Focus on the tools vs. human aspects of technology – touched upon with the debate
A. Are tools neutral? Are all things equal? Are there some tools that are inherently more destructive – more antisocial – than others? (customary intention of use – measured by regulation, ease of destruction) If humans are negatively impacted by technology – is the solution more technology – technological utopists
(1) problem = pollution - introduce toxins in the environments, use technology to solve this;
(2) problem – developed a lifestyle based on large expenditure of energy then is the solution a technical one;
(3) problem = loss of community, breakdown of families, and alienation from meaningful work
Should it be that our solutions are also human based – dialogue, discussion, balloting, negotiation, education and media (war vs. negotiation)
B. Are humans basically good or evil? And what if it is both? What if it is environmental – anyone can be driven to do about anything? And what of illness, mental health problems?
C. Balance of individual rights vs. society/species rights? If an individual is doing something that hurts no one else, should we stand by and let it happen? Is anyone really an “island?” What is a measure of a society – one that economically successful, provides justice and “level playing field” opportunities, cares for its most vulnerable, accepting of differences (immigration), protects freedom
Community web sites – abortion, stormfront, tolerance.org – lone wolf, pipe vs. content
Reduce this smaller scale – instead of building community but supporting an already “physical” community – Landmark’s acceptable use policy – maintain the health and security of the system, do not police for moral, ethical reasons, will prioritize the mission or educational goals
network neutrality on a grand scale (tiered access) (Windows operates as network neutrality)
