Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx

Directions:
Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete sentences, and be
sure to use correct English, spelling, and grammar. Sources
must be cited in APA format. Your response should be four (4)
double‐spaced pages.
Format: NO HEADERS OR FOOTERS, NO PAGE NUMBERS
Margins
1” all sides
Paragraphs
The entire document should be double-spaced on standard-
sized paper (8.5" x 11")
Headings
Bold
Type Style and Size
Times New Roman, 12 point
Assignment:
Read the following text (AT BOTTOM OF PAGE); study and

review the section titled “Measuring Technological Progress.”
Next, use your own words to write a short
compare-and-contrast essay
that defines and explains three distinct perspectives on the
evolution of technology. As you write, imagine you are talking
to a friend who has no knowledge of this topic. In short, write
the way you speak, using a conversational tone. Also, try to
alternate short sentences and longer sentences to make your
writing more readable.
Your essay should include five paragraphs, as follows:
-Paragraph 1 is your lead paragraph. It will contain an overview
of what you have to say in comparing and contrasting the
perspectives of Gerhard Lenski, Leslie White, and Alvin Toffler
with respect to the evolution of technology.
-Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, are your body paragraphs.
-In paragraph 2 to describe the perspective of Gerhard Lenski.
-In paragraph 3, you’ll write about the perspective of Leslie
White.
-In paragraph 4, you’ll describe and discuss the perspective of
Alvin Toffler.
-Paragraph 5 is your summary and conclusion. Here, you’ll
compare the three perspectives to show how they are, or may
be, similar. You’ll contrast the three perspectives to describe
how they’re different. You’ll end this process--and your essay--
by expressing your view as to which of these theorists (one or
more) offer the most useful insights into the evolution of
technology, in your opinion.
NOTE:

It’s permissible to use direct quotes from your reading, but
don’t use too many. One to three such quotes should be your
limit. Be sure to put a direct quote in quotation marks. For
example: According to Smith, “Carbon dioxide is both our
friend and our enemy.” 1 TO 3 references must be cited in APA
and referenced on last page.
TEXT TO BASE ESSAY ON:
Measuring Technological Progress
Sociologists, anthropologists, and other researchers have
developed different ways to measure and understand
technological progress. In this section, we’ll review the
thoughts of four important theorists. They offer four
perspectives on the relationship between technological
development and our social world.
Gerhard Lenski
Sociologist
Gerhard Lenski
(1924–2015) believed that technological progress has been the
driving force in the evolution of civilization. According to
Lenski, technological progress and civilization are closely
related. In fact, the key to human progress is
information
. The more we know about harnessing and using natural
resources, the more we can advance human society.
Lenski recognized four stages of communication, as follows:

Stage 1
is the passing of genes from one generation to the next. We
might call this
biological communication
.
Stage 2
is
sentience
, or the ability to feel, perceive, or experience objectively.
As we begin to develop awareness and understanding of the
world around us, we adapt better to the environment of
Earth. We’re able to share our experience.
In
Stage 3
, we become capable of logic. We apply observation and fact-
based analysis to the world. For example, if we see dark
clouds in the sky, we recognize that rain is probably on the
way.
In
Stage 4
, we master language, writing, and the ability to create symbols.
This stage is the foundation of civilization.
Lenski also proposed four levels of technological development,
as follows:
At the hunter-gatherer level, we physically work to reduce food
insecurity.
At the next level, we obtain part of the food supply from

horticulture (growing plants).
At the next level, we engage in organized agriculture. Food
surplus allows complex social orders to rise. We experience
social class inequality and a complex division of labor. We
pursue technological advances in arts, crafts, architecture,
and civil engineering.
Finally comes the Industrial Revolution. At this level, food-
based economies are replaced. We experience a new kind of
social class inequality along with revolutionary advances in
the means of production.
Leslie White
Anthropologist
Leslie Alvin White
(1900–1975) focused on harnessing and controlling energy.
White believed that controlling energy is the primary purpose
and function of any culture.
White identified five stages of human development, as follows:
Stage 1:
Energy comes from human muscle power.
Stage 2:
Humans harness the energy of domesticated animals. We raise
and herd livestock for food energy. We use other animals,
especially the horse, as transport as well as mounts for
warriors and hunters.
Stage 3:
We engage in the agricultural revolution, which provides

surplus food energy to extend the value of Stage 2.
Stage 4:
Especially as expressed in the Industrial Revolution, we
harness the power of natural resources, such as coal, oil, and
natural gas.
Stage 5:
We harness and rely on nuclear energy. (White was perhaps too
optimistic about our ability to harness nuclear energy, given
its dangerous drawbacks.)
White developed a formula that remains useful:
P = E*T
In this formula, “E” is a measure of energy consumed. “T” is a
measure of the efficiency of technical factors that utilize this
energy. “P” is what we get when calculate these two measures.
For example, when we compare early steam engines to steam-
powered turbines, the efficiency of turbines increases the value
“P.” In White’s words, “culture evolves as the amount of energy
harnessed per capita per year is increased . . . or as the
efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to
work is increased.”
Alvin Toffler
Alvin Toffler
(1928–2016) was a journalist, social critic, and futurist. Toffler
stands out among the thinkers associated with the postindustrial
era. That’s because he was able to reach a large audience.

