1800040-2004-12 - technological complexity and ethical control

7/30/2019 1800040-2004-12 - Technological Complexity and Ethical Control

1/7

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring 2002 33

ETHICS, CONTROL, AND

TECHNICAL SYSTEMSRichard Rhodes words touch anerve, for the pace and complexity

of technological change pose

daunting challenges for our moral

intelligence. The technical, social,

and moral complexities of techni-

cal systems have profoundly

affected the ethical control of tech-

nical systems. Control is not

restricted to the use or production

of technical systems, but applies toa technologys full life cycle, from

The author is Professor of Phi-

losophy at the The University of

Sudbury, Sudbury, Ontario, Cana-

da P3E 2C6. He can be reached at:

4 Irish Lane, Barrie, Ontario L4M

6H8; email: [email protected].

0278-0079/02/$10.002002IEEE

Technological Complexityand Ethical Control

Vincent di Norcia

The western world hasargued passionately

about technology

whether its good or

bad for us, ...even

while inventing it at a

furious and accelerating rate.

Richard Rhodes, Visions

of Technology [1].

EYEWIRE


2/7

34 IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring 2002

invention, design, and develop-

ment through manufacture and use

to final disposal. Ethical control

means that the ends and means

involved in systems control are

guided by core ethical values such

as care for life (human and natur-

al), socio-economic welfare, and

communication [2].Notwithstanding their complexi-

ty, most of the ethical problems that

controlling technical systems pose

should be solvable, assuming ade-

quate resources are available [3].

However, technologies are so

diverse that we should first clarify

the concept of a technical system,

e.g., by dividing it into four types,

based on their degree of complexi-

ty and increase in scale. The four

types of technical system we will

refer to here are: tools, technolo-

gies, technology networks, and

technology fields. As we move

from relatively simple tools and

technologies to more complex

technology networks and fields,

we are involved, I will suggest, in

an increasingly difficult and uncer-

tain social experiment [4]. To solve

the technically, socially, and

morally complex problems that

technical systems pose therefore

demands an informed and

resourceful moral intelligence. To

understand what this involves let

us begin with the simplest case,

tools; more specifically, the knife.

TOOLSTools are simple technical sys-

tems like knives, hammers, pens,

and clocks. Knives, for example,

have few mechanisms if any, and

are designed to facilitate individual

ease of use in solving practical

problems. There are differentknives for different uses: from

paper, butter, and meat knives to

shaving razors, axes, and swords.

One can usually assess the appro-

priateness of a knife to a specific

use [5]. One does not for instance

use a butter knife to chop wood.

Also, related tools are often linked

together to make up useful sets.

Knives, forks, and dishes for

instance are used together for eat-

ing, just as pen, ink, and paper are

useful for writing.

As tools, knives are familiar and

easy to use, usually without formal

training. Since users can usually

predict the effects of normal use,

outcomes tend to match userintent. Thus the ethical control of a

tool presents no great difficulties.

But skilled use, such as slicing

meat finely and evenly or compe-

tent sword play has traditionally

involved an apprenticeship, e.g., to

a butcher or fencing master. Skill-

ful performance also evokes the

idea of virtue as excellence in a

practice, for excellence, Aristotle

argued, extends from technical

practice to ethical (see [6]).

Traditionally knives were high-

ly crafted unique tools, but today

most are mass produced in stan-

dard designs, facilitating their gen-

eral availability and ease of use.

Tool culture connotes tradition-

al values. The designs of knives

and swords, for example, are slow

to change. Older knives can even

be antiques or works of art, viz., a

kitchen knife found in ancient

Pompeii or a Samurai sword. In

addition, many tools are organical-

ly connected with their users habi-

tat. Hunting knives are used to kill

an animal and slice the meat; axes

to cut local wood for burning or

building. If tools like knives repre-

sent tradition, technologies like the

automobile signify change.

TECHNOLOGIESOver the last few centuries the

old tool-based farm economy has

been replaced by more efficient

new industrial technologies: trains,factories, large buildings, eleva-

tors, and automobiles. While new

technologies may compete with

old for users, they do not always

replace older systems.

Automobiles for instance have

not eliminated bicycles, and we still

use knives to cut food and paper.

