Ethical engineering work 5

[BigInch]

In a discussion in another forum I mentioned that I had recently decided not to work on a particular project as I was not convinced of its environmental soundness (locating an NGL plant on supposedly sensitive island when pleanty of space is available only a short distance to the mainland). One response was more or less of a nature suggesting, why not, money is nice". While I would generally agree that money is nice, surely there must be some limits in engineering work. Many nuclear scientists stopped working on certain projects in history, because it didn't fit into their view of the world's future. Is there an ethical limit to engineering work?

I'm curious about how other engineers view my decision and if they can envision themselves taking a similar decision based on environmental soundness, or some other reason. Is there a project that would cross your line and what might it be?

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[photoengineer]

For many years, land development was the best an engineer could do in my hometown (subdividing beautiful farmland into tract housing subdivisions). I refused to do that because it stood exactly for what I detested in life.

I guess you could say that was ethics, but really it was a personal belief of mine. I didn't want to contribute to exactly what I didn't like seeing happen back home.

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[hokie66]

While as engineers we are often bound by a formal set of professional ethics rules, the most important ethics are our personal ones. So I think the decisions by both of you were reasonable and individually responsible.

 

[KENAT]

I think that's the kind of thing you have to make your own decisions on based on your own beliefs.

I used to work in defence, literally designing things that go bang and destroy stuff, including humans if they're in the vicinity, not just vaguely related items. I never had any qualms about this but I've known people that did about relatively tangential work in aerospace.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[patprimmer]

I once refused work in the tobacco industry. I don't regret that, especially since the work involved having to smoke when in public.

I have respectfully declined to continue an interview with a head hunter when I discovered that they were recruiting for a company I would not work for because I thought the company in question pushed for sales at any cost.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[rowingengineer]

BigInch,
You have to remember that sometimes while your advocating that you don't work on those projects. Some of us do work on on those projects for all the good same reasons that you don't. The old two sides to every story as they say. However I will not try to change your mind your call is your call.

but to add a bit to the discussion I noticed in the wind farm discussion you said you wouldn't get involved in the engineering of the wind farms. As a person that has the designed a heap of footings for these wind towers, I don't share the same view. However as suggested by others that it is based on money it taking a very simple cash flow estimate of life.

While i am yet to join the wind farm discussion i have been following it fairly closely, I am not one at the pointy end of the knowledge base with regards to power development ect, SO I keep my head down, i really don't know whether they are good or bad. I don't refuse to work on these projects assuming i know enough to decide that they are bad. I decided to work on these things because at the end of the day they could be good, i am a person that likes to see technology advance and wind farms are fairly advanced and getting more advanced, probably one day they will be advanced enough to do what the people that own the power grids want them to do. With the wind history getting better, and other inputs that make up a wind farm.

Just thought you may be interested in the flip side. but however i would never hold your view against you. Everyone has one, and strangely nothing is black and white, Even nuclear bombs.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it

 

[IRstuff]

As engineers, we all know that it's extremely rare to get a problem that is so black and white that the decision is completely binary.

In most cases, there is a trade between two comparably bad outcomes. In your example, the non-development of the NGL plant in the local area might mean that the local populace is removed from a potentially large job pool, and that would drive them to attract an installation with an even worse environmental impact.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[oneintheeye]

I have often pondered this. If our duty is to the public and to consider the enviromental impact (low carbon future etc). Why do we work on and praise schemes such as the articficial sky slope in dubai. I can;t imagine that is in anyway good for the enviroment. And if the engineering institutions are so pro enviroment why are they not critisising these types of schemes? It seems most people have beliefs unless there is money involved, so I applaud you.

 

[BigInch]

Yes, sometimes its hard enough to chose between existing alternatives, but deciding to work on one because it might prevent a future worse one doesn't sound like logic I can use. The flip side of that is you could also be prohibiting a future project with even a better symbiosis. One is something I might think about, the other is definately better, the third possibility is nobody builds anything there, so its better to not do anything bad which would block either of the other two.

