Blog Ten: Reflection on Open Source Strategies

Prior to taking an open source public policy class, I thought that product innovation was inextricably connected to the protection and privatization of design blueprints. This widely held misconception has survived as a result of the normalized belief that humans are self-involved creatures driven by the sole promise of making a profit. I believe that my personal inability to grapple with the concept of public open source design platforms is due, in part, to the individualistic culture that I grew up in. The research I have conducted throughout this course has led me to believe that human beings do not make decisions in relative isolation. Humans are attuned to the actions and feelings of other human, as well as nonhuman, living beings. Thus, the decisions we make are also a product of our relationships with other people, as well as a result of situations external to our own needs and wants.

However, I have also reached the conclusion that an individual’s reasoning for adopting open source strategies is not entirely altruistic, either. For example, if an individual chooses to release the design recipe for their break-through, innovative sustainability technology, they will eventually generate economic returns to their innovation. If an entrepreneur releases the design blueprints for his or her new and sustainable energy grid technology, the entrepreneur will speed up the grid’s costly and time-consuming production and installation processes. As other competitors begin to customize and replicate the entrepreneur’s innovation, the competitors will also be contributing to the expansion of the product’s market, which in turn will provide more business for the innovative entrepreneur. And, if the same entrepreneur calculates the social cost of not expanding the sustainability market, our entrepreneur will be able to quantify the dollar value created by his innovative clean energy grid. Since our entrepreneur is a human being that exists within society (and will therefore benefit from the positive impacts of a cleaner environment), reduced societal costs means a reduction in his own personal spendings.

What helped me formulate and then articulate this argument is the energy group’s open source project on the Vinegar Hill community. As a member of the social subcategory of the renewable energy group, I conducted research that quantified the social costs of continued fossil fuel use. I also had to synthesize the data on a cohesive PowerPoint and then teach and present my findings, which served to concretize my knowledge of open source concepts. For example, I found a multitude of evidence-based articles and research reports that proved how greener environments and increased exposure to the natural world is linked to children’s’ cognitive development, mitigating symptoms of ADD and ADHD (Jacobs). I also found a myriad of research demonstrating how green cities enhance intellectual development and reduce mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety (Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan). I accumulated case studies that outlined a list of economic arguments for renewable energy, which is illustrated in the screenshot below. Finally, researchers and scientists have established a causal relationship between ceaner air and physical health: “results from the Harvard Six Cities Study show that when adjusting for other health risk factors, particulate air pollution in the U.S. is associated with mortality (Dockery et al., 1993). And when air pollution decreases, “hospital admissions for pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma also decrease” (Pope, 1989).

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). “Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings.” Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54-77.

Kuo, F.E., & Faber Taylor, A. (2004). “A potential natural treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from a national study.” American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1580-1586.

Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E. (2009). “Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park.” Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 402-409.

Medicine, Institute of., et al. Public Health Linkages with Sustainability: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press, 1900.

“Biophilic Design Case Studies.” Terrapin Bright Green, http://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilic-design-case-studies/

Blog Nine: Behavioral Psychology and Collaborative Climate Change Mitigation

Climate change mitigation and adaptation schemes fundamentally rely on behavioral change, both at the individual and the collective level. Thus, collaborative sustainability initiatives intersect with, and are in informed by, the field of behavioral psychology. This blog post aims to examine the behavioral psychological science surrounding the concept of open source, specifically as it relates to climate change mitigation. I argue that open source design, which relies on collaborative innovation, is supported by psychological evidence on behavioral change and motivation. On the other hand, the intellectual property system wrongly places the burden of responsibility on individuals to create change in the sustainability arena: “exhortations to individuals to ‘take responsibility’” are both frustrating and induce feelings of disempowerment and helplessness, chief obstacles to energy-related behavioral change (Thøgersen, 2005).

There is a myriad of research revealing how climate change mitigation schemes that target individuals decrease their intrinsic motivation and lead to feelings of helplessness and fatigue, which ultimately translates to inaction. In Eva Heiskanen, Mikael Johnson, and Simon Robinson’s article, “Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavior change,” the researchers provide an abundance of psychological literature arguing that “more focus should be placed on the community level,” and that “energy users should be engaged in the role of citizens, and not only that of individual consumers.” Targeting individuals has been a historically ineffective method of changing energy-related behaviors. While some individualized energy programs have been successful (Geller et al., 2006), a much greater number have faltered, which has led to increased skepticism about the effectiveness of privatized approaches in regards to changing consumptive life-style patterns.

Sustainability efforts that target individuals to innovate and “save the world” incorrectly presume that consumers have full control over their behaviors and make decisions in isolation (Lutzenhiser, 1993; Wilhite et al., 2000; Jackson, 2004). In reality, psychological behavioral science emphasizes the “socially grounded nature of human behavior.” Unless citizens can assure themselves that others are also collaborating to combat climate change, their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint may appear pointless (Kollock, 1998). The intellectual property law system disregards the inherently social nature of human behavior (Wilhite et al., 2000). In other words, an individuals’ decision to “make a difference” ultimately has more to do with “social conventions” than with their own personal beliefs and rationale. Despite that individuals may temporarily be induced by information or eco-labeling incentives to “challenge the status quo” and to change their behaviors, these changes are often short-term and “rarely survive once the change interventions are discontinue” (Kurz, 2002; Abrahamse et al., 2005). Hence, for lasting change, psychological researchers conclude that an “individual needs to be supported by new routines, infrastructures, institutions and networks,” which aligns with the fundamental design of open source (Bijker et al., 1986; Rohracher, 2001).

Maniates, Heiskanen, and Banerjee’s research on climate change mitigation schemes that appeal to individual responsibilities reveal a converging finding: if sustainability efforts are to be even remotely successful, they should work within a community-based and socially-engaging context, such as open source projects. The research team provides a case study on Green Office –a workspace training program run by WWF Finland, which employs community-building practices to promote low-carbon workplaces. WWF Finland witnessed significant energy reductions, and the researchers ultimately conclude that, in order to effectively combat climate change, both social and structural mobilization is required.

 

Banerjee, Abhijit and Barry D. Solomon. “Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and                            sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs, Energy Policy.” DeepDyve.                Elsevier, 01 Jan. 2003. Web. 10 May 2017.

Heiskanen, Eva, Mikael Johnson, Simon Robinson, Edina Vadovics, and Mika                               Saastamoinen. “Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioral               change.” N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2017.

Tiefenbeck, Verena , Thorsten Staake, and Kurt Roth. “For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign.” For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2017.

https://wwf.fi/en/green-office/

 

 

Blog 8: Healthcare and Open Source

In order to explore the intersection between open source design and the healthcare system, I decided to research and specifically focus on analyzing “OpenMRS,” a collaborative project that aims to develop software that supports the dissemination of health care to developing countries. The company’s mission is “to improve health care delivery in resource-constrained environments by coordinating a global community to create and support this software.” The collaborative project began in 2004, and numerous healthcare nonprofits and universities now employ OpenMRS, the University of Virginia included. OpenMRS harnesses the power of an extensive open source electronic medical record platform (EMR), which provides health clinics with the tools and strategies “necessary to support patient care in an easy–to –understand electronic format” (OpenMRS).

One benefit of OpenMRS is that the software can be used to design customized medical records systems, which allows healthcare systems existing in different contexts to personalize their platform. Since OpenMRS is built on a conceptual database structure, “which is not dependent on the actual types of medical information required to be collected or on particular data collection forms,” and so the system can be modified to fit a variety of medical institutions. Private, standardized medical record systems risk becoming incompatible with healthcare facilities that are embedded within distinct geographical and cultural locations. This makes OpenMRS “ideal for creating EMR systems in developing countries (where, for instance, they don’t need the insurance information that a U.S.-based practice might).” Add-on modules and easily accessible API add another layer of flexibility, as developing healthcare systems can continue to customize their EMR.

Most importantly, OpenMRS provides an example of how open source design can catalyze positive social change in the medical arena. Diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria are pandemic to developing nations, and so “prevention and treatment interventions …require efficient information management.” The majority of heath care programs in developing nations “manage their information with simple spreadsheets or small, poorly designed databases … if anything at all.” OpenMRS offers a solution that can enhance their management tools and minimize the need for redundant duplication requisites.

https://openmrs.org/

Blog Seven: Why We Need to Open-Source the Food Industry

Babylon Micro-Farms, a hydroponic home appliance company launched by University of Virginia undergraduate students, offers a sustainable alternative to industrialized agriculture. Hydroponics gardening envisions a closed–loop food production system that has the potential to transform the way we produce and consume food. With the intention of producing fresh fruit and vegetables within the UVA dining facilities, Alex Olesen teamed up with three other students to create compact hydroponic farm prototypes. These highly personalized hydroponic systems (only 6 feet wide and 6 feet tall) offer consumers the ability to produce food within their own homes, as opposed to purchasing lettuce that has traveled thousands of miles to arrive on the shelf.

