How far should a compassionate society go to prevent harm?

[Akrasia]

This is intended as a hypothetical scenario, just to see what people here think.

Lets say a new communication technology is invented that is a significant improvement over the current tech available. Far higher speeds, far less physical infrastructure required (and therefore cheaper to provide) and far more reliable.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. the vast majority of the population would experience no ill effects from this pervasive technology, but a proportion will be 'allergic' to the waves (that will be everywhere and impossible to avoid) and will suffer chronic headaches and debilitating physical pain for their entire lives or until the technology is no longer used.

Should a compassionate society use that technology? Should we sacrifice a minority for increased quality of life for everyone else or for an improved economy?

What threshold of sufferers would be an acceptable level of sufferers, 1/1000? 1/100? 1/10?

Should millions of people be sacrificed if it benefits hundreds of millions?

[floatingingalway]

This is intended as a hypothetical scenario, just to see what people here think.

Lets say a new communication technology is invented that is a significant improvement over the current tech available. Far higher speeds, far less physical infrastructure required (and therefore cheaper to provide) and far more reliable.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. the vast majority of the population would experience no ill effects from this pervasive technology, but a proportion will be 'allergic' to the waves (that will be everywhere and impossible to avoid) and will suffer chronic headaches and debilitating physical pain for their entire lives or until the technology is no longer used.

Should a compassionate society use that technology? Should we sacrifice a minority for increased quality of life for everyone else or for an improved economy?

What threshold of sufferers would be an acceptable level of sufferers, 1/1000? 1/100? 1/10?

Should millions of people be sacrificed if it benefits hundreds of millions?

Eh...is there a point to this?

[TradCat]

In a democratic society they could sue and the compensation claims would make the technology unviable. For example if it was proved that mobile phone masts directly caused cancer even in a few cases they would all have to come down because the companies would be liable.

Y'see people have rights.

[Akrasia]

This is intended as a hypothetical scenario, just to see what people here think.

Lets say a new communication technology is invented that is a significant improvement over the current tech available. Far higher speeds, far less physical infrastructure required (and therefore cheaper to provide) and far more reliable.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. the vast majority of the population would experience no ill effects from this pervasive technology, but a proportion will be 'allergic' to the waves (that will be everywhere and impossible to avoid) and will suffer chronic headaches and debilitating physical pain for their entire lives or until the technology is no longer used.

Should a compassionate society use that technology? Should we sacrifice a minority for increased quality of life for everyone else or for an improved economy?

What threshold of sufferers would be an acceptable level of sufferers, 1/1000? 1/100? 1/10?

Should millions of people be sacrificed if it benefits hundreds of millions?

Eh...is there a point to this?

This is a discussion forum

And it is relevant given that many new technological advances bring with them many health problems (carcinegens and athsma being the most common problem)

Should we as a society forego certain technological advances to protect innocent people from harm.

(One example off hand is nano-fibers in cosmetics and clothing and cleaning products that may pose a serious long term risk to people's health as they are inhaled or absorbed through the skin. The nanotechnology industry is worth hundreds of billions and is only going to rise. Should we allow the industry to make billions in profits at the expense of human health?)
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... 04-19.html

[floatingingalway]

That's what I meant. It's happening already all around us- carbon monoxide poisoning, water poisoning, mobile phone technology (highly probable), radiation, carcinogens in many foods we eat. I could go on and on. As long as corporations and not governments decide what is good for us we will all be sacrificed for an improved ecopnomy

[Akrasia]

In a democratic society they could sue and the compensation claims would make the technology unviable. For example if it was proved that mobile phone masts directly caused cancer even in a few cases they would all have to come down because the companies would be liable.

Y'see people have rights.

They do indeed. But how far do those rights extend?


In America laws were passed to make it illegal to sue gun and automobile companies for damage from the use of their products (even when those products suffer obvious design flaws that seriously increase the risk from using them)
Tobacco law suits have all either been defeated, or frustrated by the constant legal challenges from the hugely resourced tobacco companies.

Exxon-Mobil still refuse to pay a penny in damages to the local people from the Valdez disaster and the Alaskan coast remains polluted.....

[farnaby]

In your clear cut case - foreknowledge of certain great suffering among a defined proportion of the population - the answer is the technology should not be used, on the basis of human rights.

This becomes less clear if, however, so few people are affected so that the pain caused is diagnosed as a rare condition rather than purely the fault of technology, and if the pain can be managed (and sufferers are compensated for having to undergo pain management). If both these conditions are met then it is no longer a question of rights but of consequentialism, and the technology could be allowed.

A lot also depends on whether sufferers can be identified in advance or not. If not, a referendum could be used to determine the technology's use, with people balancing the potential risk to their own selves against the expected benefits. A current example is around road deaths - everyone knows they could be a victim (of someone elses mistake or stupidity), but it doesn't stop us driving.