text:
Technically Together
Alternative Modernities
Follow or Contact Me
Why Putting Guns in Schools is a Terrible Idea
There have been no shortage of (mainly conservative) pundits and politicians suggesting that the path to fewer school shootings is armed teachers—and even custodians. Although it is entirely likely that such recommendations are not really serious but rather meant to distract from calls for stricter gun control legislation, it is still important to evaluate them. As someone who researches and teaches about the causes of unintended consequences, accidents, and disasters for a living, I find the idea that arming public school workers will make children safer highly suspect—but not for the reasons one might think.
If there is one commonality across myriad cases of political and technological mistakes, it would be the failure to acknowledge complexity. Nuclear reactors designed for military submarines were scaled up over an order of magnitude to power civilian power plants without sufficient recognition of how that affected their safety. Large reactors can get so hot that containing a meltdown becomes impossible, forcing managers to be ever vigilant to the smallest errors and install backup cooling systems—which only increased difficult to manage complexities. Designers of autopilot systems neglected to consider how automation hurt the abilities of airline pilots, leading to crashes when the technology malfunctioned and now-deskilled pilots were forced to take over. A narrow focus on applying simple technical solutions to complex problems generally leads to people being caught unawares by ensuing unanticipated outcomes.
Debate about whether to put more guns in schools tends to emphasize the solution's supposed efficacy. Given that even the "good guy with a gun" best positioned to stop the Parkland shooting failed to act, can we reasonably expect teachers to do much better? In light of the fact that mass shootings have even occurred at military bases, what reason do we have to believe that filling educational institutions with armed personnel will reduce the lethality of such incidents? As important as these questions are, they divert our attention to the new kinds of errors produced by applying a simplistic solution—more guns—to a complex problem.
A comparison with the history of nuclear armaments should give us pause. Although most American during the Cold War worried about potential atomic war with the Soviets, Cubans, or Chinese, much of the real risks associated with nuclear weapons involve accidental detonation. While many believed during the Cuban Missile Crisis that total annihilation would come from nationalistic posturing and brinkmanship, it was actually ordinary incompetence that brought us closest. Strategic Air Command's insistence on maintaining U2 and B52 flights and intercontinental ballistic missiles tests during periods of heightened risked a military response from the Soviet Union: pilots invariably got lost and approached Soviet airspace and missile tests could have been misinterpreted to be malicious. Malfunctioning computer chips made NORAD's screens light up with incoming Soviet missiles, leading the US to prep and launch nuclear-armed jets. Nuclear weapons stored at NATO sites in Turkey and elsewhere were sometimes guarded by a single American soldier. Nuclear armed B52s crashed or accidently released their payloads, with some coming dangerously close to detonation.
Much the same would be true for the arming of school workers: The presence and likelihood routine human error would put children at risk. Millions of potentially armed teachers and custodians translates into an equal number of opportunities for a troubled student to steal weapons that would otherwise be difficult to acquire. Some employees are likely to be as incompetent as Michelle Ferguson-Montogomery, a teacher who shot herself in the leg at her Utah school—though may not be so lucky as to not hit a child. False alarms will result not simply in lockdowns but armed adults roaming the halls and, as result, the possibility of children killed for holding cellphones or other objects that can be confused for weapons. Even "good guys" with guns miss the target at least some of the time.
The most tragic unintended consequence, however, would be how arming employees would alter school life and the personalities of students. Generations of Americans mentally suffered under Cold War fears of nuclear war. Given the unfortunate ways that many from those generations now think in their old age: being prone to hyper-partisanship, hawkish in foreign affairs, and excessively fearful of immigrants, one worries how a generation of kids brought up in quasi-militarized schools could be rendered incapable of thinking sensibly about public issues—especially when it comes to national security and crime.
This last consequence is probably the most important one. Even though more attention ought to be paid toward the accidental loss of life likely to be caused by arming school employees, it is far too easy to endlessly quibble about the magnitude and likelihood of those risks. That debate is easily scientized and thus dominated by a panoply of experts, each claiming to provide an "objective" assessment regarding whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks. The pathway out of the morass lies in focusing on values, on how arming teachers—and even "lockdown" drills— fundamentally disrupts the qualities of childhood that we hold dear. The transformation of schools into places defined by a constant fear of senseless violence turns them into places that cannot feel as warm, inviting, and communal as they otherwise could. We should be skeptical of any policy that promises greater security only at the cost of the more intangible features of life that make it worth living.
Community in the Age of Limited Liability
Although it seems clears that mid-20th century predictions of the demise of community have yet to come to pass—most people continue to socially connect with others—many observers are too quick to declare that all is well. Indeed, in my recent book, I critique the tendency by some contemporary sociologists to write as if people today have never had it better when it comes to social togetherness, as if we have reached a state of communal perfection. The way that citizens do community in contemporary technological societies has been breathlessly described as a new "revolutionary social operating system" that recreates the front porch of previous generations within our digital devices. There is quite a lot to say regarding how such pronouncements fail to give recognition to the qualitative changes to social life in the digital age, changes that impact how meaningful and satisfying people find it to be. Here I will just focus on one particular way in which contemporary community life is relatively thinner than what has existed at other times and places.
After she was raped in 2013, Gina Tron's social networks were anything but revolutionary. In addition to the trauma of the act itself, she suffered numerous indignities in the process of trying to work within the contemporary justice system to bring charges against her attacker. During such trying times, at a moment when one would most need the loving support of friends, her social network abandoned her. Friends shunned her because they were afraid of having to deal with emotional outbursts, because they worried that just hearing about the experience would be traumatic, or because they felt that they would not be able to moan melodramatically about their more mundane complaints in the presence of someone with a genuine problem.
Within the logic of networked individualism, that revolutionary social operating system extoled by some contemporary sociologists, such behavior is unsurprising. Social networks are defined not so much by commitment but by mutually advantageous social exchanges. Social atoms connect to individually trade something of value rather than because they share a common world or devotion to a common future. For members of Tron's social network, the costs of connecting after her rape seemed to exceed the benefits; socializing in the aftermath of the event would force them to give more support than they themselves would receive.
Even the institutions that had previously centered community life—namely churches—now often function similarly to weak social networks. Many evangelical churches seem more like weekly sporting events than neighborhood centers, boasting membership rolls in the thousands and putting on elaborate multimedia spectacles in gargantuan halls that often rival contemporary pop music acts. No doubt social networks do form through such places, providing smaller scale forms of togetherness and personal support in times of need. Yet there are often firm limits to the degree of support such churches will give, limits that many people would find horrifying.
A large number of evangelical megachurches have their roots in and continue to preach prosperity theology. In this theological system, God is believed to reliably provide security and prosperity to those who are faithful and pious. A byproduct of such a view is that leaders of many, if not most, megachurches find it relatively unproblematic to personally enrich themselves with the offerings given by (often relatively impoverished) attendees, purchasing million dollar homes and expensive automobiles. Prosperity theology gives megachurch pastors a language through which they can frame such actions as anything but unethical or theologically contradictory, but rather merely a reflection and reinforcement of their own godliness.
The worst outcome of prosperity theology comes out of logically deducing its converse: If piety brings prosperity, then hardship must be the result of sin and faithlessness. Indeed, as Kate Bowler describes, one megachurch asked a long-attending member stricken with cancer to stop coming to service. The fact that his cancer persisted, despite his membership, was taken as sign of some harmful impropriety; his presence, as a result, was viewed as posing a transcendental risk to the rest of the membership. It appears that, within prosperity theology, community is to be withdrawn from members in their moments of greatest need.
However, many contemporary citizens have largely abandoned traditional religious institutions, preferring instead to worship at the altar of physical performance. CrossFit is especially noteworthy for both the zeal of its adherents and the viciousness of the charges launched by critics, who frequently describe the fitness movement as "cultlike." Although such claims can seem somewhat exaggerated, there is some kernel of truth to them. Julie Beck, for instance, has recently noted the extreme evangelical enthusiasm of many CrossFitters.
While there is nothing problematic about developing social community via physical recreation per se—indeed, athletic clubs and bowling leagues served that purpose in the past—what caught my eye about CrossFit was how easy it was to be pushed out of the community. There is an element of exclusivity to it. Adherents like to point to disabled members as evidence that CrossFit is ostensibly for everyone. Yet for those who get injured, partly as a result of the fitness movement's narrow emphasis on "beat the clock" weightlifting routines at the expense of careful attention to form, frequently find themselves being assigned sole responsibility for damaging their bodies. Although the environment encourages—even deifies—the pushing of limits, individual members are themselves blamed if they go too far. In any case, those suffering an injury are essentially exiled, at least temporarily; there are no "social" memberships to CrossFit: You are either there pushing limits or not there at all.
In contrast to Britney Summit-Gil's argument that community is characterized by the ease by which people can leave, I contend that thick communities are defined by the stickiness of membership. I do not mean that it is necessarily hard to leave them—they are by no means cults—but that membership is not so easily revoked, and especially not during times of need. No doubt there are advantages to thinly communal social networks. People use them to advance their career, fundraise for important causes, and build open source software. Yet we should be wary of their underlying logic of limited commitment, of limited liability, becoming the model for community writ large. If social networks are indeed revolutionary, then we should carefully examine their politics: Do they really provide us with the "liberation" we seek or just new forms of hardship? Have new masters simply taken the place of the old ones? Those are questions citizens cannot begin to intelligently consider if they are too absorbed with marveling over new technical wonders, too busy standing in awe of the strength of weak ties.
