opencopy.org

- Teich, Ch. 4 -

Introduction

Weinberg is a physicist who worked in large-scale atomic energy R & D. He is the man who invented the term technological fix. There are lots of ways to look at his article; however, before doing so, let’s get a handle on the term that he coined - a term that has such negative connotations today.

It’s important to do this because Weinberg’s use of the term technological fix is much more measured and conservative than the way it was used by those who became techno-enthusiasts. First, Weinberg suggests that technological fixes and social engineering need to be used together. Technology that ignores social realities will simply not work. So, Weinberg is not a simplistic techno-booster. Second, Weinberg notes that technological fixes often only address part of the problem. They tend to be remedies for certain components within a problem and they don’t usually address the entire problem in all its profundity. Third, technological fixes often create new problems in their own right. These problems can be both technological and social. It is important to appreciate these related problems rather than to regard technology as a savior. Finally, the exploitation of technological fixes cannot come from within the technological domain itself. Social problems need to be identified by governments. Then governments need to invest in targeted research around those problems in order to discover and develop appropriate technologies.

Weinberg, therefore, is not making hugely exaggerated claims about the unilateral ability of technology to solve social problems. He does, however, suggest that new technologies and techniques can significantly address some of the most significant problems facing human societies. Let’s look at his examples. One of his examples is the Intra-Uterine Device for birth control. If population growth is, as many believe, a serious problem in terms of available resources and planetary pollution, then this device is an extremely useful one. It does not eliminate the social component. In many cultures, manhood and fertility are associated with the production of children. Social values will need to change in Spanish American countries, for example, if population growth is going to be reduced.

But where new technology can eliminate a problem, suggests Weinberg, it can dramatically reduce the need for social engineering (i.e. changing social values). Technology is particularly useful, in this respect, because social and cultural values are so very hard to change. We might spend a lot of energy, for example, trying to get North Americans to consume less and thereby produce less waste, but if we found technological ways of transforming or utilizing that waste, we could significantly reduce the problem.

I don’t think many would disagree with Weinberg about the potential utility of technology in solving the problems that have bedeviled society for centuries. In fact, compared to many techno boosters, he appears to have a balanced approached. Pragmatically, he assesses human nature for what it is and doesn’t expect a reformation overnight.

It is when we begin to assess some of the particular conclusions of this powerful and influential scientist (a former member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee) that we begin to identify some problems.

Problem 1: Vested Interests

Throughout this brief article, Weinberg advocates the use of nuclear (atomic) energy to solve the world’s energy problem. He informs us that nuclear energy is a cheap solution to some of the world’s most persistent problems. It will allow Third World countries to industrialize without the need for fossil fuels. It will allow us to transform seawater into fresh water and to transform deserts into productive agricultural communities. Water from the sea can be transformed into water that is acceptable for agriculture at a mere cost of 10 cents per 1,000 gallons. With a technology like that, he says, all the nations of the world can achieve energy autarky (self-sufficiency).

This sounds very much like techno-boosterism. The claim is very sweeping and not at all balanced. Moreover, during the 60s, many scientists were aware of the potential dangers of nuclear energy. Yet there is nothing here about those dangers, only more claims that we can get enough hydrogen out of nuclear processes to: 1) eliminate automobile exhaust; and 2) produce sufficient fertilizer to make the entire globe productive.

Here is a scientist partially pleading for an investment in his own research field. In fact, you could read the entire article as an advertisement for nuclear research posing as an impartial examination of technology.

Problem 2: Capitalizing on Man’s Weaknesses

It is one thing to suggest that technological fixes might provide more effective and agreeable solutions than social engineering, and quite another to use technological fixes to reinforce greed and aggression. Weinberg suggests not only that we accept “man’s intrinsic short-comings” but also that we “circumvent them or capitalize on them for socially useful ends.” In other words, we make safer cars for people who drink and drive; we transform rather than reduce waste; we produce more goods faster so that people can keep consuming.

