http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8352606.stm


A new computer has been created for old people that may never have used a computer before allowing them to gain better access and reap the benefits of the world wide web. New representations through the use of this new interface will be seen on the Internet. Will it help alleviate fears of technology or really allow for greater inclusiveness of technologies by this new underrepresented group on the Internet. Will it really reduce the age gap "digital divide" with newer interfaces like this? Or will just be useful for old people that have knowledge of the Latin script as oppose to other racially variant old people? Another gap maybe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8314442.stm

This article is another one of those regenerative therapies article that use of stem-cell technology to reverse aging because first world countries are suffering the "problem" of ageing populations and that comes with a whole list of health problems which leaves states the burden of an aging populations taking a toll on health care.

I have major contention with the whole issue of stem cell technologies and regenerative therapies for the aged, for smokers who require transplant because of their carefree consumption of cigarettes in their early lives and the excessive investment in these research areas for scientist to grow parts of bodies for first world individuals with access to have the ability to replace their parts and live longer. Is it really ethical for us to be investing millions of dollars creating such technologies for individuals that suffer the diseases of having too much worldly excesses as oppose to feeding the 1 billion people starving in the world today? How ethical is this to replace the lung of an avid smoker as oppose to feeding a polio stricken starving child in the arid lands of Africa? Is is just to replace the kidney of an obese diabetic American as oppose to providing basic healthcare in the rural towns of India or China that are still suffering the disease of poverty like malaria, polio, tuberculosis and cholera? Have we got our investments and priorities put in all the wrong places? I know this is a very strong statement to make put it presents the analogy that supports my ideology aptly... I would really consider investing thousands of dollars in getting my excessive eating diabetic and cholesterol stricken grandmother cured as opposed to curing many third world diseases with that money. However, I agree that this is not as easy it sounds but it seems to me...we have a huge ethical dilemma here.

Anger at UK file-sharing policy:

ISP's have reacted angrily towards UK's government's stance on tougher laws for file-sharing offenders by cutting them off from the net completely. There is a big debate as to how effective this would be when there are 6 MILLION file-sharers in the UK. This is a big number that could cause quite a significant economic loss.

But what is interesting is that 6 million people are considered offenders. This is a huge number however, there seems to be a collective ideology of this 6 million that nothing is wrong and that file-sharing is not that big a deal. The problem herein lies that the government doesn't see something principally wrong with the law when 6 million people are breaking it? Could there be an argument for file sharing seeing how it is a community effort and exchange and a sphere for learning and that 6 million people are involve in this effort? Should certain copyright laws be re-looked especially when society does not see the need to its adherence? In this instance, we see a sort of revolt or a ignorance to such laws by a rather extraordinary number of people hence, does that show something severely wrong with the law in the first place when individuals refuse to adhere particularly because they see absolutely nothing wrong with it?

This article is about online misinformation on social networking sites such as twitter and in this case it particularly pertains to health. It has got to do with swine flu and how people on Twitter have manage to spread panic and hyper- vigilance among online users with inaccurate information about the virus. The virus has become a viral not just in reality but online as well.

Netizens are not taking responsibility for the accuracy of their information and spread false rumours about the virus. For example netizens post up suggestions such as not eating pork and advising other netizens to take wrong ailments and remedies. This poses a huge problem because the information netizens pass on the online world has a much wider and diverse reach and many a time other online netizens do not have the knowledge or ability to discern accurate from inaccurate information.

The assumption with regards to this ethical question is that health and life are inherently valuable and need to be protected and that the spreading of false information with regards to health without scientific backing can possibly violate the sanctity of life and health and can jeopardize the life of an individual.

So should people on social networking sites such as Twitter knowing that they have a much wider reach to the global population feel a sense of obligation, ethicality and responsibility by posting up accurate information online or should the onus be on individuals that go online to be able to discern accurate and credible information from inaccurate ones and take it upon themselves to know right from wrong and if they are unable to do so, should they be online in the first place?