What are we being educated for?

Part of my dissertation work is about whether or not engineers think any differently about issues of the environment now than they did a century or so ago, and how these changes (or non-changes) affect technological development. But first, I must ask, What fundamentally drives technological development? The answers are not surprising--materialism, industrialism, and profit. Sure, many might say that technology and the role of the engineer is fundamentally for the good of human beings--to decrease mortality, to combat disease, to provide electricity, to supply clean drinking water. Okay...But, how did the profession of engineering come into being?

As David Noble paints beautifully in his book America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, the engineering profession as we know it today stemmed from the rise of modern industrial capitalism, and the need for engineers to fill the matrix of large industrial bureaucracies and corporations. Noble writes:

Modern technology, as the mode of production specific to advanced industrial capitalism, was both a product and a medium of capitalist development. So too, therefore, was the engineer who personified modern technology. In his work he was guided as much by the imperatives that propelled the economic system as by the logic and laws of science. The capitalist, in order to survive, had to accumulate capital at a rate equal to or greater than that of competitors. And since his capital was derived ultimately from the surplus product of human labor, he was compelled to assume complete command over the production process in order to maximize productivity and efficiently extract this product from those who labored for him. It was for this reason that mechanical devices and scientific methods were introduced into the workshop. It was for this reason also that the modern engineer came into being. From the outset, therefore, the engineer was at the service of capital, and, not surprisingly, its law were to him as natural as the laws of science. If some political economists drew a distinction between technology and capitalism, that distinction collapsed in the person of the engineer, and in his work, engineering. (page 28)

Noble points out how engineering curriculum development was guided by the needs of industry and in antagonism to the classical colleges' curricula. I find today that the bulk of engineering education is still focused on the needs of industry, and not that of thinking about when technical solutions to problems are appropriate. In my engineering education, there is very little mention of what it means to be an engineer, and how we must deal with the responsibility and authority that is given to us. And so, I wonder, are we still being educated to serve as fodder for ecologically and humanistically violent corporations? I believe so, and Rebecca believes that corporations thrive on young blood.

But this doesn't necessarily concern engineering. It concerns all of "higher education." And so I ask, What are we being educated for? Are we being educated to be an informed citizenry? A citizenry that can be critical of policies and actions? A citizenry that will speak up when something critical will be said? Or, are we being educated to be consumers, free to speak only when nothing critical has to be said, free to have "jobs" when they are in line with the broader values of government and industry? What do you think your education has meant to you? Has it prepared you to be a leader, to change social norms, to fight injustice, to be peaceable, to be thoughtful, to be caring, to be holistic, to be critical? Or has you education prepared you to be another cog in a vast machine?

On goodness (and kindness - replace goodness)

Problems of the environment, social justice, and sustainability inherently cut through traditionally defined boundaries of thought, discipline, and government. Much of the cause of these issues is just that, an artificial compartmentalism and reductionism put in place because of a willingness and penchant to see things in isolation, rather than in a whole. At the same time, we have grown to rely so heavily on this compartmentalism that addressing these problems seems too big for any one group of people or any one organisation to tackle. Many, especially those with power, argue that addressing these problems will only affect other problems our communities face, such as unemployment. What many realise now is that traditional modes of thought and behaviour may not be those we wish to pass to future generations. But the question remains - how might we address large problems like sustainability?

As I have tried to point out over the past ten months, personal responsibility is a necessity in envisioning a world less impacted by humans, in which nature thrives and is not toxically contaminated by human activity. Many may say that personal responsibility in the face of large problems can be deflating. Trash continues to pour into the streets and into the oceans, and greenhouse gases and toxins continue to pour into the air. Yet action begins with me, action begins with you, and action begins with us. I have been thinking of ways to adequately communicate responsibility to different people - indeed, there is no common language for the problems of sustainability we face. (Hopefully Sam and I will be starting a project on this soon.) What I am proposing, which is just a thought that passed through my mind today, is that maybe it is easier to motivate action around sustainability by thinking about goodness.

Our schools and colleges, it seems to me, are woefully inadequate in creating good citizens and stewards. Most of us can pass through college without engaging ourselves outside of our major, and it is obvious that the goal of many universities is to create workers to feed a natural resource-based economy. But goodness is something that is more basic and fundamental than a college-level education - it is something moral. Goodness is a moral trait that we all can relate to, understand, and apply to each and every aspect of our lives. Goodness is something that is lacking in our societies, but if adequately incorporated into our thoughts, can have large impacts on everything from our families to mystical ecosystems. When adequately thought about and acted upon, goodness can lead us to ask and answer questions about people's feelings when we disagree with them, the impacts of our choices on people we've never seen, and the fish in deep waters unexplored. Goodness is extremely personal, and works in magical ways - goodness begets goodness. Goodness is a positive energy that can make us feel good, while actually doing good. I know that this concept is incredibly vague and I am definitely just starting to think about it related to the environment. I recognise that many times, we are faced with choices in which just being good may not lead to easy answers. However, that does not take away from the need to be good, for our sake, as well as the environment's. 

Please send me your thoughts.