Complex hazards technological futures and risk l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Complex Hazards, Technological Futures and Risk PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Complex Hazards, Technological Futures and Risk Chris Groves ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) www.brass.cf.ac.uk [email protected] Complex technologies May have unknown causal impacts, e.g. nanotechnology

Download Presentation

Complex Hazards, Technological Futures and Risk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Complex hazards technological futures and risk l.jpg

Complex Hazards, Technological Futures and Risk

Chris Groves

ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS)

www.brass.cf.ac.uk

[email protected]


Complex technologies l.jpg

Complex technologies

May have unknown causal impacts, e.g. nanotechnology

May involve many different social, economic and political dimensions in their management


Historical context l.jpg

Historical context

  • Debates in morality of risk: utilitarian versus deontological arguments

  • Complex technological hazards change the object of ethical concern

  • As such, they contain an immanent critique (Hegel/Lukacs) of the terms of the debate (“risk thinking”)

  • Present the distribution of uncertainty as an ethical and political problem


The timeprint of technology l.jpg

The timeprint of technology

  • Hans Jonas (The Imperative of Responsibility, 1984)

    • Mediation of social relations by technologies implies a special responsibility

    • Specifically, a future-oriented or ex ante responsibility for the well-being of strangers

  • The nature of technological uncertainty

    • Risks emerge over time “in the wild”

    • World as laboratory1

    • Properties of technologies include their processual reach (“timeprint”2)

1 Krohn, W. and J. Weyer (1994). Society as a laboratory: the social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy 21(3): 173-83.

2 Adam, B. and C. Groves (2007). Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics, Leiden, Brill, pp. 115-17.


The ethics and politics of uncertainty l.jpg

The ethics and politics of uncertainty

  • Talk of responsibility does not imply solely an abstract moral injunction

  • The “politics of uncertainty” concerns how social action produces and distributes uncertainty3

    • the forms of power/knowledge which produce interpretations of uncertainty

    • how the power to act and influence social futures is distributed

3 Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: attachment in private and public life, London; New York, Routledge.


Risk thinking and morality l.jpg

“Risk thinking” and morality

  • Includes both

    • broadly utilitarian and

    • broadly deontological responses

  • Both assume that socially legitimate policy treatments of uncertainty requires risk knowledge4

  • Reflect different and conflicting bodies of social practice and concepts of moral good4, 5

    • Bureaucratic management  public interest

    • Jurisprudential  private property

4 Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4): 445-81,

5 McAuslan, P. (1980), The Ideologies of Planning Law, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

6 Macintyre, A. (1981). After virtue: a study in moral theory, London: Duckworth.


Commonalities l.jpg

Commonalities

  • Both assume that the moral significance of uncertainty depends on how determinate it is

  • Prevalence of risk as organising concept

    • Uncertainty is subjective, risk is objective5

  • Both tend to identify agency with reduction and control of uncertainty

    • Knowledge for control has normative meaning

    • Privileges autonomy over solidarity6

5 Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, p. 233.

6 Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: attachment in private and public life, London; New York, Routledge, pp. 88-91.


Differences l.jpg

Differences

  • Different foundational assumptions

  • Utilitarian

    • Mix of philosophical utilitarianism and welfare economics

    • Aggregate utility calculated through RCBA provides criterion of policy choice7

  • Deontological

    • RCBA does not ask whether some risks are inherently socially unacceptable8

    • Individual entitlement not to be harmed9

7 Sunstein, C. (2005), The Laws of Fear, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

8 e.g. Cranor, C. F. (2007). Towards a non-consequentialist approach to acceptable risks. In: Risk: philosophical perspectives, ed. T. Lewens, London, Routledge: 36-53.

9 Hansson, S. O. (2007). Risk and ethics: three approaches. Risk: philosophical perspectives. T. Lewens. London; New York, Routledge: 21-35.


Risk thinking and foresight l.jpg

Risk thinking and foresight

  • Risk thinking implies that calculative knowledge of the future is foresight

  • In both moralities, the capacity to understand regularities is their knowledge base

    • For RCBA, knowledge of sets of homogenous events

    • For deontology, the predictable connection between acts and harms against the person or property (e.g. tort)

  • Uncertainty about the consequences of action remains an in principle temporary phenomenon


Objective uncertainty l.jpg

Objective Uncertainty

  • Science and technology studies/philosophy of technology

  • Uncertainty as an objective feature of complex systems/social action

  • Changes the temporal scope of thinking about uncertainty

  • Changes its future orientation – displaces risk from centre stage


Uncertainty as contingency l.jpg

Uncertainty as contingency


Unforeseeable consequences l.jpg

Unforeseeable consequences

  • Unforeseeability emerges from this analysis as an objective problem for social action

  • How do we deal with this problem as a feature of the technological mediation of social relations?

  • What social forms of knowledge, action, and normative resources are relevant?


Risk and reification l.jpg

Risk and reification

  • Concepts of risk are not foundational

  • Ethical and political problem: what is obscured by “risk thinking”?

  • Implies a critique of legitimacy of risk expertise (e.g. Jasanoff, Wynne)

  • Implies also an understanding of how unforeseeability and objective uncertainty matter, i.e. what are their social meanings?


The politics and ethics of uncertainty a research programme l.jpg

The politics and ethics of uncertainty: a research programme

  • An immanent critique of the legitimacy of risk-based governance leaves us with a crucial problem:

  • How can finitude be made central to the ethics and politics of uncertainty?

  • Have begun to outline an approach, consisting of an interlinked series of themes, centring on

    • assumptions about subjectivity and value

    • How subjects and values construct futures


Progress and prospects l.jpg

Progress and prospects

  • Several publications

    • Groves, C. (2006). Technological futures and non-reciprocal responsibility. International Journal of the Humanities 4(2): 57-62

    • Adam, B. and C. Groves (2007). Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics, Leiden, Brill.

    • Groves, C. (forthcoming, 2009). Future Ethics: Risk, Care and Non-Reciprocal Responsibility.Journal of Global Ethics 5(1).

  • Key ongoing themes

    • Care, subjectivity and action

    • Critique of prevalent forms of value (instrumental versus intrinsic)

    • Moral pluralism, narrative and uncertainty


Complex hazards technological futures and risk16 l.jpg

Complex Hazards, Technological Futures and Risk

Chris Groves

ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS)

www.brass.cf.ac.uk

[email protected]


  • Login