What do you think?
Rate this book
Teknoloji ve İnsanın Geleceği : İcatların Etiği
“İcatlarımız dünyayı değiştiriyor, icatlarımızla değişen dünya da bizleri.” Sheila Jasanoff, Teknoloji ve İnsanın Geleceği kitabında söze böyle başlıyor. İlerleyen bölümlerde ise, bilgi teknolojilerinden gen araştırmalarına kadar uzanan alanda bir dizi vakayı anlaşılır ve çarpıcı bir bakışla okurun dikkatine sunuyor. Hem teknolojik sistemlerin karmaşıklığını hem de bu sistemleri denetleme iddiasında olan etik ve hukuki alanın belirsizliğini işaret eden, cevabı bir çırpıda verilemeyecek sorular soruyor. Jasanoff, teknolojinin politika ve ahlaktan bağımsız bir güç olduğu yönündeki varsayıma karşı çıkıyor. Teknoloji ve İnsanın Geleceği, sadece teknolojinin risklerini değil, bizatihi vaatlerini de değerlendirmek için kamusal demokratik alanın canlandırılması gerektiği konusunda kuvvetli bir sav oluşturuyor.
214 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2016
37 people are currently reading
768 people want to read
About the author
Sheila Jasanoff
26 books29 followersSheila Jasanoff is an Indian American academic and significant contributor to the field of Science and Technology Studies. She is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. A pioneer in her field, she has authored more than 130 articles and chapters and is author or editor of more than 15 books, including The Fifth Branch, Science at the Bar, Designs on Nature, The Ethics of Invention, and Can Science Make Sense of Life? Her work explores the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and policy of modern democracies. She founded and directs the STS Program at Harvard; previously, she was founding chair of the STS Department at Cornell. She holds AB, JD, and PhD degrees from Harvard, and honorary doctorates from the Universities of Twente and Liège.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
January 25, 2017
This was a pretty good overview of some of the ethical policy issues surrounding technology, though Jasanoff focuses more on biotechnology than other technologies. (GMOs in both food and non-food, cloning, etc.). She lays out her argument against three ideas: Technological determinism (the idea that once we invent a technology, it is unstoppable and certain outcomes are inevitable), technocracy (the idea that only specialists can have constructive input into the development and assessment of technology, and the oft-cited unintended consequences excuse ("we never could foresee all outcomes, so no need to try!"). She makes reasonable arguments against these.
The author's point-of-view is that we should have more democratic and just control of technological development - she points out that the poor generally have technology inflicted upon this by the rich, with little to no say - and that our regulatory organizations tend to fail to truly build consensus on ethical standards.
I found myself wanting more philosophy, though. This book was very policy-focused (which is not a knock on it), and I was expecting a more philosophical take grounded in one or more ethical traditions. I didn't get that from this book. I wished she'd presented some more forward-looking criticism. The author mentions some prescient, very up-in-the-air ethical questions but most of the book was a retrospective of legal history. Jasanoff uses Donald Rumsfield's "Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns" as a rhetorical device to talk about our hesitance to speculate about things we don't understand - but then I found myself wishing this book had dug into some of those "unknown unknowns" itself.
The author's point-of-view is that we should have more democratic and just control of technological development - she points out that the poor generally have technology inflicted upon this by the rich, with little to no say - and that our regulatory organizations tend to fail to truly build consensus on ethical standards.
I found myself wanting more philosophy, though. This book was very policy-focused (which is not a knock on it), and I was expecting a more philosophical take grounded in one or more ethical traditions. I didn't get that from this book. I wished she'd presented some more forward-looking criticism. The author mentions some prescient, very up-in-the-air ethical questions but most of the book was a retrospective of legal history. Jasanoff uses Donald Rumsfield's "Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns" as a rhetorical device to talk about our hesitance to speculate about things we don't understand - but then I found myself wishing this book had dug into some of those "unknown unknowns" itself.
February 20, 2021
I’ve been in the process of preparing an application to an STS program the past few weeks, and have been actively trying to integrate more STS literature into my reading lists. Sheila Jasanoff helped found the STS program at Cornell and now directs Harvard’s STS program, so I thought her work might be a good place to start the process of more actively reading work explicitly engaging with STS discourse.