Rowing, I'm not totally decided about wind farms, but I am concerned enough to .... NO. Never mind. I won't.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[BigInch]

KENAT, I know wind turbine projects are obviously in the personal choice column; bombs too, but I think bombs would give me a headache. What about landmines and cluster bombs? Now that most of the world has banned their use (with one or two notable exceptions), would designing these be an ethical issue, or still personal choice? Could an engineer ethically work on poisonous gas processing facilities, if its a violation of the Geneva Convention and s/he knew it would be used for warfare?

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[rowingengineer]

It all depends on cost to work at these places; I would guess if you’re working on something outside the Geneva Convention, they are using something more than currency to get you to work. So in essence you asking would we work on a chemical bomb used to kill millions if I had to select between the work and my family/friends? Personally I would like to say no I wouldn’t work but the truth is if you asked me to tell that to my family/friend right now, I doubt I could be serious and do it.

As for the sky scrapers, it has been found that they are a better alternative to houses, again not black and white. I think we are discussing shades of grey, really at the end of the day, the question is do you really want to know if what your doing is wrong? because if you don't know you can still sleep well at night. As they say ignorance is bliss.


Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it

 

[patprimmer]

We all can only answer to our own conscience according to how we see things.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[BigInch]

OK, I agree that its a personal decision on wind turbines and sky scrapers and the like. But is it really a personal decision on landmines and cluster bombs. They are actually banned by most of the world.

I also am getting at trying to find out if anybody else has acually made a decision not to work on a project in the past, or has decided that there definitely are some generic types of projects that might not be appropriate for them to work on in the future. It can't be just me.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[JLSeagull]

Could an engineer ethically work on poisonous gas processing facilities, if its a violation of the Geneva Convention and s/he knew it would be used for warfare?

I see that you are on to me.

I admire your choice. I would object to an NGL offloading facility in a big city.

 

[TheTick]

I won't work on war toys.

My dad refused to work for tobacco companies. Given his later success in his chosen field, that's a good thing for everyone.

 

[BigInch]

Sorry Pat. I missed your earlier response. I'm not totally alone ... but getting that way. I smoke in public.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[BigInch]

Now we're getting somewhere. NGL in the city. Could be.

Tick, Interesting. You really mean toys as in "toys", or as in "big boy's toys"?


**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[TheTick]

I mean weapons. The human race is ingenious enough about destruction. That's one place where they certainly don't need my help. I once had an idea on how to make hand grenades more effective, and idea which I will never utter.

Believe it or not, I'm actually OK with boys playing with war toys. Just part of the explosive imagination of boys. None of the kids I played war or cowboys-andn-[good folk of the First Nations defending their native homelands] with are criminals or killers or wife beaters.

 

[ImminentCollapse]

If you think about, there really is no project that is environmentally friendly. Whether you build a sandbox for your kids or a steel mill for XXX corporation, you consume raw materials, alter land use, burn energy. Even converting landfills to parks consumes resources. Where do you draw the line?

It depends on your ideology, principles and commitment there to.

Hadn't thought too much about it, but I've worked on many large transportation projects that involved eminent domain. Maybe if it was my grandmother's house that was taken, I would have refused to be involved.

 

[ColonelSanders83]

I worked on Nuclear Submarines (boomers and attack) for a while and I thouroughly enjoyed the work. I am of the "walk softly and carry a big stick" school of thought.

What burned me more than anything else were the people (and there were plenty) who had the opinion that everything we built and worked on was wrong but still worked there and drew a salary.

I respect anyone who turns down profitable opertunities to stand up for thier beliefs whether I agree with what they think or not. It shows backbone and that is becomeing a rare thing the world over.

At the end of the day though, you have to ask yourself, is the plant going to be built?

If the answer is a definitave yes, is it better to stay out of the project or become involved and attempt to minimize its impact?

Or perhaps the answer is to run for public office and sell your belief that this is wrong on the open market. We could certainly use fewer lawers running things.

Always remember, free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!