I spent my working years as an engineer in the field of electronic
devices and microchips. But lately I've begun to think of technology
as, in part, the sorcerer's apprentice's broom.
In the story, the sorcerer goes on an errand, leaving the apprentice
with the task of bringing water from the well. He looks in the book
of magic spells and finds one that he uses to command the broom to
bring water. The broom does so, and keeps doing so until the house
is flooded, and doesn't stop. The apprentice doesn't know the spell
to stop it. Eventually, when he returns, the sorcerer, who knows
how, stops the broom.
Technology does very useful tasks, but some of the events of recent
times suggest that it isn't as much under control as we like to
think it is. Examples are DDT, thalidomide, chlorofluorocarbons,
nuclear waste, mountain-top removal coal mining,
multi-antibiotic-resistant pathogens, oil contamination of the Gulf
of Mexico and less-reported places like Ecuador and Nigeria, and
others.
Technology is about what can be done; ethics is about what ought to
be done. Obviously, the question of whether something ought to be
done or not done doesn't arise unless it can be done. Hence every
advance in technological capability raises the ethical questions of
whether, and if so how, that advance should be implemented.
A conventional attitude toward ethics is that ethical requirements
promulgated long ago are universal and eternal. Clearly, this
attitude doesn't take into account the changes in ethics mandated by
changes in technology.
In technologically undeveloped society, what people could do had
relatively little effect on the ability of the environment to
sustain human life. True, some species may have been hunted to
extinction, but there were many others available. Thus the ethical
principle arose: if a technological advance gave someone an
advantage, applying it is ethically acceptable. Today this needs to
be questioned but commonly isn't. Society operates on the principle:
if something can be done and someone benefits by doing it, it ought
to be done, as soon as possible.
The dominant institutions in today's society are the business
corporations, which operate on the corporate ethic: if it generates
a net profit for the corporation it's good, and if it generates a
net cost for the corporation it's bad. Costs to others don't count:
black lung disease that kills miners aren't costs to mining
companies, but safety measures to prevent it are.
Deep-ocean oil drilling is now possible. Oil companies have invested
millions of dollars in research and development to make it possible,
because doing so yields a product that can be sold at a profit that
exceeds the cost of the R&D. Zero R&D dollars were invested in
responding to catastrophes like the one in the Gulf of Mexico
because managers didn't foresee the costs of not doing so.
The first thing BP did after the blowout was to spray the Gulf with
dispersants. These don't eliminate the spilled oil; they just break
up the big globs into little droplets. Big globs can be scooped up;
droplets can't. But oil broken up into droplets can't be counted as
part of the quantity of oil spilled, which is the basis for the fine
to which BP may be liable.
I haven't said anything about the human consequences and ethical
implications of advances in military technology. I don't think I
need to.
Opposed to the do-it-if-you-can principle is the precautionary
principle: make sure, as much as you can, that it's safe before you
do it. Business managers don't like the precautionary principle
because it means delaying the implementation of new technology, and
time is money. But based on humanistic ethics it's the right thing
to do.
TOP
Board Member's Column
Where’s the outrage….?
by Andrea Perrault
In late June, I went to New York City to see the final
performance of "Hair" on Broadway. It brought me down memory
lane… the era of peace, love, and understanding was my
generation. Central to the theme of this musical, were social
unrest and political activism in reaction to the Vietnam War.
The central characters were middle income and working class
youth whose lives were torn by the war. The draft was in effect;
it mobilized these young people to examine their beliefs about
war and the meaning of life. As a result, soul searching and
outrage were prevalent among their peer group. Acceptance of the
status quo was questioned and challenged. "Peace, not War" was a
popular slogan.
In today's society, there is no more draft -- a positive
development for sure. However, the unintended consequences that
spring from that reality cause me to reflect on what we've
traded away. Along with abolishment of the draft, other social
realities have taken hold: rampant consumerism and more extreme
class divisions. Today, we seem to be left with a divided
society where the rich have access to opportunity -- college,
career, and the good life, and the poor, the working class, and
increasingly the middle and upper-middle classes, have few such
benefits. College costs are sky-rocketing -- $40,000 per year
can be a base cost. At such expense, careers that require
post-baccalaureate degrees are out of reach for many. Where do
young people go who cannot afford these costs? What do parents
do if they cannot support their children to access education?
Now outrage is unaffordable. War is seen as a viable alternative
for youth with no access to education or jobs. It provides a
mission, a cause, an income, and security. However, can we truly
believe that Afghanistan is not as futile a war as was Vietnam?
Can we truly afford to lose our young people through death,
dismemberment, and psychological ruin in this war? I think our
society would be better served if we and our politicians worked
to equalize the class divides and focused on assuring that all
young people understand the need for an educated populace, and
provided the means and the encouragement to help our youth chose
the education path. War is not the answer to a productive future
for us or for our youth.
TOP
Meeting Review
Discussion of the Israeli / Palestinian
Peace Process
by Natalie Klavans
On Sunday, August 1, 2010 approximately 20 Ethical Society
members, in addition to two guests, met to assess the
possibilities for peace between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. The dialogue was informed and focused on the
complexity of the political realities in the region.
After some preliminary explanation of factors that have
influenced the actions of Israelis and Palestinians, we
identified what we believe would be good faith efforts on the
part of the countries that can influence the peace process.
Because there is such a lack of trust between the Israelis and
the Palestinians, we agreed that there was a need for both
parties to show that they are serious about wanting to negotiate
a peace settlement. There is also a need for the Arab states and
the U.S. to show how they would support peace.
The group collectively identified the following responses to the
propositions with respect to "Good Faith Gestures,"
"Compromises," and a "Fair Solution."
Good Faith Gestures from Israel
-
Engage in dialogue with Palestinians.
-
Stop tearing down Palestinian homes.
-
Both sides should stop demonizing each other.
-
Make clearer what a two state solution means.
-
Eliminate checkpoints.
-
Release military personnel from borders with Palestinian
Territory.
Good Faith Gestures from Palestinians
-
Need a hero who would have credibility.
-
No pre-conditions for peace talks.
-
No support for suicide bombers.
Good Faith Gestures from Arab States
-
Start a dialogue between Arabs and Palestinians
-
Another country other than the U.S. and Great Britain to
show leadership in promoting peaceful negotiations in the
region.
-
Egypt and Jordan to take a bigger role in negotiations.
Good Faith Gestures from the U.S.
-
Church groups who financially support settlements in Israel
should not get tax breaks.
-
Dialogue with groups in this country on the status of the
Palestinians and the Israelis.
-
More educational and ecumenical citizen trips to Israel.
-
Recognizing J Street as an impartial broker for peace.
Compromises for Israel
Compromises for Palestinians
What Would a Fair Settlement Look Like?
-
Palestinians to get water rights.
-
No walls.
-
All Palestinian land contiguous and all Israeli land
contiguous.
-
Two state solution.
-
International agreement committed to the security of the
region.
The discussion raised issues and concerns that could never be
adequately addressed in two hours. I believe that many of us
felt that there was a lot to learn about the many factors and
events which have contributed to the current middle-east
situation. If there is sufficient interest, we can pursue this
topic through a study group.
TOP
Book Review
Hypomanic Edge: the Link Between (a
little) Craziness and (a lot of) Success in America
by John D. Gartner
Reviewed by Peter Denison
Gartner is a psychologist who has developed the theory that many
successful people could be described as hypomanic. They are not
really crazy, although sometimes close to it. His thesis is that
they are successful because of their hypomania. Some of the
major symptoms he describes are: excessive energy, little need
for sleep, often overly optimistic, impulsive, risk taker, and
acting out sexually. He is gregarious, confident, and gets
people to follow him. In his book Gartner gives capsule
biographies of Columbus, Roger Williams, Alexander Hamilton,
Andrew Carnegie, the scientist Craig Venter, as well as
mentioning many others who could fit his pattern. (He has also
written a separate book dealing exclusively with Bill Clinton
whom he admires rather excessively.)
His biographies tend to emphasize the positive aspects of the
men he describes and to gloss over the harm they have done.
True, Carnegie was a brilliant self-made man whose endowment of
numerous libraries was beneficial to multitudes, but he also
treated his steel workers abominably. One of his points is that
we need people such as those he describes. They are the source
of our scientific progress, new ideas in politics and
government, even literature and philosophy. He presents Venter
not only as a great scientist but also as a ruthless infighter
who may be responsible for the fact that newly discovered genes
have become patented and thus turned into private property. He
fails to
mention that people such as Napoleon, Hitler, the inquisitor
Torquemada, and David Koresh were all probably hypomanic.
It is strange that he never mentions the more familiar term
"workaholic." Are they the same, or is there a subtle difference
between them? He does say that hypomania is not a clinical
problem unless there are also periods of depression, but many of
the heroes he describes do have such periods. His biographies do
tend to veer over to hagiography
anyway.
The chief defect of this book is that he never considers the
dark side of hypomania. We will be ruled by hypomanics for it
takes boundless energy as well as smarts to develop a new
industry, improve our ability to generate wealth, and to govern
a country. It also requires ruthlessness even in what could be
an academic field like science. Craig Venter is not the only
scientist who is also an unmitigated bastard.
One dark side of hypomania is that these people cannot have an
accurate perception of human nature because of their own
excessive energy level. If Carnegie was fired from a job, he
would create his own, and create his own industry. Why can't all
unemployed people do the same? Why can't his assistants work a
sixteen hour day and thrive on it just as he does? When I was
working for a renowned child neurologist, it was the most
stimulating job I ever held, but I also found that the pace of
working for a genius was pure hell. Of course a hypomanic will
be skeptical about unemployment insurance, why should anyone
need it?
It is true that all effective rulers will probably be hypomanics.
Is it possible in our putatively democratic society for ordinary
people to take advantage of their abilities but not be
victimized by their ruthlessness and other defects? Gartner does
not even consider the question. Another defect is that he never
considers any hypomanic women. Why not? Is it lack of sufficient
data? Surely they exist. Apparently the thought of such women
has not occurred to him.
TOP
Poems by Etta Wolpert
Nature (2009)
One needs nature --
The wonderful leaves
Giving off oxygen,
Absorbing carbon dioxide:
The sky which is so
Nourishing and spreading of
Its vast arms.
The Story of My Life (2010)
I wore blinders
Much of my life,
Intent on answering
My question -- the meaning
Of life? And then I
Finally found it:
Love and kindness. So
I took off the blinders
And saw so much
To enjoy.
What I mean by
The meaning of life
Is what makes life
Exhilarating.
TOP
|
