Herbst Fellows 2025

Techno-Symbiosis: Your Tools and Their Influence On You

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:54:46 +0000

Techno-Symbiosis: Your Tools and Their Influence On You Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:54 Daniel Alemayehu

Anecdote of Knowledge

No story about any technology is complete without the Greek myth of the titan Prometheus. As the story goes, he uses his godly connections to introduce humans to the Olympian secret of fire and is cursed to have his entrails harvested for eternity. The punishment for Prometheus, seems quite extreme for his crime, compared to the multitude of affairs and abuses amongst the Greek Pantheon. What made introducing people to this technology so dangerous? Perhaps it was the fact that fire became a catalyst for human innovation and connection, allowing people to settle into caves and establish territories and shelters (Washburn 1961), as opposed to roaming around from precarious settlement to precarious settlement? It is no exaggeration to say that fire was massive in changing people from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists. So, to truly make Prometheus worthy of his punishment, it would have almost certainly been the widespread diffusion of fire, allowing for its diverse applications such as in agriculture and colonization. Fire was the first true social innovation. It allowed humans to assert control over nature’s (the gods’) whims, becoming the seeming masters of it. The tradition of using technology and machinery to control and manipulate the complexity of the world continues today. It finds new life in Large Language Models trying to control intelligence itself.

The World of the Mechanist

The Science Delusion (Sheldrake 2012) was understandably controversial when biologist Rupert Sheldrake published his critique on contemporary scientific research. Despite his more dubious claims about the nature of science research, Sheldrake accurately assesses some of the fallacies and exploitations associated with mechanistic thinking. For example, he contextualized Descartes’s description of biological systems as a type of machinery within his cruel dog experiments undertaken to understand each “mechanical” part of the animal. While this example is rather specific, it demonstrates Sheldrake’s point that under a mechanistic view, nature is an expendable system that can be extracted from and reassembled, with no care or consideration for the whole. Whereby contrast, nature is something that can exhibit emergent “living” complexity and be permanently altered and violated just by mere changes to its parts and conditions. Importantly, this ideology even corresponds with how many professions, such as economists, discuss nature today. Rather than being an inherent part of the cost calculus, in economic exchanges between agents such as those regarding the use of natural resources and large-scale intelligence companies, nature is treated as an externality (Boudreaux and Meiners 2019), paid socially by other externalities (people) (Eisenstein 2011). So, from an economic perspective, the promise of AI’s unrealized efficiency and adaptability is too much to give up on, but the price of nature is negligible. The mechanists of Silicon Valley do not care about the cost to humans, they are only interested in the march of progress.

Human Obsolescence and the March of Progress

Frontier AI labs have promised untold benefits for humanity, but it remains hard to reconcile this in the face of the almost careless impact AI has had on human lives. News organizations are facing widespread plagiarism allegations in the face of training and enhancing computer models (“A.I., Journalism and the Uncertain Future of the Public Square” 2026). Traditional school assignments are failing to accomplish their purpose as students complete more of their assignments with AI systems eager to answer any question (Watson-Fore 2026). This is especially dangerous when a wide variety of studies are warning of AI’s massive negative impact on the learning process (Kosmyna et al. 2025), (Stromberg et al. 2026), (Rismanchian et al. 2026). AI companies are prioritizing the goal of solving mathematical problems rather than cooperating with the mathematical community to promote understanding and learning (Avila et al. 2026). Laborers not only are losing job opportunities as management opts for the nebulous technological marking hype of AI labs (Roy, n.d.) but are also finding that their carefully cultivated, work-based identities are under threat. After all, if AI can do any job, it becomes hard to argue that anything someone can do is human at all. If AI can solve any problem, what point is there in solving any problem at all? Institutions and their constituents are facing challenges with modern technology from the practical to the ontological. Increasingly, it seems rational to merely adopt to the new values of technology, as authors of Power and Progress paraphrase this sentiment:

“We couldn’t stop them if we wanted to, and it would be highly inadvisable to try. It is better to change ourselves—for example, by investing in skills that will be valued in the future.” (Acemoglu and Johnson 2024)

However, it is easy to forget in the midst of technological excitement that anxieties related to human obsolescence and innovation are not so new. Current trends in employable skills revolve around making sure you can use AI tools, but before that there was an “everyone should learn to code” phase, which followed an “everyone should get a degree” phase, among others. Even the Industrial Revolution was not without its growing pains and fair share of modernization pressures. Reflecting on his trip to mid-nineteenth century industrial London, American editor Horace Greeley wrote:

“On every side the onward march of Invention is constant, rapid, inexorable. The human Reaper of thirty years ago, finds to-day a machine cutting grain twenty times as fast as ever he could; he gets three days’ work as its waiter where he formerly had three weeks’ steady harvesting: the work is as well done as of old, and far cheaper; but his share of the product is sadly diminished.” (Acemoglu and Johnson 2024)

There is no shortage of things people should be doing and learning to avoid being replaced and excluded in their role for society. And yet, it seems inevitable that innovations, by default, work to exclude as many of these workers as possible, all in the name of saving costs.

Hoarding the Productivity

Who actually benefits from the explosion of modern AI? Following the money, it seems that a small minority of tech companies are enjoying spreading the wealth amongst themselves. It is more than clear in today’s landscape, satisfying users is not the primarily goal of software anymore. Rather, technology is now for the benefit of their creators, and users are merely tools for technology to exploit. Below is a simple graphic illustrating the flow of money between several of these tech companies, but there are far more examples of capital centralization than this graph depicts.

For example, in 2025 Micron exited the consumer space entirely (Micron Announces Exit from Crucial Consumer Business Micron Technology, n.d.), opting to prioritize providing the latest in memory technology to businesses only, excluding consumers. Multiple companies, such as Delta Airlines, are beginning to experiment with AI-based dynamic pricing models (Weekend 2025) which comes with a variety of discrimination risks from model overfitting (Noble 2024) but, more importantly for Delta, there are potential profits gains from first degree price discrimination (Botta and Wiedemann 2020). It seems, despite the lofty promises of big tech and AI’s widespread industrial impact, that most people will not have a share in the new prosperity AI is supposed to bring. Can this technology be used for the people or will people be left behind while new age companies harvest untold wealth?

The People Left Behind?

AI is often presented as this novel problem, suggesting that there is no precedent and that the ability to cope with it is something that will only be developed over time. But history and fiction provide stories of similar situations. There are characters and archetypes who have learned to cope with their place in the world amidst their own uncertain times.

Miyamoto Musashi was a famous swordsman who lived through Japan’s Edo period, where Gunpowder was the defining technology of the age. Traditionally, soldiers and swordsmen were a rare resource because mastering the tools of war (swords, horses, spears, etc.) would take total dedication, if not many years of training. But the introduction of muskets changed this, making it far easier to become a soldier. As military historian Gwynne Dyer notes:

“Firearms take much less time to master and are much more democratic in their effects: samurai and commoners died with equal speed and equal futility in the Takeda clan’s desperate charges at Nagashino.” (Gwynne Dyer 2005)

On top of the change in military structure, a pervasive era of peace marked the Edo period, further casting doubt on the necessity of highly trained warriors. It is in this backdrop of the Edo period’s “uncertain times” for warriors that the historical fiction story of (Inoue et al. 2025) takes place. In this story, Musashi is a ronin desiring to “make a name for himself” through his skills with the sword, seeking recognition through his tangible feats of power when most have stopped regarding warriors as admirable. However, as he progresses through the story, Mushashi reflects on his ego driven desire to dominate. As Musashi’s mentor figure, the priest, Takuan Soho states:

“As long as you’re only concerned about your own life. Life has no worth. It is only through the support of others... that one’s life has any value.” (Inoue et al. 2025)

Musashi comes to realize his desire for strength was a self-isolating endeavor that ultimately brought him no satisfaction and everyone else immense suffering. Each fight he won only lead to more violence and never bought him “invincibility,” a thinly veiled desire to be untouched by nature. This contrasts against his famous historical rival Sasaki Kojiro, depicted as deaf and mute. Ironically, this sensory deprivation makes Kojiro’s swordsmanship stand out as it was entirely detached from the world’s perception of the sword. Free from the expectations of violence, dominance, and oppression associated with swords, Kojiro’s swordplay stands out as beautiful and pure to Musashi. It appears as a type of art where interpretation and expression are done through battle and is not muddled by societal pressure or the ego’s desire to prove itself. In other words, despite how little warriors mattered in this time, Kojiro’s swordplay still meant something, as evidenced by how popular Kojiro and Musashi’s myths are today. While Musashi seeks to be above nature and people as a swordsman, Kojiro integrates himself into the world through his swords. Musashi further engages with this as he journeys to a famine-stricken village and instead of traveling through, works to cultivate the land of the village. For the first time, Musashi is not working towards his own self-satisfaction but the satisfaction of others as well, using his strength to help build canals that integrate with nature to make rice fields, as well as defending the village from the onslaught of bandits. Not only are the villagers better off for it, but he is much better off for it as well, having obtained a much richer conception of strength that is not dependent on oppressing others but on lifting people up. It was when Musashi looked for meaning in others that he was able to find purpose in his own art.

Courage In Uncertainty

Contemporary news paints a bleak picture of modern technology. Some even go as far to say that AI is entirely worthless for most people. But AI is not without its merits as well. On the open-source platform Hugging Face https://huggingface.co/ there is a huge database of models for technical users to experiment with, improve on, and apply to a wide variety of problems. Scientists have been able to accelerate discovery through machine learning applications such as predicting protein structures (Jumper et al. 2021). Important technological infrastructure is being secured thanks to ML powered vulnerability discovery (Vaughan-Nichols 2026). Even most current everyday workflows use AI, in the broadest sense of the word. Autocorrect and Word recommendations being the preeminent examples. But people must also avoid using AI to supplant the qualities of humanity.

The Pope writes:

“The brain needs to be used, so our intelligence must also be exercised a little so as not to lose this capacity,” — Pope Leo XIV (Mares, n.d.)

Even priests are failing to resist the productivity AI provides in writing their homilies, but Pope Leo XIV points out that a homily is all about sharing faith with one’s community. Musashi learns this exact lesson. His life was not satisfied by his impressive feats of strength, but rather the community he was able to build. On the contrary, it was his desire to dominate and put himself over others that brought him deep dissatisfaction. By choosing to outsource opportunities for connection, people fail to recognize why exactly its so important in the first place.

Modern technology is suffering from a user design problem. AI’s potential to revolutionize how people work and what new tasks are possible is incredible. Yet people remain alienated from its impacts. Its power is drip-fed to people in the form of constricted pricey large language models. Modern technology is developed and marketed as an alternative to humanity, not an augmentation to bolster humanity (Wong 2026). Further, proponents of AGI technology declare that the modern advancements of technology can not be provided without widespread human replacements that permit a small minority to develop these products (“The Education of a Libertarian” 2009), (Gebru and Torres 2024), (Goertzel 2015). It is precisely this limiting narrative that obscures the ways that AI can benefit most people. This is no accident. It is by design. Or, more generally, it is inevitable when the development and application of technology is primarily done by a small minority.

More important than the capability of the technology, AI fundamentally cannot be allowed to supplant the need for humanity in many spaces. As much as AI could be capable of making any critical decision, it can never overcome the fact that a human needs to hold the responsibility for the decision because, “A computer can never be held responsible.” (Bonderud 2025) As much as AI could write a homily, it will struggle to tackle the essence of faith as it can not contend with its own and others existence and experience of reality. Contrary to the narrative that tech companies paint, “slowing down” to get technology right for people is not an obstacle of innovation. Rather, it is essential that the human is an integral consideration of the technology if it is to be truly innovative in the social and existential sense. Especially now, people -- with their diverse experiences and interactions with the world -- are necessary to develop novel tools that take advantage of new AI technology. As the story of Vagabond illustrates, Mushashi’s fading relevance as a swordsman did not make him a victim of the story’s transitional era, but it was because he devoted so much time towards his art that he still found purpose and wisdom in his time. Similarly, Kojiro found fame and a place in the world through his unique swordplay that displayed playfulness and curiosity. Both characters remained influential figures worthy of remembrance precisely because they embodied human qualities, not in spite of them.

In a final example, the humble computer arguably had much of the same potential for exploitation that AI and other modern innovations have today. But it was precisely through analyzing what made computers powerful and how humans could support this (Man-Computer Symbiosis, n.d.) that computers became the ubiquitous and respectful (compared to AI) tools that we know today. In the problem of modern technology and user-design the individual seemingly has an overwhelming challenge to overcome. But, thanks to the innovations of the past and the powerful computational systems of today, it has never been easier for an individual to make an impact. Whether its in novel ways like developing new open-source solutions, developing sociological models to understand AI agent dynamics, or even going through more traditional routes such as policy advocacy both online and in-person, it has never been easier to learn, develop, and make a change to the way the world works. People must reaffirm curiosity and ownership towards user-centered technology to bridge the massive design gap between modern technology and societal problems. As the story of Prometheus reminds us, AI and ML can not be treated as something to be afraid of, something to be ignored, or something to be delegated to those who will fit it. Because if the lofty promises of technology are to be accomplished and experienced by the most people, then it will not be by the efforts of frontier labs or an empowered monopoly. Rather, it will be the people of diverse professions, experiences, and communities who will accomplish this.

References

Acemoglu, Daron, and Simon Johnson. 2024. Power and Progress: Our Thousand-year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity. Public Affairs.

“A.I., Journalism and the Uncertain Future of the Public Square.” 2026. In The New York Times Company.

Avila, Artur, Manjul Bhargava, Caucher Birkar, et al. 2026. A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.22737750.

Bonderud, Doug. 2025. AI Decision-Making: Where Do Businesses Draw the Line? IBM. Https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-decision-making-where-do-businesses-draw-the-line.

Botta, Marco, and Klaus Wiedemann. 2020. “To Discriminate or Not to Discriminate? Personalised Pricing in Online Markets as Exploitative Abuse of Dominance.” European Journal of Law and Economics 50 (3): 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-019-09636-3.

Boudreaux, Donald J., and Roger Meiners. 2019. “Externality: Origins and Classifications.” Natural Resources Journal 59 (1): 1–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26617802.

Eisenstein, Charles. 2011. Sacred Economics: Money, Gift & Society in the Age of Transition. Evolver Editions.

Gebru, Timnit, and Émile P. Torres. 2024. “The TESCREAL Bundle: Eugenics and the Promise of Utopia Through Artificial General Intelligence.” First Monday, ahead of print, April. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636.

Goertzel, Ben. 2015. “Superintelligence: Fears, Promises and Potentials: Reflections on Bostrom’s Superintelligence, Yudkowsky’s From AI to Zombies, and Weaver and Veitas’s ‘Open-Ended Intelligence’.” Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies 25 (2): 55–87. https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v25i2.48.

Gwynne Dyer. 2005. War: The New Edition. Vintage Canada.

Inoue, Takehiko, Eiji Yoshikawa, Yuji Oniki, and Steve Dutro. 2025. Vagabond. VIZ Media, LLC.

Jumper, John, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, et al. 2021. “Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold.” Nature 596 (7873): 583–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.

Kosmyna, Nataliya, Eugene Hauptmann, Ye Tong Yuan, et al. 2025. Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt When Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. arXiv:2506.08872. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872.

Man-Computer Symbiosis. n.d. Https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html.

Mares, Courtney. n.d. “Pope Leo Tells Priests Not to Use AI to Write Homilies or Seek Likes on TikTok.” Text. In National Catholic Reporter. Https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/pope-leo-tells-priests-not-use-ai-write-homilies-or-seek-likes-tiktok; National Catholic Reporter.

Micron Announces Exit from Crucial Consumer Business Micron Technology. n.d. Https://investors.micron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/micron-announces-exit-crucial-consumer-business.

Noble, Tori. 2024. “To Fight Surveillance Pricing, We Need Privacy First.” In Electronic Frontier Foundation. Https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/fight-surveillance-pricing-we-need-privacy-first.

