Civil engineering professor Kees van den Akker has blind faith in the positive effect of the critical engineer. Patricia de Martelaere has her doubts. ”Nobody can tell if the technological evolution will end in a heaven or a hell on earth.”
Tough people, philosophers. The Heroic Engineering symposium, which was organised by the Delft student pastorate, seemed to be aimed at giving tomorrow’s engineer the confidence of a man or woman with a mission. The engineer as a beacon against political inability, a reconciler of technology and ecology, a dreamer in steel and concrete. Then, last Thursday, Patricia de Martelaere wondered out loud whether or not this pride is actually something we should wish for.
”Why should you be proud of your profession? Personally, I’m convinced philosophy is useless. So I don’t have any professional pride anymore; but I do very much enjoy doing it.” The Flemish essayist and philosophy professor was invited by students, Dille Kamps (technology, policy and management) and Marijn Heule (technical informatics).
De Martelaere (1957) has never written a word about technology, unless you count the amusement park rides that she brings up in the first chapter of her latest book ‘Wereldvreemdheid’ (Unworldliness). This book can be read as a plea for less glorification of emotions, less gratuitous commitment and less egotism. To cite an example from the book: you must be able to let go of yourself so that you can enjoy the wild rollercoaster ride that only used to make you sick, weak and nauseous. De Martelaere uses that same detached tone % not appreciated by all critics % when discussing technology during the meeting. The philosopher omits the many references to Taoism that occur in ‘Wereldvreemdheid’.
Dille Kamps discovered something in this book that she considers to be missing at Delft University: ”A positive attitude, joy!” Marijn Heule: ”She writes in an easy and surprising way about complex issues.”
Utopia
Joining De Martelaere on the panel to discuss the role of the engineer were Professor Kees van den Akker (engineering), Botte Jellema, who led the discussion, and the two TU students, Kamps and Heule. In a society that wants to profit from the comfort that technology creates, but at the same time cherishes a nostalgic desire for untouched nature, the engineer ceased to be a hero long ago. Today, they’re more like bogeymen.
Van den Akker worries about the ‘implicit guilt feelings’ that sometimes cause resentment in engineers. According to him, care for the environment plays an essential role in civil engineering. The ‘back to nature’ idea, however, is ridiculous. ”People don’t truly want that anyway. If you analyse their ecological utopia, you’lldiscover that it all revolves around man. Mankind is only interested in the fun part of nature. Nature is continually being represented as sweet and nice, but let’s not forget how threatening she can be. We are still busy diminishing the threat of water,” the professor intones, referring to his own specialisation.
In Van den Akker%s view the engineer needs to be an the centre of society, without losing his professional pride. ”Studies can’t revolve solely around technology. The university needs to teach students to have a critical attitude, and to make them aware of their responsibility. They play a big part in determining how we will live and spend our free time twenty years from now.”
Politicians
De Martelaere is sceptical about the role Van den Akker sees the engineer playing. ”History and experimental data shows that people conform % follow the leader. Even if they are given assignments that are morally wrong. An engineer that withdraws from the general herd-like behaviour is a hero.” This nuance appeals to the audience.
The philosopher wonders what engineers achieve with discussions about ”the consequences of your choices as an engineer,” and the question ”how you can help people” that Kamps misses so much of in the education at the TU Delft. Don’t politicians make all the important decisions in the end? She sees that powerlessness as a source of the materialism in many engineers. They’re trapped in the system, just like everyone else.
The future engineers turn out to be less pessimistic. ”We are more than work horses for politicians,” says Kamps. ”As politicians barely understand technology, engineers have more power than people think.”
”Politicians talk about it. We make it happen!” Van den Akker supports her. ”Your freedom is in showing your employers which improvements are possible in the original plans. It’s because of the booming economy and the highly developed technology in the Netherlands that there is room to let the environment count here.”
Darwin
De Martelaere sees an extension of Darwinian evolution in the progression of technology: everything is moving towards increasing complexity. ”Even so, engineers are drawing the wrong conclusions if they consider their role in this new evolution as heroic.” The question is whether increasing intelligence means progress, on an evolutionary level. It’s all about survival in the end. ”If the temperature were to change, humankind would go under long before some more primitive life forms.”
An audience member suggested that the price of the complexity needed to survive is the massive destruction of nature. Perhaps, De Martelaere answers, complexity lowers our chances of survival on this planet. ”But we don’t know. We don’t have a choice other than going along with the rapid development of technology. The final destination of this great adventure is unknown. All you can do is work on details to occasionally avoid a disaster.” On thisThursday evening, the engineer won’t be awarded more than a modest hero’s role.