Although Babylon Micro-Farms is not an open-source company, Babylon’s mission to transform our current energy–intensive food production model will require widespread community collaboration. Building the capacity to grow food in local and urban environments relies on deep–seated infrastructural change, which can be brought about by a common, rapidly evolving technology platform. For example, Tesla’s co-founder Elon Musk realized that sharing the designs of his electric vehicles would expand the market. Musk recognized that the only way to compete with gasoline-powered car companies was to stimulate innovation in the electric vehicle market. Sharing his patents “helps Tesla by getting more electric vehicles on the market, meaning more overall infrastructure that makes Tesla cars more valuable.”

In a similar vein, the world would benefit from collaboration between hydroponic companies such as Babylon Micro-Farms. In order to revolutionize our food production system –minimizing our greenhouse gas emissions and using less water, pesticides, and land –we need to install core infrastructure that would support a sustainable food supply chain. For most urbanites, food is an abstract concept until it arrives on their plate. As author and farmer Wendell Berry explains, if one gained one’s whole knowledge of food from advertisements and grocery stores, “one would not know that the various edibles were ever living creatures, or that they come from the soil, or that they were produced by work.” Our mass food production system alienates the consumer from biological processes, and in order to “reclaim responsibility for one’s own part in the food economy,” we need companies sharing their design platforms so we can catalyze transformative change.

https://www.babylonmicrofarms.com/

http://www.nbc29.com/story/37578550/babylon-micro-farms-02-23-2018

 

 

Blog Six: Open Source Electronics and Sustainability

David Ellis’ article on the digital fabrication of open-sourced consumer electric products is primarily centered on the design, construction, and customization of electric devices, such as radio and computer hardware. Although Ellis employs open source design as a means of optimizing technological equipment and tools, his case studies have much broader implications for confronting humanity’s most pressing environmental and social problems. Ellis’ conclusion that the design sector needs “a new ecosystem of consumer electronic devices, one in which more people participate, in more ways, in the creation of meaningful and diverse products,” is a statement that reaches beyond the electronic industry into the realm of sustainability.

For example, Ellis analyzes the role of open source strategy in the design and construction of electronics: “for customers, the flexibility of digital fabrication processes implies increased choice and freedom in the design and function of their products.” Consumers who live in a multitude of social contexts “will have have increased opportunities to meet and form relationships with the creators of their devices.” This possibility for enhanced individual involvement in the design of products “stands in contrast to the impersonal purchasing of the typical products of mass production.”

So, how does this inform the sustainability movement? As opposed to consuming the services and goods that are thrust upon us by corporate interests and market forces, open source recipes would allow customers to create products that align with their environmental and social values and beliefs. As Professor Mark Wood argues, learning centers and organizations must infuse technological innovation “with civic rather than market spirit” in order to create “communally beneficial goods and services that solve social problems.” And, because research shows that individuals experience feelings of hopelessness when attempting to tackle large-scale problems, a sense of agency and personal engagement is a necessary ingredient in confronting dauntingly complex social and environmental challenges. As one of my environmental professors once said, “the environment that we live in determines the way in which we live;” thus, individuals often feel entrapped inside economic and infrastructural systems that control the production and distribution of goods (Wood). Because climate change and sustainability exist within large-scale systems that shape the way we interact with the world, open source design, which “increases choice and freedom in the design and function of products,” has the potential to transform passive consumers into active agents of change (Ellis).

I conclude with a passage from Mark Wood’s essay “From Service to Solidarity,” in which he highlights the distinction between being a “good citizen” and a “non-conformist.” David Ellis’s application of open source technology in the electronics sector is an example of developing a “non-conforming citizenship.” “Good citizens,”on the other hand, are confined by institutions and actors that privatize information and exclude the public sector from participating in design and innovation:

 

Wood, Mark. From Service to Solidarity: Engaged Education and … 2003, http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=5C8DF616EB324D0BA9DB33E151008DAB&CID=2C54DBB992C068EE23EFD008936F691D&rd=1&h=0sg41RoLHCzUbl0pKAK8WHqS9Z1ayNaeoWPA3odeSpA&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fopenjournals.libs.uga.edu%2findex.php%2fjheoe%2farticle%2fdownload%2f193%2f181&p=DevEx,5067.1.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/76252299/martin-luther-king-jr-quote-t-shirt-or

http://sociogeny.blogspot.com/2015/02/structuration-structure-culture-agency.html