Rismanchian, Sina, Hasan Uzun, Jeffrey Matayoshi, Eric Cosyn, and Eyad Kurd-Misto. 2026. Faster Completion, Less Learning: Generative AI Reduced Study Time on Math Problems and the Knowledge They Build. arXiv:2605.21629. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.21629.

Roy, Katica. n.d. “66% of CEOs Are Freezing Hiring While Betting Billions on AI. It’s a Costly Miscalculation.” In Fortune. Https://fortune.com/2026/03/18/corporate-america-ai-hiring-freeze-workforce-architecture/.

Sheldrake, Rupert. 2012. Science Set Free: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry. Coronet.

Stromberg, David, Victor Lei, and Yanhui Wu. 2026. The Generative AI Learning Penalty: Evidence from Chinese Secondary Education. {{SSRN Scholarly Paper}} No. 6868618. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6868618.

“The Education of a Libertarian.” 2009. In Cato Unbound. Https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian.

Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. 2026. “Linux Kernel Czar Says AI Bug Reports Aren’t Slop Anymore.” Software in Theregister. Https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/26/linux-kernel-czar-says-ai-bug-reports-arent-slop-anymore/5226256.

Washburn, Sherwood. 1961. Social Life of Early Man.

Watson-Fore, McKenzie. 2026. “�鶹��Ѱ��Delays ChatGPT Rollout After Backlash over $2M OpenAI Deal.” In The Boulder Reporting Lab.

Weekend, -Andrew Corkery Andrew Corkery is a national affairs producer at PBS News. 2025. “How Online Retailers Are Using AI to Adjust Prices by Mining Your Personal Data.” Economy in PBS News. Https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-online-retailers-are-using-ai-to-adjust-prices-by-mining-your-personal-data.

Wong, Matteo. 2026. “Sam Altman Is Losing His Grip on Humanity.” Technology in The Atlantic. Https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/02/sam-altman-train-a-human/686120/.

Off

Traditional

White

Engineering Ethics and Cultural Dialogue

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:49:47 +0000

Engineering Ethics and Cultural Dialogue Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:49 Chiara Pesce

Land Acknowledgement & Positionality

As it will be discussed in this work, my embedded biases influence the approach I take to research, the perspectives I choose to include in my writing, the assumptions I make, and the way in which I draw connections. As such, I feel it is obligatory to disclose aspects of my perspective that may influence my writing.

I’ve grown up in Colorado, and traveled very little out of the United States, although I have traveled most of the western US. My engagement with engineering has been through the �鶹��Ѱ�� in which I started as an Aerospace Engineer. Upon learning that most aerospace pathways are closely tied to the defense industry, I changed my major to Mechanical Engineering. A year later, I changed majors again to Environmental engineering and begun work in the Hannigan Air Quality & Technology Research (HAQ) Lab.

Working in the HAQ lab under my mentor Percy Smith was significantly different than my perception of research, and the schooling I had undergone in my engineering education prior to joining the lab. In the HAQ lab, undergraduates work directly with graduate students across different engineering majors. Work is flexible, and creativity is encouraged in design. Community outreach & education is a core part of the lab, many researchers working directly with communities. The ethics and implications of the engineering practice are openly discussed within the workplace, not just on the basis of case studies, but in relation to our work: something I had not experienced in any of my technical engineering courses prior to joining the lab. Because of this gap between my schooling, and the work environment within the HAQ lab, I felt something was missing from the way I was being taught engineering practice, motivating the research presented here.

I also find it critical to acknowledge that the land I grew up (and now study) in is the ancestral homelands of Indigenous peoples including Di De’i (Apache), Hinono’eiteen (Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks (Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute). Prior to the advent of colonialism, indigenous peoples, their oral histories, cultures, and spiritual connections were intimately tied to the land in which I now reside. No city or nation can undo the multifaceted, generational trauma and oppression that Indigenous peoples have endured and continue to endure. Acknowledgment of these wrongdoings is not enough; we must also work to understand how our current systems and culture continue to directly or indirectly harm Indigenous peoples today.

Introduction

As an environmental engineering student, I’ve become immersed in issues of anthropogenic environmental contamination present in the air, soil and water. I’ve also worked to assess how toxic contaminants can harm ecosystems, agriculture or pose health risks to humans. My degree has also provided insights into life cycle analysis and sustainability in the face of global warming and anthropogenic climate change. Exposure to these problems has facilitated my growing curiosity in engineering ethics and how the embedded perspectives we hold can influence the designs we create. It is precisely this intersection of technical knowledge and ethical responsibility that investigates how engineering as a profession approaches its role in the world.

Engineers in all fields are increasingly working in global or local contexts [1] where engineering practices directly impact community and ecological health [2]. Despite this, many engineers in Western countries remain distanced from such contexts, often harming the very communities engineering designs should benefit [3]. While undesirable, this outcome is understandable given the current focus of western engineering ethics on the role of the engineer as a professional [1], and design solutions optimized for efficiency and technical validity [4], [5]. While important, neither of these approaches provides sufficient guidance for engineering work in diverse contexts, nor does it effectively equip engineers to address large-scale issues like those posed by global warming [6].

Addressing these shortcomings in Western engineering ethics necessitates an examination of both why the current paradigm fails, and how to adequately redefine it in a more holistic manner that benefits communities, ecological systems, and the engineer. To answer these questions, the Western engineering paradigm can look to diverse cultural design traditions whose critiques illuminate the assumptions embedded in Western engineering’s foundations. In this way, engineering ethics can become a dialogue between diverse perspectives; a practice that will constitute more creative, just, innovative, and ecologically responsible solutions.

Identifying Borders within Engineering Ethics

Methodology

In order to understand the critiques of Western engineering ethics, and potential avenues of improvement, I aimed my investigation at how Indigenous (predominantly North or Central American) and Eastern (predominantly Taoist / Confucianist) philosophies of design differ from Western engineering, and their critiques of Western practice . As such, this investigation pulls from literature spanning philosophical critiques, indigenous knowledge & epistemology, cross-cultural ethics, decolonizing design, cognitive science of design, design practice, pedagogy, and planetary / environmental health. These works were then coded and examined for critiques of western engineering ethics across diverse perspectives with the intention of underscoring the prevalence of critiques from multiple subjects. However, I want to be upfront in articulating that while predominant, these critiques are formed on numerous social backgrounds and intimately contextual to each culture. This level of detail is not something which can be fully captured in one paper. With this in mind, Figure 1 illustrates my approach to this work likened to a growing tree: embedded perspectives as the roots, the research direction as the trunk, the sources of information as branches, and individual data points as leaves.

These critiques of the Western engineering paradigm can them be investigated to identify key segments of the border between Western and non-Western engineering and design ethics. In this way, Western engineering practice can begin to look at alternative ways to frame engineering ethics and understand the impact a reframing would have on engineering practitioners as well as those impacted by engineering designs. Three key segments of this border are environmental consideration, nonlinearity in design & time, and relationality.

Environmental Consideration

The first (and perhaps most timely) differentiation between Western and American-Indigenous & Eastern philosophies of design ethics is how these perspectives frame the environment in the design process. Much of Western engineering is built on a cultural backbone based in extraction, materialism, and growth inherited from colonial practices and capitalist systems [3]. The culture that threads through engineering ethics thus frames the environment as a source of resources & capital that can be monetized; something to be contained or controlled. Left unacknowledged, this cultural underpinning perpetuates engineering practices that reinforces a disconnect between humans and the environment, perpetuating environmental degradation.

Perhaps the most immediate example of this underpinning’s impact on Western engineering design can be seen in our cities. In American cities, we’ve historically built energy-intensive buildings that utilize natural gas or fossil-fuels for heating and electricity. These cities combat the outdoor environment, while fenceline communities bear the brunt of pollution from the requisite industrial plants [8]. Our streets bisect natural ecosystems, redirecting or endangering local wildlife. Hostile architecture fights the nesting of birds, and building materials radiate heat so intensely they change local climates [9] impacting vegetation, weather patterns and the surrounding environment [10]. All of these phenomena are, in part, physical manifestations of engineering practice that positions the environment in opposition to humanity.

Yet, engineers today will be increasingly called on to find solutions to the problems of sea level rise, heat mitigation in cities, energy efficiency, decarbonization, food security, etc. as they are amplified by anthropogenic climate change [7]. In order to address these global, complex issues, engineering ethics can look to how Indigenous-American and Eastern design philosophies frame environmental obligation differently and their critiques of Western practice.

American-Indigenous and cultures have long embodied an integrated relationship with nature formed on a worldview that intimately connects humans and Country [11] through physical and spiritual pathways. As such, indigenous designs inherently incorporate the environment into designs as an active participant and provider of knowledge. Designs & their designers thus embody an overarching commitment to environmental stewardship [11], [12], [13], and connection to the earth. Compared to much of Western engineering practice which separates, and combats the environment, indigenous conceptions of design place the environment at the forefront of consideration.

Similarly, Taoist & Confucianist influences on culture in the East have emphasized the interconnectedness of all things as part of nature, acting in a critical balance that acknowledges the importance and value of all entities [14], [15]: a “microcosm, forming a triadic relationship with the Cosmos and Earth” [16]. Designs within this framework are thus realized in a process that aims to benefit all entities in mutual enrichment, including the environment [17]. As such, engineering ethics within many Eastern perspectives seek to preserve a harmony between humans, society, nature, and technology; acknowledging both their complex interactions and the unique needs and contributions of each player.

Together, Indigenous and Eastern philosophies point out a key shortcoming of traditional Western engineering ethics based on efficiency and professionalism: the detachment from, and irresponsibility towards the environment in design practice. If Western engineers are to uphold ethical standards, the environment must become a key contributor in designs. Not only is this the ethical thing to do (as Eastern and Indigenous perspectives argue), but integrating natural knowledge through practices like biomimicry or biophilic design will create more meaningful, innovative, sustainable, and holistic solutions [19] to the complex challenges facing engineers today. Pyri's [20] low-cost wildfire alert device (Figure 3) illustrates this potential: designed around the heat-release mechanisms of pinecones, the sensor remains dormant until extreme wildfire heat triggers a chemical process, sending a signal to nearby communities. This decentralized sensor network can lie dormant across multiple fire seasons and is fully biodegradable. In this way, nature is not merely a backdrop for engineering work, but an active collaborator and stakeholder in the design itself.

Another example of this environmentally conscious philosophy of engineering, and the impact has is embodied in Professor Kongjian Yu’s work surrounding integrated landscape architecture for ecology. Yu’s experience growing up in a small village in Zhejiang was intimately tied to monsoon season and flooding. Here, water was both a source of life and an enemy: an integral part of growing rice and a destructive force during summer flooding. In his engineering practice, Yu pulled on his experience and traditional agrarian Chinese knowledge to recast the view of water as destructive to a bringer of life. His Sponge Cities (Figure 3 [47]) updated old infrastructure to manage urban water in a way that fostered sustainability, ecological health and public good, while simultaneously promoting public knowledge of contemporary ecological governance [48]. His holistic approach to water management mitigated flooding, also promoting biodiversity, water quality, and resilience [47].

Taken together, Pyri's sensor and Yu's Sponge Cities point toward the idea that when the environment is treated as a collaborator rather than a resource, engineering solutions become more resilient, innovative, and ecologically beneficial. This is the insight Indigenous and Eastern design ethics offer to the Western paradigm: not a rejection of engineering ambition, but a redirection of it toward designs that sustain the environmental systems they depend on.

Nonlinear Time & Design

Since industrialization swept across the West and the globe, linear-process thinking has dominated most of the Western engineering practice. Steps in a design are often organized and performed sequentially with the initial point defined by a problem, and the final point defined by the solution. Additionally, many design teams are organized hierarchically, and each individual is typically tasked developing a piece of the overall project. While this may not seem particularly linear upon initial examination, the word linear is used to define action or thinking that is structured, hierarchical, segmented, and procedural. This conceptualization of linearity is one that Western engineering firms or contractors typically follow. While this type of linear thinking was efficient during the advent of industrialization, it is constricting the space engineering solutions can explore in the present [21], [22].

Many Western conceptions of time in the design process are also predominantly linear: a process starts with the problem and proceeds until the solution is defined and constructed [23], [24]. In this way, a lot of the engineering design process is centered around the present or near-present moment [25]. As a result, western design typically doesn’t explore reframing of the initial problem, and responsibility for designs does not extend considerably into the past or future [26]. One example of the latter is the practice of planned obsolescence, which perpetuates consumerism and unsustainable practices. While some argue that shorter product life cycles helps to control economic resources and avoid overdesign [28]. These shorter lifetimes produce more waste without adequate end-of-life material recycling. Once products or designs are deemed outdated, few attempts are made to continually maintain, adapt, or integrate the old design by manufactures or designers [27].

Compared to Western engineering, many Indigenous and Eastern cultural traditions frame design and time nonlinearly. In this work, nonlinear is defined as action or thinking that is relational, flexible, non-procedural, and holistic. These approaches shift the design focus so that both the process and the end result are valued.

Eastern engineering practice emphasizes harmony within design practice. Individual components are inseparable from the whole, and the whole is more than the sum of its parts. In this way, designs cannot be wholly separated, classified, or divided without sacrificing harmony [29] and limiting design effectiveness. In this way, designs embody an integrated approach that considers the interaction between parts of a design and the design with its end user. Engineering through this lens seeks to uncover possible disharmony in the design, and is highly contextual, relying on outside information or situational specifics to innovate and inform design solutions rather than strictly adhering to pre-determined constraints [30], [31]. Nonlinearity is thus reflected in the organic synthesis of information both inside and outside the engineering environment [30], integrating knowledge in parallel to arrive at a solution.

Indigenous design differs from traditional Western engineering practice in its conception and integration of time. First, time is not secular and sequential: past and future coexist in the present in a nonlinear fashion. This spiraling, dialectical view of time naturally emphasizes past and future perspectives in the engineering process. One example of such emphasis is seen in the concept of the seven generation design timeline which is considered a method of serving life far in the future [12]. Engineering design through this lens emphasizes building on the foundations of past knowledge and experience while integrating present and personal insight in a process that considers and serves future beings.

Both Indigenous and Eastern embodiments of nonlinearity constitute a more unstructured process of design where problems and solutions are interrelated and contextual [32], holistic approaches catalyze innovation, and integrated time shifts emphasis away from the present; building on past knowledge and emphasizing long-term flourishing (Figure 4). These framings of design offer insights into more integrated, creative approaches to design; designs that are invaluable as engineers work in increasingly complex, challenging and unpredictable contexts [1].

In order to better grasp one way nonlinearity may look in engineering practice, we can examine at the restoration of the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary in New Zealand. This project sought to restore the Kaituna River’s natural path which was redirected in 1956 by engineers in attempt to mitigate flood control (Figure 5), a decision made with narrow temporal score and without community consultation. With the removal of the Estuary, Local Māori lost traditional harvest areas and sources of food and the river lost its mauri [51]. In 2009 efforts to re-establish the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary rooted in community advocacy sought developer, governmental, and local knowledge to assess the best approach to restoration. This synthesis of perspectives fostered a common vision for the project; balancing the needs of diverse stakeholders while drawing on place-based knowledge that no single discipline could have provided alone [52]. Although construction was completed in 2020 by consulting company WSP, a local iwi environmental group among others continually monitors the river’s recovery; embodying the long-term responsibility nonlinear design demands [53]. The 1956 diversion and its 2020 restoration together span nearly a century: a reminder that engineering decisions extend far beyond the moment of construction. Where linear thinking produced an engineering solution that unraveled over generations, the nonlinear practice of integrated knowledge and long-term design responsibility exhibited in the restoration project offers a more innovative and beneficial solution that will endure.

