The New York Times > New York Region > Romance Beckons (in Case You Missed It) is a quirky little story about serendipity of love. Except this one involves craigslist and it's "missed connections" section. At the outset, I am tempted to discount this story, just like so many others, as nothing out of the ordinary. Well, it is out of the ordinary, but not unlike so many other similar instances of meetings in the airport, because the plane was delayed, in a bar, calling a number by mistake. People meet in a variety of different ways all the time. Sometimes these chance meetings turn into something more. Most of the time, they do not turn into anything more than a moment and a stranger that walks by. Statistically speaking the chance of something happening is low and is unlikely to be higher simply because you post in the craigslist "missed connections" section. Or is it?
Throughout my research and after actually talking to Craig Newmark on the phone, I realized that there is something to Craigslist. It is a community where people feel there are others like them. It is that place that succeeded in creating some serious social capital in a digital space and policy makers should be really taking a close look (of course they won't but that's another story). The point about craigslist is that people actually trust one another there, or at least are more likely to trust one another. They are also more likely to feel a minor sense of camaraderie simply because they are "in the know" about this "wonderous" place. After all, in SF, using craigslist is a sign of cool. So maybe, just maybe, the missed connections on craigslist actually ups the potential of a chance meeting. Not even the meeting itself, but, if the meeting were to occur, the possibility of it working out. Because there is something to it - a cohort of people, tied together by the same bizzarre interest in missed connections... the latent romantics are hiding on craigslist!
24 February, 2005
11 February, 2005
Ethics & Science
The following article in the New York Times talks about a Massachusetts Governor that opposes stem cell work on the basis of ethical considerations. Althought the article does point out the underlying theme of attitudes towards abortion that are mixed in with these ideas (the proponents of the bill to outlaw stem cell work also oppose abortion), there is something to the idea that ethics must figure into research agendas.
There are several reasons why ethics is often left on the fringes of the "cutting edge" of research, I think...
1. Ethics is hard to grasp without falling into dogmatic notions
2. Ethics imposes invisible boundaries
3. The principles put forward must be followed in all contexts in order for them to have the weight of validity
A lot of time, in advanced stages of research the sentiment is that we will worry about the "impacts" later, this is pure science. Except nothing is pure. Although it is impossible to predict down the road what impact a particular new theory, line of research or invention may have, it may be instructional and, ultimately, ethical, to attempt such prediction. I am not about to put forward personal attitudes towards stem cell research, simply because I do not know the context of that research and the technical details necessary to make such judgements. My thought, though, turn to HCI research that deals with various methods of surveillance and digitial technology that has been covertly helping its users build what Zook et al. (2004) aptly named "our digital shadows" that persist beyond the moment when the light is cast. The issues of disclosure, privacy and the right to be left alone have been sidestepped, or sometimes explicitly ignored as variables that add too much complexity to already difficult problems. I argue, however, that in refusing to consider these notions, we are building systems that do not consider these notions either, at their very base. Yes we can come up with bandaids and workarounds later, but if the base of the system does not consider these issues, none of the bandaids will work very well.
I think sometimes, science ignores the presence of ethics, gently side-stepping it in favor of progress under an argument that what is ethical now may become barbaric and unethical later and human notions are based far too much in the dogmatic tenets of current culture that prevent us from looking forward. On some level I agree with this argument. However, it may be good for technologists and scientists to consider what kind of world we are working towards, what are we trying to build, what kinds of outcomes are possible if we are right and if our research works and... would we be able to live with the worst of them? would the worst outcomes be a fair enough payment for the best outcomes? Who would be responsible?
There are several reasons why ethics is often left on the fringes of the "cutting edge" of research, I think...
1. Ethics is hard to grasp without falling into dogmatic notions
2. Ethics imposes invisible boundaries
3. The principles put forward must be followed in all contexts in order for them to have the weight of validity
A lot of time, in advanced stages of research the sentiment is that we will worry about the "impacts" later, this is pure science. Except nothing is pure. Although it is impossible to predict down the road what impact a particular new theory, line of research or invention may have, it may be instructional and, ultimately, ethical, to attempt such prediction. I am not about to put forward personal attitudes towards stem cell research, simply because I do not know the context of that research and the technical details necessary to make such judgements. My thought, though, turn to HCI research that deals with various methods of surveillance and digitial technology that has been covertly helping its users build what Zook et al. (2004) aptly named "our digital shadows" that persist beyond the moment when the light is cast. The issues of disclosure, privacy and the right to be left alone have been sidestepped, or sometimes explicitly ignored as variables that add too much complexity to already difficult problems. I argue, however, that in refusing to consider these notions, we are building systems that do not consider these notions either, at their very base. Yes we can come up with bandaids and workarounds later, but if the base of the system does not consider these issues, none of the bandaids will work very well.
I think sometimes, science ignores the presence of ethics, gently side-stepping it in favor of progress under an argument that what is ethical now may become barbaric and unethical later and human notions are based far too much in the dogmatic tenets of current culture that prevent us from looking forward. On some level I agree with this argument. However, it may be good for technologists and scientists to consider what kind of world we are working towards, what are we trying to build, what kinds of outcomes are possible if we are right and if our research works and... would we be able to live with the worst of them? would the worst outcomes be a fair enough payment for the best outcomes? Who would be responsible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)