Tying it all together
The role of science and technology are an ever-changing part of our everyday lives. While this role may be up for debate, the fact that the two continue to become more and more intertwined with our lives, however, is not. Science and technology to me is the constant search for understanding our world around us, then applying that knowledge to improve our lives inside it. Unconventional oil and gas extraction (UOGE) is an excellent example of this developing understanding and its struggle to be applied effectively into our everyday lives. From a political and economic standpoint, UOGE can be an extremely lucrative, growing technology both within and beyond United States borders. However this energy goldmine is both a blessing and a curse. In order to better understand this process, I will apply three major concepts that help us understand science itself, and attempt to look at UOGE through those perspectives.
First we need to tackle the fundamental issue of what science is. As Collins and Pinch put it, science is like a golem; a powerful being with the ability to solve complex problems, yet “without control, a golem may destroy its masters with flailing vigor” as well as those around it (Collins and Pinch, 1). In other words, science has great innovative power, however if it falls into the wrong hands or is used for the wrong reasons, it has potentially devastating effects. On one hand, in terms of UOGE, we have developed techniques of extracting millions of tons of natural gas from within the Earth’s surface, providing seemingly limitless amounts of energy to U.S. citizens and beyond. Yet, at the same time destroying local habitats, stripping land owners of their property, and consuming large amounts of unrenewable resources. In order to truly understand the emerging field of UOGE, we must first take a step back and look at the bigger picture of what we are giving up and taking away in order to tap into this energy surplus.
Next, we need to examine the significance of scientific and technological innovations and go beyond its tangible qualities to discover whether or not these innovations are truly a benefit to our society. Most consumers in our growing technology market do not make this attempt to investigate the consequences of our new inventions, but one group, the Amish, do. As Wetmore explains, most people see the Amish as an outdated cultural group within society who are against all modern technology and reject any change as they continue living the lives of a simpler time. While this explanation may not be entirely untrue, the better explanation as Wetmore explains later is that they are simply more conscious to the effects these new innovations will have on their society. The Amish undergo a very rigorous deliberation process weighing the potential benefits and consequences to a new invention, in an attempt to protect the purity of the moral and ethical values that govern their society and its culture identity. While decision-makers controlling the expansion of UOGE also undergo a deliberation process, the depth of their analysis is no match to that of the Amish. They are more concerned with the physical, economic, and political outcomes rather than the deeper societal and cultural tolls the extraction process can have on the small communities whose opinions often go unheard, yet are the most directly impacted by the pipelines, wells, etc. In order to property decide the fate of the future of UOGE in the United States, more focus needs to be given to the unseen effects the process can have. In other words, UOGE needs to be humanized; reconsidered for its effects on the local, surrounding communities where all levels of the UOGE equation can be content living with both the benefits and the costs of the process.
Lastly, we need to discuss the physical creation of science and technology. Regardless to how well a design fairs throughout the testing process, no part of science or the natural world it governs can be entirely safe from failure. This was put on display in the Challenger explosion. In the Challenger space-shuttle, each component of the aircraft was put through a rigorous testing process and required to emerge with success rates above a certain pre-determined standard. The O-rings, the component claimed to be the cause of the explosion, had some difficulty yet passed this standard set by NASA, thus was cleared for launch. As the story goes, the rings failed, the ship exploded, millions of dollars and sadly, human lives were lost. However, the main takeaway from this is that science and technology can never be entirely safe from disaster, but as long as we set a precedent, and follow that precedent, there is nothing more we can do to prevent disasters from occurring. In UOGE, well and pipeline safety precedents have been created to ensure the extraction process is safe and reliable, but as we saw in Gasland, these are not always 100% reliable. As the numerous families explained, gas can escape from the wells/pipes and enter local water supplies and pipes can flat out break, but there is nothing engineers/politicians could have done to prevent them all. All in all, we cannot ensure UOGE or any process for that matter will be entirely safe, accidents happen. So, in order to protect the future of UOGE, precedents need to be established and maintained to a tee and skeptics need to remember that risks are a part of life and as long as a high standard was created and properly abided by, there is nothing more we can do to protect against all potential disasters experienced along the way.
Works Cited
Collins and Pinch, The Golem, Introduction (pp. 1-3)
Wetmore, Jameson, the Amish and Technology, 2007
Fox, Josh, Gasland, 2010
Collins and Pinch, The Golem at Large, Chapter 2 “The Naked Launch: assigning blame for the Challenger explosion”, (pp. 30- 56)
