Industrial Technology 198
Technology & Civilization
Instructor Jack McKeller
Essays on Technology and Civilization
What role does moral obligation play in the development and use of aspects of biotechnology, the environment, social issues and information technologies?
The concept of technology has no moral sense or obligations. Technology is a process where scientific knowledge and mechanical engineering is brought together to create new tools and develop new processes of which to perform certain tasks. The only obligation of a technology is to perform the task it was designed for, adapt the technology to perform its task or replace the technology with a new technology that can perform the task with improved results. While technology has no moral sense or obligations, society and the individuals who use the technology must understand and accept the morals and values of their society as humanity embraces a technology of which its power can possibly destroy these social morals and values. Human society must look into itself and examine the morals and values their civilization was founded upon—religious teachings, social customs, mores, stories, laws, literature, arts, music, beliefs, fears, ambitions—and to take all that a civilization can use to define itself, then examine a technology and determine how this technology can be adapted for society’s own benefit of its people.
Of all the technologies, biotechnology is the most serious in how a civilization can define its moral obligations to the technology. Biotechnology affects the very foundation of life and life’s process—life with can be created or destroyed. With the development of the Human Genome Project, scientist would be able to map the entire genetic code for humans and determine which genes affect which human traits. The ability to manipulate human genes gives rise to the concept of eugenics or even the concept of cloning human individuals genetically developed to perform certain tasks. Those selected individuals who have the access and knowledge to understand and use such technology will have the ability to create life in their own image and to become gods to mankind. Such a power can be abused. Genetically engineered food is another example. Those who have the technology to genetically engineered food items can develop food for the specific needs of a small market willing to pay for such items while overlooking the needs of members of a society who may not have the resources. An example would be to genetically engineer baby carrots or baby corn for salads that members of an advanced society may purchase and use while members of an impoverished society may not have the resources to purchase a genetically engineered strain of wheat which can grow in arid or desert conditions. Society must recognize the dangers and benefits of biotechnology and must see that the benefits of a biotechnology are equally shared to all members and not concentrated to only a few.
The environment is a serious problem since environmental waste and pollution affect all members of society in all nations. Pollution does not limit itself inside of a particular nation’s borders, but rather spreads throughout the earth. Sulfur dioxide, which is expelled in the atmosphere from coal plants in the United States, can drift north into the Canadian forests and combine with water moisture to form acid rain and destroy those forests. The nuclear accident at Cherynoble released radioactive gas and particles, which have been dispersed throughout the world. Nations with advanced technology and the resources would have the ability to clean up the environment within their borders for the benefit of their own people. However, nations that are attempting to industrialize their economies and raise the standard of living for their own people will not have the technology or resources to clean the environment of the pollution caused by industrialization. These nations are concentrating on trying to industrialize and raise the standard of living, which is already common in advanced nations. The moral obligation of both advanced societies and societies which are attempting to industrialize is to find some common technologies which can be installed in an industrializing nation’s infrastructure at minimal cost, which can help limit the effects of pollution. For in the end, pollution affects all nations in all borders.
The world’s population is growing at an expanded rate. In 1927, the population was estimated to be around 2 billion people. By 2054, the population is expected to explode to around 9 billion people. Much of this population growth is expected in China and India of which both nations are attempting to industrialize their economies to support this population. In contrast, the populations of the United States and Western Europe are remaining at a relatively stable rate of growth. With the exploding population in China and India, both nations are going to need an increasing amount of resources in food, water, and energy to support this base of people. The goal of technology is to find ways to support an increasing amount of people using resources in an efficient way. What new energy technologies can be developed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which can support a greater demand for energy? What agricultural technologies can be developed to increase the food output in order to feed a greater share of people? If these issues are not resolved, then there will be an unequal distribution of resources between the advanced societies of the United States and Europe which have a lower population base, but consume most of the earth’s resources, and the Third World countries of China and India which will have a greater share of the world’s population, but will not have the resources to support that population. This can lead to a dangerous confrontation between the haves and have-nots—especially if the confrontation is between nuclear powers of the United States, China and India.
The information highway and communications technology will also give benefits to those individuals who have access to the technology and knowledge to use this technology over individuals who do not have access. This again corresponds to nations and societies with advanced technological infrastructure will make greater use of this technology over those nations and societies who do not have access. The question here for moral obligations is how can this technology be provided to those individuals who do not have access? An even more important issue is that those individuals who do have access to the technology and the knowledge to use this technology would have the means to provide the information, to determine what information and content can be published on the information superhighway which will suit their own interests over those interests of others. This means that power will be concentrated to the few who control the technology and the gateways to access the technology. How can information and knowledge be shared equally among individuals and societies without censorship due to political, racial, religious or cultural values?
Moral obligations with the development of technologies will not come cheap for societies. Any decision on a technology and how it will be used to society will benefit members of one group while hurting members of another group. There are no easy answers—no quick fixes. But rather, compromising positions, which can benefit all members to an extent, must be addressed and the technologies developed to provide the solutions to these problems. These are the issues that society must confront and provide solutions to for technology.
How can you increase the quality of life in developing countries through technological diffusion and technology transfer?
The question of improving the quality of life in developing countries has been asked throughout the history of the earth. Developed countries would exert their influence and use their technology to subvert or destroy the social and political structures of a less developed society in the name of progress. England would move in and take over a less developed territory and colonize it under the guise of “civilizing the natives” to become model citizens of the British Empire when in reality the colonization of territories meant access to raw materials for the factories back in England. Investment of technology was never emphasized for the true benefit of the citizens in the colony or to use that technology to improve the quality of life for the colony’s citizens. The question is still being debated today as global conglomerates invest the technology of manufacturing in less developed countries for access of cheap raw materials and cheap labor for the development of finished products which will be sold to US and Western European markets with none of the profits benefiting the population of the less developed countries. So the question remains. How can technological diffusion and technology transfer improve the quality of life in less developed countries? The problem is that each individual less developed nation will have its own level of infrastructure. The infrastructure of a developing nation such as Thailand is far different than a developing nation such as Mozambique. Thailand may have more individuals who are educated, and have a greater level of utilities infrastructure such as electrical, gas, and water utilities within its borders than Mozambique may have. Each nation must be examined on a case-by-case basis, then an assessment of what technologies can be provided to these countries that may have the greatest impact. A large manufacturing factory may not be in the best interest for Mozambique since manufacturing technologies require highly skilled workers to operate in the factory and basic utilities of electricity, water, and gas to power the factory. However simple technologies such as windmills, water mills to provide irrigation systems for improved farming would help improve rural areas and the citizens living in those rural areas of Mozambique. Basic technological improvements in metalworking or artisan crafts and ceramics that can produce basic tools and goods for general population may also be necessary. A basic educational system to improve the education of the population would also help. This is a gradual approach to improve the quality of life for the population of a developing country as a whole. However, the problem with this approach is two-fold. First the leaders of a developing country would be educated in schools in the United States and Europe and have western values and ideas instilled in them—these values would be alien to the general population. In addition, these leaders would want to “Westernize” or technologically improve their nation in order to emulate the advanced societies such as the United States even though the county would have a lack of basic economic and technological infrastructure and a lack of a skilled and educated workforce necessary to maintain an advanced technological society. Second, globalized companies and conglomerates have an interest in producing manufactured goods at a reduced cost. These conglomerates may approach a leader of a developing country and offer a deal to build a factory there in order to gain cheap labor to produce their products. While there is a short-term economical benefit to the developing country for having a factory built, the true benefits will go to the company building and running the factory since the company would pay extremely low wages to the workers, taking full advantages of those workers and not giving any benefits or right to the workers in the factories. Thus the benefits of the technology will not benefit the developing country or improve the quality of life for its citizens. This second issue is an even greater problem for developing countries, which do have a semi-skilled workforce who are able to work in factories and whose countries already have a general infrastructure of power, gas and water utilities which are needed to run the factories. In addition, companies building factories in developing countries would not have an incentive to place environmental controls in the factory itself to reduce pollution since environmental controls would raise costs and lower production of manufactured goods. What is necessary for these developing nations is for the governments of these developing nations and global companies negotiate agreements of which a portion of the profits in manufacturing these goods can be invested into the country’s infrastructure and improve the quality of life for the citizens. This can be done either by allowing the government to have a share of ownership in the factory, or having the global company pledge to build schools or homes for their workers. Finally, global companies must realize that exploiting cheap labor and raw materials in developing countries can no longer be done with impunity. Citizens and critics in the developed nations of the United States and Europe have noticed this issue and are already criticizing these practices. One example of such criticism is the general outcry on sweatshops producing clothing for the US market. Another is the general protest movement against the World Trade Organization, which cause major riots in Seattle and paralyzed the WTO meetings last year while generating unfavorable publicity on the WTO in the mainstream press. Technological transfer and diffusion of technology into developing countries must be done at a slow, gradual pace in allowing these technologies to gain hold in a nation and allow the citizens of a developing nation to acquire the skills and knowledge to use these technologies before advancing to more complex technologies.
