Just about everybody has ideas on how to solve the world's problems, and
engineers are no exception.
But rarely are they in a position of power that would allow them to put
their ideas into effect.

*Does it take an engineer to solve the world's problems?*

But what if engineers=97rather than the usual politicians, lawyers, soldier=
s,
and clerics=97were calling the shots in the world today? Here's how they mi=
ght
approach a couple of major issues facing the world today:

*High energy prices*
It's a pretty simple problem: the price of oil=97a commodity in limited
supply=97is rising due to ever increasing global demand. While this could be
addressed in a variety of ways=97economic, political, and technical=97engin=
eers
would probably focus on the technical first.

To an engineer, the solution is equally simple: conserve, find ways to
increase supply, use oil more efficiently, and develop alternatives. All of
these lend themselves to scientific analysis and technical solutions.

Would engineers spend much time massaging OPEC oil ministers or letting
environmental politics=97with its often questionable scientific
arguments=97interfere with building new oil refineries (or nuclear power
plants)? I doubt it.

Not because engineers don't care about the environment, or what people
think=97but because they'll tend not to let facts stand in the way. They'd
rather get to work finding and building practical solutions to a problem
than stand around debating it.

At the same time, their proclivity to plan, analyze, and build might prove
less effective=97or even counterproductive=97in the realms of economics and
politics, which don't lend themselves to precise calculations or predictable
outcomes. This might be, in part, what happened to Jimmy Carter=97a former
nuclear engineer=97when he confronted the energy crisis of the late 1970s.

Carter did indeed recommend all of the technical solutions mentioned above.
But he also went on to call for a variety of questionable economic and
political solutions as well, including oil import quotas and "windfall
profits" taxes, as well as the creation of yet another massive governmental
bureaucracy=97the Department of Energy. Over 25 years later it seems little,
if anything, has been accomplished.

*The "War on Terror"*
The "War on Terror" doesn't lend itself to a straightforward technical
solution, but many aspects of it do. Certainly, if engineers had any say,
there would be no holding back on the development of the latest high-tech
weaponry, electronic surveillance, and sensing and identification equipment
designed to prevent terrorist acts.

As always, engineers would focus on producing practical, well-thought-out
solutions to specific problems, and have little patience for
style-over-substance politics=97no pulling 85-year-old grandmothers from Des
Moines out of passenger lines at airports for security searches in the name
of political correctness.

Engineers' ability to stay focused and avoid being distracted from their
primary goals would serve them well, and increase the likelihood of positive
results. At the same time, this attention to detail could come at the
expense of missing the "big picture."

This was illustrated recently when I spoke with one person (an engineer) who
even suggested that engineers might be inclined to search for a biochemical
reason to explain the behavior of terrorists. A test could then be developed
to identify such individuals, and a way might even be found to "correct"
their thinking. A scary thought!

All in all, the world would certainly be different=97and perhaps better in
many ways=97if engineers were calling the shots. But while I think we'd be
better off if more engineers=97and fewer lawyers and politicians=97were in
power, I might have second thoughts about giving them total control.

R. Pell
rpell@hearst.com
Source:
http://www.electronicproducts.com/print.asp?ArticleURL=3Dvwpt.sep2006.html
-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist