Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoble
One could also make the case that we as FIRST teams are exploiting the environment and ruining it for future generations. After all, we are using mined materials, fossil fuel products, and a good deal of energy (especially considering the number of overnight orders we place). Some teams are even sponsored by oil and gas companies! Lacking any specific data about FIRST competitions and teams as polluters, I'll go ahead and make the broad assertion that we are having a substantial negative impact. What should we do? Petition FIRST to require that teams only use certified recycled materials? Eliminate plastics such as polycarbonate from FIRST robots? Boycott competitions that don't show a measured reduction in energy usage? Quit?
Like everything else we do, participating in FIRST makes us part of a much larger system that has both negative and positive impacts over a broad range. Neither the "made in America" issue nor the hypothetical "polluter" issue is simple; both are real, but are so complex that the proposed solution (making it a requirement that FIRST use only "made in America" parts, in this case) would do nothing more than serve as a political gesture that would alienate some, and entirely fail to solve the problem, while making the FIRST experience significantly poorer overall.
|
I am glad this was pointed out.
As far as the pollution is concerned - that point you make here has crossed my mind several times.
The question we should ask ourselves in response:
was generating these waste products going to produce something worth doing it?
I'd like to say as an engineer that engineering should not just be about meeting deadlines and making what you were asked.
It should also carry with it the responsibility to identify the risk/benefits of what you are doing.
For the waste produced by FIRST operations we produce engineers and people that are sensitive to the engineering mindset.
That fosters a 'can do' attitude where people are motivated to explore the possibilities that might otherwise have been denied.
One of those people might someday manage to make sustained nuclear fusion work. How much pollution would that save?
On the topic of economics:
As others have said technology comes and goes.
Economic forces dictate some of the forces.
The willingness of those who engineer in our society to work for less dictates more forces.
When I helped propose building a 2015 FRC control system I proposed building it in America and specifically with vendors of capacity in NJ.
Why? The deadlines were short and I couldn't afford miscommunications.
I couldn't afford quality control issues and I can walk into those vendors and look for problems but it would cost big money to walk into my Korean vendors and look around (I've done it before).
So on it's face I disagree that my motivation to make it my backyard was politically motivated.
It was practically motivated.
We could have solved the local tariff issues by local distribution points just like any other large corporation pulls off.