Relationality

Much of Western engineering practice is motivated by individual interest. Whether it be an individual company, outcome, person or methodology, engineering separates individual components of a design and treats each separately. While this increases the efficiency of achieving an individual interest, it divorces components of an interconnected design system, hindering adoption or functionality of a design, and limiting the scope of solutions a design can explore. Furthermore, focusing on individual interest draws a veil across the impact a design may have on the intricate web of relations inseparable from engineering [18], [33].

In contrast, ethical engineering within Indigenous and Eastern perspectives frames problem definitions and designs within the broader social, economic, environmental, political and cultural networks they effect [34]; acknowledging the deeply interconnected system in which the engineering practice resides [11]. Indigenous design emphasizes the relationality between material, immaterial, human, and natural aspects to motivate the intentions, methodology, and frameworks solutions are conceived within [35]. Engineering practice that embodies this perspective focuses on collaboration pulling from both technical and non-technical knowledge to best integrate designs with the local or global community, ecosystems and diverse perspectives contextual to the design [17].

The influences of Confucianism and Taoism in Eastern culture broaden the responsibility of engineers to encompass interests greater than just the individual [34]. One example of this is the Confucian circles of responsibility which depict the responsibility of an individual as radiating outward to include, at the largest scale, responsibility to the world (Figure 4 [34]). Design is then embodied as a process of continual negotiation and harmonization of the relationships interwoven into engineering, balancing of the needs of each player in the web of interconnection [17], [36]. Like Indigenous design, engineering practice from an Eastern perspective integrates the diversity and complexity of knowledge these relationships provide to create holistic and innovative solutions; accounting for a wider range of consequences than conventional Western engineering approaches [17], [37].

Engaging with Indigenous and Eastern conceptions of relationality in engineering would emphasize methods such as co-design where stakeholders’ input is directly considered and valued in the engineering process; with non-technical knowledge bolstering uniqueness and innovation in design outcomes [5]. This shift away from individual focus would not weaken the authority of individuals but rather integrate the authority of many individual interests in a manner that grounds itself in collective knowledge, while also building community and ensuring engineering designs are ethical and unifying [38] [22].

Architect Diébédo Francis Kéré's Gando Primary School in Burkina Faso provides a compelling example of relationality embedded in engineering practice. Drawing on his own childhood experience attending a far away, poorly built school, Kéré’s approach to building the primary school integrated local climate strategies and architecture with locally sourced materials, promoting environmental and social justice in the community [49]. The school received the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, and Kéré was later awarded the Pritzker Prize for his sustained commitment to community centered design [50]. What distinguishes Kéré's work is not technical sophistication alone, but the relational foundation from which it emerges. In the design of the school, community was placed at the forefront of consideration, and actively participated in shaping the design outcome. This is what the concept of relationality demands of engineers: not the abandonment of expertise, but its expansion into a broader web of knowledge and accountability. Where much of Western engineering has historically narrowed its scope to the individual interest, relationality asks engineers to widen their gaze: to see not just the problem in front of them, but the integrated web of relationships surrounding the problem and its solution.

Self-Knowledge & Perspective

While engineers can look towards other perspectives for guidance in the reframing of engineering ethics, they cannot effectively converse and learn from their unique viewpoints until first acknowledging their own embedded perspective and its biases. Engineers must open their minds to the input, knowledge, and validity of perspectives different than their own. This requires a deep examination of the contextual nature in which engineering practices are developed, and how different individual or collective cultures can change how a design is realized [11], [37].

Science and engineering are typically conceived as being neutral: an embodiment of truth and objectivity. However, embedded cultural, social or political perspectives dictate how discovery or design is approached, which solutions are sought, what problems are addressed, and who the process includes [40]. If Western engineers are to approach their practice ethically, they must first come to understand how these perspectives can influence design [12]. Only through this self-reflection and realization of bias can alternative perspectives be integrated, understood, and adequately represented within engineering [18], [41], [42].

While acknowledging personal or cultural influence on practice is the first step towards integrating cultural dialogue, including and valuing diverse perspectives must be practiced in Western engineering. Not only is this ethical by the same arguments of relationality, but diverse perspectives also broaden the range of solutions that are viable within a deign scenario (Figure 5). Fixation on a particular methodology or solution definition can stunt the innovative nature of engineering solutions: while considering many viewpoints in engineering informs unique and innovative designs [6], [43].

Let’s take for example the utilization of reframing in in mathematics as a proxy for how a different perspective can reframe solutions. A coordinate system is a way of defining and viewing mathematical relationships, much like how a perspective is a way of viewing and interpreting experience. If we re-define our coordinate system, many relationships are easier to understand than in the ordinary construction of X, Y and Z axes; one example being imaginary numbers and complex analysis. However, to employ strategies like complex analysis we have to re-define our previous understanding of mathematical principles to include something that seems unintuitive, and realize the validity of the information it provides. In this way, complex analysis, and the solutions it provides, can be likened to the insights provided by a perspective different than our own (Figure 6).

Ethical engineering thus begins not with the question of "what is the right answer?" but "from where am I asking?" and “what perspectives am I not considering?” Like in complex analysis, only by interrogating the framework engineering assumptions are built on and the personal / cultural biases engineers hold, can engineers begin to design with and for, the communities they serve.

Responsibility & Duty

Western engineering ethics must undergo a paradigm shift to ensure engineers and designers practice responsibly in postmodern society. This means a shift towards a paradigm that recognizes the scale and complexity of the problems engineers face today along with engineers’ responsibilities within the context of these problems [1], [45].

Engineering holds an incredible potential to find solutions to some of the most pressing issues of the 21st century: problems like global warming, renewable energy, energy infrastructure, carbon capture, climate adaptation, poverty, disaster aid, food security, disease, and more [7]. Yet solutions to these problems cannot be found within a single discipline or perspective, and approaching them demands engagement with interrelated ethical questions that cannot be studied in isolation [43]. Indigenous and Eastern design philosophies illuminate what Western engineering has historically overlooked: environmental consideration, community input, and nonlinear thinking. Drawing on these perspectives will allow Western engineers to meaningfully expand their ethical frameworks to the extent demanded by modern contexts.

While engineers may be insightful into their embedded perspectives, and actively seek alternative perspectives to include in the design process, this new understanding of Western engineering ethics enforces a responsibility towards these aims. Not only is it ethical for engineers to actively seek and give power to perspectives outside of Western engineering, but it is also their obligation. The current emphasis on professional ethics must be expanded to include duty to the environment, duty to community, and duty to inclusive design within Western codes of ethics [7]. This means more opportunities for women, people of color and people from historically underrepresented communities to practice and engage with engineering. It means increasing the role of “soft” sciences like psychology, art, sociology, communications, etc. in design, while equally valuing technical and non-technical knowledge [46]. It constitutes an expansion of interest to include ecological systems, the needs of the public and local communities, and the needs of future generations. Only in this way can engineers continue to practice ethically, and create innovative solutions in a time of growing uncertainty and complexity.

Kongjian Yu’s sponge cities, Diébédo Francis Kéré’s schools, and the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary project all emphasize the power of drawing on cultural or non-technical knowledge to create powerful engineering designs that reflect environmental stewardship, community integration, and sustainability in a practice that is ethical and holistic. Western engineering ethics must learn from these examples and expand its framework through internal examination and cultural dialogue to effectively design within the intricate web of relationships surrounding engineering practice. Engineering's purpose has always been to benefit humanity, and fulfilling that purpose in the 21st century demands that Western engineers approach their practice with authenticity, an open mind, and an ethical groundwork that enforces responsibility to communities, and the environment.

References

[1] Q. Zhu and B. K. Jesiek, “Practicing Engineering Ethics in Global Context: A Comparative Study of Expert and Novice Approaches to Cross-Cultural Ethical Situations,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2097–2120, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00154-8.

[2] L. Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”.

[3] S. Moon, “Engineering and the Postcolonial: Historical Perspectives and Ethical Practices,” in Philosophy of Engineering, East and West, vol. 330, C. Mitcham, B. Li, B. Newberry, and B. Zhang, Eds., in Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 330. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 187–200. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62450-1_16.

[4] G. Teschner, A. Tomasi, and Philosophy Documentation Center, “Technological Paradigm in Ancient Taoism,” Techné Res. Philos. Technol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 190–205, 2009, doi: 10.5840/techne200913322.

[5] D. Damian, B. Ghimire, and Z. S. Li, “REConnect: Participatory RE that Matters,” Aug. 31, 2025, arXiv: arXiv:2509.01006. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.01006.

[6] R. Forrest and J. Seniuk Cicek, “Rethinking the Engineering Design Process: Advantages of Incorporating Indigenous Knowledges, Perspectives, and Methodologies,” Proc. Can. Eng. Educ. Assoc. CEEA, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.24908/pceea.vi0.14911.

[7] G. D. Catalano, Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. in Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, & Society. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-85672-3.

[8] M. A. Aubourg et al., “Community-driven research and capacity building to address environmental justice concerns with industrial air pollution in Curtis Bay, South Baltimore,” Front. Epidemiol., vol. 3, p. 1198321, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fepid.2023.1198321.

[9] L. Yang, F. Qian, D.-X. Song, and K.-J. Zheng, “Research on Urban Heat-Island Effect,” Procedia Eng., vol. 169, pp. 11–18, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.10.002.

[10] S. Islam, A. Karipot, R. Bhawar, P. Sinha, S. Kedia, and M. Khare, “Urban heat island effect in India: a review of current status, impact and mitigation strategies,” Discov. Cities, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 34, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44327-024-00033-3.

[11] D. Hernandez Ibinarriaga, Decolonising and Indigenising Design: Theory, Methodologies, Storytelling, and Creative Practice, 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2025. doi: 10.4324/9781032645681.

[12] M. R. Friesen and R. Herrmann, “Indigenous Knowledge, Perspectives, and Design Principles in the Engineering Curriculum,” Proc. Can. Eng. Educ. Assoc. CEEA, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12964.

[13] W. Anderson, “Toward Planetary Health Ethics? Refiguring Bios in Bioethics,” J. Bioethical Inq., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 695–702, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11673-023-10285-0.

[14] W. Jenkins, Ed., The spirit of sustainability. in Berkshire encyclopedia of sustainability / ed.: Willis Jenkins, no. Vol. 1. Great Barrington, Mass: Berkshire Publ. Group, 2010.

[15] K. L. Lai, “Conceptual Foundations for Environmental Ethics: A Daoist Perspective,” in Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought, J. B. Callicott and J. McRae, Eds., SUNY Press, 2014, pp. 173–195. doi: 10.1515/9781438452029-012.

[16] E. C. Ip, “Planetary health ethics: A Confucian alternative,” J. Clim. Change Health, vol. 22, p. 100404, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2024.100404.

[17] P.-H. Wong, “Dao, Harmony and Personhood: Towards a Confucian Ethics of Technology,” Philos. Technol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 67–86, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s13347-011-0021-z.

[18] S. Jing and N. Doorn, “Engineers’ Moral Responsibility: A Confucian Perspective,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 233–253, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00093-4.

[19] J. L. Barnes, S. K. Barnes, and M. J. Dyrenfurth, “A Biomimetic Approach to Complex Global Problems,” in Philosophy of Engineering, East and West, vol. 330, C. Mitcham, B. Li, B. Newberry, and B. Zhang, Eds., in Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 330. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 95–102. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62450-1_9.

[20] “pyri — Early Wildfire Detection.” Accessed: Jun. 19, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://pyri.io/

[21] M. Ames and M. A. Runco, “Predicting Entrepreneurship From Ideation and Divergent Thinking,” Creat. Innov. Manag., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 311–315, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00349.x.

[22] L. Murphy, S. Daly, C. Seifert, and S. Clancy, “Divergent thinking in engineering: Diverse exploration is key to successful project outcomes,” in 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN: ASEE Conferences, Aug. 2022, p. 41921. doi: 10.18260/1-2--41921.

[23] K. P. Whyte, “Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises,” Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space, vol. 1, no. 1–2, pp. 224–242, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1177/2514848618777621.

[24] J. Eschrich, C. McMullen, and S. Sterman, “Speculative Design in Spiraling Time: Methods and Indigenous HCI,” Jun. 11, 2025, arXiv: arXiv:2506.10229. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10229.

[25] J. Voros, “A generic foresight process framework,” Foresight, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 10–21, Jun. 2003, doi: 10.1108/14636680310698379.

[26] K. Gericke and L. Blessing, “AN ANALYSIS OF DESIGN PROCESS MODELS ACROSS DISCIPLINES”.

[27] J. L. Rivera and A. Lallmahomed, “Environmental implications of planned obsolescence and product lifetime: a literature review,” Int. J. Sustain. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 119–129, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1080/19397038.2015.1099757.

[28] R. G. D. Oliveira, “Planned Obsolescence,” E E R H P N M N G E M E N T N E N G N E E R N G, 2013.

[29] X. Pan, R. Valerdi, and R. Kang, “Systems Thinking: A Comparison between Chinese and Western Approaches,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 1027–1035, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.108.

[30] Q. Wang and Q. Zhu, “Traditional Chinese Thinking and Its Influence on Modern Engineering and Social Development,” in Engineering, Development and Philosophy, vol. 11, S. H. Christensen, C. Mitcham, B. Li, and Y. An, Eds., in Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol. 11. , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2012, pp. 37–46. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5282-5_3.

[31] H. Zou and Q. Liang, “Establishing distinctive theories and methods of design science rooted in Chinese traditional culture,” Front. Mech. Eng., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 430–437, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11465-019-0583-5.

[32] B. Lawson, How designers think: the design process demystified, Reprint. Amsterdam Heidelberg: Elsevier Architectural Press, 2010.

[33] P. Slattery et al., “The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence,” Patterns, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 101517, May 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2026.101517.

[34] M. E. Tucker, Ed., Religion and ecology: can the climate change? in Dædalus, no. 130.2001,4. Cambridge, Mass: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2001.

[35] L. Cameron, D. Courchene, S. Ijaz, and I. Mauro, “‘A change of heart’: Indigenous perspectives from the Onjisay Aki Summit on climate change,” Clim. Change, vol. 164, no. 3–4, p. 43, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03000-8.

[36] Z. Wang, “The Multiple Dimensions of Confucian Relational Ethics and the ‘Way of Being With,’” Religions, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 922, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/rel13100922.

[37] Y. Nesterova, “Rethinking Environmental Education with the Help of Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Traditional Ecological Knowledge,” J. Philos. Educ., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1047–1052, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12471.

[38] R. Mukerji et al., “Co-design as participation: Creating meaningful pathways for collaboration in flood risk adaptation in Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 113, p. 104843, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104843.

[39] C. Li, “Confucian Perspectives on Science and Technology”.

[40] E. A. Cech, “Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education?,” Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 42–72, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1177/0162243913504305.

[41] Y. Wang, E. Dogan, and X. Lin, “The effect of multiple-perspective thinking on problem solving”.

[42] M. Merleau-Ponty and C. Smith, Phenomenology of perception: an introduction, Repr. in Routledge classics. London: Routledge, 2006.

[43] J. K. Murray, J. A. Studer, S. R. Daly, S. McKilligan, and C. M. Seifert, “Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 248–275, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1002/jee.20263.

[44] L. Winner, Autonomous technology: technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought, 9. printing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pr, 2001.

[45] A. Bustamante-Mora, M. Diéguez-Rebolledo, Y. Hormazábal, L. Millar, and R. Cadena, “Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Engineering: Products, Services, Technologies, and Social Inclusivity with a Gender Approach,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 1888, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16051888.

[46] C. A. Le Dantec and S. Fox, “Strangers at the Gate: Gaining Access, Building Rapport, and Co-Constructing Community-Based Research,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver BC Canada: ACM, Feb. 2015, pp. 1348–1358. doi: 10.1145/2675133.2675147.

