It’s important not to confuse entertainment with a serious understanding of the consequences of systems. For example, Asimov’s three rules are great narrative tools because they’re easy for everyone to understand and provide great fodder for creatively figuring out how to violate those rules. They in no way inform you about the practical issues of building robots from an ethical perspective nor in understanding the real failure modes of robots. Same with philosophy and self driving cars - everyone brings up the trolley problem which turns out to be a non issue because robotic cars avoid the trolley problem way in advance and just try to lower the energy in the system as quickly as possible vs trying to solve the ethics.
Yes. This is a component of media literacy that has been melted away by the "magic technology" marketing of the 2000s. It's important for people to treat these stories with allegorical white-gloves rather than interpreting them literally.
Gene Roddenbury knew this, and it's kinda why the original Trek was so entertaining. The juxtaposition of super-technology and interpersonal conflict was a lot more novel in the 60s than it is in a post-internet world, and therefore used to be easier to understand as a literary device. To a modern audience, a Tricorder is indistinguishable from an iPhone; the fancy "hailing channel" is indistinct from Skype or Facetime.
Doesn’t apply. Disease is a societal group problem. Part of the social contract of living in that society is vaccination. You don’t have to get vaccinated but you then don’t get to enjoy the privileges of living with others in the community.
This isn’t anything like the trolley problem. And yes, taking actions has consequences intended or otherwise. That’s not the trolley problem either
