Beneficial use of technology:
It would be nice if substantial amounts of the time and energy of engineers and applied scientists were devoted to generating and applying knowledge of a constructive nature, which would, e.g., help cure or eliminate diseases, preserve our environment, reduce the need for tedious or dangerous work, or increase the efficiency of various devices. There are indeed important examples of such beneficial applications of technology. One is the work of civil engineers designing and constructing water supply systems. This work, along with the work of other civil engineers on sewage disposal systems, dramatically made diseases such as cholera rare in developed countries.
Another beneficial technology is that on which the internet is based. This facilitates the democratic process by making it easier to disseminate information and to debate issues.
Unfortunately, most of modern technology is driven by a rather different incentive--greed.
The downside:
Consider a company producing a patented medication, m1, that, when taken daily, suppresses the symptoms of a disease x, and keeps x from getting worse. Such a company would not welcome the discovery, even in its own labs, of a medication, m2, that would cure x immediately and completely. Clearly the continued profitability of m1 depends on the non-existence of an m2. Sadly, this hypothetical example typifies much, perhaps most, of what drives modern technology today.
Virtually no effort is being made to investigate many issues highly relevant to the health of people where there is no incentive in the form of enhanced corporate profit. For example, although gargling has been a common folk practice for generations, and some studies in Japan suggest that regular gargling with plain water significantly reduces the occurrence of sore throats (which affect millions of people annually), there has been very little research on this topic. No corporation would profit from it [5].
Over eighty thousand chemicals are used in food products as preservatives, for flavoring, coloring, etc. [6]. One might reasonably assume that a chemical would be used in a food product only after extensive study and testing has clearly established that it would not have harmful effects. I.e., that the burden of proof is on the seller to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the product is safe. Unfortunately this is not the case. A new product is assumed to be safe unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. If problems surface only after extensive use, it generally takes many months, usually years to overcome the "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" assumption. Government agencies that are supposed to ensure that we are not exposed to risky chemicals in food, or in other ways, do not have the funding necessary to do this [7]. The "regulation" job is actually done by private companies hired by, and paid by, the companies manufacturing and selling the products!
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