Musk's NY to DC Hyperloop Likely to Be a Boondoggle
Although Elon Musk's recent cryptic tweets about getting approval to build a Hyperloop system connecting New York and Washington DC are likely to be well received among techno-enthusiasts--many of whom see him as Tony Stark incarnate--there are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical. Musk, of course, has never shied away from proposing and implementing what would otherwise seem to be fairly outlandish technical projects; however, the success of large-scale technological projects depends on more than just getting the engineering right. Given that Musk has provided few signs that he considers the sociopolitical side of his technological undertakings with the same care that he gives the technical aspects (just look at the naivete of his plans for governing a Mars colony), his Hyperloop project is most likely going to be a boondoggle--unless he is very, very lucky.
Don't misunderstand my intentions, dear reader. I wish Mr. Musk all the best. If climate scientists are correct, technological societies ought to be doing everything they can to get citizens out of their cars, out of airplanes, and into trains. Generally I am in favor of any project that gets us one step closer to that goal. However, expensive failures would hurt the legitimacy of alternative transportation projects, in addition to sucking up capital that could be used on projects that are more likely to succeed. So what leads me to believe that the Hyperloop, as currently envisioned, is probably destined for trouble?
Musk's proposals, as well as the arguments of many of his cheerleaders, are marked by an extreme degree of faith in the power of engineering calculation. This faith flies in the face of much of the history of technological change, which has primarily been a incremental, trial-and-error affair often resulting in more failures than success stories. The complexity of reality and of contemporary technologies dwarfs people's ability to model and predict. Hyman Rickover, the officer in charge of developing the Navy's first nuclear submarine, described at the length the significant differences between "paper reactors" and "real reactors," namely that the latter are usually behind schedule, hugely expensive, and surprisingly complicated by what would normally be trivial issues. In fact, part of the reason the early nuclear energy industry was such a failure, in terms of safety oversights and being hugely over budget, was that decisions were dominated by enthusiasts and that they scaled the technology up too rapidly, building plants six times larger than those that currently existed before having gained sufficient expertise with the technology.
Musk has yet to build a full-scale Hyperloop, leaving unanswered questions as to whether or not he can satisfactorily deal with the complications inherent in shooting people down a pressurized tube at 800 miles an hour. All publicly available information suggests he has only constructed a one-mile mock-up on his company's property. Although this is one step beyond a "paper" Hyperloop, a NY to DC line would be approximately 250 times longer. Given that unexpected phenomena emerge with increasing scale, Musk would be prudent to start smaller. Doing so would be to learn from the US's and Germany's failed efforts to develop wind power in 1980s. They tried to build the most technically advanced turbines possible, drawing on recent aeronautical innovations. Yet their efforts resulted in gargantuan turbines that failed often within tens of operating hours. The Danes, in contrast, started with conventional designs, incrementally scaling up designs andlearning from experience.
Apart from the scaling-up problem, Musk's project relies on simultaneously making unprecedented advances in tunneling technology. The "Boring Company" website touts their vision for managing to accomplish a ten-fold decrease in cost through potential technical improvements: increasing boring machine power, shrinking tunnel diameters, and (more dubiously) automating the tunneling process. As a student of technological failure, I would question the wisdom of throwing complex and largely experimental boring technology into a project that is already a large, complicated endeavor that Musk and his employees have too little experience with. A prudent approach would entail spending considerable time testing these new machines on smaller projects with far less financial risk before jumping headfirst into a Hyperloop project. Indeed, the failure of the US space shuttle can be partly attributed to the desire to innovate in too many areas at the same time.
Moreover, Musk's proposals seem woefully uninformed about the complications that arise in tunnel construction, many of which can sink a project. No matter how sophisticated or well engineered the technology involved, the success of large-scale sociotechnical projects are incredibly sensitive to unanticipated errors. This is because such projects are highly capital intensive and inflexibly designed. As a result, mistakes increase costs and, in turn, production pressures--which then contributes to future errors. The project to build a 2 mile tunnel to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct, for instance, incurred a two year, quarter billion dollar delay after the boring machine was damaged after striking a pipe casing that went unnoticed in the survey process. Unless taxpayers are forced to pony up for those costs, you can be sure that tunnel tolls will be higher than predicted. It is difficult to imagine how many hiccups could stymie construction on a 250 mile Hyperloop. Such errors will invariably raise the capital costs of the project, costs that would need to be recouped through operating revenues. Given the competition from other trains, driving, and flying, too high of fares could turn the Hyperloop into a luxury transport system for the elite. Concorde anyone?
Again, while I applaud Musk's ambition, I worry that he is not proceeding intelligently enough. Intelligently developing something like a Hyperloop system would entail focusing more on his own and his organization's ignorance, avoiding the tendency to become overly enamored with one's own technical acumen. Doing so would also entail not committing oneself too early to a certain technical outcome but designing so as to maximize opportunities for learning as well as ensuring that mistakes are relatively inexpensive to correct. Such an approach, unfortunately, is rarely compatible with grand visions of immediate technical progress, at least in the short-term. Unfortunately, many of us, especially Silicon Valley venture capitalists, are too in love with those grand visions to make the right demands of technologists like Musk.
Automating Medicine
The stock phrase that "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" certainly seems to hold true for technological innovation. After a team of Stanford University researchers recently developed an algorithm that they say is better at diagnosing heart arrhythmias than a human expert, all the MIT Technology Review could muster was to rhetorically ask if patients and doctors could ever put their trust in an algorithm. I won't dispute the potential for machine learning algorithms to improve diagnoses; however, I think we should all take issue when journalists like Will Knight depict these technologies so uncritically, as if their claimed merits will be unproblematically realized without negative consequences.
Indeed, the same gee-whiz reporting likely happened during the advent of computerized autopilot in the 1970s—probably with the same lame rhetorical question: "Will passengers ever trust a computer to land a plane?" Of course, we now know that the implementation of autopilot was anything but a simple story of improved safety and performance. As both Robert Pool and Nicholas Carr have demonstrated, the automation of facets of piloting created new forms of accidents produced by unanticipated problems with sensors and electronics as well as the eventual deskilling of human pilots. That shallow, ignorant reporting for similar automation technologies, including not just automated diagnosis but also technologies like driverless cars, continues despite the knowledge of those previous mistakes is truly disheartening.
The fact that the tendency to not dig too deeply into the potential undesirable consequences of automation technologies is so widespread is telling. It suggests that something must be acting as a barrier to people's ability to think clearly about such technologies. The political scientists Charles Lindblom called these barriers "impairments to critical probing," noting the role of schools and the media in helping to ensure that most citizens refrain from critically examining the status quo.
Such impairments to critical probing with respect to automation technologies are visible in the myriad simplistic narratives that are often presumed rather than demonstrated, such as in the belief that algorithms are inherently safer than human operators. Indeed, one comment on Will Knight's article prophesized that "in the far future human doctors will be viewed as dangerous compared to AI."
Not only are such predictions impossible to justify—at this point they cannot be anything more than wildly speculative conjectures—but they fundamentally misunderstand what technology is. Too often people act as if technologies were autonomous forces in the world, not only in the sense that people act as if technological changes were foreordained and unstoppable but also in how they fail to see that no technology functions without the involvement of human hands. Indeed, technologies are better thought of as sociotechnical systems.
Even a simple tool like a hammer cannot existing without underlying human organizations, which provide the conditions for its production, nor can it act in the world without it having been designed to be compatible with the shape and capacities of the human body. A hammer that is too big to be effectively wielded by a person would be correctly recognized as an ill-conceived technology; few would fault a manual laborer forced to use such a hammer for any undesirable outcomes of its use.
Yet somehow most people fail to extend the same recognition to more complex undertakings like flying a plane or managing a nuclear reactor: in such cases, the fault is regularly attributed to "human error." How could it be fair to blame a pilot, who only becomes deskilled as a result of their job requiring him or her to almost exclusively rely on autopilot, for mistakenly pulling up on the controls and stalling the plane during an unexpected autopilot error? The tendency to do so is a result of not recognizing autopilot technology as a sociotechnical system. Autopilot technology that leads to deskilled pilots, and hence accidents, is as poorly designed as a hammer incompatibly large for the human body: it fails to respect the complexities of the human-technology interface.
Many people, including many of my students, find that chain of reasoning difficult to accept, even though they struggle to locate any fault with it. They struggle under the weight of the impairing narrative that leads them to assume that the substitution of human action with computerized algorithms is always unalloyed progress. My students' discomfort is only further provoked when presented with evidence that early automated textile technologies produced substandard, shoddy products—most likely being implemented in order to undermine organized labor rather than to contribute to a broader, more humanistic notion of progress. In any case, the continued power of automation=progress narrative will likely stifle the development of intelligent debate about automated diagnosis technologies.
If technological societies currently poised to begin automating medical care are to avoid repeating history, they will need to learn from past mistakes. In particular, how could AI be implemented so as to enhance the diagnostic ability of doctors rather than deskill them? Such an approach would part ways with traditional ideas about how computers should influence the work process, aiming to empower and "informate" skilled workers rather than replace them. As Siddhartha Mukherjee has noted, while algorithms can be very good at partitioning, e.g., distinguishing minute differences between pieces of information, they cannot deduce "why," they cannot build a case for a diagnosis by themselves, and they cannot be curious. We only replace humans with algorithms at the cost of these qualities.
Citizens of technological societies should demand that AI diagnostic systems are used to aid the ongoing learning of doctors, helping them to solidify hunches and not overlook possible alternative diagnoses or pieces of evidence. Meeting such demands, however, may require that still other impairing narratives be challenged, particularly the belief that societies must acquiescence to the "disruptions" of new innovations, as they are imagined and desired by Silicon Valley elites—or the tendency to think of the qualities of the work process last, if at all, in all the excitement over extending the reach of robotics.