The following quote gives an idea of Toffler’s view of our
current era:
“To survive, to avert what we have termed
future shock
, the individual must become infinitely more adaptable and
capable than ever before. We must search out totally new ways
to anchor ourselves, for all the old roots—religion, nation,
community, family, or profession—are now shaking under the
hurricane impact of the accelerative thrust. It is no longer
resources that limit decisions; it is the decision that makes the
resources.”
Toffler is best known for the concept of
future shock
. He defined this as the personal perception of “too much
change in too short a period of time.” Toffler argued that human
societies are undergoing enormous social and technological
structural change. We live in an unprecedented era in which
industrial society is changing to a “super-industrial” society. In
Toffler’s view, many find the speed of change overwhelming.
Millions of people feel disconnected. We live lives
characterized by “shattering stress and disorientation.” In other
words, we’re “future shocked.”
According to Toffler, we’re drowning in
information overload
. (Toffler invented this term.) In Toffler’s view, future shock is
responsible for most modern-day social problems.
Toffler identified three stages in the development of society, as
follows:
Stage 1
is the agrarian stage. This stage began with the invention of

agriculture during the Neolithic period (New Stone Age).
Toffler associated the agricultural revolution with the move
from “barbarity” to “civilization.”
Stage 2
is the industrial stage. This stage began in England with the
Industrial Revolution. According to Toffler, important
advances during this period included machine tools and the
steam engine.
Stage 3
is the postindustrial stage. This started in the second half of
the twentieth century. Stage 3 is marked by the inventions of
automated manufacturing, robotics, and the computer. This
stage is also associated with the growth of the service sector.
During this stage, the need for “brainwork” has increased,
while the need for manual labor (such as factory work) has
decreased.
William F. Ogburn
Finally,
William F. Ogburn
(1886–1959) was a prominent sociologist who developed the
concept of
cultural lag
. This is the idea that it takes time for a culture to catch up to
innovations in technology. Even though Ogburn died long ago,
his ideas are still taken quite seriously by academics.
According to Ogburn, material culture—technology--progresses
much faster than nonmaterial culture. Technology changes more
quickly than social institutions like family, government,
religious institutions, and even the arts.

To quote Ogburn,
“The invention of the automobile . . . freed young people from
direct parental observation [and] made it possible for them to
work at distances from home . . . Half a century earlier, families
were structured … as family farms. Young people were under
continuous observation as they worked right on the homestead.”
According to Ogburn, economic systems adapt more quickly to
new technologies than other institutions. That’s because such
advances offer a
return on investment
to business. For example, adding robotics to an assembly line
can speed up the manufacturing process. Likewise, relying on
advances in electronic communications can help companies to
share information more easily. In fact,
corporate culture
and the profit-driven application of technology tend to drive
technological innovation (material culture).
It’s interesting to note that religious institutions tend to be
particularly impacted by “future shock.” Scientific and
technological advances have historically been opposed by
organized religion. For example, the Roman Catholic Church
continues to oppose birth control. Similarly, evangelical and
fundamentalist groups continue to reject long-accepted ideas
about evolution and natural selection.
“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and
technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about
science and technology.”
--Carl Sagan, astronomer and theorist
Unintended Consequences

Toffler’s insights began an ongoing debate into information
overload. Just how overwhelmed are people by rapid advances
in technology? This debate continues, and we’ll revisit it later
in this lesson.
Lenski, White, and Ogburn offered useful insight into the
relationship between technology and the evolution of society.
However, they failed to address the
unintended consequences
of postindustrial development. This is especially the case
respecting social, cultural, and technological progress in an era
of
anthropogenic
(human-caused) climate change and global warming.
What unintended consequences do we mean? Let’s look at the
basic assumptions of a capitalist economic system. In capitalist
societies, continual growth is desired: sell more, build more,
develop more markets, and cultivate more consumerism. If we
designed a bumper sticker to define consumerism, it might say,
“More, more, more!” or “You are what you can buy!” or
“Whoever dies with the most toys wins!”
Of course, historically, the world has been minimally concerned
with ecological issues. When Lenski, White, and Ogburn were
developing their ideas, public awareness of climate change had
yet to emerge. Instead, classic assumptions about economic
progress still applied; that is, economic progress was measured
mainly by its constant growth. Naturally, we now realize this
assumption is unrealistic. The world faces too many ecological
threats from a focus on unrestrained growth. In fact, from an
ecologist’s perspective, unrestrained growth is suicidal. To
draw a parallel, in the natural world, unrestricted cellular
growth is called cancer.
Capitalism is about return on investment. It’s about the bottom