The opening line of this book encapsulates a central theme in STS that I very much appreciate: “Our inventions change the-world, and the reinvented world changes us,” very much echoing a sentiment variously attributed that we shape our tools and our tools shape us. And put slightly differently by Thoreau, that we often become the “tool of our tools”. It’s worth noting that under capitalism, the important tools at our disposal are themselves treated as capital, the means of production. Capitalism is in so many ways analogous to old conceptions of ‘idolatry’ in the sense that they put things over people. People are meant to serve things – serve their tools, bow down to their inflexible authority. At the same time modern production requires such sacrifices in many ways, and the question is not so much retreating back to some imagined Eden, but forging ahead asking how we can evenly distribute risk, responsibility and the fruits of our collective labour. But of course emphasizing the inflexible nature of the rule of capital, this is not to obfuscate the fact that there is a ‘ruling class’ still, a strata of people who have it in their interest to maintain these property relations.
This is one of the fascinating things Jasanoff explores in this text. The means by which scientific innovation enters into the realm of property relations, the domain of commodification of life and the world of intellectual property. Jasanoff writes:
“For the most part, the intellectual property regimes that govern technological innovation continue to uphold ideas of ownership and capital that originated in the modern industrial world some two hundred years ago. …the Patent and Trademark Office for a time granted patents on isolated DNA fragments of no demonstrated utility. On the whole… intellectual property hides its normative foundations-such as favoring individual entrepreneurship over collective effort beneath a veil of technical neutrality.”
The extractive nature of innovation under capitalism was also explored from the perspective of imperialism and Indigenous knowledge, where Jasanoff writes:
“One set of difficulties concerns the relationship of indigenous knowledge to discoveries made and marketed by modern biomedicine. In colonial times, military conquerors and missionaries freely appropriated the knowledge and practices of local people using traditional, plant-based medicines against various illnesses. That knowledge was transported back to the centers of imperialism, where it provided the basis for a nascent pharmaceutical industry. Already in the 1630s, for example, Jesuit missionaries sent cinchona bark from Ecuador and Peru back to Europe, where it was used to treat shivering induced by malarial fever. In time, cinchona became the source of a lifesaving drug, quinine. Value was extracted, literally and figuratively, from indigenous knowledge and resources, but with no payback.”
Jasanoff also has interesting sections on how disasters like Union Carbide’s Bhopal factory gas leak and the Rana Plaza (manufacturer for Loblaws’ Joe Fresh clothing line) building collapse reveals important asymmetries characteristic of global capitalism and how risk functions:
“A second feature of the global market that disasters bring to light is the asymmetry of the rules and norms that make markets function. In order to attract foreign capital, recipients of that largesse are continually driven to making concessions. Carbide's unusual majority ownership of the Bhopal factory and the Rana Plaza manufacturers' eagerness to get their employees back on the job in the face of dire warnings are examples of how unequally economic power works. Yet when accidents happen the victims must seek redress from the very same authorities that made the questionable regulatory calls and within the same structures of law that protect capital against demands for redistribution.”
There are many other interesting questions posed in this text about the rhetoric of unintended consequences and important cases Jasanoff forefronts from the field of biotechnology that I think are interesting to think about.
The opening line of this book encapsulates a central theme in STS that I very much appreciate: “Our inventions change the-world, and the reinvented world changes us,” very much echoing a sentiment variously attributed that we shape our tools and our tools shape us. And put slightly differently by Thoreau, that we often become the “tool of our tools”. It’s worth noting that under capitalism, the important tools at our disposal are themselves treated as capital, the means of production. Capitalism is in so many ways analogous to old conceptions of ‘idolatry’ in the sense that they put things over people. People are meant to serve things – serve their tools, bow down to their inflexible authority. At the same time modern production requires such sacrifices in many ways, and the question is not so much retreating back to some imagined Eden, but forging ahead asking how we can evenly distribute risk, responsibility and the fruits of our collective labour. But of course emphasizing the inflexible nature of the rule of capital, this is not to obfuscate the fact that there is a ‘ruling class’ still, a strata of people who have it in their interest to maintain these property relations.
This is one of the fascinating things Jasanoff explores in this text. The means by which scientific innovation enters into the realm of property relations, the domain of commodification of life and the world of intellectual property. Jasanoff writes:
“For the most part, the intellectual property regimes that govern technological innovation continue to uphold ideas of ownership and capital that originated in the modern industrial world some two hundred years ago. …the Patent and Trademark Office for a time granted patents on isolated DNA fragments of no demonstrated utility. On the whole… intellectual property hides its normative foundations-such as favoring individual entrepreneurship over collective effort beneath a veil of technical neutrality.”
