Products that prick your conscience 13

[3dKiwi]

Just a thought, but do any other members face a dilemma regarding the items they produce?
As a plastics toolmaker/drafter I have always avoided the bottle/packaging industry, as the problems relating to disposal are all too obvious.
This may seem rather trivial, but how about people involved in the manufacture of land mines, for example?

DC

 

[plasgears]

When I was a senior in engineering school, a friend was complaining about the possibilities of working on weapons and ancillary areas. I suggested going into bio-med, and he lit up with interest. The last time I heard from him, he was going to medical school. (Several ME's in my fraternity went to medical, dental, prosthetic, etc.)

Speaking for myself, aviation and weapons were the areas hiring and paying the best salaries. I had no regrets. I hope some of my designs went into weapons systems aimed at bad people.

 

[arto]

"Mechanical Engineers make weapons, Civil Engineers make targets" ;-)

 

[CajunCenturion]

And computer engineers ensure that weapon hits the target.

 

[leanne]

Just think if the Wright brothers were told that they had a choice between making a flying machine that would evolve into the B-29 which would carry the atomic bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would kill multitudes of people or to just continue being bicycle makers. Which one would you have chosen?

Just to be contrary, what if you also told Orville & Wilbur that the same machine could deliver medical supplies that could save a nation or an organ to a transplant patient (or vice-versa)? Or they could keep simply making bikes...Which one would you have chosen?

Is there any invention in existence that cannot be misused?

 

[GregLocock]

Leanne's hit the right note there - is anyone seriously claiming that aircraft have not been a net benefit to society?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[IRstuff]

It is also true a device originally intended to rain destruction on one's opponents, i.e., the rocket, has provided substantial benefit to mankind, e.g., satellite TV, GPS, worldwide communications, trips to the Moon and the rest of the solar system.

OK, I'll concede that satellite TV's benefits are debatable.

TTFN

 

[johnhan76]

what about us civil engineers. We often are the last people to see a great tract of natural land. We provide designs that call for the clearing of trees and the pouring of concrete. But we also give people a safe place to live with safe roads and clean water to drink. I hate seeing some of these natural areas destroyed but dont know the alternative.

 

[jmw]

3dkiwi,
every time i make breakfast i wonder at the problem we have where the food takes up less space than all the packaging.
I often feel we would be better off if we re-introduced money-back bottles, and more recycling.

As a consumer, i am appalled to think of all the resource and effort that goes into producing a plastic cup so that i can take one mouthful of water at the cooler then throw it away.

As a consumer, i decided to provide my own mug (I hope to get one of those Eng-Tip mugs soon!).

I therefore think that engineers should not take the blame onto themselves as engineers, but share the blame with everyone else as consumers. Consumers have more power than they think and there is much to be said for motivating for change in how we behave as consumers. It's the old story, if you don't make it, some one else will, so long as there is a consumer who will pay for it.

If we could improve recycling and/or bio-degradability I'd be happier. If we could stop packaging 5 screws in a blister pack, if we had more products sold loose and un-packaged, great.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[oxilume]

I remember the days when Mom would drive to the small Sears outlet and pickup her mail order purchases. Everything came unwrapped in a brown paper bag. She kept the bags to use as trash bags.

And here is another one. I remember the days when we would fill up a red wagon with "glass" soda bottles and redeem them for cash.

As an environmental engineer consulting with major oil companies and petrochem plants in both upstream (drilling and production) as well as midstream and downstream, we need to get a grip on "where" we are headed with respect to recycling, pollution, fossil fuels and water usage/waste.

First, it starts at home. And this is the reality of "where" we are headed.
(1) A tax break was passed that allows a $23,000 tax deduction for anyone who purchases a vehicle that has a GVW + passengers, fuel, extra cargo, etc. over 6,000 lbs and that vehicle is used for business.
(2) Now if you have two or more people in one of these gas guzzlers you can drive in the HOV Lane.

We can turn around North America immediately with respect to our dependence on foreign oil.
(1) Change the $23,000 tax deduction from 6,000 lb vehicles to HEV (high efficiency vehicle)based upon an EPA city rating of 30 mpg.
(2) Change the HOV lane to HEV lane.

Next, shift our focus and research to upgrading oilsand found in Alberta Canada. Keep in mind that Gas To Liquids (GTL) technology is still in its infancy. Thus converting natural gas to gasoline or diesel is not commercially feasible yet. Thus, we must still rely on refining crude oil for transportation fuels.

Finally, a tremendous amount of water is produced from oil, gas and coal bed methane wells. The "produced water" is too salty for use. The costs for disposing the produced water is reflected at the gas pump. This water can be put to good use if the salt is removed.

