Technology: Good Or Bad?

Many will likely be critical with my contention that technology is neither good nor bad. For how can it not be good that the lifespan of humans in industrialized societies at least has dramatically increased in just the last century, for example?

It is tempting to judge this as good but ultimately our judgment on any given matter is only ever based on something already known or experienced. For example, if the longest any human lived was known to be only 30 years, we would base our judgment on living approximately 30 years. If one attained this age or beyond, this would of course be deemed good. On the other hand, if the longest any human lived was known to be 200 years, a 30 year lifespan would seem tragically short and deemed bad.

It is enticing for the marginalized to see something “better” and label it good or for the fortunate to see something “worse” and label it bad, but this is only due to disparity. This disparity can be analogous to having something good taken away. Once it is seen what can be, this then becomes the de facto standard and of course there is a desire to attain or maintain this good thing.

But it must be pointed out that this thing is not really good. It is only relatively good. In other words, the thing just is.

I want to further express what I am talking about with what will no doubt be a very emotional topic. Let's suppose that due to medical technology, the infant death rate goes from 1 in 5 to only 1 in 5,000. This is good, is it not? But what if we subsequently came across a civilization that experienced an infant death rate of only 1 in a billion? Is 1 in 5,000 still good? What if your child was one of the 1 in 5,000 that perished?

In this case, statistically it is almost certain your child would have survived if the death rate was only 1 in a billion. As such, might you, or anybody else for that matter, now see this death rate as bad?

One might claim that only 1 in 5,000 is good because it is better than 1 in 5. However, when compared to a death rate of only 1 in a billion, it seems bad. Furthermore, it is tragic when any infant dies but is especially so when it is yours! So whether the death rate is 1 in 5 or only 1 in 5,000 or still more impressive only 1 in a billion, if your child dies, none of these is good. Conversely, if your child survives, none of these is really bad either.

Perhaps we could legitimately declare it good when no babies die. Then again, could infant death simply be nature's equilibrium so as to preserve the lives of the greatest number of babies and more generally, and perhaps more importantly, to preserve Life in general? Of course this principle will no doubt be hard to accept especially if your baby dies.

In any case, might it be suggested that nature seems to obey the principle of utilitarianism even with an incredibly delicate issue such as this?

One could similarly draw an analogy to the idea of promoting longevity as an intrinsic moral good. Should we adopt this imperative?* What if this places such a strain on society that it undermines the health and well-being of everybody?

Would it be better for people to live 1)marginally well for 150 years, 2)moderately well for 100 years or 3)phenomenally well for only 50 years? Once again, are the ravages of old age nature's equilibrium so as to best serve Life in general (the proverbial One)?

In summary, it seems wise to avoid imparting judgments and to just accept what is.


*Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?

A Verdict On The Issue Of Health Care

How could something like the health and well-being of our citizens be relegated to the arbitrary whims of bureaucracies? On the other hand, to view health care from the perspective of each human being's every specific need and desire, how are we to expect this kind of personal care to be at all affordable?

It is essentially a debate about treating health care in a utilitarian versus an emotional manner. This is difficult because though the well-being of human beings is perhaps the most sacred of life's issues, it, like any other difficult issue, has severe restrictions placed upon it because we live in a finite world. If only it was infinite!

Unfortunately, there is neither enough money, nor doctors, nor organs to be transplanted, etc. to meet every personal need and desire of every citizen such that we are all treated with the utmost care.

It may be difficult to stomach for many of you but the world does not revolve around you, your parents, your children or Grandma Gertrude. It might be true to say that your world revolves around them. The problem with this is that obviously we all have our own ideas as to whom and what the world revolves around, many of which are in opposition to one another as they are vying for the same limited resources.

Alas, the “World's World” revolves around a collective One, many people and issues of which you could not care less about because they are not part of your world! But the problem with trying to approach health care in a utilitarian manner is that it will by its very nature foment accusations of being cruel and callous simply because this is perhaps the most emotional and fragile issue known to man. How dare we dehumanize our fellow brethren like this!

But to approach it in a purely emotional manner seems to necessitate astronomical expenditures of which nobody seems willing to take responsibility. How do we address this utilitarian/emotional dichotomy? Any response to this that places the answer “somewhere in the middle” simply obfuscates the problem all over again. The middle means a thousand things to a thousand people!

My opinion on this, depressing as it may be for many, leans more toward the “coldness” of utilitarianism. Of course this view will likely incite feelings of dehumanization, but I see this trend taking shape quite nicely in many of our other affairs, so perhaps this is our inescapable destiny?

This Works, That Doesn't

It is often claimed by politicians, especially during campaigning, that they will do away with programs and policies that “do not work”. What does this mean? How is the determination made as to a program's or policy's efficacy? This once again is totally subjective based on different peoples' perspectives and above all else opinions.

Many will say being overly “generous” with entitlements for the poor does not work. But if one is poor and lazy, how does this not work for him? Typically we as a society evaluate a program's or policy's viability based on utilitarianism. A given program might serve its constituents exceptionally well, but if the costs of this program are too high for the number of people it benefits, it likely will be construed as something that “does not work”. 

But this type of thinking is merely arbitrary because it is not always followed. Oftentimes, we will pay anything to get back prisoners-of-war or kidnap victims, for example. But this is not utilitarianism, rather it is emotions that account for this type of response.

So how do we determine whether to base difficult decisions on utilitarian principles or emotional responses? How can this line be drawn but arbitrarily? Requiring buildings to have handicap access is likely driven by emotions as the cost of implementing these standards almost certainly outweighs the utilitarian benefits.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against basing decisions on emotional foundations. Neither am I against basing decisions on utilitarian principles. I am simply pointing out that there is no imperative as to what should be done in any given situation. It is but subjective based purely on competing opinions no doubt shaped and motivated by how these issues affect us as individuals and as groups we represent. This seems selfish. And it is! It is nothing but evolutionary group selection. This is nothing to feel guilty about. It just is!