Human Enhanced Evolution
Chapter 15 talks about human enhancement and conveys several arenas such as gene screening (I am most interested in this one) and also raises a concern about winners and losers. To me, the whole idea of this chapter is evolution being facilitated by human technology.
So, what is evolution? There are many ways to interpret it. The most accepted one is Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which points out the conception of natural selection. The fundamental thread of natural selection is that "how good is an individual at giving babies." Another clearer way to explain it would be that it is a process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in inheritable physical and behavioral traits. Changes that allow organisms to better adapt to environment will help them survive and have more offspring. For example, if one works out a lot and looks very shaped and muscular, is his kids going to be shaped and muscular? No, because that trait is acquired through exercise, which is not inheritable.
Modern civilization has a complete morality system and a highly developed medical system. Specifically, in such morality systems, people are only allowed to have one spouse ( I'm not trying to say polyandry or polygamy is adorable). Such limits a genetically better individual to have more offspring. Medical system facilitates people to get cured from diseases, which nevertheless hinders Nature to eliminate weak individuals. In a word, the evolution process is somehow handicapped as human civilization establishes. Now, with the development of science, human being, sooner or later, will enter a stage where evolution can be re-processed. As Woodhouse suggesting about genetic screening, I am in favor of it and think it is absolutely promising. Let me bring some examples, sickle cell anemia is a hereditary disease of which patients have abnormal red blood cell shaped like a sickle and it can develop multiple lethal conditions. This disease has a higher frequency among African. Why so? In the old time, malaria is prevalent in west Africa, and people with sickle shaped blood cells are immune to malaria because blood cells shaped so are unable to carry malaria. Thus, although seems harmful today, such trait is adorable in a period in history, and it is because that sickle cell people are more likely to survive from malaria and give birth to more kids. Such traits is passed down and becomes a disease. Nowadays, malaria can be cured easily, wouldn't it be awesome if gene screening can help sickle cell people to identify fetuses with the disease and only give birth to fetuses without disease (from another perspective, few parents want their babies to have inherited disease and suffer lifelong). From a personal experience, I had an intern at a company called Beijing Genomics Institute. At there, both of my mentors have Thalassemia, which is a hereditary disease about blood cells. Just like sickle cell, it is a trait which inhibit carrying malaria, and it is originated in south-east Asia. The thing is that my mentors are couples, so they utilized the technology to run several pregnancy trial and eventually they have a baby without this disease. It sounds amazing to me: this is a life-changing-story by proper use of technology happened just next to me, and I do believe that with the development of gene screening, more and more inherited disease will be able to be cure or even prevented at embryo stage.
Responding to the concern of Woodhouse about "winners and losers," I think it is just fine to have winners and losers. Woodhouse's hidden assumption is that it is unfair to have winners and losers and that winners are very likely to be rich people. In my perspective, his assumption is untenable in a way that all games will have winner and loser. "If Heat defeats Celtics in a basketball game, does this mean that basketball is an unfair game?" Obviously not. Talking about evolution, all organisms are equally involved in this big game held by earth. If there are eliminated organisms, it does not mean that earth is being provincial. The same reasoning applies to human-facilitated-evolution as well. The "game" is unfair only if availability is gated by gender, by race , or by nationality. In my perspective, money should not be considered as an unfair factor. To interpret this attitude, we have to first examine some causes of gaps of income. As I explain previously in this blog, inheritable behavioral traits also count as part of evolution (intelligence definitely matters). It has been proved that some people are more resistant to daily pressure; some people are more focused; some are more determined due to gene expression. These behavioral traits strongly affect one's achievements. Maybe the kid gets A is the one who is willing to studying 3 more hours the night before final. Maybe he has 4 papers, 2 projects and 2 exams due in one week, and he just doesn't give up. It is true that birth lottery goes on. He might inherit such "tough traits" from his parents which might help him earning more in the future. When he is about to have a baby, he will afford genetic screening to make a step further in the process of evolution. To me, this is the default rule set by the Nature. It is unquestionable, and it would be outlandish to break such rule.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Week 4/7 (400 words)
Can/Should Technoscientists Do More to Promote Fairness
Chapter 14 serves one purpose: that is to ask if people should concern that science might contribute to unfairness. Woodhouse lists four potential reasons that might lead to such concern. As he says, these reasons are "bold or foolish," (no offense) and I would like to list several arguments against some of his reasoning.
The first reason he brought up is money issue: the affluent nations that can best afford tech research. Under historical, geographical and cultural reasons, countries cannot be in the same pace. Some are developed country, some are developing country, and some are third world country. It is impossible to stop affluent countries investing R&D. However, affluent countries do help poor countries to perform R&D under certain circumstances. This reason seems to be entirely controlled by the government where scientists can hardly interfere.For example, NATO prohibits selling army technology to Communism country because technologies are top secrets. It is hard to say that scientist should do more to promote fairness in army technology, but they definitely are incapable of doing so (it is all up to the government). Thus, Woodhouse's first reason is somehow deviated from this chapter's argument.