The Reclamation Act of 1902 allows for recycling water for irrigation purposes for any state lying west of the 98th meridian. Push your local community to reuse produced water that is now desalinated for firefighting water, lifestock and wildlife. Also, push the local oil companies to reuse the produced water for "stimulating" the well. This will offset the use of 100,000 to over 2,000,000 million gallons of water to stimulate a well to produce oil or gas.

Now back to the product that pricks my conscience:
"All civil engineers need to wake up and begin changing HOV Lanes to HEV lanes. I deplore the fact that a soccer mom driving a gas guzzling SUV can drive in the HOV lane when she is the only legal driver in the vehicle. This is not car pooling. Nor is it the intent of why HOV lanes were created with respect to where I want my Federal Excise Tax dollars to go to when I fill up at the pump."

Let the trucks and SUVs battle it out during rush hour. If you have ever driven the Katy Freeway in Houston during rush hour you may have purchased that SUV based upon what all Naval Officers regard as "the Rule of of the Road,"
Gross Tonnage always has the right of way.

If you are an engineer of any type, do you think it is ethical to commute to work alone in a vehicle that gets under 20 mpg?
Remember this - Does your plant or company produce a product that does not require the use of any type of hydrocarbon product or byproduct?

It starts at home! Buy a hybrid car and watch the reaction on your coworker's faces when they ride in it. Also, it's amazing to listen to people complain at the gas pump.

I'll leave you with this. On Friday morning I filled up at the local gas station/coffee stop. A friend who also has an office in the same building pulled up in his Ford Excursion (gas engine) hauling his offshore boat that has tripple 300 hp racing Black Max motors. He told me he was going fishing about 100 miles offshore. In the same breath he began complaining about gas prices. I asked him how much gas does the boat take to fill it up. He stated, "About near my credit card's limit with today's gas prices." He then said with the extra fuel tanks about 500 gallons! And he would burn it all on Saturday if he ran wide open throttle (about 90 miles/hour).

I wonder if any of use really care about what we are leaving or lack thereof to our grandchildren.

 

[IRstuff]

Now back to the product that pricks my conscience:
"All civil engineers need to wake up and begin changing HOV Lanes to HEV lanes. I deplore the fact that a soccer mom driving a gas guzzling SUV can drive in the HOV lane when she is the only legal driver in the vehicle. This is not car pooling. Nor is it the intent of why HOV lanes were created with respect to where I want my Federal Excise Tax dollars to go to when I fill up at the pump."

Right... So we should force ALL eight moms to drive SUV's to pick up their kids, individually, increasing both pollution and congestion?


TTFN

 

[NOx]

Hi,

Just found this thread, amazing stuff.

Thought long and hard about all the comments.
Where do you draw the line at what may or may not prick your conscience.
You can utilise anything with a point to maim injure or kill, so do cutlery manufacturers show concern, are there disclaimers? Vehicles can kill regardless of design! You can injure a person with a pencil or pen! How about baseball/cricket bats.
Is it the designers/manufacturers responsibility how these things are used? or is it down to each and every indiviual. History shows that even inventions for the greater good at the time of conception can ultimatley be used indiscriminatley for death/destruction.
Its not the goods its the people who use them?

Must go my new eco friendly shelter has arrived, going to lock myself away eat off of biodegradable plates (vegan only food) using my fingers and wearing a fig leaf!

NOx.

 

[mabn]

True enough, anything can be used with an intent to harm.

But what about products designed to harm. I think this discussion is meant to revolve more around those products. Weapons engineering is big business. There are probably other things that I can't think of that are designed to harm or destroy human life.... efficiency systems that slash jobs for example (good or bad? depends on where you're standing).

Whatever you design, whoever is paying you for designing it, whatever the application of the product, an engineer must able to look him/herself in the mirror and say to themselves that they are helping people in the long run. This is where no engineering board can get invlolved, because there is no general populous concensus on a great deal of ethical issues. Another example: you design a product that makes abortions faster, easier, safer, more efficient. Depending on personal ethics this could be an amazing thing or an attrocious thing. Depending on society's ethics you could be applauded or deemed a monster. Too many grey areas.

Mabn

 

[ietech]

I agree that death and destruction products might offend the sensibilities of the engineers who design them.

What about the products that are designed with pre-determined life-cycles, planned obscelence. Is there any guilt associated with designing a product to minimal standards when it could be made highly durable.

I think many products are total rip-offs. For example the biggest rip-off (IMO) are automobiles; both in durability and the complicated assembly procedures that turn basically simple maintenance into rocket science. When I speak of maintenance I am not necessarily relating to the insane computerized control systems, I am talking about simple stuff like R&R a water pump, timing belt, even spark plugs on some cars, normally .5hr to 1.0hr on older cars, now jobs take upwards of 5 to 6 hours for a professional to accomplish. This opinion is based on V-6 front wheel drive cars in particular. Is this good engineering? Is maintenance ever a factor during design or is it just marketable looks?