But technologies are more complex

than tools, numerically, systemical-

ly, socially, and morally. Numeri-

cally, technologies typically contain

several component tools, and sys-

temically most technologies opera-

tionally interconnect several sub-

systems (ultimately composed of

tools), into a single integrated oper-

ating system. In operation, automo-bile technology, for instance,

dynamically connects several sub-

systems: accelerating, gearing,

steering, engine cooling, cabin heat-

ing, instrumentation, etc. All work

together as one transportation sys-

tem. Watches link springs, gears,

hands, face, and case together into

one mechanical system designed to

tell the time. Each subsystem is

composed of tools. Hitting the

brake pedal sends brake fluid

through the lines to make the pads

slow down the wheels.

Abstractly, a technology might

be reduced to its separate compo-

nents, but not as a dynamic system.

To drive a car you do not manipu-

late its components separately. You

do not stop it by picking up a brake

pad and holding it to the wheel. On

the contrary, the normal operation

of a technology like an automobile

involves numerous high-speed

interactions among its subsystems

and component tools. But those

subsystems are loosely coupled.

Brake failure affects, but does not

destroy, the steering. A driver can

in consequence often avoid a seri-

ous accident. Technologies whose

subsystems are tightly coupled

however are prone to normal acci-

dents [7]. In such systems, prob-

lems in one subsystem can affect

others and quickly threaten to

cause total system breakdown,

with attendant risks to humanhealth and the environment. Thus

problems in the cooling system of

a nuclear reactor can rapidly lead

to a meltdown; and a short circuit

in a planes wiring can cause it to

crash. One way of reducing such

risks is to favor resilience in

design, through loosely coupled

subsystems and redundancy.


3/7

Despite its systemic complexity,

most people today can operate a

car. Drivers must of course comply

with the automobiles prescribed

control techniques, viz., in manipu-

lating the gear shift or turning the

steering wheel, and staying on the

right or left side of the road. The

need for compliance typifies whatUrsula Franklin terms prescriptive

technologies, in contrast to the

greater freedom users had with old-

er holistic tools, like knives [8].

But prescriptive compliance and

standardization are not necessarily

unethical.

Standardizing operational con-

trols has facilitated safer driving.

Indeed one of the most important

achievements of industrial society

was the development of mass pro-

duction manufacturing technology,

as with Fords Model T early in the

20th century.

While many technological inno-

vations solved user problems and

enhanced performance, they also

increased system complexity. The

simple user-friendly controls of the

automobile mask significant sys-

tem complexity under the hood.

Today many drivers do not

understand how their automobiles

mechanisms function or know how

to repair their car. This often means

that specialized technical expertise

and training are needed for its oper-

ation and maintenance [9]. The

same can be said for VCRs, com-

puters, and other common tech-

nologies. The complexity of such

systems reflects the growth of the

modern sciences and technical pro-

fessions, or what John Kenneth

Galbraith termed the technostruc-

ture of modern societies [10]. It

has in consequence evoked socialcomplexity. Contemporary auto-

mobile manufacturing demands far

more knowledge and resources

than making a two wheel buggy or

a knife. The design and develop-

ment of an automobile now

involves numerous scientists, engi-

neers, and technicians, usually

working together in the R&D divi-

sions of large, international corpo-

rations [11], [12]. No wonder the

growth of the automobile industry

reinforced that of the technically

complex petrochemical industry

and firms like Siemens and Daim-

ler Benz.

The technology production

phase, from innovation and designto development and manufacture,

is usually beyond the capacity and

resources of most individuals. The

era of the lone inventor creating a

new tool is long gone. And old

automobiles usually end up in

junk yards. The growing vol-

ume and toxicity of the

wastes automobiles produce

constitute a major environ-

mental problem. In response,

the German government has

required auto parts to be

recyclable. This in turn has

led to simpler design, and

fewer, more standardized

parts. The control of automo-

bile technology throughout

its life cycle, one can see, is

also socially complex. Dif-

ferent groups compete to

influence each phase of the

cycle, from automobile pro-

duction through traffic and

use to disposal. Groups such as

manufacturers, technicians, work-

ers, distributors, owner/drivers,

mechanics, communities, including

non-drivers whose health is at risk

from traffic smog, are all stake-

holders in the automobile technolo-

gy. In his classic study of Nuclear

Regulatory Commission hearings

in California Richard Meehan

showed how competing stakehold-

er interests clashed sharply in seek-

ing to influence public decisions

about reactor sites [13]. The ethicalcontrol of complex modern tech-

nologies is becoming a socially

complex and even political process,

one that should be open and demo-

cratic [14], [15].

