do.  Because for all its worth, it’s not like the moment we figure out exactly what justice is do we bring along world peace and fairness.
Meanwhile we can add an adjective to justice and find ourselves splintering justice in an attempt to understand at least a form of it. This is distributive justice. All three of the primary forms, libertarian, utilitarian, and communitarian reek of flaws in one way or another. Each model justice in a way to govern individuals yet use societies as a critical factor in success. Libertarian views, for example, rely on markets, which for all intents and purposes are driven by greed. How does this form of justice acknowledge greed and its costs? Utilitarian’s, on the other hand suggest a rising tide effect that is anything but substantial.
If we can learn anything from all of this, it is that perfection, zero inequality, true justice exists only as a target and not an achievable destination. Justice is desirable because it is so vague. Find out what it is, and it loses its impact.

Outline, or the exterior portion of vector bases.

Theme: Technology and Globalization
It’s easy to argue that technology and globalization are inherently connected. Globalization has seen a significant amount of progress from technological advancements in transportation, delivery, and communication among others. Globalization itself, however is far less likely to be considered “progress” by a larger majority. For the rich and well established, globalization has served as a means to increase profits even more by reaching new markets and avoiding national laws. For nations that don’t fit into this category, technology in the form of dams, trains, and instantaneous communication has created barriers in development.  While globalization is very dependant on technology, we can use framework to determine where the two separate in intent and execution.
Some frameworks:
Politics of Technology – for corporations to execute policy at a global scale, politics must be involved. How is it possible that sweatshops are both illegal and legitame within the same corporation? What actors make this possible?
Social Shaping of Technology – the notion that globalization is “natural” and a model of democracy is linked to how globalization has been socialized. Corporations, driven by consumerism, have more power globally than individual nations.
Technological Momentum – to an extent, globalized goods and services achieve a form of monopoly. How has globalization attributed to this outcome? Is it possible for new and upcoming companies to compete even if the product is superior?
Net Neutrality – as nations join the global market the only other thing they technically share is the internet. As the most broad and open form of  communication, nations must consider the need to lower censorship or risk economical disadvantages. Some examples of this are companies that operate in places where the government does not limit their market by censoring ads or information that is deemed detrimental to themselves.
Some Sources:
The internet!
Multi-national corporations as case studies
Durning, Alan T. “The Conundrum of Consumption.” Reading Our Histories, Understanding Our Cultures. Ed. Kathleen McCormick. Pearson Education, Inc. 2003. 606-611.
Peck, Gregory. “The Corporate Issue.” The Corporation. DVD-ROM. Zeitgeist Films, 2004.
Werther, William B. Jr., and David Chandler. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005.

The technological [product of mass and velocity]

“We have the opportunity/choice to change technology but we choose the same anyway”
A statement that perhaps too many companies are all too content with. Technological momentum can be used to explain the curves of growth the technology industry thrives on.  Lets look at Apple’s recent momentum.
I’ll spare you the history lesson and just mention that Apple has always been in the shadow of Microsoft. Only recently has apple been able to increase its market share and slowly edge towards Microsoft’s monolithic presence.  We can attribute this sudden shift in the software market by using the concept of technological momentum. Microsoft and Apple have existed in unison for as long as there has been a market for computers.  Microsoft, arguably the first of two to get an operating system “right” stable and intuitive, held a wide majority of the market. As years went on both companies would iterative each of their respective OSes. Somewhere  around the 2000s,  Apple hit its stride with the advent of a new “superior” OS followed by a line of unique hardware. Apple provided an alternative to a stagnant giant but was still left far behind in second place. Its now 2008 and Apple has seen as much as 8 times the growth of its market share. What happened?
Technological momentum would suggest that Microsoft’s hold on the industry would perpetuate its increase and hinder Apple’s progress. Microsoft has built an empire on a system that is so prevalent and normal that it is almost second nature.  If you wanted to succeed in the business world, you had to know Windows. If you were a student in school, you knew Word very well.  But what if you wanted to listen to music? In 2001, Apple introduced the iPod. Although far from the first of its kind, the iPod won over all types of people with its intuitive interface, industrial design and tight software integration- the rest is history. After 150 million sold to date Apple got something right and knew it.
Taking what it learned from the iPods success, Apple introduced newly renovated hardware line. Apple’s products quickly became known for their artistic designs, quality software, and they were not Microsoft- who at this point was becoming stagnant with a mediocre Vista release and also-ran hardware tactics. Then factor in open interoperability and new market leads and you now have a giant watching where it walks.
The point is, if it wasn’t for Microsoft’s mistakes and Apple’s aggression, people might still be sticking to Microsoft products no matter how much more advanced the competition is.  And as far how competition impacts technology, I will saave that for another day.

Weekly Reflection #3: Humans zero, Science zero, Love all.

I know I’ve used the same example in the previous post, but this week’s discussion about political technology lends itself very well to a repeat. Bear with me; In class we talked about technology in warfare and how it changed the outcomes in many decisive battles. The question was then brought up about what would happen if those armies didn’t have those technologies; essentially technology played an integral role in the course and events in history.
So to say certain technology is a causal variable to the success of an army’s battle, is indicative of the importance of technology. But what would happen if those armies did not have the superior technology? One of the few, if not only, examples that comes to mind is once again World War I. During WWI, most of the most powerful armies developed chemical weapons. These weapons easily changed the tide of war towards whichever army had the most potent poisons. Once a truce was declared against the use of chemical warfare, armies were stripped of their technological advantages. The result was the creation of newer technology to facilitate newer advantages.
So ultimately, even if you were able to extract technology in one form to reduce advantages, the players will just find other ways to become superior. This idea reflects the human nature of competition. In that, we scale our technology to meet the needs of successful domination in a war setting. I really feel like this example is as close as you can get to the hypothetical removal of technological inequality. In reality, it is impossible to imagine a society completely devoid of some form of technology and the inequality it creates.