This is just one of many recent Facebook decisions that may have left you with a sour taste in your mouth.The corporation unwittingly gave Donald Trump’s presidential campaign access to millions of Americans’ personal information.It ignored Russia’s attempts to sway the 2016 election, enabled ethnic and religious conflict in multiple countries, and allowed advertisers to target “Jew haters,” among other great groups of consumers.Not to mention the platform’s abundance of fake news, conspiracy theories, and outright lies.
Facebook has no intention of any of this happening.It only wants to bring people together.
Facebook’s desire to “connect people” is missing one crucial ingredient for effective citizenship: treating individual human beings as sacred.
To Facebook, the world is made up of relationships between people rather than individuals.
The billions of Facebook accounts belong to “users,” which are collections of data points linked to other collections of data points on a large Social Network that can be targeted and monetized by computer algorithms.
You cannot do certain things to humans with good conscience.
There is the point that has appeared in my mind some time ago – people do not change. Please, do not roll your eyes with the mark of “too obvious” – at least not till I fully clarify my thought. The issue is that we were taught our whole life how our society has been developing all these years, how advanced we become , how much cleverer we are right now, comparing to previous generations.
Also, how it is important that we are able to obtain enough knowledge to compare – so as to know history. There is no doubt that we have to remember history to create the future. As Robert Heinleinclaims: “A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.” This statement refers to the idea of us , as humanity, to learn from the previous generations in order not to make the same mistakes and not to start the process of development all over again but to use information which was already understood by our predecessors and create a bright reality. The funny thing is that in theory it sounds reasonable, meanwhile practice shows that even this simple idea is an utopia for our society. The most clear proof of that would be war in Ukraine – blindness and stupidity of the occupying nation. Even though we have learned about so much horror in the past – we still willingly bring it to our present. Besides, we, as individuals also haven’t changed that much – our moral values still being interconnected with laws of cristian religion and we still tend to break them; our desires can be structured in a simple piramide; there are still a lot of us who are sexists , misogynists, racists, homofobic and the level of inequality is not even dreaming about getting lower.
Our generation has faced the radical change in our routine life – we are surrounded by modern technologies from the day we are born. There was a hope that with such ability to spread information and provided opportunity for self-education something might be changed. It is indeed true that technologies have influenced our mindset even though not in the way we would like them to.
“For example Mary Midgley (1992) argues that the belief that science and technology will bring us immortality and bodily transcendence is based on pseudoscientific beliefs and a deep fear of death. In a similar vein Sullins (2000) argues that there is often a quasi-religious aspect to the acceptance of transhumanism that is committed to certain outcomes such as uploading of human consciousness into computers as a way to achieve immortality, and that the acceptance of the transhumanist hypothesis influences the values embedded in computer technologies, which can be dismissive or hostile to the human body.
While many ethical systems place a primary moral value on preserving and protecting nature and the natural given world, transhumanists do not see any intrinsic value in defining what is natural and what is not and consider arguments to preserve some perceived natural state of the human body as an unjustifiable obstacle to progress. Not all philosophers are critical of transhumanism, as an example Nick Bostrom (2008) of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University argues that putting aside the feasibility argument, we must conclude that there are forms of posthumanism that would lead to long and worthwhile lives and that it would be overall a very good thing for humans to become posthuman if it is at all possible (Bostrom, 2008).”
Additionally, such rapid spread of technological capabilities brought usfrom the point of being able to learn something to not learning at all, as we can find it on the internet. It is funny to realize that Socrat had the same fears that we face today. “Socrates lived during the long transition from a largely oral tradition to a newer information technology consisting of writing down words and information and collecting those writings into scrolls and books. Famously Socrates was somewhat antagonistic to writing and scholars claim that he never wrote anything down himself. Ironically, we only know about Socrates’ argument against writing because his student Plato ignored his teacher and wrote them down in a dialogue called “Phaedrus” (Plato). Socrates, who was adept at quoting lines from poems and epics and placing them into his conversations, fears that those who rely on writing will never be able to truly understand and live by these words. For Socrates there is something immoral or false about writing. Books can provide information but they cannot, by themselves, give you the wisdom you need to use or deeply understand that information. Conversely, in an oral tradition you do not simply consult a library, you are the library, a living manifestation of the information you know by heart. For Socrates, reading a book is nowhere near as insightful as talking with its author. Written words,
…seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you the same thing forever. (Phaedrus, section 275d).
His criticism of writing at first glance may seem humorous but the temptation to use recall and call it memory is getting more and more prevalent in modern information technologies. “
In general, technologies simply make our life easier but , unfortunately, they do not always make it better.I am not claiming that technologies are good or bad, I simply think that we give them empowerment they do not deserve.
