"Engineering Authoritarianism" 12

[MartinLe]

Hey all,

I came across this short text that I find interesting enough to want it widely read:

https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2016/12/05/engineering-authoritarianism/

Interesting bits:

Consider first, the disturbing fact that engineers are vastly overrepresented in extremist groups of all stripes: from neo-nazis to jihadists, engineering is the most common educational background of right-wing extremists. Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog, the authors of a book on the subject found that relative to their prevalence in any given nation, engineers are vastly over-represented in violent right-wing extremist groups. Left-wing extremist groups that advocate or support violent means, on the other hand, have no engineers amongst their ranks and are instead made up of people with backgrounds in the social sciences and humanities.

Imagine if medical doctors, instead of taking the Hippocratic Oath that says, in part, “do no harm”, instead took an oath to never knowingly expose their employer to malpractice suits? No one, patients included, wants to be involved in malpractice but the change in allegiance should be clear: we want doctors to be first and foremost concerned with their patients’ well-being and their hosting institutions should be directed toward supporting that concern. Why should engineers be any different? Why are there no oaths to build things that cause harm to fellow humans? Why are there no licenses to be revoked if an engineer knowingly and consistently builds things that do great harm? These seem like common sense requests until you look at the major employers of engineering graduates: military contractors, resource extraction companies, and the governments that own those militaries and resources.

I was struggling a bit with the second part: On one hand, the kind of choice they hope more engineers make - not work in arms production or some resource extraction - is one I made myself. OTOH it would be weird to codify this in a semester long course on ethics. But practicing to think through the consequences of the work we do would be a good idea.

 

[3DDave]

Weren't the guys who flew the terror missions on 9/11 trained pilots?

One might expect that even evil people take the time to learn what they think will be useful to accomplish their ends rather than supposing the connection is the other way around. In addition, there is the likelihood that there were a lot of others with similar intentions, but without the background to succeed.

 

[berkshire]

3Ddave,
Yes they were , trained right here in the USA. In fact the specific kind of training they were asking for, raised a red flag at one of the flight schools in Arizona ,that was ignored, by the authorities. You know the rest of that story.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[JohnRBaker]

That's a problem that virtually every society has experienced when confronted with asymmetrical warfare. We can't draw the correct conclusions because we can't even recognize the clues, even when they're staring us in the face. It's not so much as weakness of our intelligence services as it is in the way the human brain processes what is sees based on what it already knows.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[msquared48]

So... the next step in his thesis would be to eliminate the problem imagined by his paranoia and kill all the engineers, doctors, lawyers - all the educated people - like the Cambodia and the Kamir Rouge (sp) in the 70's.

He might also be included... ok, maybe not.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[rotw]

If a doctor cannot improve the condition of someone - at least - they shall not make it worse.
The Hippocratic Oath seems to me pertaining to an ethical level: the "what are you going to do/not do". (level A)
Its less on the level of negligence/malpractice, that is the "how you do it correct or not". (level B)

Appears to me more easy to hold people accountable for the later than the former. Malpractice can be proved and punished. But what about things that go undetected, these will still harm the patient but not the employer in reference to the thesis quoted texts.

I quote here Hammurabi ancient code: "... If a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, And the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kill the son of the owner of the house, the son of that builder shall be put to death." So this is "skin in the game" and that should cover Level B.

But "Level A" seems quite difficult to enforce in a sort of "skin in the game" approach. I think we should act on the educational level, to build awareness, but then comes the problem of defining the standard of ethics: where do we put the bar?

And also who said that putting the bar at its right/legitimate level was optional.
To my opinion this led us to a sort of short term win /long term loose.

There is an author who quoted the concept of "via negative" - it is often sufficient to act by removing the harm instead of adding stuffs for things to improve. Food for thoughts....

 

[berkshire]

I used to have an undertaker friend who always said, "My biggest job is covering the Dr's mistakes.".
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[kacarrol]

This is an interesting topic. One thing I have pondered frequently is the number of films, and some literature, where the crazy person is an engineer. For instance:
Saw
Law Abiding Citizen
Norman Osborn (Green Goblin)

Also, Stephen King's "The Stand" said that engineers and scientists were more likely to join the "evil" side of the camp. I wonder if sometimes fiction uses the engineer to make a small twist on the mad scientist stereotype.

On a more fact based note, if you do a search in the Canadian House of Commons for the occupation of "engineer", you will find that 13 members self identify as engineers. 11 of them are Liberals. Take from that what you would like. (

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/...an=False&Occupation=engineer&OccupationType=)

I also find it interesting to note that this is 13 out of 339 members, which works out to 38.3 per 1000, but engineers in the general population show up as 5.7 per 1000 according to Engineers Canada (

https://engineerscanada.ca/reports/national-membership-report).

 

[JohnRBaker]

If you were to ask this same question of the American Congress, at least for 2010, this is what you would get (paragraph copied from the linked item below):

According to a release by Congress, there were a grand total of “three physicists, one chemist, six engineers including a biomedical engineer, and one microbiologist” among the 541 members of the Congress in 2010, accounting for about two percent of the United States’ legislature. In contrast, approximately 36.4 percent of college-educated citizens have science or engineering degrees. The last American engineer-president was Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), a mining engineer.

As for that last statement, I don't think it's technically accurate. President Jimmy Carter (1976-1980) was a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a Bachelor of Science degree and he later received additional training in nuclear engineering while working on the Navy program which developed the first atomic powered submarines. When he resigned his regular commission in 1953 (he served in the Reserves until 1961) he was being trained as an 'Engineering Officer' qualified to oversee the operation of on-board nuclear reactors.

Anyway, as you can see the level of even technical, let alone engineering experience, here in our national legislative bodies is much less (only 2% in 2010) than it is in Canada. And I suspect that if we looked at the state legislatures and governorship's that the numbers wouldn't be all that much different.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/10/28/the-engineer-politician/

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[coloeng]

Just because a person takes an oath, i.e. the Hippocratic Oath, doesn't mean they will follow it. A good example of this is the doctors that worked in the Nazi human experiment departments.

What makes anyone believe that taking an oath will preclude someone from acting adversely to that oath.

 

[kacarrol]

JohnRBaker: Thanks for the information. I had looked up the statistics on engineers in the government the other day because my gut said that engineers were under-represented in politics. I guess I was right about it but just wrong about which country!

I'm not sure if the numbers are a direct comparison but Stats Canada says that "At the university level, STEM fields represented 24.5% of all fields of study" (

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-012-x2011001-eng.cfm#a4).

It looks like Canada has fewer technical people per capita than the states, which only makes the higher representation in government even more stark.

 

[IRstuff]

"Just because a person takes an oath..."

The same holds true of the marriage oath, and the oath of office.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JAE]

Just to follow up on CheckerHater's 4-star post above, here is a list of dictators and their educational backgrounds:
[blue]
Kim Jong-Il – Majored in Marxist Political Economy – minors in Philosophy & Military Science
Kim Jong-un – Officer Training
Idi Amin Dada – School Drop-out
Vladimir Lenin – Law (expelled)
Adolf Hitler – Artist
Anastasio Somoza Garcia – Business Admin
Bashar al-Assad – Ophthalmology
Benito Mussolini – Education
Manuel Noriega – Military School
Muammar Gaddafi – History & Military Academy
Nicolae Ceausescu – Shoemaker
Saddam Hussein – School Drop-out
Pol Pot – Radio Technology
Joseph Stalin – Seminary (expelled)
Mao Tse-Tung – Education/Teacher
Fulgencio Batista – Medical
Robert Mugabe – Education / Arts / Business / Law
Porfirio Diaz – Seminary / Law
Francois Duvalier – Medicine [/blue]

Not much engineering there - some science (i.e. medicine).



