The Technological Imperative

BY DAVID B. HERTZ

If we are to survive the long-range effects of our

own technology, the author argues, we shall have

to change our ways of problem solving and even

sacrifice some of our most cherished goals, such

as unending economic growth. To achieve this, he

believes, we must train 3 new hreed of

professional technologists, capable of assessing

and evaluating the long-term social and

environmental implications of the projects

they design.

i—iNGiNEERS, as we all know, are men who usescientific principles to solve practical problemsThis IS a definition that the profession and theengineering schools like. In common with mostprofessions, they also like to use a more orless rigid set of definitions of what kinds ofpractical problems are acceptable to the guild

But, if we agree with the basic definitionand examine the "practical" environmentalproblems to which "scientific" principles areapplied, we quickly find that we have movedfar beyond the generally accepted understand-ing of what engineering does Not that this issurprising, history has a way of stretchingdefinitions. The i8th century definition of en-gineering was purely in military terms, and yetin those days there were bridge builders, pumpbuilders, architects, and others who appliedtheir knowledge of the scientific principles ofthe day to solve extremely intricate practicalproblems.

Currently, the application of operations re-

DAVID HERTZ, a Director m the New Yorkoffice, is responsible for the Firm's managementsciences, operations research, and systems analy-sis practices His most recent book is NEW POWER

FOR MANAGEMENT (McGraw-Hill, ig6g). This articlewas first published in THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN

ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, Vol. }8g.

May xgjo

42 I FALL 1970

search to a great many practical problems ofindustry and society is not widely accepted as"engineering," but it certainly represents theequivalent professional approach of the mod-ern technologist In every age, the technologisthas applied knowledge and historical experi-ence, with more or less rapid changes in theend products The pace of these changes de-pends, of course, upon a complex set of inter-related factors, including not only the advanceof science, but also the evolution of socialstructures, education, and economic condi-tions. Contrast, for example, the rates ofchange in bridge building with those of wastedisposal, air travel, or the reciprocating steamengine.

Figuratively, the technologists have stoodon the banks of innumerable chasms andfound ways of crossing them, with innovationsranging from vine bridges to moon modules.Each success was seen as a new "victory" byman over a natural "enemy"; some roadblockin the path of progress had been removed, andman had taken another step on his way towardthe ultimate mastery of nature. Of course,there were setbacks—man-made and natural—but these only demonstrated even more clearlythe nature of the struggle; the difficulties over-come in the battles that had already been wonforeshadowed those to be faced in battles yetto be fought. The steady accumulation of ex-perience and the spectacular nature of each

succeeding technological achievement gavelayman and engineer alike the feeling that,technologically, there were no objectives thatman could not reach

Forty years ago, an engineer's view of thecharacteristics of the true technological ex-pert included "intellectual and moral honesty,courage, independence of thought, fairness,good sense, sound judgment, perseverance,resourcefulness, ingenuity, orderliness, appli-cation, accuracy and endurance The engi-neer IS under obligation to consider the socio-logical, economic, and spiritual effects ofengineering operations and to aid his fellow-men to adjust wisely their modes of living,their industrial, commercial, and governmentalprocedures, and their educational process soas to enjoy the greatest possible benefit fromthe progress achieved through our accumulat-ing knowledge of the universe and ourselvesas applied by engineering."* Who could askfor more?

In 1919, Thorstein Veblen was clearly con-vinced that engineers' contributions to theworld's economic structure were impartial, ob-jective, and overriding. He was sufficientlyimpressed to write: "These expert men, tech-nologists, engineers, or whatever name maybest suit them, make up the indispensable

Alfred D Fhnn, "Professional Engineer," The Encyclo-paedia Britannica (14th Edihon, New York, 1929), Vol. 8,P 445

43

General Staff of the industrial system, andwithout their immediate and unremitting guid-ance and corrections the industrial system willnot work.. .. The material welfare of the com-munity is unreservedly bound up with the dueworking of this industrial system, and there-fore, with its unreserved control by the engi-neers, who alone are competent to manageit."*