All week I was trying to come up with a topic for a new article. I was thinking which issues bother me, what I would like to know more about and something like this. Apparently, the answer was at my Netflix account.
I am sure, all you have heard about “Rick and Morty” show and most of you have watched it. If you haven’t then it is your problem. Go watch five seasons and come back to reading this draft.
“Rick and Morty is the animated science-fiction sitcom featuring the adventures of genius scientist Rick Sanchez and his hapless grandson Morty Smith. Part of Rick and Morty’s appeal is its exaggerated use of obscure scientific concepts and futuristic technology that always seem to have a tinge of truth”.
That is why while watching it, I end up thinking about the possibility of it becoming a reality and how some of Rick’s inventions would influence the business world. I hope it is not that obvious that I just really want to share this information and do not really know how to connect it with capitalism.
First of all, there is a thesis that Rick is a part of a philosophical trend – technopoly. “Our starting point will be Neil Postman’s conception of “technopoly,” which he defines as a “totalitarian technocracy,” meaning that technology comes to define and determine our societies at an ever increasing rate and intensity”. It is kind of similar to Marx’s point that we can divide society and its level of development by tools that people are using for work but not art, music or literature. That shows Rick’s attachment to its technologies even though he has no ambition to win some awards or especially help humanity.
“Our sense of meaning and purpose provided by traditional systems of value such as family, religion, community, or national identity has been transformed by technique. As a result, technology is becoming an end in itself. We have started to invent things just for the sake of inventing them”. When Rick turns himself into a pickle he says: “The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can’t, would be because they could, which they can’t.”
Thus, there are technologies which might become reality in some time or with much more effort. For instance, a freeze gun from the pilot episode. Scientist form the article claims: “It is probably the easiest thing to make. It’s simple: a high-powered liquid nitrogen gun”. Then the question comes to mind – if we can, why not – following the tendency from the 19th century – to invent for inventing. “Rick’s thing works sort of too fast and too localized for modern technology, but I can’t really say what might stop someone in the future from inventing a liquid nitrogen gun that could basically freeze someone almost instantly.”
I can not say that it would radically change our world, but it could have influenced on transportations of the products that were supposed to be delivered frozen. At the same time, we still do not need this cooling process to be localized that much in our case. Besides, it would only slightly influence the military world and its market because it is a gun that can freeze people instantly, but ice has a tendency to melt , so in some time most likely the soldier will survive and keep bringing harm to your land. All in all, it would be the same trend – invent for inventing. Even though it would be nice to have a freezing gun for self defence and for fun, obviously.
All in all, there are a lot of technologies that influence the business world, but there are also some that actually make no sense and bring no real impact. There are also different ways you can treat these technologies – you might accept their increasing influence in our daily life and be as Rick, who even outrages it and seeks to replace most things in his life with technologies. At the same time you can reject all of it and become an unemployed Jerry. If you care about my opinion, then I would offer you to pick that side which brings you the biggest amount of utility and joy – it doesn’t matter your awareness of modern technologies is on the level of Elon Musk or Morty Smith as long as it makes you happy.
“Ethics and Technology: An Analysis of Rick and Morty” – https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0155 received January 29, 2021; accepted April 20, 2021/ Open Philosophy 2022; 5: 1–16
The topic of digitalisation is quite mainstream nowadays. The fear of being watched all the time with no privacy became our routine reality. There are a lot of books and movies that show us how technology might be used by the government, evil corporation (which sometimes is the same thing) or crazy villain. For instance, The Mitchels vs The Machines, Black Mirror and well-known Orwell’s prophetic book. This topic is still being accurate and people keep arguing whether it is possible to replace people with machines.
Nevertheless, as we all know, technologies might be not only evil, but also quite useful – thanks God we do not have to wait for a dove to bring our letters anymore. This trend for digitalisation is followed not only by companies but also by the governments of different countries. The most digitized countries from the EU based on the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) are Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands and Ireland. However, in this article I want to extend my thoughts about one specific country. You might have never thought about it in such circumstances – especially right now, when you can see this country’s flag all over the world – blue sky and yellow field. Exactly,I am talking about Ukraine. This is my Motherland, so I would like people to know more about how awesome my country is.
The head of Ministry of Digital Transformations Mikhail Fedorov has launched both web-site and app called Diia -Дія ( https://diia.gov.ua/)where you have all your digital document and online public service. Let`s go through all of this with more details. First of all, the origin of the name comes from getting 3 words together – Government And I – Держава І Я (in case you know how to read in cyrylica), so in English it would be GAI. One more interesting quibble is that Diia in Ukrainian also means “action”.