The extractive nature of innovation under capitalism was also explored from the perspective of imperialism and Indigenous knowledge, where Jasanoff writes:
“One set of difficulties concerns the relationship of indigenous knowledge to discoveries made and marketed by modern biomedicine. In colonial times, military conquerors and missionaries freely appropriated the knowledge and practices of local people using traditional, plant-based medicines against various illnesses. That knowledge was transported back to the centers of imperialism, where it provided the basis for a nascent pharmaceutical industry. Already in the 1630s, for example, Jesuit missionaries sent cinchona bark from Ecuador and Peru back to Europe, where it was used to treat shivering induced by malarial fever. In time, cinchona became the source of a lifesaving drug, quinine. Value was extracted, literally and figuratively, from indigenous knowledge and resources, but with no payback.”
Jasanoff also has interesting sections on how disasters like Union Carbide’s Bhopal factory gas leak and the Rana Plaza (manufacturer for Loblaws’ Joe Fresh clothing line) building collapse reveals important asymmetries characteristic of global capitalism and how risk functions:
“A second feature of the global market that disasters bring to light is the asymmetry of the rules and norms that make markets function. In order to attract foreign capital, recipients of that largesse are continually driven to making concessions. Carbide's unusual majority ownership of the Bhopal factory and the Rana Plaza manufacturers' eagerness to get their employees back on the job in the face of dire warnings are examples of how unequally economic power works. Yet when accidents happen the victims must seek redress from the very same authorities that made the questionable regulatory calls and within the same structures of law that protect capital against demands for redistribution.”
There are many other interesting questions posed in this text about the rhetoric of unintended consequences and important cases Jasanoff forefronts from the field of biotechnology that I think are interesting to think about.
Read
February 15, 2025Excerpts for class
November 29, 2018
Actual rating: 3.5 stars
Initial thoughts: The intersection between technology and humanity has fascinated me for a long time, especially from the standpoint for philosophy and sociology. Naturally, The Ethics of Invention caught my eye due to the subtitle Technology and the Human Future. I get that in order to talk about the future, you first need to revisit the past and consider the present. Unfortunately, these took over so much of the book that there wasn't a lot of space left for the future. In fact, it's only in the concluding chapter that the author discusses the triad of technology, humanity and ethics.
To be fair, I found that last chapter to be very engaging and the author clearly knew her material. It's the organisation and choice of what information to include to the exclusion of others that left me not entirely impressed. I enjoyed the critical analysis and also hearing about the author's opinions; they just didn't span the entire book as the book title suggested should be the case. I could've skipped right to the conclusion for the content that truly addressed the heart of the matter.
Initial thoughts: The intersection between technology and humanity has fascinated me for a long time, especially from the standpoint for philosophy and sociology. Naturally, The Ethics of Invention caught my eye due to the subtitle Technology and the Human Future. I get that in order to talk about the future, you first need to revisit the past and consider the present. Unfortunately, these took over so much of the book that there wasn't a lot of space left for the future. In fact, it's only in the concluding chapter that the author discusses the triad of technology, humanity and ethics.
To be fair, I found that last chapter to be very engaging and the author clearly knew her material. It's the organisation and choice of what information to include to the exclusion of others that left me not entirely impressed. I enjoyed the critical analysis and also hearing about the author's opinions; they just didn't span the entire book as the book title suggested should be the case. I could've skipped right to the conclusion for the content that truly addressed the heart of the matter.
September 2, 2022
An interesting book about the role of ethics and the development of the law in technology-driven innovation. Jasanoff a legal scholar with studies and experience in Science and Technology in Society (STS), focuses on bioengineering related topics like genetically modified organisms, cloning, and drug development especially in the contrasting cultures of the U.S. A., the European Union (particularly Germany and the UK) and to a lesser degree, India. She provides an excellent analysis of how such culture's social, legal and ethical values have shaped how different countries have grappled with legal issues and challenges at different times in response to new inventions and their (potentual and actual) industrial applications.
