"The Tool", for those unacquainted, is a 60" long triple-chromed pipe wrench made by the Ridge Tool Company (known for its Ridgid brand of hand tools and power tools). This particular tool is a 42-year-old specimen that now serves as the mascot of the University of Waterloo Engineering Society.

Cannon on top of The 'Ridgid' Tool

Forged in Elyria, Ohio, the $350 Tool was donated to the then cash-strapped UWaterloo in 1967 by the Ridge Tool Company on two conditions: that it be named "The Ridgid Tool" and that it be kept in its original Ridgid orange and black colours. Waterloo, of course, took these to heart - and promptly dipped the whole thing in a bath of chrome just hours after its reception. The "Ridgid" brand name was dropped shortly thereafter.

Like the Cannon, the Tool is protected by a group of mostly anonymous students aptly named the Tool Bearers. On its outings, each end of the Tool is chained to a Tool Bearer, and is accompanied by a guard of approximately five Bearers. The Tool Bearers wear a uniform of gold and black coveralls, adorned with the word "Engineering" along the left leg, as well as a black hard hat, sunglasses, and a gold bandanna covering their faces.

Curious readers might at this point wonder: why did they choose a pipe wrench? Of all the wonderful things that Engineers can come across, like t-squares, slide rules, bridges, and cannons, why choose as your symbol of representation a giant pipe wrench? This particular story may be lost in the annals of history. What is known, however, is that Waterloo's EngSoc had considered choosing between a sword and a wrench. They eventually settled on the idea of a wrench to accompany their self-designated title of "Plummers". Despite the odd choice of a symbol, Waterloo students embraced it with glee, adopting their now widespread "Plummers and proud of it" attitude.

Naturally, the Tool eventually became subject to the intense rivalry between the Universities of Waterloo and Toronto. In January of 1982, a group of our very own Engineers successfully intercepted the motorcade carrying the Tool and its lead Tool Bearer, returning from the Welcome Back Stag. The unexpected traffic stop resulted in the Tool being liberated by our Engineers, who easily escaped from the surprised Tool Bearers.

'BFC' posing with The Tool after liberating it from Waterloo

Having gained possession of the Tool, our predecessors had their fun. They paraded the Tool around mockingly (and who can resist mocking an oversized pipe wrench?), put it up on display, tried fixing some real pipes (and found it lacking in this respect) and had its pictures taken with the Mighty Skule Cannon. Eventually, they grew tired of the Tool and its inability to impress. It produced no kabooms, and inspired no awe. Finally, after over two months of captivity, the Tool was released and returned to Waterloo - but not without one last touch.

When the Waterloo students found the Tool at their school one morning, they were shocked to find it encased in a 45-gallon drum of concrete. University of Toronto had the last laugh, successfully planting "The Tool in the Stone" at Waterloo. Yet there was more - the Tool was returned only hours before their Iron Ring Ceremony (when the graduating engineers get a chance to touch the Tool). The Tool Bearers were forced, along with a handful of Frosh, to chisel and sledgehammer away at the concrete until they managed to free the Tool from its confines. It was only then that they realized "U of T" had been engraved on the shaft. To cover up our signature, the Tool received its second coat of chrome shortly after this incident.

The chain worn by the Cannon's Chief Attiliator comes from the chain that once guarded Waterloo's Tool in 1982

The Tool is now guarded much more closely, having been traumatized from the escapades of 1982. It makes its appearance only at a handful of important events every year (orientation, iron ring parties, and semi-formals) - unlike the Cannon, which can be found unleashing its Earth Shattering Kaboom all across campus and Toronto almost weekly.

The Tool finally marked its young 40th birthday in June of 2007, and sported its third coat of chrome. Its limited history and tradition will require much more to catch up to the Might Skule Cannon - twice as old and storied as the Tool. But with a pipe wrench for a mascot, one must wonder - will they ever be able to catch up?

Timeline of The (Ridgid) Tool

Cannon circa 1999

[Cross-posted from The Cannon Newspaper's January feature to reach a wider audience]

The year is 1929. It is a calm and quiet evening on the picturesque University of Toronto campus. Students could be seen relaxing at the then 10-year-old Hart House, the central community hub built for students of all faculties and colleges alike.

