Science in Christian Perspective
The Engineer, the Consumer and Pollution
HELMUT FANDRICH
Consultant in Mechanical Engineering
6411 Cambie Street
Vancouver 15,
B.C., Canada
From: JASA 25 (March 1973): 17-20.
The relationship between the techniques of the engineer, the demands of the consumer, and the capacity of nature to dispose of wastes requires careful scientific analysis before realistic solutions to pollution can be found.
It is the duty of the engineer to minimize the depletion of natural resources, to optimize recycling processes, to consider side effects of technical proposals and thus to control and develop the resources of nature for the use and benefit of a maximum number of people. Only by rationally developing practical solutions and realistically following optimum priorities will man prevent waste disposal from causing an ecological catastrophe.
It is the engineer who develops technical solutions, but it is the consumer who must pay for them. By deciding where he spends his earnings, the consumer ultimately determines what goods are produced and services rendered and how much they effect the environment. The consumer who holds the value of material goods and natural resources in perspective should be willing to pay his share of pollution control costs. Such a responsible perspective, however, is possible only when man enjoys a proper relationship with the Creator.
Consumer Wants
To satisfy the basic necessities in life and the compulsion in man to
accumulate
material possessions and power, engineers have controlled and
developed nature's
vast resources of materials and energy for the use and benefit of mankind. As
new sources of raw materials and energy were discovered and ingenious methods,
machines and processes developed, making man more affluent, his urge
to accumulate
material possessions increased. Realizing the great potential of this
urge, marketing
and sales organizations fostered and nurtured man's desire for goods
and services
in order to sell more and thereby reap a larger profit.
The desire for more and more material goods led to an emphasis on quantity and
looks rather than on quality; reliability and endurance began taking
second place
to low price. Throw-away items replaced reusable containers and
repairable gadgets.
Built-in "obsolescence" was a natural consequence; if people wanted
the latest model and were too lazy to have an article fixed, why not reduce the
price of the item by designing only for its expected life? Heavy duty
models would
serve the professional who requires durability, and the limited duty
models would
serve the casual user who needs the item only occasionally and so does not want
to pay the price of a durable model.
The engineer's role in this scheme was to minimize the prime cost of an article
by technical breakthroughs, cost reduction techniques, and more
efficient processing.
The salesman's role was to maximize the distribution of the article, decrease
the unit cost through volume sales and thus increase the profit or decrease the
selling price. In this way business firms increased the availability
of a product
for their benefit and their customers, since even the low wage earner could now
afford some luxury goods.
The need to satisfy the drive towards accumulating wealth and
material possessions
also became evident in the desire for higher wages. Most often a
raise was demanded
by the worker without a corresponding increase in productivity on his
part. Through
ignorance or indifference, he failed to accept the fact that the
price of articles
is determined by the sum of the earnings or wages of the people
directly or indirectly
associated in any way with the article. Ultimately, only an increase
in productivity
can increase earnings or decrease prices.
Otherwise, a wage raise
must be offset
by a price hike. Price hikes, in turn affect international
transactions. Without
a corresponding increase in the purchasing power of the country importing the
goods, a price increase reduces sales and therefore fewer articles
will be produced.
To maintain a high export volume, which incidentally also benefits
the local consumers
by giving them lower priced articles, it is necessary to maintain low prices.
Fringe benefits and unproductive expenditures must therefore be kept
at a minimum.
Some unproductive expenditures which have traditionally been avoided
are the costs
incurred in converting waste materials into biodegradable or harmless forms, or
disposing of them in safe containers.
The capital investment required to install and operate pollution
control equipment
is often a significant proportion of total production costs. In a
highly competitive
field there is often only a slight profit margin so that the additional expense
of purchasing and operating pollution control equipment would
bankrupt the company.
Pollution control costs must be added to the cost of the goods produced or the
services rendered. These additional expenses have the effect of decreasing the
purchasing power of the consumer and thereby reducing the volume of
goods on the
market. This holds true no matter who provides the cost outlay initiallybe it
the government, the company directly involved, or the consumer. Ultimately the
buyer pays for all unproductive as well as productive expenditures.