Blog Five: Food Security and Agriculture

Marcin Jakubowski deems the open source economy “an antidote to artificial scarcity,” which has the potential to revolutionize the food production system through open source industrial machines and DYI sustainable farming tool kits. “Artificial scarcity” refers to the condition whereby a good is seemingly limited, meaning that the technology and production exists to create a theoretically limitless abundance of that good. This contrived scarcity results in the unequal distribution of goods and resources where there otherwise wouldn’t be. Jakubowski’s approach explicitly focuses on the control of material resources, creating an overabundance of food and burgeoning obesity crisis in developed nations, and a finite amount of food and resources in countries within the Global South. For example, Sally Humphries’ essay, “Evaluation of the Gender Impacts of Farmer Research Teams in Honduras,” demonstrates that rural communities suffer from pervasive food insecurity and lack access to basic services, such as health, secondary education, potable water, sanitation, electricity, etc. (World Bank, 2004).

Although Jakubowski focuses on the material realities of artificial scarcity, Humphries’ article informs and expands Jakubowski’s position by noting how collaborative open source design not only combats food scarcity, but also has a societal “ripple effect” on communities. This ripple effect, Jakubowski explains, spans beyond the issue of food security into the realm of the social: “collective action around food security has the potential to support gendered social change” providing “a space where generative empowerment permits both women and men to challenge unequal gender roles and to open cracks for transgressing social boundaries.” Humphries’ research reveals how collective action around the problem of food stability, “where gender is of secondary importance, has the potential to support gendered social change.” In rural Honduras communities where agricultural knowledge is almost entirely controlled and regulated by men, the use of participatory platforms encouraged women “to become actively engaged in searching for sustainable solutions to chronic food insecurity.” Remarkably, not only did this communal collaboration begin to tackle the issue of food insecurity, but it also challenged oppressive gender roles, empowered subjugated individuals, and validated female knowledge production.

Some of the research results and findings are listed below:

• “Ethnographic research over more than 15 years and interviews with women in these communities about the project, its activities, and agricultural impacts revealed a strong, joyous sentiment among women project participants, that they had more confidence, more friends, more knowledge, and more power in their families and communities.”
• “Quantitative research in 2004 affirmed gendered impacts. The study found correlations between project participation by men and women in local organizations, primarily farmer research teams, and perceptions that gender roles had changed in ways that supported increased ‘libertad,’ or freedom.”
• “Longitudinal data gathered since the quantitative study showed not only that sustained gender role change had occurred in households of women CIAL participants but also evidence of men’s unmistakable pride in their wives’ self-confidence and achievements, helping to confirm CIAL participation as the best explanation of gendered change.”

Along with positive production outcomes within the food production sector, this shift from privatized and male-dominated strategies to open and inclusive forums resulted in positive social externalities. Material outcomes of open source within the Honduras community, such as increased profits and technical innovation within the food production sector, are evidently coupled with positive social impacts and innovations -female empowerment and gender equality. So, what does this mean for open source and sustainability? If industries and patent designs are exclusively owned by men, such as in STEM fields where women participation is low, businesses are losing out on opportunities for both material and social innovation.

Humphries, Sally , and Lauren Classen. “Opening Cracks for the Transgression of Social Boundaries: An Evaluation of the Gender Impacts of Farmer Research Teams in Honduras.” World Development, Pergamon, 14 June 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001180.

http://www.fao.org/gender/infographic/en/

https://www.onedrop.org/en/project/honduras/

Blog Four: Education and Control of Knowledge

Stephen Kovats contends that the creation of comprehensive “knowledge commons” will contribute to the destabilization of oppressive power structures: the open source model can “break down the lingering effects of digital divides and promote greater equality in dialogue between South and North” (Kovats). Thus, not only is open source a pragmatic take to complex global challenges, but open design is also entangled with ethical and social implications. Open source technology is more than a practical solution, potentially serving as a tool to recognize, empower, and celebrate marginalized voices. Likewise, in Sabrina Pendergrass’ course on “Systems of Inequality,” we explore how the structure of the educational system reproduces gender and class divisions, which ultimately ensures that the wealthiest members of society gain access to optimal schooling and job prospects. Pendergrass’ research informs and supports Kovats’ article, as she recognizes how the privatization of knowledge is deeply linked to gender, racial, and class inequality. For example, test scores directly correlate with family income: as income rises, test scores rise. Wealthier families have access to the most expensive tutors and preparatory classes, which then directs wealthy students to higher quality universities. Expensive tutors and prep classes can then be linked to intellectual property rights and patent law: they both shield information from the general public and perpetuate the oppression of disadvantaged groups.