Showing posts with label SJSU Misc Essays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SJSU Misc Essays. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Consumers and Safety
Philosophy 186
Phil. of Bus Ethics
10-28-94
Consumers and Safety
I’m sitting here, staring at a blank computer screen trying to figure out what to write. My screen saver for Windows kicks in. Bullet holes appear, shattering the screen. Wouldn’t it be nice if those bullet holes were for real? But they’re not and even if they were, I’d probably shoot myself in the foot or some other undesirable place. So I don’t have a gun to shoot my screen. Is that consumer safety?
For many years, the issue of product safety took a back seat in an economy. For almost 150 years, the United States remained primarily an agrarian society where the consumers produced much of what they needed. Businesses produced goods that consumers may have wanted, but not needed in society. This meant that the issue of safety was left for the consumer to judge on since the consumer could produce many goods by himself to satisfy his needs. However with the development of modern manufacturing techniques, the ability of consumers to produce things themselves eroded into an era of business specialization. Consumers rely on others to produce good to satisfy their needs. In addition, these products have become more sophisticated and complex for consumer with little technical expertise to grasp. Therefore, they must rely on businesses and others to provide safe products. It is here where the issue of product safety becomes relevant. Businesses may feel that it is the consumer’s responsibility to operate their products while the consumers demand completely safe products, which would raise the cost of products yet, which the consumers demand at the lowest cost. At the same time, the federal government steps in with another set of safety regulations. Who is right, who is wrong and where does this issue of product safety belong?
At present, businesses shoulder most of the responsibility for product safety. They currently base safety considerations on cost, the law, and how serious the injury a product cause. It is like comparing safety considerations of both a pencil and an automobile. There are very few safety considerations with a pencil, but an automobile can cause serious injury to a consumer so safety considerations are a high priority. Businesses should also abandon the misconception that accidents occur exclusively as a result of product misuse and thus are absolved of all responsibility. Products have become increasingly sophisticated and consumers are prone to accidents even when they are reading the instructions. Firms should continue to point out how their products can be used safely with much more easily understandable instructions. Businesses must also provide to consumers written information about a product’s safety, usually in the form of instruction manuals, warnings, and other safety precautions. They must also follow up on customer complaints on the safety of a product in a fair and reasonable way.
At the same time, consumers must also understand their responsibility towards safety. First, they must understand that not all products are completely safe and they must approach a potentially unsafe product with caution. They must read and comprehend all safety instructions. If there are questions about the safety of a product, they must address those questions to the businesses before they attempt to operate the product or return the product for a refund. Finally, if attempts to resolve safety problems of a product with a business fail, they must report these safety problems with the appropriate government agencies.
Product safety is actually the responsibility of both the business and the consumer. Businesses must try to anticipate all safety hazards and provide a product that will operate in a safe manner. Consumers must understand how to operate the product in a safe manner and report any safety problems to businesses so that improvements in safety can be made. This can be difficult for both the business and consumer since both sides do not wish to share the responsibility for safety concerns or try to place blame on each other. Yet if businesses and consumers were to work together on safety issues, perhaps products could become just a little more safe.
Phil. of Bus Ethics
10-28-94
Consumers and Safety
I’m sitting here, staring at a blank computer screen trying to figure out what to write. My screen saver for Windows kicks in. Bullet holes appear, shattering the screen. Wouldn’t it be nice if those bullet holes were for real? But they’re not and even if they were, I’d probably shoot myself in the foot or some other undesirable place. So I don’t have a gun to shoot my screen. Is that consumer safety?
For many years, the issue of product safety took a back seat in an economy. For almost 150 years, the United States remained primarily an agrarian society where the consumers produced much of what they needed. Businesses produced goods that consumers may have wanted, but not needed in society. This meant that the issue of safety was left for the consumer to judge on since the consumer could produce many goods by himself to satisfy his needs. However with the development of modern manufacturing techniques, the ability of consumers to produce things themselves eroded into an era of business specialization. Consumers rely on others to produce good to satisfy their needs. In addition, these products have become more sophisticated and complex for consumer with little technical expertise to grasp. Therefore, they must rely on businesses and others to provide safe products. It is here where the issue of product safety becomes relevant. Businesses may feel that it is the consumer’s responsibility to operate their products while the consumers demand completely safe products, which would raise the cost of products yet, which the consumers demand at the lowest cost. At the same time, the federal government steps in with another set of safety regulations. Who is right, who is wrong and where does this issue of product safety belong?
At present, businesses shoulder most of the responsibility for product safety. They currently base safety considerations on cost, the law, and how serious the injury a product cause. It is like comparing safety considerations of both a pencil and an automobile. There are very few safety considerations with a pencil, but an automobile can cause serious injury to a consumer so safety considerations are a high priority. Businesses should also abandon the misconception that accidents occur exclusively as a result of product misuse and thus are absolved of all responsibility. Products have become increasingly sophisticated and consumers are prone to accidents even when they are reading the instructions. Firms should continue to point out how their products can be used safely with much more easily understandable instructions. Businesses must also provide to consumers written information about a product’s safety, usually in the form of instruction manuals, warnings, and other safety precautions. They must also follow up on customer complaints on the safety of a product in a fair and reasonable way.
At the same time, consumers must also understand their responsibility towards safety. First, they must understand that not all products are completely safe and they must approach a potentially unsafe product with caution. They must read and comprehend all safety instructions. If there are questions about the safety of a product, they must address those questions to the businesses before they attempt to operate the product or return the product for a refund. Finally, if attempts to resolve safety problems of a product with a business fail, they must report these safety problems with the appropriate government agencies.
