The controversy of military innovation

There are many arguments both for and against continued sponsoring and development of advanced military technology. Before examining the arguments, though, a brief analysis of the purpose of the armed forces should be examined. The mission of the United States department of defense is to (in abbreviated form): “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country. ( http://www.defense.gov/)” These goals are ones that I believe many Americans would support. Deterring war is a noble goal, as most reasonable individuals wouldn’t condone unneeded death and destruction. Similar is the goal to protect the security of our country. Americans want to safeguard their ways of life, culture, and wellbeing. The Department of Defense, housed in the Pentagon building, is also the source of many of the cutting edge developments in military technology as well, making them the perfect case study in this analysis. Many opponents of continued military development (or war in general) would claim that those goals are flawed, however, in their regulation and implementation. The United States has engaged in numerous wars over its short existence, and it seems doubtful that all of them would meet the strict criteria of deterring war or protecting the security of America. This desire to keep an upper hand on the global stage is one of the most popular arguments supporting military innovation. Another important argument is that of the safety of our soldiers. The United States wants to do whatever it can to support the troops risking their lives on our behalf. While both these points have merit, I cannot conclude that the current regulation of military spending and technology is adequate. The better solution to military development may lie somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

First we will return to the first justification for weapons innovation: the desire to discourage war through the process of “outgunning” or intimidation. This can certainly be effective, as the chances of success against an enemy that is substantially better armed are very low. No doubt, some engagements have been avoided through this policy of non-violent “preventative measures”. At the same time, as noted in the class text, this policy can often escalate into an uncontrolled arms race between competitor nations. This was precisely the result of the nuclear weaponry development program of the cold war. Additionally, the temptation to use the advanced weaponry grows with time, as outdated technology tends to decrease in value over time. Without substantial, continued funding such a policy could quickly become ineffective. One of the political ways this effect is avoided is through organizations such as NATO. The idea of distributing requirements for defense through alliances and treaties is a far more sustainable long term solution. The continued development of institutions like this could help reduce the necessity of deterrence through force in the future.

Protecting the troops that defend our nation is a necessity. Regardless of one’s opinion on the conflict or specifics of the situation, most citizens want to support the wellbeing of those who risk their lives for us. Oftentimes, the suggestion of a reduction in military funding or innovation is interpreted as having grave consequences for our troops for these reasons. Having listened to the opinions of veterans in my daily life, I hear this concern repeated frequently. The problem stems from the belief that a reduction of funding will reduce the resources going to each soldier, rather than a reduction of total deployed troops in combat zones. The loss of flow of new equipment, support, and tactical intelligence would increase the likelihood of casualties for those in the field. It is easy to see how these concerns are justified. There is no guarantee from the United States government or higher levels of military organization of how cuts in funding and new technology would be dealt with, or how the backlash could affect the safety of the troops. Furthermore, those in the position of making these decisions have an interest in continuing to secure funding, making an honest evaluation even more difficult. While a reduction in the development of certain military technology or funding may be justified, further research or agreements should be secured before making any radical changes.

Many of the topics touched on here hold further interest for myself and many of my peers studying as engineering and science majors. The ethics and opinions surrounding this issue hold direct consequences for us in terms of choosing jobs and industries to work in that may contribute to weapons development. While the potential to jump into a well-paying job in defense is tempting, it is a decision that might require greater personal thought than other career choices. Unfortunately, the arguments of the debate are not simple, and neither extreme appears to hold a realistic answer. Important topics like this illustrate yet another reason why global awareness and an understanding of technological consequences are essential for techno-scientists of the future.

Blogpost on leisure

This was a very difficult assignment to do at this point in the semester. Stress is hard to avoid this close to finals week, and especially with the number of essays and tests getting thrown into the last few weeks. So to try and forget about homework and studying for an hour, I went and worked on a hobby project. I’ve found that working with my hands is one of the most effective ways for me to get absorbed in a task and forget about sources of stress. Unsurprisingly though, it was hard to completely let go of all the other priorities. What started off as a nagging in the back of my mind kept getting stronger as time went on. It wasn’t until took a moment to address the root causes of this nagging that I was able to better enjoy the free time.

One of the first realizations I made was that while most of the items in my to-do list were important academically, few of them had an effort limit. Tests are an excellent example of this. An ideal student would study test material until they feel confident in their abilities. What does confident mean though? One could always feel more confident with more studying, but it isn’t realistic to keep studying forever. Ultimately, the need to study has to be evaluated against the importance of other needs. Unfortunately, this can be a difficult evaluation to make without any guidelines. This effect seemed similar to criticism of the Netflix and the Virgin Group’s so called “unlimited vacation policies”. Touched on in the chapter, these policies allow employees of these corporations to take as much vacation time as they want as long as they continue to perform their duties effectively. Many experts claim, however, that this vagueness actually results in employees taking less vacation time than they would in the past. The effect of non-definite goals is an unbounded workload. Given the difficulty in self-assessing knowledge, many students (myself included) just study up until the test beings.

The second realization was that I had no good idea of how to judge the value of my leisure time. I’m sure that to some degree this comes down to long term goals. In the long term, I want to succeed in college so that I can pursue a career in a field that I find interesting, and have enough resources to spend my future leisure time doing other activities I enjoy. How do I compare the value of long term goals to the short term though? I feel that many in our society eventually become so ingrained in the “work hard now to be able to play hard in the future”, that they never actually make that final transition. Additionally, the ability to relax in the future is never guaranteed. Many work hard their entire lives but still struggle financially. Surely some kind of compromise is best, where one is able to enjoy some fulfilment throughout all parts of their life? I feel like this compares well to the “treadmill effect” discussed in the text. Society spends its days working towards goals that constantly change and require more effort, never actually gaining any satisfaction. There is undoubtedly some amount of social pressure involved in this as well. Nobody wants to fail relative to their peers, and that element of competitiveness contributes to the cycle. It would obviously be desirable to avoid this tendency. The benefits of leisure time can of course extend beyond simple enjoyment; it is practically common knowledge that lowered stress makes you more effective in other activities.

