Society is reliant on our ability to harness technological advances in order to facilitate economic, social, and political activities that make us “human.” Our ability to do so has advanced to a point where now the boundaries between policy and engineering design are no longer clear. This is especially true if you have the same training I do, undergraduate and master’s training in civil and environmental engineering. As engineers, you must develop a professional identity that transcends disciplinary boundaries and common obstacles to develop responsible and appropriate technologies.
There are three key ideas this entails:
- Engineering, especially civil and environmental engineering, requires a spiritual commitment;
- Engineering, especially civil and environmental engineering, is politically charged; and,
- Engineering is always changing, in all disciplines.
It should be obvious that engineering requires a spiritual commitment, but perhaps what makes this less obvious is the possibility that the definition of spiritual is contested. For the purpose of this note, let us define spiritual as the unseen metaphysical or religious reality that defines what it means to be human. Spiritual certainly implies consciousness and cognition, but it also implies soul and identity. Man’s spiritual nature leads them to faithfully discharge their fiduciary responsibilities to others altruistically. This is the basic motive behind risk analysis and civil infrastructure design. As engineers, we take the problems created as we become aware of the needs our dreams and aspirations introduce, and solve those problems without intentionally imperiling those dreams and aspirations. While engineers’ work is clearly valuable from a commercial perspective, engineers discharge these responsibilities without primary regard for their own welfare, but for the welfare of others.
Once we begin to include the welfare of others, the engineer is placed at the interface between conflicting factions–the firm and the profession. As a result, it is very difficult to establish what “welfare of others” requires, and this introduces political deliberation into their calculations. The technical challenges we face often are the least difficult aspects of the problem. Technology is not deterministic, and often is not the limiting factor for technological achievements. Instead, technologies take up momentum as competing interests negotiate to establish the contextually appropriate definition of “welfare.”
Moreover, since the definition of “welfare” is constantly changing in response to the political changes in society, engineering must constantly change as both technology and politics evolve. Engineering is always changing, in all disciplines. We think of this most often in computer science, believing that computer science, math, and physics are the apex of technological developments. We often think the main reason that our disciplines change is because computers change. We must realize, though, we are part of a conversation. Everything, including the basic rules, are up for re-negotiation if we see that society requires the profession change its approach.
But how should the profession change its approach? This is addressed through the collective identity of engineers within their sub-disciplines. As engineers become core members of their communities of practice, they help to negotiate the meaning of that practice with respect to collective welfare, and they shape the artifacts of that practice with welfare and collective memory in mind.