The ‘Just because we’ll be able to, will we? Should we? Must we?’ discussion revisited in the light of the news that CCTV cameras will be compulsory in English abattoirs soon. Again, a reminder that technological ethics have more to do with ethics than technology.
But we’ll start with a different topic: one that isn’t as controversial as it used to be …
There was a time when smoking wasn’t just seen as socially acceptable but positively beneficial …
All that healthy smoke filling your lungs, seeping its goodness into your bloodstream was just the boost your body needed. You’d live years longer if you smoked … and it was SO COOL.
It’s 2030 and you’re not doing your old job any more because an AI machine can do it faster, cheaper and safer. How’s that working out for you?
But, first of all, let’s deal with some basic logic. How fair is this?
- Gavin: “Steve, what’ll we do for tea tonight if Mum’s not there to cook?”
- Steve: “Dunno. Ask Dad? Or make it ourselves? Or go down the chippy?”
- Gavin: “Steve, you’re an idiot. We won’t have do any of that because Mum will be there!”
Bit harsh on Steve, yes? He was only answering the question that was put to him. If their Mum wasn’t there, he had an idea of what could happen. He wasn’t asked whether he thought she might be.
Silly? Maybe. But that’s exactly what the economists and the right-wing press did to Professor Stephen Hawking a while ago on the subject of robot automation and unemployment.