line. It’s focused on reducing costs to increase profits. The
simplest ways to reduce costs is to lower wages or replace
human workers with technology. Consider the difference
between human and robotic workers. Robot can work 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, and might cost a business 30 cents per hour.
Obviously that’s much lower than even minimum wage.
Across developed nations, digital technology has shrunken the
market for industrial jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Jobs
that paid a living wage are vanishing. For example, in the
United States, giant corporations—like Walmart, Apple, and
Dell—have exported manufacturing jobs to foreign labor
markets in China and elsewhere. As a result, the American
middle class continues to shrink. Jobs that once paid well have
been replaced by less-lucrative jobs in the service sector.
Of course, the situation is complicated. Global productivity has
increased enormously due to advances in electronic and digital
technologies. However, at the same time, in developed countries
like the United States, the ratio of manufacturing jobs to service
sector jobs has changed radically. To quote economist Hank
Robison, “In 1950, 30 percent of all U.S. jobs were in
manufacturing, while 63 percent were in services. In 2011, 9
percent of total employment remained in manufacturing, with 86
percent in services.”
Robison continues: “Does this signify a shift in consumers’
tastes from manufactured goods to services? The short answer is
no; if anything, we consume more ‘things.’ The difference is
that things are manufactured with far less labor, and they are
increasingly made somewhere else.”
Wages have either declined or remained stagnant since the
1970s. Thus, cheaper goods (plus high levels of personal debt)
keep the consumerist philosophy alive.

Economically, the world is dealing with two kinds of
unintended consequences. Both have been produced by
capitalist ideology. First, increases in productivity have led to
lower wages and more or less permanent unemployment for
unskilled laborers. Second, continual growth requires ever more
energy. That means greenhouse gas emissions continue to
increase. This, in turn, has led to a global energy crisis.
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
According to NASA, multiple studies published in peer-
reviewed scientific journals show that about 97 percent of
climate scientists are in agreement that changes to the climate
over the past century can be attributed to human activities.
While scientists continue to interpret data and debate causal
connections, they agree to the basic premise that humans are
negatively affecting the global environment. Scientific debate is
about weighing actual evidence. Scientists pose hypotheses and
test them. They check results and repeat the process to get ever
closer to fact-based truth.
Review the quotes below to get an idea of the scientific
consensus on climate change and global warming. These three
sample statements can be found in the eighteen covered in
NASA’s report (“Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is
Warming,” NASA. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.)
In preview, here are three sample statements out of eighteen
provided in the report.
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused
by human activities is occurring now and it is a growing threat
to Society.”
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
2006

.
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the
Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems,
security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
American Physical Society
, 2007.
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with
assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the
National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has
warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse gas
emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle
1900s.”
The Geological Society of America
, 2006; revised 2010.
Life, Water, and Energy
In this part of the lesson, we’ll explore two immediate
environmental crises: the rising global demand for energy and
the scarcity of freshwater.
Let’s begin with some basic science facts.
Life on Earth is carbon-based. Carbon is the basis for basic
molecules like carbon dioxide (CO2) on the one hand and
immensely complex molecules like proteins and DNA molecules
on the other. The typical carbon atom, written 6C12, contains 6
protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons.
The 6 protons carry a positive charge.

The 6 electrons have a negative charge.
The 6 neutrons have a neutral charge.
Carbon Atom
(Public domain image)
Thus, the atomic number of carbon is 6. Its atomic mass is 12.
The unique configuration of carbon’s electrons is the key
feature of this atom, which is basic to life.
Atoms follow rules. In all atoms, electrons must be contained in
one or more energy shells: K, L, M, N, and O. In the carbon
atom, the K shell is closest to the atom’s nucleus. It allows
space for 2 electrons. The L shell provides space for exactly 8
electrons. In a carbon atom, the K shell is full, while the L shell
contains only 4 electrons, leaving 4 “open” spaces. This means
carbon atoms are ready and willing to share electrons with other
elements, from simple molecules like CO2 to complex organic
molecules arranged along chains of other carbon atoms.
The largest carbon-based molecules are the immensely complex
DNA molecules. As you know, DNA creates the genetic code
for every living creature on Earth, from bacteria to cats to
individual human beings.
Now recall the basic formula for photosynthesis:
6CO2 + 6H2O → sunlight energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2
The sun is Earth’s energy source. Through photosynthesis,
energy from the sun is transferred to Earth. Life chemistry is
carbon chemistry.