Product safety is actually the responsibility of both the business and the consumer. Businesses must try to anticipate all safety hazards and provide a product that will operate in a safe manner. Consumers must understand how to operate the product in a safe manner and report any safety problems to businesses so that improvements in safety can be made. This can be difficult for both the business and consumer since both sides do not wish to share the responsibility for safety concerns or try to place blame on each other. Yet if businesses and consumers were to work together on safety issues, perhaps products could become just a little more safe.
Weaving The Web
Tech 198
Technology and Civilization
Inst: Jack Mc Keller
Book Report: Weaving The Web
Authored By Tim Berners-Lee
Imagine a world where people can access, create and share information and ideas with anyone in the world regardless of geographical, political and social boundaries. While scholars and journalists may cite many individuals who contributed in the creation of the Internet as a mans to communicate these ideas and information, Tim Berners-Lee is the single individual who has brought the means where people can create and share information in the world. With his creation of the World Wide Web, Berners-Lee elevated the Internet from an academic network requiring computer knowledge and technical skills for accessing this information to a global communications media which anyone can access any type of information anytime on the Internet. Now Tim Berners-Lee tells his own story on the creation of the World Wide Web in Weaving the Web: The Ultimate Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web.
Tim Berners-Lee begins his story saying he was the son of mathematicians. His parents were part of a team that programmed the world’s first stored-program computer, the Manchester University “Mark I” in the early 1950s. He then explains that while computer are good at logical organizing and processing information, computer could not randomly associate different bits of data and link them. Computers are not intuitive. Berners-Lee Graduated from Oxford University in 1976 with a degree in physics and then became a consultant at the European Particles Physics Laboratory or CERN in Geneva, 1980. It was at CERN that Berners-Lee would tinker with the challenge of having computers randomly associate different bits of data. His first attempt at tinkering with this idea was when he compiled CERN’s phone directory into a database he created which he named Enquire. Enquire could link people, phone numbers and files on a single terminal, but the program could not work on a network. This was the start. In March 1989, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a proposal for developing an information network. This network would be set up as a large hypertext database, which would allow individuals to click on a particular word in a document and be able to access other documents through an internal link. This database would allow some degree of automatic analysis. A person who accessed a document on a computer could click on a word or phrase in that particular document and access a completely new document. Berners-Lee called this new database the World Wide Web.
The rest of Berners-Lee’s account describes the development of the Web from its proposed concept to the finished global computer network. However, there are two key points in the development of the Web. First, Berners-Lee decided to use the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) as the basic programming language for the web. He felt that HTML could be easily understood by any computer system—UNIX, Macs, PCs. This common programming language would be an excellent cross platform language between computer systems and also a common language between different software programs that would constitute the documents to be accessed to the web. However, what Berners-Lee did not expect was the human readability of the HTML source code, which allowed ordinary users to write their own HTML documents and provide their own information on the Web. The second key point to the development of the web was Berners-Lee’s decision to open the source code for the Web browser and server without any charges or royalties. By opening the source code, Berners-Lee allowed programmers to test the programs and develop improvements for the Web that could include the use of sound or graphics in browsers. In addition, open source code for the Web server programs would bring business and industry’s interest in the Web primarily in the interest of using the Web as an advertising medium, then later on in developing electronic commerce. Finally since the programs were free to use, people would test the Web, then give their own opinions on the Web to others through word of mouth, fueling a growth in Web interest and use over a long-term period. Both of these steps would allow for open access and contribute to the explosive growth of the Web as a communications medium on the Internet.
Tim Berners-Lee’s book is a fascinating study on how the Web was developed. He explains the theoretical concepts of how computers originally think in a hierarchical way of identifying one piece of data, then logically processing this data in a vertical stream moving up or down to generate new data, whereas in the Web, computers must attempt to link two different bits of data horizontally in a stream and the difficulties of trying to make a computer think intuitively. He claims this single concept was his single dream—an idea that stayed with him after he found his father working on a speech of that same subject for the Basil de Ferranti when Berners-Lee was in high school. It was this idea that drove him to create the Web.
But the book is more than just a story on the creation of the World Wide Web. The book shows some of Tim Berners-Lee’s personal views of the Web and its future. One view that he continues to reiterate throughout the book is decision not to charge any fees or royalties for his creation. In one respect, Berners-Lee could be considered as a realist. He feels that the Web as a free and open medium where all people could communicate their ideas. However, he also believes that the Web can be a place where information may be sold for a commercial gain. Both are important for the Web’s success. He has taken a middle road between extremes of academics who feel the Internet should be a free network for their own academic use while criticizing the commercial pollution of the web, and the other extreme of the businessmen who can only value the Internet as a means to gain profit. A second concern that Berners-Lee has considered has been the use of censorship on the Web. Censorship became a sobering concern as the Web became a popular place for the posting of pornographic material and the public’s concern that this material could be accessed by children. Berners-Lee feels that industry should provide a solution through software technology that would allow the parents to limit access of pornographic material on the web to children. In fact, he states that the World Wide Web Consoritorium--which develops general standards for the World Wide Web—defined programming languages for writing rating schemes on the Web called Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS have allowed companies to develop software programs such as Net Nanny for parents to control the Internet content their children may see. One final issue, which Tim Berners-Lee takes a stand on, is privacy. While he feels that the Web should be an open forum for the communication of ideas, the web should also be a place where the individual should have the choice in giving away personal information. He feels that one major problem with current Internet browsers is that web servers can collect whatever personal information from a browser and use that information without an individual’s choice. Berners-Lee would like to see Internet browsers negotiate different privacy policies with Web servers and claims that the Web Consoritorium is working on creating such standards. He is also for public encryption technology on the web as a means for transmitting sensitive information such as credit card numbers for the purchase of products over the web. He also would like to see this encryption technology in the hands of private individuals where the individuals can make the choice of sending information over the Web which is encrypted, however Berners-Lee understands that governments fear a loss of control with the private individual’s use of encryption technology. He states that the United States still classifies cryptography software as a “munitions” and bans such software for export.
Tim Berners-Lee’s creation of the World Wide Web has brought about a profound change in how people communicate over the Internet. It is a story where Berners-Lee asked a simple question of how to make computers think intuitively while at the same time revolutionized the Internet by elevating it to a level where anyone can communicate information and ideas. It is a worldwide view of how people can communicate with each other.
Technology and Civilization
Inst: Jack Mc Keller
Book Report: Weaving The Web
Authored By Tim Berners-Lee
Imagine a world where people can access, create and share information and ideas with anyone in the world regardless of geographical, political and social boundaries. While scholars and journalists may cite many individuals who contributed in the creation of the Internet as a mans to communicate these ideas and information, Tim Berners-Lee is the single individual who has brought the means where people can create and share information in the world. With his creation of the World Wide Web, Berners-Lee elevated the Internet from an academic network requiring computer knowledge and technical skills for accessing this information to a global communications media which anyone can access any type of information anytime on the Internet. Now Tim Berners-Lee tells his own story on the creation of the World Wide Web in Weaving the Web: The Ultimate Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web.
