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.

Alan Rossney said:

The question is ... Should we take an  engineering or Hipocractic oath?

Also tricky for engineers who have created machines that put people out of a job including:

1. Transport ticket printing machines - goodbye bus conductors and train station ticket counter workers.

2. Telephone exchanges - electromechanical exchanges put operators out of a job, electronic exchanges put maintenance technicians out of a job. In both case the new jobs created were fewer in number.

3. Voltage regulators. Power stations once had a person employed full time to twiddle a knob from left to right to ensure the output voltage remained constant with a varying load.

It's notable that trade unions have delayed, but ultimated failed to prevent, the adoption of new technology that kills jobs. ITV companies were still using film for news gathering and production well into the 1980s, even though it was obsolete, because of demands made by trade unions that many jobs would be lost if the companies replaced it by videotape. Digital technologies subsequently replaced videotape.

Arran Cameron said:

Also tricky for engineers who have created machines that put people out of a job

I fear that the next thing to go may be Royal Mail as we know it. I have a fair quantity of stamps which I shall have to exchange for newer ones soon. I just don't send letters any more and I shall probably never use up my stamps.

The recent postal workers strikes cannot be helping, but the more they do it, the less viable the business will be.

Inside information is that Royal Mail is potentially highly viable as it's a major package carrier for eBay. What is loss making are post boxes in the streets. It's now common to find completely empty boxes half the time they are opened for collection. In an increasing number of places they are emptied by the postmen who make deliveries in the morning rather than after 5pm.

It's possible that in the future there will be a lower priced stamp for items taken to a post office or posted in town centre post boxes, and a higher priced stamp for items posted in suburban post boxes in order to cover the cost of collection. There might also be distance charging for parcels over a certain weight.

Royal Mail currently has no plans to remove underutilised post boxes.

Hi Arran,

However I'd suggest that's not solving the problem, that's identifying it. The problem is how you share resources (remembering that "money" or "pay" is only a token for resources)  so that those who are doing the work that needs to be done to support society have access to resources to live. The current issues in the UK public sector is a fine example of this - and at present, as all political parties are finding, there is no clear solution. Fortunately not our problem to solve (except indirectly as voters) as it's the type of problem engineers are really bad at solving (based on my experience of engineers who become managers and then try to use engineering approaches to solve human problems...)

Thanks,

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.

That's interesting. If you buy postage through eBay, it is a lot cheaper than at the counter. I was thinking of letters. There are, of course, plenty of other couriers.

The nearest pillar box from here is a small one on a post. For the past few years, it has had only one collection per day and that is by the delivery postman. There are two more within 5 minutes or so, but I was surprised to find that one is smaller than another so a bundle of A4 papers does not fit. Then a little further away is the one with most collections, which is in front of the Post Office, which is at the back of the Co-op. I can well believe that some are barely used.

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.)