Ethics underlying learning from our mistakes

Hello readers,

This week, I would like to discuss the problematic ethics in regard to the potential loss of life and expanding our capabilities with bridge and building designs.  Throughout the advancement of the Human potential, we become more and more intelligent beings (hopefully), we add depth to our cultures, color to each others' lives and our structures stretch for the stars.  All of these steps forward have not come without a few steps back, however.  As we expand our abilities, whether it be converting from wooden ships to steel or any similar advancement, some of our structures are doomed to fail.  And in their failures, humans lives have been lost.  We have mourned, we have learned why the structures failed, recalculated, rebuilt and moved on.  My discussion is in whether or not the human lives were acceptable losses in the better interests of the further advancement of the Human race as a whole.

Over the course of our human advancement, we have stretched our abilities ever further, to try and beat each other out on the tallest buildings, the fastest automobile, the largest dam.  However, some of our structures did not work out the first time around.  The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a good example of this.  The bridge was to be the third longest suspension bridge (main span) at the time, spanning 2,800 ft.  Upon its completion on July 1, 1940, the bridge moved slightly in the breeze.  As the months went on, engineers tried many different ideas to decrease the sway of the bridge, but to no avail.  The Tacoma bridge collapsed on November 7, 1940, after severe twisting in the span in 40 mph

winds; an effect later called aeroelastic flutter.  Although no lives were lost when the bridge collapsed, the collapse of the bridge gave engineers insight of the effects of our structures and the natural world around us - the Tacoma Narrows bridge was built with large, flat, solid sides, that did not allow for the winds to pass through them, and as a result, the concrete and steel bridge blew through the breeze like a sail, until it's collapse.  This information has helped bridge designers for decades to come to account for bridges that can breathe in high winds, thus advancing the Human intelligence that much farther.  In this situation, at least, there is not ethical debate on whether or not the cost of a few human lives are worth the advancing knowledge of the rest of the world.  Not all structure failures are as harmless, however.

In more recent times, we had the tragic I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, MN, on August 1, 2007.  The bridge, as many people know, collapsed during the evening rush period, killing 13 people and injuring 145.

After thorough investigation into why the bridge collapsed, officials placed the blame on failed gusset plates, excessive loading on the bridge, and poor maintenance.  Through the tragedy, several lives were lost, however, engineers became more aware of a growing problem with American bridges.  Also a federal division, the National Transportation Safety Board, was created to led a national investigation into the structural state of every bridge in America, to prevent future potential failures.

In conclusion, there is an argument that losing a few human lives are a reasonable trade to gain further insight on how to fix our current structural problems.  From one point of view, it is not so bad to lose a few lives now, to figure out how to build structures that will stand without doubt; from another point of view, there is no situation that would ever justify the deaths of fellow human beings, and far beyond a situation where lost lives are acceptable.  That is fine, I understand that point of view, it is reasonable, it is protective of ever human life.  However, it is my opinion that our human population is expanding at such a rate that if we plan to support ourselves, we must build larger, better structures.  In actively following that belief, some projects may fail, and lives lost, but if we can learn from our mistakes, then the few lives lost early on will not die in vain.  In addition, it would make sense to lose a few lives at first rather than lose potentially more lives later.  To quote an old, logical character, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Thanks for reading!

~Civil Biz