Social complexity in turn

evokes moral complexity, for

diverse values technical, eco-

nomic, social and ethical com-

pete to guide the control of tech-

nologies throughout their life

cycle. In the industrial era, techno-

logical innovations were increas-

ingly developed in business con-

texts. But market values often

clash with other values, such as

technical quality and efficiency,

social and economic welfare, andenvironmental protection [16].

But, some have argued, the very

possibility of ethical control has

been blocked by a technological

imperative [11]. Anything that is

technologically possible, it dic-

tates, must be done, usually by

experts. But one has doubts about

the imperatives force. Automobile

firms for instance have been able

to resist technological innovations

in fuel efficiency, pollution reduc-

tion, and safety, alleging financial

or competitive concerns; and other

firms have suppressed new tech-

nologies, notably for competitive

reasons [17]. So ethical values,

too, can override any so-called

imperative and influence the con-trol of a technology.

Ethical control is itself morally

complex [18]. The problems that

arise in the development of automo-

biles typically involve what Cather-

ine Whitbeck terms multiple con-

straints cost, comfort, fuel

efficiency, safety, and environmen-

tal protection and they may not


Few foresaw the automobiles

contribution to urban sprawl,adolescent sex, and global

warming.


4/7

be simultaneously satisfiable[19].

Accordingly, one should not expect

a uniquely correct solution, but a

range of acceptable solutions. Bal-

ancing these diverse social, eco-

nomic, technical, and environmental

values presents a significant chal-

lenge to many industry stakehold-

ers: owners, management, technicalprofessionals, mechanics, car own-

ers, junk yard operators, and public

authorities.

It is interesting to note that the

scientific professions like engineer-

ing have all developed multi-val-

ued ethical codes. Those codes typ-

ically stipulate that professionals

should use their technical knowl-

edge for the benefit of clients, the

profession, the community, and the

natural environment [20], [21]. In

this framework, professionalism

itself involves a morally complexmandate: to balance the public wel-

fare, economic growth, scientific

knowledge, and technical efficien-

cy. Living up to these competing

obligations may be difficult; but

they do imply that professional

expertise, and the technostructure,

is not morally neutral. Indeed,

engineers contributed to the pro-

gressive social movements of the

1920s. Indeed it is risky to down-

play expert knowledge in favor of

narrow business interests, ideolo-

gies, or social factions, for techni-

cal knowledge is not merely a

social construct. A respect for pro-

fessional knowledge has guided

several notable scientists and engi-neers, from Rachel Carson to Jeff

Wigand, Roger Boisjoly, and Nan-

cy Olivieri. Each has taken a lead-

ing role in publicly advocating the

ethical control of a technology,

respectively: pesticides, cigarettes,

manned rockets, and pharmaceuti-

cals. The ethical control of a tech-

nology, professionalism sug-

gests, requires one to minimize

the socio-economic and envi-

ronmental risks of a technolo-

gy to acceptable levels, while

realizing its technical and

socio-economic benefits.

Technological innovation is

frequently unpredictable. The

newer a technology, and the

faster the pace of innovation,

the less anyone can foresee or

control its development and

impacts as it moves through its

life cycle [22]. In 1900, for

example, few if any foresaw

the contraceptive pill, peni-

cillin, TV, nuclear energy,

genetics, or the computer [23].

A century ago one might pre-

dict that society would need to

construct more roads as the

number of automobiles

increased, but few foresaw the

automobiles contribution to urban

sprawl, adolescent sex, and global

warming. Indeed the more radical

an innovation the less predictable

its life cycle or its socio-economic

and environmental impacts. Whatwas originally a fertility pill for

example became a contraceptive,

and advanced the emancipation of

women. Technology life cycles fur-

thermore are becoming shorter, as

the pace of technological change

speeds up. As the complexity,

unpredictability and pace of events,

and the severity of global environ-

mental stress soar, Thomas

Homer-Dixon claims, modern soci-

eties face an ingenuity gap, a

shortfall between the rapidly rising

need for ingenuity and the inade-

quate supply [24]. And that inge-

nuity gap grows still wider as tech-

nologies themselves interact in

ever larger Technology Networks.