Historian of education Diane Ravitch reveals educational disparities within school systems that participate in “tracking,” or flagging “gifted” students for advanced curricula. Ravage illustrates how these contemporary tracking systems are deeply racialized, providing data and statistics which reveal that minority students are more often placed into lower tracks and white students into honors tracks. This process starts in elementary school, so by the time students enter middle school, they’ve been marked as eligible for a “gifted” or “standard” education. Open source has the potential to deconstruct this binary between white, “gifted” students and students of color. The collaborative design of open source technology itself cultivates conversation between “regular,” or “less academically advanced” knowledge resources and curriculum catered to “superior” students. Kovat recommends supporting knowledge societies by lowering “the barriers for youth, women and marginalized groups to effectively access technology, in particular the requirement by public education facilities to provide free and unhindered access to the internet, rooms and means that are inclusive.” This shift from exclusivity to inclusivity within the classroom initiates the process of leveling the academic playing field and disrupting institutionalized forms of inequality.

Moreover, open data can “alleviate vast amounts of resource redundancy in re-creating curricula for schools” and “create rapid, specialized libraries where none exist today, or enable new social and political identity and awareness for historically marginalized peoples” (Kovat). Instead of each school having to start from ground zero in creating and updating school curricula, open platforms minimize educational ‘startup costs.’ And if libraries and curricula are shared communally, wealthy schools -their ideas, thoughts, and perspectives -can be supplemented by the voices of teachers in minority or disadvantaged school districts. This sharing of multiple forms of intelligence affirms the validity and value of disadvantaged communities and minority cultures, creating a more well-rounded and diverse curricula that showcases a plurality of perspectives and histories.

Conventional “Gifted” Student Classroom:

Conventional “Disabled” Classroom:

Visionary Open Source Classroom:

Citations

http://www.justintimecareservices.net/autism-verbal-behavior-therapy

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2016/10/20/when-is-a-student-gifted-or-disabled-a-new-study-shows-racial-bias-plays-a-role-in-deciding/

https://www.emaze.com/@ATZZFLII/Untitled

https://nancyebailey.com/2014/09/12/commiserating-on-how-gifted-students-are-ignored-by-educators-policymakers-and-those-who-should-care/

https://www.emaze.com/@ATZZFLII/Untitled

Blog Three: What the Nature of Climate Change means for Open Source Design

I’ve noticed that the terms “climate change” and “sustainability” have consistently been mentioned within conversations surrounding the burgeoning open source design movement. This repetition of environment–related keywords invites an exploration into why proponents of open source software continuously weave the topic of sustainability into the dialogue. The design of open source is supposedly compatible with solving problems such as “climate change” and “environmental degradation,” so I’m curious to identify the specific characteristics of the climate change problem that demand the use of open source collaboration. I found myself asking: are there certain problems that can only be solved through harnessing the power of open source? On the other hand, are there specific problems that are better suited for intellectual property design?

I realized that one climate change–specific feature involves infrastructure: if a problem requires a large infrastructural transformation, such as the innovative electric vehicle, a company can increase profitability by adopting open source policies. For example, Achilleas Karamitsios highlights how “the existing electric grid infrastructure does not facilitate fast EV battery charging.” Therefore, “partnerships can be effectively used as a tool for firm learning; more particularly when radical technologies with uncertainty are taking place and when a lot of different systems and subsystems have to be aligned with each other.” Mike Masnick also notes how Musk insightfully realizes that “patents frequently hold back and limit innovation, especially around core infrastructure.” Tesla is a real-world application of open source technology, and our articles highlight the fact that the distinct nature of the carbon crisis renders it incompatible with the patent system. Although I tend to shy away from blanket statements, I think it’s fair to argue that innovations requiring vast infrastructural change –changes to the electric grid, the food production and distribution system, and the walkability/the design of our urban living spaces –inherently call for the use of OSS.

The other property of the climate change problem (that aligns with open source technology) is the ubiquitous demand for climate solutions across all cultural and geographic contexts. Obviously every infrastructural innovation cannot be applied across all sociocultural locations; thus, we desperately need the ability to customize and optimize sustainable technology so that it complements all human societies and needs. Instead of having to “start from scratch” in the design of environmentally sustainable technology, everyone who demands the technology can access its basic design recipes. And finally, solving the problem of climate change has a timeline; if we continue on the “business as usual” track, climate change will have devastating, if not life threatening, impacts on human societies. We literally do not have the time to privatize, or hide, breakthrough energy-saving technologies. Not only would the world “all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform,” as Elon Musk explains, but the world’s survival depends on these “rapid-evolving technology platforms.”

To concretize my observations, I found an article that demonstrates how “the peculiar features of the climate change problem pose substantial obstacles to our ability to make the hard choices necessary to address it,” and thus must rely on the open source software market to create tangible change (Gardiner). For example, “climate change is not caused by a single agent, but by a vast number of individuals and institutions not unified by a comprehensive structure of agency.” Further, “given that there is not only no world government but also no less centralised system of global governance (or at least no effective one), it is very difficult to coordinate an effective response to global climate change.” Stephen Gardiner’s essay supports my hypothesis that there are particular characteristics of the climate change problem that would be best solved through open source design, because open source software would directly combat the issue of “fragmentation.” Although our world is disadvantaged in its political and spatial disconnectedness, open source serves to counteract that disconnection and to unify information across all borders and contexts. Gardiner then articulates the infrastructural component of climate change that I’ve mentioned above. I’m including this passage below, along with images the illustrate Gardiner’s main points:

“But a second characteristic of the climate change problem exacerbates matters in this setting. The source of climate change is located deep in the infrastructure of current human civilisations; hence, attempts to combat it may have substantial ramifications for human social life. Climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Such emissions are brought about by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. But it is this energy that supports existing economies. Hence, given that halting climate change will require deep cuts in projected global emissions over time, we can expect that such action will have profound effects on the basic economic organization of the developed countries and on the aspirations of the developing countries.

This has several salient implications… it suggests that those with vested interests in the continuation of the current system – e.g., many of those with substantial political and economic power – will resist such action. Second, unless…”

 

Gardiner, Stephen M. “A Perfect Moral Storm.” Hardcover – Stephen M. Gardiner – Oxford University Press, 3 Feb. 2018, global.oup.com/academic/product/a-perfect-moral-storm-9780195379440.

http://blog.codeguard.com/bulletproof-backup/

https://www.tylin.com/en/projects/infrastructure_of_northern_new_development_zone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Two: The Intersection of Inequality and Intellectual Property

 

 

In exploring the dynamic between “inequality” and the United States’ intellectual property regime, our community must first come to terms about the meaning of “inequality.” As Professor Etienne pointed out in lecture, “inequality” can be harnessed as a tool to stimulate diverse dialogue surrounding our most pressing societal challenges; yet, inequality can also reproduce oppression and violence. In my former “Systems of Inequality” course, as well as in an “Intro. to Anthropology” course, my classmates and I studied and teased out our own definitions of “bad inequality.” I believe that the work of anthropologist Stuart Hall serves to clarify our discussion on inequity: Hall argues that systems of classification and difference, although essential to language and meaning making, become problematic when they become “objects of the disposition of power.” Embracing Hall’s definition of inequality, I would contend that intellectual property laws that stigmatize and cripple the opportunities of certain groups of people, while providing disproportionate advantages to privileged communities, would fall under the category of insidious and adverse inequality.

Joseph Stiglitz and Amy Kapczynski effectively mold Hall’s generalized definition of inequality to fit into our class discussion about intellectual property: “IP regimes as currently configured in fact make IP a mode of power that is particularly inaccessible to those with few resources” (Kapczynski). In Joseph Stiglitz’s article, the disadvantaged groups are those who occupy the lower income bracket and cannot afford to participate in Myriad’s breast cancer gene testing, and thus have a less equal chance to conquer cancer and to survive. The Myriad case spotlights an intellectual property design that again fits Hall’s definition of inequality; holding patents over genes can be recognized as a “system of classifying different recipes of knowledge” that ultimately disadvantages, and perpetuates the suffering of, low-income women. The Myriad case, if passed, would be a form of structural class domination, reproducing unequal access to health and privileging the lives of those who are able to pay for testing and treatment.

Amy Kapczynski further explains this phenomena by providing a “market ordering” scenario: “market ordering will allocate a loaf of bread to a rich person who is “willing” to pay $6 for it, rather than to a poor person who is “willing” (read: able) only to pay $1 for it, even if the poor person would get far more pleasure from it, or indeed would need it to survive.” Kapczynski then adds to Stiglitz’s article by underscoring the existence of “substantial literature that criticizes IP as excluding ‘poor people’s knowledge.’” This point in particular resonated with me. In my Systems of Inequality course, I conducted research on the ways in which North American indigenous communities generate knowledge about the natural environment. Their forms of knowledge production, however, are often unrecognized and even violated by dominant manufacturers of knowledge: those who hold privatized patents over ideas and information. If a privileged few hold and manage the legal rights to knowledge, America’s most marginalized minds and voices will continue to be silenced; and, the oppressive historical trend of disregarding Native American ideas is survived through the intellectual property system. The tragedy of this imbalanced access to knowledge is that a multitude of North American indigenous communities have developed sustainable food production, distribution, and processing techniques, as well as learned how to maintain complex ecological balance with the landscape. I’ve included some powerpoint slides from Gail Small, a professor of Native American Studies at Montana State University and a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, below.

Gail Small Head Chief Woman. Indigenous Land, Culture & Environment. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

Blog One: IP and OSD

“Open collaborative design is a nascent field that has huge potential to radically alter the way we create goods, machines and systems – not only for personal items but all the way up to components of national or global infrastructure.”

https://www.redbubble.com/people/annaflowers/works/23541629-the-earth-laughs-in-flowers?p=sticker

http://mvcweb.org/papa-francisco/enciclica-laudato-si/

I compared and analyzed Innovation and Product Development with Open Source Design through the lens of the environmental crisis, specifically considering how the structure of the IP system is ill equipped to solve highly complex and multidimensional social problems. One of the greatest strengths of OS is its flexibility, or its potential to reach diverse audiences: although the creator of the product design may know little to nothing about his or her consumer, they are still “providing a platform for solving the problem” (Etienne). To build off of Professor Etienne’s point, this democratization of product information creates a greater sense of individual agency within the innovation process, because open designs effectively hand the consumer the tools to adapt a product to specific geographical and cultural contexts. Thus, “building upon existing components and assemblies from the universal commons” not only “allows people to create things of complexity,” but it also allows a diversity of people to innovate and to solve technological problems on their own terms (Open Collaborative Design Reading). This advantage of Open Source –minimizing the gap between the ‘producer’ and the ‘consumer’ –becomes even more crucial when global communities confront context-dependent social challenges. There are no uniform “recipes” or blueprints for solving issues such as climate change. If a corporation in The United States, for example, obtains a patent on a technological design that reduces water usage in Los Angeles, communities in Bangladesh may face difficulties adapting this privately owned technology to their own water infrastructure systems. They may also run up against cultural incompatibilities: for example, the American technology may be irreconcilable with Bangladeshi belief and value systems surrounding water usage and consumption (i.e. some cultures view certain water sources as holy or sacred). Open source design would allow the Bangladeshi community to access and to study the American technology, and to then build off that “recipe” in order to create a product that better fits the needs of their infrastructure.

 

Pope Francis eloquently explains this challenge in Laudato Si, when he writes: “A consumerist vision of human beings, encouraged by the mechanisms of today’s globalized economy, has a leveling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety which is the heritage of all humanity.” Further, “attempts to resolve all problems through uniform regulations or technical interventions can lead to overlooking the complexities of local problems, which demand the active participation of all members of the community” (Francis). Privately owned technologies aimed at solving universal social problems cannot always be imported into different communities and cultures.

 

There’s also something incredibly empowering and respectful about giving individuals the tools they need to confront challenges within their own local communities, as opposed to forcing a patented blueprint product onto a complex and unique culture: “the local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest” (Francis). I fear that the IP system, which “plays a major role in enhancing the competitiveness of technology-based enterprises” rather than embracing a collaborative approach to solving climate change, ultimately perpetuates and favors the ideas and products of the wealthiest and privileged minds (Kalanje). Open source, on the other hand, ruptures this model, allowing for a more equal and culturally diverse approach to confronting climate change. Instead of imposing a Northern technology on the Global South, which keeps them in a place of helplessness and dependence on a patented technology, open source creates the opportunity for all minds to solve local problems.