She looks quite closely -althought in intelligible layman terms, at the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and pitfalls of expert risk assessment, the slippery slopes of responsibility and somewhat less closely, but attentatively, at mechanisms for broader, more public consultations, participation and input to technology development and implementation. Curiously enough, the book tends to downplay key developments in the adoption of the precautionary principle in the European Union and its emphasis on stakeholder involvement in responsible research and innovation (RRI), especially since 2014.
Chapter 3, The Ethical Anatomy of Disasters is outstanding and its coverage of the struggle between Union Carbide and the government of India over the Bhopal disaster about advocacy, liability, and multijurisdictionality is very illuminating – for example Union Carbide pushed towards the trial being judged in India while the Indian government pushed towards the trial being held in the U.S.A., Jasanoff clearly and incisively explains the fascinating reasons for these apparently counterintuitive strategies.
Chapter 7, Whose Knowledge, Whose Property? is a brief, respectful but pointed look about different countries' rationales for different stances on patents.
The two last chapters, Reclaiming the Future (chapter 7) and Invention for the People(chapter 8) are possibly the best in the book. Chapter 7 provides an overview to:
Chapter 8 (Invention for the People) underlines the key challenges to ethically sound technological innovation and implementation: the need to develop deeper, more solid techniques to anticipate physical, social, environmental and moral consequences of technologies, mechanisms for increased agile stakeholder participation focused as strongly on long-term as on short-term risk assesment, a more just and open governance of technological innovation, reforms in international patent law based on fairer principles as embodied for example in the recognition of ownership claims of indigenous knowledge holders in the international UN backed Convention on Biological Diversity, and providing a more just balance between corporative, government and people's rights.
The discussion included on ethics and information technology includes some interesting tidbits but is underdeveloped, incomplete and party outdated -this is, to be fair, a very fast moving area.
In Jasanoff's fitting words in her final chapter:
She looks quite closely -althought in intelligible layman terms, at the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and pitfalls of expert risk assessment, the slippery slopes of responsibility and somewhat less closely, but attentatively, at mechanisms for broader, more public consultations, participation and input to technology development and implementation. Curiously enough, the book tends to downplay key developments in the adoption of the precautionary principle in the European Union and its emphasis on stakeholder involvement in responsible research and innovation (RRI), especially since 2014.
Chapter 3, The Ethical Anatomy of Disasters is outstanding and its coverage of the struggle between Union Carbide and the government of India over the Bhopal disaster about advocacy, liability, and multijurisdictionality is very illuminating – for example Union Carbide pushed towards the trial being judged in India while the Indian government pushed towards the trial being held in the U.S.A., Jasanoff clearly and incisively explains the fascinating reasons for these apparently counterintuitive strategies.
Chapter 7, Whose Knowledge, Whose Property? is a brief, respectful but pointed look about different countries' rationales for different stances on patents.
The two last chapters, Reclaiming the Future (chapter 7) and Invention for the People(chapter 8) are possibly the best in the book. Chapter 7 provides an overview to:
Major procedural mechanism to evaluate impact of new technologies: technology assessment (systematic mapping of alternative technological pathways), its offshoot constructive technology assessment, ethical analysis, [and] methods of public engagement that aim to reinvigorate deliberative democracy.Each mechanism raises its own dilemmas of power and deliberation: inclusion (who gets to participate in imagining the possible futures the technologies will usher in), democracy (the design of institutions that might enable a geneuinely collective reflection on technology's potential). Jasanoff somewhat plays down constructive technology assessment (CTA, the harbinger to the EU's RRI initiative) and the two examples of failures she provides, both in the U.S.A., appear to point towards incorrectly applied CTA principles.
Chapter 8 (Invention for the People) underlines the key challenges to ethically sound technological innovation and implementation: the need to develop deeper, more solid techniques to anticipate physical, social, environmental and moral consequences of technologies, mechanisms for increased agile stakeholder participation focused as strongly on long-term as on short-term risk assesment, a more just and open governance of technological innovation, reforms in international patent law based on fairer principles as embodied for example in the recognition of ownership claims of indigenous knowledge holders in the international UN backed Convention on Biological Diversity, and providing a more just balance between corporative, government and people's rights.
The discussion included on ethics and information technology includes some interesting tidbits but is underdeveloped, incomplete and party outdated -this is, to be fair, a very fast moving area.
