Tricky for those working in some areas of defence where the end product is designed to cause destruction,

It can indeed be a slippery slope. I recall, probably back in the 1990s, that one professional society had quite a debate over whether the society should accept members who worked in the tobacco industry. The establishment of the society didn't seem to see a problem, but some of the younger members seemed to see an obvious conflict between the evidence of harm caused by smoking (at the time not doubt encouraged by tobacco industry advertising) and the society's rules about 'doing no harm' (I don't recall the exact phrasing). These days similar arguments could be raised from anything from salt and sugar to fossil fuels to cars. Almost anything that benefits some people can have some detrimental effect on others. Where can you draw the line?

   - Andy.

Quite. The problem is (we're getting very philosophical now) whether you can define "right" and "wrong", as compared to "actions" and "consequences". For example, personally my view of the current scientific expertise is that I want to work in areas which result in carbon emission reduction, and other personal views I hold mean that I do not want to work in areas associated with military activities. So that's steered the areas I've chosen to work in. But it's very clear from discussions with any mixed group of engineers, including of course these forums, that other engineers hold 180 degree opposed views as to whether these are the "right" positions to hold. Who's to decide which is right?  I think it's got to be down to individual decisions, although I do think the PEIs can have a role in helping to provide information to allow engineers to make informed decisions about their work and the consequences.

(Also remembering that engineers, like all human beings, are very very good at finding ways of justifying why what they wanted to do anyway is morally the right thing to do!!) 

Which I think brings us back to the point (good grief!) - that it would be really useful for the IET to support research into the impact of AI, robotics and other automation on society so that engineers can consider whether it's a field they wish to support (or, perhaps more practically, which they wish to try to steer in particular directions).

Cheers,

Andy

Andy Millar said:

it would be really useful for the IET to support research into the impact of AI, robotics and other automation on society so that engineers can consider whether it's a field they wish to support

Interesting point Andy. I remember doing an engineering degree by night. One of the classes was "The responsibility of engineers in society". While it had a longwinded name it was one of the classes that got the most engagement from the students. The class reviewed case studies (plane crashes in the 70', for instance) and discussed the responsibility or culpability of the engineers in each case.
It would indeed be good for industrial and academic institutes to fund studies on social benefit of AI, automation or robotics. The key challenge is that these studies are impartial. It can be difficult to prove impartiality, even in government, which is heavily lobbied by industry. I don't think we can leave it to the merchants to self-regulate either. I believe regulation needs to be informed by research in collaboration between academia, community, government & industry. Unfortunately it is a slow process of negotiation which can often lead to hiatus as evident in CoP 27. But it still needs to be done. In the meantime, regarding social benefit, we need to make personal choices about what we produce and what we are buying. 

#robotics

Andy Millar said:

I want to work in areas which result in carbon emission reduction

This technology conflicts with employment in the coal extraction and consuming industries.

Industries which once employed millions of workers in Britain. Don't think that renewable energy in the future will employ even a fraction of the number of workers who once worked in a coal related job during the early 20th century.

Andy Millar said:

I want to work in areas which result in carbon emission reduction

This technology conflicts with employment in the coal extraction and consuming industries.

Industries which once employed millions of workers in Britain. Don't think that renewable energy in the future will employ even a fraction of the number of workers who once worked in a coal related job during the early 20th century.

As would have been said by tobacco farmers, asbestos miners, and whalers. As I said right at the start, countless millions of roles have been "lost" through advances in technology over the last 2-300 years, it's the nature of our work. And yet we still have very high levels of employment. As Alan says above (I'll admit I'm slightly changing the context) hopefully getting rid of roles which are "dull, dark or dangerous".

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether carbon emissions are dangerous. As I said above, we all have to make our own choices. 

(Actually the work I do, which is connected with enhancing the rail network, does employ very large numbers of people - the Elizabeth line for example. But that's not why I enjoy doing it, that's a fringe benefit if anything.)

Andy Millar said:

As would have been said by tobacco farmers, asbestos miners, and whalers.

Smoking is pleasurable, but not otherwise beneficial. Asbestos used to be used widely, but its dangers were not immediately apparent (like tobacco). Prior to the advent of mineral oil, where else could you get good quality oils from? Castor.

Question of the day: why is Humbrol paint so called?

You mean the Humber Oil Company being Yorkshire born I recognize this immediately.

Actually they mention this on their website

https://uk.humbrol.com/about-humbrol

Mike

Ah yes, but that's only part of the story. Hull was known for fish (at least until the last cod war in 1976), but before that it was a whaling town and that's why there was an oil industry there.

(I grew up there and Father was born there, that's how I know.)