Suddenly, a loud thundering boom rocked the foundations of the building. Was it a bomb? Are we under attack? Is the war returning? These thoughts raced through the minds of surrounding students, caught unaware by the apparent explosion, as they searched simultaneously for cover and the source of the outburst.

Outside, a flurry of cheers and applause erupted amidst a plume of smoke near the front doors of the building. The Engineers had pulled it off. The commemorative cannons in front of Hart House, long left disused and neglected, had been loaded and fired. The campus was rocked by the sounds of a mighty boom never before heard, and the gauntlet was thrown. A new era had arrived, heralded by the mighty boom and celebratory cheers of the Engineers.

It has been 80 years since this first 'kaboom' were heard on campus. Since this infamous night, numerous cannons have been forged, fired, captured, liberated, and retired by our predecessors. The rich history and prestige of the Mighty Skule(TM) Cannon is unmatched by any other mascot in the country. As we celebrate eight decades of earth shattering kabooms, we look back at the Cannon's proud history, including its darkest days of brawls and thefts.

By the early 1930s, a small portable 'cannon' had been constructed using metal pipes and tubing. This was brought to numerous events and fired to the amusement of all involved. Eventually, it was decided that a heftier, sturdier, and more permanent cannon was required as our official mascot. In 1936, the official Cannon Mark I was constructed by an engineering machinist, using axle stock for the barrel and cast iron for the base. Alas, the Engineers had a cannon worthy of its prestige. The Mark I would continue to be in use until 1949 - which would come to be marked as the darkest year in history for the Cannon and the Engineers.

On a cold February afternoon in 1949, a massive brawl erupted during the annual Chariot Race. The brawl included members from various faculties and colleges, and resulted in the theft of the Cannon by UofT's Medical School students. The Meds were praised on the front page of The Varsity, and gloated about their success. When attempts at recapture failed, more desperate measures were taken. The Meds Society Vice President Bob Hetherington was kidnapped and held hostage during negotiations for the Cannon's return. The Cannon was finally returned on February 7, but was marred by an inscription that read: "Captured by MEDS 5T2, 3 Feb 1949".

The worst, however, was not yet over for the original beloved Cannon. In October of 1949, University College students deceived the Cannon into a fake photoshoot for The Varsity, and made off with the Cannon in a waiting car. A crafty plan was hatched out by Chief Attiliator A.J. Paul La Prairie (incidentally also the founder of the Lady Godiva Memorial Bnad). Engineers disguised as construction workers managed to remove the wooden U.C. gargoyle from the newel post by the main stairway of the U.C. building. La Prairie was summoned to meet Dean Young and President Sidney Smith, and it was agreed that the gargoyle was to be returned in exchange for the Cannon.

As the Cannon was returned by U.C., the Engineers shrewdly returned a big bag of sawdust. While U.C. was still recovering from this shock, the real gargoyle was covertly re-installed at their building.

This series of events took its toll on the Cannon Mark I. Finally, on Christmas Day, 1949, W.H. Kubbinga (a civil engineering machinist) presented the Engineering Society with the Cannon Mark II, which was larger and sturdier than its earlier counterpart. The Mark II was inaugurated at the Chariot Races the following January. In 1952, the retired Cannon Mark I was offered as a trophy for the charity Red Cross Blood Drive. The Engineers, however, lost the Blood Drive and reluctantly presented the Cannon-trophy to Forestry for winning. The trophy was later won back by the larger Engineering faculty when the rules were changed to favour total amount donated rather than percentage donated.

Seven extant versions of the Cannon

Since these early years, the Cannon has gone through numerous transformations. Seven more Cannons would be forged. Some were retired and presented to honourable members of the Faculty, and others were kept alive as a tribute to the past. Yet another was immortalized by its placement in the cornerstone of the Galbraith Building as construction on it began. Each Cannon has been a uniquely designed piece of engineering, built to incorporate our rich history, and to withstand the great explosive forces it faces each time it is showcased.

