CASE STUDY; A PLOW FOR MEXICAN WORKERS

THE CASE

A technology to aid third-world peasant farmers in growing their small plots of land is urgently
needed. None of the ploughs currently on the market are suitable to meet this need. This example
entails the creation of a plough that meets these requirements.

This is a project about design. The emphasis here is on detecting and effectively handling the
value concerns that occur in a design engineering project, rather than on a moral judgment of
specific engineers' activities. We can see how the emergence of new technologies can have a
significant impact on a community. As a result, it raises the question of whether engineers are
responsible for the social repercussions of their work.

FACTS

 Agriculture is roughly divided into two divisions in Mexico, as it is in many third-world

countries: large landowners & small subsistence farmers. Large landowners, and in the
most part, have done an excellent job of trying to keep up with technology advancements
and have the financial means to take advantage of those changes. The scenario has been
considerably different for the poor farmers.
 Despite the fact that the Mexican government took some attempts to redistribute land, 65
percent of farmers own less than 5 hectares. This reduces the value of technology, which
is normally based on scale. Furthermore, these farmers' land is located in hilly and
mountainous terrain. Large machinery is difficult to move and control in these places.
 Finally, water initiatives aimed at increasing irrigation have mostly failed to benefit the
local population, which is still reliant on rainfall. Small farms would be unable to survive
if large farms acquire economies of scale, and may be forced out of business. One could
argue that this is preferable to just let small farmers to exit the agriculture industry
entirely.
 By permitting huge farms to provide Mexico's agricultural demands, peasants can be
relocated to urban areas in search of employment in industries. This approach, however,
appears to be clearly incorrect for three reasons. For starters, agrarianism is a significant
component of Mexican culture. Many peasants desire to stay connected to the farm and
 participate in rural life. Second, the rural economy can support far more people than
Mexico's industrial sector.
 Prior to the 1970s, Mexico's economy was growing due to petrodollar inflows, and
progress was being made in realigning the country's population to a Western model.
Those advancements, however, came to a halt in the 1970s due to rising inflation and an
overwhelming foreign debt load.  
 As a result, if a means to boost agricultural production without causing rural flight could
be developed, then economy might benefit. Finally, in recent years, the agricultural
industry has struggled to reach self-sufficiency goals for staple commodities such as
cereals and beans. Thus, increasing yields on all accessible farms would be highly
desired. Because small farms are so essential to Mexico's near future, making them more
productive is a top priority.
 One approach to accomplish this is to create a small plough that is suitable for
subsistence farming. A plough like this could boost crop production while simultaneously
reducing the hard physical work of manual farming.

ANALYSIS

The creation of a little plough may not be without its drawbacks. Some of the key considerations
are present include;

 The rural economy places a high value on animal ownership, which is a primary concern
for anyone engaged in mechanizing small farming. Plowing and shipping can be done
using draught animals, and the offspring can be marketed for meat. In reality, a draught
animal is a valuable asset for a farmer because it may be traded if he runs out of money.
The impact of a mechanization project on animal possession is thus crucial to consider.
 Another factor to consider is that small farmers are very risk cautious. More
technologically sophisticated farming may yield 120 bushels 1 year and 25 bushels the
next, but less technologically advanced farming may generate 60 bushels in a good year
and 50 bushels in a terrible year. If a small farmer had to pick between these two
possibilities, he or she would most likely choose the second. This is because a small
farmer's primary concern is to provide for his family before selling for profit. Farmers
may not embrace a plough if the operating expenses are too high, it is harmful to the soil,
 or it has other characteristics that enhance risk. Even if the plough is supplied free of
charge, people may fail to admit it if it is regarded to pose a significant risk.
 Another aspect is that technology should not be perceived as foreign or as an insult to the
farmers' culture. Foreign artefacts can provide the erroneous cultural message, implying
that "their way is better than ours." This has the effect of undermining cultural identities
and social cohesion. People are more likely to accept technological objects with which
they can identify and which could be perceived as supporting rather than detrimental to
their culture.
 Cost or benefit analysis, often known as maximum utility analysis, is one tool used to
help people make technology decisions. This strategy asks the engineer to choose the
design choice that will provide the most benefits for the least amount of money.
However, this strategy has received a lot of criticism. One complaint is that the
advantages may be maximized without being dispersed evenly. Providing ploughs to the
most determined and capable small farmers may be the greatest method to optimize the
entire benefit from the plough.
 They'd probably make the best use of the plough. In comparison to their less
competence and ambitious neighbors, the plough may also allow the more proficient
farmers becoming even wealthier. Although the overall utility may be highest, the wealth
distribution resulting from this technique may be even more unequal. Although one could
argue that encouraging efficiency is beneficial to society, it is a value judgment. It's vital
to remember that importing Western technology can result in significant social changes.

RELATED NPSE CODES

 Engineers are urged to get involved in public affairs, provide career advice to young
people, and seek to improve their community's safety, health, and well-being.
 Engineers are urged to follow the principles of responsible skills and self - confidence in
needed to shield future generations' environment.
 An important part of engineers' professional training is the capacity to discern genuinely
technical concerns from value issues—or the ability to discern the value element of a
technical choice from the more simply technical aspects.

Other emerging issues;

  Can the Plow Be Considered a Foreign Or Alien Object?
 Who Would This Plow Be Made For?
 Is the plow's design influenced by the operator's gender?
 Is It Even Necessary To Design The Plow? The capacity of a firm to allocate other tasks
to an engineer is dependent in part on the firm's size, but the bigger question is whether
engineering associations need to be more active in advocating engineers' rights to refuse
work based on a moral issue.

CONCLUSION

Professionals are prone to evaluating matters from the perspective of their own technical
expertise. This is, for the most part, quite acceptable and what they'd been taught to do.

However, there is a flaw in this approach: it tends to disguise the fact that certain difficulties
aren't best handled from the standpoint of their specialized competence. Some judgments are
primarily a matter of values, as the case above indicates. This has an impact on not only the
criterion for making a choice, but also who should make it. Many such concealed value
judgments can be found in the engineer's work.

An important part of engineers' professional training is the capacity to discern genuinely

technical concerns from value issues—or the ability to differentiate the value element of a
technical choice from the more simply technical aspects.

The case demonstrates to pupils how the technological innovation can have far-reaching
consequences for a community. As a result, it is an excellent way of instilling in young engineers
a sense of responsibility for the outcomes of their professionalism.