The Socioeconomics ofTechnological Dedsions

This self-adulatory and somewhat delusivenotion of the power of the technologist's abil-ity to build a bridge across any economic orphysical gap continues to thrive today, coupledwith the notion that the technologist some-how can rise above the crowd and find the"right" solution to the problem he is dealingwith—because he is a technologist or "profes-sional" practitioner of an art based upon scien-tific knowledge. To be sure, there is a growingawareness that the cost-benefit calculations sopainstakingly made by the well-trained engi-neers have not always included all social costs.But the technologist's answer to questionsabout the larger validity of his proposals, proj-ects, and designs is that he simply needs to begiven the problem in the larger context, he willsolve it according to the appropriately provenproblem-solving techniques based upon scienceand experience, and all will turn out well. If

* Thorstein Veblen, The Engineers and the Price System(New York, The Viking Press, 1921), p 69

any problem exists, it arises because he hasnot been given the appropriate range for hisskills. Defining the problem, in any case, doesnot seem to be his business. The problem willbe "given" to him by those in command of hisservices ("build a pyramid"), or he will sellan idea to those in a position to buy ("let'shave these fountains everywhere, boss"), orhe will invent a problem solution and work outa way to sell the final product ("isn't this rub-ber great—I call it vulcanized").

Thus, current apologists for technologycan suggest that we possess today the meansfor achieving virtually any ends we wish,whether it be to travel the galaxy, mine theocean, replace the human body, or educate,house, and care for the world's population. Theargument runs about as follows: If we can spotthe problem gap, the solution must therebybe available. Thus, atomic energy, telecommu- "nications, space flight and similar feats of tech-nology. If those, why not others? Of course.It IS not at all obvious that any of these goalsare even theoretically achievable m the fore-seeable future, let alone practical. In every in- ,stance, current empirical evidence is extremelydiscouraging. We can build some such bridges,but they keep falling down.

In any case, optimistic assumptions of theomnipotence of technology are becoming sus-pect in today's world, where two major effects "of technology are becoming visible on a largescale for the first time: (l) negative "benefits,"spillover costs, and unrecognized harmful ef-fects of seemingly good technology; and (2) aloss in the "decoupling" of people and thingsthat for so long protected most of the world so

44 I FALL 1970

well from technological side effects and badchoices.

It is not at all clear from these conse-quences that man misuses science and tech-nology. What is clear is that each time manmakes a technological change that significantlyshifts the state of some essential part of theecological system in which he lies willy-nillyembedded, there will be negative as well aspositive effects. If this is so, as all the evidenceseems to say, then our faith in technology'sability to solve all problems, including theproblems created by technology itself, is mis-placed. And this misplaced faith can onlyhinder our efforts to understand how to solvethe difficult and sometimes tragic problems ofthe environment.

Our inescapable dependence on technolo-gists, along with technological traditions ofsocial and economic choice, will make it diffi-cult enough to secure effective change in a de-cision process for technological options. Theneed to include other values will only be metwhen the technologists themselves are incul-cated with such values. Accomplishing this isa problem of transcendent difficulty—as wellas transcendent importance.

The trouble is not that technology is a"mindless driving force." On the contrary, theproblem lies precisely in the minds of thosewho can solve problems, i.e., the technologistsBut if the problems are solved as technologicalproblems are solved today, thereby creatingmore problems, the ultimate fate of the humanenvironment is not likely to be a happy one.

To take only one example: The problemof atmospheric contamination by fossil fuel

energy plants is dismissed as being solved byatomic energy plants Yet, it is consideredlikely by competent analysts that such replace-ment would lead, in due course, to deadlyradioactive pollution of the atmosphere.

Growth Versus Spillover

As our technological age has progressed inits understanding of the economic facts of life,growth has become virtuous; stability andequilibrium, dangerous and sinful In everyaspect of human endeavor, growth in size hasbecome the critical factor in measuring prog-ress. Part of the myth of progress has been theequating of science with good, and the size ofengineermg works with their contribution tomankind's well-being. Yet we are learning thateach step in the growth process is likely torequire more resources per capita, and to pro-duce more waste products. The ratio of re-sources used to waste produced, for a givenlevel of output, can be changed; but the lawsof thermodynamics will not allow the waste orpollution created to be reduced to zero Somesubstitutions or changes may improve the effi-ciency of production over the short run, butthe longer run effects are not necessarily in thesame direction. For example, it was thoughtthat improved agricultural processes automat-ically equalled improved productivity, but wenow know that they may actually only depletethe soil resources more quickly

Population growth increases the magni-tude of the problem. For equal per capita out-put, gross national product naturally increases

45

in proporton to population growth; but, equiv-alently, so do the resource requirements andwaste production. But the important point tounderstand is that growth in itself, with orwithout technological innovation, brings aboutan increase in the absolute amount of spill-overs (both good and bad) that the earth mustcope with Each attempt to produce moreefficiently, through improved technology, dis-turbs some uneasy natural equilibrium, andthis disturbance is soon felt in areas remotefrom the original change.