Tim Berners-Lee begins his story saying he was the son of mathematicians. His parents were part of a team that programmed the world’s first stored-program computer, the Manchester University “Mark I” in the early 1950s. He then explains that while computer are good at logical organizing and processing information, computer could not randomly associate different bits of data and link them. Computers are not intuitive. Berners-Lee Graduated from Oxford University in 1976 with a degree in physics and then became a consultant at the European Particles Physics Laboratory or CERN in Geneva, 1980. It was at CERN that Berners-Lee would tinker with the challenge of having computers randomly associate different bits of data. His first attempt at tinkering with this idea was when he compiled CERN’s phone directory into a database he created which he named Enquire. Enquire could link people, phone numbers and files on a single terminal, but the program could not work on a network. This was the start. In March 1989, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a proposal for developing an information network. This network would be set up as a large hypertext database, which would allow individuals to click on a particular word in a document and be able to access other documents through an internal link. This database would allow some degree of automatic analysis. A person who accessed a document on a computer could click on a word or phrase in that particular document and access a completely new document. Berners-Lee called this new database the World Wide Web.
The rest of Berners-Lee’s account describes the development of the Web from its proposed concept to the finished global computer network. However, there are two key points in the development of the Web. First, Berners-Lee decided to use the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) as the basic programming language for the web. He felt that HTML could be easily understood by any computer system—UNIX, Macs, PCs. This common programming language would be an excellent cross platform language between computer systems and also a common language between different software programs that would constitute the documents to be accessed to the web. However, what Berners-Lee did not expect was the human readability of the HTML source code, which allowed ordinary users to write their own HTML documents and provide their own information on the Web. The second key point to the development of the web was Berners-Lee’s decision to open the source code for the Web browser and server without any charges or royalties. By opening the source code, Berners-Lee allowed programmers to test the programs and develop improvements for the Web that could include the use of sound or graphics in browsers. In addition, open source code for the Web server programs would bring business and industry’s interest in the Web primarily in the interest of using the Web as an advertising medium, then later on in developing electronic commerce. Finally since the programs were free to use, people would test the Web, then give their own opinions on the Web to others through word of mouth, fueling a growth in Web interest and use over a long-term period. Both of these steps would allow for open access and contribute to the explosive growth of the Web as a communications medium on the Internet.
Tim Berners-Lee’s book is a fascinating study on how the Web was developed. He explains the theoretical concepts of how computers originally think in a hierarchical way of identifying one piece of data, then logically processing this data in a vertical stream moving up or down to generate new data, whereas in the Web, computers must attempt to link two different bits of data horizontally in a stream and the difficulties of trying to make a computer think intuitively. He claims this single concept was his single dream—an idea that stayed with him after he found his father working on a speech of that same subject for the Basil de Ferranti when Berners-Lee was in high school. It was this idea that drove him to create the Web.
But the book is more than just a story on the creation of the World Wide Web. The book shows some of Tim Berners-Lee’s personal views of the Web and its future. One view that he continues to reiterate throughout the book is decision not to charge any fees or royalties for his creation. In one respect, Berners-Lee could be considered as a realist. He feels that the Web as a free and open medium where all people could communicate their ideas. However, he also believes that the Web can be a place where information may be sold for a commercial gain. Both are important for the Web’s success. He has taken a middle road between extremes of academics who feel the Internet should be a free network for their own academic use while criticizing the commercial pollution of the web, and the other extreme of the businessmen who can only value the Internet as a means to gain profit. A second concern that Berners-Lee has considered has been the use of censorship on the Web. Censorship became a sobering concern as the Web became a popular place for the posting of pornographic material and the public’s concern that this material could be accessed by children. Berners-Lee feels that industry should provide a solution through software technology that would allow the parents to limit access of pornographic material on the web to children. In fact, he states that the World Wide Web Consoritorium--which develops general standards for the World Wide Web—defined programming languages for writing rating schemes on the Web called Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS have allowed companies to develop software programs such as Net Nanny for parents to control the Internet content their children may see. One final issue, which Tim Berners-Lee takes a stand on, is privacy. While he feels that the Web should be an open forum for the communication of ideas, the web should also be a place where the individual should have the choice in giving away personal information. He feels that one major problem with current Internet browsers is that web servers can collect whatever personal information from a browser and use that information without an individual’s choice. Berners-Lee would like to see Internet browsers negotiate different privacy policies with Web servers and claims that the Web Consoritorium is working on creating such standards. He is also for public encryption technology on the web as a means for transmitting sensitive information such as credit card numbers for the purchase of products over the web. He also would like to see this encryption technology in the hands of private individuals where the individuals can make the choice of sending information over the Web which is encrypted, however Berners-Lee understands that governments fear a loss of control with the private individual’s use of encryption technology. He states that the United States still classifies cryptography software as a “munitions” and bans such software for export.
Tim Berners-Lee’s creation of the World Wide Web has brought about a profound change in how people communicate over the Internet. It is a story where Berners-Lee asked a simple question of how to make computers think intuitively while at the same time revolutionized the Internet by elevating it to a level where anyone can communicate information and ideas. It is a worldwide view of how people can communicate with each other.
Technology and Terrorism
Industrial Technology 198
Technology and Civilization
Technology and Terrorism
Chain letters don’t work. It’s a known fact. The million dollars or so you are promised if you’ll just send one single dollar to the name at the top of the list, add yours to the bottom and then send the letter on to five friends never arrives. This one, Captain Trips chain letter, worked very well. The pyramid was indeed being built, not from the bottom up but from the tip down—said tip being a deceased army security guard named Charles Champion. All the chickens were coming home to roost. Only instead of the mailman bringing each participant bale after bale of letters, each containing a single dollar bill, Captain Trips brought bales of bedrooms with a body or two in each one, and trenches and dead-pits, and finally bodies slung into the oceans on each coast and into quarries and into the foundations of unfinished houses. And in the end, of course, the bodies would rot where they fell.
--Stephen King “The Stand.”
Within Stephen King’s post-apocalyptic tale, a virulent strain of superflu wipes out much of the world’s population leaving the survivors in a dazed shock. However, this tale of fiction shows a nightmare scenario of how unprepared the United States would be if confronted with a serious biological epidemic within its borders. What worries government officials even more is the possibility of a biological or chemical attack against the United States by a terrorist organization. This possibility of a terrorist organization acquiring and using such weapons of mass destruction has prompted the Clinton Administration to spend almost $1.4 billion to protect US citizens from such an attack (Tucker, 1999). This includes an increase in the Department of Health and Human Services Bioterrorism Initiative, whose budget exploded from $14 million in 1998, to $158 million in $1999, and is expected to top $230 million within the year 2000 (Carus, 1999). But what is the risk of a biological and or chemical attack against the United States by a terrorist organization and how may technology reduce the probability of such a terrorist threat? In order to understand this risk, one must look at three aspects—the nature and structure of a terrorist organization, the identification and definition of chemical and biological weapons, and finally development and integration of technology to detect and counter a terrorist attack using these weapons.