Photosynthesis requires water. Leonardo Da Vinci called water
the driver of life. Others refer to water as the “universal
medium.” Whatever we call it, life energy simply can’t exist
without it.
The next two topics in this lesson address the two most pressing
ecological issues facing the world: demand for energy and
scarcity of freshwater.
The Energy Crisis
Consider this graphic from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space
Studies (GISS).
GISS is located in New York. GISS continually analyzes surface
temperatures around the globe. As of 2018, temperature
readings of land and ocean surfaces continue to show a steady
rise in global temperatures from 1950 to 2018. In fact, over this
period, the ten warmest years have occurred since 1998.
Over this period, the year 2016 was the hottest year ever
recorded, followed by 2017, 2015, and 2014. This research is
consistent with projections prepared by the Climatic Research
Unit and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
You’ll note in the graph that temperatures are somewhat higher
during El Niño periods and slightly lower in La Niña periods.
That’s because during La Niña, ocean surface temperatures are
cooler than average in the central and eastern Pacific near the
equator. The opposite occurs during El Niño years.
This data shows that we must sharply curtail greenhouse gas
emissions if we are ever to reach environmental sustainability.
However, even if greenhouse emissions fell to zero

immediately, global average temperatures would likely continue
to rise for several decades—and possibly hundreds of years. The
situation is simply that grave.
Energy for Life
Any plan for achieving global sustainability must be focused on
energy. Every effort must be made to greatly reduce the use of
nonrenewable energy sources like coal, oil, and natural gas. At
the same time, we must make every effort to increase the use of
renewable sources of energy. That means greatly expanding
solar and wind power and refining technologies to harvest
geothermal and ocean wave energy.
We must also reduce or eventually suspend the use of nuclear
power. Nuclear energy is based on a finite supply of uranium.
First, uranium is nonrenewable. But, more importantly, the use
of nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Disposal of nuclear
waste that can remain lethally radioactive for millennia is
highly problematic.
Ecological Footprints around the Globe
The need for conservation related to greenhouse emissions
varies greatly across the globe. Consider the following chart
developed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The data
shows that China’s carbon footprint is the largest, producing 27
percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. The United States is
next, at 17 percent. Next are Russia (5 percent), India (5
percent), and Japan (4 percent). Other developed countries
produce much fewer emissions. The 20 percent attributed to the
“rest of the world” is composed of small underdeveloped
countries, mainly across the span of Africa, central Asia, and
the Mideast.
Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Country, 2011

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
Unfortunately, this overview doesn’t even give the whole
picture. Consider this jarring quote from Rachel Kaufman in an
article in
National Geographic
: “Humans are using 50 percent more resources than the Earth
can replenish in a year. In other words, humans use the
equivalent of 1.5 planets per year. By 2030, humans will use the
equivalent of two planets per year.”
This same source claims that the tiny country of Qatar has the
highest per capita carbon footprints on the planet, along with its
neighbors, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). For
Qatar, that’s more than five times the per capita resources
consumed per capita in the United States. Of course, the total
populations of these oil-rich countries are small, so they
compose only a small part of the larger problem.
The United States includes five percent of the global population
and uses 24 percent of the planet’s resources every year. In fact,
according to Dave Tilford in
Scientific American
:
Children born in the United States will create thirteen times
the ecological damage over their lifetimes than children born
in Brazil.
The average American drains as many resources as 35
natives of India. Additionally, the average American
consumes 53 times more goods and services than someone
from China.

With less than five percent of the world population, the
United States uses one-third of the world’s paper, one-
quarter of the oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the
aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper.
American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the
average resident of Great Britain. It’s also 2.5 times that of
the average Japanese.
Americans also produce one-half of the world’s solid waste.
FACT
Around the globe, each U.S. dollar spent equals roughly the
consumption of one-half liter of energy.
The Freshwater Crisis
The freshwater crisis may very well be the line that can’t be
crossed if humans are to continue existing on planet Earth.
As already pointed out, water is the medium of life. Where
there’s no water, there can be no life. Indeed, Leonardo da
Vinci was correct when he called water the driving force behind
all life. The current supply of freshwater in Earth’s hydrosphere
is about what’s been available to terrestrial (land surface) life
forms for millions of years. About 2.5 percent of the planet’s
water is fresh, with about 1.5 percent locked up in glaciers and
ice caps. Only a precious 1 percent of freshwater on the planet
is easily obtainable.
This image from the U.S. Geological Survey shows the harsh
realities in the situation. This image shows the volume of water
on Earth compared to land mass.

The total of all the freshwater on Earth (the second blue sphere)
amounts to about 10.6 million cubic kilometers. As shown in the
graphic, this would have a diameter of about 272 kilometers
(about 170 miles). Additionally, 99 percent of this water is
groundwater, much of which isn’t easily accessible. By
contrast—as the world gets warmer and warmer—if all the
freshwater available to us from lakes, streams, rivers, and
captured rainwater were compressed into a water sphere, it
would be that tiny blue sphere in the image, which is about
56 kilometers
(34.9 miles) in diameter. That’s our little life bubble. That’s
the precious life sphere we must all share.
If Earth’s burgeoning human population is not checked soon, we
could very well run out of water needed to meet the needs of
over seven billion people. Additionally, because of climate
variations, geography, and resource competition for resources,
some regions on our planet seem to have plenty of freshwater,
while others find freshwater scarce. The latter situation exists in
many underdeveloped countries that must deal with factors like
armed conflict and persistent drought. Both of these factors
contribute to freshwater scarcity.
Even in the United States, prolonged drought has created crisis
conditions. Parts of California and the Southwestern states, for
example, have been seriously impacted. In California, officials
reported the fourth year of sustained drought through January
2016. That’s the driest period recorded since meteorological
data has been available. Over this same period, forest fires have
become more frequent and intense. And, in other parts of the
country, per capita water use has continued to rise.
Here’s a striking illustration. The Colorado River flows over a
1,450-mile course from its source in the Rocky Mountains. You
may know that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the
Colorado River. But you may not know that the Colorado River

provides water to 30 million people. However, according to
sources, “… it is so heavily tapped for agriculture, industry, and
municipal uses” that it seldom reaches the Gulf of California. In
fact, only about one-tenth of the river’s former flow now makes
it to Mexico, where a dam captures it to supply water to farms
and cities south of the border.
According to the United Nations, international water use has
increased at more than twice the rate of population in the last
century. By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in
areas plagued by water scarcity. That means about two-thirds of
the world’s population will live in water-stressed regions, the
result of inefficient water use, destructive farming practices,
and climate change. Even today, one in seven people don’t have
access to clean drinking water.
In the Middle East, great swaths of the countryside have been
reduced to desert, primarily due to the overuse of water. Among
Middle East states, Iran has sustained the most damage related
to freshwater misuse and overuse. In that country, agricultural
output has been devastated as water overuse is compounded by
insufficient rainfall, year after year.
The overconsumption of water resources in the United Arab
Emirates, coupled with negligible and infrequent rainfall, has
spurred efforts to desalinize saltwater from the oceans. UAE’s
crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, has
commented, “For us, water is [now] more important than oil.”
In south Asia, up to 75 percent of farmers rely on pumping
groundwater to the surface. That’s a sobering statistic as it
reflects the water needs of around 600 million people living in
2,000 square kilometers of dry terrain. This terrain extends from
eastern Pakistan, across northern India, and into western
Bangladesh. Satellite images confirm that groundwater supplies
are rapidly shrinking.

A direct effect of global warming is glacial ice melt everywhere
on the planet. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPPC), the percentage of people likely to be
negatively impacted by changing patterns of precipitation and
glacial melting is likely to increase during the twenty-first
century. Just look at the increase in ice melt in Greenland over
time.
Asia is particularly at risk. This is largely due to melting
patterns in Asia’s “water towers,” the Himalayas. The
Himalayas are the tallest mountains in the world. Their snow
melt feeds a number of major rivers, including the Indus in
Pakistan, the Ganges in India, and the Yangtze in China. The
Himalayas also feed the Mekong, which is a vital water source
for many nations of southeast Asia, including Bangladesh,
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia. Overall, the regions’
glaciers provide water for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and
drinking water for roughly 1.5 billion people.
One inevitable outcome of freshwater scarcity is rising conflicts
between nations competing for dwindling resources. For
example, the Nile is the world’s longest river. It has two main
branches: the Blue Nile and the White Nile. The Blue Nile
emerges from the highlands of Ethiopia. The White Nile
emerges from the region of Lake Victoria in Uganda. The two
branches meet at the city of Khartoum in Sudan. To better meet
its regional water needs, Ethiopia is nearing completion on what
will be Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant. Its reservoir
will have a storage capacity amounting to 74 billion cubic
meters of water.
Egyptian officials are concerned about this. From their
perspective, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project
poses a direct threat to Egyptian agriculture. According to
Egypt’s irrigation minister, Egypt is currently coping with an