Now this is a very dangerous strategy for a number of reasons. First, while social engineering in the past has not reformed human nature, it has discouraged excessive behaviours. The strategy outlined above has a direct tendency to encourage negative behaviours, on the grounds that there exists a technological fix. Moreover, the strategy encourages those in power or with means to exploit the word’s resources and to manipulate the weaknesses of consumers, on the grounds that this is the most practical and effective way to solve problems. Finally, the focus of governments and those in power clearly shifts away from controlling problems towards putting their faith in new technologies that can solve them.

Note just a few of the very problematic things that Weinberg says. He acts irresponsibly by telling us what he is not going to suggest any fanciful Technological fixes, but then he does mention them: 1) the fundamental cause of race riots in the United States is the “hot, humid weather” that could be eliminated by providing everyone with low cost air conditioners; 2) the elimination of human unhappiness with “soma pills” (i.e. anti-depressants. It is hard to believe that Weinberg does not realize that these fanciful suggestions are anything but, and that his argument provides ammunition for all kinds of scientific and technological research that is manipulative.

Problem 3: The Co-operation of Technical and Social Engineers

Throughout his little article, Weinberg suggests that technical fixes and social engineering must work together to solve the world’s biggest problems. He uses the term social engineering in a positive way - to create “a better society, and thereby, a better life, for all of us who are a part of society.”

There is another way of looking at this marriage of technology and social engineering and one that is not far fetched given Weinberg’s argument that it is appropriate to manipulate men and women’s weaknesses. That is to explicitly use technology to control human beings in the ways you want. Once you accept the manipulation of man’s weaknesses for socially useful ends as an acceptable strategy, the door is open to the use and abuse of technology by those in economic and political power. It is difficult to believe that Weinberg is not appealing at some level to those in power in society when he advances such arguments.

Problem 4: The Argument for Deterrence

Individuals may have differing views on the development of nuclear weapons. One argument is that these weapons are so potentially destructive that they should be banned altogether. Another is that these powerful weapons actually prevent warfare because the results would be horrific. It’s o.k. to have differing viewpoints on such topics.

But, in an article on technological fixes, it is highly problematic to use the development of nuclear weapons as a rationale for investing in technology. Where is the scientific neutrality of Weinberg claiming that he would cast his “vote for the weapons technologist”? The claim that this technology “stabilizes our imperfect and precarious peace” is disputable at the very least.

Surely, one would think, Weinberg could use other less-loaded examples to make his case. The fact that he takes this issue head on suggests several things. First, he is an apologist for nuclear energy in all its forms, including weapons. Second, he is justifying the U.S. industrial military complex that funds much of the atomic research in America. Third, he is suggesting that weapons technologists play a critical role in modern society, thereby eliminating the need for a personal and social discussion of the ethics involved in creating weapons of mass destruction.

Conclusion

While the general argument of Weinberg’s article provides few problems, his assumptions and examples provide much ground for concern. Here is a person who justifies the status quo. He uses his position of intellectual and technical authority to advocate the manipulation of people’s weaknesses. He promotes an alliance between technical and social engineers that is nothing short of dangerous. He defends the vested interests of his own particular field of scientific research - nuclear energy. He inflates the potential of technological development while barely mentioning its disadvantages.

In fact, you would never know that Weinberg was writing his article in the mid 60s, just when people were beginning to criticize nuclear energy, environmental pollution, the arms race, etc. The picture Weinberg presents may appear to be theoretically balanced, but it is an overly rosy one to say the least.

While Weinberg is willing to admit that technology cannot solve all social problems, he clearly believes that technology plays a major role. Moreover, by explicitly linking technological and social engineering, Weinberg greatly enhances the role of technique, technology, specialization and the control of experts in the modern world. By the end of the article, one has a clear sense that Weinberg is justifying and elevating the control of society by experts in the interest of greater technological efficiency.

The notes presented here are for the AK NATS 1760.06 “Science, Technology and Society” course offered in the Fall/Winter Semester of 2001/2002 by the Atkinson College of York University, Toronto, Canada and taught by John Dwyer. The lectures are based on the following texts:

1. Martin Bridgstock et al, Science, Technology and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1998), ISBN 0-521-58735-2
2. Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster, Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life (New York, Routledge, 1999), ISBN 0-415-16115-0
3. Albert H. Teich, Technology and the Future (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000), ISBN 0-312-01885-1

For more about John Dwyer, visit: http://www.sayitagain.com/ivorytower/