The human cost of technological 'progress'

Facebook and Google have been centres of attention over the past week, not because of accomplishments but because of the insights provided as to how top-echelon enterprises fail in the moral or social spheres.

Under the headline “Facebook’s news blockade in Australia shows how tech giants are swallowing the web”, Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, News and Digital Journalism, at Syracuse University, writes, “Just because advanced technology exists doesn’t mean it’s helpful in all situations or good.”

After the Christchurch, New Zealand, massacre of 51 Muslim worshippers in 2019, Grygiel was also able to identify where technology breakthroughs can have a devastating impact on society. The point of her article at that time is summed up in the headline, “Livestreamed massacre means it’s time to shut down Facebook Live”.

As to Google, it has been hauled over the coals since late last year for being more concerned over profit than the welfare of its staff and the true good of the public. The strife has been articulated by a Guardian journalist in this way:

“Google has recruited top scientists with promises of research freedom, but the limits are tested as researchers increasingly write about the negative effects of technology and offer unflattering perspectives on their employer’s products.”

Therefore, as a particular technology begins to hold sway in society it certainly is a fruitful exercise for the principal players to stand back and offer a transparent view for all to see and understand what kind of difficulties are arising. Those difficulties have to be taken seriously.

In a simple form, “multiple studies have found a strong link between heavy social media and an increased risk for depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-harm, and even suicidal thoughts. Social media may promote negative experiences such as: Inadequacy about your life or appearance.” This last point seems to be especially true for girls.

From a wider perspective, there is growing interest in the “’rules, norms and governance’ that should be applied to social media and technology companies”.

In the same way, the personnel working at developing technology, whether in the medical field or agriculture to name but two areas of concern, must have focused attention individually on the ethics of the direction they are taking. They must decide where the common good lies.

Taking such steps follows in the path of the 70 Manhattan Project scientists who signed nuclear pioneer Leo Szilard’s petition imploring President Truman not to use on Japan the atomic weapons they had developed. Unfortunately, Truman never got to see the petition before he made his decision to reject realistic alternatives and to kill in the order of 200,000 civilians.

With technology these days having an impact so widely and quickly, there's a clear case that all the smarts and beauty of technology do not negate the need to be alert as to the consequences of what can be done. There's conflict in working out where the boundaries of technological and scientific activity lie, but it is imperative that we accept that not everything that can be done should be done. 

After the populations if Hiroshima and Ngasaki were annihilated, Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the Manhattan Project, told Truman, "I have blood on my hands".