The second reason he proposes is that the ratio of investment in science has been increasing. and a lot of R&D are conducted in US, so a large proportion of R&D is for relatively affluent customer. This is unconvincing because it is based on a assumption that R&D done in affluent country are focused on relatively affluent customers, which might not be true. As we known, many researches in US are to make vaccine cheaper, to make energy cheaper that third world country can afford them. Also, the directions of R&D are more determined by the market. There are more poor people and less rich people. Some products are designed for low income population, and some are aimed at high income population. This is like a trade-off between "earn less money in each transaction but do more transaction" versus "earn more money in each transaction with less total amounts of transaction." For example, Moto X is a cheap phone that sells a lot in Mexico whereas Iphone is not so popular. Therefore, this reason seems not creating a lot of unfairness.
Generally, it is hard to say who is right or wrong since I did not deeply look into government policy about supporting foreign countries' R&D or market size of different income/interest population (I do not think Woodhouse did as well). The point I wish to make in this post is that how reasons can bounce back and forth in these controversy, and it is important to be open-minded and to carefully examine many aspects before making conclusion.
Chapter 14 serves one purpose: that is to ask if people should concern that science might contribute to unfairness. Woodhouse lists four potential reasons that might lead to such concern. As he says, these reasons are "bold or foolish," (no offense) and I would like to list several arguments against some of his reasoning.
The first reason he brought up is money issue: the affluent nations that can best afford tech research. Under historical, geographical and cultural reasons, countries cannot be in the same pace. Some are developed country, some are developing country, and some are third world country. It is impossible to stop affluent countries investing R&D. However, affluent countries do help poor countries to perform R&D under certain circumstances. This reason seems to be entirely controlled by the government where scientists can hardly interfere.For example, NATO prohibits selling army technology to Communism country because technologies are top secrets. It is hard to say that scientist should do more to promote fairness in army technology, but they definitely are incapable of doing so (it is all up to the government). Thus, Woodhouse's first reason is somehow deviated from this chapter's argument.
The second reason he proposes is that the ratio of investment in science has been increasing. and a lot of R&D are conducted in US, so a large proportion of R&D is for relatively affluent customer. This is unconvincing because it is based on a assumption that R&D done in affluent country are focused on relatively affluent customers, which might not be true. As we known, many researches in US are to make vaccine cheaper, to make energy cheaper that third world country can afford them. Also, the directions of R&D are more determined by the market. There are more poor people and less rich people. Some products are designed for low income population, and some are aimed at high income population. This is like a trade-off between "earn less money in each transaction but do more transaction" versus "earn more money in each transaction with less total amounts of transaction." For example, Moto X is a cheap phone that sells a lot in Mexico whereas Iphone is not so popular. Therefore, this reason seems not creating a lot of unfairness.
Generally, it is hard to say who is right or wrong since I did not deeply look into government policy about supporting foreign countries' R&D or market size of different income/interest population (I do not think Woodhouse did as well). The point I wish to make in this post is that how reasons can bounce back and forth in these controversy, and it is important to be open-minded and to carefully examine many aspects before making conclusion.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
week 3/31
Privileged Position of Science
Woodhouse delivers the idea of privileged position of science though the example of nanotechnology. Woodhouse suggests that it is incorrect to cede authority to scientists without procedures for holding them accountable. I agree with his point, but I also think that scientists can make a step not abusing their privileges.
Compare to the governments or investors, scientists seems staying in a weaker position because scientists always ask permissions/funding from them. It seems that scientists are employees who listen to their bosses. This is not exactly the fact, however. In many cases, "employers" have to listen to or ask advise from scientists because scientists have the most powerful weapon, which is knowledge. Knowledge is the fundamental factor of the privileged position of science. Why so? For example, if people are facing some issues that they do not know, they cannot make a decision about it. Under such premise, people usually consult others who have specific knowledge and probably follow the advises. In a word, scientists' privilege is that their advises can strongly influence and guide others' decisions. Furthermore, this privilege is even more powerful in USA than any other country. USA is probably the most developed country in many perspectives. It has a mature market, advanced technology and comprehensive infrastructure. Here I am going to compare China to USA. In China, if the government wants to invest something or if a rich person wants to start a new business, there are many options. They can do trades and sells. They can build factories to take orders from foreign companies and manufacture merchandises. They can also build parks, highways, apartments, subways, malls and theaters. However, in USA, all the above fields are mature, and a start-up is not as competitive against some companies which have done businesses for years. Thus, money is driven to innovations, new ideas and new technologies since these are far more promising. Such social background promotes the privileged position of science.
