'Social Impact of Technology\r'

'The Social Impact of applied science in that location is no doubt that technological change brings approximately social change. The industrial mutation saw m completely another(prenominal) people displaced from their land, to strike recreate in crowd city factories. Serfdom was abolished and the population shifted from villages to the cities. Strong family ties, egotism sufficiency and the right to convey land were replaced with changeful ten-spotancy of land, dependency on cash in ones chipsmanship and a weakening of the family unit. Economic eachy, goods and m unrivalledy abounded, and trade flourished.The merchant tier profited from the wealth that was generated on the backs of the displaced population of urban workers. Children were direct to work in factories, in order for families to set up enough money to live. The peasant soma worked vast hard hours in poor conditions with no security. The Industrial revolution led to the alienation of the working class and although m any(prenominal) union battles countenance since led to the toleration of better working conditions, the effects of the Industrial revolution remain.The family unit is even more vulnerable straight manner with soaring divorce rates, high rates of juvenile suicide, most of family be either to a coarse extent mortgaged to banks or paying high rents, and no one rat be self-sufficient in a k forthwithledge domain governed by stark wheeling free trade. Advances in plan, is generally not equitably sh ard within society. People with money pay off more opportunity to aquire applied science, which enables them to acquire even more wealth. It is also distinguished to remember that war has been and pass on continue to be the driving force for engineering science and innovation. Power and wealth are intrinsicalally fastened together.Technology stretch forths to great social economic division. Laborers are viewed as commodities and expendable. Technology leads to alienation beca handling it chamberpot create jobs that accept no specialist knowledge. To date, since the industrial revolution we defy seen technology used to the detriment of society. The right to occupy land has become a privelege that must be worked for and earned and now the battle is on to verify all the foundations nutrition and textiles finished genetically special comes and animals. The insidious part of GM is that there is no recall once it is released into the environment.Salmon that leave behind grow ten cartridge clips faster than normal salmon ordain destroy river systems, as their unfair genetically limited advantage get out see all littler life forms extinguished, and genetically modified crops that are subject on pesticides allow for contaminate organic, heritage roots that grant sustained people for thousands of years. Seeds willing no longitudinal be able to be harvested and replanted but the g drawr will consecrate to buy new seed either year from GM seed makers. This rouse is more important that the fight over sluttish source because it involves the right of people everywhere to cast clean, safe food that has not been genetically altered.Essentially GM is a tax on everyone because a sheer will be on every seed and seeds are made to be sterile the followers year. This is something to become angry close. The greedy corporations and individuals that want mince over our food, water and land, do not bang intimately the irreversible damage to the environment. people and animals that they cause. We have the right to eat tomatoes that are free of lean DNA, meat and milk that is free of hu homophile DNA, pigs that havent been openhanded to harvest anthrax antibodies. They will never be able to prove the safety of GM food and no long term studies have been make.Nor will GM solve the problem of soil erosion, and taint of rivers from artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Only a return to accountable orga nic and biodynamic farming practices will solve these problems. The 50 harmful effects of GM food Courts are not keen to pursue pesticide makers for poisoning farmers, or GM seed makers for monopolizing the worlds seeds through patents, (through genetic engineering that not completely renders the seed worthless for replanting the abutting year but also contaminates non-GM crops by cut through pollination.Already the majority of the worlds seed stock is retardled by a handful of corporations †see http://www. cqs. com/50harm. htm and http://www. seedsavers. net ) The internet in its current form was developed as a free exchange of training, unregulated by any one disposal or declareed by any one person or go with. In its raw form it was the playground of hackers and computing machine geeks, who take exceptiond the status quo. It brings about a new era, the technological revolution.The free flow of teaching, has brought about technological advances at an curious rate and has made many rich and brought companies who failed to lodge to a stand comfort. How will this technological revolution electrical shock on our society? If the industrial revolution is any thing to go by, there will be winners and losers to technological revolution. E- employment will affect the middle man and allow direct trade with consumers. Efficiency brings about lower prices for the consumer, but it is more accurate to beg that efficiency brings about greater wealth for shareholders, directors and owners.The intrinsic weave of social interactions of trade, can be disencumber and made into a horizontal supply chain. E-commerce will create efficiencies that effectively remove the need for a long supply chain but at the expense of social relationships. The effect of e-commerce, and the internet will bear on on every society on the earth. Already, the barriers of trade between individuals in different countries are non-existent. Company shock details are searchable throu gh powerful search engines, and trade can commerce between cardinal individuals who would otherwise never have met.The internet dissolves national boundaries, and the consequences for cities that have developed as centers of administration and trade will be disastrous, if they do not embrace the technological advances in discourse and trade that the internet brings. While at the analogous time, free trade means fierce opposition without the protection of award wages. People are decrease to consumers and suppliers. Resisting the tide of technological change is im doable. Of course it is possible to do dividing line without a website or electronic mail or unsettled yell or a fax machine.People have been doing business well in the lead any of these gadgets were invented. But business today is about competition, and technology is about leverage. Technology can lead to alienation if it is not widely dispersed in society. The Industrial age saw the concentration of technology i n the hands of the rich and powerful, allowing them to dominate and thin out the population into harsh working conditions and the social impact of the internet and computers is just now just beginning, will it challenge the status quo or will it lead to greater population control?The latter is probably more likely, and many will look on this time as the golden age of the internet. Already technology like digital TV is being pushed in the guise of better quality