Engineers like to do things, use technology to change the world. Teachers like Saul Lemkowitz(Chemical Engineering) and Hans Bonnet (Biotechnology) want students to think critically about the role of technology in society – without losing that spark of optimism.
/strong>
Saul Lemkowitz is a mild-mannered, serious-minded man % the kind of university teacher whose classes many students will later think back on with a tinge of nostalgia. Needling and shocking people for his own amusement is the last thing this man would stoop to. But boy, can he get people mad sometimes.
There were the two American women who stormed out of the lecture room in Scheveningen in disgust after guest speaker Lemkowitz had dared to suggest that the United States isn’t exactly offering leadership when it comes to sustainability. And, perhaps more surprisingly, there was the reaction of an architecture professor at the end of one of Lemkowitz’s infamous ‘The myth of sustainability’ lectures. ,,Why are you telling the audience this irresponsible nonsense?” he shouted in disbelief. In Delft, calling sustainability a myth is like cursing in church.
Mind you, a few minutes before the outburst Lemkowitz had already revealed to his audience that his highly controversial lecture couldn’t bear close scientific scrutiny % but that it had taken him months to gather and subtly manipulate all the data. (Lemkowitz makes it a habit to collect a lot of scientific data to support conflicting claims, whether he believes in the point he’s arguing or not.) For the uninitiated, this sensation of being tricked and intellectually challenged at the same time was like experiencing a brilliant twist in a movie plot. It forced you to look critically at everything you had been taking for granted for the last hour. And that’s exactly what Lemkowitz wants. ,,Don’t uncritically believe one single word I say to you,” he likes to say to his own students. And when that’s greeted with some light-hearted laughter: ,,I mean that, that’s no joke!” Just like his long-time friend and colleague Hans Bonnet, Lemkowitz is passionate about training the engineers of tomorrow in thinking independently and critically.
For the last twenty-odd years, Lemkowitz and Bonnet have fiercely advocated the kind of education that they are now silently proud of: courses like ‘Industrial Ecology’ and ‘Technology and Society’, which prepare students to deal with the moral dilemmas that they may face as engineers. How do you weigh environmental risks and health risks against economic and technological interests? When something goes wrong, who is responsible? How to deal with different ‘actors’ like Greenpeace, corporate companies and the local governments which are involved in a controversial issue? The students get a taste of what it’s like to be an engineer in a complex society, where environment, economics and technology really can’t be that easily separated. They also learn to look critically at the way they themselves ‘digest’ information, and how to make that all-important and often forgotten distinction between facts and moral judgements before they tackle a problem.
Lemkowitz and Bonnet are both exact scientists, and they have never lulled their students to sleep with easy answers or simplistic generalizations. ,,A technologist is someone who must constantly choose between the lesser of two evils,” Bonnet says. He gives the example of an energy plant that is fuelled by waste: not exactly sustainability at its most idyllic, but it may be the best solution yet. ,,A really good engineer has to be something of a philosopher.”
Communism
There is a sunny philosophy that seems to be tailor-made for engineers, who generally thrive on optimism: ,,Yes, technology causes a lot of problems, but no worries – new, better technology will take care of all that!” Yet, in a course like Industrial Ecology, Lemkowitz dares to question this belief. ,,We don’t want to discourage students. But sometimes it’s important to look at the big picture. New technology is essential for tackling the problems of the world, but alone it may well be insufficient. Technology is the easiest part of sustainability, as long as you give enough time and money to engineers. Changing laws, attitudes, organizations % that’s the real challenge. Especially in the United States, where a concept like distribution of wealth to many people still sounds like Communism.” Talking of which… Lemkowitz even likes to pose that really uncomfortable question: is sustainability compatible with a capitalist society? ,,I’m not a Marxist!” he reassures us, half-jokingly. ,,When I’m in the United States, I’m still envious of my brother, who is a successful businessman and has little patience for liberal ideas.”