A classic example of resource destructionbrought about by individual decisions thatwere clearly in the best short-term economicinterest of those who made them is the so-called "tragedy of the commons." Here, in amicrocosm, we can see the underlying eco-nomic drives and the disastrous results thatensue when the environment is considered afree good for individuals or groups to "master"as they please. The commons were pastureland set aside for public use in early 19thcentury England. Elementary economic con-siderations dictated to each user that he shouldutilize the pasturage available to the maximumextent and expend a minimum on its upkeep(l.e , maintain the maximum number of cattle,since each addition to his herd would repre-sent an added economic benefit as long as hedid not have to contribute too much to the up-keep of the commons). As a result, the com-mons were overgrazed and undercared for.The negative spillover was ultimately appar-ent in destructive erosion, underproduction,and the enclosure movement of the late 19thcentury. The tragedy develops, as one scholar

puts it, "because the same rational conclu-sion is reached by each and every herdsmansharing the commons."* The key word is"rational."

The same tragic outcome, it seems, can bedeveloped for virtually every element of man'senvironment that is shared and that becomesscarce. The economist E. J. Mishan has devel-oped the consequences of similar decisions ina complex modern setting with respect to pri-vate versus public transport. He shows thatthe roads provided for common use will, ingeneral, be used up to a point where they areno longer very attractive and their utility isreduced by virtue of their overcrowding.Meanwhile, the public transport services (rail-roads, buses, etc.) become less effective (fewerriders, less revenue, etc.), and the utihty of thetotal system is reduced for everyone. At thesame time, the private automobile functionsas "the chief agent of rapid urban sprawl andribbon building."** To this example may beadded the various spillovers of air pollution,highway deaths and injuries, abandoned anddiscarded car carcasses, among others.

Operating from the simplest of premises-economic growth is not only good, but neces-sary, and "let every man take the best possiblecare of himself"—the chain of negative spill-over benefits becomes very long indeed, lead-ing to the current bleak forecasts for man'sfuture. Naturally, not all spillovers are nega-tive, but most of the unforeseen spillovers are

* Beryl L. Crowe, "The Tragedy of the Commons Re-visited," Science, November 1969, Volume 166, Number3909, p 1103

** E J Mishan, The Costs of Economic Growth (London,Staples Press, 1967)

46 I FALL 1970

likely to be—whereas virtually all of the posi-tive benefits that accrue from technical deci-sions have been taken into account in the pre-ceding analyses.

The good goals aimed for seem to standout crystal clear, but predictions of negativeside effects tend to be so hazy and unconvinc-ing that any bad end results are obscured frompublic, if not private, view.

Once the technical community is united onan issue, it is obvious that negative decisionson technical matters can be made. But sincethe design of a project is intended to meet posi-tive rather than negative objectives, this hap-pens only rarely. Virility, strength, and prideare all locked into the arguments used to over-whelm any "weak sisters" whose forecastssmack of gloom and doom.

Ordinarily, any negative objectives are ex-pressed in the constraints imposed upon thetechnologist. Up to this point in time, most ofthese constraints have been economic or nar-rowly technical (e.g., the tensile strengths ofvarious materials that cannot be exceeded),and only grossly social (e.g., the general con-straint against the location of atomic energypower plants within densely populated urbanareas in the United States). But there is now abuilding awareness that much improved tech-nological assessment is needed for environ-mental management.

On the other hand, evidence is also pilingup that the bigger and more extensive the end-result goals, the more likely are there to beunfortunate, if not disastrous, consequences.For example, the use of chemical insecticidescarries an almost endless chain of spillover

effects, including—more often than might bethought likely—an actual decrease in produc-tion of the crop being protected. "In theCanete Valley of Peru, widespread insecticideuse was promoted in 1949. . . . Seven yearslater, the cotton crop had gone down 50 per-cent and species of destructive insects haddoubled."* The development of pesticide-resistant insect strains, and toxic effects onother (including human) organisms, changingan ecosystem significantly, are now among thedemonstrated consequences of insecticide use.