More thefts in subsequent years were attempted - some successful, and more were foiled. Nevertheless, the Cannon has never left the hands of University of Toronto students, current or former - a feat yet unmatched by other Engineering mascots - and all the more impressive given the Cannon's illustrious and lengthy history.

The Mighty Skule(TM) Cannon has clearly been an integral part of Skule(TM) life since its first appearance, and continues to appear at dozens of events each year, including football games, Homecoming, Pride Parade, weddings, and Convocation. Today, the Cannon is closely guarded by a dedicated Chief Attiliator, whose identity remains secret to all but a handful of trusted guards, the Bnad Leedur, and the President of Skule(TM) until the unveiling at Grad Ball of each year.

The Cannon is a source of pride for all Skule(TM) students. Its history permeates through our every move, and its security dependent on our trust. Its signature Earth Shattering Kaboom has rang through the hallowed and historical halls of nearly every building at the University. Yes, it is a mascot that we can truly be proud of - but it is also an integral part of our identity.

Cannon Fun Facts:

Cannon firing in the Atrium

• At least 8 cannons have been forged since the appearance of Mark I
• Cannon Mark II is embedded in the cornerstone of Galbraith Building
• Black hardhats were introduced in mourning after the Cannon was vandalized by an ex-CA in 1976
• The Chief Attiliator wears a belt made of steel chain - which was once part of the chain protecting Waterloo's Tool; A large circular ring is attached to the chain - this was cut from the Queen's Grease Pole when it, too, was liberated in 2000.
• The Cannon has shattered numerous windows in Hart House, as well as set off fire alarms in many historical buildings across Toronto.

Timeline of the Cannon from 1929

What follows is a story I have told only to a few of my closest friends (and probably not in its entirety), because of its complexity, personal nature, and my own confusion. It’s taken me a long time to formulate this into a coherent message to share. I think it is worth reading for anyone who is considering a career in (or at least an academic foray into) the field of Engineering.  I apologize in advance for the length, as this may read more like a journal than an essay. I hope, though, that you will appreciate the sentiment behind the words.

—–

High School Blues

It was the final year of high school. Some say it’s the best year of their life – not yet an adult, but old enough to do all the cool things you never could when you were ‘just a kid’.  I, however, spent most of this year in confusion and stress. Up to this point, I had been fairly academically accomplished. I’d been regularly getting those revered 90’s in all of my classes. I’d written all the toughest math contests and placed well. I’d just placed in the top 60 in the Canadian Computing Competition. Actually, I was really bored by school. It provided no challenge, and it gave me no direction.

I was stressed because I needed to make a choice that I had been avoiding for years. What is it that I want to do? I sought advice from friends, teachers, family, and anyone else who would listen. None of it helped, and all of it was contradictory. My mom wanted me to do Biology; my dad was indifferent; my friends thought I made a great programmer; other friends thought I should take a stab at business; my teachers suggested Engineering.

The last of those seemed intriguing. Engineering? What on Earth was Engineering? It intrigued me because it seemed so foreign. What do Engineers do? Why should I have anything to do with them?

Engineering, according to my high school teachers, was the place where the smartest people gathered. All the students who had the best math grades and the best science grades and some desire to get a real job went into Engineering. This is, of course, a terribly short-sighted view of the diverse profession.

I had no particular desire to save the world, or to invent the wheel. I just took the suggestion because it seemed like a good fit. Math grades? Check. Science grades? Check. And then I was off. But like all things I do, I didn’t start with the easiest of paths. I chose the most difficult. I entered the vaunted Engineering Science program at the University of Toronto, upon the suggestion of my Calculus teacher.

Engineering Science – A Proving Ground

The Engineering Science program is no cakewalk. When you hear the oft-repeated ‘horror’ story of a professor telling you to look to your classmates to your left and right, and saying that only one of you will make it through four years in the program, there is no doubt in my mind that such a story could only be true here. It is an unadvertised fact that first year Engineering (and especially Engineering Science) at the University of Toronto is tougher than all other Canadian undergraduate programs, bar none. There is nowhere else where the material will be as challenging, the courses more packed, and the workload more demanding, than here. It’s even been said that first year of EngSci, as it is known here, is more challenging than its counterpart at the more famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I took on this challenge with glee. I had never failed to meet a challenge.