Is there a responsibility to give the consumer a quality product?

ietech

 

[IRstuff]

It is great engineering to the requirements given, which is to reduce weight and increase fuel economy. They traded off maintenance cost, which, in many cases, is a reasonable trade, as I haven't had to do anywhere as much maintenance on my newer cars as I did on older cars.



As for weapons, it's a two-edge sword. Man's inhumanity towards man is a historical fact, with no obvious end in sight. So yes, I would work on weapon systems that allow the US to liberate ungrateful Iraqis and Afghans. And it's pretty clear to me that even if I or all of the US stopped making weapons, others will continue to do so and they would continue their petty tyrannies with impunity.

Does any seriously think that Hitler would have been stopped by a high-quality DeSoto?

TTFN

 

[jmw]

Where do you draw the line?

What are the criteria for and against any act of engineering?

How about the civil engineers who are working on the huge dam projects in China which will affect the lives of many millions of people not just in China, but down stream?
Criteria change.

If you built the Panama Canal today, would you? or the US transcontinental railroad?

In any civilised society we should not have to bear the burden alone. That is why we elect governments. That is why governments issue licences for arms exports to some and not to others.

The system isn't perfect. No system is. Sure Leo Slizard (The voice of Dolphins?)and others on the Manhattan Project had a quite a burden of assumed guilt after the event, it was not theirs to bear alone, if guilt it were.

For me the biggest issue at the moment is GM crops, or any GM products. This is profoundly unsettling for me as i think we have here a situation that scientific methdo was not evolved to handle.

Yes, there are times when i feel that some things are done becauuse the can be done and not because anyone has thought whether it is right to do them. Pretty well everything can come under this umbrella dependent on your viewppoint. I am not convinced that all the medical "advances" are advances. They may affect individual lives but what do they do for the future of the race? Dangerous topics indeed. A reason why we cannot take the burden onto ourselves as individuals.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[IRstuff]

Genetic modification has been going on for thousands of years. There have been plenty of unintended consequences. Consider that ALL dogs today are ALL descended from wolves. Now we have dogs that are purely decorative.

The American rose has been genetically modified through cross-breeding over the last 2 centuries to the point where only in the last decade did someone recognize that the cross-breeding had nearly bred out the fragrance of the flower. Ooops...

The current on-going battle with the Africanized honeybee was started by a purely classical crossbreeding of two varieties of bees. Then, they got out...

The scientific method works fine, it's we that have not evolved.

TTFN

 

[GregLocock]

ietech

A modern car is usually designed so that it needs no under-hood maintenance for 100 000 miles apart from oil, oil filter, coolant and air filter (and I'm not too sure about the latter). This is a legal requirement in California. I don't know about timing belts et al.

This is quite an advance on cars that needed new plugs every 5000 miles, say 10 years ago.

Believe it or not we design cars taking into account the total cost of ownership. It is a very important parameter, but given the infrequency of the maintenance intervals you can see that the cost of servicing is rapidly going to be dominated by other things.

The automotive industry is not about engineering excellence, per se, it is completely customer driven. The history books are full of the now-forgotten names of auto companies that tried to sell what they knew was 'right' rather than what the customer wants.

And just as an example of compromises - you do replace the tires on your car every 10 000 miles with the same brand and model it came on, don't you? Those groovy things in the tread do get less effective as they wear, you know.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GregLocock]

Um, just a zoological point. The tigon is not so very strange, given that both tigers and lions have evolved directly from the same species, apparently, and the odds are good that tigers evolved from lions, rather than both from a common ancestor

http://www.forevertigers.com/evolution.htm

for a not very scientific discussion of this.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[IRstuff]

Crossbreeding IS genetic modification.

Just ask any breeder what they are trying to accomplish -- the sole objective is to cause the insertion of a desired genetic trait from one organism DNA to another's.

Cross-breeding causes rare genetic transfers that might never breed true to occur at a much higher rate than would naturally happen; so to think that it's somehow more "natural" is denying the truth.

Just about every organism born is a genetic modification. Look at Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia. Every one of these diseases is caused by the mixing of genetic material. Thalidomide, DDT, cigarettes are genetic modifiers.

The bottom line is that it matters not how genetic traits are transferred or modified; once done, there are unintended consequences.

That's not a fault of the scientific method; it's a fault of our inability to visualize all the potential consequences and our inability to perfectly prevent such consequences from occurring. What needs to be done is to learn from mistakes.




TTFN

 

[PSE]

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men." (Blue Oyster Cult)