On the Myth of Net Neutrality
Few issues stoke as much controversy, or provoke as shallow of analysis, as net neutrality. Richard Bennett's recent piece in the MIT Technology Review is no exception. His views represent a swelling ideological tide among certain technologists that threatens not only any possibility for democratically controlling technological change but any prospect for intelligently and preemptively managing technological risks. The only thing he gets right is that "the web is not neutral" and never has been. Yet current "net neutrality" advocates avoid seriously engaging with that proposition. What explains the self-stultifying allegiance to the notion that the Internet could ever be neutral?
Bennett claims that net neutrality has no clear definition (it does), that anything good about the current Internet has nothing to do with a regulatory history of commitment to net neutrality (something he can't prove), and that the whole debate only exists because "law professors, public interest advocates, journalists, bloggers, and the general public [know too little] about how the Internet works."
To anyone familiar with the history of technological mistakes, the underlying presumption that we'd be better off if we just let the technical experts make the "right" decision for us—as if their technical expertise allowed them to see the world without any political bias—should be a familiar, albeit frustrating, refrain. In it one hears the echoes of early nuclear energy advocates, whose hubris led them to predict that humanity wouldn't suffer a meltdown in hundreds of years, whose ideological commitment to an atomic vision of progress led them to pursue harebrained ideas like nuclear jets and using nuclear weapons to dig canals. One hears the echoes of those who managed America's nuclear arsenal and tried to shake off public oversight, bringing us to the brink of nuclear oblivion on more than one occasion.
Only armed with such a poor knowledge of technological history could someone make the argument that "the genuine problems the Internet faces today…cannot be resolved by open Internet regulation. Internet engineers need the freedom to tinker." Bennett's argument is really just an ideological opposition to regulation per se, a view based on the premise that innovation better benefits humanity if it is done without the "permission" of those potentially negatively affected. Even though Bennett presents himself as simply a technologist whose knowledge of the cold, hard facts of the Internet leads him to his conclusions, he is really just parroting the latest discursive instantiation of technological libertarianism.
As I've recently argued, the idea of "permissionless innovation" is built on a (intentional?) misunderstanding of the research on how to intelligently manage technological risks as well as the problematic assumption that innovations, no matter how disruptive, have always worked out for the best for everyone. Unsurprisingly the people most often championing the view are usually affluent white guys who love their gadgets. It is easy to have such a rosy view of the history of technological change when one is, and has consistently been, on the winning side. It is a view that is only sustainable as long as one never bothers to inquire into whether technological change has been an unmitigated wonder for the poor white and Hispanic farmhands who now die at relatively younger ages of otherwise rare cancers, the Africans who have mined and continue to mine Uranium or coltan in despicable conditions, or the permanent underclass created by continuous technological upheavals in the workplace not paired with adequate social programs.
In any case, I agree with Bennett's argument in a later comment to the article: "the web is not neutral, has never been neutral, and wouldn't be any good if it were neutral." Although advocates for net neutrality are obviously demanding a very specific kind of neutrality: that ISPs do not treat packets differently based on where they originate or where they're going, the idea of net neutrality has taken on a much broader symbolic meaning, one that I think constrains people's thinking about Internet freedoms rather than enhances it.
The idea of neutrality carries so much rhetorical weight in Western societies because their cultures are steeped in a tradition of philosophical liberalism. Liberalism is a philosophical tradition based in the belief that the freedom of individuals to choose is the greatest good. Even American political conservatives really just embrace a particular flavor of philosophical liberalism, one that privileges the freedoms enjoyed by supposedly individualized actors unencumbered by social conventions or government interference to make market decisions. Politics in nations like the US proceeds with the assumption that society, or at least parts of it, can be composed in such a way to allow individuals to decide wholly for themselves. Hence, it is unsurprising that changes in Internet regulations provoke so much ire: The Internet appears to offer that neutral space, both in terms of the forms of individual self-expression valued by left-liberals and the purportedly disruptive market environment that gives Steve Jobs wannabes wet dreams.
Neutrality is, however, impossible. As I argue in my recent book, even an idealized liberal society would have to put constraints on choice: People would have to be prevented from making their relationship or communal commitments too strong. As loathe as some leftists would be to hear it, a society that maximizes citizens' abilities for individual self-expression would have to be even more extreme than even Margaret Thatcher imagined it: composed of atomized individuals. Even the maintenance of family structures would have to be limited in an idealized liberal world.
On a practical level it is easy to see the cultivation of a liberal personhood in children as imposed rather than freely chosen, with one Toronto family going so far as to not assign their child a gender. On plus side for freedom, the child now has a new choice they didn't have before. On the negative side, they didn't get to choose whether or not they'd be forced to make that choice. All freedoms come with obligations, and often some people get to enjoy the freedoms while others must shoulder the obligations.
So it is with the Internet as well. Currently ISPs are obliged to treat packets equally so that content providers like Google and Netflix can enjoy enormous freedoms in connecting with customers. That is clearly not a neutral arrangement, even though it is one that many people (including Google) prefer.
However, the more important non-neutrality of the Internet, one that I think should take center stage in debates, is that it is dominated by corporate interests. Content providers are no more accountable to the public than large Internet service providers. At least since it was privatized in the mid-90s, the Internet has been biased toward fulfilling the needs of business. Other aspirations like improving democracy or cultivating communities, if the Internet has even really delivered all that much in those regards, have been incidental. Facebook wants you to connect with childhood friends so it can show you an ad for a 90s nostalgia t-shirt design. Google wants to make sure neo-nazis can find the Stormfront website so they can advertise the right survival gear to them.
I don't want a neutral net. I want one biased toward supporting well-functioning democracies and vibrant local communities. It might be possible for an Internet to do so while providing the wide latitude for innovative tinkering that Bennett wants, but I doubt it. Indeed, ditching the pretense of neutrality would enable the broader recognition of the partisan divisions about what the Internet should do, the acknowledgement that the Internet is and will always be a political technology. Whose interests do you want it to serve?
Why Not Break the Internet?
Repost from TechnoScience as if People Mattered
Opponents of regulatory changes that could mean the end of "net neutrality" or proposed legislation like the SOPA/PIPA acts of 2012 regularly contend that these policies would "break the Internet" in some significant way. They prophesize that such measures will lead to an Internet rotten to the core by political censorship or one less generative of creativity. Those on the other side, in response, turn out their own expert analysis meant to assure citizens that the intangible goods purportedly offered by the Internet – such as greater democracy or "innovation" writ large – are not really being undermined at all. In the continuous back and forth between these opposing sides, rarely is the question of whether or not "breaking" the contemporary Internet is actually undesirable given much thought or analysis. It is presumed rather than demonstrated that the current Web "works." What reasons might we have to consider letting ISPs and content creators lead public policy toward a "broken" Net? Is the contemporary Internet really all that worth saving?
To begin, there are grounds for wondering if the Internet has really been that much of a boon to democracy. Certainly critics like Hindman andMorozov – who point out how infrequently political concerns occupy web surfers, how most content production is dominated by a few elites, and that the Internet has had an ambivalent role in promoting enhanced democracy in totalitarian regimes – would likely warn against overestimating the actual democratic utility of contemporary digital networks. Arab Spring notwithstanding, the Internet seems to play as big a role in entertainment, "clicktivism" and commerce driven pacification of populations as their liberation. Though undoubtedly useful for activists needing a tool for organizing popular action across space and time, the Web is also a major vehicle for the "bread and circuses" (i.e., Amazon purchases and Netflix marathons) that too frequently aid citizen passivity. Moreover, as Jodi Dean points out, those championing the ostensible democratic properties of digital networks frequently overstate the political gains afforded by certain means for public communicative self-expression becoming "democratized." Just because the Average Joe (or Jane) can now publish their own blog does not necessary mean that they have any more influence on public policy than before.
Second, the image of the Internet as a bottom-up, decentralized and people-powered technology of liberation, for all intents and purposes, seems to be more myth than reality. From the physical infrastructure and the standardization of protocols to the provision of content through websites like Google and Facebook, the Internet is highly centralized and very often already steered by the interests of large corporations. Media scholars Robert McChesney and John Nichols, for instance, contend that the Internet has been one of the greatest drivers of economic monopoly in history. Likewise the depiction of the movement against measures that threaten net neutrality as strictly the bottom-up voice of the people is similarly a figment of collective imagination. That this opposition has any political traction has more to do with the fact that content providers like Netflix and others having a major financial stake in a non-tiered Internet than the bubbling over of popular democratic ferment. Purveyors of bandwidth hungry services profit greatly from a neutral net at the expense of ISPs, who, in turn, are looking for a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.
Third, as Ethan Zuckerman has recently pointed out in an article for the Atlantic, the entrenched status-quo business model of the Internet is advertising. Getting an edge over the competition in advertising requires more effectively surveilling users. We have unintelligently steered ourselves to a Net that financially depends on users' surfing and social activities being constantly tracked, monitored and analyzed. Users' provision of "free cultural labor" to companies like Google and Facebook drives the contemporary Internet. The fact that the current Web depends so intimately on advertising, moreover, fuels "clickbait" journalism (think Upworthy), malware and high levels of economic centralization. Facebook's acquiring of Instagram, as Zuckerman reminds us, was motivated by the company's desire to maintain its demographic reach of advertising data points and targets. Size, and thereby access to big data, generally wins the day in an ad-driven Internet.
Finally, for those of us who wish contemporary technological civilization offered more frequent opportunities for realizing vibrant face-to-face community, the Internet is more often "good enough" than a godsend. A Facebook homefeed or Netflix marathon provides a minimally satisfying substitute for the social connection and storytelling that occurred within local pubs, cafés and other civic institutions, spaces that centered community life at other times and places. Consider one stay-at-home mom's recent blogging about the loneliness of contemporary motherhood, loneliness that she describes as persisting despite the much hyped connection offered by Facebook and other social networks. She recounts driving to Target just to feel the presence of other people, seeing fellow mothers but ultimately lacking the nerve to say what she feels: "Are you lonely too?… Can we be friends? Am I freaking you out? I don't care. HOLD ME." Digitally mediated contact and networked social "meetups" are means to social intimacy that many of us accept reluctantly. They are, at best, anodynes for the pain caused by all the barriers standing in the way of embodied communality: suburbia, gasoline prices, six-dollar pints of beer, and the fact that too many of us long ago became habituated to being homebodies and public-space introverts.
