Technology has been improving human life for the entirety of human existence. As our society gets more advanced, we are approaching a critical point in our development of technology, the development of artificial intelligence. For most of human existence, the factor that separated us from the rest of the animal kingdom was our superior intellect. Current researchers are engineering artificial intelligence that matches our own intellect, challenging human superiority. Many people fear that once we create these advanced forms of artificial intelligence, we will be unable to stop them from continuing to advance themselves, and possibly overriding our mortal domination (Dowd). Others suggest that these robots simply make life easier, and are simply a continuation of technological improvements of human life. Is there a risk to the development of artificial intelligence? Should there be limits to the development or do limits stifle advancements?

Reference

Dowd, Maureen. “Elon Musk’s Billion-Dollar Crusade to Stop the A.I. Apocalypse.” Vanity Fair. 26 Mar. 2017. www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/ elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x (18 Sept. 2017).

The welfare system became an essential piece of the modern western state
in the middle of the nineteenth century. The welfare state is “founded upon
the principles of progressive taxation and universal welfare” (Bell). Under
this system, “the community as a whole provides for the other, and those in need receive this provision as of right,” meaning that those who have a little more share with those who have a little less. However, this system counters
the fundamental aspects of “the American [Canadian] Dream”: work hard
and attain the freedom to do what you want with your income. Many people oppose the welfare system, claiming that it promotes freeloaders, people who don’t work because they receive what they need from the system. Does the welfare system promote freeloaders? Are there limits to the care we provide for those in need? Does it create a state of helplessness or undeserved entitlement for some? Or are we responsible for the most vulnerable in society?

Reference

Bell, David. “Welfare state expresses an ideal of the good society.” The Guardian. 3 Nov. 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2010/nov/03/ welfare-state-ideal-good-society (18 Sept. 2017).

Due to their youth, students often arrive late or are absent from class, hand
in an assignment late, get in arguments with fellow students, and commit countless other infractions. The timeless response to these behaviours has been to assign the student a trip to detention, where the student will stay for an extended period, as determined by the teacher. Recently students, parents, teachers, and administers alike have openly opposed this practice, saying
that it is archaic and does not create a disincentive for poor behaviour. They argue that often students who are sentenced to detention are treated as though they are “guilty until proven innocent” (Johnson). Those who support this practice say that part of school is learning about rules, and learning the self- control necessary to follow them. More recently some have opposed this style of learning, stating that children with learning disabilities like ADHD have a harder time following these rules. Should detentions or suspensions be meted out regardless of individual circumstances? Would individual treatment appear as injustice?

Reference

Johnson, LouAnne. “Down With Detention!” Education Week. 30 Nov. 2004. www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/12/01/14johnson.h24.html (18 Sept. 2017).

Throughout history, the advancement of technology has often followed the need for weapons in times of war. The recent development of unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones, to attack members of ISIS and AL-Qaeda in the Middle East is no exception to this. Proponents claim that drones are “far more precise than other weapons systems,” cause less collateral damage, and do not put soldiers in danger as they are operated from a distance (Mockaitis). Others say that they make it too easy to kill, as the soldier operating the drone is removed from the human aspects involved in the killing. They also say
that they cause more civilian casualties than governments will admit, which
in turn fuels anti-western sentiments in the Middle East and contributes to terrorism. Is war more justified if costs are reduced? How can we ensure that civilians are not injured by drones? Are operators less morally responsible for killing if they are operating a drone, an indirect weapon?