Krispy Kreme and Anesthesiology

When I went a few weeks ago to Krispy Kreme to pick up a box of donuts, I was awestruck by the automatized equipment that they have to pump out hundreds of donuts without human supervision. Two people at the front desk were all it took to serve the long line of people waiting for their pastries.

In a pair of articles by Mike Adams at NewsTarget.com, the author raises this issue of “outsourcing to robots” and how it will affect the demand for unskilled labor. Adams points out that in many ways robots can do things better and with higher productivity. Surgical robots for example can do surgery with less scarring, less bleeding, and less pain. The question then arises: If technology can supplant everyone from the donut-man to the skilled-surgeon, will there be any work left for the human workforce?

A friend of mine who has been an anesthesiologist for many years says that as much we’d like to think that computers and robots can do everything better, the system isn’t fail-proof. The problem is that while a human would have the mind to never mistakenly give 100 cc’s of morphine when only 10 cc’s are required, a computer doesn’t have that reasoning power. The gravity of mistakes with technology still surpasses benefits of increased productivity.

Nevertheless one must wonder how much our society will evolve in favor of technology. There will always be those who spearhead the move to employ and promote technological innovation. But there will also always be those whose trust of technology extends little further than their FM radio. In my mind it is comforting to know that there is that balance in society. It will be difficult to make hasty and unwise revolutions to the world when those promoting change are required to account to those that fear it. This balance between the two mindsets may be what saves our society from over-reliance on error-prone technology and keeps the donut-man at work.

Me and the Flat World

Growing up our family was centered on two cherished ideals: Christianity and Apple computers. My father’s hobbyist fascination with emerging technologies exposed me to the reality that every day our lives are more dependent on computers, whether or not we choose to understand their inner workings. Seeing how much the world was ameliorated by the development of computer science, I was convinced that understanding those inner workings was essential to my life’s fulfillment. As a result, I traded in my ambitions for a degree in Medicine for a degree in Computer Science. I did this despite being much less adept with computers than with the biological sciences. I struggled to understand principles and terminology that seemed universally understood among my colleagues and often wondered if I could ever compete professionally in such a field.

What I came to realize as I read Thomas Friedman’s book, is that even though I had entered the realm of Computer Science relatively late (many CS students have been programming since their middle school years or earlier), I can have great hope for my potential in the Flat World for three reasons: first, the Flat World provides equal opportunity to newcomers and veterans alike; second, I have many unique skills that are valuable in the Flat World; and third, my chances at success in the Flat World are highly favored by my life’s circumstances.

In the Flat World the early bird still gets the worm, but so does the late bird. Friedman cites numerous examples of companies springing up in remote locations whose business was spawned by a sudden discovery of the devices of the Flat World. Though I’m not a small business, the principle is the same. As remote as I sometimes feel from the rest of the CS community, with Google and Wikipedia all the information in the world is a few keystrokes away. It’s free, it’s convenient, and once equipped with the knowledge, the ability to communicate with the Flat World is as available to me as to the business owner who has been at it since before I was born. As Friedman pointed out, whether a giant firm or a solo practitioner, “the technology and software are so empowering that it makes us all look the same.” Though relatively new to the Flat World, my potential is not limited by my lack of experience.

Besides affording equal access and opportunity, the Flat World rewards more than just computer expertise. Friedman cites Marc Tucker who said, “software engineers who are also musicians and artists will have an edge over those who are not.” When I first entered the CS program, I was alarmed to find how different I was from the other students. Many of them would have no problem spending days in front of a terminal in some basement on the BYU campus. They eat, sleep, and breath PCs. While I enjoy working with computers, I have a lot of other interests away from the monitors that are equally important to me. I teach italian, I arrange music, I sing in an a cappella group, and I make movies. To find that these hobbies are not a boon to my success, but rather make me a more viable candidate in the Flat World is a very pleasant surprise. I am thrilled at the prospect that I can “use the framework in one [field] to think afresh about the other.” My hopes for success are bolstered by the fact that there are skills that I have developed that are rewarded by the Flat World.

Aside from advantageous skills, my circumstances favor my prosperity in the Flat World. These circumstances are threefold: first, my american heritage; second, my religious background; and third, my involvement in the CS department at BYU. If you are going to be late in entering the Flat World, America is the place to do it. “The nucleus of creativity is here, not because people are smarter–it is the environment, the freedom of thought. The dream machine is still here.” I feel greatly blessed to be in this country. Another great benefit in the Flat World, where people want to collaborate with the best individuals they can find, is maintaining a reputation as a person of integrity and faith. Growing up in a strong LDS family has benefited me to be able to create a very reputable personal profile. Lastly my participation in the CS classes at BYU has exposed me to the Flat World and taught me how to succeed in it. The ethics class I’m taking now has been an eye-opener to what my possibilities are. It has not only proposed the issue of what is good and bad, but also the issue of what is good, better, and best. My preparation for and exposure to the Flat World has been highly benefited by my environment.

One must maintain a degree of reservation when subscribing to another’s idea, particularly an idea as radical as the world being flat, but nevertheless I am confident that what Thomas Friedman is saying in his book is true. I’ve seen first hand many of the developments that he discusses and though I previously felt unconnected and unequipped to participate in this global arena, his insights have made me realize that I have skills and advantages that could make me highly effective in the Flat World, even with my late debut. I’m excited to put my ideas to the test, to find ways to contribute, to be the next chapter in “collaborating so mankind can achieve its full potential.” I feel I can have great success in the Flat World.

Trust Public Creativity, Not Public Conscience

Orson Scott Card needs a wake up call. There is no such thing as a public conscience. In fact, just as I finished reading his proposition to educate people that it’s not okay to copy protected music as a solution to copyright infringement in the digital domain, I opened my email to find a letter from a fictitious “PayPal” trying to scam me out of my identity and credit card information. Don’t mistake my realism for pessimism; we’re simply not all good people.

If what George Scialabba says is true, the panacea to all of our copyright issues in the digital realm may come by taking somewhat the opposite approach. Speaking of the end-to-end “architecture of freedom”, Scialabba points out that the wide open network of the Internet has guaranteed progress but not profits. “Gratitude, the pleasure of discovery, the impulse to self-expression, and devotion to a common enterprise motivate creators quite as much as lucre.” So it was in the miraculous development of the Internet. Can we not expect that it will be so with the arts? The money-hungry recording studios are becoming more and more obsolete anyways as recording software becomes more professional and ubiquitous. Those who truly love what they do -- and love doing it even if they don’t grow rich from copyright laws -- they will keep recording.

Technology has opened doors that allow us to access ideas and information to an infinite degree. Will we close those doors of progress because of pride?