Just been reading a highly slanted article on technological innovation, using terminology such as "increasingly seized upon by green activists" [meaning 'believed in'], "other romantics" [meaning 'impractical people'], "an unanswerable credo" [the only correct assumption in the article].Basically, what the anonymous author is so down on is that when considering technological innovation, one should exercise caution with regard to its potential consequences. And what? Should we not? Here are some of the other things in this article:
At every stage the opponents of technological progress argue that just because there is no evidence of harm, that does not mean that something is not harmful. We have to 'prove' that it is not harmful before we embrace it.
Yes, you do have to prove it when public safety is involved, e.g. in aircraft, boats and trains. Are technophiles really suggesting that accountability and rigid testing should not be the norm?
This form of pre-scientific thinking presents a serious obstacle to rational discussion.
Actually, the diametric opposite - it's precisely what is needed, rational discussion but technophiles are so enamoured of a new idea, e.g. the new TGV, that any questioning voice is ruthlessly suppressed.
I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. All I can say are two things: firstly, sustained observation over the past 20 years has revealed no evidence of their presence, and secondly the existence of fairies, in my garden or elsewhere, is very unlikely on a priori grounds. This is how science works – precisely in accord with the principles of Karl Popper that hypotheses cannot be proved, only refuted.
This is the great technophile drift from the truth. Quite apart from the spurious analogy which has no relevance to the development of hi-tech transport, quite apart from 'science' being quoted as an uncountable noun and therefore an unassailable oracle [which was the basis of my last post], quite apart from the gratuitous use of Karl Popper's notion of the non-provability of hypotheses as a precondition of their truth - this has nothing whatever to do with the development of hi-tech transport where every hypothesis must be rigidly and empirically tested and if unprovable, must be discarded.
This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history has taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable.
Yet again - how is it irrational to demand that all possible known permutations and ramifications be tested, including operational testing which would reveal things which did not arise at the drawing board stage? The perfect example is the BC Ferry disaster where there is sound evidence that the crew switched off the new navigation system because of the glare. Operational testing at night would have revealed this. Plus, the author is invoking the experience of history which is in itself empiricist.
Everything in life involves a risk of some kind. [The article then invokes the Pilgrim Fathers in their fragile ships and advances in medicine.]
So, it's fine to kill off a few dozen people in the interest of medical advancement [the Mengele principle again].
In reality, the precautionary principle presents a serious hazard to our health which extends way beyond the generation of unnecessary neuroses.
Non sequitur.
The narrow philosophy which surrounds the precautionary principle is fundamentally conservative in both political and literal senses.
Yes it is. It assumes human error and is very, very conservative when the lives of masses of people are involved. An example is the Aeroflot Airbus A310-304 in Siberia. The pilot had his sons and daughter on board and allowed the 15 year old to sit in the pilot's seat whilst he was otherwise engaged.
The boy gripped the half-wheel and 'playing pilot', turned it past 30 degrees, which automatically disengaged the auto-pilot on the ailerons. It was only when the plane began to bank to the right that the pilot sprang into action and demanded of his son what he had done.
The boy was terrified and said, "Nothing, Papa" [on the voice recorder]. So they then ran a rapid check of the auto-pilot to root out the malfunction [of course it was actually switched off]. All 75 passengers and crew were killed.
This article is not arguing against technological advances. It is arguing that human error and human stupidity must be assumed, organizational and bureaucratic glitches must be assumed. The technology might work perfectly, even in operation but that's not enough. The technicians feel their work is done when the machine is in operation and hasn't crashed after a few runs.
This is not good enough in a life or death situation and the attitude revealed in the emotive language in the Precautionary Principle article is the chief concern. Blind devotion to the shiny new toy and thorough factory testing is no substitute for a worst-case-scenario analysis.
In the end, the truth is that such analyses cost money whereas lives cost nothing [in technophiles' metallic cold and bureaucrats' Glory Boys logic]. Except that they do cost money in the end - billions in compensation.
I'm confused by this.
ReplyDeleteYou want every scenario thought of to be tested and then you illustrate then benefit of this with two scenarios which evidently nobody thought of. If only someone had considered the effects of putting a child in charge of an aeroplane! Disengaging the autopilot if an evasive action is required sounds sensible to me. But what do I know, I'm only a technophile.
Why Sir, if the Stockton to Darlington railway exceeds 15 miles per hour then surely we should all perish.
James,
ReplyDeleteAlthough Blognor sounds like a smartass, there are a couple of grains of wheat amidst the chaff.
The critical differences between your examples are types of vehicle and location. Reverse them and you end up with a plane crash in Canada and a ferry disaster in Russia.
The ferry disaster would still have taken place, for no reason other than that the ferry's design flaw was so profound; however, would the plane crash have happened in Canada?
It's perhaps doubtful that a Canadian pilot would ever let his kid assume his aircraft's controls, if only because he would know he would immediately lose his job if discovered.
What is the state of the Russian law concerning employees' negligence? Does it have a state as such? Are civil remedies as easily available in Russia as they are in Canada?
You don't need me to tell you that the human factor is often critical to disasters - and perhaps we're lucky that we haven't suffered more, given the current corporate cultural predilection for placing profit on a par with safety.
But the likelihood of being sued is still a powerful incentive to make the product safe and to encourage people to use it safely.
I'm not a rail enthusiast, but I recall reading once that one of the reasons Beeching was set to work was the number of fatalities amongst railway workers - even that 15 miles per hour was dodgy, Blognor. The 6.51 to Biting-Ankles-In-The Mould was a Ride of Death.
Apart from that, of course you're right on the money. The technical ego is more attuned to the mood of metal than man, so, just as with politicians, economists and generals, the technician should never be permitted to work unsupervised.
Unless they are 93. And have a letter from both parents.
BR, obviously the Russian example was extreme but the BC Ferry was not and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You say:
ReplyDeleteYou want every scenario thought of to be tested...
Where did I state that? Where did I state that we should not exceed 15 mph? It's the extreme reactions which debase the debate. The tone of my article was of concern, as Martin states:
The technical ego is more attuned to the mood of metal than man, so, just as with politicians, economists and generals, the technician should never be permitted to work unsupervised.
Unless they are 93. And have a letter from both parents.
That's all I'm saying.