Along with the affluence made possible by innovations, cost reductions and high
productivity, came prodigality and indolence. Lost was the true value of goods
and services received. Clothes were discarded without being worn out. Leftover
food was thrown away. Containers were not reused. Overpowered cars were bought
for appearance, not function. Unneeded lights were left on. Affluence
had distorted
and diminished the value of goods and work. People had become lazy.
The natural desire for material possessions and the necessity of
making a profit
were not the only factors leading to the indifference towards an improper use
of nature. Contributing to pollution was the emergence of the
impersonal corporation.
In the old family firm there usually existed a personal approach and a personal
responsibility in the activities and reputation of the company. The few people
in control of the firm were usually content with a reasonable level
of affluence.
The mammoth corporation, with many shareholders to satisfy, is insatiable and
amoral. Whereas a million dollars profit is a large income for one
extended family,
it is a small income when divided among a thousand shareholders. The necessity
of showing a large profit, which is never enough, may cause the
directors to make
decisions collectively which are contrary to individual convictions.
The establishment of some mining or manufacturing companies is often based on
marginal appraisals. If unproductive expenditures for pollution
control equipment
were necessary, the promoter could not project a profit and therefore
his shares
would not sell. Consequently, provisions for environmental safeguards are few
and possibilities for the misuse of nature are many.
Consumer Over-reaction
It is obvious that our culture has chosen pollution as the crisis of
the decade.
The destructive potential of arsenal satellites each with clusters of H-bombs
orbitting a few hundred miles above our major cities, ready to disperse death
and destruction within minutes, is not at present considered as significant as
pollution. But,
what is not clear at the moment is whether "ecology is an old science, a
new religion, or a fad which will go to join the technocracy of the
30's in history's
museum of naive and outmoded ideas."1
Ultimately the buyer pays for all unproductive as well as productive expenditures.
In creating an awareness of the problem even biased information has
been valuable.
Impulsive action based on misinformation, however, can be dangerous.
But now that
the pollution problem has been exposed it is necessary for man to act
less emotionally
and to support the development of scientific solutions. If action is initiated
before scientific solutions are available, the "cure" may cause more
damage than the problem. An example of this is the ban on DDT.
Because of a sudden
public emotional desire for action, the use of DDT was banned and the balance
of nature again changed. Gypsy moths, formerly controlled by DDT, now threaten
to destroy much of the hardwood timberland in a belt spreading from New England
to Pennsylvania and Maryland2. In a few more years the pests will probably be
controlled biologically by breeding sterile moths. Meanwhile, the ban on DDT is
causing foresters great concern.
Consider also air pollution. Emissions from industrial plants and cars can be
registered on an air quality or mass level basis. Figures presented by Robert
F. Sawyer show that
On a mass, or ppm (part per million), basis the motor vehicle is responsible, as of 1965, for 61% of pollutants, with industry responsible for 16% and powerplassts for 14%. Taken on so air quality basis, a more legitimate scale according to Sawyer, we find that motor vehicles are responsible for 12%, industry for 37% and powerplants for 36% of our had air.3
The importance of basing priorities on a proper comparison is obvious.
Social benefits of technology have a price tag attached. The initial
social benefit
usually costs very little but refining the benefit costs increasingly
more. Take
air pollution from automobiles as an example. The cost of reducing
pollution emissions
of the early 1960's by 50% was less than $20, while a reduction of
about 80% cost
$80. Further reductions will he increasingly expensive. Heinen4 estimates that
an outlay of about $110 per car would cut hydrocarbon emissions by 88%, carbon
monoxide by 76% and nitrogen oxides by 66%. To meet the 1975 U.S.
standards (reduction
of hydrocarbons by 98%, carbon monoxide by 97% and nitrogen oxides by
90%,) cars
could cost $500 more and increase gasoline consumption by 1025%.
These figures show the costs as a function of air quality based on a reduction
of hydrocarbon emissions. Extrapolating to the proposed 1980 U.S.
exhaust emission
standard indicates that the cost of pollution control then will be as much as
the car itself costs at present.
Besides increasing its price, more restrictions on the engine
decrease the practical
utility of the automobile. Already the power and fuel economy of cars have been
decreased and engine adjustments have become more
critical. As the number and severity of the restrictions increase,
the usefulness
of the car decreases and the law of diminishing returns catches up
very quickly.
This means there is an optimum number of restrictions for the greatest social
benefit. A completely exhaust free ear, for example, would be
prohibitively expensive
and would probably have to be built like a tank to safely carry all
the equipment,
chemicals and controls necessary. It is possible to build a one
horsepower pollution-free
car using a thermo-electric convertor powered by solar energy, but who wants to
drive only when the sun is shining?
Obviously a compromise is necessary. The consumer must decide what price he is
willing to pay for a healthier environment. Ultimately the cost of
pollution control
devices and processes must be born by the consumer. The workers, shareholders
and governments cannot bear the costs for very long before passing them on to
the consumer. In cases where the by-products which are removed in controlling
emissions become a source of income, sometimes even exceeding the cost of the
emission control equipment and its operation, the consumer of the
by-product helps
meet the cost of pollution control.
The necessity of providing pollution control devices reduces
individual freedom.
The privilege of spending earnings freely is being restricted as
governments collect
a larger portion of the public income for environmental engineering
such as sewage
treatent, garbage disposal and urban transportation. The versatility of certain
products and services is affected when the number of technological constraints
they must meet is increased. Society has already dictated that
certain restrictions
such as regulated rubbish burning, noise suppressors and exhaust
emission controls
be accepted by the individual in the interest of the group as a whole. -
Often government action is necessary because individual motivation is lacking.
A recent study by General Motors showed that individuals are reluctant to have
a pollution-control kit retrofitted to existing automobiles. In a limited test
market a major advertising campaign to encourage individual owners to install
a $20 kit to reduce exhaust pollution by 50% cost G.M. $100 per kit
sold.5 Individuals
must either freely sacrifice some earnings for the benefit of society or else
governments must step in and make pollution controls compulsory.
Christian Responsibility
The basis of Christian ethics is man's individual responsibility
towards God and
man. Each person must account for his actions and attitudes. The individual is
to exercise responsibility in his God-given dominion over nature. If
this dominion
continues to be misinterpreted as exploitation, an ecological catastrophe could
result as punishment for man's sin.
Social benefits of technology have a price tag attached . . . . The consumer must decide what price he is willing to pay for a healthier environment.
The Christian engineer, therefore, must be aware of the consequences
of his actions.
He cannot blindly
fulfill his technological functions and ignore their moral
consequences. The decision
he makes as an engineer in industry is simultaneously made as a human being in
society and as a son in God's family. The Christian premise is that the secular
and the religious spheres are one. The Christian must act with a sound mind and
a compassionate heart. In a society where ecology has been adopted as a popular
religion, and where individuals are easily motivated to mob action by fear and
hatred, the Christian engineer must be technically knowledgeable,
socially aware,
and rooted in fundamental Biblical truths.
The first responsibility of the engineer is to examine himself and his motives.
Without a cleansed life he cannot act on the highest motives. A spiritual life
along with technical abilities are credentials necessary for validly
understanding
problems and proposing feasible solutions.
The action undertaken to avoid an ecological dilemma should be based
on rational
principles.
1. The value of nature for man is in its potential to benefit and satisfy him.
The power man has over nature carries with it a responsibility for thoughtful
stewardship. Property is necessary and good but held in trust, to be used under
God for the benefit of all.
2. Man grows to full status in his responsibilities to others, toward
nature and
to God through personal involvement in various natural groupings such
as family,
neighborhood, school, job and worship.
3. What is natural is not necessarily good and what is divine is not
necessarily
in accord with man's laws. Man's compliance with secular authority is not to he
in conflict with divine revelation.
4. Laziness and waste are sins before God, no less than selfishness,
greed, envy
and lust.6
5. God has a definite plan for each individual. Finding that plan through the
confession of sins and acceptance of Christ as divine restorer brings freedom
from fear, true purpose for the existence of man and nature, and a
divine perspective
for intelligent action.
Christian Response
These principles should affect attitudes toward the control of nature and the
disposal of wastes.
1. The accumulation of material goods should not be the main goal of
people whose
basic needs of food, clothing, shelter and security have been met.
Instead, people
should seek spiritual and social goals, keep nature beautiful and use durable
goods. This preference for durability would create the need for an entirely new
group of high or medium quality products.
2. People should not become indolent, wasteful, litterbugs but use their time
creatively.
3, Motivation for action should be based not on fear but on the
desire for responsible
stewardship.
4. It is not yet time to relax when politicians have found the
"courage"
to compel the whole country to use pollution control devices and to ban manmade
"poisons" such as cyclamates and DDT, despite great
commercial pressure.
Considering the evidence that led to the hasty ban on cycla
mates,
The Christian engineer cannot blindly fulfill his technological functions and ignore their moral consequences.
Gerald Leach writes in The Observer:
The only conceivable explanation for this extraordinary saga is that the government and its advisers were pressed ton hard by mounting public fears that we are all being slowly poisoned by fond additives, pesticides and the like, when a convenient scapegoat came along, they threw it to the wolves to keep them quiet.7
Another convenient scapegoat was the United States automobile industry which will be required to install expensive emission control devices on all cars, irrespective of where the cars are to be used. It makes little sense to compel the farmers of the Dakotas to purchase the same $500 device which the commuters in Los Angeles need,
5. It is the Christian engineer who can and must sort out symptoms and causes,
and offer solutions and judgments. For modern man's viewpoint in a
post-Christian
culture is, as Francis Schaeffer contends, "without any
categories, and without
any base upon which to build."8
6. Engineers must be concerned with ways of meeting human needs by conserving
depletable natural resources and by optimizing the recycling of waste
materials.
Long term side effects should be considered and analyzed.
7. Engineers will find new usefulness in moderating the interaction between the
individual, society and technology. To develop what he calls the
"technological
morality", Phillip Meyers suggests three types of group
activities for engineers;
a) Provide qualified, unbiased group judgment on technological costs and thus
indirectly on technological feasibility.
b) Provide qualified, unbiased group judgment and evaluation of
proposed national
policies involving technology and of the action or lack of action by government
agencies charged with overseeing and executing the technological
aspects of government
policies.
c) Educate the lay public (including public officials) in a factual, unbiased
manner on the technological problems and judgments lacing our society.9
8. Those who have not made the wonderful discovery of a personal God
and are therefore
often compelled by fear must be shown the way to achieve freedom, worthy goals
and a new perspective. It may be that more Christians will
dedicate their lives to sharing their Christian experiences. Many
non-Christians
are dedicating their lives to a search for solutions to poverty,
education, bigotry,
congestion and pollution. But the elimination of the pollution of the
human mind
and heart must be accomplished before society can properly chart a course for
the elimination of environmental pollution.
Conclusions
In regard to pollution, it is the responsibility of the
Christian engineer to
1. Be a conscientious, diligent professional.
2. Share his Christian experience to bring man into a proper relationship with
God and so give perspective to the ecological crisis.
3. Understand conditions and causes of pollution and develop
solutions and provide
judgments on their technological feasiblity and and costs, educate others and
embark on a reasoned course of action based on proper priorities.
It is the responsibility of the consumer to;
1. Demand, and he willing to pay for the necessary pollution control devices on
products purchased and on the factories and equipment producing the goods and
services used.
2. Act intelligently to help solve existing problems at the opportune time.
3. De-emphasize the competitive accumulation of material goods and substitute
more worthy goals for the benefit of mankind.
4. Be diligent, not wasteful and value work,
5. Praise the Lord.
REFERENCES
1Angus MacBcon quoted by Mark Wilson "Ecological Zeal Decried",
The Province, Dec. 2, 1970.
2Bob Stedfeld, "The Gypsy Moth", Machine Design, No. 12,
1970, p. 131.
3"Just Between Us", Gas Turbine International, March, April 1971.
4"How to Clean a Car and How Soon?", Life.
5Sumner Alpert, "The Engineer & Society, New Challenges New
Responsibilities",
Auto Tug., Nov. 1970, Vol. 78, No. 11, p. 28.
6World Council of Churches, meeting in Evanston, 1954, reported in D.L. Munby,
Christianity and Economic Problems, London, Macmillan, 1956, pp. 252-266.
7Reprinted in The Vancouver Sun, November 14, 1969, p. 5.
8Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man,
Wheaton, Tyndale, 1970,
p. 13.
9JPhillip S. Meyers, "Technological Morality and the Automotive
Engineer",
Auto. Tug., February 1971, Vol. 79, No. 2, p. 26.