I have never found urban development and planning an interesting topic. But, this event hosted by the Urban Democracy Lab at NYU was not only fascinating and eye-opening, but it also supplemented and complemented much of the content in this course regarding technology and its effects.

The event was centered on four guest speakers: Kafui Attoh, Rosalind Fredericks, Malini Ranganathan and Catherine Fennell, who were moderated by Penny Lewis. Each of these speakers presented for 15 minutes on a topic of their choice that related to the friction caused between the government and the urban dwellers in matters of infrastructure.

Kafui Attoh focused on the issue of transit workers. There is a “speeding up” in public transit as drivers’ spot time and recovery time is shortened. A spot time is one where a driver would have time to eat and rest before resuming work again. A recovery time is one where drivers prepare for their next shift and adjust. Now these times are being shortened because of delays and longer routes. If a worker is delayed, he will have a shorter spot time. He would only have a few minutes to relax and use the bathroom. As a result, the health of these workers are being affected as they cannot properly use the bathrooms and don’t have proper access. I think Attoh’s argument is interesting because it shows how today’s fast-paced, technological society does not consider its toll upon human labor. Present in our industrialized society is the erroneous conception that human labor can perform at the same level as machines. But, as Attoh points out, this is impossible. Humans cannot function at the same level as capital. We have explored this relationship between machines and humans and the impact of an increasingly technological culture in our reading of ‘The Machine Stops’ by E.M. Forster and ‘Fahreheit 451’ by Ray Bradbury, which show that technology can have a dehumanizing effect on people. Technology plays a pivotal role in our lives to the extent that it  guides and dictates our lives.

In addition, Malini Ranganathan presented on the stormwater drains of Bangalore (Bengaluru), India. According to Ranganathan, these drains are “socio-natural assemblages”. Floods are becoming increasingly common in this city, heightening the need for proper and efficient stormwater drains. But storm drains are not as efficient as one may hope in Bangalore. It is clogged by waste from the surrounding areas. Worse, the most serious floods occur in areas of the city that have the poorest maintenance. What I gathered from Ranganathan’s presentation was that today’s technology needs to concentrate further on infrastructure that is beneficial to its residents. They need better drainage systems and innovative technologies that help in waste removal, to provide a cleaner environment. Ranganathan provides a fresh perspective for this course, because we have discussed about the greater dangers and consequences of technology on our society in the present and future, but we have not discussed in further detail about how new technology can be used to affect a change for the better or worse in the environment.

In a similar vein, Rosalind Fredericks discusses the situation of trash in Dakar, Senegal. Her main area of focus was the ways in which technology influences infrastructure. She also aimed to explore how governments assert their power through infrastructures “as they often crystallize uneven development and unjust power relations.” According to Fredericks, materiality, in this case, garbage forms a key discourse into how developing technologies influence infrastructure. In Dakar, there have been numerous volatile institutional reorganizations regarding the city’s trash. There have been intense movements that have formed around the policy of waste. Unions of trash workers have protested various times. But in more recent times, such protests are now characterized by public dumping that occurs as form of showing solidarity. In Frederick’s opinion, governing garbage disposal has been a key form of asserting state power as government engage in anti-union practices and “low-tech infrastructural formulas.” Consequently, more burden is placed on human labor to collect and dispose trash. Frederick’s argument is very relevant in terms of our course in that she discusses how through technology and infrastructure, states impose and dominate over society. In the works of dystopia and discussions that we have had in class, it is apparent that technology is an important tool of the government as they force obedience and subjugation in society.

Lastly, Catharine Fennell spoke about Detroit’s infrastructure problems. Although she made several significant points, one of her most noteworthy arguments was the using of lead in infrastructure. She highlighted that there has been an increasing use of lead in construction and in demolition practices (use of wrecking balls, which are made of lead. Because of this widespread application, people are constantly exposed to the harmful effects of lead.  This is especially true in the case of children who may unintentionally chew on materials containing lead. What’s particularly terrifying is that developers and infrastructure companies frequently claim that lead is not harmful, resulting in a misinformed public who are exposed to risks that they didn’t intentionally create. Through such a discussion, Fennell aims to fuel a discourse that would make lead a public matter and provoke collective action against such detrimental practices. Fennell’s articulation is very similar to the article ‘The Geology of New Media’ by Jussi Parikka, that we read for class. In that article, Parikka analyzed how elements used in our present technology could cause potentially harm our environment and our health when they are improperly disposed. He provides the examples of Benzene  trichloroethylene and Freon which “are not necessarily “things” we associate with digital media cultural ephemerality, but they are some of the historical examples of health hazards caused from production of disk drives.”