The first aspect of the nature and structure of a terrorist organization has changed. Mainstream organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and Irish Republican Army had political agendas and used terrorism during the Cold War to achieve legitimacy to their organizations and their political goals (The Future of Terror: On Guard: America is the Dominant nation Entering the New Century—And the Top Target for Extremists, 2000). In short, terrorism was used to bring these organizations to the negotiation table. Both the PLO and IRA are now attempting to negotiate to find a compromising solution to the problems these organizations have an interest in. Both the PLO and IRA have no use for weapons of mass destruction since the application of these weapons would possibly cause world condemnation against them and destroy any level of trust with the national governments they are in negotiations with. In addition, the larger mainstream organizations may also have a greater chance of infiltration by counter-terrorist organizations of national governments. However, smaller terrorist organizations are being created. These new organizations are usually small groups comprised of single-issue extremists, anarchists, religious fanatics, and cultists. These second generation terrorists are motivated by rage, vengeance, racial and religious hatred, anti-government feelings and extreme nationalism. They do not seek negotiations and compromise, but would rather destroy the current status quo and create a new order, which they can control (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998.). These organizations are willing to kill and they would have an interest in seeing violent acts presented through the news media (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998). Because of their small size, these new terrorist cells do not have the technical sophistication to plan and deploy a successful chemical or biological attack. Instead these cells would concentrate on developing attacks using conventional weapons and explosives. But chemical and biological attacks can occur. In 1984, members of an Oregon-based Rajneeshee cult deliberately contaminated restaurant salad bars in the town of The Dallas with salmonella bacteria, causing 751 people to become ill. The objective of this attack was not to kill people, but to stricken voters with illness and to keep them home in order to throw the outcome of local elections in the cult’s favor (Sands, Tucker, 1999). In 1995, the Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin—a nerve gas—into the ventilation system of the Tokyo subway. This assault killed 12 and injured 5,500. After the attack, investigators learned the cult had members in excess of 50,000 in Japan and Russia and the cult was looking to purchase chemical weapons plans and training from officials in the Russian government. Finally, there were similar plans being developed by Aum Shinrikyo to attack major US cities with chemical weapons (Cullufo, Tomarchio, 1998).
One of the greatest threats US officials fear is the problem of “state-sponsored terrorism.” This is where sovereign states would use money and resources to create and develop weapons of mass destruction while providing aid and technical assistance to the terrorist organization in utilizing these weapons. David Siegirst, an expert on terrorism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies is concerned that the integration of these two groups would allow a non-major power to lash out at the United States with chemical or biological weapons either directly or by arming a terrorist group (Lluma, 1999.). The US intelligence community estimates that at least a dozen countries may have offensive biological weapons programs including two permanent members of the UN Security Council—China and Russia. Other nations with biological weapons programs include the six countries on the State Department’s list of state supporters of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria with three nations—Iran, Iraq, and North Korea being the most likely to confront the United States militarily (Carus, 1999).
The nature of chemical and biological weapons is a sort of paradox. Chemical and biological weapons are considered invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and insidious. Nerve agents can attack the central nervous system resulting in seizures, loss of voluntary control, and death by respiratory failure. Nerve gases such as sarin can kill in minutes while mustard gas may contaminate buildings and people in affected urban areas causing major disruptions. These advantages make chemical and biological weapons a persistent and gnawing psychological terror of death by an invisible agent more frightening than the sudden trauma of a conventional explosion. However, chemical and biological weapons are more hazardous to store and work with in developing a viable weapons system. Medical intervention would be necessary in case of accidental exposure. And finally, biological and chemical weapons may reduce delayed effects of psychological gratification to the terrorist organization as they wait for the final of an attack outcome to be known, whereas a car bomb explosion is quickly reported in the media (Sands, Tucker, 1999). Yet despite this paradox, these weapons of mass destruction are deadly. Take for example the two most formidable biological threats: anthrax and smallpox. Anthrax is a disease with a fatality rate of 80-90% (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). In fact a supply of anthrax the size of a 5-pound bag of sugar would kill half the population of Washington (Lluma, 1999). Smallpox is a far more deadly disease. Smallpox is a highly communicable disease which in 1967 were killing 2 million people a year worldwide (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). The World Health Organization began a major campaign to vaccinate the entire population of the world from smallpox and by 1980, WHO declared smallpox eradicated from the planet (Lluma, 1999). However, two officially remaining stocks are held in laboratories—one in the United States and one in Russia. Since the eradication of smallpox, the virus has gained a strategic value, which has continued to rise while smallpox vaccinations have ceased, according to Donald Henderson—former director of the World Health Organization’s program to eradicate smallpox (Lluma, 1999). The United States stopped vaccinating people for smallpox in 1972, and currently around 90% of the population now lacks a smallpox immunity while the reserves of smallpox vaccine are around 15 million doses—half of which are usable (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). What is more frightening is that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union attempted to develop smallpox as a biological weapon by delivering the virus on SS-18 missiles to the United States in case of a total war, as reported by Ken Alibek who was a former Soviet bio-weapons specialist (Lluma, 1999). Alibek claims to have supervised production of 20 tons of smallpox (Lluma, 1999). Whether Alibek’s claims are true, the value of smallpox is almost devastating if a terrorist organization or a rogue state were able to obtain and unleash the smallpox virus upon the general population of any nation.
While the consequences of such an attack are frightening, the acquisition and deployment of weapons of mass destruction is still very difficult for a terrorist cell. However, the United States government cannot wait idly until an attack occurs. Steps can be taken which will allow the U.S. to maintain a diligent watch against such an attack using a combination of technology, training, and the development of a command-and-control infrastructure. Both technology and a specialized command and control organization are necessary for the United States to respond to these terrorist threats. For technology, the most important goal is to detect a chemical or biological threat through sensors. Scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories are developing small acoustic-wave chemical sensors. When the sensor absorbs chemicals, acoustic waves are slowed. The lab expects that chips can be miniaturized so this “chem lab on a chip” can be built into a hand held device soldiers and others can use to detect chemicals (Auster, 2000). Another example of sensor research is that researchers at MIT are examining lasers to light up individual particles into the air to distinguish between naturally occurring dust and pollen from toxic agents (Auster, 2000). The goal is to find a sensor, which can detect more than a single toxic and biological agent, weigh less than five pounds, and tell what they’ve found in less than a minute. Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Frank Fernandez told Congress “Sensors are important in dealing with every aspect of the biological incident, from warning of the presence of an agent in the atmosphere to determining whether a building is fully decontaminated and safe to reenter.” Finally, scientists at Iowa State University and DARPA are training wasps to locate chemicals. Wasps are able to detect a wide range of chemical compounds and DARPA hopes to train wasps to detect certain chemicals, and then raise them as sentinels to warn of a possible chemical attack. A more ambitious use of wasps is to develop a biological sensor system using wasp antennae interfaces with electronics to create a sensor to detect production or storage sites for toxic compounds as reported by DARPA’s Controlled Biological Systems program (Auster, 2000).
Sensors are useless unless the information they detect can be sent to the correct officials who can respond quickly and effectively to an attack. An efficient command and control system can help direct such a response against a chemical or biological attack on the United States. Coordination between the Department of Defense, Justice Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Public Health Service, and the intelligence communities is important. In June 1995, President Clinton issued the Presidential Decision Directive 39, which established US policy on deterring, defeating and responding to terrorism. In PDD-39, the National Security Council is responsible for coordinating interagency counter terrorism and reviewing ongoing crisis operations, while the State Department handles foreign issues, and the FBI is responsible for counter terrorism in the US. The Federal Emergency Management Authority is responsible of consequence management on a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998). In addition, communication and coordination must take place between federal agencies and state and local agencies. State and local fire and police agencies will be the first units to respond to a terrorist attack and many of these units do not have the specialized training to cope with a biological, chemical or nuclear attack. The Department of Defense and Department of Justice has responded to this by launching the Domestic Preparedness Program. This program trains state and local government officials, fire departments, police departments, and medical personnel to respond to mass emergencies including attacks using weapons of mass destruction. It is a 120-city initiative, which has reached more than 70 cities including New York, Washington, Miami, and Boston (Stern, 2000). The Department of Defense also has plans to develop National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams. These RAID teams are National Guard units that act in concert with fire and police departments in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. The Pentagon plans on spending $52 million in 2000 to deploy the first 10 of a planned 54 RAID teams (Lluma, 1999). However, what is equally important is that the Defense Department should provide specialized equipment for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare currently used by active units to National Guard units. Training programs should also be established where selected National Guard units can receive specialized training on nuclear, chemical and biological warfare from active military programs. These selected Guard units can then be used to further train other reserve units. Through providing specialized training and equipment to the regular National Guard units, state governments would have an increased ability to respond efficiently in the first critical hours of a terrorist attack.
