We’re probably approaching a point where blue-collar crime could be eradicated, one way or the other. But the way does matter: we could eradicate crime through ubiquitous surveillance, or through drug treatments/targeted lobotomies to remove the urges to criminality, or through effective early identification of potential criminals and preemptive measures against them, or through skilled large scale social manipulation of attitudes, or even through reducing all human interactions to tele-presence.
All these methods are unpleasant and undermine our current notions of democracy, but persistent fear of crime (despite the persistent reduction in actual crime) means that politicians will find it extraordinarily difficult not to implement one of these measures, were it to work. Humanity will likely find itself in a crime-free society; the question is how.
To my mind, ubiquitous surveillance is the least unpleasant of the possibilities – it’s non-discriminatory, doesn’t interfere with people’s inner motivations, doesn’t involve sinister manipulations of social norms or loss of human interactions. Assuming we can’t hold the line, that’s where I would want it to be broken.
But we might have more influence if we surrender early. Saying “we’ll allow surveillance, but fight you tooth and nail and claw on the other methods” would make it much easier to ensure those other methods were not implemented. In exchange for cooperation, we could also push the surveillance state into more positive implementations of the policy – maybe achieving 360 degree transparency (we watch the rulers watching us) or treating recording akin to electronic medical records, only allowing them to viewed in specific circumstances.
13 Responses to Surrendering to big brother might be the least bad option
- Five ways to become a really effective altruist
- Podcast: Steve Hyman, Loebel Lecturer 2015, on categorising mental disorders
- Mindfulness and morality
- Video Series: Dr Christopher Gyngell on Genetic Modification of Embryos
- Why edited embryos won’t lead to designer babies or eugenics (unless we want it too)
- Don’t Give Money to Beggars
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse?
- 7 reasons not to feel bad about yourself when you have acted immorally
- Why It’s OK to Block Ads
- Should vegans eat meat to be ethically consistent? And other moral puzzles from the latest issue of the Journal of Practical Ethics