Responsibility of the Comp Sci Industry in Addressing Issues Such As Income Inequality

By: Keith MacDonell

In his article The Refragmentation, Paul Graham hypothesizes that the increasing income inequality is caused by "not some force that's pulling us apart, but rather the erosion of forces that had been pushing us together." He then claims that these two main forces were war (World War II) and the growth of large companies. The war affected the economy through standardization of wages throughout the war. After the war, the economy was dominated by several large corporations that provided similar products. Graham used the example of NBC, CBS, and ABC. Many of the aspects of society were standardized, allowing for the prominent rise of the middle class. When viewed from the paradigm that the combination of these two aspects was an anomaly, it is not surprising that income inequality is increasing as more time passes. Taking a look back in history, particularly at the middle ages, it appears that income inequality was socially prevalent then as well. There was a drastic difference in economic affluence between the noble elite and the common man. However, just because it has been historically prevalent does not necessarily mean that it should not be combated.

Technology has undoubtedly changed the face of the world and the manner in which society runs. Technological innovation has definitely benefited society in the form of better medical care, which computer science is in many ways responsible. However, the overwhelming positive effects cannot blind us to the detrimental effects that it has also had. The computerization of autonomous processes for manufacturing facilities has increased unemployment by decreasing the number of workers needed per plant.

I believe that the computing industry is under no obligation to directly address social or political issues such as income inequality with attempts to alleviate problems. However, I do believe that the computing industry, like all industries, has an obligation to ensure that its actions do not negatively impact or worsen society as a whole. This can be seen in the ACM Code of Ethics with general moral imperative 1.2: AVOID HARM TO OTHERS.

When a technological innovation has the potential for negative impact, I believe that it is the obligation of the company to implement a plan to ameliorate the possible detrimental effects of the innovation. To refer back to the automation of manufacturing processes, an attempt to ameliorate the unemployment caused by its implementation could be to provide free technical training to the factory employees on utilization of the new equipment.

While I personally do not believe that any given industry has an obligation to fix social or political issues, the ACM Code of Ethics the ethos of the computing industry states otherwise. General moral imperative 1.2 states, "CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY AND HUMAN WELL-BEING." The technological innovations made possible by the computing industry could very well save the world. it will come down to the implementation of this technology that will determine the final outcome.