annual water deficit of 20 billion cubic meters. Water recycling
technology makes up some of this deficit, but this won’t fully
address the problem in the long run. Negotiations between the
two countries are ongoing.
As another example, consider the tension between Pakistan and
India over the mountainous territory of Kashmir. This region
has experienced several wars since 1947. Today, Pakistani
Muslims occupy about half the northern area. Hindus,
Buddhists, and Sikhs occupy about half the territory in the
south. As the southern groups seek independence and the right
of self-determination, sporadic violence claims lives along the
disputed boundary separating the two regions. One major
concern is access to water resources, as these are mainly located
in the northern region. Regional glacial melting due to global
warming greatly aggravates the Kashmiri dilemma. Given that
both nations possess significant nuclear arsenals, this is a
dangerous situation.
From a global perspective, former Canadian Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien comments, “The future political impact of water
scarcity may be devastating. Using water the way we have in the
past simply will not sustain humanity in the future.”
Toward a Paradigm Shift
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must
rise to the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew
and act anew.”
--
Abraham Lincoln
Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862

A
paradigm shift
represents a fundamental change in our underlying
assumptions. And, respecting our current global crisis,
Lincoln’s words are apt. We must indeed “think anew and act
anew.”
Drawing on what you’ve learned about our environmental
challenges, let’s consider some paths to a sustainable future. We
must first distinguish between sustainable and non-sustainable
uses of technology (material culture). We must then recognize
and confront changes we need to make in nonmaterial culture.
Without changes to both material and nonmaterial culture, our
efforts will be inadequate. We won’t be able to deal with rising
sea levels rise, loss of forest to burning, and ever-increasing
temperature of warm seasons.
Global Paradigm Shift
Our social order can only survive if it’s both sustainable and
adaptive. That means it must be maintainable and flexible.
The template for this idea is built into Earth’s natural systems.
Think about the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and
photosynthesis. To the extent that humans haven’t overly
disrupted these cycles, they’re both sustainable and adaptive.
For example, the nitrogen cycle adapts to changes in ecosystems
such as different ratios of producers to consumers. (Producers
are the life forms that draw on sunlight energy to produce
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and glucose through photosynthesis.
Producers form the very foundation of the global food chain.
Consumers are the life forms that rely, directly or indirectly, on
producers for energy.)
Due to the burgeoning population growth of humans, we’ve
become ravenous life-energy consumers. Our demand for

resources already exceeds the planet’s finite resource limits, as
illustrated by the energy and water crises already discussed.
Thus, our most important objective at the present time is to
figure out how to establish an appropriate balance of human
population to Earth’s resources. That’s a daunting challenge.
Nevertheless, meeting it is our only option. The alternative is
the end of human civilization—and quite possibly our life on
this planet.
To avoid global catastrophe, we must address three major
issues, namely,
We should reconsider global capitalism in favor of
alternative social and economic systems. These should be
based on the well-being of humans and equitable sharing of
resources with the natural world.
We must allow ethical norms and practices to guide
developments in science and technology.
We must discover and acquire a balance between head and
heart. The key to this issue is to establish gender and other
types of equality across the globe.
These perspectives are idealistic and interconnected. Together
they represent a radical paradigm shift.
Consequences of Globalization
The painful consequences of the
neoliberal agenda
have been covered earlier in the course. It should be clear to
you that if our goal is global distributive justice, we must
abandon that agenda. We must suffer through the pain and

discomfort involved in transitioning to more humane social and
economic systems.
Here are a few initial thoughts regarding an eventual
economic transition
.
Economic transitions require changes to governance and modes
of resource distribution. These must become more harmonious
with the natural world. Digital and electronic communications
might serve as an international information grid of sorts. People
could share problems and solutions. Nations and localities could
establish a common ground for limited trade and technological
transfer.
Humans across the globe must share a common goal. We must
address climate change by transitioning to renewable sources of
energy. We must find ways to address water scarcity. The
heaviest burden in these transitions will fall on developed
nations, particularly the United States. At both national and
international levels, we must reverse the flow of capital. It must
be directed to flow mainly to the public to engineer a renewable
power grid as well as provide basic human services like
healthcare and education.
Neoliberalism and Militarism
According to some, the United States has become a
surveillance state
engaged in an endless war against terrorism. Some analysts
compare present-day America to the dystopian totalitarian state
depicted by George Orwell in his novel
1984
. That may or may not be a stretch. Even so, the advent of
militarism
is evident to anyone who watches television or plays video

