The “Mean Girls” might tell you ‘more is always better’, and Charmin might tell you ‘less is more’. The question of ‘more’ is always up for debate, but let’s look at ‘more’ a little differently. Moore’s Law states that “the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years”. Moor’s Law states “as technological revolutions increase their social impact, ethical problems increase”. In a sense, one can argue that Moore is Moor.
Moore’s Law has held up since the ‘70s, and it’s no surprise we’ve seen a boom in technological advances since then. We’ve also seen a boom in issues since then as well. Take for example the number of auto accidents due to distracted driving. After 2005, when cell phones started becoming widely available, such accidents increased 28% in a three year span. Since 2000, we’ve seen an increasing number of identity theft cases and data breaches. The advances and issues from social media could warrant its own dissertation.
Moor describes ‘technological revolutions’ similar to that of the Gartner hype curve. There’s an introduction stage, which brings us up to the hype curve ‘trough of disillusionment’, followed by a permeation stage similar to the curve’s ‘slope of enlightenment’. It’s once we reach the power stage (plateau of productivity) that Moor’s Law really kicks in.
Comparing these trends together makes a very convincing case for Moor’s Law in my opinion. We know mobile is still the way of the future, so I’ll stick with cell phones. The advancements in smartphone technologies has brought us to a world where citizens are becoming ever more accepting that our phones and other smart devices are constantly ‘spying’ on us. That debate is ongoing, but it’s something not many of us even thought of when smartphones first emerged. If true this is a glaring invasion of privacy. But it begs the question of whether it’s still unethical if society accepts it. Would we be ‘forced’ to accept this if it becomes buried in the terms and conditions of these devices?
I’d like to thank Mr. Moor for not only bringing this to light, but for making some recommendations as well. From his essay “Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies” I believe the best place to start is with his suggestion of “... better collaboration between ethicists, social scientists, and technologists…”. This trifecta of experts is a great way to understand how new technologies work, how the public might use them, and what can be done to prevent major issues.
New technologies can be both exciting and terrifying, and different people will make arguments for both sides. Big tech companies essentially run the world (devices, communication, social media, etc.), and it’s almost if they give us no room to compromise. Maybe we should just take the good with the bad. Maybe we can do something about it. Regardless of which side you’re on, I think it’s fair to say we can all benefit from ‘more’ thought on the topic.
Really interesting post. I hadn't read the first one, but it seems that you made a lot of improvements both in the writing and in the Blogger formatting (words not extending off page). I like your comparison between Moore and Moor, not only for the phonetics, but also because one is really responsible for the other. One thing that caught my attention was your assertion that we need more social scientists and ethicists working to mitigate the effects of social media and information technology in general. I always wonder where these types of people would be most effective, as it seems that the ethical thing to do might go against a big tech company's goal of increasing the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteThis is super interesting. I am familiar with what moor's law is, but i was not aware of the implication it had with ethics. I think your first two paragraphs are super strong, and you provide great evidence of issues that are arising with the increasing prevalence of technology, but after that it gets a little murky. I would really like if you introduced the cell ones are spying on us angle earlier and then talked more about the ethics of it. Maybe give both sides of the ethics debate (its ethical because its necessary and everyone accepts it vs people deserve privacy). I think the part about the gartner hype curve detracts more than it adds because the piece is so short. If you had more time to explain it, it would be great but in such a short blog it just adds confusion. You also don't really give your thoughts anywhere which i would also like to see. How do you feel about the cell phone saga, and what do you think its ethics are?
ReplyDeleteWow, you definitely made some great changes from the first version of your post! You added 'more' analysis on Moor's article, and I think you also did a better job of creating a connection with Moore's law. On your first post, I commented that you may want to further connect Moore's law to the post, as it seemed a bit disconnected, and you did a great job here of tying in Moore's law and making it relevant. Additionally, your use of images this time around definitely made a great contribution to the post. If I had to make a critique, I'd say you may want to bring up your own opinion in your last paragraph when you take about people having mixed opinions on the topic. Overall, however, your post is now very insightful and polished, and you make a strong case for why we should agree with Moor.
ReplyDelete