If those people who want to empower engineers don't succeed at that, as jobs dry up, the meritocracy of the talented that scientifically minded people idealize (for good reasons) and which characterizes high functioning organizations) will happen less and less - it will be replaced by something quite unpleasant.
Who is willing to pay a bribe under the table to get this or that assignment? Whose family has the best connections, so the jobs can be steered to them? Every exercise of discretion will become more likely to be poisoned by these external considerations, (literally.. consideration=bribe)
That will make all professions tedious and unpleasant for most people. Also it will make people sick. A growing body of science, on
neuroimmunology and
allostasis show these stressful situations cause illness at a level that makes them as dangerous as almost any other danger that scientists track statistically.
Certain kinds of threats (from things high on Maslow's hierarchy of needs) over short periods of time sharpen the senses but over long periods of time they kill brain cells and make people old before their time. The science is compelling, they make people sick.
-----
So what has changed in the world and society that people feel so strongly that people need re-empowering? (this is a very unscientific gut feeling analysis, but - you can take it as such and just weigh it, I may be right and I may be wrong- its a quite unpolished and somewhat unscientific and hypothetical guess at what might be happening.
There has been a fundamental shift in the law, driven by new theories in economics (that basically are another area I am unqualified to speak about)
, but my gut feeling is there is now a sort of cult of efficiency based around the concept of transaction costs which is being used to justify the quit shifting away from promises which are costly to keep, when other opportunities might present themselves.
This shift has resulted in a push to change all the rules all around the world, and thats so far been largely successful. But peoples awareness of this shift is seen through the lens of class and most people in the US have only the vaguest idea of what might have changed. However, they do know something has changed.
the powerful, have managed to create new rules that give them their way, in a plethora of situations which in my opinion is a very ugly thing. For example, these changes basically end democracy as we all define it.
Which is why its been done. Whats replaced it is a sort of might makes right, based on a narrow definition of short term economic output, in some cases, and long term economic output in others, with the powerful always getting the benefit of the laws falling tehir way, so its not fair nor is it a coincidence.. Its sort of alike heads I win, tails you lose.
and nothing else.
However, this breaks the social contract at many levels. However, its kept quiet because then the benefits of an incomplete contract accrue to the powerful for as long as possible. One side is getting the benefit of the others ignorance and they - therefore perform their side of a bargain they cant win based on assumptions which are unlikely to ever come true
For one thing, they would have to bring the potential conflict out into the open, something poor people never do, because they cant afford to. The system is set up to punish people for asserting they even have these rights. Its very different than the situation as little as a few decades ago.
This is especially tryue, even ow for nonwhite people and women.
We desperately need higher rates of participation in society in technical professions. More viewpoints need to be heard and we need to recognize their value. There are numerous women whose contributions to science and engineering are largely unknown. Its also true they often feel marginalized. The highest functioning organizations are generally more inclusive ones.
My gut feeling has always been that women are the missing half of technology it needs to successfully navigate a complex future. Yes, they see things differently. Women often have common sense men lack on an issue. And they often have technical abilities that go under-recognized.
Also- there is the question of fitness to lead.
If a technical education is viewed as the gateway to managerial or leadership positions, (and in many contexts they are) people need balance.
There are all sorts of fundamental questions that a technical education should include at least some of as it makes for a more balanced and thoughtful individual.
Maybe some dont see it but there is an extremely aggressive push now to cheapen and turn all the technical professions into low valued cogs in a machine, low paid precarious jobs that require a difficult, often expensive education. This is a passive aggressive way of discouraging people from pursuing them so they can be given to others, for low pay.
If engineers and other technical professionals are stripped of their humanities education, they will be seen by society as high tech plumbers, which is what some want.
The push to turn technical work into precarious work will then be far more likely to be successful.
Society will be poorer and less likely to thrive because logically minded people (as opposed to game insiders) may eventually be shut out of leadership roles in society.
-----
Science is important..
For example, Assafi, you mentioned the phobia some people have for "immunizations" (and the phobia people have for discussing theissue in a scientific manner, which is not as simple as some would have us think.
The fears were at one point in time,somewhat based in an unfortunate use of a substance that had a
small but nonzero chance of causing birth defects if a mother who was pregnant was exposed to it during pregnancy
and she had low
glutathione status. Its logical to extrapolate that from what we know about how pro oxidant substances cause changes in gene expression. The controversy over vaccines was based in fact to some extent, but, as far as I know, thimerosal is no longer used. Now peoples main sources of mercury exposure are environmental sources - some of which are far more toxic because one form of mercury, methylmercury is extremely toxic. all emerged from the use of thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury that is no longer used. However, there is some important science that underlies the whole issue and its the science of toxicology which is choosing to ignore an important fact that engineers should be able to grasp. That a substance called glutathione - one of the most important ways our bodies cope with toxic substances, is a finite resource in the body that can be used up by increased exposure to a plethora of toxic substances, making them all additive. Their effects on fetuses during a particular period of cell differentiation are mediated by reactive oxygen species. Taking more of the precursor of glutathione, cysteine, an amino acid, blocks the toxicity.
Some parts of society refuse to integrate this knowledge because they dont want to deal with the fact that a good percentage of toxic substances have
additive effects and should be regulated in a manner that recognizes that - recognized as such, so it attempts to hide the facts which will inform that debate by attempting to turn issues that might lead to an informed, scientific discussion of glutathione trigger attacks as nonscientific. However, the underlying fact that ones glutathione status often determines the effect on the body a toxic substance has, is long proven science.