games. These forms of entertainment familiarize us with SWAT
teams and tactics. They glorify lethal violence and armed
conflict.
Any environmentally friendly scenario for the future must
abandon
both
neoliberal economics and militarism. We should hope to
witness the end of the “warfare state” in our lifetime, in favor
of an international welfare state. That would certainly make
economic
sense as war has been and continues to be a resource drain—not
to mention its heavy cost in lost lives and human suffering.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was ahead of his time. He
understood war at a deep and personal level as the Supreme
Allied Commander in the European Theatre of Operations
(ETO) during World War II. His comments are worthy of our
attention. Here are excerpts from two of his memorable
speeches:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket
fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. [But]
this world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending
the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes
of its children. . . . The cost of one modern heavy bomber is
this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two
electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000. It is two
fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete
highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels
of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that
could have housed more than 8,000 people.”
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,”

delivered to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April
16, 1953
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes.”
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
televised farewell address to the nation, January 17, 1961
According to Boston University’s Watson Institute, since 2001
the U.S. federal government has spent upward of $4.4 trillion to
sustain military operations in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
This amount is attributed to
Congressional war appropriations
War-related increases in the Pentagon base budget
Veterans care and disability
Increases in the homeland security budget
All of these ongoing military operations are funded through
borrowing. The national debt has escalated enormously,
resulting in ever-higher interest rates that will extend well into
the future. A not-so-hidden cost of U.S. wars is a foundering
domestic economy. Resources for fighting climate change,
repairing our infrastructure, educating the populace, and
providing public services continue to dwindle.

Meanwhile, no firm estimate is given for the costs of military
operations in other parts of the world. According to Global
Research, the U.S. military has established between 700 and 800
military bases across the globe, involving some 255,065 troops.
Eisenhower’s warning about the unwarranted expansion of the
military industrial complex seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Moral Challenges of Modern Science and Technology
From Scientific Idealism to Moral Neutrality
The rise of science in the Western world has evolved through
stages. Science was originally guided by the idealistic goals of
the Enlightenment. For example, Rene Descartes (1596–1650),
the French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, believed
that the purpose of science was not simply to gather neutral
facts nor create mechanical toys. Rather, it was to conserve
human health and reduce human suffering. That ideal remains in
the biomedical realm.
Over time, the notion of scientific neutrality became more
common. Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) is reckoned among the
great minds of the seventeenth century and a driver of the
scientific revolution. He is known for developing calculus,
outlining the principles of modern physics, and studying of
optics. Most importantly, Newton’s
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
(1687) laid out the foundations for modern physics. These
included the laws of motion and the universal law of
gravitation.
Newton derived his principles from observable relationships,
such as mass to gravity. He embraced
determinism
in that he believed identifiable causes lead to determinable

effects.
Newton based his physics principles on objects that could be
weighed, measured, and generalized in mathematical terms.
Thus, he embraced objectivism and reductionism.
Objectivism
translates into this assumption: Nothing exists except matter-
energy. What isn’t objectively observable, directly or indirectly,
doesn’t exist. Since it can’t be weighed, measured or even
located, we must assume that consciousness either doesn’t exist
or that it only exists as an
epiphenomenon
(secondary phenomenon) or side effect of brain activity. Either
way, mind can be experienced but not defined. It’s a mystery.
Astronomer Sir James Jeans, commenting on quantum physics,
spoke to that mystery in an interesting way.
“The stream of human knowledge is heading toward a non-
mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a
great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to
be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are
beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the
creator and governor of this realm.”
--
Sir James Jeans,
The Mysterious Universe
(1930)
Reductionism
means that even complex phenomena can be understood by
identifying the basic parts of the related system. This idea
applies even to the complex fields of psychology and
physiology. One popular analogy for this idea is the clock. We

can learn how a clock works by taking it apart. We can see how
the parts relate to each other and work together.
The clock analogy was so persuasive that scientists used to
speculate that we live in a clockwork universe—at least until
Einstein came along with his ideas about quantum physics.
Determinism
asks us to assume that every effect has a cause. If we can
identify the chain of causes and effects that lead to cause X, we
can predict effect Y. This idea is simple but misleading. For
example, let’s look at poverty. It’s nearly impossible to
accurately identify and weigh all possible variables that lead to
poverty. And that includes uncertainty about how to define
poverty in the first place.
Science has adopted many of Newton’s ideas. This makes it
easy for scientists to see themselves as neutral explorers and
observers. Except for in the biomedical domains, science is
often divorced from moral concerns or constraints. Operation
Paper Clip provides an example. This was the scramble to
“recruit” German scientists who had participated in the
development of rocketry and guided missiles in World War I.
The operation remained top secret for some time simply because
Werner von Braun and his colleagues had been Nazis and party
to Hitler’s immoral agenda.
Scientists who embrace moral neutrality claim that moral and
ethical concerns are the province of philosophers, public policy
makers, and thinkers. They believe science does what it does.
It’s up to society to decide how to apply scientific findings like
technology to the world.
Religion vs. Scientism
Scientism