How does such privileged position of science become a problem for the society since it is an inevitable product of current social structure? In my opinion, privilege blinds and even corrupts people inevitably. Since everyone is so relied on scientists knowledge about what to do in the future. Scientists might start to use their privilege in their favor -- gets funding and attentions in their research directions. They might exaggerate the advantage of certain technology or present part of the facts in order to skew people's opinions. Such misuse of privilege can be prevented by the people. As Woodhouse suggests: people should not completely cede authority without carefully examining what's been told.
Aside from the responsibility of people, scientists should also realize that the privilege, more or less, is based on people's trust of the correctness of their knowledge and morality that scientists must not, under any circumstances, abuse other people's trust. When scientists present technology (to the public), they should be more cautious about the materials is delivered informatively rather than persuasively, because it is their obligation is to adhere to pure facts but not to advertise or market.
Another factor that also draws my attention is about unintended consequences. It is not because that scientists abuse their privilege, nor that people follow advises blindly. Maybe some materials presented are misunderstood by the people. Maybe certain technology released is deviated from its original design goal. For example, social networking was brought up to bring people closer, but now, sometimes when people are sitting next to each, they don't necessarily talk to each other. Instead, they stare at their phones and text to someone virtually 100 miles away. I still believe that all technologies are designed for good sake even though some of them becomes inappropriate later on.
Woodhouse delivers the idea of privileged position of science though the example of nanotechnology. Woodhouse suggests that it is incorrect to cede authority to scientists without procedures for holding them accountable. I agree with his point, but I also think that scientists can make a step not abusing their privileges.
Compare to the governments or investors, scientists seems staying in a weaker position because scientists always ask permissions/funding from them. It seems that scientists are employees who listen to their bosses. This is not exactly the fact, however. In many cases, "employers" have to listen to or ask advise from scientists because scientists have the most powerful weapon, which is knowledge. Knowledge is the fundamental factor of the privileged position of science. Why so? For example, if people are facing some issues that they do not know, they cannot make a decision about it. Under such premise, people usually consult others who have specific knowledge and probably follow the advises. In a word, scientists' privilege is that their advises can strongly influence and guide others' decisions. Furthermore, this privilege is even more powerful in USA than any other country. USA is probably the most developed country in many perspectives. It has a mature market, advanced technology and comprehensive infrastructure. Here I am going to compare China to USA. In China, if the government wants to invest something or if a rich person wants to start a new business, there are many options. They can do trades and sells. They can build factories to take orders from foreign companies and manufacture merchandises. They can also build parks, highways, apartments, subways, malls and theaters. However, in USA, all the above fields are mature, and a start-up is not as competitive against some companies which have done businesses for years. Thus, money is driven to innovations, new ideas and new technologies since these are far more promising. Such social background promotes the privileged position of science.
How does such privileged position of science become a problem for the society since it is an inevitable product of current social structure? In my opinion, privilege blinds and even corrupts people inevitably. Since everyone is so relied on scientists knowledge about what to do in the future. Scientists might start to use their privilege in their favor -- gets funding and attentions in their research directions. They might exaggerate the advantage of certain technology or present part of the facts in order to skew people's opinions. Such misuse of privilege can be prevented by the people. As Woodhouse suggests: people should not completely cede authority without carefully examining what's been told.
Aside from the responsibility of people, scientists should also realize that the privilege, more or less, is based on people's trust of the correctness of their knowledge and morality that scientists must not, under any circumstances, abuse other people's trust. When scientists present technology (to the public), they should be more cautious about the materials is delivered informatively rather than persuasively, because it is their obligation is to adhere to pure facts but not to advertise or market.
Another factor that also draws my attention is about unintended consequences. It is not because that scientists abuse their privilege, nor that people follow advises blindly. Maybe some materials presented are misunderstood by the people. Maybe certain technology released is deviated from its original design goal. For example, social networking was brought up to bring people closer, but now, sometimes when people are sitting next to each, they don't necessarily talk to each other. Instead, they stare at their phones and text to someone virtually 100 miles away. I still believe that all technologies are designed for good sake even though some of them becomes inappropriate later on.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Week 3/24
Over-consumption
Over-consumption is a serious issue nowadays. It contradicts the conception of sustainable development, which basically is acknowledged globally. What I used to hear from my grandpa is that at his time, when something is broken, people fix it; now people just buy new ones. What even worse is that people buy new ones even things are just out-fashioned.