So it was with this intention of ‘proving myself’ that I entered into the toughest period of my academic career. My previous math and science training had paid off. I had no problems transitioning into university-level courses, and met the challenge with gusto. I was able to do most of this without much thought, without much hard work. I wasn’t used to doing hard work. I had gone through all of primary, middle, and secondary school without doing any hard work. At the end of the first term, I was ranked 18th in a class of over 300. In a class that started with 334 students and would eventually dwindle to just over 170, I considered that one of the greatest accomplishments of my academic life.

A Slippery Slope

It all went downhill from there. It turned out I was just ahead of my time, and it would all catch up to me.

You see, I had always been told that at some point in my life, I would actually have to work hard for results. I’d been told that natural intelligence would only get me so far. Being the arrogant kid that I was when I first heard this in elementary school, I ignored the advice. After all, it had gotten me results in the past, and it had worked until even the first year of university. I never believed otherwise.

Then second year came, and where everyone else had by now fully adjusted to the work, I had just begun to reach the limits of what my so-called intelligence could handle. I could no longer spend just an hour or two reviewing for an exam the night before and expect to get my 90’s. Nor could I afford to skip doing homework and expect to remember anything of value.

It was during this turbulent second year that I encountered numerous personal troubles as well, further eating into my academic life. I entered a funk, and into a greatly reflective mood.

I decided that I hated math and everything associated with it. It was so dry, and tedious, and mechanical, that I could find no joy in doing this for a living. I was greatly depressed by this because the one thing that everyone had told me I was really good at – math – turned out to be something that I hated. I never realized this before, because I never really had to work at it. This is incredibly selfish, I realize too, but alas, I cannot be everything to everyone.

Second, I was not enjoying my time at school by focusing only on academics. In my entire first year, I lived inside this protective shell, meeting only a few new people whom I kept touch with regularly. I had joined little to no extracurriculars, despite my extensive involvement in various activities throughout high school, and most of all, I felt I was wasting my time with university. I asked myself, what does going to university contribute to my life? Why go through all this trouble?

A Search for Passion

It was at this point that I reached out to some friends in various places, began talking to lots of upper years, and some grizzly old professors. What was generally acknowledged was that school is sometimes a necessary evil on the way to a career – but it doesn’t necessarily have to be evil. Having never thought of school as much of a chore, I had never really thought much about this problem.

I began to get out of the academic shell, and look for other things to do. This, in itself, was not a solution to the academic problem I was having, of course – you may even think it would exacerbate the problem. However, my goal at this stage was not to be ‘the #1 student’ – marks were now a secondary concern, and my main purpose was to meet as many people as I could.

The result was a newfound perspective of my situation. While I had always lived in the upper echelons of academia, I had been completely ignorant of, well, everyone else. I had set such high standards for myself that I had been unable to see where I really was.

At some point, everyone gets lost. We get lost in the midst of our midterms, or in times of personal crises. What sets you apart from everyone else is how you choose to play the cards in your hand. Sure, I could complain about life, or get all depressed about everything – but these choices are mine to make, and I could now see how I could turn things around.

Having met so many people, I found that I was not unique. Engineering is tough. But everyone here has a reason to go through the trouble.  What sets Engineering apart from almost any other profession, is that while most people claim to be doing the world a service, only Engineers can really say this with any conviction. If Engineers don’t go through the trouble, who will?

Engineers are immensely practical – we can see through lies, and we know what we want. Underlying the philosophy of Engineering is that we can not only learn about nature’s forces, but also that we can use it to our advantage to improve humanity. Thus, engineers can invent awesome machines, design more efficient systems, and construct civilizations. I had come one step closer to figuring out why I was in engineering.

A Choice and a Path

One more decision had to be made. After 2 years of Engineering Science, we were expected to choose an Option (or a Major, so to speak). Of these, I had identified Computer Engineering and Infrastructure Engineering as my frontrunners, but for extremely contrasting reasons.

I was interested in Computer Engineering because my entire life, I had been fascinated with computers. They are so essential to our daily lives now I can hardly imagine anything without them. I had learned most of my knowledge through computers, and spent a great deal of time with them. I was good at all things computing, and this should have been an easy choice. I could probably excel in Computer Engineering without much trouble – it would probably even solve my academic issues.

But then there was Infrastructure Engineering. Nothing in my first two years of university had stoked my passion as much as this field of Civil Engineering – of bridges and buildings. In my reflection, I had found that I had the most fun in my Civil Engineering design projects – those involving bridge designs and such. I had spent countless hours with these projects, and it felt like no time at all. It was one of the few things I enjoyed in my coursework.

So here we were, at another crossroads. Should I choose what I was ‘good at’, or should I choose what I can be passionate about?

There were many factors to consider, of course, like coursework, class sizes, difficulty, career prospects, and such – but for me, there was one last motivating factor. What impact do I want to have with my education?

This made my solution clear. I could learn computer engineering anywhere. In fact, I was well on my way through my adolescence in learning all this, without the help of school anyway. But if I really wanted to do something useful with university, and to not make the same mistake I had made two years earlier in high school, this was it. This is how I decided to be an Infrastructure Engineer.

In retrospect, I probably should have chosen the more direct path through Civil Engineering to begin with, rather than go through the charade of Engineering Science – but naturally, I hadn’t gone through this whole thought process in high school. I had no such guidance, and no such experience. Part of the reason I was so enthused by Alex’s idea of the RHHSAA was that I probably could have benefited from something like this in my own days as a student. Alas, we had to start somewhere, and now was as good as any.

Having said that, it’s not as if my studies are going perfectly as planned. There are still courses I don’t enjoy, and subjects I cannot comprehend, but at least I know why I want to do it. And that is the biggest lesson of all – I found a good reason for making a choice, and having such a reason, I can deal with the hardships that might come of it. Motivation is thus created by the mind.

Much has been said about the difference between politicians and engineers. This is a debate that has gone on for ages. Why do Engineers not engage in public debates? Is it because engineers do not know about public policy?

When I sit around my engineering peers, and discuss politics, I often get noncommittal responses and shrugs of indifference. There are never any heated debates about politics, and never any emotionally charged tirades about one’s favourite political party. Engineers do not seem to be interested in public policy.

Mostly, this is because engineers don’t connect to politicians. They feel like politicians don’t make a difference. Like talking to a less intelligent friend, engineers find discussions with politicians useless – they spend much of their time explaining technical concepts without getting much progress. By the time an engineer figures out a way to get the politician to understand the technical details, the politician has long since lost interest.

Their goals, of course, are also different. Despite the public claim that politicians are supposed to serve “the people”, there are countless instances where special interest groups and lobbyists manage to sway politicians to a direction away from the majority view. These political battles create endless red tape – the kind of bureaucracy that engineers despise. Such an efficient workplace would instantly turn off an engineer.

Engineers find public policy important, but do not have time to deal with the implementation of the policies. The fundamental difference between engineers and politicians working on public policy is the time scale. Politicians, by nature of their job, think only in terms of years. Promises on public policy often happen in 5?year election cycles, and then get pushed aside when they are actually in office. Meanwhile, engineers and scientists have to deal with technology that changes on a constant basis – for example the tech sector progresses in maybe 6?month cycles, much faster than the politicians. By the time public policy is able to get past all the red tape, the science world has already leaped eons ahead.

So why bother with public policy? Politicians will always be playing catch?up anyway. There isn’t much reason to explain technical concepts to politicians and have to wait for them to accept technological progress. Perhaps the whole concept should just be scrapped: instead, let scientists and engineers do whatever they want to advance the field of science and technology, and let the public reap the benefits directly, without going through the government.

It is perhaps somewhat arrogant to say Engineers would make the world better if only we could run the government. There is a reason that engineers do not run for positions in government, and do not get into bureaucratic positions of power.

