[HOME] [NEXT]
POLS 410 LECTURE 4
Risk and Technology: Economics & Environment
I. Worldviews, paradigms & sustainability
A. Neo-Malthusians
B. Cornucopians
II. Paradigm shift (Dennis Pirages, Lester Milbrath)
Kuhn: paradigms are associated with "normal science":
shared rules & standards for scientific (or, in our case, social)
practice; also, share worldview. People working under the same
paradigm rarely disagree over fundamentals; they take "the field"
for granted. Paradigms gain their status because they are more
successful than their competitors in solving major problems.
Scientific revolutions occur when one paradigm overthrows another
(17th C.)
EXs: Ptolemaic vs. Copernican astronomy;
Aristotelian vs. Newtonian dynamics; Newtonian vs. quantum mechanics
-- Social science EXs not as clear ("rules" not as clear):
Monarchy (king is God's rep.) vs. democracy;
Adam Smith vs. Lenin
A. 3 realms: #2 & #3 have been dominant in social sciences, isolated from
#1;
Most disciplines stay within one realm in seeking explanations;
but in the real world, the 3 are closely linked.
Disembodied human beings (rtl minds) at center of world.
B. Dominant Social Paradigm:
Exclusionist -- ppl exist apart from nature & can dominate
it (excludes nature)
Nature = resources
Last 300 years - Atypical; associated w/ industrial revolution
Cultures, institutions & values assumed to evolve & exist apart from
geological, biological & ecological constraints.
Science & technology can overcome all or most physical constraints;
can provide substitutes for limited resources.
Embedded notion that nature is abundant, resources are virtually
unlimited.
C. New social paradigm: inclusionist
Gives primacy to techno-ecological realm as ground of all human
activity
More humble, less anthropocentric.
Offered by Pirages as a post-industrial paradigm.
Most impt. feature: Can be used to predict & analyze
global futures
Q: what concept discussed last time reflects the new social paradigm?
A: sustainable development
D. Reflects 2 faces of science & technology (sort of)
1. Dominant = positive; Enlightenment
Positivists: all life shd. be based on science
2. Subordinate = Negative
E. Problems w/ inclusionist paradigm
1) Should technology & nature really be in the same circle?
Yes, they are both on the physical plane, more so than the other
two, But isn't tech. a human activity? Isn't is more closely
related to social structures than natural resources per se?
-- Doesn't lumping them together allow cornucopians to claim that
they are inclusionists, since all of their solutions to scarcity
& envt'l degradation come from technological advances?
2) Indus. revolution grew out of changes in values & social
structures, not just (or even primarily, for that matter) out of
changes at the material level. In fact, the roots of exclusionist
thinking are historically antecedent to the industrial revolution.
-- Rise of ntn-state, secularization & break w/ Rome, Enlightenment
thinking.
e.g., John Locke as exclusionist: defines human beings in terms of
rationality, and this entails industriousness & the ability to
use land
IV. Conventional view of rel-ship bet. sci/tech & politics:
A. Science gives objective facts from which policy decisions are made.
1. Depends upon fact/value distinction
-- called into Q. by phil. of science:
a. Context of discovery (observation)
Choice of research topics is socially & politically determined,
esp. after 1945
-- Funding (BIG SCIENCE)
Industrial Revol. can be interpreted as extension of one
innovation: transformation of science into capital.
b. Context of justification (theory)
Theory-ladenness of observation (Kuhn)
Science = social inst. w/ its own rules, norms & practices
-- most scientific kn. accepted on authoriy
Evidence & reason are impt.,
but what counts as evidence & reason are socially determined.
(EX: Ant. ozone hole not detected by satellites; scientists
skeptical of unknown British Antarctic Survey.)
B. Technology is a neutral tool, to be used for good or ill, with no
inherent social value.
>> R&D shd. not be limited; every possibility shd. be brought to
fruition.
1. Technology takes on a momentum of its own
(EX: Manhattan Project continued after German defeat)
2. Techn. doesn't seem neutral to its users or victims
Positive EXs: phone, refrigerator, bike (car?)
Negative Exs: Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims; women who painted
radium dials on clocks;
Kurdish victims of Iraqi chemical weapons;
future generations who will probably not see car &
fossil fuel as neutral
3. Notion of tech. as divorced from social structures is historically
inaccurate.
David Noble: history of engineering profession is bound up w/
corporate capitalism from its beginnings in the 19th C. to present.
4. Industrial production techniques are embedded in a particular social
theory: Taylorism (Frederick)
"Scientific management": prime value = efficiency
C. The communication of scientific facts requires framing & interpretation
(depends upon language; rhetorical nature can be hidden)
1. EX: Carcinogenic chemical may increase cancer rate from 10 in 1
million to 15 in 1 million. This can be described either as a 50%
increase or an increase of 5 in 1 million.
Excellent literature on psychology of risk perception: Tversky,
Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein
Also, cultural factors & risk perception: Jasanoff, Dietz & Rycroft
D. Interactive view of sci/tech & politics
Trans-scientific = questions which can be asked of science and yet
not answered by science (safety of nuclear energy)
>> greater role for expert advice in policy making.
-- technocracy?
1. Advisers associated with turbulent conditions:
* complexity, dynamism, uncertainty
2. Limitations of expert advice
a. Experts can be fired, ignored, pitted against one another, their
advice distorted.
b. Misunderstood bec. experts & policy mkrs live in different worlds,
speak diff languages.
-- Time frames diverge
-- Narrowly specialized experts tend to neglect soc & econ.
implications of their recommendations; may be uneasy in world of
compromise
-- Policy mkrs. may be awestruck by technical language
( cult of doctor worship) or may ignore parts of prob. they don't
understand.
c. Conflict bet. democratic values & heavy reliance on expert
advice (technocracy)