Design and Technical Code in Plant Biofuel Production
An Analysis from Andrew Feenberg's Critical Theory of Technology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-357Keywords:
agriculture, biofuels, technical code, design, technological systems, Andrew FeenbergAbstract
Based on Andrew Feenberg’s Critical Theory of Technology, this article applies concepts of design and technical code to plant biofuel production. Contrary to the alleged neutrality of a “technical fact”, Feenberg posited that technical systems bear a bias reflecting a form of social rationality. Feenberg’s challenge to neutrality does not refer to the application of a given technology, but rather to the design phase itself. The design is taken for granted by a technical code, which tends to hide the bias under a technical justification. First generation biofuels were promoted as an effective solution to the exhaustion of fossil fuels and the need to mitigate climate change effects. However, a critical analysis reveals the risks and inequities involved in the adopted design. A technical code justifying the design of biofuel production from crops traditionally used as a source of food is analyzed.
Downloads
References
Alexander, K. (2008). The mantra of efficiency. From Waterwheel to Social Control. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aro, E.-M. (2016). From first generation biofuels to advanced solar biofuels. Ambio 45(Suppl. 1), S24–S31.
Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Bosworth, C. (2015). Perennial grass biomass production and utilization En A. Dahiya (Ed.), Bioenergy. Biomass to Biofuels (73-87). Londres: Elsevier.
Carolan, M. (2009a). Ethanol versus Gasoline: The contestation and closure of a socio-technical system in the USA. Social Studies of Science 2009(39), 421-448.
Carolan, M. (2009b). The costs and benefits of biofuels: a review of recent peer-reviewed research and a sociological look ahead. Environmental Practice, 11,17-24.
Carolan, M. (2010). Ethanol’s most recent breakthrough in the United States: A case of socio-technical transition. Technology in Society, 32(2), 65-71.
Debnath, D. (2019). From biomass to biofuel economics. En D. Debnath & S. Chandra Babu (Eds.), Biofuels, Bioenergy and Food Security. Technology, Institutions and Policies (45-66). Londres-Oxford-Cambridge-San Diego: Academic Press-Elsevier.
FAO (2021). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030. Recuperado de: https://www.fao.org/3/cb5332en/Biofuels.pdf.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319, 1235-1238.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. Londres & Nueva York: Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: a critical theory revisited. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Feenberg, A. (2005). Teoría crítica de la tecnología. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 2(5), 109-123. Recuperado de: http://www.revistacts.net/contenido/numero-5/teoria-critica-de-la-tecnologia/.
Feenberg, A. (2008). From critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22, 5-28.
Feenberg, A. (2011). Modernity, technology and the forms of rationality. Philosophy Compass, 6/12, 865–873.
Feenberg, A. (2014). The Philosophy of Praxis. Marx, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School. Londres-Nueva York: Verso.
Feenberg, A. (2017a). Critical theory of technology and STS. Thesis Eleven, 138(1), 3-12.
Feenberg, A. (2017b). Technosystem. The social life of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Feenberg, A. (2020). Critical constructivism: an exposition and defense. Logos: a journal of modern society and culture 19 (2). Recuperado de: http://logosjournal.com/.
Feng, P. & Feenberg, A. (2008). Thinking about design. Critical theory of technology and the design process. En P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture (105-118). Países Bajos: Springer.
Flanagin, A., Flanagin, C. & Flanagin, J. (2010). Technical code and the social construction of the internet. New Media & Society, 12(2), 179-196.
Gamborg, C., Millar, K., Shortall, O. & Sandøe, P. (2012). Bioenergy and land use: Framing the ethical debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 909-925.
Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M. & Pimentel, D. (2010). Biofuels: efficiency, ethics, and limits to human appropriation of ecosystem services. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(5), 403-434.
Gomiero, T. (2015). Are biofuels an effective and viable energy strategy for industrialized societies? A reasoned overview of potentials and limits. Sustainability, 7, 8491-8521.
Hamilton, E. & Feenberg, A. (2005). The Technical Codes of Online Education. Techné, 9(1), 97-123.
Karafyllis, N. (2003). Renewable resources and the idea of nature – What has biotechnology got to do with it? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(1), 3-28.
Kroes, P. & Meijers, A. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 1-4.
Kroes, P. (2012) Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter. A philosophy of engineering design. Dordrecht: Springer.
Marcuse, H. (1993). El hombre unidimensional. Ensayo sobre la ideología de la sociedad industrial avanzada. Barcelona: Planeta-De Agostini.
Moreira, T. (2012). Health Care Standards and the Politics of Singularities: Shifting In and Out of Context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(4), 307–331.
Mudge, S. (2008). Is the use of biofuels environmentally sound or ethical? Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 10, 701-702.
Nicolosi, G. & Ruivenkamp G. (2013). Re-skilling the Social Practices: Open Source and Life–Towards a Commons-Based Peer Production in Agro-biotechnology? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1181-1200.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011). Biofuels: Ethical issues. Oxfordshire: Nuffield Press. Recuperado de: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/biofuels.
Palandri, C., Giner, C. & Debnath, D. (2019). Technology, policy, and institutional Options. En D. Debnath & S. Chandra Babu (Eds.), Biofuels, Bioenergy and Food Security. Technology, Institutions and Policies (24-41). Londres, Oxford, Cambridge & San Diego: Elsevier.
Parente, D. (2010). Del órgano al artefacto: acerca de la dimensión biocultural de la técnica. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
Pinch T. & Bijker, W (2012). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. En W. Bijker, T. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (11-44). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Shortall, O. (2019) Agricultural Sciences and Ethical Controversies of Biofuels. En D. Kaplan & P. B. Thompson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics (84-90). Dordrecht: Springer.
Thompson, P. (2008). The agricultural ethics of biofuels: a first look. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 183-198.
Tilman, D. et al. (2009). Beneficial biofuels-The food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325, 270-271.
UCSD (2022). The Keeling Curve. Recuperado de: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu.
Wenz, P. (2009). Energy. En J. Callicott & R. Frodeman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy (305-309). Farmington Hills: MacMillan.
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.
Woodhouse, E. & Patton, J. (2004). Introduction: design by society: science and technology studies and the social shaping of design, Des. Issues, 20(3), 1–12.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