The fact that the contemporary Web has these strikes against it, of course, does not necessarily mean that is better to break it than reform it. That claim hinges on the degree to which these facets of the Internet are entrenched and likely to strongly resist change. Are thin democracy, weak community and corporate dominance already obdurate features of the Net? Has the technology gained so much sociotechnical momentum that it seems unreasonable to expect anything better out of it? If the answer to these questions is "Yes," then citizens have good reason for believing that the most desirable avenue for "moving forward" is the abandonment of the contemporary Internet.
I am not first to suggest this course of action. A former champion of the Internet, Douglas Rushkoff , now advocates its abandonment in order to focus on building alternatives through mesh-network technologies. Mesh-networks are potentially advantageous in that surveillance is more difficult, they are structurally decentralized and appear to offer better opportunities for collective control and governance. Experimental community mesh networks are already up and running in Spain, Germany and Greece. If properly steered, they could be an integral part of the development of more substantively democratic and communitarian Internets. If that is truly the case, then resources currently being dedicated to fighting for net neutrality might be put to better use supporting experimentation with and the building of mesh-network alternatives to the current Internet. Letting ISPs have their way in the net neutrality debate, therefore, could prove to be a good thing. Users frustrated by increasing fees and choppy Netflix feeds are going to be more likely to be interested in Web alternatives than those with near perfect service. For the case of the Internet and improved democracy/community, perhaps letting things get worse is the only way they will ever get any better.
Why Are Scientists and Engineers Content to Work for Scraps when MBAs get a Seat at the Table?
Report from TechnoScience as if People Mattered
Why should it be that some of the most brilliant and highly educated people I know are forced to beg for jobs and justify their work to managers who, in all likelihood, might have spent a greater part of their business program drunk than studying? Sure there are probably some useful tasks that managers and supervisors perform, and some of them are no doubt perfectly wonderful people. Nevertheless, why should they sit at the top of the hierarchy of the contemporary firm while highly skilled technologists just do what they are told? Why should those who design and build new technologies or solve tenacious scientific problems receive a wage and not a large share in the wealth they help generate? Most importantly, why do so many highly skilled and otherwise intelligent people put up with this situation?
There is nothing natural about MBAs and other professional managers running a firm like a captain of ship. As Harvard economist Stephen Marglin illustrated so well, the emergence of that hierarchical system had little to do with improvements in technological efficiency or competitive superiority but rather that it better served the interests of capitalist owners. What bosses "do" is maximize the benefits accruing to capitalists at the expense of workers. Bosses have historically and continue to do this by minimizing the scope each individual worker has in the firm and inserting themselves (i.e., management) as the obligatory intermediary for even the most elementary of procedures. This allows them to better surveil and discipline workers for the benefit of owners. Most highly skilled workers will probably recognize this if they reflect on all those seemingly pointless memos they are forced to read and write. Of course, some separation of labor (and writing of memos) is necessary for achieving efficient production processes, but the current power arrangement ensures that exactly how any process ends up being partitioned is ultimately decided by and for the benefit of managers and owners prior to any consideration of workers' interests.
Even if one were not bothered by the life-sucking monotony of many jobs inflicted by a strict separation of labor, there is still little reason why the person in charge of coordinating everyone's individual tasks ought to rule with almost unquestioned authority. This is a particularly odd arrangement for tech firms, given that scientists and engineers are highly skilled workers whose creative talents make up the core the company's success. Moreover, these workers only receive a wage while others (e.g., venture capitalists, shareholders and select managers) get the lion's share of the generated wealth: "Thanks for writing the code for that app that made us millions. Here, have a bonus and count yourself lucky to have a job."
Although frequently taken to be "just the way things are," it need not be the case that the totality of the profits of innovation so disproportionately accrue to shareholders and select managers. Neither does one need look as far away as socialist nations in order to recognize this. Family-owned and "closely held" corporations in the United States already forgo lower rates of monetary profit in order to enjoy non-monetary benefits and yet remain competitive. For instance, Hobby Lobby, recently made infamous for other reasons, closes its stores on Sundays. They give up sales to competitors like Michaels because those running the firm believe that workers ought to have a guaranteed day in their schedule to spend time with friends and loved ones. Companies like Chick-Fil-A, Wegman's and others pay their workers more livable wages and/or help fund their college educations, all practices unlikely to maximize shareholder value by any stretch of the imagination.
At the same time, the hiring process for many managers does not lend much credence to the view that their skills alone make the difference between a successful or unsuccessful company. Michael Church, for instance, recently posted an account of the differences between applying to tech firm as a software engineer versus a manager. When interviewing as a software engineer, the applicant was subjected to a barrage of doubts about their skills and qualifications. The burden of proof was laid on the applicant to prove themselves worthy. In contrast, when applying for a management position, the same applicant was seen as "already part of the club" and was targeted with hardly any scrutiny at all. This is, of course, but one example. I encourage readers to share their own experiences in the comments section. Regardless, I suspect that if management is regularly treated like a club for those with the right status rather than the right competencies, their skills may not be so scarce or essential as to justify their higher wages, stake in company assets and discretion in decision-making.
Young, highly skilled workers seem totally unaware of the power they could have in their working lives, if enough of them strove to seize it. I am not talking about unionization, though that could also be helpful. Instead, I am suggesting that scientists and engineers could own and manage their own firms, reversing (or simply leveling) the hierarchy with their current business-major overlords. Doing so would not be socialism but rather economic democracy: a worker cooperative. Workers outside the narrow echelon of managers and distant venture capitalists could have stake in the ownership of capital and thus power in the firm, making it much more likely that their interests are better reflected in decisions about operations and longer-term business plans.
There is no immediately obvious reason why scientists and engineers could not start their own worker cooperatives. In fact, there are cases of workers less skilled and educated than the average software engineer helping govern and earning equity in their companies. The Evergreen cooperative in Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, consists of a laundry – mostly serving a nearby hospital, a greenhouse and a weatherization contractor. A small percentage of each worker's salary goes into owning a stake in the cooperative, amounting to about $65,000 in wealth in roughly eight years. Workers elect their own representation to the firm's board and thus get a say in its future direction and daily operation.
Engineers, scientists and other technologists are intelligent enough to realize that the current "normal" business hierarchy offers them a raw deal. If laundry workers and gardeners can cooperatively run a profitable business while earning wealth, not merely a wage, certainly those with the highly specialized, creative skills always being extolled as being the engine of the "new knowledge economy" could as well.
The main barrier is psychological. Engineers, scientists and other technologists have been encultured to think that things work out best if they remain mere problem solvers – more cynical observers might say overhyped technicians. Maybe they believe they will be one of the lucky ones to work somewhere with free pizza, breakout rooms and a six figure salary, or maybe they think they will eventually break into management themselves. Of course there is also the matter of the start-up capital that any tech firm needs to get off the ground. Yet, if enough technologists started their own cooperative firms, they could eventually pool resources to finance the beginnings of other cooperative ventures. All it would take is a few dozen enterprising people to show their peers that they do not have to work for scraps (even if there are sometimes large paychecks to go with that free pizza). Rather, they could take a seat at the table.
Solar Freakin' Car Culture
There has been no shortage of both hype and skepticism surrounding a proposed innovation whose creators champion as potentially solving North America's energy woes: Solar Roadways. While there are reasonable concerns about the technical and economic viability of incorporating solar panels into street and highways, almost completely ignored are the sociopolitical facets of the issue. Even if they end up being technically and financially feasible, the question of "Why should we want them?" remains unanswered. Too readily do commentators forget that at stake is not merely how Americans get their electricity but the very organization of everyday life and the character of their communities.
Solar Roadways technology is the brainchild of an Idaho start-up. It involves sandwiching photovoltaics between a textured, tempered road surface and a concrete bedding that houses other necessary electronics, such as storage batteries and/or the circuitry needed to connect it to the electrical grid. Others have raised issue over the fairly rosy estimates of these panels' likely cost and potential performance, including their driveability and longevity as well as whether or not factors like snowfall, low temperatures in northern states and road grime will drastically reduce their efficiency. Given that life cycle analyses of rooftop solar panels estimate energy payback periods of ten to twenty years, any reduction in efficiency makes PV systems much less feasible. Will the panels actually last long enough to offset the energy it takes to build, distribute and install them? The extensive history of expensive technological failures should alert citizens to the need to address such worries before this technology is embraced on a massive scale.
However, these reasonable technical concerns should not distract one from looking into the potential sociocultural consequences of implementing solar roadways. One of the main observations of Science and Technology Studies scholarship is that technologies have political consequences: Their very existence and functioning renders some choices and sets of actions possible and others more difficult if not impossible. One of the most obvious examples is how the transportation infrastructures implemented since the 1940's have rendered walkable, vibrant urban areas in the United States exceedingly difficult to realize. Residents of downtown Albany, for instance, are practically prohibited from being able to choose to have a pleasant waterfront area on the edge of the Hudson River because mid-twentieth century state legislators decided to put I-787 there (partly in order to facilitate their own commutes into the city). Contemporary advocates for an accessible and vibrant waterfront not only face opposition from today's legislators but also the disincentives posed by the costs and difficulties of moving millions of tons of sunk concrete and disrupting the established transportation network.
