Planet A overreaches complexity
Some people trust either government or industry (but not the other) to manage tremendously complex situations. I trust/distrust both in equal measure. Progressive complexity, however, will still continue.
It's not like the U.S. government has the tools to fix the Deepwater Horizon problem. Supposedly, even nuclear submarines can't go deep enough to visit that blown oil well. BP still retains sole discretion on the cleanup effort in the Gulf. *exasperated sigh* They have decided NOT to use the volunteer-crafted booms made from donated natural fibers like hair, fur, and wool. So the booms are now sitting unused in warehouses around the Gulf while oil continues to wash up on beaches. I'm also told (by an oceanographer who will remain nameless because I expect that he likes his job) that a scientific research vessel approaching the area has been told by its government agency funder that its data might be "quarantined". I expected a lot more transparency and engagement from the Obama presidency. The problem, once again, seems to be that industrial organizations have legal rights that supercede citizen-taxpayer interests. I'm more than ready to change that balance by adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to clarify this point.
Irony is often used in an amusing way, but sometimes it's just starkly sad. Here are two examples. In each pair here, one item is an actual advertisement video from a big corporation, and the other item is a photo of the recent reality in that industry.
(Click these links to see more photos about the Upper Big Branch coal mine disaster or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.)
I've long heard stories that Romans would have their highway engineers stand underneath a bridge as the last supports were removed or when the first legion marched across it, so they would take ultimate responsibility (with their life) for the safety and reliability of their work. I've decided that I favor using the same standard in modern industry. If solutions are known, but a company decides not to employ them because of cost, then submit them to the folly of their own work if it fails. Leave their CEO abandoned in a sealed coal mine or dropped alone into an ocean covered with oil. I trust no legislation or market force to instill ethical responsibility. When people pursue wealth, I think that only life-preserving self-interest can achieve the appropriate level of attention. Remember those Roman engineers. Pride, yes, but also enforced accountability.
Yes, there will always be failures as humans attempt complex tasks. We unanimously cared about the space shuttles and their astronauts, yet we failed spectacularly in their safe execution. Twice. Still, I would take the first opportunity to fly in them if they were still being launched!
Risk, yes, but risk for a cause that is not wealth. Somehow that makes the difference. Complexity for a goal of universally shared knowledge, rather than just ambition for personal gain. I can't detail exactly how that difference matters, but somehow that's the core of the distinction that I feel exists. Aren't ethics and justice supposed to be cornerstones of our legal system? Why do they seem to take a back seat always to interests of wealth? Some failures (however profitable) deserve punishment, while others (however costly) deserve continuing attempts.
Why are the stories of adventure and exploration so much more compelling than the stories of acquisition and consolidation? I wish I could explain. A clear distinction would make legislation much easier to write.
Progress will continue. Complexity will increase. There will be changes to make (and costs to pay). The first great mass extinction happened when life discovered how to photosynthesize. A useless byproduct was oxygen. I've read stories that this oxygen contamination of our atmosphere killed an estimated 95% of Earth's inhabitants at the time. Eventually (geological timescales), life flourished in the changed environment. The timespan is the tricky thing. I'm rather fond of this environment. I hate to see it wasted in pursuit of such temporary gains as wealth or convenience during the lifespan of a single individual or corporation. It seems... criminal. Except that it isn't. *disappointed sigh*
The anthropocene extinction event continues apace.
It's not like the U.S. government has the tools to fix the Deepwater Horizon problem. Supposedly, even nuclear submarines can't go deep enough to visit that blown oil well. BP still retains sole discretion on the cleanup effort in the Gulf. *exasperated sigh* They have decided NOT to use the volunteer-crafted booms made from donated natural fibers like hair, fur, and wool. So the booms are now sitting unused in warehouses around the Gulf while oil continues to wash up on beaches. I'm also told (by an oceanographer who will remain nameless because I expect that he likes his job) that a scientific research vessel approaching the area has been told by its government agency funder that its data might be "quarantined". I expected a lot more transparency and engagement from the Obama presidency. The problem, once again, seems to be that industrial organizations have legal rights that supercede citizen-taxpayer interests. I'm more than ready to change that balance by adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to clarify this point.
Irony is often used in an amusing way, but sometimes it's just starkly sad. Here are two examples. In each pair here, one item is an actual advertisement video from a big corporation, and the other item is a photo of the recent reality in that industry.
Click to view(Click these links to see more photos about the Upper Big Branch coal mine disaster or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.)
I've long heard stories that Romans would have their highway engineers stand underneath a bridge as the last supports were removed or when the first legion marched across it, so they would take ultimate responsibility (with their life) for the safety and reliability of their work. I've decided that I favor using the same standard in modern industry. If solutions are known, but a company decides not to employ them because of cost, then submit them to the folly of their own work if it fails. Leave their CEO abandoned in a sealed coal mine or dropped alone into an ocean covered with oil. I trust no legislation or market force to instill ethical responsibility. When people pursue wealth, I think that only life-preserving self-interest can achieve the appropriate level of attention. Remember those Roman engineers. Pride, yes, but also enforced accountability.
Yes, there will always be failures as humans attempt complex tasks. We unanimously cared about the space shuttles and their astronauts, yet we failed spectacularly in their safe execution. Twice. Still, I would take the first opportunity to fly in them if they were still being launched!
Risk, yes, but risk for a cause that is not wealth. Somehow that makes the difference. Complexity for a goal of universally shared knowledge, rather than just ambition for personal gain. I can't detail exactly how that difference matters, but somehow that's the core of the distinction that I feel exists. Aren't ethics and justice supposed to be cornerstones of our legal system? Why do they seem to take a back seat always to interests of wealth? Some failures (however profitable) deserve punishment, while others (however costly) deserve continuing attempts.
Why are the stories of adventure and exploration so much more compelling than the stories of acquisition and consolidation? I wish I could explain. A clear distinction would make legislation much easier to write.
Progress will continue. Complexity will increase. There will be changes to make (and costs to pay). The first great mass extinction happened when life discovered how to photosynthesize. A useless byproduct was oxygen. I've read stories that this oxygen contamination of our atmosphere killed an estimated 95% of Earth's inhabitants at the time. Eventually (geological timescales), life flourished in the changed environment. The timespan is the tricky thing. I'm rather fond of this environment. I hate to see it wasted in pursuit of such temporary gains as wealth or convenience during the lifespan of a single individual or corporation. It seems... criminal. Except that it isn't. *disappointed sigh*
The anthropocene extinction event continues apace.