but the benefits to those who own the systems is that they will be able to track what you fix, when you watch it, whether or not you switch off an ad, and peradventure even whether that pizza ad makes you pick up the phone and call for a pizza.Knowledge is power, and with access to tapping phone lines, reading emails, reading your credit card statements, designed by GPS where you are by tracking your mobile phone, it can be a scary world, if all that knowledge and power were to be used to beat out and control. On the up side, technology has made the developed world a richer place to the detriment of the environment. Machines have allowed people to move away from physical work, so that now in Australia there is 100,000 accountants and 85,000 farmers.Perhaps, technology has gone too far, and there are more people reckoning beans than growing them ! Impact of technology on government The level-headed system is dependent on local anaesthetic legal powers under common law. Historically, one has to remember that earlier the age of the internet, airplanes and telephones, the vast majority of business was done locally. Technology has rapidly changed the way people do business but there has not capable to the changes. There is no one body that governs multinational trade. What are the implications?If you buy a intersection point from a local supplier in your State, and it turns out that the incident is faulty, you can go back to your supplier to work out repair or replacement and if they dont fost er you, you can take the matter to local Trades billet or file legal action in your state. If however, you buy a product outside your jurisdiction, you must file a claim in the State, where the supplier is located. You can only use a lawyer in the State where you file your action, your local llawyer can only act as a advisor and has no authority to represent you in beg of law or to serve papers.Therefore, we have a world which is governed by local laws and yet the businesses and individuals are now actively trading outside of their local area. Governments are trying to make laws about content on the internet but have no jurisdiction to enforce those laws. This has created havens in small ontogenesis countries, that are happy to accept companies that want to run online drama websites that may be outlawed in their jurisdiction or companies that wish to reduce their tax liabilities by opening up bank accounts in underdeveloped countries.We see arising now a homogenizing of local l aws on issues like SPAM, and even sending a worldwideist letter from anywhere in the world involves the windup of well-nigh identical forms, Governments are making agreements, in an attempt to be relevant in a world where people are able to trade more freely and where digital communication has enabled businesses to work, almost without physical boundaries. Business diagnoses and the Internet In the beginning, it was easy to start a new business.You would go to your local business registration office in your State and apply for a business name. If it was taken, you would train another name. intimately people do not realize that a business name is only valid for the State that it is registered in and the only way to protect your business name is to incorporate a union. In Australia, you would lodge forms with ASIC to incorporate a company and you then have rights to use your business name exclusively in Australia and its territories.However, with the birth of the internet, your Australian company name may be the same as the name of a company overseas. This has resulted in legal action being taken, as companies tussle of business names and the rights to use those names and a court system that is unable to deal effectively with international disputes over business names and has resulted in greater costs to people who want to start a business as they must register denary domain names, take about international trademarks and find a name that has not already been taken.Even if they contact lawyers to register all the domain names and trademarks to keep down disputes(both local and international), legal action can still be taken against them. And when it comes to justice, money wins almost every time, unless companies want to relocate to safe havens in developing countries where they cannot be pursued in court. Conclusion Technology has allowed man to move from manual labour of the field to cities and machines. It has allowed huge cities to arise, because of the urban poor that have migrated to cities for better helpings and job opportunities.Technology has spawned the growth of modern society but it is also now used to control the population, in a way the Roman Caesars could only have dreamed of The economic impact of information technology has been a subject of a great deal of debate. For business economists, it is useful to identify how information technology (IT) is likely to impact the economy, because IT (defined as computer and communications technology and its applications) is likely to have a substantial impact on the economys growth during the advent decades.The reason for this is the use of IT by nearly all industries in the economys base, so that IT becomes a universal gossip to nearly all other outputs. If IT costs decline, they can create substantial economic gains for many of the industries that use IT, because money spent on IT can be invested in other inputs and improvements in production or services. Furthermore, be cause business relies upon IT to do a wide range of tasks and to create competitive advantage, by facilitating these tasks for end users, important gains are achieved that are difficult to measure in a classic input-output framework.In addition, IT, seen in a larger context, should have even wider impacts on the economy, because new impart of communications, such as the Internet, cellular television, and broadband applications, will provide business with new channels to go past customers and suppliers. In the past, the economic impact of IT has been subject to such(prenominal) debate. The productivity paradox was first proposed by Steven lap, the heading economist at Morgan Stanley, who found that BLS data on investments in computers had a clear negative earlier than a positive impact on productivity gains in several major industries.Roachs paradox appeared to be valid because quite a few service industries had negative productivity gains between 1977 and 1984. Some act to e xplain this paradox by noting that it was difficult for workers to arrange to computers. Others noted that few computer applications made epochal improvements in the amount of work most workers could do. unperturbed additional commentators felt that the paradox was a product of poor statistical measurement.Because this paradox was driven by the negative productivity results for several service industries, one approach was to see if the service productivity figures were accurate. unrivalled study, by Joel Popkin and Company for IBM,(1) found that the BLS productivity statistics Roach used for several service sectors had important shortcomings. Most importantly, the BLS productivity data relied on output measures that did not truly reflect the changes in the nature of work in some service industries. If these are rectify in several important service industries, two things could be shown.\r\n'