Transcendian recently proposed that we have poly sci section, which Chris immediately rejected, not without sound reason. I am perfectly happy to go along with Chris's desires, and understand the logic behind his decision.
On the other hand, I think there could be some benefit to a discussion about the interrelated nature of politics and engineering, morality and engineering, and ethics and engineering. (We could substitute science for engineering in this list, too.)
As scientists and engineers we have a moral responsibility, I believe, to advance the cause of rational thought, and to appropriately apply engineering and scientific reasoning to social issues. The costs of letting politicians decide energy policy, for instance, can be very, very high. By that, I don't mean the politicians are always witless, but that they have proven themselves to be capable of applying the sort of knee jerk responses to complex problems that scientists and engineers abhor.
I am perfectly happy to criticize GM for having created the county's deadliest vehicle for several years running (the Chevy Blazer) because there are near perfect comparisons in driver demographics and vehicle size and function with the Toyota FourRunner and the Nissan Pathfinder, which have been among the safest vehicles, as you would expect with reasonable engineering and large mass. Clearly, someone at GM said, "Who cares.. it makes money," just as they did with the Corvair, and with the older full size Blazers and pickups with unsafe fuel tanks; just as Ford did with the Pinto and Explorers.
As engineers, do we have a responsibility to say that bad designs are bad designs? That bad policy is bad policy? I think so. To expect morality at the highest levels of companies, at the level at which CEOs are rewarded for putting people out of work is too much to ask.
Personally, I think that the engineering of politics and the politics of engineering are both interesting topics for which there is no other forum on the web. In many political sites, some environmental sites, and even (particularly?) sites promoting a particular technology (the EEStore EESU comes to mind) the participants have little or no science background, so we cannot speak the same language. Here, in contrast, we have the advantage of a basic understanding of science, so can discuss the issues in some depth, rather than throwing simplistic generalities back and forth.
So I wonder if we can't give Transcendian's idea another look, even if only to discuss the value of discussion, and the parameters under which such discussions might work, without degenerating into name calling. By and large, we have done quite well, and I suspect we could do well if we go into such discussions with open eyes, maybe with a few additional rules, and with the knowledge that the section could be shut down if it proves non-productive.
There is nothing we do, as engineers, more important than doing the right thing. It is very hard to name a fundamental issue today that is not very deeply affected by engineering. (Most obviously, if we, as engineers, were developing systems which used no oil, there would be clear and obvious political implications. If we can supply every kid in the world with a laptop, and engineer the infrastructure to support that, we can change the world... maybe.)
Just a facility with math and some basic physics is a huge advantage for some of these discussions. The "hydrogen economy" sounds just peachy keen if you fail to do the math or think about the energy required to create hydrogen. In general, politicians live in sound bites, and engineers say, "but, wait, it's not that simple.." I think the two worlds need to meet more, rather than less.
But Chris is right, some of these discussions have been pretty crude. But at the same time, we all have the potential for learning, and learning to get along. In my own case, I remember Seaplaneguy and I being at one another's throats, but we get along just fine now. We've probably both grown in some, possibly important, ways.
Or not.
I'd be interested in hearing what others think.
2
Poly Sci forum?
Re: Poly Sci forum?
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: