Vietnam — A Victim of Globalization

During this week’s lecture, we discussed many of the differences and similarities between Vietnam and China as nations. While many, such as language, culture, society, government, etc. were all fairly obvious, there was one big different that stuck out to me. It was how these nations have been affected by globalization. To me, this is perhaps the greatest indicator as to how these nations have reached the points they have, and it can be seem more readily when we examine each.

 

China is a nation that has a great deal of money invested in other nations, as well has a a lot of foreign investment into their own economy. They are one of the largest players on the international level, and produce more than any other nation in the world. The reason China is able to achieve such economic success internationally is because of their clout. China was able to develop their economy under protectionist policies, and only start beginning with international trade when they were allowed to engage in it on their own terms.

 

Vietnamese has a slightly different situation, however. Vietnam is very dependent on other nations economically, and most of their economy is owned by foreign investors. They have little clout because they own almost no stake in any other nations, and they are not able to sustain themselves with the products they produce themselves. Vietnam is an example of a nation that loses under free trade and neo-liberal policies because they have no means for protecting themselves from the victimization of larger economies. They are forced to let in large nations who exploit their workers and build sweat-shops in free trade zones, with little benefit to the Vietnamese economy.

 

Clearly, China and Vietnam are evidence that there are winners and losers when talking about free trade and globalization. More often than not, developed nations benefit while smaller, poorer nations are forced to make concessions simply to provide base domestic needs for their people. Ultimately this leads to a situation where wealth becomes consolidated amongst a few strong economies, while developing nations are left with little to no means to develop infrastructure and create upward mobility.

The Answer to Inequality?

Many people see technology as a means to end global inequality, providing everyone in the world the same “level playing field” that we have been aiming for ever since John Rawls first discussed the “Veil of Ignorance”. After all, it is technological advancement that has allowed previously war-torn nations such as Japan to ascened to a level of economic and social stability that it took other developed nations centuries to achieve. This begs the same question that I have been asking all semester — If tech is the answer, then why aren’t we living in Utopia yet?

The reason is because technology is a double-edged sword that we have not been able to prevent from cutting both ways. For every example of technology creating a system for promoting sustainability and reducing inequality, there is an example of technology standing directly in the way of these goals. When I hear about Indonesia developing their biofuel industry in an attempt to stem inequality and create sustainability, I smile. Then I wonder if this wealth that is created will be distributed equally to poor Indonesians in rural areas, and I cringe, because chances are, this is simply not the case.

It made me think back to what I learned about Silicon valley during the microchip boom of the 80’s and 90’s. When this industry grew in the southwest, many poor people saw it as a means for achieving economic success and upward mobility. However, expectations minus realities equals disappointment, and this equation held true in the American Southwest. Workers were forced to work in deplorable conditions for low-wages, while the true profits did not trickle down to the workers — they were kept in the coffers of those who exploited the poor.

Ultimately, I believe that technology can be an answer to inequality in certain parts of the world as long as all of the players agree that this is the ultimate goal. As long as profit margins factor into the distribution of technology, it will always be distributed unfairly between the haves- and have-nots. Perhaps the development of the biofuel industry in Indonesia will help them stem poverty and inequality. However, there is also a distinct possibility that it could lead to exploitation and further inequality.

Technology Has Failed Us.

Where are the hell are the robot butlers?

Seriously. It was only a few generations ago where we saw technology as a way to make our jobs easier and our lives more leisurely & enjoyable. People envisioned a future where they could spend their days jet-setting in flying cars while legions of robots robots did all the work. Technology was going to gradually solve all of our woes, and lead us into a utopian society of odd fashion statements and legal designer drugs.

Something happened along the way. The evolution of technology stopped heading towards noble goals, like how we could foist all of our responsibilities onto hapless robots, and started focusing on how it could turn us into more efficient workers. It is this change in scope that has made us slaves to technology. Instead of increasing our freedoms, technology has only added new responsibilities and expectations.

Think about it: In today’s society, you are expected to be on-call nearly 24/7 due to cell phones. The expectations our superiors place upon us is greatly increased because the technology we now possess supposedly makes us perfect models of efficiency. People are forced into using undesirable technologies because society deems that they are necessities to achieving success. For example, in class, we discussed students who are criticized by professors for using laptops in class, despite the fact that these same professors require that students use computers as a medium for completing literally every assignment. The nature of technology has become so pervasive that it has begun to severely dictate how we live our lives.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. We were supposed to have robot butlers by now that WE dictated to. Somewhere down the line, technology failed us.

We’re Going to Blow Ourselves Up.

I’m thoroughly convinced of this fact. The creation of the first atomic bomb, in my mind, doomed humanity to a future of post-apocalyptic wasteland. We will be forced to fight for the limited resources available to us against legions of mutants who were unable to seek shelter in underground vaults to protect themselves from harmul radiation. Systems of currency, law, and trade will all cease to exist as we will regress to tribal society where the strong survive on the blood of the weak.

Honestly, I have probably come to this conclusion from watching too many movies like Mad Max while growing up, but I still believe that some time in the future, we will have to deal with the consequences of having blown ourselves to rubble. Nuclear weapons are an amazingly-destruction force, and they have only exited on this earth for a very small amount of time. I think that when the lecture brought up the movie “Dr. Strangelove”, it was very appropriate. This sattire pokes fun at the idea that often times our future is in the hands of very flawed individuals, and all it takes is one egregious lapse in judgement to cause devastation on a global scale.

One of the scariest issues is that the best deterrent against nuclear war has always been the concept of “mutually-assured devastation”. This is the thinking that no one will engage in nuclear war because doing so will essentially guarantee that person’s own demise. There is a crucial dillema, however, in this day and age where people are perfectly willing to strap explosives to themselves and run screaming onto a bus full of tourists. These people do not care about “mutually-assured devastation” — many believe it to be a noble sacrifice. The only reason this hasn’t happened with a nuclear weapon is because the people who would do this have not obtained one. They will eventually, and then we’re screwed. End of the story.

“It is in your nature to destroy yourselves”
                      — The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day

Gender Inequality in science…is it really that bad?

This week’s lecture touched upon a topic that always brings a fair deal of controversy with it — gender inequality. One of the ideas that was discussed is how, over the course of history, women have been pushed away from certain scientific occupations in favor of other roles. Of course everyone has heard the age old stereotype that men are good at math and science, and women are good at history and english, but statistics tend to prove that the professions people choose also mirror this generalization. This lead me to ask myself a few question — first, are women really DISCOURAGED from getting involved with sciences, or do they make this choice more naturally. Secondly, I started to wonder if this was really a big deal at all.

First and foremost, I would like to make the point that the more scientific fields typically do not coincide with the interests of the majority of women. For example, in my high school, the cheerleading squad was always a far more appealing activity for young girls, as it centered around their interests — staying fit, being social and outgoing, and focusing on physical appearance. The girls who were typically involved with the science club were, to put it bluntly, not nearly as easy on the eyes. Is it society’s fault that science carries with it a stigma that does not appeal to the average female, or is it simply something that is inherent in the majority of people? It’s hard to tell.

Secondly, I was wondering if the idea of pushing women away from more scientific fields is even a bad thing. If it is true that women do, in fact, perform better at less quantitative fields, then what is the point in forcing them into a position they do not necessarily have the aptitude for? Every human being should work to his or her strengths, and if ones strengths are not scientific by nature, then what is the point in placing an undue burden on oneself?

In conclusion, I think that while it may be true that society discourages young women to stay away from scientific fields, I do not necessarily feel this is such a bad thing. If we continue to do this, then young virile women will choose to focus on activities that allow them to focus on more important things — such as looking presentable for a potential suitor.

Technological Injustices

This week’s discussions made me think back to my time in my Justice Theory , as we discussed concepts such as distributive justice that were prominent themes during that particular course. I understand the concept of distributive justice in how it was originally proposed by John Rawls. Rawls said that justice occurs behind a veil of ignorance, meaning that if people were to distribute the wealth of society most equally, it should be done with them having no prior knowledge of their social standing. As this is not the case in our society, I was compelled to think of how distribute justice relates to technology, and the parallels I was able to draw were numerous.

Access to and knowledge of technology are vital tools for succeeding in the modern world. However, due to the distribution of wealth, not everyone has the same access to certain technologies. Therefore, people are expected to compete on the same playing field, despite the terms not being equal. For example, a student who is unable to afford his or her own computer is at a severe disadvantage to a student who can. The student who can afford their own computer has access to their files, word processing software, and the internet any time they desire. The less fortunate student, on the other hand, may be forced to trek to the library frequently due to the computer-intensive nature of education today.

Automobiles are probably the largest factor in contributing to technological inequality. When I think about all of the job opportunities that are cut off from people who do not own a car, it is staggering. Essentially, if you do not own a car, you are dependent on public transportation to get to any job outside of walking distance. Futhermore, the lack of car ownership limits the areas you can live. The suburbs are completely off-limit to you, as you cannot go about simply daily tasks such as purchasing groceries, going to the post office, etc. Unfortunately, automobiles are a necessity in today’s society, and those who do not have them are simply forced to deal with the disadvantage.

In a perfect world, everyone would have access to the same technologies, and technology could not be used as a basis for creating further injustice in the world. The reality, however, is that the driving force behind the vast majority of technologies is profit, so a price tag will always come along with it. The people who are willing or able to pay more will always have access to superior technologies, and will always have an advantage. That’s simply the way of the world. Does it stink when you see a rich kid drive past you at the bus stop in a $60,000 car, talking on his iPod? Sure…but it also inspires me to work hard in school so I can earn some money and get these advantages for myself.

Outline — Catastrophic Inequality

For my outline, I have chosen to write about the inequalities created since the creation of the atomic bomb. From the moment the invention was created, there was a great distinction between the haves and the have-nots so great, that it caused the end of the Second World War. Since then, nations’ quests to establish themselves as nuclear powers have played an enormous role in global conflicts over the last 60 years.

Some background on the technology revolves around the end of the World War II, when the world entered into a new age defined by technology – the atomic age. After witnessing the affects the atomic bomb had on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the atomic bomb became the new symbol of national status and military power in the international community. The socio-political effects of atomic energy are evident in the Cold War, its use as a form of energy, and even the modern dangers surrounding nuclear proliferation.

The atomic bomb became such a coveted weapon that many nations began programs in order to develop their own. When the Soviet Union gained the ability to create an atomic bomb, it began a lengthy conflict between them and the United States known as the Cold War. Unlike previous conflicts, the Cold War was not defined by casualties and conquered territory, but the amount of arms each weapon could stockpile should the need to use it ever arise. Though never erupting into nuclear war, the potential for disaster caused by the Cold War cast a shadow over the entire globe.

As previously mentioned, the inequality that stems from nuclear technology is not just a military one. There have been a great deal of disasters that have occurred involving nuclear energy, such as the poisoning of water sources, and even deadly reactor meltdowns that have claimed many lives and left parts of the world uninhabitable. More often then not, the decisions to create these nuclear disasters were not made in the most democratic fashions.

For analysis, I will involve a great amount of research in the Cold War, as well as the controversies that are stemming from North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs. As far as atomic power as a source of energy, I will devote a great deal of research into disasters that have occurred, as well as safer, alternative sources that have been neglected due to the path divergence created by nuclear technology. Ultimately, the paper will focus on the inequality that stems from nuclear power as both in the military, and as a source of energy.

Acquiring the research will be done by analyzing many scholarly journals and documents about the end of World War II, the Cold War, and the development of nuclear technology – of which there is an abundance of information. I will also look at news articles relating to problems that have arisen due to nuclear energy being used as a power source, as well as articles that discuss the controversy of nuclear proliferation on a global scale — specifically in developing nations. Overall, I intend to show that nuclear power created a great global inequality the moment it was created, and that this inequality has only become more prevalent in the time since.

Path Divergence Always for the Best?

It used to be that when I looked at how various forms of technology evolved, I always assumed efficiency was the determining factor. I figured that technology, like living things, was susceptible to a form of Darwinism. By that, I mean that weak or inefficient technologies go by the wayside, while other more prominent ones evolve into the artifacts we know today. From what we learned this week in class, I have begun to realize that this is not always the case. This caused me to wonder; does designing certain technologies for means other than efficiency hinder the evolution of the technology?

In the case of the type writer, we can see that going with a standard rather than efficiency has clearly lead to a less efficient item. Despite other formats being proven to be faster, the QWERTY standard has become the norm across the industry. It is literally impossible to walk into a computer store and purchase a keyboard that is not in the format. Now, why is this the case if it not, in fact, the most efficient means?  Does maintaining this archaic standard despite proof of its inferiority limit the potential of the techology? It certainly seems so.

I thought of other examples in which technology may not be evolving in the most efficient manner, and it seems to me that their are plenty. The automobile, for example, seems to be the perfect example. The biggest issue with the automotive industry today is the introduction of cars that feature alternative fuel sources. The Hybrid craze has swept the nation, with even the notorious gas-guzzling Hummer hitting the streets in its own “fuel-efficient” form. The real question is — why has it taken so long? The electric car was created years prior to any of these new forms of hybrid car, but the knock on them was always that they were incapable of driving at high speeds, or accelerating very well. While that is a legitimate gripe, I am curious as to why this wasn’t simply regarded as an early king , rather than a fatal flaw. Had the electric car been introduced as the standard, automotive industries would have had far more incentive to build newer, faster, and more efficient ones. At the rate technology increases, it is not entirely unforeseeable that we could be driving perfectly-functional electric cars today. The automotive industry, however, controls the production of these cars. It is up to them if the standard was going to be switched, and at that point in time, they were making too much profit with gas-powered vehicles to introduce something new. Now, we’re stuck amidst an oil and pollution crisis. The consequences are quite noticeable.

While guiding technology in certain directions allows it to improve in a more streamlined manner, it does not come without its drawbacks. If inefficient standards are kept foolishly, like with the QWERTY keyboard, then the full potential of certain technologies will never be met. In cases like the automobile, business interest can be used to prevent technology progress, forcing old standards despite the office inferiority of them. Overall, it seems like yet another necessary evil of technology that we have learned about this semester. I guess we just can’t win.

Has Technology Failed Us?

This week’s lecture focused around the creation of the bicycle to help discuss the larger theme of how certain technologies progress and advance. Many times, technologies evolve in unforseen ways, that completely alter their scope or relevance to society. Unfortunately, there are many changes that do not seem to help the greater good. It seems that the more we discussed how these technologies such as phones, automobiles, and computers evolve, the more I began to come to a certain conclusion — perhaps, in some ways, technology has failed us.

The purpose of technology seems more based around efficiency than creating a higher quality of life for all of us. Think about it — even technologies that provide a convenience for you also enslave you in one way or another. Cellular phones make it possible to make calls from just about anywhere, but now you are expected to be on-call 24/7, regardless of what you are doing. Sure, you can simply turn the phone off, but the expectations of those who expect you to be readily available may not disappear so easily.

The automobile is another example of a technology that makes life far more efficient, but has also enslaved our society. Automobiles allow us to get around day-to-day far easier than any other means of transportation. It has allowed people to move far from urban centers into the suburbs, and has helped immensely in the growth of the United States. On the other hand, society has placed a very high emphasis on something that is very costly. For example, if you can not afford a car, it then becomes that much more difficult to find employment, and it certainly limits where you can live.

Ultimately I’m beginning to find that technology is more and more of a double-edged sword. With technological progress, we get better video games, faster cars, higher-definition televisions…you name it. Life is better because of it. However, it is important to understand that we are also creating a sort of dependency upon technology. Addiction is typically not the most healthy thing.

How Artifacts Have Politics

I’d like to focus this week’s reflection on Langdon Winner’s article Do Artifiacts Have Politics? Firt and foremost, I would like to point out that I think the title of this article is a bit inappropriate. After all, it begs a question that Winner all but answers within the first few paragraphs of the article. After promptly concluding that artifacts do, in fact, have politics, Winner goes on to define two ways in which they are able to manipulate social structures. According to Winner, there are artifacts that can stimulate change by providing a solution to a certain issue, but there are also artifacts designed with specific political aspirations in mind.

While thinking of an example of the first type of artifact described by Winner, the first thing that came to mind was computers. Computers were created because there was a desire to compile and process information more efficiently. When performing certain complex calculations, it becomes too inefficient to be done by hand. While computers provided a solution to this problem, they also have had vast political implications since their creation. The access to computers creates a major discrepancy between haves and have-nots when it comes to the availability of information. A student sitting in a classroom wired to the internet has a world of information at his fingertips, while a child in a small African village may know nothing of the world outside of where he has been. While this may not have been intended with the creation of computers, it is still a form of inequality that exists because of them.

When it comes to the latter form — technologies that are designed with a certain political motivation in mind, I think immediately of atomic energy. The United States financed the Manhattan Project specifically to gain a political advantage in World War II, as well as creating a promising source of energy for future generations. What resulted was more than the surrender of the Japanese forced in World War II after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however. The next 30 years would be completely defined by the political implications atomic energy. Whether it was the creation of nuclear plants, or the race to build nuclear arms between the United States and the Soviet Union, atomic energy became the preeminent political theme of the era.

So while Winner’s article answered the question it asked a bit too early on, I thought it was very thought-provoking. Rather than telling the reader why artifacts have politics, Winner discussed how artifacts were used so that they obtained political characteristics. The article definitely enlightened me a bit more as to how certain technologies shape the world around us, though I think the title could use a revision. Perhaps How Articles Have Politics.