ESPINOZA, DAENIELLE AUDREY M.
BSA 2
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY 2:30 – 4:00 PM MT
A. Readings:
Read the following articles/essay and answer the guide questions given (individually)
1. Please read on Klaus Schwab’s the Fourth Industrial Revolution from this link
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-
means-and-how-to-respond/, give at least three insights on how to respond on the
impact of technologies to human life.
The first insight is on how businessmen and entrepreneurs will respond to
technologies. Business pioneers and senior administrators need to comprehend their
evolving condition, challenge the suppositions of their working groups, and steadily
and persistently advance. A key pattern is the improvement of technology-enabled
platforms that consolidate both interest and flexibly to disturb existing industry
structures, for example, those we see inside the "sharing" or "on demand" economy.
These platforms, rendered simple to use by the cell phone, meet individuals,
resources, and information—therefore making completely better approaches for
devouring products and ventures simultaneously. Physical items and services, besides,
would now be able to be improved with digital abilities that expand their worth. New
advancements make resources progressively tough and flexible, while information and
examination are changing how they are kept up. Moreover, they bring down the
boundaries for organizations and people to make riches, modifying the individual and
expert conditions of laborers. These new platform businesses are quickly increasing
into numerous new administrations, extending from clothing to shopping, from tasks
to stopping, from back rubs to travel.
The second insight is on how the government will adapt into new ways of
technology. The government will progressively confront pressure to change their
present way to deal with open commitment and policymaking, as their focal job of
directing strategy lessens inferable from new wellsprings of rivalry and the
redistribution and decentralization of intensity that new innovations make
conceivable. A key to deal with the present issue regarding technology is by
embracing a digitize governance, just as the private sector has increasingly adopted
nimble responses to software development and business operations more generally.
This means regulators must continuously adapt to a new, fast-changing environment,
reinventing themselves so they can truly understand what it is they are regulating. To
do so, governments and regulatory agencies will need to collaborate closely with
business and civil society. As this procedure happens and new innovations, for
example, self-ruling or natural weapons become simpler to utilize, people and little
gatherings will progressively join states in being fit for causing mass mischief. This
new defenselessness will prompt new feelings of dread. And yet, propels in
innovation will make the possibility to diminish the scale or effect of savagery,
through the advancement of new methods of security, for instance, or more
noteworthy exactness in focusing on.
The last but not the least is on how we, people of the community will respond
into technologies. Being a student and an early adopter of advancement, I still wonder
whether the inflexible reconciliation of innovation in our lives could reduce a portion
of our classic human limits, for example, compassion and cooperation. Our
relationship with our mobile phones is a substantial model. Steady connection may
preclude us from securing one of life's most critical assets: a chance to delay, reflect,
and partake in significant conversation. Outstanding amongst other individual troubles
introduced by new information progresses is assurance or merely privacy. We
instinctively appreciate why it is so major, yet the accompanying and sharing of
information about us is an essential bit of the new system. Conversations about
significant issues, for instance, the impact on our internal presences of the loss of
order over our data will simply increase in the years ahead. Therefore, the
progressions happening in biotechnology which is renaming being human by pushing
back the current furthest reaches of future, success, knowledge, and limits, will move
us to rethink our incredible and great limit focuses.
2. “The ethical dilemmas faced by Robotics”. What are these dilemmas faced by
robotics?
Isaac Asimov was already thinking about these problems back in the 1940s,
when he developed his famous "three laws of robotics". He argued that intelligent
robots should all be programmed to obey the following three laws:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not
conflict with the First or Second Law
These three laws may appear to be a decent method to shield robots from
hurting individuals. Be that as it may, to a roboticist they present a greater number of
issues than they settle. Actually, programming a genuine robot to keep the three laws
would itself be exceptionally troublesome.
For a beginning, the robot would should have the option to differentiate people
from comparable looking things, for example, chimpanzees, sculptures and humanoid
robots.
This might be simple for us people, yet it is an extremely difficult issue for
robots, as anybody working in machine vision will let you know.
3. “Is google making us stupid”? Why does google making us stupid? Is google making
us really stupid?
The issue with Google and with the Internet by and large is that at the point
when we utilize our computers and our cellphones continuously, we're constantly
occupied. The internet assaults us with messages and different bits of information, and
all of those interferences breaks our line of reasoning. We end up thoughtless. The
truth of the matter is, you'll never think profoundly in case you're continually
Googling, messaging, and surfing. Google doesn't need us to back off. The quicker we
zoom over the Web, clicking connections and skimming words and pictures, the more
advertisements Google can show us and the more cash it makes. So, even as Google is
giving every one of us that helpful data, it's additionally reassuring us to think hastily.
It's making us shallow. But that is when you only think of google as a type of
entertainment of icebreaker to you boredom.
Today, Google is the new innovation. The Internet contains the world's best
composition, pictures, and thoughts; Google lets us locate the significant pieces in a
flash. Similarly as a vehicle permits us to move quicker and a telescope lets us see
more distant, access to the Internet's data lets us think better and quicker. By thinking
about a wide scope of data, we can show up at increasingly inventive and educated
arrangements. Web clients are bound to be presented to a decent variety of thoughts.
In governmental issues, for instance, they are probably going to see thoughts from left
and right, and perceive how news is accounted for in different nations.
There's no uncertainty the Internet can make interruptions. Yet, 81 percent of
specialists surveyed by the Pew Internet Research Project say the open doors exceed
the interruptions. Socrates wasn't right to fear the happening to the composed word:
Writing has improved our law, science, expressions, culture, and our memory. At the
point when the historical backdrop of our present age is composed, it will say that
Google has made us more brilliant—both independently and all in all—since we have
prepared and free access to data.
4. “Why the future does not need us”. Give at least three concerns raised by Bill Joy in
this essay, why the future does not need us.
Joy’s concerns center around the changing advancements of the 21st century—
genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR). What is especially risky about them is
their capability to self-recreate. This makes them naturally more hazardous than
twentieth century advancements—atomic, organic, and synthetic weapons—which are
costly to assemble and require uncommon crude materials. On the other hand, 21st-
century advances take into consideration little gatherings or people to realize
enormous pulverization. Joy additionally contends that we will before long
accomplish the processing power important to execute a portion of the situations
imagined by Kurzweil and Moravec, however stresses that we overestimate our plan
capacities. Such hubris may prompt calamity.
For instance, robotics is fundamentally inspired by the longing to be
everlasting—by downloading ourselves into them. However, Joy doesn't accept that
we will be human after the download or that the robots would be our youngsters. With
respect to genetic engineering, it will make new harvests, plants, and in the long run
new species including numerous varieties of human species, however Joy fears that
we don't realize enough to securely lead such examinations. What's more,
nanotechnology defies the supposed issue which is self-duplicating that will making
nanobots wild. To put it plainly, we might be nearly murdering ourselves! Is it not
self-important, he ponders, to structure a robot substitution animal varieties when we
so regularly commit plan errors?
Joy presumes that we should give up these advances before it's past the point
of no return. Truly, GNR may bring satisfaction and everlasting status, however
would it be advisable for us to chance the endurance or the species for such
objectives? Joy thinks not.
