July 27, 2005 – Spring Issue 5
In this issue Edward Ho, a mechanical engineering student wrote an article titled “The inflexibility of engineering education”. This article basically talks about the lack of choice in the courses that engineering students take and the course load itself.
While the CEAB requirements ask for an average course load of 5 courses per term, mechanical engineering often has 6 courses. According to Edward, such a heavy load and rigid course requirements does not leave students with enough time for extra-curricular activities and/or the freedom to take courses from other disciplines, or as he puts it, “There is restricted opportunity for people to be well-rounded”. Edward goes on to compare the different engineering and then conducts an in depth analysis of the mechanical engineering curriculum, stating that the required courses in the upper years do not align well with the job market and “the student winds up taking courses in areas he/she will never use and has no interest in”.
Edward then discusses the mechanical engineering an systems design curriculum approach at University of Toronto; students have mandatory introductory courses in earlier years and partway through third year they are allowed to choose the subfield they want to specialize in. “I emphasize this importance of being able to choose: It is being able to choose that would allow students within each discipline to distinguish themselves from each other and be able to study what they enjoy. And, … would allow engineers to pursue non-engineering academic ventures.”
Once again focusing on mechanical engineering, Edward states that for people wishing to do an option or a minor, to avoid 7 courses during a study term they take courses during their coop terms for which they have to pay extra fees, or sometimes just drop the option. Also due to the heavy course load students tend to take “bird” courses for their CSEs which is not a positive learning attitude.
Edward also argues that enrichment of individuals was one of the selling points and also a requirement of UW’s recruitment. At school, students have to sacrifice their school work to get involved in design teams and other such clubs and that the heavy course load has deterred many students from pursuing non academic activities.
May 23rd 1995 – Spring Issue 1
In this issue Axel Noriega wrote an editorial on the society’s obsession with time. He starts out by saying that time is the “last barrier that we have not and will not break”. He first describes man’s obsession with time by asking how many of us give ourselves a deadline to meet goals, “What is the point of rushing through life, when we have only one life?”
According to Axel, this rush of achievement and spending every moment in a precisely defined productive manner has been inherited from previous generations. The author again poses the question as to why does this generation have to conform to that attitude and why can’t it make an effort to lead a simple and respectful life rather than stepping on others to get ahead of them.
Axel argues that this rush of getting somewhere in life and using time as a benchmark has reduced human beings to machines with no feeling, thinking, and emotions. Comparing the lives of adults to kids who are not worried about the passage of time he blames the need to rush through time for a loss of purity and innocence.
The author shifts his focus to the ‘third world’ or underdeveloped countries and says, “their simple lives and inattention to time have given them a side of life that many of us have never experienced…their friendliness, openness and honestly is due to their relaxed styles of life.” And then Axel goes on to analyze the life of people here and questions if competing for a career and high standard of life is even worth the effort if people don’t have time to enjoy their achievements. The end of the article poses another question as to how long will it be before the so called ‘third world’ countries also start getting influenced by technology and ambition?
July 7th 1989 – Spring
Andrew Reeves-Hall wrote an article on “Artificial Intelligence And Supercomputers”. Andrew starts by stating that artificial intelligence has no definite definition and cannot have one until it is decided whether the related issues are hardware, technological or conceptual in nature. He switches gears to supercomputer programming stating that the programming was written in COBOL, Pascal and FORTRAN , all of which pose difficult, practical issues for programmers.
According to Andrew, “Supercomputers raise the possibility for technological applications that are both extraordinarily beneficial and exceptionally frightening and negative”. He further states that if the data-storing and processing ability of supercomputers is combined with artificial intelligence in the future,” these systems could be used as an apparatus of a totalitarian state and have dramatic implications for the personal privacy of individuals within society”. Strange how an issue that disturbed a student some 20 years ago doesn’t bother us too much when we put a new album on facebook every week.
Andrew expands on his previous argument stating that the potential for abuse of information lies with the people and not the technology itself. Education and government regulation should be used to determine a trade-off between the benefits of this technology and need to protect individual privacy.
As far as artificial intelligence is concerned, such systems will reflect the behavior of their developers. Computer programmers usually are less social and more logical, and hence the systems developed by them will not represent an average individual. Such systems also have negative implication for human interaction and social cohesion. Andrew raises the question if it is pursue advancement in this field, “Technology cannot be reversed; its direction and strength can and must be manipulated and managed”.
Highly developed artificial intelligence systems will also bring about issues of justice and ethics. Andrew presents the example of medical diagnostic systems; in the long run the rich might visit human doctors while the poor will be subject to treatment by these diagnostic machines. Another aspect to keep track of is the environmental impact of computer systems. Computer chips and other equipment such as stereos, VCRs etc use gallium arsenide, screens have phosphorus in them and circuit boards are cleaned by CFCs, all of which are harmful to human health and the environment.
Moreover, supercomputers and artificial intelligence should be strictly used for civilian applications and not for military use where most of the interest and research is actually coming from. The author puts the onus on scientists and researchers of being responsible with what they are developing – an idea that is completely ignored today.
July 1985
Michele Chin authored a very insightful article titled “Genetic Engineering: Its Moral Impact”. Michele jumps into the core issue right away by saying that “it could save the world, but it also contains selfish purposes that could destroy it”. the morality dealing with the related issues should progress as quickly as the technology because if it is something that can be done, chances are that it will be done.
Michele talks about the various benefits of this technology, such as medicine to eradicate genetically inherent diseases, cures for cellular disorders, production of antibiotics, hormones, and medication in large quantities and cloning to replace organ transplants. Other benefits include pollution control, agricultural needs, and environmental repair.
Michele then moves the focus to the negative implications of genetic engineering, the foremost of which is exploitation of human beings. Elaborating on this aspect, Michele discusses “made-to-order humans” as the latest controversy of the time saying, “These traits could depict irrational values that could be subject to change as readily as ‘fads’. Sexual inequality would be reinforced if it was possible to choose the ‘desired’ sex. Genetic engineering can be commercially exploited to meet public demand and ever changing values.” Moreover, a full appreciation of its consequences cannot be foreseen due to lack of complete knowledge.
According to Michele, the biggest fear that moralists have is that genetic engineering has a snowaballing effect. They also argue that the research in this field has no clear objectives and goals and that the scientists and the researchers working in this field aren’t accountable to anyone.
Having discusses the moral and ethical sophistications of this technology, Michele still argues that prohibition is not the solution. Instead rules and guidelines should be put in place to contain biological and physical advancements in genetic engineering. And that the guidelines must be drafted by people belonging to science and ethics and be acceptable to the society. Michele stresses the fact that genetic engineering is something that lies in the realm of possibilities and sooner and later it will be realized it is a matter of how to do it safely and morally.
She ends her article by stating, “Genetic engineering is the final frontier of world technology, requiring a genetic code of ethics, not the cloudy moral dilemma facing most scientists today.”
Leave a Reply