For as long as the United States is perceived as the leader of the world, there will always be groups of individuals who will have critical views on the US leadership or a hatred of the United States. These individuals will see violence as an opportunity to strike against the US. With the constant development of weapons of mass destruction by the superpowers during the Cold War, individuals and terrorist groups have an opportunity to obtain these weapons of mass destruction and to use them against the United States for their own cause. While a chemical or biological attack of a massive scale has yet to occur, these weapons leftover from the Cold War still exist—especially within Russia and the former Soviet republics. It is only a matter of time for a terrorist group to obtain or develop a chemical or biological weapon and use that weapon against the United States. And when that time occurs, it will become a moment of deep psychological shock and surprise to the American people—a chemical or biological Pearl Harbor.
Works Cited
Auster, Bruce. “Striking Back at Terrorism.” Asee Prism. (2000). Vol. 9. No. 6. Pg. 16-21.
“Biological Warfare—America the Unready.” The Economist. Jan. 22, 2000. Vol. 354. Is. 8. Pg. 34.
Carus, Seth W. “Biohazard.” The New Republic. Aug. 2, 1999. Vol. 221. No. 5. Pg. 14-16.
Cillufo, Frank J. Tomarchio, Thomas. “Responding to New Terrorist Threats.” Orbis. (1998). Vol. 42. No. 3. Pg. 439.
“Future of Terror: On guard: America is the Dominat Nation Entering the New Century—And the Top Target for Extremists.” Newsweek. Jan. 10, 2000. Vol. 135. Is. 2. Pg. 34.
Lluma, Diego. “Low Probability, High Consequence.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Nov/Dec. 1999. Vol. 55. Is. 6. Pg. 14-16.
Sands, Amy. Tucker, Jonathan B. “An Unlikely Threat.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. July 1999. Vol. 55. Is. 4. Pg. 46.
Stern, Aimee. “Bioterrorism.” Hospitals & Health Networks. Jan. 2000. Vol. 74. No. 1. Pg. 58-60.
Technology and Civilization
Technology and Terrorism
Chain letters don’t work. It’s a known fact. The million dollars or so you are promised if you’ll just send one single dollar to the name at the top of the list, add yours to the bottom and then send the letter on to five friends never arrives. This one, Captain Trips chain letter, worked very well. The pyramid was indeed being built, not from the bottom up but from the tip down—said tip being a deceased army security guard named Charles Champion. All the chickens were coming home to roost. Only instead of the mailman bringing each participant bale after bale of letters, each containing a single dollar bill, Captain Trips brought bales of bedrooms with a body or two in each one, and trenches and dead-pits, and finally bodies slung into the oceans on each coast and into quarries and into the foundations of unfinished houses. And in the end, of course, the bodies would rot where they fell.
--Stephen King “The Stand.”
Within Stephen King’s post-apocalyptic tale, a virulent strain of superflu wipes out much of the world’s population leaving the survivors in a dazed shock. However, this tale of fiction shows a nightmare scenario of how unprepared the United States would be if confronted with a serious biological epidemic within its borders. What worries government officials even more is the possibility of a biological or chemical attack against the United States by a terrorist organization. This possibility of a terrorist organization acquiring and using such weapons of mass destruction has prompted the Clinton Administration to spend almost $1.4 billion to protect US citizens from such an attack (Tucker, 1999). This includes an increase in the Department of Health and Human Services Bioterrorism Initiative, whose budget exploded from $14 million in 1998, to $158 million in $1999, and is expected to top $230 million within the year 2000 (Carus, 1999). But what is the risk of a biological and or chemical attack against the United States by a terrorist organization and how may technology reduce the probability of such a terrorist threat? In order to understand this risk, one must look at three aspects—the nature and structure of a terrorist organization, the identification and definition of chemical and biological weapons, and finally development and integration of technology to detect and counter a terrorist attack using these weapons.
The first aspect of the nature and structure of a terrorist organization has changed. Mainstream organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and Irish Republican Army had political agendas and used terrorism during the Cold War to achieve legitimacy to their organizations and their political goals (The Future of Terror: On Guard: America is the Dominant nation Entering the New Century—And the Top Target for Extremists, 2000). In short, terrorism was used to bring these organizations to the negotiation table. Both the PLO and IRA are now attempting to negotiate to find a compromising solution to the problems these organizations have an interest in. Both the PLO and IRA have no use for weapons of mass destruction since the application of these weapons would possibly cause world condemnation against them and destroy any level of trust with the national governments they are in negotiations with. In addition, the larger mainstream organizations may also have a greater chance of infiltration by counter-terrorist organizations of national governments. However, smaller terrorist organizations are being created. These new organizations are usually small groups comprised of single-issue extremists, anarchists, religious fanatics, and cultists. These second generation terrorists are motivated by rage, vengeance, racial and religious hatred, anti-government feelings and extreme nationalism. They do not seek negotiations and compromise, but would rather destroy the current status quo and create a new order, which they can control (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998.). These organizations are willing to kill and they would have an interest in seeing violent acts presented through the news media (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998). Because of their small size, these new terrorist cells do not have the technical sophistication to plan and deploy a successful chemical or biological attack. Instead these cells would concentrate on developing attacks using conventional weapons and explosives. But chemical and biological attacks can occur. In 1984, members of an Oregon-based Rajneeshee cult deliberately contaminated restaurant salad bars in the town of The Dallas with salmonella bacteria, causing 751 people to become ill. The objective of this attack was not to kill people, but to stricken voters with illness and to keep them home in order to throw the outcome of local elections in the cult’s favor (Sands, Tucker, 1999). In 1995, the Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin—a nerve gas—into the ventilation system of the Tokyo subway. This assault killed 12 and injured 5,500. After the attack, investigators learned the cult had members in excess of 50,000 in Japan and Russia and the cult was looking to purchase chemical weapons plans and training from officials in the Russian government. Finally, there were similar plans being developed by Aum Shinrikyo to attack major US cities with chemical weapons (Cullufo, Tomarchio, 1998).
One of the greatest threats US officials fear is the problem of “state-sponsored terrorism.” This is where sovereign states would use money and resources to create and develop weapons of mass destruction while providing aid and technical assistance to the terrorist organization in utilizing these weapons. David Siegirst, an expert on terrorism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies is concerned that the integration of these two groups would allow a non-major power to lash out at the United States with chemical or biological weapons either directly or by arming a terrorist group (Lluma, 1999.). The US intelligence community estimates that at least a dozen countries may have offensive biological weapons programs including two permanent members of the UN Security Council—China and Russia. Other nations with biological weapons programs include the six countries on the State Department’s list of state supporters of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria with three nations—Iran, Iraq, and North Korea being the most likely to confront the United States militarily (Carus, 1999).