A little bit more about the app itself – it is the folder where digital copies of user documents are stored. And they are officially recognized by the government as analogues of paper or plastic documents. At the initial stage, immediately after the launch of the application, only two documents could be kept in digital form – a driver’s license and a vehicle registration certificate. For a large part of Ukrainians who had neither, this application was useless, but it relieved drivers of the need to copy in the glove compartment and almost eliminated the danger of receiving a fine for forgotten rights. Later, the digitized documents were accompanied by an ID-passport, a biometric passport and a student card. Digital documents are verified using a QR code. “We plan that the e-passport will completely replace ID-cards and paper ones,” Mikhail Fedorov said. The Facebook page of the Ministry of Digital Transformations claims that Ukraine is the first country in the world where it is possible to use a digital passport and at the same time not present a paper or plastic analogue.
Despite that, in Diia you can include your vaccination certificate (both in Ukrainian and English). Also, to encourage people to vaccinate and use Diia, our government provided a service “isSupport” , where you can receive 1000 hrn via this app if you have a green COVID certificate and spend this money to buy books, gym membership or tickets to any cultural events to support business after COVID-19. The 1 000 hrn is €30 , which is enough in Ukraine to visit the cinema 2-3 times and buy 2 – 4 books. I can say that it was 100% effective based on my life experience. I originally come from a small town (almost a village), where we have almost no events and no cinema or theatre, so most of my friends and relatives have spent this money on books, even these ones, who never actually read.
Besides, you can pay fines, renovate some of your documents and even create a document to become an Individual entrepreneur.
Diia app is also accurate in current circumstances, as the “isSupport” service has changed its function, so now people from some particular regions who have lost their jobs because of the war can receive 7 500 hrn (€230), but this time they can spend them whenever they want. Additionally, via this app you can help Ukrainian army and inform them whether you have seen an enemy equipment of the occupiers or find a game “isBayraktar” where you are trying to bomb russian tanks.
To my mind, Diia is a very convenient and useful app, which helps us to be closer to our government and treat it better. Nevertheless, there are some problems that are currently trying to be solved. For instance, still not every person has a modern smartphone and even if they do, not everyone feels a need to understand how it works – now I am mostly referring to older people. Anyway, Ukrainian government has chosen the right direction of development and I am very proud of it.
The title was my first thought when I started my research about the sharing economy. The concept of it is so easy that it seems to be even obvious : you own a thing (car, cake recipe, room) that you do not currently need, so you lend it to someone else in exchange for money (using third parties, like Uber or Airbnb). To be honest, it is too simplified, but the main point is the same. The purpose of this article is to clarify whether the title’s statement is true or not. Also, the professor has told us that it is supposed to be witty, so be ready for stupid jokes.
Let’s see what we can find in common of sharing and collaborative economy – people share things ( goods and services); environmental benefits of non- over consuming, higher level of tight communication between communities, central control and decreased competition. I would like to extend my thoughts about some of these points. Thus, we receive environmental benefits when we decrease the need of owning things for every person, as a result we make the demand of its production much lower and some factories might be closed or reduce their working hours. Besides, we observe the slap in the capitalistic face, because this also means that my ( me as an average citizen) productivity will also be decreased a little bit, as I do not see the point of buying some expensive goods as car or university degree, so I can work less and do not have long term savings. Nevertheless, I personally do not consider it to be a negative phenomenon because in the long term perspective it might change values of our society. As a result, one day people may catch a thought that they exist not only to work to get a lot of money and consume everything they can see.
Overall, the previous paragraph, which I wrote a day ago and now trying to understand what it was about, explains the positive influence of the sharing economy as a part of a collaborative one. Now I would like to write about their differences and negative consequences. First of all, these two both have centralized hierarchy. Let me clarify, now we are talking about a sharing economy and not peer-to-peer one. So, what it means for us, as the participants of market relations. It leads to lack of control at the low parts of organizations. For instance, CEO of Uber has no idea what their freshman driver is up to – he is rapist, serial killer or worse – he has a horrible music taste and likes talking during the road. Additionally, the core difference between sharing and collaborative economies is hiding here. This centralized hierarchy shows us that the sharing economy is much closer to capitalism than it might seem at first, because in the end the drivers actually have low salaries and only people at the highest positions receive all the money. Of course, Uber helps them to find clients, but this scam still being unfair and rich people try to pay their workers as low as possible.
There is one more difference that proves us that the sharing economy is a child of McDonald’s and Zara. The main point of collaborative economy is that everyone owns approximately the same amount of assets, but sharing economy shows that rich people on Airbnb rent their apartments (they them own) to other people ( who do not actually own it) . It is especially highlighted in today’s realities, because there a lot of flat owners who raised the month rent to unbelievable prices to cash in on Ukrainian refugees.
To sum up, sharing economy is a nice invention from some points of view, but most likely it is not going to change society in a better way, but probably will help rich people to pay less and earn more. Answering the main question, sharing economy is too far from collaborative economy, so the title was just a clickbait, sorry guys.