Solar Roadways, therefore, is not merely a promising green energy idea but also potentially a mechanism for further entrenching the current transportation system of roads and highways. It is politically consequential technology. Most citizens are already committed to the highway and automobile system for their transportation needs, in part also due to the intentional dismantling and neglect of public transit. Having to rely on the highway and road system for electricity would only make moving away from car culture and toward walkable cities more difficult. It is socially and politically challenging to alter infrastructure once it is entrenched. Dismantling a solarfied I-787 in Albany, for example, would not simply require disrupting transportation networks but energy systems as well. If states were to implement solar roadways, it would be effectively an act of legislation that helps ensure that automobile-oriented lifestyles remain dominant for decades to come.
This further entrenchment of automobility may be exactly why the idea of solar roadways seems so enticing to some. Solar Roadways is an example of what is known in Science and Technology Studies as a "techno-fix." It promises the solving of complex sociotechnical problems through a "miracle" innovation and, hence, without the need to make difficult social and political decisions (see here for an STS-inspired take). That is, solar roadways are so alluring because they seem to provide an easy solution to the problems of climate change and growing energy scarcity. No need to implement carbon taxes, drive less or better regulate industry and the exploitation non-renewable resources, the technology will fix everything! To be fair, techno-fixes are not always bad. The point is only that one should be cautiously critical of them in order to not risk falling victim to wide-eyed techno-idealism.
Some readers, of course, might still be skeptical of my interpretation of solar roadways as techno-fix perhaps aimed more at saving car culture than creating a more sustainable technological civilization. However, one simply need to ask "Why roadways rather than rooftops?" It does not take much expertise in renewable energy technologies to recognize that solar panels on rooftops make much more sense than on streets, highways and parking lots: They last longer because they are not subject to having cars and trucks drive on them; they can be angled to maximize the incidence of the sun's rays; and there is likely just as much unused roof space as asphalt. Given all the additional barriers they face, it seems hard to deny that some of appeal of solar roadways is not technical but cultural: They promise the stabilization and entrenchment of a valued but likely unsustainable way of life.
Nevertheless, I do not want to simply shoot down solar roadway technology but ask "How could it be used to support ways of life other than car culture?" Critically analyzing a technology from a Science and Technology Studies perspective can often lead to recommendations for its reconstruction, not simply its abandonment. I would suggest reinterpreting this proposed innovation as solar walkways rather than roadways, given that their longevity is more certain if subjected to footsteps instead of multi-ton vehicles. Moreover, as urban studies scholars have documented for decades, most urban and suburban spaces in North America suffer from a lack of quality public space. City plazas and town squares might seem more "rational" to municipal planners if their walking surfaces were made up of PV panels. Better yet, consider incorporating piezoelectrics at the same time and generate additional electricity from the pedestrians walking on it. Feed this energy into a collectively owned community energy system and one has the makings of a technology that, along with a number of other sociotechnical and political changes, could help make more vibrant, public urban spaces easier to realize.
Citizens, certainly, could decide that solar walkways are no more feasible or attractive than solar roadways, and should investigate potential uses that go far beyond what I have suggested. Regardless, part of the point of Science and Technology Studies is to creatively re-imagine how technologies and social structures could mutually reinforce each other in order to support alternative or more desirable ways of life. Despite all the Silicon Valley rhetoric around "disruption," new innovations tend be framed and implemented in ways that favor the status quo and, in turn, those who benefit from it. The supposed "disruption" posed by solar roadway technology is little different. Members of technological civilization would be better off if they not only asked of new innovations "Is it feasible?" but also "Does it support a sustainable and desirable way of life?" Solar freakin' roadways might be viable, but citizens should reconsider if they really want the solar freakin' car culture that comes with it.
Are These Shoes Made for Running? Uncertainty, Complexity and Minimalist Footwear
In almost every technoscientific controversy participants could take better account of the inescapable complexities of reality and the uncertainties of their knowledge. Unfortunately, many people suffer from significant cognitive barriers that prevent them from doing so. That is, they tend to carry the belief that their own side is in unique possession of Truth and that only their opponents are in any way biased, politically motivated or otherwise lacking in sufficient data to support their claims. This is just as clear in the case of Vibram Five Finger shoes (i.e., "toe shoes") as it is for GMO's and climate change. Much of humanity would be better off, however, if technological civilization responded to these contentious issues in ways more sensitive to uncertainty and complexity.
Five Fingers are the quintessential minimalist shoe, receiving much derision concerning its appearance and skepticism about its purported health benefits. Advocates of the shoes claim that its minimalist design helps runners and walkers maintain a gait similar to being barefoot while enjoying protection from abrasion. Padded shoes, in contrast, seem to encourage heel striking and thereby stronger impact forces in runners' knees and hips. The perceived desirability of a barefoot stride is in part based on the argument that it better mimics the biomechanical motion that evolved in humans over millennia and the observation of certain cultures that pursue marathon long-distance barefoot running. Correlational data suggests that people in places that more often eschew shoes suffer less from chronic knee problems, and some recent studies find that minimalist shoes do lead to improved foot musculature and decreased heel striking.
Opponents, of course, are not merely aesthetically opposed to Five Fingers but mobilize their own sets of scientific facts and experts. Skeptics cite studies finding higher rates of injury among those transitioning to minimalist shoes than those wearing traditional footwear. Others point to "barefoot cultures" that still run with a heel striking gait. The recent settlement by Vibram with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit, moreover, seems to have been taken as a victory of rational minds over pseudoscience by critics who compare the company to 19th century snake oil salesmen. Yet, this settlement was not an admission that the shoes did nothing but merely that recognition that there are not yet unequivocal scientific evidence to back up the company's claims about the purported health benefits of the shoes.
Neither of the positions, pro or con, is immediately more "scientific" than the other. Both sides use value-laden heuristics to take a position on minimalist shoes in the absence of controlled, longitudinal studies that might settle the facts of the matter. The unspoken presumption among critics of minimalist shoes is that highly padded, non-minimalist shoes are unproblematic when really they are an unexamined sociotechnical inheritance. No scientific study has justified adding raised heels, pronation control and gel pads to sneakers. Advocates of minimalist shoes and barefoot running, on the other hand, trust the heuristic of "evolved biomechanics" and "natural gait" given the lack of substantial data on footwear. They put their trust in the argument that humans ran fine for millenia without heavily padded shoes.
There is nothing inherently wrong, of course, about these value commitments. In everyday life as much as in politics, decisions must be made with incomplete information. Nevertheless, participants in debates over these decisions too frequently present themselves as in possession of a level of certainty they cannot possibly have, given that the science on what kinds of shoes humans ought to wear remains mostly undone.
At the same time, it seems unfair to leave footwear consumers in the position of having to fumble with the decision between purchasing a minimalist or non-minimalist shoe. A technological civilization sensitized to uncertainty and complexity would take a different approach to minimalist shoes than the status quo process of market-led diffusion with very little oversight or monitoring.
To begin, the burden of proof would be more appropriately distributed. Advocates of minimalist shoes are typically put in the position of having to prove the safety and desirability of them, despite the dearth of conclusive evidence whether or not contemporary running shoes are even safe. There are risks on both sides. Minimalist shoes may end up injuring those who embrace them or transition too quickly. However, if they do in fact encourage healthier biomechanics, it may be that multitudes of people have been and continue to be unnecessarily destined for knee and hip replacements by their clunky New Balances. Both minimalist and non-minimalist shoes need to be scrutinized.
Second, use of minimalist shoes should be gradually scaled-up and matched with well-funded, multipartisan monitoring. Simply deploying an innovation with potential health benefits and detriments then waiting for a consumer response and, potentially, litigation means an unnecessarily long, inefficient and costly learning process. Longitudinal studies on Five Fingers and other minimalist shoes could have begun as soon as they were developed or, even better, when companies like Nike and Reebok started adding raised heels and gel pads.
Monitoring of minimalist shoes, moreover, would need to be broad enough to take account of confounding variables introduced by cultural differences. Indeed, it is hard to compare American joggers to barefoot running Tarahumara Indians when the former have typically been wearing non-minimalist shoes for their whole lives and tend to be heavier and more sedentary. Squat toilets make for a useful analogy. Given the association of western toilets with hiatal hernias and other ills, abandoning them would seem like a good idea. However, not having grown up with them and likely being overweight or obese, many Westerners are unable to squat properly, if at all, and would risk injury using a squat toilet.
Most importantly, multi-partisan monitoring would help protect against clear conflicts of interest. The controversy over minimalist and non-minimalist shoes impacts the interests of experts and businesses. There is a burgeoning orthotics and custom running shoes industry that not only earns quite a lot of revenue in selling special footwear and inserts but also certifies only certain people as having the "correct" expertise concerning walking and running issues. They are likely to adhere to their skepticism about minimalist shoes as strongly as oil executives do on climate change, for better or worse. Although large firms are quickly introducing their own minimalist shoes designs, a large-scale shift toward them would threaten their business models: Since minimalist shoes do not have cushioning that breaks down over time, there is no need to replace them every three to six months. Likewise, Vibram itself is unlikely to fully explore the potential limitations of their products.
Finally, funds should have been set aside for potential victims. Given a long history of unintended consequences resulting from technological change, it should not have come as a surprise that a dramatic shift in footwear would produce injuries in some customers. Vibram Five Finger shoes, in this way, are little different from other innovations, such as the Toyota Prius' electronically controlled accelerator pedal or novel medications like Vioxx. Had Vibram been forced to proactively set aside funds for potential victims, they would have been provided an incentive to more carefully study their shoes' effects. Moreover, those ostensibly injured by the company's product would not have to go through such a protracted and expensive legal battle to receive compensation.