The nature of chemical and biological weapons is a sort of paradox. Chemical and biological weapons are considered invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and insidious. Nerve agents can attack the central nervous system resulting in seizures, loss of voluntary control, and death by respiratory failure. Nerve gases such as sarin can kill in minutes while mustard gas may contaminate buildings and people in affected urban areas causing major disruptions. These advantages make chemical and biological weapons a persistent and gnawing psychological terror of death by an invisible agent more frightening than the sudden trauma of a conventional explosion. However, chemical and biological weapons are more hazardous to store and work with in developing a viable weapons system. Medical intervention would be necessary in case of accidental exposure. And finally, biological and chemical weapons may reduce delayed effects of psychological gratification to the terrorist organization as they wait for the final of an attack outcome to be known, whereas a car bomb explosion is quickly reported in the media (Sands, Tucker, 1999). Yet despite this paradox, these weapons of mass destruction are deadly. Take for example the two most formidable biological threats: anthrax and smallpox. Anthrax is a disease with a fatality rate of 80-90% (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). In fact a supply of anthrax the size of a 5-pound bag of sugar would kill half the population of Washington (Lluma, 1999). Smallpox is a far more deadly disease. Smallpox is a highly communicable disease which in 1967 were killing 2 million people a year worldwide (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). The World Health Organization began a major campaign to vaccinate the entire population of the world from smallpox and by 1980, WHO declared smallpox eradicated from the planet (Lluma, 1999). However, two officially remaining stocks are held in laboratories—one in the United States and one in Russia. Since the eradication of smallpox, the virus has gained a strategic value, which has continued to rise while smallpox vaccinations have ceased, according to Donald Henderson—former director of the World Health Organization’s program to eradicate smallpox (Lluma, 1999). The United States stopped vaccinating people for smallpox in 1972, and currently around 90% of the population now lacks a smallpox immunity while the reserves of smallpox vaccine are around 15 million doses—half of which are usable (Biological Warfare—America the Unready, 2000). What is more frightening is that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union attempted to develop smallpox as a biological weapon by delivering the virus on SS-18 missiles to the United States in case of a total war, as reported by Ken Alibek who was a former Soviet bio-weapons specialist (Lluma, 1999). Alibek claims to have supervised production of 20 tons of smallpox (Lluma, 1999). Whether Alibek’s claims are true, the value of smallpox is almost devastating if a terrorist organization or a rogue state were able to obtain and unleash the smallpox virus upon the general population of any nation.
While the consequences of such an attack are frightening, the acquisition and deployment of weapons of mass destruction is still very difficult for a terrorist cell. However, the United States government cannot wait idly until an attack occurs. Steps can be taken which will allow the U.S. to maintain a diligent watch against such an attack using a combination of technology, training, and the development of a command-and-control infrastructure. Both technology and a specialized command and control organization are necessary for the United States to respond to these terrorist threats. For technology, the most important goal is to detect a chemical or biological threat through sensors. Scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories are developing small acoustic-wave chemical sensors. When the sensor absorbs chemicals, acoustic waves are slowed. The lab expects that chips can be miniaturized so this “chem lab on a chip” can be built into a hand held device soldiers and others can use to detect chemicals (Auster, 2000). Another example of sensor research is that researchers at MIT are examining lasers to light up individual particles into the air to distinguish between naturally occurring dust and pollen from toxic agents (Auster, 2000). The goal is to find a sensor, which can detect more than a single toxic and biological agent, weigh less than five pounds, and tell what they’ve found in less than a minute. Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Frank Fernandez told Congress “Sensors are important in dealing with every aspect of the biological incident, from warning of the presence of an agent in the atmosphere to determining whether a building is fully decontaminated and safe to reenter.” Finally, scientists at Iowa State University and DARPA are training wasps to locate chemicals. Wasps are able to detect a wide range of chemical compounds and DARPA hopes to train wasps to detect certain chemicals, and then raise them as sentinels to warn of a possible chemical attack. A more ambitious use of wasps is to develop a biological sensor system using wasp antennae interfaces with electronics to create a sensor to detect production or storage sites for toxic compounds as reported by DARPA’s Controlled Biological Systems program (Auster, 2000).
Sensors are useless unless the information they detect can be sent to the correct officials who can respond quickly and effectively to an attack. An efficient command and control system can help direct such a response against a chemical or biological attack on the United States. Coordination between the Department of Defense, Justice Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Public Health Service, and the intelligence communities is important. In June 1995, President Clinton issued the Presidential Decision Directive 39, which established US policy on deterring, defeating and responding to terrorism. In PDD-39, the National Security Council is responsible for coordinating interagency counter terrorism and reviewing ongoing crisis operations, while the State Department handles foreign issues, and the FBI is responsible for counter terrorism in the US. The Federal Emergency Management Authority is responsible of consequence management on a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction (Cillufo, Tomarchio, 1998). In addition, communication and coordination must take place between federal agencies and state and local agencies. State and local fire and police agencies will be the first units to respond to a terrorist attack and many of these units do not have the specialized training to cope with a biological, chemical or nuclear attack. The Department of Defense and Department of Justice has responded to this by launching the Domestic Preparedness Program. This program trains state and local government officials, fire departments, police departments, and medical personnel to respond to mass emergencies including attacks using weapons of mass destruction. It is a 120-city initiative, which has reached more than 70 cities including New York, Washington, Miami, and Boston (Stern, 2000). The Department of Defense also has plans to develop National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams. These RAID teams are National Guard units that act in concert with fire and police departments in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. The Pentagon plans on spending $52 million in 2000 to deploy the first 10 of a planned 54 RAID teams (Lluma, 1999). However, what is equally important is that the Defense Department should provide specialized equipment for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare currently used by active units to National Guard units. Training programs should also be established where selected National Guard units can receive specialized training on nuclear, chemical and biological warfare from active military programs. These selected Guard units can then be used to further train other reserve units. Through providing specialized training and equipment to the regular National Guard units, state governments would have an increased ability to respond efficiently in the first critical hours of a terrorist attack.
For as long as the United States is perceived as the leader of the world, there will always be groups of individuals who will have critical views on the US leadership or a hatred of the United States. These individuals will see violence as an opportunity to strike against the US. With the constant development of weapons of mass destruction by the superpowers during the Cold War, individuals and terrorist groups have an opportunity to obtain these weapons of mass destruction and to use them against the United States for their own cause. While a chemical or biological attack of a massive scale has yet to occur, these weapons leftover from the Cold War still exist—especially within Russia and the former Soviet republics. It is only a matter of time for a terrorist group to obtain or develop a chemical or biological weapon and use that weapon against the United States. And when that time occurs, it will become a moment of deep psychological shock and surprise to the American people—a chemical or biological Pearl Harbor.
Works Cited
Auster, Bruce. “Striking Back at Terrorism.” Asee Prism. (2000). Vol. 9. No. 6. Pg. 16-21.
“Biological Warfare—America the Unready.” The Economist. Jan. 22, 2000. Vol. 354. Is. 8. Pg. 34.
Carus, Seth W. “Biohazard.” The New Republic. Aug. 2, 1999. Vol. 221. No. 5. Pg. 14-16.