Many engineers approach social situations as nuisances. This attitude is not shared by politicians, who use social events to their advantage in gaining political support. This alone makes engineers seem lofty and unapproachable by the average person, who may not have the same intellectual ability as an engineer. For this reason alone, it may be hard for engineers to understand the needs of society – because they think in a way that is so vastly different from other people.

While engineers certainly have a good grasp of scientific problems and can easily problem solve, engineers are not particularly well suited as leaders. The type of people that the engineering profession attracts is not representative of the majority of the population. Engineers are usually the types of people who prefer objective reasoning with numbers and equations rather than with subjective realities like most societal issues are.

Engineers have no trouble coming up with solutions to most problems, with their trained analytical skills. Unfortunately, much of the time engineers solve the wrong problem altogether. While some solutions may make some scientific sense to the engineer, they do not necessarily have the same charm to the average Joe. Engineers, having solutions to problems, are generally progressive in nature. They want to see their solutions implemented as soon as possible, and are often frustrated when their proposals to politicians get stuck in red tape for years.

What engineers often do not see is that some people do not wish for a change. Despite glaring social problems, people get comfortable in their social niche, and do not necessarily want change. Like the engineers who work with the disadvantaged developing world with EWB know well, the engineering solution is not always aligned with the cultural values of the majority, and do not serve the needs of people.

If the world were run by engineers in government, things would surely get done. Engineers hate bureaucracy. But there is no guarantee that the things that get done would be the best things for society. While technological advances would be easily accepted, their social impacts may not be so easily realized.

Human factors are rarely considered in any engineering design. Often, it is the last step considered. Take for example, the personal computer. Hailed by some as the greatest invention of the 20^th century, it is one of the least accessible and understandable pieces of technology ever created. Everyone knows this, but hardly anybody but engineers can change this. Computers are near impossible for anyone to use. Even the most experienced user with the best programs can sometimes fail to get a computer to do what they want.

Countless man-hours of productivity are lost in corporations by the inability of staff to use these supposedly great 'tools'. IT departments are becoming disproportionately large, and huge sums of money are poured into maintaining and fixing computers on a daily basis. Most people simply do not know how to work a computer, despite its ubiquity in society.

Why is this the case? The first personal computers were designed by and designed for engineers. Even in the 70s, when Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded the company Apple and designed the first personal desktop computer, it was the result of circuit design, hacking, and input from other computer hobbyists. When it was invented, it was lauded as the technology that would bring computers to the masses. All of this, without much thought into how non-technical users would feel.

These engineers never considered that some users would not be familiar with keyboards, command lines, and installation routines. Despite the advances in computer design and graphical user interfaces, many of computing's most archaic practices are still in place. Let's take, for example, installing a new hard drive. Let us draw analogies between this installation and a similar installation in the physical world – let's say, putting up a new bookshelf to put more books.

First, let's look at the bookshelf installation. To install a new bookshelf, one could simply move one in from the store and place it in a room. In the worst case, the bookshelf would need to be assembled – but bookshelves are intuitive things. You build a frame with the given instructions and tools, and then you place the dividers into the shelf.

Now let's look at the computer. To install a hard drive, you need to first unplug your computer, unscrew its cover, and take it apart. This is akin to removing your door to move in a bookshelf. Next, you would have to locate a slot in your computer to place it, then put the new hard drive in place and plug it in to the motherboard. That is the most straightforward part. If the hard drive were anything like a bookshelf, one would expect the computer to work by now. Unfortunately, this is not the case – there are still many more steps before this task can be fully accomplished. (On older hard drives, you even had to change the settings on the old hard drive to tell it to become the 'slave' drive, and the new one to be the 'slave' drive.)

After putting the hard drive in place, we must turn on the computer (and hope that nothing was damaged in the installation process). Then, after the computer has taken its time to load, you have to wait an even longer time for it to 'detect' the new hardware. This is like waiting for your room to figure out it's got a new book shelf in it. In many instances, the computer will not do this automatically. You actually have to go to the 'Control Panel' and tell the computer to look for a new drive. Then, you would likely have to install new software to get the hardware working. If this were really a bookshelf, you would be extraordinarily exasperated by now, after having to tell your room to look for the bookshelf, and then asking it to learn about the bookshelf before it can use it. Putting it in this light, it is clear that computers are not well designed for human usage.

