Karwat Darshan M A, Eagle Walter E, Wooldridge Margaret S, Princen Thomas E
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 2293 GG Brown, 2350 Hayward, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2125, USA,
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Feb;21(1):227-39. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9525-0. Epub 2014 Feb 22.
In this paper, we reflect on current notions of engineering practice by examining some of the motives for engineered solutions to the problem of climate change. We draw on fields such as science and technology studies, the philosophy of technology, and environmental ethics to highlight how dominant notions of apoliticism and ahistoricity are ingrained in contemporary engineering practice. We argue that a solely technological response to climate change does not question the social, political, and cultural tenet of infinite material growth, one of the root causes of climate change. In response to the contemporary engineering practice, we define an activist engineer as someone who not only can provide specific engineered solutions, but who also steps back from their work and tackles the question, What is the real problem and does this problem "require" an engineering intervention? Solving complex problems like climate change requires radical cultural change, and a significant obstacle is educating engineers about how to conceive of and create "authentic alternatives," that is, solutions that differ from the paradigm of "technologically improving" our way out of problems. As a means to realize radically new solutions, we investigate how engineers might (re)deploy the concept of praxis, which raises awareness in engineers of the inherent politics of technological design. Praxis empowers engineers with a more comprehensive understanding of problems, and thus transforms technologies, when appropriate, into more socially just and ecologically sensitive interventions. Most importantly, praxis also raises a radical alternative rarely considered-not "engineering a solution." Activist engineering offers a contrasting method to contemporary engineering practice and leads toward social justice and ecological protection through problem solving by asking not, How will we technologize our way out of the problems we face? but instead, What really needs to be done?
在本文中，我们通过审视应对气候变化问题的工程解决方案的一些动机，来反思当前的工程实践观念。我们借鉴科学技术研究、技术哲学和环境伦理学等领域的知识，以突出非政治化和非历史化的主导观念是如何深深植根于当代工程实践之中的。我们认为，对气候变化仅采取技术层面的应对措施，并未对无限物质增长这一气候变化的根本原因之一的社会、政治和文化信条提出质疑。针对当代工程实践，我们将行动主义工程师定义为这样一种人：他们不仅能够提供具体的工程解决方案，还能从自己的工作中抽身，思考这样一个问题，即真正的问题是什么，以及这个问题是否“需要”工程干预？解决气候变化等复杂问题需要彻底的文化变革，而一个重大障碍是教育工程师如何构思和创造“真正的替代方案”，也就是不同于“通过技术改进”来解决问题的范式的解决方案。作为实现全新解决方案的一种手段，我们研究工程师如何可能（重新）运用实践的概念，这能提高工程师对技术设计内在政治性的认识。实践使工程师对问题有更全面的理解，从而在适当的时候将技术转变为更具社会正义性和生态敏感性的干预措施。最重要的是，实践还提出了一个很少被考虑的激进替代方案——不是“设计一个解决方案”。行动主义工程提供了一种与当代工程实践截然不同的方法，通过解决问题来实现社会正义和生态保护，它提出的问题不是“我们将如何通过技术手段解决我们面临的问题？”，而是“真正需要做的是什么？”
Zotero 插件