In Jasanoff's fitting words in her final chapter:
The making and deploying of technologies have given rise to ethical questions on multiple levels, from how to protect individual values and beliefs to how much respect to accord to the policy intuitions of nation-states informed by distinct legal and political cultures, the need to contrast top-down innovation imposition from more developed to less developed countries with alternative strategies such as those embodied in frugal innovation,In short a very readable introduction to ethical invention from the viewpoint of a legal scholar who has been closely watching and analyzing key issues in the relationship between law, ethics, technology and society.
How can our far-reaching technological inventions be governed so that they meet the ethical needs of a globalizing world? Who should assess the risks and benefits of innovation, especially when the results cut across national boundaries: according to whose criteria, in consultation with which affected groups, subject to what procedural safeguards, and with what remedies if decisions prove misguided or injurious?
[...]
[A]s we have seen thoughout the preceding chapters, institutional deficiencies, unequal resources, and complacent storytelling continue to hamper profound reflection on the intersections and mutual influences of technology and human values. Important perspectives that might favor caution or precaution tend to be shunted aside in what feels at times like a heedless rush toward the new. As a result the potential that technology holds for emancipation, creativity, and empowerment remains unfulfilled or at best woefully ill distributed. Issues that cry out for careful forethought and sustained global attention, such as the genomic and information revolutions are depoliticized or rendered invisible by opportunistic design choices
[.... ]
This deep democratic deficit cannot be cured with procedural Band-Aids. The recently proliferating experiments with public consultation, constructive technology assessment, and ethical review do no harm and should certainly continue. They have the merit of keeping people involved in decisions pertaining to their everyday lives.
August 2, 2024
If you have ever felt uncomfortable being told to simply "vote with your dollars" as the world around you moves forward at 100 mph and changes with each new technology, this would be a fascinating read. Jasanoff shows us why being an informed consumer is not enough- we need more ways as everyday citizens to actively participate in shaping the adoption and regulation of our technology. From the creation of the field of bioethics to disastrous failures of the technocratic elites to protect everyday people, she provides salient examples that will inform your point of view.
My gripe with this book is that it is very heavy on biotech, and doesn't really discuss other industries in-depth.
My gripe with this book is that it is very heavy on biotech, and doesn't really discuss other industries in-depth.
December 12, 2018
Sheila Jasanoff reminds us that technology, in many ways, is an embedded politics. Its design and its promotion are never value-neutral, even if they are often treated as such.
She highlights--and debunks--three central fallacies that dominate conventional wisdom around technology: (1) the determinist fallacy (that once a new technology is invented, it "possesses an unstoppable momentum, reshaping society to its insatiable demands"), (2) the myth of technocracy (that only those with specialist knowledge and skills can manage and control technology), and (3) unintended consequences (As she notes, "If technological mishaps, accidents, and disasters seem unintended, it is because the process of designing technologies is rarely exposed to full public view").
She highlights how these fallacies play out in various sectors and ends with an important call for greater democratic and ethical deliberation about the future of technology. Technology can be a powerful tool of emancipation -- but only if we use our power to shape it.
She highlights--and debunks--three central fallacies that dominate conventional wisdom around technology: (1) the determinist fallacy (that once a new technology is invented, it "possesses an unstoppable momentum, reshaping society to its insatiable demands"), (2) the myth of technocracy (that only those with specialist knowledge and skills can manage and control technology), and (3) unintended consequences (As she notes, "If technological mishaps, accidents, and disasters seem unintended, it is because the process of designing technologies is rarely exposed to full public view").
She highlights how these fallacies play out in various sectors and ends with an important call for greater democratic and ethical deliberation about the future of technology. Technology can be a powerful tool of emancipation -- but only if we use our power to shape it.
March 27, 2018
The book covers a broad range of sub-topics under invention and innovation, from gun control and GMO to rise of social media and data age. It is a good start for someone trying to acquaint themselves of the different historical arguments in this space but fails to contribute any solid thoughts or ideas on the debate of ethics so far as they relate to, and get affected by, the innovation landscape.
It would have made a much better read if the author could limit the topics tackled and would have rather explored the different dimensions in which evolutionary progress reshapes questions of ethics and demand a reinterpretation of our understanding towards them.
The book does briefly discuss the historical role of governments and regulatory bodies but in the end, it all felt more like a narration or events and states; the book has all the foundations but no unique structure has been built above that.