Although the process I have proposed might seem strange at first, the status quo itself hardly seems reasonable. Why should companies be permitted to introduce new products with little accountability for the risks posed to consumers and no requirements to discern what risks might exist? There is no obvious reason why footwear and sporting equipment should not be treated similarly to other areas of innovation where the issues of uncertainty and complexity loom large, like nanotechnology or new pharmaceuticals. The potential risks for acute and chronic harms are just as real, and the interests of manufacturers and citizens are just as much in conflict. Are Vibram Five Finger shoes made for running? Perhaps. But without changes to the way technological civilization governs new innovations, participants in any controversy are provided with neither the means nor sufficient incentive to find the answer.
What Was Step Two Again? Underpants Gnomes and the Technocratic Theory of Progress.
Far too rarely do most people reflect critically on the relationship between advancing technoscience and progress. The connection seems obvious, if not "natural." How else would progress occur except by "moving forward" with continuous innovation? Many, if not most, members of contemporary technological civilization seem to possess an almost unshakable faith in the power of innovation to produce an unequivocally better world. Part of the purpose of Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholarship is to precisely examine if, when, how and for whom improved science and technology means progress. Failing to ask these questions, one risks thinking about technoscience like how underpants gnomes think about underwear.
Wait. Underpants gnomes? Let me back up for second. The underpants gnomes are characters from the second season of the television show South Park. They sneak into people's bedrooms at night to steal underpants, even the ones that their unsuspecting victims are wearing. When asked why they collect underwear, the gnomes explain their "business plan" as follows: Step 1) Collect underpants, Step 2) "?", Step 3) Profit! The joke hinges on the sheer absurdity of the gnomes' single-minded pursuit of underpants in the face of their apparent lack of a clear idea of what profit means and how underpants will help them achieve it.
Although this reference is by now a bit dated, these little hoarders of other people's undergarments are actually one of the best pop-culture illustrations of the technocratic theory of progress that often undergirds people's thinking about innovation. The historian of technology Leo Marx described the technocratic idea of progress as:
"A belief in the sufficiency of scientific and technological innovation as the basis for general progress. It says that if we can ensure the advance of science-based technologies, the rest will take care of itself. (The "rest" refers to nothing less than a corresponding degree of improvement in the social, political, and cultural conditions of life.)"
The technocratic understanding of progress amounts to the application of underpants gnome logic to technoscience: Step 1) Produce innovations, Step 2) "?", Step 3) Progress! This conception of progress is characterized by a lack of a clear idea of not only what progress means but also how amassing new innovations will bring it about.
The point of undermining this notion of progress is not to say that improved technoscience does not or could not play an important role in bringing about progress but to recognize that there is generally no logical reason for believing it will automatically and autonomously do so. That is, "Step 2" matters a great deal. For instance, consider the 19th century belief that electrification would bring about a radical democratization of America through the emancipation of craftsmen, a claim that most people today will recognize as patently absurd. Given the growing evidence that American politics functions more like an oligarchy than a democracy, it would seem that wave after wave of supposedly "democratizing" technologies – from television to the Internet – have not been all that effective in fomenting that kind of progress. Moreover, while it is of course true that innovations like the polio vaccine, for example, certainly have meant social progress in the form of fewer people suffering from debilitating illnesses, one should not forget that such progress has been achievable only with the right political structures and decisions. The inventor of the vaccine, Jonas Salk, notably did not attempt to patent it, and the ongoing effort to eradicate polio has entailed dedicated global-level organization, collaboration and financial support.
Hence, a non-technocratic civilization would not simply strive to multiply innovations under the belief that some vague good may eventually come out of it. Rather, its members would be concerned with whether or not specific forms of social, cultural or political progress will in fact result from any particular innovation. Ensuring that innovations lead to progress requires participants to think politically and social scientifically, not just technically. More importantly, it would demand that citizens consider placing limits on the production of technoscience that amounts to what Thoreau derided as "improved means to unimproved ends."
Proceeding more critically and less like the underpants gnomes means asking difficult and disquieting questions of technoscience. For example, pursuing driverless cars may lead to incremental gains in safety and potentially free people from the drudgery of driving, but what about the people automated out of a job? Does a driverless car mean progress to them? Furthermore, how sure should one be of the presumption that driverless cars (as opposed to less automobility in general) will bring about a more desirable world? Similarly, how should one balance the purported gains in yield promised by advocates of contemporary GMO crops against the prospects for a greater centralization of power within agriculture? How much does corn production need to increase to be worth the greater inequalities, much less the environmental risks? Moreover, does a new version of the iPhone every six months mean progress to anyone other than Apple's shareholders and elite consumers?
It is fine, of course, to be excited about new discoveries and inventions that overcome previously tenacious technical problems. However, it is necessary to take stock of where such innovations seem to lead. Do they really mean progress? More importantly, whose interests do they progress and how? Given the collective failure to demand answers to these sorts of questions, one has good reason to wonder whether technological civilization really is making progress. Contrary to the vision of humanity being carried up to the heavens of progress upon the growing peaks of Mt. Innovation, it might be that many of us are more like underpants gnomes dreaming of untold and enigmatic profits amongst piles of what are little better than used undergarments. One never knows unless one stops collecting long enough to ask, "What was step two again?"
Taylor C. Dotson is an assistant professor at New Mexico Tech, a Science and Technology Studies scholar, and a research consultant with WHOA. He is the author of Technically Together: Reconstructing Community in a Networked World. Here he posts his thoughts on issues mostly tangential to his current research. Follow him on Twitter @dots_t
The Pedagogy of Control
Don't Shovel Shit
The Decline of American Community Makes Parenting Miserable
The Limits of Machine-Centered Medicine
Why Arming Teachers is a Terrible Idea
Why School Shootings are More Likely in the Networked Age
Against Epistocracy
Gun Control and Our Political Talk
Semi-Autonomous Tech and Driver Impairment
Conservative Case for Progressive Politics
Hyperloop Likely to Be Boondoggle
Policing the Boundaries of Medicine
On Americans' Acquiescence to Injustice
Science, Politics, and Partisanship
Moving Beyond Science and Pseudoscience in the Facilitated Communication Debate
Privacy Threats and the Counterproductive Refuge of VPNs
Andrew Potter's Macleans Shitstorm
The (Inevitable?) Exportation of the American Way of Life
The Irony of American Political Discourse: The Denial of Politics
Why It Is Too Early for Sanders Supporters to Get Behind Hillary Clinton
Science's Legitimacy Problem
Forbes' Faith-Based Understanding of Science
There is No Anti-Scientism Movement, and It's a Shame Too
American Pro Rugby Should Be Community-Owned
Working for Scraps
Mass Shooting Victims ARE on the Rise
Are These Shoes Made for Running?
Underpants Gnomes and the Technocratic Theory of Progress
Don't Drink the GMO Kool-Aid!
On Being Driven by Driverless Cars
Why America Needs the Educational Equivalent of the FDA
On Introversion, the Internet and the Importance of Small Talk
I (Still) Don't Believe in Digital Dualism
The Anatomy of a Trolley Accident
The Allure of Technological Solipsism
The Quixotic Dangers Inherent in Reading Too Much
If Science Is on Your Side, Then Who's on Mine?
The High Cost of Endless Novelty - Part II
The High Cost of Endless Novelty
Lock-up Your Wi-Fi Cards: Searching for the Good Life in a Technological Age
The Symbolic Analyst Sweatshop in the Winner-Take-All Society
On Digital Dualism: What Would Neil Postman Say?
Redirecting the Technoscience Machine
Battling my Cell Phone for the Good Life
Cognitive Limitations
Continuity Arguments
Deficit Model
Digital Dualism
Epistocracy
Governance Of Technoscience
Intelligent Trial And Error
LBGTQ
Megachurches
Neophilia
Networked Individualism
Permissionless Innovation
Philosophical Liberalism
Science And The Military
Scientific Controversy
Sweatshops
Technological Liberalism
Technological Momentum
Technological Solipsism
Technological Somnambulism
Thick Community
Virtual Others
Winner-take-all Society
Worker Cooperatives
Responsible Innovation
Rough Type
Technoscience as if People Mattered
© COPYRIGHT TAYLOR DOTSON 2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


LCR Hosting is a subsidiary the Premier Host web hosting group of companies.
PremierHost group is a innovative, market leading Web Hosting Company absolutely committed to reshaping the world hosting environment through the utilization of three core strategies.
We keep our running costs low through the utilisation of new world technology that allows greater efficiencies in both communication and infrastructure. The benefits of this technology is the provision of lower costs structures to our organisation, which ultimately deliver cost savings to the client.
We utilise the finest server and networking products in our datacenter with quality bandwidth from premier providers. FM-200 Fire Suppression, Multiple UPS Systems, Backup Diesel Generators, 24-7-365 Network Operations staff, ensuring the safety and reliability of your websites and data. The safety, reliability and security of our networks allow Premier Host Group to confidently deliver unparalleled uptime and server performance.
We have developed a support infrastructure that affords access to information when you need it, whether it is through our support forum, video tutorials or online help desk system. Our Support and Administrative departments, a team of highly experienced experts, are watching over our systems and data center availability and reliability 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The ability to offer and maintain our high level of personal service, while still offering affordable hosting solutions, is one of the core values of Premier Host and we believe to be what distinguishes us from the competition.


This fresh fruit crumble is scrumptious and nutritious. Berries are rich in vitamins and anti-oxidants.
Prepare crumb topping. In a bowl: mix all ingredients until crumbly. Set aside, as it will be used in step #6.
Slice fruit into ½ inch wedges.
Butter a 9"x12" baking pan.
Place fruit evenly in pan.
Cover fruit evenly with the crumb topping.
When using fruits like apples and pears for baking, it's important to peel them.
Try it with a dry rolled oats topping (substitute for crumb topping).
In a bowl, mix all ingredients until a coarse meal forms.


