This blog post examines whether Korean society is adequately fulfilling its ethical responsibilities amid radical technological advancement and explores the necessary tasks for achieving harmony between technology and ethics.
Since the Korean War, Korea has achieved unprecedented radical modernization. Starting from scratch on land devastated by Japanese colonial rule and inter-ethnic war just decades ago, Korea underwent massive social transformation as technology advanced sequentially—beginning with light industry in the 1960s, followed by heavy and chemical industries, and then high-tech sectors. This exemplifies how technological progress is intrinsically linked to societal development. As a result, South Korea, one of the world’s poorest nations in 1950, has become the world’s 13th largest advanced economy by 2024, with a GDP reaching $2 trillion. Furthermore, average life expectancy has risen from approximately 50 years to 86.5 years for women today.
However, this rapid development has produced several adverse effects. Notably, as technology becomes more sophisticated, accidents tend to become increasingly catastrophic. The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in the United States is a prime example. A minor malfunction in one of the cooling circuits of two reactors caused the core to overheat and partially melt. This caused the nuclear accident, prompting state authorities to ban over a million residents from going outside and close schools and airports. The accident rendered the nuclear power plant, built at a cost of approximately $2 billion, unusable in an instant, and handling the radioactive contamination alone cost over $1 billion. Furthermore, it was a near-catastrophic event, marked by a sharp increase in cancer rates and birth defects among local residents. Such incidents instill a sense of unease, reminding us that we never know when or where an accident might strike. So, does technology truly advance society? Like the thorns hidden beneath a beautiful rose, technology that provides humans with convenience and comfort also carries a frightening aspect. Can such technology truly be controlled by the humans who create and use it?
First, let’s examine what technology is. Generally, technology is often thought of as applied science. That is, the perspective that technology is born by applying scientific knowledge to artifacts. According to this view, it has been believed that as science advances, technology automatically advances; research triggers technological development; and development promotes production. Of course, this isn’t wrong, but sometimes technology also gives birth to science. For example, cytology—the study of the morphological and functional composition of cells—could only emerge due to the development of microscope technology enabling cell observation. Therefore, rather than debating which precedes the other, science or technology, it is now common to view each as distinctly separate entities, recognizing technology as knowledge, just like science. In other words, technology possesses characteristics as knowledge, and creating and using artifacts also requires specific logic and knowledge. Science and technology interact and appear similar, yet each exhibits distinct characteristics. Generally, science pursues intuitive understanding beyond causal relationships with its subjects and emphasizes abstraction, while technology focuses on practicality and utility. Consequently, scientists can be seen as pursuing knowledge, whereas engineers pursue implementation.
So, how is technology related to our society? From the first perspective, it is argued that technology itself does not inherently possess social or political inclinations. Therefore, the misuse of technology is not the responsibility of scientists or engineers, but rather of the people who use it. As an extreme example, regarding the atomic bomb that ended World War II, scientists and engineers argue they were compelled to build it due to the policy of the ‘Manhattan Project,’ and that the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made by politicians, not their own responsibility. However, the prevailing view today is that technology is not value-neutral. One reason is that social values are imprinted into technology, either intentionally or unconsciously, during its design. For instance, when designing Jones Beach Park, American architect Robert Moses deliberately constructed the bridge piers over the existing access road lower than the height of buses. This prevented buses, primarily used by Black people, from entering the park, effectively restricting access to white middle-class and upper-class individuals with private vehicles. This exemplifies how the racial discrimination prevalent in American society at the time was reflected in the park’s design, demonstrating that technology can embody social values.
From a second perspective, American historian of technology Thomas Hughes offers another viewpoint on the interaction between technology and society. Technology can exist as individual entities, but it can also form complex systems known as ‘technological systems’. This means that as technology advances, previously unrelated technologies become interconnected like a network, forming systems. For example, during the Industrial Revolution, steam engines were initially used in mines to pump water out of tunnels to extract more coal. However, as coal production increased, factories began using coal and steam engines as power sources instead of traditional ones, and the technology of railroads was born to transport the produced coal.
Thus, seemingly unrelated technologies like the steam engine, mining techniques, factories, and railroads became interconnected like a network, forming a technological system. This example demonstrates how technology influences society, and society, in turn, can influence technology. Furthermore, technological systems possess a property where they resist changing their development direction easily due to the numerous social interests already invested. This is described as technology having ‘inertia’.
Systems with inertia cannot be redirected from their developmental path without immense force. For example, the automobile we ride daily may seem like a simple technology, but it is actually a component of the automotive system. The automotive system is a complex technological system intertwined with many elements: not only automobile manufacturing technology, but also roads, urban issues, national land development plans, road signaling systems, parking systems, and more. Although problems like traffic accidents occur and damages increase, the immense inertia of the automotive system has hindered the development of alternative transportation.
Therefore, as previously discussed, technology can reflect social values, whether intentionally or unconsciously, and technology and society evolve through mutual interaction. I believe the role of engineers, who play a crucial part in technology production, is paramount. Engineers, as experts in solving complex and difficult technical problems, must not only solve problems but also bear social responsibility. To ethically handle technological systems, engineers must not merely solve technical problems; they must understand the social context of the problem and raise issues when necessary. Engineers often work under contracts with companies or research institutes to solve technical problems. Companies inherently seek to maximize profits, and engineers can easily align with this corporate nature. Engineers possess primary knowledge about the products companies aim to produce, placing them in a position to point out flaws. Engineers must be capable of ethical judgment to prevent companies from making unethical choices that harm public safety by excessively pursuing profit.
Society must train engineers to use their knowledge conscientiously and support their ability to make independent judgments. However, in today’s society, engineers often strongly prioritize profit and practicality. For example, the 2003 Daegu subway fire in South Korea was a major disaster caused by a person attempting suicide by setting fire to the subway. While the train driver’s flawed judgment contributed to the disaster’s scale, the fundamental reason the accident became catastrophic was that the train was constructed from highly flammable materials. I believe the engineers involved in the subway’s design should have prioritized fire prevention from the outset. Of course, engineers did not make all decisions regarding subway design; entrepreneurs and bureaucrats also played significant roles. However, despite having knowledge of fire prevention based on foreign precedents, failing to sufficiently incorporate this knowledge indicates a lack of ethical judgment.
Furthermore, engineers are often pressured by corporate profit motives to compromise their ethical judgment. For example, the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger was caused by a malfunction in one of the rocket’s components, the O-ring. The day before launch, some engineers warned that launching in cold temperatures could compromise the O-ring’s resilience and recommended reconsidering the launch. However, the company proceeded with the launch for profit. Ultimately, the Challenger exploded one minute after liftoff, resulting in the tragic deaths of all seven crew members.
This case demonstrates that ethical judgment is inherent in technical decisions, and that such ethical judgment requires specialized knowledge accessible only to scientists and engineers. However, modern society often overlooks the engineer’s responsibility. This stems from an underlying assumption that technology is value-neutral, implying all decisions should be made solely from the management perspective. When engineers clash with companies over ethical reasons, companies often decide they no longer need that engineer and dismiss them, leading engineers to frequently comply with corporate demands. Therefore, society must establish institutional mechanisms enabling engineers to make ethical judgments.
In conclusion, technology should be used as a tool to make human life convenient and prosperous; it should not become the goal society pursues. However, technology is not an easy tool to handle, and society must clearly define its goals to avoid being swayed by technology. We should not expect technology to create a happy society through its own power without any intervention. Rather, the humans who produce and use technology must understand its social significance and utilize it as a tool for societal development through ethical judgment.