Tough people, philosophers. The Heroic Engineering symposium, which was organised by the Delft student pastorate, seemed to be aimed at giving tomorrow’s engineer the confidence of a man or woman with a mission. The engineer as a beacon against political inability, a reconciler of technology and ecology, a dreamer in steel and concrete. Then, last Thursday, Patricia de Martelaere wondered out loud whether or not this pride is actually something we should wish for.
”Why should you be proud of your profession? Personally, I’m convinced philosophy is useless. So I don’t have any professional pride anymore; but I do very much enjoy doing it.” The Flemish essayist and philosophy professor was invited by students, Dille Kamps (technology, policy and management) and Marijn Heule (technical informatics).
De Martelaere (1957) has never written a word about technology, unless you count the amusement park rides that she brings up in the first chapter of her latest book ‘Wereldvreemdheid’ (Unworldliness). This book can be read as a plea for less glorification of emotions, less gratuitous commitment and less egotism. To cite an example from the book: you must be able to let go of yourself so that you can enjoy the wild rollercoaster ride that only used to make you sick, weak and nauseous. De Martelaere uses that same detached tone % not appreciated by all critics % when discussing technology during the meeting. The philosopher omits the many references to Taoism that occur in ‘Wereldvreemdheid’.
Dille Kamps discovered something in this book that she considers to be missing at Delft University: ”A positive attitude, joy!” Marijn Heule: ”She writes in an easy and surprising way about complex issues.”
Utopia
Joining De Martelaere on the panel to discuss the role of the engineer were Professor Kees van den Akker (engineering), Botte Jellema, who led the discussion, and the two TU students, Kamps and Heule. In a society that wants to profit from the comfort that technology creates, but at the same time cherishes a nostalgic desire for untouched nature, the engineer ceased to be a hero long ago. Today, they’re more like bogeymen.
Van den Akker worries about the ‘implicit guilt feelings’ that sometimes cause resentment in engineers. According to him, care for the environment plays an essential role in civil engineering. The ‘back to nature’ idea, however, is ridiculous. ”People don’t truly want that anyway. If you analyse their ecological utopia, you’lldiscover that it all revolves around man. Mankind is only interested in the fun part of nature. Nature is continually being represented as sweet and nice, but let’s not forget how threatening she can be. We are still busy diminishing the threat of water,” the professor intones, referring to his own specialisation.
In Van den Akker%s view the engineer needs to be an the centre of society, without losing his professional pride. ”Studies can’t revolve solely around technology. The university needs to teach students to have a critical attitude, and to make them aware of their responsibility. They play a big part in determining how we will live and spend our free time twenty years from now.”
Politicians
De Martelaere is sceptical about the role Van den Akker sees the engineer playing. ”History and experimental data shows that people conform % follow the leader. Even if they are given assignments that are morally wrong. An engineer that withdraws from the general herd-like behaviour is a hero.” This nuance appeals to the audience.
The philosopher wonders what engineers achieve with discussions about ”the consequences of your choices as an engineer,” and the question ”how you can help people” that Kamps misses so much of in the education at the TU Delft. Don’t politicians make all the important decisions in the end? She sees that powerlessness as a source of the materialism in many engineers. They’re trapped in the system, just like everyone else.
The future engineers turn out to be less pessimistic. ”We are more than work horses for politicians,” says Kamps. ”As politicians barely understand technology, engineers have more power than people think.”
”Politicians talk about it. We make it happen!” Van den Akker supports her. ”Your freedom is in showing your employers which improvements are possible in the original plans. It’s because of the booming economy and the highly developed technology in the Netherlands that there is room to let the environment count here.”
Darwin
De Martelaere sees an extension of Darwinian evolution in the progression of technology: everything is moving towards increasing complexity. ”Even so, engineers are drawing the wrong conclusions if they consider their role in this new evolution as heroic.” The question is whether increasing intelligence means progress, on an evolutionary level. It’s all about survival in the end. ”If the temperature were to change, humankind would go under long before some more primitive life forms.”
An audience member suggested that the price of the complexity needed to survive is the massive destruction of nature. Perhaps, De Martelaere answers, complexity lowers our chances of survival on this planet. ”But we don’t know. We don’t have a choice other than going along with the rapid development of technology. The final destination of this great adventure is unknown. All you can do is work on details to occasionally avoid a disaster.” On thisThursday evening, the engineer won’t be awarded more than a modest hero’s role.
Comments are closed.