Again, the building of dams to provide irri-gation in Africa, Asia, and South America (cer-tainly a purely technical matter insofar asdesign and use are concerned) has resulted inthe spread of bilharziasis, a debilitating andsometimes fatal malady. Such examples can befound in virtually every area in which man'stechnology has impinged upon the environ-ment.

The Disappearance of Decoupling

To make the task of choosing among tech-nological options even more difficult, added tonegative spillover effects is the dimmution ofthe decoupling upon which the engineer hasalways relied in the past—and often, mis-takenly, still does.

Historically and habitually, scientists andengineers have dealt with systems in physics,chemistry, and biology that were actually or

Robert Cahn, "Ecology and International Assistance,"The Christian Science Monitor (reprinted by The Con-servation Foundation, Washington, 1968), p 1

47

supposedly independent of one another. Forthe most part, such assumptions have beenvalid. For example, a few molecules of gas in acontainer may be treated for most technicalpurposes as though they were independent ofone another. In other words, they are de-coupled: there is no need to take account ofany effect one may have on another. As moremolecules are added to the container, interac-tions among the molecules become more nu-merous, and at some point the density will besuch as to invalidate technological conclusionsdrawn about the behavior of the gas under theassumption of decoupling.

Most existing engineering designs arebased upon the assumption of closed systemsfully described by the technological inner con-straints and marked by clear boundaries de-coupling the systems from other parts of theenvironment. But the assumed decoupling is,in an ever growing proportion of the cases, atleast questionable The technological optionsoffered by such designs often lead to spillovereffects such as we have described, at theboundaries and beyond.

Population Growth

If present trends continue, the world willhave a population of over 4 billion by 1980,6 billion by the year 2000 These are exceed-ingly large numbers, large enough, in fact, tomake some biologists nervous about the futurethermodynamic (let alone social) capacity ofthe planet to keep on operating indefinitely asa going concem. The fundamental technologi-

cal issue to be faced is how the industrialachievements of man and the increased percapita utilization of energy can be brought intothermodynamic equilibrium. The growth ofpopulation and energy utilization simply can-not be sustained indefinitely. Therefore, eachengineering change will have to be measuredagainst and fitted into a scheme of long-termequilibrium objectives. This will call for a newform of engineering problem solving andtechnological education.

As we have seen, the loss of decouplingthat is effected by the large scale of almost anyengineering work (dams that cause disease,pesticides that affect far-flung ecosystems, jetplanes that scatter carbon dioxide, hydrocar-bons, etc.) is also a product of the increasednumber of people. As one writer puts it: "Evenif the percent of events that occur doesn't in-crease, the number of events that occur willincrease. . . . In a highly mobile and communi-cative society, more people result in morethings happening; these things will happenmore often even if they have a low probabilityof occurring. . . . In 1966, only 1 percent of thebaggage checked with the airlines was mis-handled, but that 1 percent represented 1.7million bags! So, too, with regional electricpower failures. . . . Anticipating and dealingwith unlikely events will become an increas-ingly important but especially difficult task."*

In sum, the nature of negative spilloversand the loss of decoupling among the planet'secosystems (due in large measure to the in-creasing physical and chemical scale of tech-

Donald N Michael, The Unprepared Society (New York,Basic Books, 1968), p 20.

48 I FALL 1970

nological changes along with the growth in* population) challenge us all to find ways of

assessing the long-run effects of technologicaldesigns and projects so that they can at least

'" be examined before the fact by the decisionmakers, whoever they may be. If we fail to doso, nature—of which, after all, we are part andparcel—may have some terrible lessons in storefor us.

Technological Assessment

We have no real idea what results the tech-nological developments being brought to frui-tion at a rapidly increasing pace will bring.The art of social forecasting has always helda fascination for those who would fictionalizeand fantasize about the world's future. In thepast few decades there have been attempts,largely concerned with the marketability ofspecific products, to forecast rationally the out-come of technological developments and in-ventions. But only recently have forecastersbegun to take into account the interactions ofpopulation, environment, technology, and so-cial organizations.