It would have made a much better read if the author could limit the topics tackled and would have rather explored the different dimensions in which evolutionary progress reshapes questions of ethics and demand a reinterpretation of our understanding towards them.
The book does briefly discuss the historical role of governments and regulatory bodies but in the end, it all felt more like a narration or events and states; the book has all the foundations but no unique structure has been built above that.
June 8, 2017
The book is interesting if you are clueless about various ethical issues surrounding technology (information technology, bio/health technology, lifescience technology, weapons etc.). My interest was in IT and reading through it i miss the connection on how policy makers and citizens can be accommodated during the design/innovation process of a system (e.g. facebook,google, etc.) the book simply enumerates what is currently happening and is more reactionary rather than participatory. The book also misses an opportunity in refining the points of technology ethical - issues arising from other technology developments... e.g. Smartphone allow user/people mobility thereby allowing facebook and google to be accessible anywhere..in turn facebook (as a social media) collects huge amount of data from it's users.. this feeds into their big data technology or artificial intelligence and etc..
In the first chapter the book identifies immediately that technology is so varied and yet there was no attempt to focus the discussion on a more confined discussion but rather keeps on enumerating various instances where technology was somehow misused or accidentally went out of hand.
If you want to make the most out of this book read the first chapter, go to a particular chapter of interest and read the last chapter.
In the first chapter the book identifies immediately that technology is so varied and yet there was no attempt to focus the discussion on a more confined discussion but rather keeps on enumerating various instances where technology was somehow misused or accidentally went out of hand.
If you want to make the most out of this book read the first chapter, go to a particular chapter of interest and read the last chapter.
February 5, 2019
The subject matter appealed to me as a naysayer for unrestrained technological development. I enjoyed the book for the most part but the details provided on the specific policies currently in place lost me a bit towards the end. The issue of inequality that follows advances in technology is a topic that I would like to read more about.
May 15, 2023
Practical, readable, insightful, follow-up of Heidegger's the question concerning technology. Also gives some light suggestions for solutions, but it often stays descriptive of solutions that have been tried. It left me curious what Jasanoff would say if asked for stronger suggestions for actions to take to invent ethically.
July 21, 2017
A good top-down look at how innovation is really complicated. Fails, I think to address the lived experiences of individuals in such a system, or to really push back at the capitalistic goals that drive invention.
October 25, 2018
Another technological determinism book.....
October 16, 2019
Wandering, abstracted take on tech ethics. I'm still searching for an STS book I love (besides original SoSR).
Specifics on bio ethics were cool.
Specifics on bio ethics were cool.
November 20, 2021
Everyone should read
April 18, 2023
Intressanta empiriska exempel, men teoretiskt mycket tunnare än vad jag hade förväntat/hoppats på.
February 1, 2024
The entire book can be summed up in a blog post.
June 1, 2024
Insightful overview.
February 27, 2018
Essential review of the legal and social framework from the valuation of technological impact on society and risk.
Would benefit from admitting a role for more innovation in the mechanisms of policy, and governance, and whether these risk amplifying the problem or addressing and in what keys.
Would benefit from admitting a role for more innovation in the mechanisms of policy, and governance, and whether these risk amplifying the problem or addressing and in what keys.
December 10, 2019
Phenomenal book - borrowed it from a library but just ordered a copy to keep around. Highly recommended!
December 21, 2018
I am back to ramble about my pet topic, violence against plants and animals.
On the bright side, this book about the ethics of invention is one of the least nonsensical English-language publications I have had the privilege of reading, in a long long time.
Unfortunately, after I went to Germany to investigate whether German-speaking people are less of an asshole towards plants and animals, it transpired that Prof. Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard Kennedy School), who is of South Asian origin and linked to the History of Science establishment in the Anglophone world, decided to hold Harvard Summer School for Sustainability IN FREIBURG ITSELF. While I was pleased that I could finally learn some Anglophone Elite Knowledge without having to bother with Anglophone Elite College Tuition, I was most annoyed about how I then had to deal with the moral crisis of Anglophone liberals yet AGAIN.
As it was, I spent all of Harvard Summer School yelling at the Harvard undergraduates,
"What about all the people in the ghettos in the US? What about the farmers in the Midwest? What about the farmers in India who are being experimented on by Big Pharma??".
Then I yelled at the Freiburg, German-passport-holding undergraduates,
"Oi! Do you even understand environmental politics history of your own country?
