THIS IS FOR HUMANITIES CLASS In 300-500 words, answer this: Do you think there s
ID: 2634758 • Letter: T
Question
THIS IS FOR HUMANITIES CLASS In 300-500 words, answer this:
Do you think there should be limits on technological advancement? If not, why not, if so, why? Then, respond to a classmate who takes an opposing position.
3) PEER EVALUATION: It is required that students also post one response that evaluates a post by another student. In this post you should do one of the following: 1) offer constructive criticism of the student's explanation or understanding of the topic under discussion or 2) explain what the student has done correctly in addressing the topic discussion. Criticism or praise should provide specific reasons why the post under evaluation is praiseworthy or lacking in some respect. The purpose of peer evaluation is not class debate but cooperative learning, that is, by evaluating each other's work we will try to develop collective insights that will benefit not just the student whose work is being evaluated but the entire class.
Explanation / Answer
Should humans ever limit the development of a technology?
What grounds must a technology break in order to be declared illegal? There are 3D printers that can assemble buildings, flying robots that can survey countries, and artificial organs that can dramatically extend the average human lifetime. Should the development of any technology be limited to provide more opportunities to human workforces, restrict weapons development and to force people to live naturally?
Our current paradigm is to provide individuals and corporations the freedom to develop and deploy new technologies. The developer gets the benefits (profits) and accepts the risks (law suits). The developer makes the decision whether the potential benefits are worth the potential risks.
If the technology is "a" single technology (as your topic question asks) that may become capable of a Human Being being unable to control it anymore, then yes, I would want to limit it. Once any technology achieves the capability of controlling US, we could be in trouble. Example would be the advance of Artificial Intelligence that would be able to "take control" of our own ability to decide the outcome of anything.
Some here have addressed the question from an "all technology" perspective. I wouldn't want to limit ALL technological advances as some of them could open up new opportunities for human development and solving world problems. One extreme hypothetical example is increasing the education levels of people. Currently one problem all societies would face is that if all people had the equivalent of a PhD education, who would want to be the garbage collectors or the janitors for the society? Who would DECIDE who ended up being employed in those positions? Today it could already be said that problem exists, as there are people who have education degrees in fields where there are not enough open positions available for employment commensurate with the degree. But if a technolgy was developd that eliminated the need for a PERSON to collect all of society's garbage, then we have eliminated the need for that type of employement, and would not HAVE to have someone with a PhD doing it. However...THAT technology would not solve the problem of having enough employment opportunities for all people with PhD's. It might actually make the PhD employment problem worse. So there may be a cause and effect problem that one technological advancement solves in one area, but creates in another area.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.