TECHNOLOGY NETWORKSTechnology Networks link dif-

ferent technologies serving a com-

mon function, such as transporta-

tion, communication, or energy.

Networks are usually more com-

plex and larger in scale than their

component technologies. Specific

tools and technologies may come

and go, but the underlying networks

persist, for networks have longer

life cycles than do their component

technologies and tools. This is part-

ly for an ethical reason. Network

functions satisfy fundamental

human needs, e.g., for communica-

tion, energy, transportation, etc.

Large scale communication, trans-

portation, and energy networks

emerged in modern societies over

the last century to serve the needs of

their growing populations.

In a technology network one

finds diverse technologies at differ-

ent stages in their life cycle, all

competing for users with different

needs and preferences. In commu-

nications networks, users can

choose between phones, regular

mail, email, radios, TV, and com-

puters to fulfill their communica-

tion needs. In energy networks, user

options include electrical, natural

gas, oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar,

and passive energy technologies.

The competition among old and

new technologies to serve a func-tion has ethical implications. Inter-

mediate technologies and simple

user friendly tools such as a vil-

lage phone or small diesel engine,

E. F. Schumacher claimed, may be

more appropriate to the needs of

communities in less developed

societies than newer, more complex

high tech systems such as the latest


Indeed the more radical an

innovation the less predictable

its life cycle or its

socio-economic and

environmental impacts.


5/7

Internet computer email system or a

nuclear reactor [5]. Similarly, pub-

lic energy policy in modern soci-

eties should explore all energy tech-

nology options including

conservation, rather than restrict

itself to fossil fuels and nuclear.

Given their technical complexi-

ty, network operators need to bewell educated and technically

trained. The need for a technically

informed moral intelligence was

learned early in the history of engi-

neering [21], [25]. That lesson was

tragically reinforced in spring 2000

when the technically untrained

manager of the Walkerton, Ontario,

Public Utility ignored test lab data

showing fatal e. coli bacteria in the

towns water supply and did not

respond to related inquiries from

the area Medical Officer of Health.

As a result seven townspeople died

and hundreds more got sick, many

seriously [26].

Networks are socially complex

in their organization. Large public

and private organizations like states

and corporations alone tend to have

the social resources and technical

expertise to operate large commu-

nication and energy networks [27].

Thus the BBC and CBC are gov-

ernment owned broadcasting

media, while ABC, Fox, CBS,

NBC, and cable TV are private

businesses. Bell Canada runs the

central Canadian phone system,

and private firms generate electric-

ity, while governments own the dis-

tribution grids. Radio, TV, and

energy networks are all regulated

by government agencies, such the

FCC in the U.S. and the CRTC in

Canada and by numerous state and

province energy commissions.

Network boundaries are more-over often vague and ill-defined,

extending beyond buildings and

towns to whole regions and conti-

nents. Both international commu-

nications and financial markets

flow across organizational and

political borders. Such networks

call for decentralized organization

and widely distributed control sys-

tems. Centralized control seems

inappropriate for very high speed

and high volume electronic com-

munication networks. Efficient

functioning is also affected by the

way networks integrate channel

bandwidth, routing, and nodes, as

well as filter signals from noise,

etc. To ensure network resiliencetheir components should be loosely

coupled and pathways designed to

allow messages to flow around bot-

tlenecks, as in the Internet and

transportation networks.

Network administration and

transaction costs should be mini-

mal so that message transmission,

energy, and traffic flows are close

to frictionless. Easy access, low

transaction costs, and minimal

administrative oversight are

required to enable these dynamic

networks to continue to operate

efficiently. Almost free access and

low-fee, subscription or rental

based user rights seem to fit elec-

tronic communications networks

such as the phone, email, and the

Internet [28], [29]. This also affects

network ownership. Forms of

shared network ownership and

joint control are even accepted in

private broadcasting media. Where

resources are mobile and flow

through networks, as in the case of

information, electricity, oil, gas,

birds, and fish, ownership should

be common and public rather than

private [30]. The bundle of owner-

ship rights, that is, should be dis-

tributed among network producers,

distributors (or communicators),

system operators, and service

providers, both public and private.