The critical issue is not really "accurate"forecasts, but rather comprehensive analysesof proposed or likely changes in any of thesefour elements leadmg to evaluations that canbe used to assess alternative courses of action.In particular, technological options must beassessed as significant social matters and theirfuture implications plotted to the best of ourability. We must neither be overwhelmed bythe enormity of the task, nor allow the tech-

nologists to bypass it by saying these factorsare already included in the technoeconomicequations Neither the use of historical prece-dents nor the straightforward extrapolation oftechnological or economic trends is likely tosuffice.

It should be clear that satisfactory tech-nological forecasting is likely to be very diffi-cult indeed, and technological assessment (i.e.,evaluation of alternative forecasts) even moreso. The technologist, of course, regularlymakes predictions within a narrow range ofconstraints, to evaluate a design in the light ofspecific end-result objectives (e g., a faster andlighter airplane within given operating costlimits, to be amortized within fixed timelimits). There are clear and present needs forevaluations of proposed technological devel-opments under much broader constraints andmuch less precise objectives—social, economic,and environmental (e.g., a water resource sys-tem to serve all elements of a geographicalregion with maximum limits on its effects onvirtually all environmental factors over an in-definite time period).

Such tasks, enormously difficult thoughthey will be, are of a sort that the "systemsanalyst" or "systems engineer" would like tothink he could handle Building an adequatetechnological assessment will require descrip-tive and analytical models contributed by thevarious branches of engineering, economics,mathematics, biology, behavioral sciences,ecology, and operations research, amongothers. These models will be used, first, to pro-vide a "reasonable" picture of the current stateof the world, then to perturb the system with

49

the proposed technological changes and to col-lect data on the presumed outcome, and,finally, to evaluate and assess these outcomesin the light of local and global criteria overthe short and long run.

The job can be done, and very likely musthe done if we are to escape the destiny fore-told by the present gloomy predictions of en-vironmental destruction. It is, in fact, the jobthat the "systems analysts" have set for them-selves, so far on a minor scale. Some of theresults have been staftling. But it is a verysmall start in a long and trying enterprise. Inaddition to the conceptual difficulties of avail-able analytical tools, data, and technical re-sources, private-sector assessment systems arenot up to the task, and for the problems athand other mechanisms not now available willhave to be brought to bear. The results ofthese assessment mechanisms, moreover, arehkely to be disappointing. Technological tink-ering with social organizations is not likely tobring about significant changes in the negativebenefits of technology. A much more funda-mental change in the nature of professionaltechnological practice is essential.

Broadening the Perspective

If technological practice is to be changedthen the education of engineers and technolo-gists must be changed first. The objectiveshould not, I believe, be to enhance "the socialawareness" of engineers by including human-istic behavioral and social science material intheir curricula. (Quite a few engineers and

technologists are already sophisticated in thesocial sciences, but thus far there have been no .'noticeable effects on the technological optionsproposed.) Rather, we must find ways to maketechnologists capable of dealing with the totalproblem as we have defined it.

To this end, a new kind of curriculum inengineering schools and schools of technologyis called for. The attempts thus far to produceenvironmental specialists will not completelyachieve the goal. Into the core of virtually alltechnological studies must be inserted the re- .quirement that solutions to problems are ac- 'ceptable only when the broadest thermody- >namic equilibrium constraints are considered.Whatever steps are under way to broaden theengineer's perceptions of the environmentalproblems his projects involve must be ex-panded and accelerated. This is the techno-logical imperative. f

In fact, the technologists may be the onlygroup upon whom we can pin our hopes. Tech-nological proposals will perforce be prepared,engineering projects will naturally be designed .'by engineers and technologists. No change inhierarchy or superstructure can eliminatethem. They will, of course, follow the priori-ties laid down by their political and economic ^masters.

On the other hand, evaluation of technol-ogy is a two-way street. The final decision -makers are affected by, and affect, the analysts.And the methods of analysis affect the de-mands of the decision makers on the analysts.Therefore, it seems imperative that the engi-neering curricula begin to provide a new andbroader type of analyst—not one with "social

5 0 I FALL 1 9 7 0

awareness" or "sentimental regrets" about na- Not unending growth but ultimate ther-tional destruction, but rather one who can modynamic equilibrium would seem to be themake keen, perceptive, and convincing analy- only possible goal of a human society that isses of the environmental effects of technolog- committed to the preservation of the planetlcal alternatives. and a sane future for its own posterity. ^