text:
Best Buy last-minute Christmas sales — 13 deals that'll arrive on time
By Louis Ramirez
last updated 22 December 2022
These deals will still arrive on time
Last-minute holiday shopping can be stressful. However, it doesn't have to be. A handful of retailers are offering last-minute Christmas gifts that can still arrive in time for the holiday weekend. Best Buy, for instance, has many devices that will ship asap and arrive before the weekend.
To help with your last-minute shopping, we've gathered some of the best deals and gifts at Best Buy that'll arrive in time for the weekend. We highly recommend you make your purchases today to avoid any shipping delays or stock shortages. Make sure to check out our guide to the major Christmas shipping deadlines as we approach the holiday weekend.
Last-minute Best Buy deals — Quick links
Amazon Fire TVs: free Echo Dot + deals from $79 (opens in new tab)
Apple: $400 off MacBook Pros, iPads from $279 (opens in new tab)
Headphones: deals from $19, AirPods from $99 (opens in new tab)
Kitchen appliances: air fryers, blenders, from $19 (opens in new tab)
Laptops: up to $500 off the latest laptops (opens in new tab)
PC gaming: save on gaming monitors, laptops, accessories (opens in new tab)
Phones: up to $800 off Galaxy S22, iPhone 14 with activation (opens in new tab)
Smart watches: save on Apple Watch, Fitbit, Garmin (opens in new tab)
Tablets: Android tablets, iPads up to $300 off (opens in new tab)
Toys: up to 50% off Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price (opens in new tab)
Vacuums: deals from $179 (opens in new tab)
Video games: Xbox Series X and PS5 games for as low as $19 (opens in new tab)
Last-minute Best Buy deals
Sony PS5 DualSense Wireless Controller: was $69 now $49 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Lowest Price! If you need a new controller for gaming with the family as we head into the festive season, you'll want to snap up this deal. Best Buy is currently offering $20 off the DualSense 5 Wireless Controller for PlayStation 5. That's the lowest price we've seen.
Bella Pro Series 8qt Air Fryer: was $129 now $49 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Right now you can score a seriously big discount on a Bella Pro Series air fryer at Best Buy. This model sports a roomy 8 quarts capacity which is enough to cook 6.5 pounds of food at once. It also comes with a digital touchscreen display and buttons for specific presets. It can reach temperatures of up to 400 degrees thanks to its 1700W of power.
Keurig K-Latte Coffee/Latte Maker: was $89 now $59 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Perfect your latte art making skills with the Keurig K-Latte Coffee and Latte Maker. The single-serve coffee and latte maker lets you brew 6-, 8-, or 10-ounce cups of coffee, tea, or hot chocolate. It also lets you make lattes in three easy steps. It's now at its cheapest price ever.
JBL Flip 5 Bluetooth Speaker: was $99 now $69 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
The JBL Flip 5 has dropped to a new all-time low price in Best Buy's current sale. This Bluetooth speaker combines a waterproof and durable design with excellent sound quality and a lengthy 12-hour battery life. In our JBL Flip 5 review, we called it one of the best portable Bluetooth speakers around.
Amazon Fire TV + free Echo Dot: from $79 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Best Buy is offering one of our favorite deals of all time. Currently, when you buy an eligible Fire TV Edition HDTV, you'll get a free 3rd-gen Echo Dot. (The Echo Dot is automatically added to your account). Fire TVs start as cheap as $79 and arrive with expedited shipping or can be picked up in-store. The promo ends December 31 at 11:59 p.m. PT.
Sony WH-CH710N: was $149 now $99 Best Buy (opens in new tab)
The Sony WH-CH710N offer lot of battery life (up to 35 hours) for your money. They also feature Sony's highly effective noise-canceling technology, which is a rare feature at this price point. They're now at their second-lowest price ever.
Galaxy Watch 4 (44mm/WiFi): was $279 now $169 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Best Buy has the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 (44mm) on sale for just $199. The Galaxy Watch 4 has a sporty aesthetic, plus a cool body composition analysis feature, and revamped Wear OS software. In our Galaxy Watch 4 review, we named it Samsung's best smartwatch ever.
Fitbit Sense 2: was $299 now $199 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Best Buy just sliced a whopping $100 off the Fitbit Sense 2. In our Fitbit Sense 2 review, we called it a fantastic fitness- and health-tracking smartwatch. Not only does it feature an FDA-approved ECG sensor and blood oxygen reading, but the Sense 2 also has the ability to measure electrodermal activity and skin temperature. It works with both iOS and Android and comes with onboard GPS, a native app store, Alexa support, and more.
Bose QuietComfort 45: was $329 now $249 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Stylish and comfortable to wear, the Bose QuietComfort 45 headphones offer the legendary noise cancellation that Bose is known for, along with excellent sound quality. In our Bose QuietComfort 45 review, we said the Editor's Choice headphones are a no-brainer for Bose fans who want to swap out their older QC headphones for something more modern or shoppers who want first-class Bose noise cancellation for a cheaper price than the Bose 700.
Lenovo IdeaPad 3i: was $499 now $349 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
There are plenty of cheap laptops out there, but if you want a machine that's usable, the IdeaPad 3i won't disappoint. For starters, it has a 15.6-inch 1080p LCD — something which many budget laptops forgo. You also get a Core i3-1115G4 CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD. It won't play the latest PC games, but it's a reliable machine for everyday work, web-based tasks, and streaming.
Meta Quest 2 bundle: was $399 now $349 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
If you want an easy way into virtual reality, you still can't beat the Meta Quest 2. It's standalone, and packs in two controllers to get everything done. This bundle also comes with digital copies of Resident Evil 4 VR and Beat Saber, two of the best VR games. It may not be as hi-tech as the Meta Quest Pro, but it6's got the price tag to match. Especially with $50 off.
LG A2 55" 4K OLED TV: was $1,299 now $899 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
Back in stock! The A2 is LG's entry-level OLED for 2022. In our LG A2 OLED review, we said it offers a wonderfully colorful picture and fairly strong audio. It offers Dolby Vision/HDR10/HLG support, LG's webOS platform, and built-in Google Assistant/Amazon Alexa. Console gamers take note: It's a budget model, so you only get a 60Hz panel and three HDMI ports, with no HDMI 2.1 support. Otherwise, it's great for casual gaming and streaming. The 48-inch model is on sale for $569 (opens in new tab), but won't arrive in time for Xmas.
iRobot Roomba i7+ (7550): was $899 now $599 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
This Roomba i7+ can hold up to 60 days worth of dirt in its self-emptying charging base. It also learns from its travels and offers customized cleaning schedules. It even suggests when a deeper clean may be needed due to high pollen count or shedding season for your pets. If you want a deal on one of the best robot vacuums out there, this is the one.
MacBook Air (M1/256GB): was $999 now $799 @ Best Buy (opens in new tab)
The MacBook Air M1 still offers fantastic performance thanks to its Apple Silicon. The M1 CPU also helped it reach over 14 hours on our battery test. It features a 13.3-inch Retina display, Apple M1 CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD. It's no longer Apple's flagship, but it's an amazing deal at this price.
Shop today's top TV sales at Best Buy
478 Amazon customer reviews (opens in new tab)
As deals editor at Tom's Guide, Louis is constantly looking for ways to avoid paying full price for the latest gadgets. With over 10 years of deals-hunting experience, Louis price checks against multiple retailers and searches high and low for the best deals to bring readers. A born-and-bred New Yorker, Louis is also an avid swimmer and marathoner. His work has appeared on Gizmodo, CNET, and Time Out New York.
Galaxy S23 pre-order reservations ending soon — how to get your $100 credit
Hackers are using fake Google ads to steal Bitwarden password vaults — how to stay safe
iPhone 15 looks like a lock for Wi-Fi 6E — what it means for you
How to watch RuPaul's Drag Race season 15 episode 5 online tonight
The Last of Us episode 3 release date and time: How to watch on HBO Max
Second Samsung Unpacked event tipped for March — here's what could appear
Huge Apple sale at Best Buy knocks $200 off MacBook Pro M2

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
21. Jurisdictional Dams, California, 2000
2000. California. Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Region. This point shapefie represents "Dams within the jurisdiction of the State of California" (Bulletin 17-00, California Department of Water Resources ... California. Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Region.
22. Landmarks, Monterey County, California, 2015
23. Large Hydropower Dams: Kenya, 2006
2006. World Resources Institute. This polygon shapefile shows the locations of large hydropower dams in Kenya. Dams were located based on existing data from the Geological Survey o... World Resources Institute.
24. Licensed Healthcare Facilities, California, 2006
2006. California. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. This point shapefile represents healthcare facilities licensed by the State of California, Department of Health Services (DHS), as of1997. Facility... California. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
25. Liquefied Natural Gas Import/Export Terminals, United States, 2012
2012. National Energy Information Center (U.S.). This point shapefile represents liquefied natural gas import/export terminals in the United States. The data exclude the import facility in Puerto ... National Energy Information Center (U.S.).
26. Major Airfields: Kenya, 1997
1997. United States. National Imagery and Mapping Agency. This point shapefile represents the major airfields in Kenya. This data was used in Map 6.4 and Map 6.5 featured in Natures Benefits in Kenya: An A... United States. National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
27. Major Cities: Kenya, 2000
2000. Geological Survey of Kenya, International Livestock Research Institute, and Kokusai Kyōryoku Kikō. This point shapefile identifies major cities in Kenya for 2000. Data from 1:50,000 and 250,000 topographic maps originally created by the Geologica... World Resources Institute.
28. Major Dams of the United States, 2002-2004
2002. Geological Survey (U.S.). This point shapefile portrays major dams of the United States, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The map layer was created by extr... Geological Survey (U.S.).
29. Market Centers in Western Kenya, 2000
2000. International Livestock Research Institute and Geological Survey of Kenya. This point shapefile shows locations of market centers in western Kenya.This data was used in Map 3.15 in Nature's Benefits in Kenya: An Atlas of E... Geological Survey of Kenya.