Contemporary electronic media

process information in nanosecond

time slices. If we think of our high-speed communication, energy, and

transportation networks as rivers

flowing at high speeds and vol-

umes, then you may not be able to

step into the same river twice, as

Heraclitus observed 2500 years

ago. And he might have added, the

high speeds and volumes have

affected our values [31]. Instant

service and easy access are now

expected in our social life. Many

wrist watches have split second

stop watch functions. Millions of

people daily drive autos and fly

planes, where they are increasingly

treated in high volume terms, not

unlike human freight. And ease of

access and openness in communi-cation networks has its risks, to pri-

vacy and data security. So our fast-

flowing, open access information

networks should be guided by a

communication ethic of respect for

the integrity of information flows,

and for data integrity, privacy, and

copyright.

The great rivers of information

and traffic flowing through todays

communication, energy, and road

traffic networks are in addition

prone to sudden flooding. The high

speed flows in communications

networks and electricity grids leave

little time to respond to emergen-

cies. Small problems in one part of

a network can rapidly multiply and

spread through the network, espe-

cially if its subsystems are tightly

interconnected. Gridlock can

develop very quickly, and threaten

to shut down whole regions. The

failure of electricity, communica-

tions, or air traffic networks, can

moreover pose serious risks to wel-

fare and public safety. Networks

whose flows are reinforced by pos-

itive feedback loops are especially

crisis prone, as shown by the 1995,

1997, and 2000 crises in electronic

financial markets in Mexico, Asia,

and Silicon Valley.

One way to reduce the risk of

breakdown may be to be more

responsive to negative feedback, so

that early warnings of emerging

problems receive a timely response.Keeping such networks distributed,

loosely coupled, and resilient can

reduce the ingenuity gap between

the need to minimize risks of break-

down and the available supply of

relevant technical and moral intelli-

gence [24]. Computerized high

speed sensors and flexible response

technologies might be designed to



6/7

facilitate rapid response to early

warnings of problems. For flows in

some networks move near the speed

of light e.g., in financial trading.

Communication and collaboration

among network users, operators,

experts, and other stakeholders

should also be enhanced, and sup-

ported by democratic, participatoryapproaches to control [8], [13], [14].

Technology Fields however offer an

even greater ethical challenge.

TECHNOLOGY FIELDSA Technology Field is all the

tools, technologies and networks

present in any defined space and

time, e.g., in a room over a day.

Technology networks commonly

cut across field boundaries. While a

technology fields boundaries are

arbitrary, they are well defined.

And distinct borders constitute the

infrastructure of the sovereign

state. They also open technology

fields to regulation by that areas

political authorities. But technolo-

gy fields range widely in size, from

mini-fields like rooms to regional

and planetary mega-fields. Tech-

nology fields are even found in

space, as the growing pile of space

debris indicates. But few govern-

ments, corporations, or internation-

al organizations have adequate

resources even to inventory a

regional technology field, much

less control it.

Within a technology field, dif-

ferent technology networks com-

pete for dominance. Success in that

competition defined the Stone, Iron

and Bronze Ages, and more recent-

ly the Industrial Age. In it, mechan-

ical and chemical energy, produc-

tion, and transportation networks

prevailed over the organic net-works based on agriculture and vil-

lage life; but the older technolo-

gies, e.g., in agriculture, did not

completely disappear. The pace of

technological change has also sped

up, as technology field life cycles

have shortened. The Stone Age

endured a millenium, but the indus-

trial era lasted only about 250

years, and is now giving way to a

new communications age.

The emergence of regional and

global technology mega-fields over

the last 50 years reflects an evolu-

tionarily unprecedented level of

competition between human popu-

lations and other species for

ecosystem resources. The pace ofspecies extinctions has ratcheted up

across the globe. Unlike previous

eras, Richard Rhodes comments,

today we swim in technology as

fish swim in the sea [1]. Technol-

ogy fields shift the ethical control

focus to the sea more than the fish,

that is, to our technological envi-

ronments and their impacts on nat-

ural ecosystems [32].