You dimwit, that's not what the Greens said in the 1970s! Refer to politicians ABCDEFG."
When my hapless Canadian-passport-holding teaching assistant (in his blond-haired, blue-eyed innocence) turned pale with horror, and tried to correct me in class, I corrected his understanding of the German language and the difference between SCIENCE and NATURWISSENSCHAFT, and frowned at him for being Not Very Good at history of science or science and technology studies.
Initially, Prof. Sheila tried to shush me at first by saying "Ky, Singaporeans are very privileged." And then I yelled at her, "Oi! Some of us didn't choose this life!!". Then, she started examining me thoughtfully, as if I was a testing specimen for a biology scientist.
As summer school progressed, she became more amused than ever.
Then she said, "Come on, Ky, tell me, what would you like to write in your final essay?"
I frowned suspiciously at her and told Prof. some generic fake-white-people answer based on the white-people readings she had given in class.
Prof. smiled to herself (and I imagine, it was with great pleasure) and had the Old Grandmother "you think I don't know you are bullshitting me?" face, and said, in a very Bostonian accent, while rearranging her saree in a calm and peaceful manner,
"No, Ky, tell me what you REALLY want to write."
I frowned suspiciously at her and said, grumpily,
"No. You don't want to know what I want to write. >:(
The German professors are always annoyed at me when I write what I want to write and then I get really bad marks. I want to write about this [fake white people topic]. That is what I want to write."
Prof. smirked and said, "Ky. Why are you in Germany?"
I thought to myself, "Fuck, I have been exposed. My efforts to hide from all the annoying Singaporeans I didn't like, have been foiled. Stupid Prof. I managed to convince all my German friends that my grandfather is a farmer and then now she is ruining my reputation. Dammit. Should have never signed up for summer school. No more peace and quiet and resting for me. Now my German friends are all going to get suspicious of me and then I cannot rest anymore."
I just looked at her and refused to reply. Then I said, even more grumpily, with great displeasure, "Why are YOU in Germany????"
Prof. simply beamed at me with the Old Indian Grandmother Face again and just said, "What would you like to write?" and then stirred her chai in an annoyingly peaceful manner.
In my final essay, I eventually wrote that I think everybody in my summer school class should be sent to the countryside in a small village in Africa for some hard labour under Dr. Wangari Maathai, from Kenya, who is a United Nations level biologist, and this is so that they will learn that plants and animals are alive >:( She was so amused by me that she got me to read out and explain my essay to everybody in class, all the Anglophone and German liberals turned pale, nobody understood what I was writing except the guy whose family used to be from Hong Kong, and the African student whose grandfather was a farmer, just like mine, and then the guy from Hong Kong crumbled and apologised for his annoying capitalist behaviours and started worshipping Korean pop, while the African student started to discuss with me what is to be done about the moral crisis of these Europeans and North American liberals when it comes to the matter of all this fake food and fake people.
Prof. then gave me 1,3 (German equivalent of A+), I was rather pleased, and smiled for once, and then she seemed rather entertained by the entire thing. Later, after I turned Muslim, I emailed her and said "Hello Prof may I visit you in future with some fruits and vegetables?" I am honoured to inform you that she said I can visit her anytime.
She is the best professor ever. My inner farmer is really happy now. Thanks Prof.
I will always remember you kindly, just like the way I will always remember #RedGuardGrandma kindly, for having loved my aunt-who-studied-in-Shanghai, when she was a small village girl and had nobody to love her when Mr Lee Kuan Yew first industrialised western Singapore. Thanks for everything. Because of both of you, I have smashed worldwide clearance for the AIIB and sold out distribution chain data on my Facebook feed.
Long live grandmothers and kindness to village-girls, plants and animals, and natural food.
Say no to Jin Liqun x Jin Keyu x Jason Chan x AIIB today!
On the bright side, this book about the ethics of invention is one of the least nonsensical English-language publications I have had the privilege of reading, in a long long time.
Unfortunately, after I went to Germany to investigate whether German-speaking people are less of an asshole towards plants and animals, it transpired that Prof. Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard Kennedy School), who is of South Asian origin and linked to the History of Science establishment in the Anglophone world, decided to hold Harvard Summer School for Sustainability IN FREIBURG ITSELF. While I was pleased that I could finally learn some Anglophone Elite Knowledge without having to bother with Anglophone Elite College Tuition, I was most annoyed about how I then had to deal with the moral crisis of Anglophone liberals yet AGAIN.