Engineers like to do things, use technology to change the world. Teachers like Saul Lemkowitz(Chemical Engineering) and Hans Bonnet (Biotechnology) want students to think critically about the role of technology in society – without losing that spark of optimism.
Saul Lemkowitz is a mild-mannered, serious-minded man % the kind of university teacher whose classes many students will later think back on with a tinge of nostalgia. Needling and shocking people for his own amusement is the last thing this man would stoop to. But boy, can he get people mad sometimes.
There were the two American women who stormed out of the lecture room in Scheveningen in disgust after guest speaker Lemkowitz had dared to suggest that the United States isn’t exactly offering leadership when it comes to sustainability. And, perhaps more surprisingly, there was the reaction of an architecture professor at the end of one of Lemkowitz’s infamous ‘The myth of sustainability’ lectures. ,,Why are you telling the audience this irresponsible nonsense?” he shouted in disbelief. In Delft, calling sustainability a myth is like cursing in church.
Mind you, a few minutes before the outburst Lemkowitz had already revealed to his audience that his highly controversial lecture couldn’t bear close scientific scrutiny % but that it had taken him months to gather and subtly manipulate all the data. (Lemkowitz makes it a habit to collect a lot of scientific data to support conflicting claims, whether he believes in the point he’s arguing or not.) For the uninitiated, this sensation of being tricked and intellectually challenged at the same time was like experiencing a brilliant twist in a movie plot. It forced you to look critically at everything you had been taking for granted for the last hour. And that’s exactly what Lemkowitz wants. ,,Don’t uncritically believe one single word I say to you,” he likes to say to his own students. And when that’s greeted with some light-hearted laughter: ,,I mean that, that’s no joke!” Just like his long-time friend and colleague Hans Bonnet, Lemkowitz is passionate about training the engineers of tomorrow in thinking independently and critically.
For the last twenty-odd years, Lemkowitz and Bonnet have fiercely advocated the kind of education that they are now silently proud of: courses like ‘Industrial Ecology’ and ‘Technology and Society’, which prepare students to deal with the moral dilemmas that they may face as engineers. How do you weigh environmental risks and health risks against economic and technological interests? When something goes wrong, who is responsible? How to deal with different ‘actors’ like Greenpeace, corporate companies and the local governments which are involved in a controversial issue? The students get a taste of what it’s like to be an engineer in a complex society, where environment, economics and technology really can’t be that easily separated. They also learn to look critically at the way they themselves ‘digest’ information, and how to make that all-important and often forgotten distinction between facts and moral judgements before they tackle a problem.
Lemkowitz and Bonnet are both exact scientists, and they have never lulled their students to sleep with easy answers or simplistic generalizations. ,,A technologist is someone who must constantly choose between the lesser of two evils,” Bonnet says. He gives the example of an energy plant that is fuelled by waste: not exactly sustainability at its most idyllic, but it may be the best solution yet. ,,A really good engineer has to be something of a philosopher.”
Communism
There is a sunny philosophy that seems to be tailor-made for engineers, who generally thrive on optimism: ,,Yes, technology causes a lot of problems, but no worries – new, better technology will take care of all that!” Yet, in a course like Industrial Ecology, Lemkowitz dares to question this belief. ,,We don’t want to discourage students. But sometimes it’s important to look at the big picture. New technology is essential for tackling the problems of the world, but alone it may well be insufficient. Technology is the easiest part of sustainability, as long as you give enough time and money to engineers. Changing laws, attitudes, organizations % that’s the real challenge. Especially in the United States, where a concept like distribution of wealth to many people still sounds like Communism.” Talking of which… Lemkowitz even likes to pose that really uncomfortable question: is sustainability compatible with a capitalist society? ,,I’m not a Marxist!” he reassures us, half-jokingly. ,,When I’m in the United States, I’m still envious of my brother, who is a successful businessman and has little patience for liberal ideas.”
Comments are closed.