Together
with seven cousins, I spent last Saturday morning using a $1.2 million surgical
robot to unwrap Hershey’s Kisses for my 92-year-old aunt.
Lest you
think that the adventure involved breaking and entering, I can reassure
you. The eldest cousin works for the
company that makes the surgical robot.
He arranged for us to use the robot in the lobby of his office building
in the hours before a family gathering.
The
technology was remarkable. Seated at a
console facing away from the operating table and equipped with a high-definition
screen, two handholds with Velcro loops for thumb and forefinger, and several foot
petals, it quickly became intuitive to manipulate minute objects 15 feet away,
including unwrapping the thin foil from a piece of candy and delivering it, intact,
to my aunt.
But the
topic that will remain with me was something my cousin said about the approval
process for the robot.
The robot is
the next step in the evolution of surgical tools, with the potential to replace
laparoscopy. Both rely on thin tools
inserted through portals into the human body.
In laparoscopy the tools are operated manually by a surgeon standing at
the operating table. With a surgical
robot, the surgeon works at the console, with his commands executed through
electrical and mechanical connections.
The surgical
robots offer clear advantages, including reduced reliance on the physical
dexterity and stamina of the surgeon.
But new technology also offers opportunities for mishaps. And that’s the point that some laparoscopists
are trying to make, claiming that patients are at greater risk with surgical
robots. Of course, it’s also possible that
the laparoscopists, having created successful practices in laparoscopy and
lacking the resources to invest in $1.2 million robots, are viewing the world
through guild-protecting lenses.
(On the off
chance that a laparoscopist stumbles across this blog post and wishes to engage
in a debate about laparoscopy versus surgical robots, let me quickly note that
I’m unqualified to participate in the debate.
Because of a
belief that the world is generally getting better, and with a tinge of family
loyalty, I suspect that the surgical robots are the superior solution, but I’ll
also acknowledge that objections to new technology sometimes prove valid. On the specifics of surgical robot versus
laparoscopy however, I haven’t examined the arguments and have no intention of
doing so.)
The key
point to me and the other cousins was that there are always those who will decry
progress on the grounds that the new technology is flawed, while failing to acknowledge
the likely motivation of protecting a current employment or lifestyle.
The examples
we noted included the anti-industrialization 19th century English farm laborers
who gave us the word Luddite, the masonry unions in pre-1906 San Francisco who
argued that brick was a better material for seismic resistance than reinforced
concrete (an argument that quickly tumbled down), and even the 15th century
Dutch peasants who threw their wooden shoes, or sabot, into the gears of early looms,
stopping the looms and giving us the word sabotage.
As Upton
Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when
his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
As I later
reflected on the conversation, it occurred to me that those who pushback
against urbanism have much in common with Luddites.
It’s true
that most Luddite movements are in opposition to technological advances that threaten
employment while anti-urbanists who are rebelling against environmental and
fiscal realities that threaten lifestyles, but the underlying mindset seems much
the same. Both rely on increasingly
implausible arguments to defend an argument that is steadily losing against the
flow of history.
Among the
anti-urbanists, those implausible arguments include the contention that the
fiscal problems at city halls are the result solely of ineptitude, not a flawed
land-use paradigm, a denial of the induced traffic phenomenon, and a rejection
of climate change coupled with the far-fetched suggestion that thousands of
reputable scientists are working in a secret cabal to hide the truth.
There may
also be an element of ego in the anti-urbanists. Mick LaSalle, the movie critic for the San
Francisco Chronicle, recently argued that there is an inherent bias against giving awards to comedies. He contended that a good comedy, by showing
us a new way to view reality, makes us feel a little less intellectually
superior for not having anticipated the alternative perspective. And the need to reassert our egos causes us
to dismiss a comedy, even one that we greatly enjoyed, as unworthy of award
consideration.
The same may
be true of urbanism. By arguing that
drivable suburbia is indefensible in the long run, it challenges our life-long
commitment to suburbia. Some accept
that new information and change their worldview. Others feel a need to muster every argument,
no matter how unlikely, in a futile attempt to maintain their old worldview.
Luckily, the
better answers are almost always victorious in the long run. I have a pile of unwrapped Hershey’s Kisses
to buttress the case for surgical robots.
Unluckily,
the longer we take to accept the arguments for urbanism, the greater the
environmental and fiscal holes we’ll leave for the next generation.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment