Just Another Guy in the Room

For a long while, and even to a certain extent now, the United States is a world leader and has certain self-proclaimed authority to assert itself. We were the one in charge, but that power is shifting -- or rather, it's being spread out among other countries. We are becoming just another guy in the room of nations; granted, we are still one of the tough guys, but there are others, too.

It's difficult to think of any areas in which we are bringing up the rear, and it's also difficult to think of any modern areas in which we are in the forefront. One of the biggest factors in development -- education -- though, shows us that we are not doing as well as we may think. 2009 data shows that the U.S. is somewhere in the middle of the top 34 countries, ranking significantly lower in math than in science or reading. Over the last several years, we have been either steady or slowly dropping in scores while other countries, including those who are low in the ranks, are improving. We are indeed highly ranked on the education index, but this only accounts for literacy rates and education enrollment rates.

What about happiness? We are all people with a finite time on this planet, so naturally we want to be happy in life. If a country is doing well in the global market, it doesn't really matter if its citizens are miserable. Similarly, it shouldn't be as big of a problem if we're "just another guy in the room" so long as we are very happy. Of course, "happiness" is a difficult thing to measure on a national scale, though some organizations are attempting to establish such studies. Similarly, the Happy Planet Index measures the "ecological efficiency of supporting well-being" within countries. Here, the U.S. ranks incredibly low at number 150 in the year 2006, though we rose to 114 in 2009. It may seem surprising that certain countries, like Cuba, rank highly in this index, but the HPI does not look at political and economical factors that often make countries undesirable in our view. "The HPI is based on general utilitarian principles — that most people want to live long and fulfilling lives, and the country which is doing the best is the one that allows its citizens to do so, whilst avoiding infringing on the opportunity of future people and people in other countries to do the same."

It should be obvious that no single index is perfect and that no measure can capture every aspect of the very complex and dynamic machines that are countries. It should also be obvious that the United States is not an unchallenged leader in the global arena, and that we should pay careful attention to our nation and the nations around us.

Great Achievements

We like to think of the United States as a glorious proving ground for innovation and engineering achievements, and indeed it often does produce some fantastic results. It's also a misconception to think that we are the kings of advancement and that we are the foremost global leader in everything. In fact, we are falling behind in many areas -- even in areas where we planted the seed.

For one, let us look at the internet, which started with ARPANET in the United States. In 2007, we were far behind in survey of national internet speeds, and in 2010 we still were not even in the top 10. We may see improvements over time, but year after year we fall behind other countries. While we may have more people on the net than any other country, many advocates blame a lack of competition for our failing development. We have a near purely corporate-driven ISP system, but the marketplace thrives on regional monopoly rather than competitiveness, offering little or no incentive for service improvement. In the meantime, other countries plow ahead in the global marketplace.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, small engineering feats emerge out of necessity -- at least, they are small in terms of scale and complexity, but they can be immense in terms of impact. A great example is the WaterCone (this one is slightly different than the AquaCone listed on the assignment page). It's a hard plastic cone that's designed to rest over a tray of water, collecting distilled vapors and condensing water into a ring around the base. The unit is user-friendly such that, to remove the water, one simply unscrews a cap on top and pours the water into a container. Such a simple yet effective technology has come out of the rising realization of a need for clean water in under-developed countries. The device can be created for about $30 and lasts about 5 years, and even that could be improved with further manufacturing and mass production techniques, making this an effective solution for providing clean water. Examples like these remind us that engineering is not just about creating immensely complex systems for a technological world. Engineering is also about finding simple solutions for huge problems in a highly unequal and challenging world.

A Habit That's Hard to Break

We live in an era of material wealth where our value is based upon our ability to earn money and then spend that money on "stuff," as is described to some shocking level in Annie Leonard's film Story of Stuff, Full Version; How Things Work, About Stuff . We've become so involved in this life style where we focus on acquiring, using, and discarding goods as quickly as possible and on always having the newest model of whatever it is we have. What we typically don't realize is that a cell phone, battery, napkin, or any other object involves much more than just buying it, using it, and discarding it. In fact, there is an entire product life cycle from extraction of the materials, to manufacturing, distribution and sales, use, and waste. The support of this cycle requires immense energy and physical resources -- even something as simple as a cup of coffee requires substantial effort from multiple countries and resource centers.

The resources that go into this cycle, and the process of moving those resources from extraction to refinement to use in the product, is the supply chain. To support our growing demand for "stuff," we need huge supply chains on a global scale. In fact, we've become so dependent on these global supply chains that disruptions in single links can cause major problems. Now, our dependence on these supply chains is neither an inherently good nor bad thing. It's a habit we have gotten ourselves into, but not all habits are good. Brushing your teeth daily and smoking are both habits, but clearly not of the same ends. Global supply chains carry issues such as volatility and exploitation, but it also provides deep reserves of resources to match demand and a wide selection for manufacturers so that they may choose the highest quality and cost effective materials.

What we need to realize is that we cannot simply disconnect from these global supply chains even if we wanted to. We are tied to them for the time being. We have become so tightly connected to the global supply chain because our enormous demands for consumption require enormous supplies of materials, and it's easier and easier for us to buy more and more inexpensive, disposable items because the global supply chain enables low-cost and effective resources. It has become a self-feeding cycle from which it may be extremely difficult to remove ourselves. Any change on a global scale will be slow.

How we continue forward with the global supply chain model does not necessarily require a given direction in how we continue to use resources. It is possible for us to push forward with efforts in recycling and renewable resources while also continuing to expand the global market. Different countries may specialize in different parts of product life cycles or in different resources, which can be beneficial for the global market. We must look at this system as a whole and realize that the flash drive sitting on our desk took quite a journey from many far away lands in order to end up sitting in front of you.

The War Against Social Media

Social media has no doubt become a powerful tool in recent years, and it reflects the modern paradigm shift from a market of tangible goods to a market of information. We are becoming increasingly linked, and it seems that, for many people in developed countries, the only way to achieve the peace that comes with isolation is to travel far from civilization -- I can attest to this from my trip to Big Basin state park last Summer.

Social media, much like the printed book or even a gun, by itself represents an idea. A printed book represents a freedom of information and access to that information; a gun represents the power and authority placed into the hands of an individual or government; social media represents the flow of ideas and a shared, collective intelligence among society. However, it's only a matter of time before books become an enabling tool for education and propaganda, guns become a tool for hunting and genocide, and social media becomes a tool for revolution and prosecution.

The internet, another enabling technology, has seen a deluge of news articles and blogs on cyber-sharing's role in dissent in Egypt and Tunisia, and it's been sparking rebellion and revolution in countless other countries in a cascade of power shifting. This part of the story has been covered over and over, leaving few rocks unturned. I would like to explore another face of the story: the story of the political response to this new interconnectedness and freedom of sharing among those people who, previously, were under the tight control of their government. It used to be the case that rulers could trickle information to their people, shaping views and restraining dissent; but, in the same way that the printing press freed our dependence upon holy men to read Latin scripts to their congregation, social media has allowed the sharing of ideas -- including ideas of change.

Many political responses have been as expected, such as Egypt's attempt at severing the internet to cut off the flow of dissent, reveiling that the Middle East is vulnerable to such cyber tactics. Some responses, however, have been a tad shocking, if not also concerning. Water and squirt gun fights, organized over Facebook as mere fun demonstrations, have been interpreted has threats and squashed by police forces in Iran, and even the UK has jumped the gun and made arrests for such non-violent events organized over social media outlets.

Some responses have been much more extreme, illustrating that governments and organizations are seeing social media as a serious threat to their status quo ante. Britain's Prime Minister has even gone so far as to consider restrictions on social media. Incidents have even occurred here in the U.S. Recently, protests planned at BART stations in San Francisco sparked BART to shutdown cell phone networks in an effort to hamper the events. The highly controversial decision ignited fierce debate and even called in the FCC to be involved.

Social media has not just been an enabling technology for change and revolution through the free flow of information. It has also been a powerful force in the political world, and it is not one which we can ignore.