Organized irresponsibility

In contrast, the approach to technology in contemporary society has been characterized as organized irresponsibility (Beck, 2000). In Chapter 9 I discuss responsibility and argue that this organized irresponsibility has two sides to it. 

To help answer these questions I start this chapter with an examination of the various meanings of responsibility and discuss the nature of our responsibilities for things. I then examine how decisions about technology are currently made and point out the ways in which this leads to organized irresponsibility , particularly in the case of synthetic chemicals. Finally, I consider the limitations of risk assessment as a conception of responsible decision making. 

The concept of organized irresponsibility is one of the core ideas of Ulrich Beck s theory of modernity, risk society . Risk societies, he says are ... 

One part of organized irresponsibility is the neglect of responsibility for the public world constituted by technology when making decisions about technology. The other is the fact that rarely is anyone held to account for that neglect. 

Pesticides are frequently used to control insects, rodents, weeds, microbes, or fungi. In addition, they help farmers provide an affordable and plentiful food supply. Pesticides are also used in other settings, such as homes and schools, to control pests as common as cockroaches, termites, and mice. Pesticides pose significant risks to human health and the environment, when people do not follow directions on product labels or use products irresponsibly. For example, people might use pesticides when they are not really needed, apply too much, or apply or dispose of them in a manner that could contaminate water or harm wildlife. Even alternative or organic pesticides can have these unintended consequences if not used correctly (EPA, 2003 c). There is abundant scientific evidence of the risks toxic pesticides pose to human health. More worrisome from a public health perspective are chronic health effects such as cancer, infertility, birth defects, miscarriage, and negative effects on the brain and nervous system. 

Writing in The Dial, A Fortnightly Journal of Literary Criticism, Discussion and Information, Raymond Pearl, the population biologist, opened his 1913 review with reference to a metaphysical diversion of my academic and intellectually irresponsible youth, in which orthodox Darwinism was turned on its head. Is there not quite as much justification, so far as the objective facts of nature are concerned, for one to say that the environment is adapted to the organism as there is for him to make the converse propositions (Pearl 1913, p. 111). Could natural selection, or any other mechanistic hypothesis, stand up to the task It would utterly fail. Pearl argued. Before Henderson s Fitness, no systematic efforts had been made to examine the fitness of the elements of the environment for sustaining life. 

It would be irresponsible to focus solely on research and development, while ignoring potentially simpler, faster, or less expensive mechanisms, such as organization, staff, training, and procurement. All health establishments must be surveyed and evaluated for the tasks of being prepared and responding adequately to potential terrorist violence. Not only should a special attention be paid to supplies of antidotes, drugs, ventilators, personal protective equipment and decontamination capacity, but the spotlight must also be fixed on an insufficient familiarity of medical stuff with the acute effects and treatment of chemical weapons. 

The second type of publication is one that is published by an individual author. Because such publications do not have to carry the responsibility of representing a professional organization, the authors are often more willing to state opinions and to put forward points of view that may be debatable, or even controversial. This does not mean that the authors are being irresponsible—it merely means that they are stating their opinion. 

In view of the sufficiency of the fossil fuels for about 100 more years, one may doubt the present need for the development of any new source of energy. It should be pointed out, however, that the situation may be rather worse than indicated, principally because fossil fuels are needed for many purposes other than energy production—for instance, for the reduction of iron ores. Hence, it would be irresponsible to exhaust the supply of fossil fuels to a very large extent. We must not forget that what we are after is the preservation of our iron age. This point has been brought out with particular clarity by G. Young he even proposes the name fossil organ-ics for coal, oil, and perhaps also for natural gas. As a... 

---