View All Pages

Fitz: Manifesto

Manifesto Part I: Normative Statements

  1. Any software aimed toward education ought to be free or subsidize by the government.

This is a basic principle that states that any software developer who creates programs, games, or other material that is educational shall be free. I adopted this principle because I have seen what underprivileged children can do with access to technology, and I think it is wrong to withhold them from that opportunity. This idea was sparked from The Second Machine Age as well as the video including Brynjolfsson we watched in class. Brynjolfsson is someone who I would consider an expert in the technology field and all the studies he conducted proved over and over again that children with nothing can learn anything, given the technology. I don’t think that there would be many negative side effects of this, so long as governments were willing to subsidize it, and the positive implications would be immense. Of course, this is already happening on some level, however, with how we will be able to learn online in fifty years, it could happen on a much larger level. Children with little to no formal education could perform in the workplace with anyone else, and perhaps some issues with equality could also be addressed. For example, some of the learning material could teach equality with race, religion, gender, etc. With everyone in the world growing up with access to these ideas and morals, we could see a decline in bigotry. Widespread free technology has too many widespread implications to fit in one manifesto, which is why I think it is a very serious topic and should be considered for the final manifesto.

[1] E. Brynjolfsson and A. McAfee, The second machine age.

 

  1. Everyone ought not to use genetic modification unless it is to solve an acute medical condition unless it is considered extremely detrimental to life.

It is very easy to see how genetic modification could get out of hand, so the principle of this statement is to avoid abuse of genetic modification. If people begin to alter parts of themselves or their children that they do not need to, this concept could fall down a very slippery slope. Not only could this become very dangerous for those making genetic modifications, but also people will most likely try to modify their kids before they are old enough to consent to it. This abuse of genetic modification could also lead to much greater gap in equality. Some people having the ability to literally transform how they look and act without bound would, without a doubt in my mind, lead to a massive influx of inequality. Of course, there are many other possible downsides of genetic engineering including birth defects and a lack of genetic diversity that are talked about in my source. Some implications of adopting this manifesto would be that there would most likely be some pushback from the very wealthy who wish to change themselves or their children. I also think that the line between what kind of modification is actually needed and justified would be a bit of a hard one to find, however, it is still needed for the good of humanity. I think that this normative statement or some adaptation of it would be an important addition to the overall manifesto because we need to put some sort of cap on this before it gets out of hand.

[2]"Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - Conserve Energy Future", Conserve Energy Future, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-genetic-engineering.php. [Accessed: 03- Apr- 2018].

 

 

  1. Education ought to be modified in a way that better suits the needs of the future.

The school system as we know it has been run in the same way for a very long time in the united states, and while it seems to do a decent job of teaching children how to do basic arithmetic, reading, and writing, those are not the primary skills needed in the work force today. It is well known that technology is evolving rather rapidly in the world today, however, standards in K-12 education have changed a minimal amount. It is very surprising to me that there hasn’t been a bigger, faster push for more relevant skills to be taught in the classroom. The main reason why I adopted this principle is based off what I see every day. Many people are put in situations with technology where they simply do not have the basis of knowledge to use it efficiently, and there really is no reason why they couldn’t have been taught that through schooling. I also think that this principle pairs nicely with my first, in that technology could be taught through software that is free, and thus could be accessed by a huge range of children, and even adults. If the world does actually get to a place where it becomes sink or swim, and those with extensive knowledge of technology are the ones who swim, then I think governments, corporations, and especially education systems are responsible for spreading this knowledge as far and to as many people as possible. The best implication of this in my mind is simply an increase in equality throughout the world and the workplace. This statement would be a great addition to the class manifesto because it is directly aimed at something that would benefit humanity and promote equality as a whole.

[3] D. Mareco, "10 Reasons Today’s Students NEED Technology in the Classroom", Securedgenetworks.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10-reasons-today-s-students-need-technology-in-the-classroom. [Accessed: 03- Apr- 2018].