Cillufo, Frank J. Tomarchio, Thomas. “Responding to New Terrorist Threats.” Orbis. (1998). Vol. 42. No. 3. Pg. 439.
“Future of Terror: On guard: America is the Dominat Nation Entering the New Century—And the Top Target for Extremists.” Newsweek. Jan. 10, 2000. Vol. 135. Is. 2. Pg. 34.
Lluma, Diego. “Low Probability, High Consequence.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Nov/Dec. 1999. Vol. 55. Is. 6. Pg. 14-16.
Sands, Amy. Tucker, Jonathan B. “An Unlikely Threat.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. July 1999. Vol. 55. Is. 4. Pg. 46.
Stern, Aimee. “Bioterrorism.” Hospitals & Health Networks. Jan. 2000. Vol. 74. No. 1. Pg. 58-60.
Man’s place in the Universe
Industrial Technology 198
Technology and Civilization
MW 10.30-12 p.m.
Science and the Citizen: Man’s place in the Universe
The question of defining a humans place in the universe is a question that one would not expect to find in a college science course. It is a question that seems more at home in a philosophy seminar where students think up questions such as who am I? What is life? What is man’s place in the universe? The stereotypical views of science is that of a cold, calculating researchers in white lab coats gathering data from microscopes or that of Mr. Spock chanting precise logical explanations to every unexplained phenomena and is always right.
In reality, science asks this question as much as the other disciplines. Man’s place in the universe cannot be easily defined by a single definition. There are many different layers of definitions to this question. Science can define man’s place in terms of his evolutionary history—where he came from, and can give us a description of his ancestors and his closest relatives. Religion defines man’s place in the universe in terms of his relationship with God—may it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other of the many religions that man believes in. Psychology defines man’s place in the universe within the context of his mind and his ability to think and feel. History defines his place with his relationship of his past civilizations. Each discipline gives him an insight of who he is.
No single definition to man’s place in the universe is absolutely right and all others wrong. Each definition is unique in defining man—whether it is scientific, religious, and philosophic. Take an example of Nazism. Nazism is a distinct brand of fascism where the individual works and contributes to the benefit of the state. In fascism, the state takes precedent over the individual. This can be one possible definition for man’s place in the universe. Yet Nazism is a distinct branch of fascism where there is a quasi-religious belief in that the German people were a master race and all other races were inferior and should be treated as inferior. Are the religious philosophies of Nazism a right definition to man’s place in the universe? Or should the question not be whether Nazism can be a right definition to man’s place in the universe, but rather the philosophies of Nazism contributed to man’s inhumanity to his fellow man in the systematic, state-sanctioned slaughter of the Jewish people in Europe and the destruction of the Second World War? Nazism can define man’s capacity to generate evil in the universe. These questions are not right or wrong. They are questions to be open for interpretation and debate.
One interesting problem with the absence of a single absolute definition is that definitions can contradict each other. And they do. Man’s capacity to think and reason is fluid…. dynamic. Thoughts, ideas, and views are constantly being analyzed, debated as new information is discovered over time. Take the view of creation. Almost every religion has some form of explanation of how the world and man was created. The Christian belief was that God created the world and that the first man was Adam. Now in today’s society, science can provide a reasonable explanation with the fossilized evidence of how the world and man was created through the theories of evolution and geology. Both science and religion contradict the views of creation. And yet in the societies of the past, man did not understand the theories of evolution or geology—people did not turn to science for the answers to their questions. People did turn to religion for the answers of creation that they needed. Now as people are exposed to new ideas and as more knowledge becomes available, the definitions of the past contradict the definitions of today. The definitions of the past must be adapted, molded and shaped to fit into today’s world. While there might not have been a Garden of Eden and that the first man was not named Adam, the biblical story of creation does show that God created the world and man. Adam becomes a symbolic figure of the human race. The greatest problem with this explanation is that people are afraid of change.
To define man’s place in the universe is an almost universal undertaking. There are many different arguments. As long as man continues in his capacity to think, to reason and to explore his surrounding universe will he continue to evolve. Man may never find the absolute definition to his place in the universe. But his ongoing search will continue to enrich his humanity.
Technology and Civilization
MW 10.30-12 p.m.
Science and the Citizen: Man’s place in the Universe
The question of defining a humans place in the universe is a question that one would not expect to find in a college science course. It is a question that seems more at home in a philosophy seminar where students think up questions such as who am I? What is life? What is man’s place in the universe? The stereotypical views of science is that of a cold, calculating researchers in white lab coats gathering data from microscopes or that of Mr. Spock chanting precise logical explanations to every unexplained phenomena and is always right.
In reality, science asks this question as much as the other disciplines. Man’s place in the universe cannot be easily defined by a single definition. There are many different layers of definitions to this question. Science can define man’s place in terms of his evolutionary history—where he came from, and can give us a description of his ancestors and his closest relatives. Religion defines man’s place in the universe in terms of his relationship with God—may it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other of the many religions that man believes in. Psychology defines man’s place in the universe within the context of his mind and his ability to think and feel. History defines his place with his relationship of his past civilizations. Each discipline gives him an insight of who he is.
No single definition to man’s place in the universe is absolutely right and all others wrong. Each definition is unique in defining man—whether it is scientific, religious, and philosophic. Take an example of Nazism. Nazism is a distinct brand of fascism where the individual works and contributes to the benefit of the state. In fascism, the state takes precedent over the individual. This can be one possible definition for man’s place in the universe. Yet Nazism is a distinct branch of fascism where there is a quasi-religious belief in that the German people were a master race and all other races were inferior and should be treated as inferior. Are the religious philosophies of Nazism a right definition to man’s place in the universe? Or should the question not be whether Nazism can be a right definition to man’s place in the universe, but rather the philosophies of Nazism contributed to man’s inhumanity to his fellow man in the systematic, state-sanctioned slaughter of the Jewish people in Europe and the destruction of the Second World War? Nazism can define man’s capacity to generate evil in the universe. These questions are not right or wrong. They are questions to be open for interpretation and debate.
One interesting problem with the absence of a single absolute definition is that definitions can contradict each other. And they do. Man’s capacity to think and reason is fluid…. dynamic. Thoughts, ideas, and views are constantly being analyzed, debated as new information is discovered over time. Take the view of creation. Almost every religion has some form of explanation of how the world and man was created. The Christian belief was that God created the world and that the first man was Adam. Now in today’s society, science can provide a reasonable explanation with the fossilized evidence of how the world and man was created through the theories of evolution and geology. Both science and religion contradict the views of creation. And yet in the societies of the past, man did not understand the theories of evolution or geology—people did not turn to science for the answers to their questions. People did turn to religion for the answers of creation that they needed. Now as people are exposed to new ideas and as more knowledge becomes available, the definitions of the past contradict the definitions of today. The definitions of the past must be adapted, molded and shaped to fit into today’s world. While there might not have been a Garden of Eden and that the first man was not named Adam, the biblical story of creation does show that God created the world and man. Adam becomes a symbolic figure of the human race. The greatest problem with this explanation is that people are afraid of change.
To define man’s place in the universe is an almost universal undertaking. There are many different arguments. As long as man continues in his capacity to think, to reason and to explore his surrounding universe will he continue to evolve. Man may never find the absolute definition to his place in the universe. But his ongoing search will continue to enrich his humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