This brings us to the cause of the problems. Computer and software engineers seem to have no idea what level of knowledge the general public has. Their expertise in computers has blinded them to the fact that most users have no idea what goes on when you install some hardware or some software. In fact, most users shouldn't need to have any sort of idea in order to use it. Does a pedestrian need to know how a bridge holds forces to walk across the bridge? Does a driver need to know how the internal combustion engine produces kinetic energy to drive a car?

Programmers often begin to write code based on solving a technical problem. They figure out what needs to be improved with the algorithms and all the 'internal' stuff that goes on in a computer. They spend so much time on their own program that they become intimately familiar with all its parts. They forget that outsiders have never seen anything like it before. Many software engineers have a natural fear of visual and industrial designers. They figure that a person not trained in programming shouldn't have a say of what goes on in their program.

The cure to the computer complexity problem, is of course Human Factors Design. It has already been proven to work. Observe the latest phenomenon in technology – the Apple iPod and iPhone. When these products were designed, they were not designed to solve a technical problem. Rather, the focus was on the human. The iPod and iPhone were designed to have the least number of buttons on it as possible. Whereas most electronic gadgets have a plethora of switches, buttons, and status displays, the iPod has only one scrollwheel and a handful of buttons. The iPhone has even less buttons – in fact, it only has one. These products are a runaway success simply because they are easy to use. Users who see these products in a store realize how easy it is, and are instantly hooked.

There is no reason that people should be fighting their technology – they should be embracing it, and be aided by it. There is still a long way to go for computer design for humans, and engineers need to be up to this task.

It is true that engineers have an understated and sometimes negative public image. Much of the public does not understand what it is that engineers do, or what engineers stand for. The public perception of engineering is that of a profession occupied by nerdy folks who spend their days tinkering with gadgets. In the media, engineers are never mentioned. In schools, where science and math are taught, there is little to no mention of engineering. "Engineering" is never taught as a subject at the elementary and secondary levels of education. There are famous scientists and mathematicians that every schoolkid can name, but not one famous engineer is ever remembered.

The question is, should engineers remain behind the scenes? On the one hand, engineers do indeed have to deal with many technical details which the public knows little of (and likely does not need to know). On the other hand, engineers have a moral obligation to serve the public interest. Building a bridge over a deep valley, while a feat of modern technology to be sure, is no feat of engineering unless it truly satisfies a societal need.

Often, though, engineers feel estranged from their surroundings by a blissfully ignorant public. At the recent Engineering Society meeting regarding the proposal to separate from the University of Toronto Students' Union, many engineering students voiced their opinions on university culture. Many students felt that it was necessary to separate from UTSU simply because they do not understand "us". We are misunderstood and portrayed as rebels, often isolated by the rest of the university. It was said that UTSU rarely acknowledged our needs, and treated us with little respect.

While it was not my intention at first to join this particular debate, I have since developed an opinion opposing that of the Engineering Society's. In my view, it is a waste of financial and human resources to isolate ourselves further from the rest of the university. It is exactly this kind of view that demonstrates a lack of holistic thinking that engineers ought to possess. While this students' quarrel is not in itself a symptom of the engineering profession at large, it should still be noted that engineers should be embracing, not rejecting, the public. Our attitudes towards the rest of the world need to be fostered at an early stage in our professional development, beginning at the university level.

Engineers, of course, have good reason to be intimidated by public consultation. Faced with equations and schematics, we have no problems getting our hands "dirty". But when confronted by politicians with agendas to push and lobbyists with special interests (just the kinds of people most likely to show their faces at a public consultation), we feel uncomfortable and out of place. Like a partial differential equation, many of society's complex problems cannot be solved using tried-and-true formulas. Engineers often have no background in the sociological or economic issues that underscore most of the situations they deal with. This lack of understanding leads to public distrust, making engineers seem to society as aloof.

