Whether we use a new technology for good or evil reflects our character as individuals and as a society, not the character of the technology. Even something generally considered beneficial like antibiotics causes problems if selfishly misused. To be considered good or evil, volition is required. Technology doesn't have volition. Only people do.
Giving anti-biotics for every situation that doesn't even require them puts a huge burden on your body. I swear one of these days people will go the emergency room because they "have a pimple", and they'll immediately be given a round of antibiotics. Nothing would surprise me these days anymore :)
Antibiotics have become so commonplace that they're prescribed for just about anything.
Antibiotics don't cure what caused the problem, to heal you need to look beyond temporary band-aids.
They don't just kill bad bacteria, they also kill good bacteria. Without good bacteria, it's likely you'll develop food intolerance with repeated antibiotic use. You might develop absorption issues, and then nutrient deficiencies.
They should be given only when there's no other alternative, only when it's absolutely necessary, but it's given out like candy by lazy doctors (though I bet they do it because parents insist, since it gives the illusion of "doing something" to help.)
It's better to take really good care of your body so it can fight infections on its own, but then again people are told constantly to eat food that's not good for us, and to not eat food that is good for us, so it's no wonder so many people get sick so often.
Every good product has at least a handful of people who are allergic to it. Someone with evil intent could knowingly give the antibiotic to someone with a known allergy to it. I have an acquaintance with an allergy to one of the more popular antibiotics. Unfortunately, he didn't know of his allergy and missed 3-4 weeks of work because of it.
The whole point is that it's not the technology that causes the problem, it's the user. In the case of antibiotics, an evil dictator could restrict their use in his nation to people of one ethnicity, so that members of other groups quickly died from easily curable diseases.
It's not the antibiotics being used for evil in your scenario, it's the lack of them. It's like saying water can be used for evil by depriving people of it. That's not at all the same thing as a technology which really can be used for both good and evil, like nuclear power.
Exactly. Technology is like water. It's neutral. You could supply water to thirsty people or destroy the environment through hydraulic strip mining. You could build a dam and flood a village of people you don't like. I'm sure diabolic minds could come up with a way to do evil with antibiotics if that was all they had to work with.
Water is that way, sure, but the specific example I gave isn't an evil use of water. What about antibiotics? Your only example of how to cause harm using them is by not giving them to people, which just shows that when they are used, they cause good.
Reducing their effectiveness if bad enough. Causing superresistant strains of pathogens in industrial animal farming settings destroys our power against disease and causes death and suffering. How is that not evil?
My point was that it doesn't support the "technology is neutral" meme. A world with antibiotics is always going to be better than one without them. The worst you can do with them is make them less beneficial.
People have been sounding the alarm of destructive new technologies for hundreds of years, but somehow the most technologically-advanced nations are also those with healthier, longer-lived populations. It seems that people and societies adapt over time to new technologies in ways that mitigate possible harm, while the benefits tend to remain.
And what's the alternative? Are you going to ban human inventiveness and forbid innovation? Good luck with that.
In the Black Country in the UK about 30 years ago we saw a number of foundries packaged up and moved to Bihar. I can't find references at present, but I'll keep looking.
However, the overall picture is one of gain through industrial technology I think.
Media technology might be different because it makes a commodity out of our experience. Not sure how that will change things.
>Whether we use a new technology for good or evil reflects our character as individuals and as a society
You'd agree fossil fuel powered engines have been a good thing for humanity in the past 100 years? It would be hard not to agree. Fast travel, ability go grow huge amount of food for the population, just about every modern convenience is based on what they have allowed.
That said, they have also enabled two world wars, mass lead poisoning of societies, smog and other pollution types, global warming, and possible catastrophic collapse of the global population if it stops flowing.
What defines individual selfishness when the effect is close to insignificant per person, but the long term accumulated effects can be disastrous.
which snowflake caused the avalanche?
Emergent behavior can be hard to predict. If you march across a bridge its fine. If a 300 person marching team does it collapses. Where is the volition in the collapse? At what number does something meaningless (or possible good) become harmful? Trying to measure such things as binary, black or white, good or evil when it is the improper unit to measure them will lead to failure.
Stone Age headline:
"Critics decry new bow and arrow technology: Say it will destroy camaraderie among spear-wielding hunters and breed cowardice in the younger generation"
Stone Age headline: "Critics decry new bow and arrow technology: Will lead to world wars with nuclear weapons, automated drone strikes against civilians."