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[HamburgerHelper]

Coleng,

The book freakonomics by Steven Levitt shows that being treated by a doctor for a non-serious condition is more dangerous than being untreated. So, for most cases your doctor should just be screening you for serious conditions and sending you home, not giving you some drugs that you hope doesn't interact poorly. There is an expectation that everything needs to be treated and doctors give in to it at the patient's detriment.

 

[JAE]

And this link has an explanation for why engineers tend to show up a bit in terroistic organizations:
Link



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[KENAT]

Hamburger,

Yeah, it's sad that I've had to bring up that "I'm not begging for antibiotics if it's a viral thing" & similar.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[CWB1]

Thanks for the giggle, that may be the most slanted piece of trash writing I have read all year. If the verbiage suggesting that folks on the extreme right are violent terrorists and those on the extreme left are not wasn't comical enough, suggesting that there is no engineering oath to do no harm is a bit too much. An engineer's 1st duty is to society after all...

As a proud veteran my comment to those objecting to weapons of any variety or viewing them solely as a means of doing harm is to also point out that weapons and those willing to use them are solely responsible for their protection. Many of those who have not served cannot grasp this concept, but you cannot truly hate the concept of war until you've served in one.

 

[RolMec]

Let's analyze back on the analyst.. with an equal touch of polemics, perhaps..
1) Classification of and singling out a convenient subject ("the engineer")
2) Awarding that subject a stark negative image evoking negative emotions (look at all that defensive input above!)
3) Bringing said subject in conjection with further simplifications and cross references (political currents, "harm", irresponsibility)
4) Simplification and cross-referencing over all borders, again leaning on emotions rather than facts, all this by generalizing to the extreme
5) Not offering any substantial input as to how the writer intends to improve the situation he identified to be wrong by his own actions

Conclusion:
This analysis is promoting discord and seems to be a scapegoat identification exercise.

Engineering courts decision:
;-) The analyst is for the forthcoming future exempt from any utilization of any engineered device, product, derivate of any engineering solution or product ... beginning with the internet, airplanes, refrigerators as well as the shaver.

But: The writer has nevertheless a point here, as what concerns a part of human behaviour.So, not doing harm to other fellow human beings or living creatures and rather go for understanding and being empathetic... this would be valid for the designer of the car as well as for its driver.

Roland Heilmann
Lpz FRG

 

[KENAT]

However, for the designer of an anti personnel munition a bit more problematic.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

It's like the old joke about the differences between Mechanical and Civil Engineers:

Mechanical Engineers make weapon systems. Civil Engineers make targets.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[CWB1]

Is an "anti personnel munition" similar to an attack knife or a spoon for obese people?

Despite the attempts of many to take a moralistic high ground on matters such as these, there really is no correct answer that does no harm nor moral high ground to take. Doctors cause pain and damage to the human body daily in order to prolong or improve life just as many potential weapons sit unused prolonging freedom. In a similar vein the implication was made in the original post that the poster's civil engineering does no harm vs arms production and natural resource extraction. Personally, I would suggest anyone believing their work morally superior to another's reevaluate their own work before judging others' on complex matters. In the example given, realistically every year civil engineering does massive amounts of both damage in attempts and improvement to our environment and leads to many deaths just as everything else our species does, arms production and resource extraction included. In reality you cannot "do no harm" if you exist, much less if you actively attempt to improve.

Disclaimer: I previously worked for an aerospace contractor developing offensive missile systems. Yes, I've had several similar moral debates with peers, friends, and "scholars." No, I'm not offended by them nor any logical discussion, but to be fair I've never really heard what I considered a solid reason why that work was morally wrong. Somewhat ironically, I keep two references on top of my desk, Machinery's Handbook and the Bible. I'm hardly the slightest bit religious however being the stereotypical male engineer I struggle a bit with "people issues." Personally I find the Bible a pretty direct source for quality advice regarding my interactions with others, its the Machinery's Handbook for people dynamics.