The ambivalence of the interna-

tional political communitys

response to the environmental cri-

sis, like the timidity of the Kyoto

treatys requirements, suggest that

few political leaders grasp the

epochal significance of technology

mega-fields. This reflects the ill-

noted fact that the density of tech-

nology fields, or the number of

technologies in relation to popula-

tion, has increased significantly

over the last two centuries. (The

greater the technology-to-popula-

tion ratio, the denser the technolo-

gy field). Contrast for example the

U.S., France, or Japan with Kaza-

khstan, Romania, or an Aboriginal

community. In these societies both

economic development and envi-

ronmental impact levels correlate

with the technology density level.

The rise in species extinctions,

global warming, acid rain, and

ozone layer depletion, all reflect

the emergence of highly dense

technology mega-fields. The envi-

ronmental crisis may representecological revenge effects as

nature responds to technology field

size and density [33]. The radical

mitigation of the environmental

impacts in fact may represent the

major ethical challenge facing civi-

lization in the coming century.

Density, furthermore, affects the

ethical control of a technology

field. The thinner a field, the more

one can identify its technologies;

but the impacts of new technolo-

gies on a thin field are at times as

extensive as they are unpredictable.

The invention of the spur for exam-

ple transformed medieval society.

The more dense a field is, the less

observable and predictable it alsomay be. At the field level of analy-

sis then one discerns a kernel of

truth in talk of technology out of

control [34]. On the other hand

fields are mere aggregates of dis-

parate technologies, not

autonomous technical systems.

Which technologies in a field

interact, and which dont, which are

loosely coupled, and which tightly

coupled, are often unclear. Which

interactions in a technology field

produce which social and environ-

mental impacts is largely unknown.

And technology fields contain what

Homer-Dixon calls unknown

unknowns, or situations where we

often dont know what we dont

know [24]. In them, then, 21st cen-

tury civilization faces a critical inge-

nuity gap. While the supply of

knowledge increases, so do the

environmental and social problems

created by the interactions between

technology fields and human popu-

lations, locally and globally. The

ratio of knowledges to unknowns

may not be changing in our favor.

Since humans have in truth never

been able to completely control

their society or their future, attempts

to control technology mega-fields

represent daunting regulatory chal-

lenges for political and international

authorities. The need for an

informed and effective moral intelli-

gence to control technical systems,

it seems, is constantly growing.

COMPLEX CONCLUSIONSThe ethical control of technolo-

gies, we have seen, varies with the

scale and complexity of the techni-

cal system; and those systems in

turn vary in their systemic, social,

and moral complexity. Individuals

may control tools like knives and



7/7

technologies like automobiles and

do a tentative inventory of the tech-

nology mini-field in their resi-

dences, but the control of commu-

nication and energy networks

requires large organizations. As

technologies themselves become

more complex, control requires

additional knowledge, know how,and, usually, formal education and

training. And as the pace of techno-

logical change increases, old

knowledge and norms become out-

dated and ineffective.

Ethical control starts with small

baby steps, e.g., in handling tools

and technologies. Small scale

experiments can help us climb the

relevant learning curve. In her cri-

tique of the unthinking overuse of

highly toxic pesticides, for exam-

ple, Rachel Carson argued for an

ethical control strategy, viz., pre-

testing pesticides, small pilot pro-

jects, and favoring biological over

technological controls [35]. The

ethical control project, especially

of technology networks and fields,

is complicated by the interplay of

diverse norms: e.g., technical, eco-

nomic, social, and environmental.

And as we move from tools to tech-

nologies, networks, and fields,

diverse stakeholders and often con-

flicting interests compete to affect

their control. The result is calls for

open but slow democratic control

processes, and regional and global

collaboration. But not all claims

are equally credible, nor are all

interests equally at risk. So we

always need to exercise our moral

intelligence. We need to solve the

ethical problems at issue. We need

to learn from our failures as well as

build on our successes. In many

cases we need to minimize the riskof disaster [6]. To that end we need

to become more responsive to ear-

ly warnings of problems, while

they are still solvable, long before

we face a full blown crisis. Tech-

nology can help here. Electronic

communications networks can

facilitate better detection and more

rapid emergency response.

