Masha

Interesting question - indeed, knowledge is a double edge sword... the more your know the more you understand your surroundings - which might really and in some cases puts you at odds with the nearest to you...

Regards

Theodora Issa

Thank you @Theodora , you have mentioned interesting aspect of this problem, life becomes more difficult and odds when you know more.

Actually it is not a new issue, we are engaging these matters since so many years ago, assume knife as technology, in one hand it is applied for surgery, rehabilitate and improve human health and in the other hand it injures if it is used in tiny mistake.

So think about how complicated technology can influence on our life!

Well Masha, combine knowledge and technology - and get something out of this world... the more advanced the technology the higher the knowledge that passes through our minds, eyes and ears... and this complicates our lives... I believe...

Regards

Theodora Issa

@Theodora I am agree with you, if all of these advanced technologies would be used in right way we can see good influence in our life or it might be harmful if it is used wrongly.

Indeed, if all innovations were used for what they were invented for - we would not have had the NOBLE PRIZE!

That is being sarcastic about it... Indeed, I totally agree with you.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Specific studies into the ethics of technology, especially ICT, have found technological development to be founded on a very simplistic understanding of people and society. [For example, see Stahl, B., (2011), ‘What does the future hold? A critical view of emerging information and communication technologies and their social consequences.” Paper delivered at Researching the Future in Information Systems: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference, Future IS 2011, 59-77.]

Another example - The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has stated that there is no real need for personal privacy of any form whatsoever. This is clearly a simplistic statement which doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a micro-second, no matter what your position on privacy. This shows not just a lack of understanding of people, but a lack of reflection on what he's saying. But Facebook is designed on this basis.

The developers of technology typically stand revealed as being absent thought regarding the ethical consequences of their inventions. Since evolution studies have shown a biological need for 40% of the human race to be selfish and unconcerned with others, it is inevitable that any ethically neutral technology will be used for unethical purposes by a large portion of society.

The only way I see to prevent new technology from being used for unethical purposes is for the developers to consider, in depth, the possible misuses of their inventions and design preventative measures into them. However, I doubt this would be possible to the degree that misuse could be completely prevented; such a dream is utopian.

@Brandt This is exactly I mean, when new technology advents why no one thinks about consequences of its circumstance. The question is: privacy or community , usefulness or harmfulness. Which one should be dropped and why?

Newer technologies are valuable enough to miss or limit our freedom?

Nice question! Let me try to elaborate on it a little.

Today I finished reading a science-fiction book by Gibson and Sterling, "The Difference Engine", where they posited an alternative history in which Babbage actually constructed its engine and the computer-based era started in the XIX century. This made me think a lot about the difference between Victorian optimism and today's delusion with respect to technology. Let me cite from Wikipedia: "The Victorians were impressed by science and progress, and felt that they could improve society in the same way as they were improving technology."

How do we feel in these regards today is an interesting question. For once, I feel like technology has something "inevitable" in it. On the other hand, I also recognize that in many cases some deadly uses of technology only stemmed from large investments in them, hence they could have been (in some way) preemptively stopped. I guess then that the only very trivial answer is "education": the more educated the citizens of a state, the more it could be possible to redirect more and more of the "technology flow" to better use. I guess people can say I reason in such a "naif" way since I am young, probably they are right.

@Simone indeed problem is educated people who strays their knowledge even tiny!

So it causes unexpected consequences such as we watch them on fiction movies , do you think that instead of spreading education (although it is very important), it is time to provide ethic infrastructure.