There is a digital divide between those who have access to technology and those who don't. But you are learning to manipulate the basic components of the digital realm, placing you in an even more exclusive category - those who can make technology. This is not an insignificant ability. Do you plan to use your skill for evil or for good? Explain, using specific examples.
To begin, let us explore the definition of 'evil' and 'good'. Taking as an example the current tension between the government of the United States and the people of the Middle East, many representatives of both sides think of their motivations as good and of the motivations of the other as evil. Both perspectives cannot be correct, so we have to assume that both are wrong.
'Evil' is a charged word, suggesting a system of beliefs or set of actions that are of religious proportions. But what is evil? No one thinks of himself as evil. Even the most loathed tyrants believe themselves to be doing the right thing, so there is no way to interview an evil person and ask them about their motivations. Given this, we have to conclude that evilness is in the eye of the beholder. The word is only used when describing something or someone other than oneself.
'Necessity is the mother of invention', to quote George Farquhar. But just as 'evil' is used to decribe other people's motivations, 'necessity' is used to describe one's own. Saddam Hussein 'needed' to kill Persians, just as The U.S. 'needed' to overthrow the Iraqi government. One man's necessity is another man's evil. The U.S. needed to develop nuclear weapons to protect their interests, and Iraq needed to do the same. Even though the actions are the same, one is considered good and the other evil. Technology itself cannot be evil - only the motivations for developing and using technology can be evil, and even then it is a matter of which side you are on.
So there is no such thing as absolute evil. But is there such a thing as absolute good? Evil can be thought of as extreme selfishness, putting one's own desires above those of others - even to the point of killing other people for one's own gain. 'Good', then, would be the reverse, subsuming one's desires for those of other people.
In order for Germany to protect its interests during World War II, Nazi researchers developed the jet engine - one of the prizes for the American and Soviet armies which raced to Berlin at the close of the war. Even technologies developed out of selfish, or evil, intents can be used for good. When jet engines are used in planes that drop bombs on civilians, that is bad, while jet engines that help transport aid workers are good.
During the Rape of Nanking, when Japanese soldiers slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Chinese peasants, it was a Nazi officer stationed there who organized a defense in order to protect the civilians. Even someone we would condemn as evil is capable of enormous good. While the Japanese were surely not happy about the Nazi's protection of Chinese people, they could not criticize it as evil. 'Evil' and 'good' are both subjective terms, but is less so.
So, one can be motivated by intentions that nearly everyone would agree are good, or by intentions that some would call evil and others good. Curing cancer is the cliché endeavor used to illustrate good intentions. But we cannot all be trying to cure cancer. Most of us are trying to make money, improve the world a little, and get by. When we engage in research or the development of technology, we are motivated by selfish desires (status, wealth) more than altruistic ones. The trick then, is to try to not be overtly destructive in the process.
Many people, including many at ITP, are curious, even fascinated by robots. The drive to build them may come from pure curiosity, the desire to figure out how they work. The drive may also come from receiving a government contract. Or the drive may come from the need for labor-saving devices or mine-clearing robots. But in every case, the technology developed is added to the canon, and everyone else involved with robotics will be able to use it. The armature you develop for an agricultural harvest-bot may later be used by the military for a kill-bot.
'Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.' This NRA slogan illustrates a truth about technology, that its is those who wield it who are ultimately responsible for its implementation - not the technology itself, and implicitly, not those who developed it either. That said, the fact that America has so many deaths from gun violence plus the fact that guns are so readily available might suggest that the availability of weapons technology is to blame. In "Bowling for Columbne" Michael Moore makes it clear that in a country such as Canada, which has similar rates of gun ownership, there is much less of a problem with gun violence. In fact, in one recent year, New York City alone had more deaths from gunshots than all of Canada put together. So it seems that habits and culture are the real roots of evil uses of technology.
Whenever one culture invades another it is because they want to and they can. So, assuming that we, as technologists, have a responisbility to thwart evil uses of our creations, what can we do? We cannot change culture or habits, but we may have a say in the ability to use technology for evil.
One way to prevent evil uses of technology would be to limit access. If guns were banned in the United States, gun violence would surely decrease. But that does not mean that violence itself would decrease, for killers would merely opt for different weapons. In the same vein, it is not as though technology begets violence. The Mongols were able to carve a swath of terror across two continents using only the technology that had been available to people for tens of thousands of years.
The other way to prevent evil uses of technology, then, is to guarantee equal access to everyone. Typically, evil happens when there is an inequality - of technology or of information. Europeans were able to successfully invade and occupy the new world 500 years ago because there was an imbalance. If the levels of technology had been the same, the history of the world would have been very different. The Cold War era was in reality an unusually peaceful one because both sides were reluctant to attack the other, due to the equal access of weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, equal access means that terrorists also have access to these weapons.
So which is right? Limited access means that one nation is in a position to dominate another, while equal access means that evil people have the same tools we do.
We cannot be responsible for potentially evil uses of the technology we create because we will likely not be the ones to make the evil decisions. We have no control over who might use the technology for bad reasons. We cannot stop the development of technology that may be used in evail ways because others will surely take up the slack that we leave.
There is no solution. To say that some kinds of technology lends itself to evil is to say that some kinds of knowledge lends itself to evil. To say that potentially bad technology suggests that that technology should not exist is to say that some information should not exist. That means that forbidding some kinds of technology is the same as burning forbidden books.
But we should not abandon technology, nor its related responsibilities. If we are aware of the potential dangers of technology, then we are far better suited to be engaged in its development than someone only concerned with personal gain. Or role, then, should be this: to do our best, keeping all of these thoughts in our heads as we do so.