Both. In regards to technology making certain methods of employment obsolete coupled with a society that necessitates labor for resource allocation, perhaps it can be considered a detriment. However, were we to reduce or eliminate the supposed requirement to submit to employment, technology would be realized for the liberator it is.

Another example is technology being advanced for the purpose of war, this can be seen as a detriment to our ability to live a good life, but if those resources were used to develop clean, efficient, renewable resources instead, we would see a very different world.

Depending on how we use it and whether or not society adjusts to it, technology can be either detriment or advantage.

Considering where we are at present compared to where we were in the past regarding quality of life attributable to technology, I would say we are much better off overall.

Technology enhances our productivity- everything we wish to achieve as humans, we may do so faster and more effectively when aided by technology. Modern healthcare enables us to minimise the suffering experienced during life; contemporary production systems ensure that we constantly have the products we need to survive. I do not have a phone, so last weekend when I got lost in the midst of Essendon, it took me almost 3 hours to find my way home. This time could have been better spent on more productive means, which would have been possible had I had a trusty GPS or a smartphone

The degree to which technology can undermine or enhance society correlates directly to the way we implement it - Technology has no agenda. To critique the effect of technology is to critique the way in which it was implemented rather than its nature. We would not for example, criticise falling rocks for killing people - we would criticise those who walk under them - and probably create an alternative path. In the same way, we should not blame technology such as TV's for making us lazy, we should blame those who are willing to be thwarted by it. Therefore, Technology has the potential to both enhance and undermine society - depending on the way it is utilised by the society itself.

It seems clear that there are going to be some negatives to our use of technology, and some positives. All technology is developed for some supposedly positive purpose, and there are always going to be some people who will find a way to misuse the technology. The discovery of manmade fire allowed us to more capably survive harsh winters, but has also allowed people to wreak destruction upon whole towns. Painkillers have allowed us to give the gift of comfort to people in their last few days of life, but can become addictive. The question thus becomes a matter of discerning whether or not the positives of technologies outweigh the negatives.

I believe that the positives must outweigh the negatives - each development we make, by definition, carries society forward. It does not matter if our ways of life change drastically from their natural states - progress is progress. It would be a real tragedy for us as a race to stagnate simply because we were scared of the negatives of our technological developments. We cannot criticise technology for not being a pristine and pure positive force - we develop through trial and error, and so our progress will be intrinsically messy. But if we continue to develop and refine our technologies the future will be a brighter place than the one we have right now.

(AJ)

Although technology does, in excess, have significant negative social and physical effects, its necessity in our lives is irrefutable. Parents now have the ability to protect their children through means of constant communication, which in turn satisfies our human need of survival. Not only this, but technology also allows for much of the suffering in the world to be reduced. This is evident in social media charities such as the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge which have only been successful due to this advancement in social media. Thus, technology should be accepted as a necessary part of our lives

Peter Singer's central principle is as follows: we are morally obligated, insofar as we can without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, to resolve all suffering. Without the globalisation of the world, this principle would be limited to only the communities we are part of. The advent of the internet has allowed people in Australia to be intimately aware of problems facing people suffering in third world countries. Further, the internet has allowed instant transfer of money and revolutionised the way charities are able to direct aid. Hence, Singer's principle is enhanced by the internet, as it increases the scope of people to whom we can benefit. Hence, from the perspective of increasing our ability to give, Singer would endorse technology as something which enhances the way we live.

Discoveries in science have enabled us to treat, or even eradicate, chronic diseases. For example, we have vaccines for polio, meningitis, hepatitis, tuberculosis, measles, even the flu. This has enabled us to live healthier lives, free of these potentially crippling or fatal diseases.

Hard to say. Some kinds of technology serve important functions that I doubt anyone would want to let go of. Electricity is very useful and I doubt anyone would want to simple stop using it. Furthermore I don't think there's any good morale reason not to. Who wants to go back to writing their essays next to a candle light the night before handing it in?

So there's technologies we certainly want to keep. There's other kinds of technologies we don't want at all. We want to avoid biological warfare as such a thing could run amok. Similar points may be made for technologies of violence in general, i.e. nuclear weapons, guns, and the rest of it, although it's hard to argue for complete demilitarization.

There's a lot of technologies which are helpful, but may essentially make us lazy. I guess these are the technologies that the title is referring to. Social robotics is a pretty surreal idea for some people today, in the future social robots may be the primary source of social experience. These robots appeal to the narcissistic sides of people by ensuring consistent satisfaction without effort. People who grow up getting used to such technologies may not be able to deal with the requirements of maintaining friendships.

Social media too shares qualities akin to this more extreme example. Technologies like this makes it easy to seek out content that satisfies instantly, and in some cases publishing such material is encouraged by the culture in the medium. 9gag is a great example of this; it doesn't require much of any effort to be entertained there. Scroll down your Facebook stream and you will to some degree find the same thing. People submit easy digestible material in order to be heard and get a short term ego-boost induced by peers liking. Social media encourages people to aim for the masses, but relating to the many often comes at a price. A single individual is one of detail and conflict, and there's much room for connecting deeply if one is paying attention. The masses don't in general share many of the subtle details that make a human life unique. In submitting to the craving for social acknowledgement people will deprive themselves of their own uniqueness in order to please as many as possible. It makes a person just another among seven billion others. The reason why this is so is because the masses crave easy digestible material; people don't care enough to understand something that doesn't immediately relate to them.

Social media on the contrary is also highly useful. It enables people to find and explore niches or connect with specific people. I have had a great time here because I like debating and exploring what it means to me and how that differs from the rest of you here on CD. Social media can be used in interesting ways. Wikipedia is one great example of a social media that can be used for great benefit, YouTube is another. You can probably fill out a list of sites like that easily, and you would probably be better at it than me. My conclusion is that social media has some bad tendencies, but they also have great benefit if used right. This makes any judgement of these technologies inherently dubious and therefore it's hard to say anything in general.

Aristotle:

-We should be habituated from our early childhood to utilise technology in the appropriate way and to the appropriate amount.

-We should avoid the vices of excess and defect when utilising technology.

- Use your noggin' to work out how much that is.

Good life how? I'll go with yes, for the simply and obvious answer that technology makes our lives physically easier, and for a majority of the population, less work, or easier to do work, is good.