Regardless of opinion, we live in a democratic society - and public consultations are one of the many checks and balances needed to make everything fair. For the public, these consultations are one of very few opportunities to talk to engineers. For the engineers, these may be a necessary "evil" of the occupation.

In modern society, prices are going down, and sizes are going up. This is in part due to economic pressure; in part due to consumer culture; but it is largely also due to the technological advancements from engineers and scientists.

Engineers are largely the ones responsible for driving prices down. Without their technological innovations, it would not be economically feasible to mass produce ans slash prices. The engineering profession, in fact, prides itself on making better and better things at the lowest possible cost. Engineers today work tirelessly to satisfy these consumer demands for better and cheaper goods.

Mass production, automation, artificial materials, and many more technologies of the post-industrial age are all engineering achievements. Engineers, who are the first to create new technologies, are also the first to find out the side effects. To promote a new technology without considering its side-effects would be morally irresponsible for anyone, especially engineers who are taught to hold public safety above all else.

While it is the moral obligation for everybody to look out for the well-being of our home - the Earth - it is the engineers who have the know-how and the ability to really do it. Bureaucrats and politicians, who do not have the technical background that engineers do, can only see the immediate effects of new developments and not the theoretical long-term consequences.

Ideally, engineers should be able to refuse morally irresponsible jobs. It is everyone's duty to protect the Earth - because we all share the same fate in the end. Engineers who have the power to change the world with technology should be able to do so with pride.

Yesterday, amidst a rather empty convocation hall, I attended the Engineering Science overture lecture for the 2007 Winter Term, themed "Systems and States". Giving the lecture was one Professor Thomas Homer-Dixon. The director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, and an MIT graduate, Mr. Homer-Dixon's lecture for the day had a sobering message. By all scientific accounts, modern human civilization is heading towards collapse in many different directions. The time to act against it is now. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, population growth is at an unprecedented high. Yes, energy production is slowing down. There are numerous factual evidences that support these phenomena. It's happening. Now.

---

Not too long ago, I was contemplating what I would do after high school. For me, there was almost no doubt I was going to be doing something science-related. Being practical, I chose to study engineering rather than purely theoretical science. I wanted to do something with knowledge. Learning is exhilerating, but alone, it serves no greater purpose.

Something else had always been troubling me for a while. Why aren't the smartest people in the world making the decisions about the world?

Our world, for the large part, is run by the great democratic political machines of industrialized western nations. Yet this same political machine regularly fails at recognizing what I feel are the most important issues of today - the human impact to environment.

Now, I've never called myself a tree-hugger, or anything of the sort. I don't have that sense of activism. But, I do maintain that many governments of today seem only to be concerned, with great hubris, about their own infinite 'economic' growth.

I am fascinated by politics. I read the newspaper regularly, just to catch up on the latest political scoop. I am fascinated, by the way politicians continue to sidestep real and important issues, with great deftness of words. Politics, to me, is nothing more than a play on words with some basic economic management.

So I figured long ago, that democracy is broken. Sure, if you ask me now, I'll tell you that I'll go out to vote, but for me, the impact of government is too slow, and too little. There are things going wrong with the world today, and political manuevering is not the way to solve it.

I was shocked, one day, about a year ago, to learn that there were still a great many important international figures who contest the notion of global warming, or even climate change. (Here's a list of some: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics) It shouldn't take so much work to convince the public. And it sure as hell shouldn't be so hard to realize how it's bad for the Earth.

With my faith in politics and the media shaken, I resorted to the conclusion that the only way to get things done is to do things yourself. Of course, it's a long road, and it's hard to see where to begin on something so monumental.

---

Professor Homer-Dixon listed the problems, and offered a great many solutions. He articulated what I had been thinking, unconsciously and in abstract. But now I see it more clearly.

As an engineer, in the 21st century, these problems will be up to us to solve. So we can avoid a catastrophe in the future (near or far). Will we be able to engineer ourselves out of this problem? Well, we can only try and see now.