 

  1. Everyone ought to have face to face interaction with other people on a regular basis.

Elaborate mannerisms and communication are some of the very traits the separate humans from other animals. Being able to communicate face to face is also the best way to communicate emotions and feelings that can’t be replicated over the phone or by test message. As discussed in my source for this statement, nonverbal cues are one of the most important aspect of human communication and as I’m sure everybody in our class knows, not having them as a part of the conversation can lead to some very bad miscommunication. It is in our nature to try and read nonverbal cues as well as body language when we are talking to others to understand how they are feeling during a conversation. I think that if we eliminated face to face communication through technology we would lose one of the most important aspects of human communication. Because of logistical reasons there are still going to be very many times where we send a text or call someone quickly, however, I think that we need to make a conscious effort to meet up when possible. The implications of the adoption of this principle would be immensely positive for most people. I think that many have gone so long without legitimate human conversion or interaction that they forgot how refreshing and beneficial it really is. Talking to someone face to face allows for full communication without any limitations of technology and shows us in our natural form. Some adoption of this statement would be great for the whole classes manifesto because I think that all of us appreciate the value of human to human contact and see how necessary it is going forward.

[4] "The Importance of Face-to-Face Communication", Ashton College, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.ashtoncollege.ca/the-importance-of-face-to-face-communication/. [Accessed: 03- Apr- 2018].

 

  1. People ought to use a significant portion of their time creating art.

The primary principle here is that since we are human, creating original artwork, one way or another, is a big portion of what makes us human. In some future fifty years from now, it seems that many of todays popular jobs will be being performed by robots or machines. Assuming this is the case, and even if it isn’t, I think that in order to maintain our humanity we must all put effort forth to create some form of artwork. It doesn’t particularly matter what type of art this is, the importance stems from the fact that creating art is unique to us, and we must make sure that we take advantage of that. Whether you’re rich, poor, or anywhere in between, robots will most likely be doing a large part of your daily responsibilities for you. Because of this, I think that it is safe to assume that a majority of the population will have plenty of time on its hands, so there are no reasons why creating art would be particularly difficult. Somewhat ironically, the source that I chose for this principle is for Khan Academy which plays a role in a couple of my other statements. An implication of more people making art is that many would develop a more creative mind, which as we have discussed, is one of the best ways for humans to compete with robots in a future economy where menial labor has been completely taken care of. An argument like this could be imperative for our classes manifesto because most have agreed in class that the future of labor looks very different than current labor does. Perhaps artwork will become a form of currency or very valuable in the future, however, we really have no way of knowing. I am fairly sure, though, that artwork will be of keen importance regardless and we should make sure that everyone is contributing.

 

[5]"The Big Question: Why is art important?", Khan Academy, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/tate/get-started-here/welcome-to-tate/a/the-big-question-why-is-art-important. [Accessed: 03- Apr- 2018].

 

  1. Peoples data ought not be used in a way that takes advantage of them.

At this point it seems obvious that people are willing to give up lots of information about themselves for most any convenience available. Many times, people simply do not want to read the terms or conditions, or they want the technology that is being offered so badly that they do not really care what it says. Regardless, it is not acceptable for technology companies to use that data in ways that could be considered derogatory for the user. I consider any attempt to manipulate people’s beliefs derogatory if they do not know that they are being manipulated. For inspiration of this principle I found an article by Forbes which shows how much data is being collected by companies, and how they’re trying to get even more. At this point it really is just a matter of trust because they do have the data. The obvious example here is Facebook, which has been under a lot of fire recently. An implication of this principle being implemented in some society fifty years from now, or hopefully even sooner, is that problems like this would never come about. The hope is that all corporations and even governments would operate under the assumption that everyone deserves to have their data protected. I think that it is imperative that some variation of this principle is adopted to the manifesto for the whole class because we can see that companies privilege to data is already being abused today. One can only imagine what kind of data these companies can store in the future and what potential damage they could do with that data.  

[6]"Forbes Welcome", Forbes.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2016/04/18/for-consumers-data-is-a-matter-of-trust/#3f7be0478b31. [Accessed: 03- Apr- 2018].

Andrew Fitz