Reviews for Polymer Science and Technology

The average rating for Polymer Science and Technology based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2021-01-17 00:00:00 John J Garrison Every person even remotely responsible for public policy (from the municipal to the international level) should read and learn from this. "To give just one general example of unmet needs: The field of accountancy and bookkeeping is in urgent need of redemptive technologies. In order to make socially responsible decisions, a community requires three sets of books. One is the customary dollars-and-cents book, but with a clear and discernable column for money saved. The second book relates to people and social impacts. It catalogues the human and community gains and losses as faithfully as the ongoing financial gains and losses documented in the first book. In the third book, environmental accounting is recorded. This is the place to give detailed accounts of the gains and losses in the health and viability of nature, as well as the of the built environment."

Review # 2 was written on 2018-08-20 00:00:00 Brian Nichols Ursula Franklin provides an important 'alternative reality' voice to the dominance of what she calls 'technology' today. Even more impressive that the book was written nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, her book only looks at one side of the coin. On the opposite end of any sweatshop laborer are potentially hundreds of people clothed. It doesn't exactly work like that, but it's hard to make the case that the sewing machine has caused more harm than good by 'enslaving sweatshop laborers.' She is a thinker, not an economist, and her writing evokes more of the philosophical treaties of the 1950s than a practical guide to change. She highlights in her book the need to consider the environment, the changing social norms (in particular the lack of 'reciprocity' that technology enables). She envisions solutions that don't keep us captive. However, she never does more than rally against these developments. Technology and human society works in permutations and increments on what is currently there. Zipcar was seen as a social revolution in car sharing, but they failed to realize the ultimate 'car sharing' would be Uber, with a decidedly less 'egalitarian' bent towards its riders and drivers. Good technologies inspire awe and then become entrenched in our daily lives because of that awe, not because of some insidious corporate agenda. Here's what Ursula misses: our desires drive our 'enslavement' (via habit) to our machines. We want to do spreadsheets faster and easier, so we rely on our computer and take care of it--not because of some lurking, unthinking presence, but because of our needs and desires. It is useful to question the needs, but invariably email provides more communication than memos and meetings; Facebook and Slack provide more communication still, with generally positive effects (though we'll have to have a more nuanced view there). The economy does not play favorites - it's in many ways a race to the bottom. The reason we don't have telephone operators anymore (another example) is basic cost benefit. There's no doubt having a human touch on the telephone line made it more 'human' and allowed a richer interaction. However, not having telephone operators allowed many more people to afford more minutes on the phone - creating more bridges, saving more lives, etc. She doesn't argue that the costs outweigh the benefits, only that we don't accurately measure or choose the costs. She talks about 'telephone dating' (you could say the same about Tinder) in terms of swiping profiles and sending messages without seeing the other's reaction. But here again, while I agree that it changes the character of dating, it merely leverages human behavior. We aren't 'slaves' to this technology as much as willing participants. Her most extravagant claim comes 2/3rds of the way of the book where she suggests government is 'nothing but a bunch of managers, who run the country to make it safe for technology.' A kind of overstatement that undercuts tens of thousands of people who serve their communities (and themselves, to be fair) everyday. She ultimately proposes a 7 step checklist for any project 1) Does it promote justice? 2) Does it restore reciprocity? 3) Does it confer benefits to all or to some? 4) Does it favor people over machines? 5) Does it maximize gain or minimize disaster? 6) Does it favor conservation over waste? 7) Does it favor the 'reversible' over the 'irreversible'? In the end it's interesting because intellectually she seems to understand: "The world of technology is the sum total of what people do." There's the key.