Returning to my efforts to complete the assignment, eventually  I got tired enough of worrying that I stopped caring as much about the work I had to do, and tried just focused on the present. I don’t know if the act of consciously lowering the importance of other academic tasks is a solution or just avoiding the problem, but it was much more effective than trying to simply ignore the stress. I decided I would spend a certain amount of time working on the project I enjoyed (treating that time as a sunk cost), and then re-evaluate after that was done. Overall, I was impressed with how satisfying it was to work on something completely unrelated to school for a while. I felt fully engaged with the subject matter I was working with (something I can’t always say with homework assignments or lecture), and the time passed much more rapidly than I was expecting. I still don’t have a good way to quantify the benefits of leisure time. However, unlike many of the other tasks on my list, I can set limits on how long I choose to engage in this time, something which makes it easier to incorporate into everyday life.

Encouraging the Future of Assistive Technology

What does it mean to be human? This question is fundamental in the debate over the legitimacy and ethics of assistive technology and human enhancement. As innovations in nanotechnology, biomedical, and robotic fields continues to develop, the possibility of substantial human enhancement (in some form) appears to be a real possibility. The class text subdivides these not too distance advancements into a number of categories, based on the kind of problem they solve (or fail to solve), and who is most likely to benefit. These categories range from the elimination of devastating diseases, all the way up to fundamental modifications of the mechanics (and definition)of the human body. For the sake of this post, I will primarily focus on the field of non-permanent, non-medical enhancements. Advanced prosthesis and assistive machinery have the potential to dramatically improve the abilities of the human body, whether the application is to assisting amputees or simply enhancing the mobility of everyday users. Assistive technology and robotic enhancement development should be encouraged in the future, assuming that proper regulation can be enforced and approved.

The first and primary usage of this technology could obviously be in the assistance of the injured or handicapped individuals. As mentioned in the text, many of the simple technologies we take for granted at present could fall into this category. The glasses that allow me to focus on this computer screen enable me to accomplish much more as a student than I could unaided. On a much more serious level, robotics that allow mobility in amputees or paralyzed individuals could change the lives of a number of people around the world. Of course, with any benefit, there are a number of barriers that would need to be overcome before unlimited adoption of this mentality could be made. One of the most common is that of technology distribution. This is a highly valid concern; costs for prosthetic limbs today can cost anywhere from $5000-$50,000 dollars (1). As prosthetics get more advanced and capable, it stands to reason that this cost spectrum will increase even further. Despite the inequality in technology distribution, however, there are very tangible overall benefits to innovations, even if they only initially benefit the wealthiest. For instance, the lithium-ion batteries powering the expensive electric wheelchair described in the text have (on average) almost halved in $/kWh in the last 5 years, from over 900 $/kWh to less than 500 $/kWh (2). This means that dramatically more energy dense batteries could be enjoyed by those who were previously only able to afford a tiring manual wheelchair or heavy lead-acid powered unit. This effect is bolstered by the economies of scale, and the increasing knowledge base around designing with the new technology. Despite inequalities existing in the introduction of a new technology, the applications of innovations to handicapped individuals benefits the handicapped community at large in the long run.

A secondary and more general use of human enhancement technology could be for entertainment, athletic and general mobility purposes. Mountaineering enthusiasts could travel further and higher, and gain access to locations and experiences that they otherwise could not. Workers who needed to lift heavy loads or stand on their feet all day long could gain a reprieve from the physical pain. Even among the general public, I suspect most individuals might enjoy the ability to jump higher, walk faster, and so on. Who knows, perhaps even CO2 emissions could be lowered as the need for cars decreased. At the same time, there would doubtlessly be resistance to this movement. This suggested innovation proposes tying our bodies and activities closer to technology than perhaps they have ever been before.  At some point, concerns about how human society still is would begin to manifest. Those who do not wish to participate in the “technological evolution” could potentially face different treatment or opportunities as those who do. At the same time, however, I would argue that the use of assistive or enhancing technology represents a personal choice. We don’t infringe on personal freedoms to get tattoos, body piercings, or non-medically approved RFID implants, despite the fact that many of these represent a semi-permanent body modification. Similarly, the definition of human is not necessarily chiseled in stone. Some of the characteristic qualities discussed in lecture included: memory, culture, language, reason, questioning, measuring, representations, symbolic cognition, consciousness, empathy, appreciation of mortality, awe, beauty and inspiration. I might even go further to suggest that the practice of innovation and tool-making is a fundamental part of the human identity. Humans were not born with wings, and yet millions fly every day. This is certainly not the only barrier to a more widespread adoption of this technology, however. Military usage, usage by terror groups, and other unanticipated exploitation could certainly have serious consequences. It is for this reason that such a techno future could only be possible with careful though and enforcement of appropriate regulations.

Works Cited:

(1)    "The Cost of a New Limb Can Add up Over a Lifetime." Hospital for Special Surgery. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. <http://www.hss.edu/newsroom_prosthetic-leg-cost-over-lifetime.asp#.VUv0mflVhBc>.

(2)    "The EV Conundrum: Uncertain Resale Value Complicates Li-ion Battery Market." Navigant Research The EV Conundrum Uncertain Resale Value Complicates Liion Battery Market Comments. N.p., 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 07 May 2015. <https://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/the-ev-conundrum-uncertain-resale-value-complicates-li-ion-battery-market>.