I have a ethical question to throw 2

[rphips]

I have a ethical question to throw out.

Is it right to built programs and systems that lead to removal of hard working peoples jobs?

Such as the new technology known as Provisioning.
There are programs being developed and sold that connect to any system and does the following:
Creates users/Computers
Assign rights and access to folders
orders needed equipment
installs Apps needed
ect...

in otherwords all the work a system administrator does.
So is it right to build this program knowing the effect is going to be lay-offs and unemployed people?

Just thought I would ask.


bob

Jones' Law
The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of someone he can blame it on.

 

[kippy13]

Fair enough, understood.

***************************************
Looking for the best answers:
faq222-2244
Keeping your system clear of malware:
faq608-4650
***********************************
Dont forget to post back with the eventual resolution.
***************************************

 

[rphips]

To tell you the truth I just think technology is helping to widen the gap between the rich and the poor

Sure technology replaces workers and these workers need to find employment else where.

So is the money you make flipping burgers going to cover the money you lost as a IT professional or any other profession that is bieng replaced by technology.

Just remember everthing is replaceable and no one is safe from technology advances.



bob

Jones' Law
The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of someone he can blame it on.

 

[jsteph]

But what is wrong or new about technology replacing workers? When the wheel was invented it saved so much labor for those who previously had to drag heavy stuff across the ground. That wasn't a bad advancment.

The draggers who were put out of work eventually did something else--making more labor available (and cheaper now) for positions as, say, farmers, hole-diggers, whatever. Then when the power-shovel was invented, the hole-diggers went on to something else, and so on. It won't end here with computers, and it shouldn't
--jsteph

 

[lionelhill]

So what this all means, it doesn't matter if there's less work to do because of technology provided we're all getting extra free time to enjoy, and we're getting some satisfaction out of enjoying it?

 

[jsteph]

lionhill,
Yes...that's what it's all about. That's what most technological advancments do--from the wheel to the cotton gin to the computer. Labor and resources can shift to those areas that haven't been or can't be advanced technologically.

It's the shifts that are always the hard part, but it will happen, as it always does.

Maybe many of those workers displaced by computers (or by cheap offshore programming) will become plumbers. Then economics will do it's magic and the often joked-about high plumber rates will come down out of the stratosphere. Now you'll not only be able to get a plumber at 2 AM--but also it'll only cost you $50 instead of $500.

Ain't economics grand?
--jsteph

 

[MasterRacker]

The days of doing the same thing for an entire career are over. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is. If I had it to do over, I would be an electrician or carpenter instead but that's also immaterial as far as complaining about it goes. All careers that are more than pure menial labor are going to involve constant change from now on. It's up to us to keep up with it. There are a lot fewer blacksmiths now than 100 years ago, but I wouldn't want to go back to 100 years ago to bring back the blacksmith.

All progress and all technological advancement is good but that doesn't mean there anren't going to be growing pains.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Good point MasterRacker.

You say its bad but look at life 100 years ago. Was the average family better or worse off then you are now? Is technology widening the gap between rich and poor? I'm not sure it is. We are just talking the scale of numbers. The poverty level is rising (as it should be). Technology makes it possible to do things unheard of before. A single farmer can tend an exponentially larger sized farm compaired to even 50 years ago. No longer do some of these farms need hundred people or more to harvest food. Sure they are out of the harvesting job but move on to other areas. This makes the food cheeper which it turn means we can feed more people. US produces enough grain to feed all the starving people of the world (other countries are in a similar boat). Now we just have to get it to those that need it. There will always be the rich and there always will be the "poor" its just as we advance we should see the "poor" starving less and getting a proper education. In 100 years from now what do you think the poverty line will be like? I'd hope starvation and basic medical care will be tackled by then but have my doubts. But in western countries you'll probably see "poverty" in 100 years would be compairable to "middle class" of today. You'll be concidered under the poverty line when you can easily feed your family, only have to work 30 hours, have a place to live that is clean and safe and have medical coverage. Poverty will be that you don't have the luxuries that others do.

All technological advancements cause change. We are on the verge of a new era. Erradication of disease, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf. Things that are all possible because of computers and the programs written for them. I can tell you with 99.9999% assurance that a cure for cancer would not be found if we didn't have computers.

What we have to do as a society is look at the technological advancements and embrase them. As they make our lives easier we need to channel some of that back to those that are displaced. Its a lottery. Would you be upset if in 10 years they could mass produce automated operating room that can operate with an accuracy 10 times better then a human doctor letting 1 or 2 people do a procedure? Would it be wrong for doctors and nurses not to promote such an advancement because their future jobs are at risk? I know its less of a "Grey area" then a company streamlining but its still along the same path in my view.

Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[jsteph]

It's all relative. Consider the 'ghetto' denizen who's menially employed and living in relative poverty, and complaining about being poor. Then consider this same person in the 1950's.

The contemporary, he's driving, say, '91 chevy cavalier. It's got several computers on board, fuel injection, high-tech (relative) engine parts, he's living in a hi-rise project.

What would the '50's person say if you told him he could have a car with *several* computers--which probably have power equal to the ENIAC of the day which cost millions of dollars!! And a fuel-injection--like James Dean's Porsche had! WOW!! I'd be RICH!! Yeah, the future of us poor folks looks good. And I'd be living in a Hi-rise??!! With an automatic fire-sprinkler system--wow-today only the super rich have automatic fire-sprinklers in their buildings! Man, just like the rich folks in Manhattan! Yeah, things are looking good!

You can see that, relative to things now these might not be a big deal. A fuel injected car is the norm, even the lowly cars have that, same with on-board computers. Etc, etc...I could go on and on about all sorts of things that even poverty-level people have the truly do enhance quality of life, but since the bar has been raised, the person still considers himself poor in relative terms (and poverty is relative), but he is better off then he was years ago.

I didn't mean to get into a big social comentary, but the point is that as technology advances, it just raises the bar and as everyone arrives at the new 'high water mark' of where technology is, we're all still looking forward, wishing we could be at the next level, and maybe not looking back and appreciating where we've come.

So bottom line: I'm glad we no longer have to manually separate the cotton from the seeds, thanks to the cotton gin, and we should be glad we don't have to do xxxxx, thanks to computer technology, even though those who currently do xxxxx will be out of a job for some time.
--jsteph

 

[KornGeek]

I find it interesting that in a different thread (that was about environmental issues), a couple of people mentioned "Big Oil" supressing alternatives that might be better for the environment.

By refusing to work on a program that might be an alternative to an IT worker, wouldn't you be doing essentially the same thing?