is the belief that science and its method of inquiry is the most
reliable path to truth. Philosopher August Comte defined
scientism under a concept he called
positivism
. Positivism is a belief that everything worth knowing must
come from sensory data. That is, it must come our senses—
vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. According to Comte, no
transcendent celestial order exists: there’s no heaven, no gods,
and no metaphysical domain. Spiritualism is delusion. French
philosophers in the Enlightenment believed that science should
replace religion.
Scientism isn’t science. It can’t be, because actual scientific
hypotheses are subject to
falsification
, or testability. For example, let’s say that a psychologist forms
a hypothesis that all people will render assistance to those in
distress. If we find that not everyone in a sample will actually
render assistance to distressed fellow humans, the hypothesis
must be rejected. And that’s the problem with scientism. It can’t
be subjected to falsification; therefore, there’s no way to
determine whether it’s true or false.
Nonetheless, history is full of the antagonism between religion
and science posing as religion. That antagonism has largely
faded in modern times. Today, most scientists are concerned
about the moral and ethical impacts of their work. For example,
they think about the impact of technological innovations like
social media, which might allow for widespread government
surveillance of the population.
Digital Technology as a Two-Edged Sword
Nearly every technological advance has had both positive and
negative effects. A famous example is the discovery of
penicillin. As the first identified antibiotic, penicillin greatly

reduced the fatality rate in World War II. Penicillin led to the
development of other antibiotics. That’s the bright side. On the
downside, the overuse of antibiotics has created unanticipated
problems. All life forms tend to adapt to changes in their
environment. This includes bacterial pathogens. Thus, as
antibiotic use has become widespread, the pathogens targeted by
these medicines have adapted. Some bacteria have mutated into
antibiotic pathogens—“super bugs’’—that are immune to
antibiotics.
Similarly, in ethical and moral terms, digital-electronic
technologies also have an upside and a downside. Here are some
examples.
Industrial efficiency.
Industries of all kinds have experienced amazing growth in
productivity due to computers and electronic
communications. However, wages for workers have either
declined or remained stagnant. The profits related to efficiency
gains have gravitated mainly to the wealthy. Additionally, as
more workstations feature computers, supervisors and
managers can more closely monitor worker efficiency. That
might be a positive, but worker privacy has all but vanished.
In some cases, efficiency efforts have gone so far as to
specify worker bathroom breaks at specified times.
Phone mazes
are commonplace in all kinds of organizations. Presumably,
the mazes increase organization efficiency. But according to
Deseret News
(way back in 1994!), callers who deal with automated phone
response systems often feel like “rats in a maze.” The
business objective of phone mazes is to reduce the need for
employees, thus adding to higher rates of unemployment.
Additionally, when human beings are on the line, callers are

warned about calls being monitored for quality assurance.
Again, privacy has vanished.
Social media
gives us access to a digital wonderland. We can keep up
with our friends and colleagues, share photos, talk about
ideas, and even coordinate “flash mobs” for social protests.
On the other hand, social media can become a sort of
“weapon of mass distraction.” Fake news stories circulate more
easily via social media. Users may feel addicted to their
devices. They may experience anxiety, depression, and
personal disconnect. They may spend less time interacting
with real-life friends and relatives. Plus, social media makes
children and others more vulnerable to cyberbullying, which
can be crushing. And, lest we forget, it’s easy to lose focus and
neglect chores and/or homework through social media
distractions.
Government surveillance
has already been mentioned. However, it’s important to
realize that a social media presence creates opportunities for
personal monitoring. Government agencies like the National
Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Homeland
Security, and others sometimes make deals with
communications giants and Internet providers. These “deals”
and personal monitoring are said to be for safety purposes,
so the government can track and monitor terrorists. Most of
us aren’t terrorists but anything we post on the Internet can
and will be monitored. Meanwhile, individual hackers also
engage in blanket surveillance. As a result, identity theft is a
real problem. It’s important to learn to exercise extreme
caution when sharing personal information with anyone, on
the Internet or in real time.

Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx

Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx

Similar to Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx (20)

More from kimberly691

More from kimberly691 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Directions Unless otherwise stated, answer in complete senten.docx