Hacker News Reader

Comment by runeks | Hacker News Reader

So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)?

I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge).

I mean, computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?

View on HN

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.)

My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ramifications of that.

Will those parents have to request a paper copy every time a report card is issued (four times per school year)? Will they eventually stop doing so? Will they stop paying attention to their child's academic progress and will the child's academic performance then suffer? Will the child slowly begin to perform worse and worse (academically) over time?

Will this "digital divide" simply continue to worsen?

Internet access should be a public utility.

Some people can't afford public utilities either.

Then perhaps that is a problem that we should tackle, instead of going all Luddite about fairly basic tech because someone cannot afford it?

I even wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a net economic benefit, because the reduced overhead of new tech is less than amount of money you need to spend to make sure that everyone has access to it.

Libraries already tackle this. As well as other organizations. For example, when I was a kid my main internet pc was at the state extension office.

I'm sure it wouldn't be four times a year - but rather, when beginning the school year (Or possibly entering the school system even the first time) it's an option to choose. And then on the bottom of the paper report cards, have a statement saying "Like to go paperless?" for if/when they do have the option to switch.

If you need a piece of paper to remind you to be a parent, you are not a good parent to begin with. And a piece of paper is not going to save child from such parent.

That's much too harsh. If someone is poor enough they can't afford internet access, then they're probably under some stress from all sorts of factors. Working two jobs, trying to keep their head above water, possibly a single parent, etc.

Having the kid bring the paper home can be a good reminder. Even my own quite devoted mother would occasionally forget it was grade time until I'd show her the report card.

> I mean, computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?

Actually, yes, there are inherent ethical problems here. In this case (computers/internet), the divide it causes is not so large that it cannot be overcome by training, savings, charitable donations, etc. However, "designer baby" technology, if not available to whomever wants it, results in an increase in feudalism to society.

With a computer, anyone can become a programmer as the technology gets cheaper and more widely adopted. Designer babies and similar technologies may not have the same increasing efficiencies with adoption; such considerations should be made.

It may result in more stratification, but I don't see how that translates to feudalism.

I view feudalism as the result of prolonged, accepted stratification. David Brin talks a bit to this in his essay The Dogma of Otherness[0]

[0] http://www.davidbrin.com/dogmaofotherness.html

>computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?

some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.

Poor wretched souls of the previous millennia...they all were denied their basic human rights.

Poor slaves of the previous century .... they all were denied their basic human rights.

Yes, they were.

And this is insensitive to say, but at least it was just the enslaved minority denied basic rights, rather than every single human on the face of the earth.

These days a homeless most cherished thing is a outdated mobile phone. This because job listing etc has moved online.

Damn it, in most parts of the world these days healthcare handled as a public utility.

I can certainly imagine why you'd want a mobile phone, but at least in our area, internet access is readily available at all public library branches as well.

    > the poorer part of the
    > population may not be able
    > to afford it, thus 
    > increasing inequality?

I am currently in Bangkok, Thailand. I walked past several people sweeping streets today who all had smartphones. I can't imagine they're getting paid above the $9/day minimum wage. Notably one was packing an iPhone 4. If 3rd-world street sweepers can get online, I believe someone in America can too, without breaking the bank.

But we wouldn't be in a smartphone world if people applied this 'ethical' argument to the relatively higher cost of getting online 10-20 years ago.

Access to computers and the internet is not quite as permanent as genetics.

Were they bestowed at birth by your parents and could be acquired no other way, then you may have a case.

It's better if you think of "designer babies" as a separate, er, product, than the biotech being discussed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com