• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Unethical use of technology

Mossey

New Member
Hello everybody,

I perform a research about ethics and technology and I need some examples of cases where companies/governments used technology in an unethical way - no older than 15 years. The fresher, the better. If you could, please, mention some - I would be grateful. If you don't feel like giving me details I am happy with just name of the case.

Thank you upfront
 

Dr4gon

Registered Member
V.I.P.
The NSA spying on every citizen and on businesses too. The information they collect could be used for corrupt political and business agendas... and probaly has been.

Tasers. Are they really less harmful than guns? They can be used on people that arent really guilty of a crime and cause permanent nerve damage.

Lasers. Theres proof that they have been used at sports events to distract the players so they can be used to fix a game. A company could win a lot of money if they had bets placed on the game.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I think most technology could be used for unethical reasons. Wait until these tiny drones the size of bugs fly into your house to see what you are doing. Its all to keep us safe but who is going to watch the watchers?
 

ReasontoBelieve

Registered Member
Technology can be used ethically or unethically, depending on its purpose and who is behind its inventor and manufacturer. Generally Albert Einstein was not considered an evil scientist. However I believe they needed his help to create the atomic bomb or the a bomb. this technologically is unethical and kills thousands of people in one drop. Or what we call mass destruction. The military try to use smaller arms to target their points only to get those responsible. . Still that is a technology that also kills people.
Some want to use technology for good purposes,while others will use them for wrong and selfish reasons.
For example someone will invent a way to lock your house door. Then someone will invent something how to get inside the system to open the door that is locked. For every good idea also comes a bad idea to counteract against. While hackers are finding their ways into computers, companies has to come up with new codes to try to stop the hackers. What do the hackers do then? they learn the new system and try to break in again. This is the technology of good and evil. .
Our goal then is to support good technology. . Buy yourself security systems to keep your house safe. . Use your heater than the old fire place that pollutes the atmosphere. To help the environment and the world, it is an effort of people working for the good in the same purpose. Because if many people counteract against good technology, then we live in a more dangerous world. As the saying goes, don't depend on the other person to make the change. Rather you make the first move and set to be a good example. So then you say what you mean. . We can't control everyone, but in small ways we can make a difference in the world.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
The development and deployment of the A bomb brings up an ethical dilemma...

Is it ethical to drop bombs to kill or injure 200 thousand to end a war that might well have costs the lives of millions if it had been allowed to continue?


Any technology can be used unethically. GM knew certain models of it's vehicles had potentially fatal starter switch issues but kept it quiet because one of their execs figured out that it was cheaper to pay liability for the deaths than to recall the vehicles and fix the problem before anyone was killed. There are still cars on the road with this issue that could cause the car to spontaneously lose control and braking. Pharmaceutical companies create cancer drugs that are significantly more expensive but generally no more effective than the tried and true ones used by hospitals nation wide, then discontinue the cheaper ones causing shortages and ultimately deaths to force demand for their new products. And don't even get me started on Monsanto. (And people wonder why I am so cynical of corporations).


The nitty gritty is this, until society stops obsessing over economic priorities and starts focusing with equal vigor instead on social ones, technology will continue to be looked at as an avenue for greed rather than social benefit. In fact, until this happens "social benefit" will just be a marketing buzz term and nothing more. If this sounds idealistic and unachievable than consider that perception to be societies death sentence. As Albert Einstein put it "You can't solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it."


Given societies historical resistance to adopting higher levels of consciousness, I cringe at the future prospects of existing trends. We all know how long it took to accept that the world wasn't flat and parked at the center of the Universe. How much longer will it take society to accept that money isn't the center of the Universe either?




- Chameleon

P.S. Here's food for thought... Money (Economics) is a type of technology. How ethically has it been used since it's invention?
 
Last edited:

ReasontoBelieve

Registered Member
it is not that simple to say that the A Bomb was the right solution. Yes, it did end the war. Sure as powerful as that bomb was.. Japan probably thought the world was coming to an end.


The A Bomb had never been fully tested. But, I guess they believe the bomb would work well enough. This bomb also killed a number of innocent people who had no involvement in the war. The radiations caused people to die outside of the explosion itself. That's why the United States had written a number of apologies letters to Japan about using the A Bomb. Because the method also was inhumane in the same token of its purpose.


Let's say for example that the police shot the whole family knowing the father was the only one responsible. That's not fair. Neither is the atom bomb. They could use other bombs and or arsenal to attack their targets. The A Bomb was still more like an experiment. It was not tested long enough to know what impact it makes.


Today the US tries to create weapons that will hit their targets only if possible. Because even in war, you need to have compassion on the innocent that have no involvement unlike many of those in world war two that got killed all over the map.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Everyone was involved in the war. That's why it was called a "World War". The dropping of regular bombs would never have ended the war, it took something that would put the fear of god in people the world over and the A bomb does exactly that. Conventional war kills more than it's share of innocent people so that's not an argument against having used the bomb. However, one good argument against it was that, at the time, there was a concern that it could IGNITE THE ATMOSPHERE and KILL US ALL! But too much testing would have been both economically unfeasible at the time, and would have tipped our hand. Time was of the essence so the powers that be decided it was worth the gamble. Fortunately, they were right... this time.


As far as reducing collateral damage in combat, there have been some advancements made for sure, but there is still a very long way to go. Smart bombs still kill a great many civilians. Personally I think the best technology for war is the type that would incapacitate targets rather than kill them. When we get to that stage (assuming our species can survive that long) then I think we'll have made a huge stride toward world peace.



- Cham
 
Top