Prof. Woodhouse proposed two reasons to over-consumption: that is the desire of variety and quantity. I totally agree with this. Consumers always have strong momentum to use new fancy stuffs. Such becomes the market and design guideline: replacing old devices with new generation. Also, Woodhouse suggested that "engineers operate under significant constraints that they are limited in what they can do until their companies function differently." Companies want profits from consumer, so they have to design products that fulfill consumers' needs and desires. Under this premise, companies must hire engineers who are capable of doing so. Now standing in engineers' shoes. engineers have bills to pay and families to feed. They have to do what companies want in order to keep their jobs. Taking this a step further, companies would love to guide their consumer to live in a prodigal way with commercial advertisement bombs. Because this brings even more profits. The entire chain is cycling in a negative direction and it is hard to stop at one point (engineer).
Are engineers completely non-guilty? I would say probably not. First of all, engineers want to design new cool things. This is more of a self-realization aspect: who would want to repeat things redundantly!? Anecdotally, I am taking a mechanical capstone design course this semester, and my team project is to design a system which uses a phone to assess people's ability to balance themselves. The phone is hung on a belt around the waist, and the belt is completely fine from the previous design, but we change it and come up with a new belt that is a little bit tighter with a transparent pocket to hold the phone more stably. The old one is just being locked up. I think such phenomenon happens in industry as well. When engineers do not know what to use to surprise the market, they will just make some simple updates to the old one that perfectly works fine. An example would be ipad. I have an ipad 2 for 4 years and it works fine, but I forget how many updated versions of it are out there. For Iphone, the company just comes up with several variation in color and sells as a new version, and people buy those. To me, it feels like after Steve Jobs' death, apple lost its creativity. Engineers don't know what to do and start to make unnecessary changes or trivial updates. Then, they belie the consumers through advertisements. Regarding to this situation, engineers are the one should be blamed for lack of creativity and bringing up redundant work.
In conclusion, Woodhouse addressed over-consumption to the population of engineers: what can engineers do to alleviate? He wasn't looking for solution about waking up money diggers among companies' shareholders or general consumers, and I think that what engineers can do is waking up from the fantasy of designing new cool fancy items but truly making milestone changes to existing products and/or designing products which are not to be replace in half a year, which can be fixed rather than dumped (take a look at an old Nokia phone and compare it to an Iphone 5S, it's obvious how fixable things look like.
Over-consumption is a serious issue nowadays. It contradicts the conception of sustainable development, which basically is acknowledged globally. What I used to hear from my grandpa is that at his time, when something is broken, people fix it; now people just buy new ones. What even worse is that people buy new ones even things are just out-fashioned.
Prof. Woodhouse proposed two reasons to over-consumption: that is the desire of variety and quantity. I totally agree with this. Consumers always have strong momentum to use new fancy stuffs. Such becomes the market and design guideline: replacing old devices with new generation. Also, Woodhouse suggested that "engineers operate under significant constraints that they are limited in what they can do until their companies function differently." Companies want profits from consumer, so they have to design products that fulfill consumers' needs and desires. Under this premise, companies must hire engineers who are capable of doing so. Now standing in engineers' shoes. engineers have bills to pay and families to feed. They have to do what companies want in order to keep their jobs. Taking this a step further, companies would love to guide their consumer to live in a prodigal way with commercial advertisement bombs. Because this brings even more profits. The entire chain is cycling in a negative direction and it is hard to stop at one point (engineer).
Are engineers completely non-guilty? I would say probably not. First of all, engineers want to design new cool things. This is more of a self-realization aspect: who would want to repeat things redundantly!? Anecdotally, I am taking a mechanical capstone design course this semester, and my team project is to design a system which uses a phone to assess people's ability to balance themselves. The phone is hung on a belt around the waist, and the belt is completely fine from the previous design, but we change it and come up with a new belt that is a little bit tighter with a transparent pocket to hold the phone more stably. The old one is just being locked up. I think such phenomenon happens in industry as well. When engineers do not know what to use to surprise the market, they will just make some simple updates to the old one that perfectly works fine. An example would be ipad. I have an ipad 2 for 4 years and it works fine, but I forget how many updated versions of it are out there. For Iphone, the company just comes up with several variation in color and sells as a new version, and people buy those. To me, it feels like after Steve Jobs' death, apple lost its creativity. Engineers don't know what to do and start to make unnecessary changes or trivial updates. Then, they belie the consumers through advertisements. Regarding to this situation, engineers are the one should be blamed for lack of creativity and bringing up redundant work.
In conclusion, Woodhouse addressed over-consumption to the population of engineers: what can engineers do to alleviate? He wasn't looking for solution about waking up money diggers among companies' shareholders or general consumers, and I think that what engineers can do is waking up from the fantasy of designing new cool fancy items but truly making milestone changes to existing products and/or designing products which are not to be replace in half a year, which can be fixed rather than dumped (take a look at an old Nokia phone and compare it to an Iphone 5S, it's obvious how fixable things look like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)