[47] “A Conversation with Dr. Kongjian Yu on Restoring Our ‘Sponge Planet,’” CWR. Accessed: May 18, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://cwrrr.org/interviews/kongjian-yu-on-restoring-our-sponge-planet/

[48] “Bio-In memory of Professor Kongjian Yu.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.cala.pku.edu.cn/dnykj_en/Bio.htm

[49] “The Gando School Library by Francis Kéré – EARTH ARCHITECTURE.” Accessed: May 15, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://eartharchitecture.org/?p=1837

[50] S. Charles, “Kere’s Gando Primary School was the most significant building of 2001,” Dezeen. Accessed: May 15, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.dezeen.com/2025/01/07/francis-kere-gando-primary-school-25-buildings/

[51] “Working together to restore the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary,” Science Learning Hub. Accessed: May 15, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2700-working-together-to-restore-the-ongatoro-maketu-estuary

[52] P. Barrett, P. Kurian, N. Simmonds, and R. Cretney, “Community participation in the development of the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary project: The socio‐ecological dimensions of restoring an interconnected ecosystem,” Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1547–1560, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/aqc.3048.

[53] “Mana Ōngātoro, Mana Tangata,” Te Arawai Ki Tai. Accessed: May 15, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.takt.org.nz/current-projects-1/mana-%C5%8Dng%C4%81toro%2C-mana-tangata

[54] “Marrying indigenous knowledge and modern science | Engineering New Zealand.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.engineeringnz.org/news-insights/marrying-indigenous-knowledge-and-modern-science/

Off

Traditional

White

Oppenheimer vs. Oppenheimer: A look into the ethics of depicting engineering decisions within motion pictures.

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:47:04 +0000

Oppenheimer vs. Oppenheimer: A look into the ethics of depicting engineering decisions within motion pictures. Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:47 Sheamus Murphy

INTRODUCTION

Film has become one of the most powerful tools in shaping the public's opinion on certain topics and as we continue into the latter part of the 2020s, the number of films being produced continues to increase. In 2023, there was a new peak in the number of films being produced and the amount of money being made by these films (Hancock et al., 2025). This is significant as films can influence and change people's minds about topics that are featured in them. This is shown by a study done in 2012 at the University of Cambridge, where participants watched two films, Argo (Affleck, 2012) and Zero Dark Thirty (Kubrak, 2020). Before watching these films, the participants were asked about their opinions of the government to see if their opinions changed. After only watching one of the two films, 25% of the participants changed their opinions surrounding the United States government to be more positive overall concerning the real-life events that were depicted in both movies. The reason that films can achieve this is due to their ability to create pseudo-experiences and suspend the belief of the audience. This is especially important when it comes to changing the public perception of real-life events depicted in movies, particularly when those movies depict important engineering ethical decisions being made and the process behind them.

This influence is especially consequential in films depicting the ethical decisions behind history's most destructive weapon, the nuclear bomb. Oppenheimer (2023) depicts J. Robert Oppenheimer over forty years, starting in the 1920s where Oppenheimer is teaching at Berkley, then goes into depicting the creation of the bomb, the decision to use it, the aftermath, and the eventual consequences that Oppenheimer faced. However, while this might be the most recent example of a movie depicting this, it isn't the only one, and depictions of Oppenheimer and the bomb have changed over time. With Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), the film focuses on both J. Robert Oppenheimer and Leslie Groves and only spans the period through the creation and eventual use of the bomb. Between the two movies, there are major differences in the way that pivotal moments and characters are portrayed, thus shaping audience perceptions in differing ways leading to different opinions being formed. By comparing both Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) and Oppenheimer (2023) against interviews with J. Robert Oppenheimer himself, I will argue that what matters in depicting these engineering ethical decisions is not solely accuracy, but rather how the film presents the material and whether it gives the audience the space to truly understand the full weight of the decision while still considering all of the circumstances surrounding it.

OPPENHEIMER

Since there are many different adaptations of the same story, the adaptations that focused mostly on J. Robert Oppenheimer were Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) and Oppenheimer (2023), making them easy to compare, alongside real clips of the actual J. Robert Oppenheimer speaking about specific events depicted in the movies. One scene in particular stands out between the two movies and the interview clips: the Trinity Test. The Trinity Test was a major moment in the creation of the bombs so looking at this moment specifically between all three sources allows for a good basis to examine the differences between them.

Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), directed by Roland Joffé and starring Dwight Schultz as J. Robert Oppenheimer, revolves around General Leslie R. Groves and his experience with the Manhattan Project. While this movie doesn't fully revolve around Oppenheimer, the Trinity Test scene does. Within the movie as a whole, Schultz plays Oppenheimer as a simplified characterization, garnering criticism from many including both Richard Rhodes and Roger Ebert. Richard Rhodes, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), describes Schultz's portrayal of Oppenheimer as "'an ignorant distortion of the man…. The Oppenheimer of wartime was not a divided human being. …. He was focused and centered on making this thing happen.'" (Easton, 1989). This is visible in the Trinity Test scene itself, where Schultz's Oppenheimer seems very unsure and nervous throughout, which reflects Rhodes' point that the film doesn't capture who the real Oppenheimer actually was in that moment. Roger Ebert, known for his many film reviews, further states that Schultz's portrayal "lacks the quickness and fire of the real man and seems curiously muted and befuddled." (Ebert, 1989). Together these criticisms reinforce the idea that Schultz's performance failed to give the audience a real sense of the gravity behind the decision being made.

Comparatively in Oppenheimer (2023), Cillian Murphy portrays J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the film fully revolves around him and his journey, with his portrayal earning critical acclaim across many publications and notably winning awards including an Oscar. Murphy's portrayal achieves a greater depth through psychological awareness and situational grounding, capturing the complexity of Oppenheimer's experience more fully. This is especially clear in the Trinity Test scene, where Murphy pauses, allowing the audience to see the weight of the situation hit him before he begins to celebrate with others. This singular moment of hesitation is able to separate the two interpretations from each other as it doesn't let the audience simply celebrate alongside Murphy instead it makes them stop and feel what he is feeling.

Looking at J. Robert Oppenheimer's own interviews about the Trinity Test also reveals the reality of the situation and how it relates to the two film interpretations of him. In the 1965 NBC interview from the program OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb, Oppenheimer describes how quiet the room actually was, stating that "A few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent." (1965). This is very different from both film interpretations as they both show some level of celebration after the bomb successfully worked. Oppenheimer also describes how the gravity of the situation began to sink in during those moments, something which aligns more with Murphy's interpretation of the scene than with Schultz's.

THE PRODUCTION

Another major difference across the two films is the way that they used cinematography and practical effects, specifically relating to the Trinity Test scene. In Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), during the Trinity Test scene, air is blown onto Schultz's face, making the scene feel as though it could be played for comedy. This takes away from the overall gravity of the situation and doesn't give the audience a real sense of what that moment meant. Oppenheimer (2023) takes a completely different approach, removing nearly all sound from the scene except for Murphy's breathing. This was a specific choice made by Nolan to leave the audience with only the striking visuals of the atomic bomb, forcing them to sit with what they are seeing. These visuals are a replication of what the bomb would have actually looked like during the test, which adds to that effect. One film treats the moment as a more of a spectacle, while the other allows the audience to absorb the moment.

Something else that Oppenheimer (2023) does differently is after the visual recreation of the bomb, the movie displays the quote "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" through on-screen text. This quote is originally from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, a text which Robert Oppenheimer was fascinated with. When Oppenheimer spoke it himself, he was reflecting on the Trinity Test in the same 1965 program mentioned above. Including this quote directly after the imagery of the explosion gives the audience a connection from the spectacle they just witnessed to the weight Oppenheimer himself felt. This allows the audience to be affected for the rest of the film as Nolan including this quote has them have a better realization of the weight.

HOW TO MOVE FORWARD

The central question this raises is how films made in the future can tackle these important ethical decisions and still show the full weight of the situation without simply being a recreation of events. Oppenheimer (2023) is a strong example of this balance being done well as it’s an authentic depiction of the emotional and moral realities experienced by those involved. That is what allows the audience to leave with a better understanding of the context behind the decision made, rather than just a surface-level understanding of what happened. When a film is able to achieve that, it gives the audience the tools to form a more informed opinion about the ethical decisions being depicted.

However, this standard should primarily apply to films dealing with true stories and real people. A film like Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), directed by Stanley Kubrick, also deals with nuclear weapons but is a parody. Because it doesn't deal with real people or real events, it shouldn't be held to the same standard. Giving parody films that freedom is actually important for cinema, as it allows these topics to be explored in ways that a straight historical film couldn't. The distinction matters though as films based on true historical events have a responsibility to present those events in a way that allows the audience to genuinely engage with what happened and why it mattered, however, parody operates under a completely different set of expectations.

IMPACTS VS. DECISIONS

As more films are made that tackle topics surrounding important events in engineering history that caused devastation, a new issue emerges. Oppenheimer (2023) focuses almost entirely on the decision maker, with only a few moments that touch on the actual impacts of the bombing. While there are films that focus on the impacts and the human cost of what happened, none of them come from the United States. Instead, these perspectives come from international productions such as Barefoot Gen (1983) and Hiroshima (1953), both produced in Japan, and Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), produced in France. Without these films, the other side of the story is left out entirely, leaving audiences only with the depiction of the decision being made. By focusing exclusively on the decision and leaving out the actual impact on human life, films like Oppenheimer risk leaving audiences with an incomplete picture of what the situation actually was.

CONCLUSION

As more films tackle these important engineering ethical decisions, the approach shown by Oppenheimer (2023) where it gives the audience the space to truly sit with the weight of what they are watching and should serve as a model for how future filmmakers handle these real historical events. Given that films are clearly able to shift the opinions of their audiences, as shown by the University of Cambridge study, directors have an ethical obligation to make sure the material is being presented in a way that gives viewers a genuine understanding of what happened. Along with that, future films should also confront the consequences and impacts of the decisions being depicted, not just the decisions themselves. That gap still exists within American cinema and remains to be resolved. Only when audiences are confronted with both the decision maker and the full impact of that decision will they be able to get a complete picture of the ethical weight involved.

REFERENCES

Hancock, D., Rousseau, C., Slee, J., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2025, April 30). Global Film Production Hits Historic High, Surpassing Pre-Pandemic Levels. Global-Innovation-Index. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/global-innovation-index/w/blogs/2025/global-film-production
Pautz, M. C. (2015). Argo and Zero Dark Thirty: Film, Government, and Audiences. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1), 120–128. doi:10.1017/S1049096514001656
EASTON, N. J. (1989, November). From "A-Team" to A-Bomb : Movies: Dwight Schultz portrays : J. Robert Oppenheimer as a brilliant man torn ove. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-01-ca-67-story.html
(1965, July 16). OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb [Review of OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb]. NBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JWxIVVeV98
(2023, July 11). Oppenheimer (J. Lame, Ed.) [Film Oppenheimer]. Universal Pictures.
(1989, October 20). Fat Man and Little Boy (F. Bonnot, Ed.) [Film Fat Man and Little Boy]. Paramount Pictures.
Ebert, R. (1989). Fat Man And Little Boy [Review of Fat Man And Little Boy, by R. Joffé]. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fat-man-and-little-boy-1989

Off

Traditional

White

Preventing an Orbital Tragedy of the Commons: The Need for Sustainable Space Governance

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:44:18 +0000

Preventing an Orbital Tragedy of the Commons: The Need for Sustainable Space Governance Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:44 Kate Mulholland

Introduction

Since the dawn of the Space Age, satellites and space-based technologies have rapidly become an integral part of modern human society. What started as a few small science satellites and a dream to explore the universe has evolved into an immense, global industry that only continues to grow. The vastness of outer space tends to give the impression that this growth can continue indefinitely, but that notion is far from the truth. While outer space itself may be infinite, the physical area used for most of these satellites, an orbital space known as Low Earth Orbit (LEO), is very limited and filling up quickly, as illustrated in Figure 1. As the space industry continues to expand, the need for access to LEO is also rapidly increasing while the usable space is only shrinking. Consequently, it is now critical to ask questions about how LEO can be preserved for future use and what sustainable use of orbital space looks like.

A Tragedy of the Commons

The problem of overcrowding in LEO is not new, but it is rapidly becoming more urgent. According to recent statistics from the European Space Agency, there are currently about 15,000 functioning satellites in orbit, most of which are in LEO (Space Environment Statistics). That number is up more than 35% from last year, when the estimated number of satellites was closer to 11,000 (ESA Space Environment Report 2025). This substantial increase is not an isolated event but rather the continuation of a trend that began over the last decade, as shown in Figure 2. This rise in the number of LEO spacecraft is largely due to the entrance of commercial companies into the spaceflight industry. Though commercial satellite production only became prominent within the last 10 years, commercial satellites already make up the vast majority of satellites in LEO, as can be seen in Figure 3. One reason for this is the rise of satellite internet. Satellite internet requires immense networks of global satellite constellations, and the build out of those constellations has significantly contributed to the rapid increase in satellites. Reusable rockets are another commercial technology that has contributed to the increase in total satellites. These rockets have dramatically lowered launch costs and provided significantly more launch opportunities for satellites. Removing these prior barriers has enabled both government and commercial entities to launch a far greater number of satellites than they previously could. While there have been benefits to this growth, such as increased internet connectivity in remote areas and expanded access to outer space resources for nations without large space programs, it has also presented some complex issues.

The paradox of this recent increase in LEO satellites is that it is both necessary for modern society and dangerously unsustainable if it continues without restraint. Since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, satellites have become integrated into many facets of today’s world. The uses for LEO satellites include, but are not limited to, communications, GPS navigation, internet services, banking, weather forecasting, and climate monitoring. These satellites provide critical infrastructure and have quietly become the backbone of the digital age. Since they are such an essential part of the modern world, integrating with them has become almost a requirement for modernization. As a result, the demand for these satellites is continually increasing, and meeting this demand requires that new satellites be constantly added to the existing infrastructure. However, adding so many new satellites without waiting for current ones to deorbit creates a risk of overcrowding in LEO that, if left unchecked, could lead to the destruction of the LEO orbital environment entirely.

The chance of on-orbit collisions dramatically increases as orbits get more crowded. These hyper-velocity crashes often severely damage the satellites involved and create debris that causes further orbital impacts. This domino effect of cascading collisions is known as the Kessler Syndrome (O’Callaghan). If a Kessler Syndrome scenario were to occur, it could destroy many of the satellites currently in orbit and make it unsafe to launch new satellites to replace those that were damaged. It could also make it unsafe to launch any new human spaceflight missions, both into LEO itself and to other planetary bodies such as the Moon or Mars. Consequently, such a catastrophe would effectively ground all new spaceflight projects for the foreseeable future, ultimately leading to a potential tragedy of the commons scenario.

High demand and common access are the two elements that define a tragedy of the commons. As originally outlined by William Forster Lloyd and expanded on in a 1968 article in Science by Garrett Hardin, this theory dictates that when multiple parties have common access to the same shared resource, they will place their individual interests above the common good and ultimately overuse and deplete that resource (Hardin). This theoretical scenario matches the exact situation that is currently playing out in LEO, where individual interests in building out infrastructure are trumping the common good concern of maintaining a safe orbital environment. While this may seem dire, a tragedy of the commons is not the inevitable outcome for a shared resource. It is, however, the most likely outcome if no active effort is made to prevent overuse.

Hardin’s original paper argued that the solutions for avoiding a tragedy of the commons came down to two options: privatizing the resource or regulating it. However, considering only this strict dichotomy ignores work by later researchers that rebutted some of Hardin’s findings. These researchers suggested that cooperation and common interest in the greater good can allow people to successfully share common resources without needing regulation or privatization to prevent overuse. The most popular of the rebuttals came from Elinor Ostrom, whose Nobel Prize-winning work showed that “within communities … rules and institutions of non-market and not resulting from public planning can emerge from the bottom up to ensure a sustainable, shared management of resources” (qtd. in Felice and Vatiero). Critically, Ostrom’s research was only ever tested in small communities, and one of its key tenets was that there must be a local government that all parties have access to, which is a stipulation that would be hard to meet on a global scale. Therefore, it is unlikely that this type of community-based solution would be fully sufficient to prevent overuse of LEO. Moving back to Hardin’s original two solutions, privatization should also immediately be ruled out because the core pillar of international spaceflight has long been the principle that outer space is the province of all mankind and cannot be owned by any single entity (UN General Assembly). As a result, regulation is left as the best method to prevent overuse, and it must be explored before it is too late.

Existing Regulations

The idea of regulating LEO, and outer space in general, is not new. Since the early 1960s, there have been international efforts to regulate space exploration to ensure peaceful cooperation and sharing of resources. These efforts began with UN General Assembly Resolutions 1721 and 1962, which placed outer space under the jurisdiction of international law and established the principles of free use and non-appropriation in space exploration. The resolutions reflected an overarching belief that outer space was a common global resource that should remain available for exploration and use by all nations and people. In 1963, the UN delegated management of satellite frequency allocations and orbit slots to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to prevent interference between spacecraft (Regulation of Satellite Systems). While this allocation process indirectly restricts the positioning of satellites in orbit, it does not provide a specific sustainability cap for constellation sizes. On the legislative side, Resolutions 1721 and 1962 were followed by the Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967, which took the principles established in the earlier resolutions and bound them into international law. The OST also included the Due Regard Clause, which stipulated that states must operate in space with “due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties” (UN General Assembly). The principle of due regard is particularly important for the preservation of LEO because it sets a precedent that any action that could hinder another nation’s ability to access outer space, such as overcrowding LEO to the point of making it unusable, should be disallowed by international law. The next piece of legislation relating to satellites in LEO came in 1976, when the Registration Convention was introduced. It required that all States Parties register the objects they sent into space with the United Nations. It did not, however, place any restrictions on the actual quantity of satellites that could be launched. The final piece of regulation relating to LEO was the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, which were introduced in 2007. These guidelines were a document of voluntary principles and practices meant to limit the buildup of new debris in commonly used orbits such as LEO. When read as a whole, this collection of legislation has created a general framework for the regulations necessary to prevent a tragedy of the commons, but there are still some glaring limitations that must be addressed if new regulations are going to be effective.

The first limitation is that the UN lacks any legal powers of enforcement for its laws and guidelines governing LEO. Instead, enforcement is left to member nations to regulate internally while the UN is limited to diplomatic pressure as a means of ensuring treaties are followed, which has resulted in inconsistent and insufficient enforcement policies (Gates). Delegating enforcement to each nation has also meant that states are required to ensure not only their own compliance with international laws, but also the compliance of private companies, which has made it “increasingly unrealistic for states to provide adequate oversight” as the commercial industry continues to expand (Gates). Furthermore, the current language in the Outer Space Treaty is very vague and “ridden with unclarified terms” (Gupta 26). This unclear language leaves significant room for varying interpretations of the OST and provides ample opportunities for states and private companies to find loopholes in the regulations. The vagueness of the OST further complicates enforcement because it is difficult to have consistent application of the laws when every party to the treaty may interpret them differently, even when acting in good faith. Therefore, although the OST and other legislation introduced good principles for regulating the common use of outer space, the current regulations have been unable to create a common system of governance that can be used to enforce standard regulations for the preservation of LEO.

Beyond the enforceability limits of the existing regulations, many of the existing laws are also very outdated. When the OST was created, there were only two nations and no private companies with spaceflight capabilities. Multi-national companies in particular are a recent addition to the spaceflight industry that have complicated governance because they are able to take advantage of differing national interpretations of regulations to get around the law. This ability to subvert regulations by moving operations to another country is a threat that was not considered when the OST was originally written. The treaty was also created before the threat of overusing resources in outer space had started to become a possibility. Therefore, while it was effective at the time and did a good job of ensuring peaceful exploration, the OST no longer fits the needs of the evolving space industry (Kisiel). Both the number of satellites in orbit and the commercial desire to utilize orbits in LEO are increasing at unprecedented rates. These rapid changes in the global industry demand new regulations that can keep up with them. However, creating that legislation is not a simple thing to do, and it becomes especially complicated because LEO, and outer space in general, legally belongs to no one.

Case Studies of Other Common Resources

Fortunately, LEO is not the only common global resource that has required laws to ensure sustainability. These other global commons prove that regulating common resources is possible, and they can also provide a model for the creation of future legislation for LEO. One of the most prominent global commons is Antarctica. Antarctica officially became a global common in December of 1959 when the Antarctic Treaty was signed, and it has been governed and protected by the laws set forth in that treaty ever since. One motivation for establishing the treaty was the belief that there may be commercially useful minerals on the Antarctic continent that multiple nations would want to mine. To prevent potential future conflicts, the international community decided to establish guidelines to preemptively regulate any eventual mining efforts (Coffey). There were several sets of regulations proposed, but the one that was ultimately enacted was the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This protocol “designated Antarctica as a natural reserve and prohibited mineral resource activity except for scientific research” (Coffey). The treaty’s ban on all non-scientific mining reflects a desire to ensure the preservation of the global common even at the risk of commercial loss. However, when considering the success of the Antarctic environmental protocols, it should be acknowledged that no commercially valuable resources that could motivate a challenge to the absolute mining ban have ever been found in Antarctica. This lack of resources makes Antarctica markedly different from LEO, which already possesses significant commercial value. It is substantially easier to pass a treaty when nations do not have any financial incentive to oppose the rules, and when it comes to LEO, nations have a definite reason to fight against stronger regulations. Such a difference does not, however, render the Antarctic situation entirely irrelevant to the governance of LEO. While the exact resource management protocols of the Antarctic Treaty may be unlikely to work for LEO, the Antarctic Treaty can still serve as a structural model for future LEO legislation. The treaty shows that it is possible for the international community to collaborate on laws for the preservation of a global common. The creation of the protocols before any overuse occurred also provides a good example of how legislation can be used to preemptively prevent overuse, rather than allowing the situation to become an issue before regulations are put into effect. This proactive approach is very important when considering the creation of new legislation for LEO because it is much easier to prevent a tragedy of the commons scenario than it is to recover the resource after it has already been lost.

Outside of the Antarctic Treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty provides another interesting case study into how international laws can be used to preserve global commons. The Law of the Sea Treaty governs international waters, which includes the deep seabed and the commercially valuable minerals that can be mined from it. Similar to the domain in outer space, the minerals in the deep seabed have been designated as the common heritage of mankind. This designation means that under international law, the benefits of use of that resource must be available to all, and it must be protected and preserved for future generations (Coffey). To ensure that this happens, the Law of the Sea Treaty created environmental regulations for deep seabed mining and established a central authority, known as the International Seabed Authority (ISA), to prevent uncontrolled commercial mining. This central authority can impose financial penalties and suspend the operations of nations or companies that violate the treaty. Having these active powers of enforcement makes the International Seabed Authority unique in the world of global common resource management because it has the ability to ensure its regulations are being followed, rather than relying solely on nations to implement enforcement. The laws created for deep seabed mining also provide a model that shows how legislation can be created to preserve a common resource while still allowing for its use. This policy is a better fit for the reality of the situation in LEO, because LEO is also a commercially valuable resource that nations will not want to completely lose access to. Consequently, the Law of the Sea Treaty and the ISA can serve as a useful reference for creating a new regulatory framework for outer space.

Conclusion

A study of the legislative structures for Antarctica and the Law of the Sea, as well as considerations of the shortcomings of existing laws for LEO, has shown that preserving Earth’s orbital environment will require a complete rebuilding of current regulations to better fit the complexities of the modern spaceflight industry. However, even the best regulations are ineffective without proper enforcement, so there must also be a global central authority, like the ISA, established to enforce them. Having this authority will consolidate enforcement and provide consistent interpretation of the regulations across all nations. It will also eliminate the possibility of multi-national companies exploiting cross-border loopholes to get around regulations, since all nations will be held to a standard set of laws. This structural shift is critical. Even though a central authority must still rely on individual nations to directly govern their own commercial entities, the authority’s ability to impose sanctions and suspend operations gives it significantly more power to ensure this happens properly. The new regulations enforced by this central authority should focus on sustainable use and include limits on the number of spacecraft that can be put into each orbit, clear protocols for how orbital debris is to be handled, and legally enforceable policies regarding the creation and implementation of deorbit plans for Earth-orbiting spacecraft. The goal of such regulations is not to prevent all use of LEO or limit it to only the wealthiest players, but rather to prevent the monopolization and eventual destruction of LEO that will result from careless overuse. These stricter regulations are unlikely to be passed without significant opposition, as nations will naturally want to protect their ability to access LEO without significant restraint. It is critical for the international community to acknowledge, however, that without regulation there may very likely not be any LEO orbital space left to fight over. While this type of regulatory system may initially feel limiting compared to the free enterprise that exists now, it will ultimately free LEO from the threat of overcrowding and preserve it for many generations to come.

References

Coffey, Sarah. "Establishing a Legal Framework for Property Rights to Natural Resources in Outer Space." Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 41, no. 1, 2009, pp. 119-148. HeinOnline.

“ESA Space Environment Report 2025.” ESA, European Space Agency, 4 Jan. 2025, www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_Space_Environment_Report_2025.

“Space Environment Statistics.” Space Debris User Portal, European Space Agency, 21 Apr. 2026, sdup.esoc.esa.int/discosweb/statistics/.

Felice, Flavio, and Massimiliano Vatiero. “Elinor Ostrom and the Solution to the Tragedy of the Commons” AEI, American Enterprise Institute, 27 June 2012, www.aei.org/articles/elinor-ostrom-and-the-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/.

Gates, Madi. “Houston, We Have a Problem: International Law’s Inability to Regulate Space Exploration.” Journal of International Law and Politics, New York University, 2 Jan. 2025, nyujilp.org/houston-we-have-a-problem-international-laws-inability-to-regulate-space-exploration/.

Gupta, Vishakha. “Critique of the International Law on Protection of the Outer Space Environment.” Astropolitics, vol. 14, no. 1, 16 Mar. 2016, pp. 20–43, https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2016.1148462.

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, vol. 162, no. 3859, 13 Dec. 1968, pp. 1243–1248, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.

Kisiel, Edwin. "Law as an Instrument to Solve the Orbital Debris Problem." Environmental Law, vol. 51, no. 1, Spring 2021, pp. 223-240. HeinOnline.

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. “Photo Gallery.” NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, NASA, https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/

O’Callaghan, Jonathan. “What Is Space Junk and Why Is It a Problem?” Natural History Museum, The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London, www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-space-junk-and-why-is-it-a-problem.html.

“Regulation of Satellite Systems.” ITU, International Telecommunication Union, Feb. 2022, www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/Regulation-of-Satellite-Systems.aspx.

UN General Assembly. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. 20 Dec 1966, United Nations Digital Library, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/203169?v=pdf

Off

Traditional

White

Engineering in Conflict: An Engineer’s Ethical Responsibility based on Just War Theory

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:42:27 +0000

Engineering in Conflict: An Engineer’s Ethical Responsibility based on Just War Theory Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:42 Matt Hanly

Military engineering has existed for as long as wars and conflicts have, which unfortunately has been a constant in human history; it has long been a needed profession that demands substantial time, money, and energy from a population. Even in ancient times, societies invested enormous efforts into military engineering. One of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Great Wall of China, was “built from the 3rd century BC to the 17th century AD” to protect China from northern raids and conflicts (UNESCO, n.d.). In 2023, the Aerospace and Defense industry’s workforce had “2.211 million employees, representing 1.4 percent of the nation’s total employment base,” according to the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA, 2024). A completely peaceful world is an ideal situation that humanity should continue to strive towards, but that world is unfortunately unlikely to emerge soon. Until society can attain that perfect world, everything must be done to keep wars and conflicts as humane and ethical as possible. Engineers are not typically thought of as major components in wars, as they are physically separated from the battlefield; however, engineers serve as pivotal figures in warfare, as their technological advancements continuously reshape military conflicts and therefore, human history.

Just War Theory is an ever-evolving philosophical framework for evaluating the morality of conflicts. “Originating with the bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, it now manifests itself as the basis of international humanitarian law” (Elkins, 2024). It provides a structured yet flexible approach to determining when the conduct of a war is morally justifiable. While traditionally applied to political and military leaders, its principles can also be interpreted to guide engineers, whose work directly influences the conduct of war. It comprises three main principles: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum. The Right to War, Jus Ad Bellum, states that a group entering a war must do so for a just reason. It is largely believed that this means that there are no alternative options other than a physical conflict and that human lives are being risked or threatened. Although this point is rather political, engineers still have an ethical responsibility to consider how their work may be used and whether it aligns with their moral beliefs. In the context of military technology, this means engineers should try to avoid contributing to conflicts or weapons they believe are unjust. The second point is Jus in Bello, Justice in War, and it is the most relevant to engineers and will be discussed in depth shortly. The final principle of Just War Theory is Jus Post Bellum, which means Justice After War, involves treating survivors and veterans from both sides in a dignified manner. This point is quite important to engineers, as after conflicts, many people from both sides of the conflict are in need of medical treatment and resources quickly. Engineers and others have an immense responsibility to allocate these resources and must do so in a fair and equitable way, while also being as efficient as possible.

Justice in War, “Jus in bello regulates the conduct of parties engaged in an armed conflict” but can be further defined with three sub-points: Discrimination, Proportional Force, and Military Necessity (ICRC, 2015). Military leaders and engineers would consider these points in distinct but complementary ways. Discrimination, to military leaders, means the attack must distinguish between the threat and civilians, or even between a target and other soldiers. Proportional Force directs that the attack would have to be reasonable compared to the opposition's strike or threat. Finally, Military Necessity states the strike must provide a significant gain in the conflict instead of simply causing needless violence. These points can also be compared to the weapons produced by engineers. A weapon must be accurate enough to only harm its intended target and cause no other damage. A weapon must be a reasonable solution to the conflict and not be overly forceful. Lastly, a weapon must serve the purpose of the war and never reach the level of cruelty. While this final ethical boundary is theoretically the most rigid, history is unfortunately marked by instances where engineers have bypassed it, culminating in some of the most horrific and devastating technological developments. The United States Congress’s current statement about these principles in terms of weapons is that, “Jus in bello limits the weapons states can use during armed conflict. It prohibits two general categories of weapons—those that by nature cause superfluous injury or are inherently indiscriminate—and certain specific weapons, such as poisonous weapons and gases, chemical weapons, and biological weapons” (Congressional Research Service, 2022). History can be a helpful aid to further illustrate these principles and the point of view of the United States.

The World Wars occurred during a time of mass innovations and manufacturing. In World War I, many different technologies and weapons were newly created or heavily advanced for the war efforts. Two of the most significant innovations were chemical weapons and airplanes; neither had been employed on such a large scale in any prior conflicts, yet both had huge impacts on WWI. By World War II, plane technology had rapidly improved, and both sides of the conflict heavily utilized the skies in the war, but chemical warfare had been banned. Why was one weapon deemed ethical when the other was not? Is it because Germany invented and used chemical weapons on a large scale first? Or is it because a plane represents a tangible, visible adversary, whereas chemical warfare poisons the soldier's surroundings?

While the world's perception of the matter definitely played a large role, the rules of Just War Theory explain why these two weapons had different ethical connotations. Chemical weapons are fundamentally unethical inventions, whereas planes had the potential to be an ethical form of fighting, yet fell short in WWI. In WWI, both planes and chemical weapons were terribly indiscriminate. Planes were forced to higher altitudes than predicted during attacks due to ground fire and defenses, and had little to no form of aiming, as many projectiles were simply tossed out of the cockpit by the pilot, especially in earlier battles. These darts, called fletchettes, were roughly 5 inches long, weighed a pound and “were dropped from aeroplanes or airships in great numbers, each canister holding between twenty and 250 darts” creating a terrifying situation for ground soldiers (Australian War Memorial, n.d.). However, planes held the promise of becoming more accurate and therefore less discriminatory. Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are possibly the most notorious example of indiscriminate weapons. They harmed soldiers, medical staff, and civilians alike. Additionally, they were heavily influenced by winds, creating a huge risk to nearby towns or even the Germans’ own forces. Certain chemicals, such as the chlorine from Chlorine Gas, would seep into the soil and water sources, remaining for up to months, affecting the resources of nearby civilians. The Rhine River creates a long stretch of border between France and Germany, additionally it was used by many as a source of drinking water during WWI. Leverkusen, Germany, was one of these areas and found a disturbing increase in chemicals in their drinking water. “Chlorine concentrations jumped from 31.9 milligrams per liter of water in September 1914 to 61 milligrams per liter by January 1917” (Johnson, 2011, p. 12). Chemical weapons also had immediate, devastating impacts on the environment. On April 30th, 1916, an officer reported “the grass and crops over which the gas-stream passed had been bleached and more or less destroyed. . . It is reported that several cows and pigs and a considerable number of rats were killed” (Thomas, 1985). This momentary struggle for position destroyed the entire ecosystem it took place in. In short, chemical weapons are nearly impossible to have full control over and will inevitably harm more than just the desired target, making them inherently highly indiscriminate.

Continuing with the Jus in Bello principle from Just War Theory, a weapon should cause damage proportional to that which the enemy is inflicting as defined by Proportional Force. During WWI, planes were far from creating a huge impact. The idea of planes entirely bypassing ground forces and targeting civilians was a big concern at the time, but this proved harder than expected, and planes had very limited power compared to what they would have in WWII. Planes were originally used for scouting missions or reconnaissance by all major forces of the war, like “at the battles of Mons, the Marne, and Tannenberg. In 1914, air power, with varying degrees of success, provided intelligence via reconnaissance and observation, which provided situational awareness to ground commanders” (Mahoney & Pugh, 2026). In acts of offense, pilots would drop bricks, fletchettes, or bombs from the plane, but the first forward facing machine gun was only placed on a plane in 1915, meaning the technology was still in a formative phase during the war. By WWII, this military technology had been thoroughly developed and not all attacks with planes since WWI have been proportionate and discriminatory. How a weapon is used still holds a lot of weight in moral dilemmas but to an engineer the fact that a weapon is inherently designed to be used ethically is what is most essential. Chemical weapons, on the other hand, caused a great deal of harm; The poison would often take several days to kill its victims, leaving the soldiers' final few days to be painful and vile. Pictures and accounts of these attacks are sickening and, truthfully, are hard to describe. The mixture of gases that the Germans used to cause more suffering was plainly a harsh way to die, and the public at the time felt similarly. Chemical warfare was past ordinary war tactics, and it was deemed to be a force completely disproportionate to the suffering caused by a bullet.

Finally, a weapon should have military necessity, and it is seen again that chemical weapons violate this rule, while planes do not. Aerial reconnaissance had quickly become essential to both militaries for information. As previously mentioned, planes acted as scouts and brought information about the enemy's troops and the battle back to military leaders. This information became highly necessary, and adding weapons to the planes did not change the importance of the information. On the other hand, chemical weapons proved not to hold much military significance at all, as “chemical warfare caused less than 1% of the total deaths in this war [but] the ‘psy-war’ or fear factor was formidable” (Patton, n.d.). Beyond their cruelty, chemical weapons proved operationally ineffective due to a range of tactical liabilities, such as unpredictable wind dispersion and the creation of uninhabitable terrain. By deliberately compounding toxic mixtures to create additional agony, these designs bypassed military utility and descended into sheer cruelty, directly violating the core tenets of Jus in Bello. In the end, they caused profound suffering for minimal strategic gain. While planes can be employed within ethical boundaries, chemical weapons fail every measure of Just War Theory.

Prior to WWI and the thousands of lives taken by chemical weapons, a legal attempt to outright ban chemicals had already happened. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 specifically stated that, “The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases” (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1899). Quickly, the German engineers found a loophole in this, as their chemical weapons were in canisters buried in the ground, not carried in projectiles, making chemical weapons perfectly legal again. This was a legal oversight that was quickly taken advantage of by engineers, allowing warfare to be more sadistic than it already was. After WWI the Geneva Protocol marked another legal attempt to ban the use of chemical and biological warfare. 38 countries signed it, including the United States and Germany, and it was a massive step toward a more peaceful world. However, many countries were still scared of the threat of chemical weapons being used on them, so many agreed to a clause that they would not be the first to use them in conflict, but that they would do so without hesitation if chemical weapons were used on their forces first. This meant that most World Super Powers, including the United States, continued to research, engineer, mass-produce, and store chemical weapons, simply waiting to use them. Thus, the Geneva Protocol was ineffective at eradicating chemical weapons; while it deterred countries, it definitely did not stop them. Finally, the Chemical Warfare Convention took place in 1993, and it currently has 193 nations’ support. This was an outright ban on the development, production, transfer, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons. During this convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was created, which had the ability to investigate and enforce the rules set in place. This was one of the biggest steps towards permanent peace in history as the organisation was created and still acts to “permanently and verifiably eliminate chemical weapons” (OPCW, n.d.).

It took over 90 years of legal battles and countless lives ruined to ban chemical weapons in warfare, but legal action is still not a guaranteed solution. Even after the Chemical Warfare Convention and the vast new legal frameworks it put in place in 1993, there have still been 52 chemical attacks carried out by various countries since, causing the deaths of over half a million people and injuring thousands more. This includes countries or groups that are not a part of these legalities, parties that have operated in secret, and countries in the agreement that have blurred the lines of chemical warfare. For example, Agent Orange was used as a herbicide by the United States in the Vietnam War. It was designed to destroy the dense forest that US forces were struggling to combat but still proved harmful to civilians and soldiers nevertheless. Multiple terrorist attacks and assassinations have also been carried out with chemical weapons, such as ISIS in 2006 to 2007 where chlorine gas was used acting as a pulmonary agent and harming 115 civilians during a spree of 15 different attacks or the assassination of Alexander Perepilichny, a former Russian banker whistleblower carried out with Gelsemium elegans o Heartbreak Grass. These are just a few of the devastating accounts of chemical weapons. Once any technology is released to the world, it is impossible to recontain it; with weapons, this has a huge moral implication. Legal action typically lags behind new technologies because of their ever-evolving nature, therefore engineers in defense roles must be cognizant of this power they possess.

Engineers are so physically distant from battlefields that their moral decisions may appear diluted and insignificant. First, a country's leader authorizes a war, military leaders must formulate a plan and then order soldiers to execute it, all before the engineer's weapon would be used. However, engineers are the ones who decide what is inevitably placed in the hands of the soldiers. Ensuring the creation of a discriminatory, reasonably forceful, and necessary weapon is an engineer's ethical responsibility. Political leaders, military leaders, and soldiers all must exercise the same moral character, as it is still possible to violate Just War Theory even if the strike is carried out with an ethical weapon. Conversely, no amount of just cause can condone the use of an unethical weapon. Once an idea has been released into the world, it is impossible for it to completely go extinct; legal action and public persuasion are honorable and impactful methods to fix these mistakes, but it is an engineer's responsibility to ensure these mistakes never take place to begin with.

Many other ethical standards could be used to analyze an engineer's ethical responsibility in conflict, but it is impossible to elaborate on every point in this vast discussion. Nevertheless, these are conversations that must be had. There are many other weapons that the world has deemed unethical, and others are still being argued, just as there are many viewpoints on war and the morality of every conflict. There is no clear cut rulebook to the ethics of a conflict, but engineering ethics in wartime should be an explicit part of education and professional practice rather than a topic avoided because of political sensitivity and heavy subject matter. Students and professionals need structured and open conversations about these dilemmas because no one can resolve them alone.

Conflicts continue to appear in the news seemingly daily. As of June 2026, there are 28 active armed conflicts worldwide (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026). Humanity must keep striving for peace and protecting human lives, but military technologies will continue to advance as humanity does; engineers must therefore accept responsibility for ensuring that the tools they create uphold ethical standards and protect both soldiers and civilians from unethical warfare.

References

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (n.d.). The Great Wall. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/438/
Aerospace Industries Association. (2024, September 9). 2024 facts & figures: American aerospace and defense remains an economic powerhouse. https://www.aia-aerospace.org/news/2024-facts-figures-american-aerospace-and-defense-remains-an-economic-powerhouse/
Elkins, B. (2024, October 13). Practical just war: St. Augustine & his framing of just war theory. Discentes. https://web.sas.upenn.edu/discentes/2024/10/13/practical-just-war-st-augustine-his-framing-of-just-war-theory/
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2015, October 29). What are jus ad bellum and jus in bello? https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0
Congressional Research Service. (2022, March 16). The law of war and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (LSB10710). https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB10710.web.html
Johnson, R. (2011). Silent casualty: Chemical warfare and the environment on the Western Front [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Army Heritage Center Foundation. https://www.armyheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ryanjohnsonbarnesfinalpaper.pdf
Thomas, N. (1985). Effects of chemical warfare: A selective review and bibliography of British state papers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003433033
Ross Mahoney, James Pugh: Air Warfare, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer D. Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2018-08-24. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.11297 https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/air-warfare
Australian War Memorial. (n.d.). German flechette (aerial dart) [Object: REL/05361]. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C110806
Imperial War Museums. (2026). What impact did the First World War have on aircraft and aerial warfare? https://www.iwm.org.uk/learning/resources/what-impact-did-the-first-world-war-have-on-aircraft-and-aerial-warfare
Patton, J. (n.d.). Gas in the Great War. University of Kansas Medical Center. https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/gas-in-the-great-war.html
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1899). Declaration (IV, 2) concerning asphyxiating gases. International Humanitarian Law Databases. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-decl-iv-2-1899/declaration?activeTab=
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (n.d.). Our mission. https://www.opcw.org/
Honeyman, D. A., Heslop, D. J., Lim, S., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2025). Chemical warfare through the ages: A systematic review from antiquity to the present. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1–25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12660622/
Council on Foreign Relations. (2026). Global conflict tracker. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker

Off

Traditional

White

Sustainability in our Society: Bridging Education, Ethics and Industry

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:30:56 +0000

Sustainability in our Society: Bridging Education, Ethics and Industry Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:30 Lena Rosario

The College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the �鶹��Ѱ�� has a strategic vision statement which reads as follows: Engineering sustainable solutions to improve the quality of life in our state, nation and world (1). When looking deeper at how to quantify the progress on this vision statement, the question arises: what counts as a sustainable solution? As our society progresses towards more sustainable development movements, we see the words ‘green’ or ‘sustainability’ used often by institutions, companies and industries. Since the definition of sustainability is vague, it becomes susceptible to getting reduced to a buzz word instead of an indication of measurable action. This ambiguity limits the ability to create effective regulations or hold organizations accountable. Addressing this challenge requires both a stronger overarching definition of sustainability and more specific interpretations tailored to individual professions. A broad definition can establish shared goals and ethical boundaries, while discipline specific frameworks translate those goals into actionable practices. Without this two level approach, sustainability remains difficult to implement in the workplace. Therefore, alongside defining sustainability more clearly, we must prioritize educating students and young professionals to understand how to apply it within the unique constraints and responsibilities of their fields.

In 1987 the UN defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (2) There could be many interpretations to what is considered ‘meeting human needs’. This could be measured by human health, or by standard of living, considering access to electricity, transportation, or specific goods and services. An approach based on fundamental demographic metrics may also be used, evaluating child mortality and life expectancy. The extent to which we have achieved this goal of ‘meeting human needs’ will vary significantly depending on which approach is taken to measure it. This definition is vague and does not outline the goals of sustainable development, leaving it vulnerable to political or corporate misuse, and at risk to “become an ideological slogan rather than a crucial public policy tool.” (3) The current UN definition includes human needs for the present and future, which is important since the purpose of sustainable development is to create a better future by reducing harmful development. While sustainable development is concerned with human needs in both the present and future, including this statement in the definition enlarges the scope and opens the door for a wide variety of interpretations, therefore reducing its usefulness as terms of national and international consensus (4). Additionally, the definition involves meeting the needs of the ‘common good’, but what should be considered the common good is not uniform across every industry or company. “What is good for the west side of town may be viewed as a detriment to the east.” (5) Since the definition itself and the methods to quantify it are all up to interpretation, it loses its value as a guiding principle of sustainable development.

Our modern day society needs a clear definition of sustainability that can act as a baseline to guide regulations which will hold institutions and companies accountable to follow through on sustainable development commitments. Additionally, companies and employees need clearer guidelines or protocols to be able to consider the far-reaching impacts that their work has on people and the environment, making it easier to understand if the work is considered sustainable.

One case study that illustrates the complexity of designing sustainably is electric vehicle battery production. In this example, human welfare is a casualty of ‘sustainable development’ regarding the cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cobalt is a critical mineral in lithium-ion batteries which are used in electric vehicles, and due to the growing green energy transition, the demand for cobalt is increasing. Electric vehicles are more energy efficient, and produce no direct exhaust emissions, making them a focal point of sustainable development. The batteries are unique, complex, and require an extensive production process, relying on specialized minerals like lithium and cobalt. Southern Congo contains almost half the world's known supply of cobalt (6) and many Congolese have taken jobs in the mining industry, making cobalt mining a major pillar of the economy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

The DRC is a place with extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, an estimated 73.5% of Congolese people lived on less than $2.15 a day in 2024 (7). Many people work informally trying to make ends meet and when cobalt demand started to increase, there were hopes that the mineral could help the nation pull out of poverty (8). In reality, due to greed from more developed countries and the lack of push back from the DRC economy, serious human welfare concerns have risen from the demand for Cobalt. Industrial mines have few safety regulations and allocate poverty wages. Driven by the “irresistible temptation” to make money by any means possible in the Congo, families have been forced out of their properties and moved into homes with leaking roofs and no electricity or bathrooms. With minimal attempts at regulations, women and children still work in mines for long hours and in unsafe conditions especially in small-scale artisanal mining operations.

This evidence of human welfare problems in the DRC is largely based on human stories rather than quantifiable data, making the impact more challenging to assess. For something to be classified as sustainable development, we need to look at the impact it is making on people and communities, not only the environment. This distinction is what makes the electric vehicle and battery production process a good example of a technology that might not meet all the qualifications of sustainable innovation when looking at the full production process. This connects to the question of the “common good” and who gets included in that group. Manion states, “Of all the difficulties that surround the attempt to calculate the economic value of a human life … one of the most problematic is a moral one — when and how, if ever, is it ethical to place a price on a human life?” (9) While social impacts are harder to quantify than environmental ones, they represent serious harms that cannot be ignored. Cobalt mining in the DRC highlights the ethical complexity of sustainable development. Evaluating these impacts cannot fall on individual engineers or designers alone, training and formal evaluation strategies are needed. Only by accounting for both human and environmental consequences can we determine whether technological progress is truly sustainable.

One challenge that arises when discussing what sustainable development looks like is that modern societies tend to prioritize mobility, convenience, and consumption, which conflict with sustainability goals of conservation (10). The challenge is crafting an achievable sustainability definition that describes how sustainable development fits into our society and does not leave as much up to interpretation. Other challenges preventing climate-change related action include some psychological barriers. This includes the fact that people naturally prioritize immediate benefits over future benefits because future results and outcomes are uncertain (11). Sustainable development requires actions over a long period of time. Because of that, it is difficult for short term personal interest or political changes to not undermine climate change goals (12). Even with mechanisms such as environmental laws, independent advisory bodies, international agreements, and long-term policy commitments, lasting progress ultimately depends on how well professionals are educated and trained to meaningfully integrate sustainability into their everyday work.

The challenge in implementing sustainability is not a lack of moral consensus on its importance, but the difficulty of translating a broad concept into practical workplace applications across diverse fields. Sustainability means slightly different things in different contexts, making it hard to define in a way that is both clear and universally applicable. While a general definition is needed, it must be complemented by more specific guidance tailored to individual industries and roles. A single set of rigid rules is insufficient, as professionals in engineering, policy, and business face different constraints and objectives, meaning sustainable practice will look different in each case. As a result, many employees lack the training needed to effectively incorporate sustainability into their work. To address this, education and professional development must focus on helping individuals understand how sustainability applies within their specific field, enabling them to navigate its complexities in practice.

Teaching sustainability must focus on skills needed to turn technical knowledge into practical solutions. Students need to be taught how to operate with the goal of sustainability in the workplace by teaching the topic using an interdisciplinary approach. Technical knowledge should be coupled with communication skills and training on how to apply sustainable practice to a real project (13).

The University of Nebraska Lincoln has developed a unique program to teach sustainability called the Partners in Pollution Prevention (P3) program. This course is geared towards upper-level undergraduate engineering and environmental scientists. Level 1 is technical theory and methodology behind sustainability that is taught through classroom activities. Level 2 is pragmatics of business, where students learn how to understand the culture of business and how to communicate and become better advocates. Students are taught to turn technical sustainability data or ideas into clear, persuasive messages for business audiences. Finally, level 3 is practice, where students apply what they have learned in the field. Students conduct sustainability projects at actual business enterprises with varying levels of intensity where they work as active team members in a business (14). This multilevel structure of teaching shows the different aspects of knowledge that is needed to apply sustainability in industry.

Training undergraduates can have ripple effects throughout companies. “In focus groups, businesses indicated that they were eager to hire students who had already developed expertise and experience in sustainability so that they could learn from, rather than be expected to teach, their new hires.” (15) If we can train young professionals about not only the technical aspects of sustainability but the strategies to apply that knowledge to real world projects we can also train existing professionals in the industry. Today, many businesses struggle to effectively integrate sustainable practice into the workplace, “Through the stakeholder focus groups, the P3 program learned that businesses were concerned that sustainability would be an add-on duty and cost, taking resources away from production, profits, and basic compliance, and would not be integrated across all business functions.” (16) Training people to work sustainably will be the key to improving and educating others on sustainable business practices. Technical training alone is not enough, students need to understand how to keep sustainability as a priority while navigating real-world projects.

By continuing to explore unique teaching approaches like the P3 program, we can prepare a generation of professionals who understand how to work sustainably within their fields. As this knowledge spreads, so will a clearer understanding of how sustainability must be defined and applied across different industries and professions. This foundation would enable us to establish long term sustainable practices in our society.

References

1 �鶹��Ѱ��, College of Engineering & Applied Science, “Strategic Vision,” accessed March 22, 2026, /engineering/vision

2 United Nations, “Sustainability.”

3 Manion, “Ethics, Engineering and Sustainable Development”, 40.

4 D. Birnbacher and M. Thorseth, eds., The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2015), introduction, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721200

5 S. A. Hawkey, V. Nelsen, and B. I. Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach to Teach Sustainability to Undergraduates,” in Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably, ed. Bart A. Bartels (London: Routledge, 2012), chap. 16, 198.

6 Niarchos, “The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush.”

7 World Bank, “Democratic Republic of Congo Poverty and Equity Brief : October 2024”

8 Niarchos, “The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush.”

9 Manion, “Ethics, Engineering and Sustainable Development”, 45.

10 D. Birnbacher and M. Thorseth, eds., The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2015), chap. 9, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721200

11 Birnbacher and Thorseth, Politics of Sustainability, chap. 9.

12 Birnbacher and Thorseth, Politics of Sustainability, chap. 9.

13 Douglas Klahr, “Sustainability for Everyone: Trespassing Disciplinary Boundaries,” in Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably (New York: Routledge, 2012).

14 Stacey A. Hawkey, Valdeen Nelsen, and Bruce I. Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach to Teach Sustainability to Undergraduates,” in Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably, (London: Routledge, 2012).

15 Hawkey, Nelsen, and Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach,” chap. 9, 123.

16 Hawkey, Nelsen, and Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach,” chap. 9, 121.

Off

Traditional

White

Engineering Wellness: The Role of Mental Health in Engineering Education

Emily Adams — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:23:54 +0000

Engineering Wellness: The Role of Mental Health in Engineering Education Emily Adams Thu, 09/24/2026 - 10:23 Jacob S. Petro

Engineering programs are widely recognized for their academic rigor and emphasis on problem-solving, innovation, and technical knowledgebase. While these qualities prepare students for important and advanced careers, there’s an elephant in the room when it comes to engineering education: mental health. The success of future engineers depends not only on technical knowledge, but also on mental well-being. It is imperative to understand the challenges faced by engineering students in order to create more inclusive and effective educational environments that set students up for professional and personal success.

Several high-profile studies in recent years have indicated a substantial growth in reported cases of mental disorders and difficulties in the United States, especially in young populations. This has clear impacts on college students. A recent Healthy Minds study documenting trends in college students’ mental health from 2013-2021 (over 350,0000 students across 370+ schools) reports that during the 2020-2021 academic year, over 60% of students met the criteria for at least one mental health problem[1]. That is up 50% from 2013. Mental health worsened for all ethnicities of college students across the board during the study.

According to one literature review, most studies report that around 50% of all chronic mental conditions are diagnosed in the mid-teens and 75% by the mid-twenties[2]. The review also suggests, “Severe disorders are typically preceded by less severe disorders that are seldom brought to clinical attention.” Of course, higher education is not the only reason for these high rates of diagnoses. Mental health is an incredibly complex issue, and there are limits on the capabilities of schools to address these problems. But, there are risk factors present that can be exacerbated, and so it follows that attempts to reduce prevalence of risk factors introduced by higher education are incredibly important and impactful for student well being. As so many people in the student demographic are at risk for chronic, lifelong disorders and difficulties, there is a moral responsibility to work toward solutions.

Why is this important? Well, beyond the simple goal of improving quality of life and preventing the onset of chronic conditions, multiple studies from the last decade note a significant increase in mortality within populations suffering from mental disorders relative to a comparison population (all-cause mortality; i.e. non-specified cause of mortality) and estimate a decreased life expectancy of 10-15 years[3]. Additionally, suicide is the second-leading cause of death in college students according to Taub & Thompson in 2013[4] . As of now it is still the second-leading cause of death in college-age adults, and the tenth-leading cause in all U.S. adults.

How does the mental health outlook change for engineering students specifically? In this study, engineering undergraduate students were near the average for rates of mental disorders across students of various disciplines such as Business, Health, Natural and Social Sciences, but those with apparent mental health problems were the least likely to seek help (only around 25%)[5]. For master’s students, the rate of treatment becomes even lower (~20%). Why is that? Well, there’s no single answer. To begin offering some potential reasons, it is important to first introduce the idea of engineering as a discipline and as a culture.

If you are of an engineering background, you have very likely heard the phrase “engineering culture.” If you have not, to begin addressing what this actually means, let us first gain some context. Merriam-Webster defines culture as the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic. How does this extend to engineering as a discipline and community?

In 2010, Elizabeth Godfrey and Lesley Parker published a landmark paper defining foundational aspects of engineering educational culture. They posit there are six dimensions: An Engineering Way of Thinking, An Engineering Way of Doing, Being an Engineer, Acceptance of Difference, Relationships, and Relationship to the Environment[6]. To do so, they drew on a study which conducted interviews with faculty and students of the School of Engineering at a prestigious New Zealand university in the late 90’s and early 00’s. While all of these dimensions are worth discussing and investigating, I will focus on ones more closely related to student mental health and wellness.

The first two tenets, engineering ways of thinking and doing, are relatively self-explanatory; many courses are geared toward thinking logically and linearly (how components and systems are incorporated, factors influencing designs, mathematical and physical laws regarding optimization principles, etc.). We’re taught to fall back on our intuition and fundamental understanding to synthesize and understand new ideas. A very frequent motto heard in classes is “use what you know to solve for what you don’t”, meaning that you can analyze some complex system or problem, record observations, and draw on your findings to reach new conclusions.

Many graduates, my dad included, reference this as one of the most impactful parts of their education: “The biggest thing I learned during college was how to think. I had always been logical, but engineering gave me the tools to expand what I knew to what I didn’t. I got really, really good at knowing where to find answers to questions, what questions are valuable to ask, that kind of thing. I don’t know if I would have gotten that somewhere else,” he said to me as I entered my first year at CU. He studied engineering at Lehigh University in the 90’s (and has some unique insight I’ve used throughout this paper). Much of engineering education after the foundational courses (from the first and second years of undergrad) are geared toward the “why” and “how” of problem solving, and not so much about getting the exact correct answer. Because, oftentimes, there is not a single correct answer or singular correct approach (especially for open-ended design oriented projects and problems); it’s more about ‘how can I get from A to B using what I know’ and ‘am I approaching this correctly’ to wrap your head around the basics of what is actually going on. In conjunction, many other courses stress the importance of being able to mathematically solve problems and to apply them to real-world situations. When talking with an engineer, it’s not uncommon to see them pull out a piece of paper and work out a problem or sketch a design on-the-fly. We use math and drawings as shorthand to communicate our ideas and approaches efficiently.

Godfrey and Parker define “Being an Engineer” as typically “tough, self-reliant” and “pragmatic rather than idealistic;” people who “think in bullet points” and not in abstract, verbose sentences. This is certainly true in my experience. That being said, it is often the students who are personable and effective in team settings and idealists who introduce the most unique ideas and insight. This out of the box thinking is something that schools cannot directly teach, but absolutely can (and should) nurture. In my experience, the most effective teachers are the ones who blend the standardized engineering industry practices with giving students room and opportunities to develop their creativity and unique skillset. There certainly are some standardized design conventions and steps for problem solving in industry which employers expect new graduates to be comfortable with, but new ideas and unique approaches are vital as well. Part of the importance of being an engineer is to question systems and processes around us, to not simply accept things as the status quo.

“Relationships” were described by both faculty and students as fundamental for success. Students frequently noted that most or all of their friends were engineers as well. Simply put, it takes time and effort to build a vibrant social network with all types of students, and oftentimes you will not have enough time or energy left over to do so; you spend virtually all of your time and endure great amounts of stress with the same people, so naturally you become friends with those around you. ‘Stress bonding’, my roommate calls it. This is certainly true in my case; during multiple project-based classes, my teams had to pull several all-nighters within a very short period of time to meet deadlines. Many of those teammates are some of the closest friends I have today. In fact, most of my friends are also engineers. Part of it is an underlying similarity in thinking and interests between engineers. Oftentimes your interests are shared; hobbies offer a social source of a break from intense coursework. Thinking logically comes easily for many engineers, so talking about problems logically rather than emotionally is sometimes easier for many people. Another part of it is that shared sense of stress and work ethic, studying together for long hours, the subtle and unspoken acceptance of missing plans so as to study.

Early in the writing process for this paper I asked several of my friends and classmates to think of one word to describe their personal experience being an engineering student. Far and away the most common responses I heard were some variation of ‘stress’ or ‘busy’. This leads to one of the rather unique aspects of STEM as a whole, and even more so of engineering specifically: that a state of perpetual, intense stress is a normality. Perhaps one reason is the reality that most students will have to retake courses at some point in their academic career. Many engineers I’ve talked to have. I certainly have. Engineering students tend to have this ‘go, go, go’ mentality regarding work and academic timelines. There is much to be done in a very short timespan, so this is somewhat natural. When the timeline is inevitably affected, it is demoralizing for many students. Doubts begin to creep in; ‘I’m behind everyone else’ and ‘I don’t know if I’m cut out for this’, for example. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been sitting in class and overheard classmates saying something to the effect of “Everyone else is doing well in this class, I need to try harder.” As mentioned before, engineering students are among the least likely to seek help; this inherent expectation that academics will be difficult and the self-comparison and inter-competition between students is a significant reason for a lack of help-seeking.

You’ve likely heard the adage “each credit is roughly 4 hours of work each week”. In my experience, this is useful for many disciplines, but not for engineering. For the first and second years this is often true, but not for more difficult courses and semesters. Taken at face value, 12 credit hours (the minimum considered full-time at CU) translates to 48 hours per week. If you exceed the bare minimum for full-time, which virtually every engineering student does at my school (likely over 15 credits), you’re looking at over 60 hours each week. This is purely for classwork, and is not accounting for commutes, outside jobs, extracurricular activities, etc. Exams are almost exclusively held outside of class during evenings, which when coupled with the sheer volume of assignments makes it incredibly difficult to balance jobs or friend and family obligations outside of academics.

During particularly hard weeks where I have multiple exams on the same day and several homework assignments due soon after, I often call my dad for advice. One of the most memorable things he’s said during these calls was that every semester, without fail, he and his peers would have a moment of reckoning; assignments pile up for deadlines fast approaching, such that some things will simply not be completed and it becomes a marathon to do as much as possible while maintaining some semblance of a work-life balance. “One of my major goals for each semester would be to push that moment off as long as I could, but without fail it would spring up every semester; sometimes in the third week and sometimes right before final exams. If it’s before the halfway point, good luck my friend. Marathons are run a single step at a time. Better start moving.” My friends and I have taken this up as an heirloom piece of advice from someone who’s been in our shoes. It helps.

From my experience in non-engineering classes and talking with Humanities peers, this is a relatively unique perspective to engineering students. It’s expected that students will burn out, pull all-nighters, suffer a lack of personal time, all in order to simply finish assignments and meet deadlines. Many engineering students will say, interestingly enough, that this is a reasonable thing (at the very least, not altogether bad). Harder programs and rigorous workloads contribute to a heightened sense of pride and satisfaction. Several students in the Godfrey & Parker study seemed to exhibit the belief, as the researchers put it, “The strength and ability to ‘take it’ and succeed within this paradigm appeared to contribute to the pride and sense of achievement that students spoke of as an outcome of completing the degree. If the degree was ‘hard’ then they were all the more worthy for having completed it.” A fitting phrase to go with this is that engineering is a “meritocracy of difficulty”[7], which is described as "...how students' justify their anticipated comfortable futures based on the fact that they perceive their school work to be much more difficult than that of students in other departments." In other words, the assumption is that working hard now (relative to non-engineering students) sets you up for a more comfortable life. This further contributes to poor health habits, in addition to demands of coursework alone. Looking at peers in terms of ‘I work harder than them’ or ‘I will be more successful than them’ is destructive. How can you work towards your physical health, social and familial relationships, and personal growth if all of your effort and time is dedicated to one single thing and your happiness and wellness are deferred to the future?

Along a similar vein: I strongly believe that another significant factor challenging mental health and wellness is the virtual 24/7 access that online educational platforms offer. They are not all bad, not by any means. Increasing accessibility and support for students is a massive plus. Students that are unable to physically be on-campus are able to learn and contribute in ways nearly impossible before. Accessing course resources such as notes and assignments allow students to work through course material at their own pace and around job schedules. I’m not saying increased accessibility is strictly a bad thing, not at all, but what I am saying is that this increased accessibility is not without its drawbacks.

My dad and I have had long conversations regarding this. For him, virtually every assignment was a physical paper submission during lecture or lab times. Online learning platforms certainly existed at the time, but were not nearly as standardized as today. “That’s probably one of the biggest differences with college today, the access and expectation that you’re available around the clock. When I finished classwork and left campus, I was done. I was free to be a college kid: go ski or spend time with friends. Of course there was always work waiting for me the next time I met for class, but there wasn’t an implied expectation of being a student 24/7,” he said during one such conversation. Virtually every class I’ve taken has had assignments submitted through an online platform for which many professors set the deadline at 11:59pm, which encourages students to study late into the night to meet these deadlines. I’ve had professors and TA’s send emails at 9 or 10pm for assignments due that night or the next day, which, directly or indirectly, promotes the expectation that students are available around the clock.

To combat this, some professors intentionally set their deadlines before midnight. It’s very common for engineering students to work right up to the minute an assignment is due, so setting deadlines earlier gives students a better chance to build healthy sleep habits. Assigning homework far in advance of the deadline is another strategy many professors use, since it allows students to balance their schedules and figure out what works best for them to get assignments done on time. Everyone has different schedules and external responsibilities, so increased flexibility with scheduling and working hours is one way to make engineering more accessible.

Much of the discourse around my program recently (in addition to heavy courseloads), since I am entering my fourth and final year in Fall 2026, has been regarding industry employment. This is a point where the “meritocracy of difficulty” becomes a fallacy: academics remain difficult, but do not hold the promise of a suitable job. Many students question whether the immense stress and workload is worth continuing. Several friends across various departments, especially Aerospace Engineering, have repeatedly said they are worried about the current job market and finding a job after college. There is growing competition for entry-level engineering positions and even for internships. Very often, engineering students will apply for dozens of internship positions before hearing back from even one for an interview. This certainly increases stress, as well as pressures students to add more onto their plates to stand out. Many students believe good grades are not enough to obtain a job offer anymore; many, if not most, are involved in multiple clubs and create individual projects to help their chances of employment. This takes away even more time from a student’s social and personal life, and is a major source of stress and impact on mental health.

It should be noted that difficulties with academics do not affect groups in the same way. A 2018 internal study at Cal Poly reported that students in different engineering departments were affected by mental health problems at different rates[8]. Fig. 1 below indicates the percentages of students for various mental health screening types across departments.

Fig. 1 - Cal Poly Student MH Screenings by Major

This agrees with the notion that different groups experience difficulties and problems differently, even within engineering itself.

High workloads are experienced across the board, but some additional difficulties are present for certain groups of students. Many studies report the ways in which gender and racial disparities may exacerbate these issues.

Gender and racial disparities are frequently noted but underexplored in academic environments. Earlier I referenced my small-scale question for gauging student experiences at my university. A disturbingly common response I received from my non-male friends and peers was ‘biased’. Several courses in engineering curricula across the College of Engineering at my school are team project-based, for which professors often utilize a random-assignment system to form teams. As a result of gender enrollment rate disparities, teams may be created with only a few non-male students. According to my friends and peers (and from overhearing conversations from groups around my classes) it is a rare but existing occurrence, even today, for there to be an inherent reservation for tasks more math-heavy and hands-on for male students.

In addition to challenges in undergraduate study, many female engineering graduates end up leaving industry or never entering the engineering field in the first place. Highlighting this, there is an intriguing paradox, called the ‘in/visibility paradox’, regarding gender in engineering; Faulkner describes it as “women engineers are simultaneously highly visible as women yet invisible as engineers” in the workplace[9]. Industry can have the tendency to leave out women when it comes to recognizing contributions on projects, yet sexist comments and the simple fact of low representation highlight the strangeness/(non-normality) that women are even there in the first place. The Society of Women Engineers website (as of May 31st, 2026) and the US Census Bureau report that women comprised 15.4% of the engineering workforce in 2024[10]. Below, Fig. 2 shows trends in female representation in occupations across various STEM fields over the last several decades.

Fig. 2 - Women in STEM Occupations Chart

Women are constituting more and more of the engineering workforce over time, but there is still a significant gap in gender rates today. This can contribute to feelings of unwelcomeness and isolation for female students and professionals that impact mental wellness.

Students that identify with the LGBTQIA+ community are typically some of the most likely students to report difficulties with peer interactions and involvement in classes as highly challenging and detrimental to academic success. Greathouse et al (2018) indicates that over 70% of trans-spectrum students and over 40% of queer-spectrum students report discrimination on campus, according to a 2020 ASEE conference preceding[11].

Engineering environments and culture create disparities along ethnic demographics as well as gender, as shown below in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 - ASCE Reported Chart of Enrollment Demographics for Gender and Ethnicity

The American Society of Civil Engineers reported the above numbers for students across varying levels of education for 2016 compared with 2019[12]. While the percentage of women increased for bachelor’s and master’s level study, the percentage of minority students in both bachelor’s and master’s programs decreased over this time span.

This disparity can result in educational settings that are less welcoming and impactful for many students. Lowered engagement and enthusiasm have the potential to hurt perseverance and chances of retention, leading to even lower minority representation in engineering.

Differences in experiences based on demographics are not limited to problems alone, but rather from engineering culture as a whole. Underrepresented students consistently report their departments to be less diverse than overrepresented students, leading to a lack of a sense of belonging[13]. Another study suggests that a lack of belonging is one of the leading causes of student attrition[14]. This is one of the biggest issues facing engineering education today, yet it also offers universities a uniquely impactful opportunity. Initiatives that increase awareness and inclusion of problems facing underrepresented students have the potential to be extremely beneficial and transformative for changing engineering culture for the better. After all, it is important to work towards systemic changes that improve the wellbeing of students as future engineers and as human beings. Human-centered design is a fast-growing approach to designing products, technology, and environments that places people’s abilities, understanding, and limitations at the center of the design process. Every single person on the planet holds preconceptions and influences, regardless of how cognizant said person may be, which have the ability to impact design considerations and end-use. How can we develop human-centered design without first investigating who we are as engineers? It is not enough to look at a problem and implement a solution. As an engineer it is imperative that you stop and ask yourself “Why is this solution/design needed? Who does it help? Who can it hurt? Am I knowledgeable enough about the people and the problem to decide if this is a good project?” If engineers, the people who are hands-on in the design process, are unaware of their influences, there certainly exists the possibility that their designs and product implementations can have negative effects on people (and disproportionately affect certain groups more than others). Throughout undergrad we’re taught various methods and problem solving approaches, which is great for developing competent and effective engineers, but can lead to students thinking of everything in terms of problems and cost-benefit-ratios.

Much of the purpose of engineering education is learning how to solve problems. Every class dedicates time to introducing multiple problem solving methods in lecture, and relies on students putting in effort to expand their knowledge and problem solving outside of class. Another major purpose is to learn time management and efficiency. This is a common reasoning for professors to assign high workloads; industry projects move very quickly, and elite time management is required to balance multiple project timelines at the same time. Perhaps these are some of the reasons engineering students are less likely to seek help and counseling. We’re taught that a ‘good engineer’ is someone who solves problems quickly and efficiently, often without direct guidance from professors or managers. This independence is a very common and celebrated trait for engineering students. Assignments are typically individual, so there is some natural necessity for the ability to work through problems independently. Additionally, when curved grading scales are used in classes, the potential arises for intense competitiveness between students. When a student’s grade is somewhat dependent on scores of other students (for example, a 70% on an exam will be curved up to a higher score if the class average was a 30% than if the class average was a 60% for classes operating on a mean-curve system), there’s a slight incentive to not assist other students and work independently. That being said, curves are not used across the board. CU, for example, rarely implements curves in our engineering courses (at least in the Mechanical, Civil, and Integrated Design Departments where I’ve taken courses). Most, if not all, professors encourage students to work together for problem-solving approaches for homework. Even further, recent changes in pedagogical practices and theory have highlighted the benefits of collaborative assignments and environments. Group-based projects and assignments are an indirect avenue faculty can utilize to teach the ‘soft skills’ (communication, teamwork, reliability, etc.) required for professional and personal growth. Collaboration can sow the seeds of cultivating a more welcoming environment for all students. Learning to solve problems together, leveraging unique backgrounds and skills, is a chief responsibility for developing as both an engineer, and a human being.

Another potential roadblock for students to seek help is stigma. While certainly improving in recent years, there is a persistent stigma around mental health. It’s simply not a common thing for people to talk about, and seeking help is sometimes looked down upon. Some people have an inherent view of ‘I should be able to tough it out’ or ‘The people around me seem to be doing fine. Maybe I’m being dramatic’, which combines with the expectation of difficulty in engineering to likely contribute to a lack of seeking help. If they do choose to seek help, many people will experience long wait times and difficulty seeing a healthcare provider. From 2007 to 2017, college students increasingly utilized mental health services from 19% in 2007 to 34% in 2017[15]. At the same time, over 275 college-affiliated counseling centers reported decreases in budget from 2024-2025[16]. This increase in resource utilization and decrease in funding and availability of providers have a significant impact on the ability of students to meet with counselors. Additionally, many on-campus resources are only available during working hours (at the same times as almost all classes and jobs), so many students are simply not able to utilize their school’s resources. As a result, a silver lining is that students are more and more likely to reach out to fellow students and professors.

To challenge the mental health issues students face, a fantastic approach many �鶹��Ѱ��professors take is to begin classes with a short discussion of how they understand their students are people first and students second, and to periodically mention this throughout a semester. Some mention that they are willing to give students extensions on assignments if needed and that their office hours are not simply for course-related questions but also for supporting students. On more than one occasion, while working late on an assignment and emailing a professor for guidance or clarification on a question, they’ve offered me an extension and a sympathetic “Take an extra day on this. It matters much more to me that you get sleep and take care of yourself than getting this one assignment done on time.” I cannot stress enough how important little things like this are for helping students remain engaged with their studies. Recognition of students being human beings is one of the simplest yet most powerful tools professors have to offer. These have been the most impactful professors in my own academic career and many of my friends say the same.

If you are a student struggling with or concerned about your mental health, it is crucial to know about what resources are available. It can mean a world of difference. It has for me. If you are experiencing a crisis or need to talk to someone, here is a list of resources to reach out to if you’re in the United States. It’s never too late to start the process for getting help.

988 - Suicide Prevention and Crisis Intervention. You can call or text for 24/7 support in English, Spanish, and ASL.
741741 - Crisis Text Line. 24/7 support in English or Spanish.
1-800-662-HELP (4357) - SAMHSA National Helpline. Confidential, 24/7 Information and Referral Resources

For CU-Affiliated resources for students, I highly recommend looking into Counseling And Psychiatric Services (CAPS). They offer one-on-one and group counseling, community referrals, and workshops. For many services they offer same-day appointments, but be advised there is often high demand so try early in the day to book an appointment before they fill up. You can also schedule an appointment multiple days in advance. Additionally, �鶹��Ѱ��partners with BetterMynd to provide greater accessibility and more options for students. Enrolled �鶹��Ѱ��students are able to access free 50-minute tele-help sessions, and no insurance is required.You can have an appointment from anywhere and much more flexibility with scheduling. Several student organizations and �鶹��Ѱ��departments organize various events throughout the semester geared towards mindfulness and wellness, and are absolutely worth looking into. Student organizations offer places to grow your community and belonging. Your professors and mentors and peers are also great resources. They are there for you and want to help you if they can, which goes both ways. Be kind and help those around you if you can.

Here are some of my own hard-fought strategies for managing academic and life responsibilities.

If your schedule allows it, go to office hours. It will help you understand content better which often allows you to finish assignments more quickly. Besides the academic benefit, your professors are real people that have been in your shoes, I guarantee it. The process to become an engineering professor is grueling, and each professor is an example of a student who managed the difficulties of engineering education and life outside of the classroom. Very often they will be receptive to your difficulties and offer strategies of their own, or simply be a pair of ears to listen.
Set boundaries on your schoolwork. Learn what workflows are best for you. Try setting aside dedicated time where you pursue hobbies. Don’t forget to live life outside of academics.
- “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans” - John Lennon
  - Try not to lose sight of why you’re studying engineering in the first place
- For me, I’m done working for the day the minute I leave campus. I’m not productive when in my apartment and I begin to associate my living space with feeling stressed.
- I like to give myself half a day or a full day on the weekends to pursue my hobbies and spend time with friends. I highly recommend it. You’ll come back feeling refreshed.
At some point there are diminishing returns to working late versus getting sleep. Give yourself a set time to stop working at night.
- Sleep is the foundation of virtually everything health-related. Your body and brain will thank you for building healthy sleep habits.
Try to eat well and spend time outside. We’re not designed to sit at a computer 24/7.
- If you’re a student at CU, I highly recommend hikes around the Chautauqua Park here in Boulder if you’re able. See the sights around you.
When you can, try to grow your social circle or deepen your friendships. Time invested into friends and family is never wasted.
- Look into the student organizations at your university. They are a great way to connect with students interested in similar things and to build your community.
The longer you procrastinate something (responding to an email, starting an assignment, studying for an exam, etc.) the harder it is to get around to doing it. ‘Don’t put it down, put it away’.

Thank you for taking the time to read this paper. It will take a shared effort from all of us in the engineering education community to continue addressing the challenges impacting mental health, and learning about them and discussions are a fantastic place to start.

It is important to note that my analysis here is focused on the United States specifically. I am myself an American engineering student, and a white male, based in the United States. My current abilities and resources restricted me to analyzing English-based publications. It should also be noted that of the recent publications regarding mental well being in engineering students specifically, many were conducted outside the U.S. This indicates that mental well being issues are recognized across the world and are of international interest.

References

[1]. Lipson et al. “Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: Findings from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021”, Journal of Affective Disorders, 01 Jun 2022.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032722002774

[2]. Kessler et al. “Age of onset of mental disorders: a review of recent literature”, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, July 2007.

https://www.ovid.com/jnls/co-psychiatry/abstract/10.1097/yco.0b013e32816ebc8c~age-of-onset-of-mental-disorders-a-review-of-recent

[3]. Walker, McGee, Druss. “Mortality in Mental Disorders and Global Disease Burden Implications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, JAMA Psychiatry, April 2015.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2110027

[4]. Taub, Johnson. “College Student Suicide”, Preventing College Student Suicide, 22 Mar 2013.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ss.20036?msockid=0e527ea66a86601e139e69956b5761e6

[5]. Lipson et al. “Major Differences: Variations in Undergraduate and Graduate Student Mental Health and Treatment Utilization Across Academic Disciplines”, Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 28 Dec 2015.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/87568225.2016.1105657?casa_token=lFJBBl3qB9sAAAAA%3ALFo4445LGYDFR4TSXO1_wYADGOjHVd3q50Nl7ZYzGnK-hLHsWUojXwjQaen7jehBTIZ3ryXSU1Z7Qg#d1e312

[6]. Godfrey, Parker. “Mapping the Cultural Landscape in Engineering Education”, Journal of Engineering Education, 02 Jan 2013.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01038.x?saml_referrer

[7]. Stevens. “Engineering as Lifestyle and a Meritocracy of Difficulty: Two pervasive beliefs among engineering students and their possible effects”, ASEE Peer, 24 Jun 2007.

https://peer.asee.org/engineering-as-lifestyle-and-a-meritocracy-of-difficulty-two-pervasive-beliefs-among-engineering-students-and-their-possible-effects

[8]. Danowitz, Beddoes. “Characterizing mental health and wellness in students across engineering disciplines”, Digital Commons @ Cal Poly, 29 Apr 2018.

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/csse_fac/255/

[9]. Faulkner. “Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox”, Engineering Studies, 09 Oct 2009.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378620903225059

[10]. SWE, NCSES.

https://swe.org/research/2026/us-employment/

[11]. Jennings et al. “A Review of the State of LGBTQIA+ Student Research in STEM and Engineering Education”, NSF Public Access Repository, 01 Jan 2020.

https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10157897-review-state-lgbtqia+-student-research-stem-engineering-education

[12]. ASCE.

https://www.asce.org/-/media/asce-images-and-files/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/documents/asce-demographic-profile-report.pdf

[13]. Jensen, Cross. “Engineering stress culture: Relationships among mental health, engineering identity, and sense of inclusion”, Journal of Engineering Education, 09 May 2021.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jee.20391?saml_referrer

[14]. Marra et al. “Leaving Engineering: A Multi-Year Single Institution Study”, Journal of Engineering Education, 02 Jan 2013.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00039.x

[15]. Lipson, Lattie, Eisenberg. “Increased Rates of Mental Health Service Utilization by U.S. College Students: 10-Year Population-Level Trends (2007–2017)”, Psychiatric Services, 05 Nov 2018.

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201800332

[16]. AUCCCD “Annual Survey for Reporting Period July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025”

https://www.aucccd.org/assets/documents/Survey/2024-2025%20Annual%20Survey%20Report%20Public.pdf

Off

Traditional

White