30. Micro-Hydropower Sites: Kenya, 2006
2006. World Resources Institute. This point shapefile shows locations of small micro-hydropower sites in Kenya.This data was used in Map 3.11 in Nature's Benefits in Kenya: An Atla... World Resources Institute.


Information about Bed Defense was first submitted to Scambook on Sep 07, 2014. Since then the page has accumulated 38 consumer complaints. On average users reported $394.66 of damages. Scambook's investigation team reached out to this company a total of 6 times, Scambook Investigators last contacted them on Mar 27, 2013.
This Company Page started on September 7th, 2014.


text:
Style File - David Gandy
By Julia Neel 10 August 2011
DAVID GANDY is probably one of the world's most famous male models, even gaining supermodel status similar to the likes of Helena Christensen and Naomi Campbell in the early days of the supers, paving the way for a new era in the male modelling industry. As the face (well, body, really), of Dolce & Gabbana's Light Blue fragrance, he has been lusted over by legions of fans across the world for his masculine good looks, chiselled physique and ice blue eyes.
Born in Billericay, Essex, in 1980, he was studying marketing at the University of Gloucestershire in 2002 and working part-time delivering cars to test tracks across the country when his friends secretly entered him into a modelling competition on ITV's This Morning. He went on to win the competition and land a contract with Select Models.
He eventually came to the attention of Stefano Gabbana and Domenico Dolce, who cast him in the Light Blue campaign in 2006, and soon David was on a 50-foot billboard in Times Square, being recognised across the globe and attracting attention from fans - one of whom even painted a oil portrait of the model and gave it to him for Christmas.
He is an avid car enthusiast, occasional actor, muse, iPhone app creator, model and blog star and, here, we're sharing our favourite photographs of David Gandy - both on and off the catwalk; clothed and also very undressed - as a reminder of why he is the world's most famous male supermodel.
Bronzed, bare-chested and barely dressed on the Dolce & Gabbana spring/summer 2007 menswear catwalk.
READ DAVID GANDY'S BIOGRAPHY
© Rex Features
Sporting an aviator jacket at the Sanremo Song Festival, at which he was a presenter.
SEE DAVID GANDY'S 15 FAVOURITE CARS
David and ex-girlfriend Chloe Pridham wore Ralph Lauren for the brand's annual Wimbledon party at the Rooftop Gardens in London.
READ DAVID GANDY'S BLOG HERE
With Chloe Pridham at the opening of the Hervé Léger shop in London.
Looking dapper at the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time premiere in London.
In the latest Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue Campaign with Polish model with Anna Jagodzinska.
WATCH DAVID FILM THE CAMPAIGN ON VOGUETV
Photographed my Mario Testino for the Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue campaign.
In a low-key look for the V Festival in Chelmsford.
© THIS COPYRIGHTED IMAGE MUST NOT BE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION
Working it in a sharp tuxedo at the GQ Men of the Year Awards.
SEE WHO ELSE WAS THERE IN 2010
© PA Photos
David and then-girlfriend Mollie King - of The Saturdays - were introduced at a party in London and went to a relaxed restaurant on their first date. They made their first public appearance together in April 2011, after Mollie had come out of a two-year relationship in February. Mollie is said to have not known of his modelling success when they first met.
Here, they are pictured at the Tunnel of Love fundraiser, in aid of the British Heart Foundation, in London.
© Mandatory Credit: WENN.com
Gandy in an image from the Dolce & Gabbana Uomini book, which showcases the design duo's favourite male models.
GO INSIDE THE UOMINI BOOK
Looking suave in Prince of Wales checks at the Glamour Women of the Year Awards.
SEE WHO ELSE WAS THERE
Photographed by Mariano Vivanco for David Gandy by Dolce & Gabbana.
SEE MORE PICTURES FROM THE BOOK
One of the blush-worthy images of Gandy, photographed by Mariano Vivanco, for David Gandy by Dolce & Gabbana.
Gandy and Tatler editor Kate Reardon wore their best nightwear for the magazine's pyjama party at Claridge's in London. David's dressing gown was from Dolce & Gabbana.
AUGUST 2011 - David Gandy.
READ DAVID'S BLOG FOR VOGUE.COM
MAY 19 2012 - David Gandy attended the 5th annual St.Regis International Polo Cup at Cowdray Park, West Sussex, with a friend.
READ DAVID'S VOGUE.COM BLOG
Rehearsing for the Olympic Closing Ceremony as part of the Vogue supermodel line-up.
© Toby Knott
Shooting for Dolce & Gabbana's Light Blue fragrance campaign in Capri.
With Bianca Balti in Capri for Dolce & Gabbana's Light Blue fragrance campaign.
© Darren Gerrish
Audi International Polo, Guards Polo Club, Windsor - July 28 2013
Laura Whitmore - in Moschino - and David Gandy.
M&S Christmas Campaign 2013
Suitably attired on the red carpet for the British Academy Film Awards in London.
Supporting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home at their appeal launch in London.
At the Fendi store launch party in London.
Wearing a dusky blue suit to the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition Private View in London.
At the 'One For The Boys' charity ball in London.
At the James Long fashion show as part of the London Collections: Men.
At the Burberry Prorsum show in London.
Wearing tartan to the Scottish Fashion Awards in London.
Launching his new Marks and Spencer Autograph underwear range in Dublin.
David Gandy in a Marks & Spencer suit.
Attending the Creative London party hosted by the British Fashion Council with girlfriend Mollie King.
David Gandy.
The model wore Marks & Spencers to the British Fashion Awards 2015.
At the Burberry show during London Fashion Week.
At the BRIT Awards 2016.
The model wore a white suit jacket to the gala dinner for Vogue 100.
Gandy wore a grey Loro Piana jacket to the Olivier Awards.
At the Topman spring/summer 2017 show during London Fashion Week.
At the Thom Sweeney spring/summer 2017 show during London Fashion Week.
At the Oliver Spencer spring/summer 2017 show during London Fashion Week.
Gandy wore Marks & Spencer to the British Fashion Awards.
At The Fashion Awards 2017.
At the launch of Aspinal on Regent's Street.
David GandyStyle FilePeople & Parties
Backstage With British Vogue At The Fashion Awards 2019
By Vogue 3 December 2019
Of Course Alexa Chung's Fashion Awards Look Was Inspired By This Style Icon
Halloween Inspired Shoots From The British Vogue Archive
By Ben Evans 24 October 2019


text:
Michael Shabaz (* 20. August 1987 in Fairfax, Virginia) ist ein ehemaliger US-amerikanischer Tennisspieler.

Karriere
Shabaz war als Juniorenspieler besonders im Doppel erfolgreich. 2005 stand er mit Jesse Levine im Halbfinale der Australian Open, was ihm bei den US Open ebenfalls gelang. In Wimbledon gewann er im selben Jahr den Doppeltitel und stand im September mit Platz 33 auf seinem besten Junioren-Ranking.

2006 spielte er seine erste Saison regelmäßig auch Profiturniere und zog bei Turnieren der ITF Future Tour zweimal im Doppel ins Finale ein. Er stand im Einzel Ende des Jahres erstmals in den Top 1000 der Weltrangliste.
Von 2007 bis 2011 absolvierte Shabaz ein Studium an der University of Virginia, wo er auch College Tennis spielte. Er gewann einige Titel und wurde 2011 zum Senior Player of the Year ernannt. Während dieser Zeit spielte er nur wenige Profi-Tennisturniere. Von 2009 bis 2011 bekam er jedes Jahr eine Wildcard der Turnierverantwortlichen der US Open. 2009 mit Wayne Odesnik, 2010 mit Drew Courtney und 2011 mit Ryan Sweeting verlor er jeweils in der Auftaktrunde. Seinen einzigen anderen Auftritt auf der ATP World Tour hatte er 2010 in Washington, D.C., als er abermals in der ersten Runde des Doppels verlor. In diesem Jahr überraschte er im Einzel auf der zweitklassigen ATP Challenger Tour die Konkurrenz, als er ohne Platzierung aus der Qualifikation heraus das Finale erreichte und auf dem Weg unter anderem Kei Nishikori besiegte. Im Finale verlor er gegen Robert Kendrick.

2012 konnte der US-Amerikaner regelmäßig Turniere spielen und gewann in diesem Jahr zwei Future-Titel im Einzel sowie seine einzigen zwei Future-Titel im Doppel. Im Folgejahr kamen zwei weitere Titel dazu. In der Weltrangliste erreichte er im Einzel mit Platz 394 und im Doppel mit Rang 482 jeweils seine Karrierebestwerte. 2014 und 2015 gewann er immer weniger Matches und fiel aus den Top 1000. Nachdem er danach lange Zeit inaktiv blieb, spielte er 2018 nochmal Turniere und erreichte ein Future-Finale.

Weblinks

 Profil auf der Seite der Hochschule (englisch)

Tennisspieler (Vereinigte Staaten)
College-Tennis-Spieler
US-Amerikaner
Geboren 1987
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Page Generator Version 1.0 Download - Page Generator is software designed for people that have a good knowledge of the search engine world.
SEO Doorway Page Generator 1.0 download by SEO D.P.G SEO Doorway Page Generator is worlds most powerful search engine optimization software that will help you on search engine promotion and ranking optimization. Create optimized html pages with easy.
Affiliate page generator 2.0 download by Home based business Affiliate link page generator.
Responsive Web Page Generator 2.5 download by RegnSoft, INC You add your information in a step by step interface and the program creates all the web page code for you, no programing knowledge needed.
EZ Sales Page Generator 1.0.0 download by Shelf Plans This sales copy generator is a simple desktop application that will guide you through the process of creating professional sales pages step-by-step.