As it was, I spent all of Harvard Summer School yelling at the Harvard undergraduates,
"What about all the people in the ghettos in the US? What about the farmers in the Midwest? What about the farmers in India who are being experimented on by Big Pharma??".
Then I yelled at the Freiburg, German-passport-holding undergraduates,
"Oi! Do you even understand environmental politics history of your own country?
You dimwit, that's not what the Greens said in the 1970s! Refer to politicians ABCDEFG."
When my hapless Canadian-passport-holding teaching assistant (in his blond-haired, blue-eyed innocence) turned pale with horror, and tried to correct me in class, I corrected his understanding of the German language and the difference between SCIENCE and NATURWISSENSCHAFT, and frowned at him for being Not Very Good at history of science or science and technology studies.
Initially, Prof. Sheila tried to shush me at first by saying "Ky, Singaporeans are very privileged." And then I yelled at her, "Oi! Some of us didn't choose this life!!". Then, she started examining me thoughtfully, as if I was a testing specimen for a biology scientist.
As summer school progressed, she became more amused than ever.
Then she said, "Come on, Ky, tell me, what would you like to write in your final essay?"
I frowned suspiciously at her and told Prof. some generic fake-white-people answer based on the white-people readings she had given in class.
Prof. smiled to herself (and I imagine, it was with great pleasure) and had the Old Grandmother "you think I don't know you are bullshitting me?" face, and said, in a very Bostonian accent, while rearranging her saree in a calm and peaceful manner,
"No, Ky, tell me what you REALLY want to write."
I frowned suspiciously at her and said, grumpily,
"No. You don't want to know what I want to write. >:(
The German professors are always annoyed at me when I write what I want to write and then I get really bad marks. I want to write about this [fake white people topic]. That is what I want to write."
Prof. smirked and said, "Ky. Why are you in Germany?"
I thought to myself, "Fuck, I have been exposed. My efforts to hide from all the annoying Singaporeans I didn't like, have been foiled. Stupid Prof. I managed to convince all my German friends that my grandfather is a farmer and then now she is ruining my reputation. Dammit. Should have never signed up for summer school. No more peace and quiet and resting for me. Now my German friends are all going to get suspicious of me and then I cannot rest anymore."
I just looked at her and refused to reply. Then I said, even more grumpily, with great displeasure, "Why are YOU in Germany????"
Prof. simply beamed at me with the Old Indian Grandmother Face again and just said, "What would you like to write?" and then stirred her chai in an annoyingly peaceful manner.
In my final essay, I eventually wrote that I think everybody in my summer school class should be sent to the countryside in a small village in Africa for some hard labour under Dr. Wangari Maathai, from Kenya, who is a United Nations level biologist, and this is so that they will learn that plants and animals are alive >:( She was so amused by me that she got me to read out and explain my essay to everybody in class, all the Anglophone and German liberals turned pale, nobody understood what I was writing except the guy whose family used to be from Hong Kong, and the African student whose grandfather was a farmer, just like mine, and then the guy from Hong Kong crumbled and apologised for his annoying capitalist behaviours and started worshipping Korean pop, while the African student started to discuss with me what is to be done about the moral crisis of these Europeans and North American liberals when it comes to the matter of all this fake food and fake people.
Prof. then gave me 1,3 (German equivalent of A+), I was rather pleased, and smiled for once, and then she seemed rather entertained by the entire thing. Later, after I turned Muslim, I emailed her and said "Hello Prof may I visit you in future with some fruits and vegetables?" I am honoured to inform you that she said I can visit her anytime.
She is the best professor ever. My inner farmer is really happy now. Thanks Prof.
I will always remember you kindly, just like the way I will always remember #RedGuardGrandma kindly, for having loved my aunt-who-studied-in-Shanghai, when she was a small village girl and had nobody to love her when Mr Lee Kuan Yew first industrialised western Singapore. Thanks for everything. Because of both of you, I have smashed worldwide clearance for the AIIB and sold out distribution chain data on my Facebook feed.
Long live grandmothers and kindness to village-girls, plants and animals, and natural food.
Say no to Jin Liqun x Jin Keyu x Jason Chan x AIIB today!
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews