Does what engineers do in the present, and have done in the past, cause prejudice against us in the future?

One of my favourite authors in Mark Twain was quoted as saying “History never repeats itself but in rhymes”. In this quote is the truth that time in this particular universe moves only in one direction and that the past is gone forever and can never be relived. We live such a short time in the overall history (and future) of this universe, and what precious time we have lived can never be returned to us other than in memory.

It is with this that I considered and reflected upon my time working in industry in relation to the current incidents of statues of past public figures being pulled down/defaced and people viewing history and notable people through their particular prism of the present.

It does however prompt a great many questions as to how far we have moved on, and whether what we do in the present may or will be judged in the future against whatever “norms” will exist at this time. Will such future “norms” be transient or more permanent? It is curious how quickly the “Extinction Rebellion” has been replaced by the BLM movement on the streets and within social media. Where have all the “Extinction Rebellion” activists/protesters gone?

Surely both movements have important issues at their core, however with the impact of Covid19 and low energy costs, perhaps people are less concerned (right now) about environmental issues? Given recent comments by the UK prime minister, Mr. Johnston’s, and his promise of a new commission to look at racial inequality – does this mean that Extinction Rebellion concerns are on the back-burner for now and that government policy is to now be based upon whatever mass-protests break out next? I don’t dispute that Black Lives Matter, but so do everyone else’s (including Justine Damond, a 40-year-old Australian-American woman also shot dead by police in the USA). As far as I am concerned, many things matter including inequality and prejudice – period.

Exploitation is wrong – as it was in the past. Difference being is that there is now a common consensus in that this is the case whereas it wasn’t in the past. We can’t change the past but should seek to learn from it – despite the hypocrisy that we continue to buy utilise consumer goods from places that we know still exploits resources and people. Tearing down statues doesn’t erase the exploitation of the past – nor does it do much to influence the exploitation and prejudices of the present. It is true that we need to recognise this past as a historical event rather than glorify it as part of the colonial, expansionist past – similarly we need not to view it coloured by the present.

Surely Mongolian lives matter too? In the quest for “green” energy”, rare-earth metals (REMs) are required for the electronic components, batteries and magnets that are essential to this technology. Consider, for example, the rare-earth mine at Bayan Obo (Mongolia) and the vast quantities radioactive waste residue and acid (in the form of off-gas and wastewater) waste it produces. Consider also the working conditions and rights of those working this mine and the environmental legacy being left behind and being left behind right now.

To what benefit is this mine to the local Mongolians? Surely, they aren’t the main consumers of the REMs that are mined here? Sadly, they are likely to be the custodians of the environmental legacy that will remain once the last REMs are extracted. It is also worth considering that until recently seven of Mongolia’s power stations are coal fired (circa 870W) with the remainder of about 10.5 MW from Hydroelectric and a further (circa) 150 MW from Wind.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a comprehensive materials and energy analysis of the Bayon Obo mine to determine its energy usage (and where that energy comes from). Sadly, no one is marching about this. Perhaps someday they will… or perhaps we, at this particular time consider our mobile phones, computers and electric cars to be more important? How will history judge us for this?

It is reasonable to judge people of the past by standards and acceptance criteria of the present? No doubt much of what was done in the past would not be acceptable in the present. This prompts an interesting question as to whether what we do as engineers in the present (and have done in the past) will cause prejudice against us in the future?

Could actions we take today (and have taken in the past) that are within the law, wider social acceptance and codes and standards of the time of such actions come back to haunt us? Do great engineers and scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Rosaline Franklin, Charles Darwin, et. al. have their legacies expunged because of something they said or did something in the past that we would judge as unacceptable today?

Same for many (probably most if not all) industrialists pre-1800. I doubt if many of the 164,000 “convicts” (including circa 50,000 from Ireland) transported (1788 to 1868) to my birthplace of Australia would have actually wanted be forced to toil to build the colony (and displace the people living there already). Do we not have a word for persons transported from their home and forced to work against their will? Predating Australia was the transportation of “criminals” to North America (from early 1600s up until 1776).

It doesn’t excuse it, and it certainly doesn’t make it right, however it was “normal and acceptable” that humans were commoditised and widely used in this way at this time. It was widely done to many in “the colonies” and closer to home in Britain. It took the Mines and Collieries Act 1842 to make it illegal for females (of any age) or any child under the age of ten (yes 10!!!) to work in underground mines in Britain.

Having been down what remains (and is open to tourists) of a few disused coal mines (something I’d highly recommend) it makes you appreciate the bleakness faced by children at and under the age of 10 during these times. No doubt that was a legacy that remained with many, many of these people generations on.

History shows us that the poor and uneducated have been subjected to more prejudice than those not in poverty. Here lies the key in promoting education and provision of equal opportunity as one solution to this multi-faceted problem. UK industry has done much and should stand proud in its achievements, but there is still so much more to do.

Interestingly, if you search the internet for “famous scientists” then you see a strip of mostly white men (other than Ibn al Haytham – 965AD to 1040, George Carver 1860 to 1943, Neil Tyson 1958 – ) and a small selection of women in Marie Curie (1867 – 1934), Rosalind Franklin (1920 – 1958), Rachel Carson (1907 – 1964), Ada King-Noel (Lovelace) (1815-1852), Mary Anning (1799 – 1847). Mary Curie, in my opinion, is/was one of the most (if not “THE most”) remarkable scientists (sorry Einstein, Tesla, Sagan, Maxwell, Fleming et. al) of the modern age in that she was awarded a noble prize in physics (1903) and a further one in chemistry in 1911.

Of all of the multiple Nobel Laureates, Mary Curie is the only one to have been awarded them in different science disciplines (J Barden received his two in 1956 and 1972 for physics, F. Sanger received both of his two for chemistry in 1958 and 1980 and L. Pauling received his for Chemistry in 1954 and Peace in 1962). One could and should question why she isn’t as well known in the general public as Einstein, Tesla, Sagan, Maxwell, Fleming et. al??

Likewise, Rosalind Franklin, whose work was central to the understanding of the molecular structure of RNA, DNA and viruses (something much relied upon in the search for a Covid19 vaccine)! I’d expect that most people would think “Benjamin Franklin” rather than Rosaline when hearing the name “Franklin”… such is the problem.

Similarly, “Famous Engineers” returns mostly white men. What is sad is that the remarkable Edith Clarke’s (1883-1959) wiki page starts with being “the first woman to be professionally employed as an engineer in the USA” rather than referencing her influential work and writings in the field of power engineering (including Clarke Transforms).

What does this tell us? Clearly from the biography of Edith Clarke, it tells us that even an engineer so obviously gifted and brilliant as Edith Clarke was denied employment opportunities as an engineer in the USA of the early 1900s and had to work at GE as a computer supervisor.

Despite inventing the Clarke Calculator (1921) during this time for simplifying power line equations (that I as a Chemical Engineer couldn’t hope to understand!!!), it wasn’t until she returned from teaching physics in Turkey that GE employed her as an Engineer (1922).

Do we give credit to GE for bring the first to employ a woman engineer or castigate them for lack of equal opportunity by current norms?? Do we hold GE and fellow companies still in business today accountable for what was “normal” in the 1920s – or do we take these times to be what they are and learn from the past so as to not repeat past failings?

To quote Mark Twain again – “Plan for the future because that’s where you are going the spend the rest of your life”. It is a sign of the times, and a good sign, that many of my recent line managers have been women who were in that role because they were the best people for the job. Things are mostly better when you give everyone opportunity without prejudice. Where are those companies now that passed over Edith Clarke for her first job? More fool them!