The ethical control of increasing-ly complex technologies, networks

and fields may affect the future path

of civilization and, as, the environ-

mental crisis suggests, the planetary

ecosystem itself. Hopefully, the

challenges it involves do not tran-

scend the limitations of our collec-

tive moral intelligence.

REFERENCES[1] R. Rhodes, Ed., Visions of Technology,New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1998,pp. 21, 22, 329.

[2] V. di Norcia,Hard Like Water: Ethics inBusiness. Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ.Press, 1998.[3] C. Whitbeck, Ethics in EngineeringPractice and Research, Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, ch. 1 and 2.[4] M. Martin and R. Shinzinger,Introduc-tion to Engineering Ethics. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill, 1999.[5] E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful,2nd ed. Vancouver, B.C.: Hartley andMarks, 1999, pp. 146f.[6] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, ch. I,sect. 7.[7] C. Perrow, Normal Accidents, Livingwith High Risk Technologies. New York,NY: Harper, 1984.

[8] U. Franklin, The Real World of Technol-ogy, 2nd ed. Toronto, Ont.: Anansi, 1999,ch. 4, pp. 10f.[9] E. J.Woodhouse and D. Nieusma,When expert advice works, and when itdoes not, Technology and Society Mag.,pp. 23-29, Spr. 1997.[10] J. K. Galbraith, The New IndustrialState. New York, NY: New American, 1967,ch. VI.[11] C. Freeman and L. Soete, The Eco-nomics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd ed.London, U.K.: Pinter, 1997.[12] R. Buderi,Engines of Tomorrow. NewYork, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2000.[13] R. Meehan, The Atom and the Fault,Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1984, ch 8, 1984.

[14] C. Mitcham, Justifying public partic-ipation in technical decision making, Tech-

nology and Society Mag., pp. 40-46, Spr.1997.[15] J. Herkert, Ethical risk assessment:valuing public perceptions, Technologyand Society Mag., pp 4-10, Spr. 1994.[16] N. Balabanian, Controlling technolo-gy: Should we rely on the marketplace?Technology and Society Mag., pp. 23-30,Sum. 2000.[17] R. Dunford, Suppressing Technolo-gy, Administrative Science Quart., pp.

512-25, 1987.[18] G.F. McLean, Integrating ethics anddesign, Technology and Society Mag., pp.19-30, Fall 1993.[19] C. Whitbeck, The trouble with dilem-mas, Business and Professional Ethics,vol. 1, nos. 1 and 2, pp. 119-141, 1992.[20] C. Morison and P. Hughes, Profession-al Engineering Practice: Ethical Aspects,2nd ed. Toronto, Ont.: McGraw-Hill Ryer-son, 1988.[20] H. A. Linstone, Technological slow-down or societal speedup the price of sys-tem complexity? Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change, vol. 51, pp.195-205, 1996.[21] E. Leyton, The Revolt of the Engineers.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ., chs.2 and 3, 1986.[23] M. Sullivan, America in 1900, inVisions of Technology, R. Rhodes, Ed. NewYork, NY: Simon and Schuster, pp. 29f, 1998.[24] T. Homer-Dixon. The Ingenuity Gap.New York, NY: Knopf, 2000, pp. 1f, 26f,ch. 1 and 7.[25] W.D. Rifkin and B. Martin, Negotiat-ing expert status, Technology and Society

Mag., pp 30-39, Spr. 1997.[26] S. Oziewicz and P. Cheney, Thiscould have been prevented, The Globe and

Mail, May 26, 2000.[27] W. Rowland, The Spirit of the Web:The Age of Information from Telegraph to

Internet. Toronto, Ont.: Key Porter, 1999.

[28] Tim Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web.New York, NY: Harper, 1999.[29] M. Stefik, Ed. The Internet Edge.Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1999.[30] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons,Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press,1990.[31] J. Gleick, Faster. New York, NY: Vin-tage, 2000.[32] P. A. Vesilind and A. S. Gunn, Engi-neering Ethics and the Environment. Cam-bridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.[33] E. Tenner. Why Things Bite Back. NewYork, NY: Vintage, 1996, pp. 5f.[34] L. Winner, Autonomous Technology.Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1977, ch. 5, pp.197f.

[35] R. Carson, Silent Spring. New York,NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1994.


1800040-2004-12 - technological complexity and ethical control

Documents