GPS

Just a few years ago, people thought that mapquest was the best thing we could have to direct us to our destinations. Little did we know that we would have devices directing us exactly where to turn, and finding routes based on lowest amount of traffic. Since the explosion of GPS technology, some people cannot even navigate around their home town without their GPS. Of course GPS devices are extremely helpful in navigating to unknown destinations, and this easily outweighs the bad side of not knowing how to self-navigate at times. However, having these devices rules out our simple privilege of privacy. If in possession of a GPS, the government, or anybody else skilled enough for that matter, could pinpoint somebody's position exactly, and follow them to wherever they may travel. 

Is it safe for us knowing that anybody could know where we are at any given time? To a certain extent, this technology is vital; we can get around much easier and much more safely knowing we have a personal driving assistant on hand. But if anybody can access this information, the technology will become detrimental to society. People must have the right to privacy, and shouldn't be able to be spied on to that extent without reasonable cause.

Internet

Internet has become part of our daily lives over the past couple of decades. Can anybody imagine having to spend just one week without the internet? I certainly cannot. This is our main source of news, communication, and even socialization. Despite all these benefits, some believe that the internet does more harm than good. For example, child predators found their jackpot with online chat rooms; uncountable amounts of child predators have succeeded in their crimes because of these chat rooms. Identity theft is also a humongous crime committed online. 

After inspecting the pros and cons of internet, I simply cannot see any reason how it could be considered a harm to society. Of course it has its drawbacks, and these can be very serious at times. However, the vast majority of the time, people are just looking to facilitate their lives by using the world wide web, and have no evil intentions. We have been able to accomplish unprecedented feats with this tool, and it should be in our future.

Surveillance

Would you like to live in a world similar to the one presented in George Orwell's 1984? The overwhelming majority of people would absolutely not want to live in this situation, where every movement, word, and expression made by the inhabitants is monitored by Big Brother. Big Brother believes that this surveillance is ultimately crucial for society to survive. However, as we see through the novel, this technology is entirely detrimental to society. Sure, the civilization will continue to run for untold amounts of time since everybody is controlled like lab mice, but how is this a civilization? People need to be free to act on their own and do what they believe is right. This is the only way society will improve, and otherwise it would remain a static and dead idea.

Time Travel

Time travel has always been a fascinating (science-fictional) phemonemon. While it is very widely used in many movies and novels, would this technology be ethical to use in our world? After performing some research on the topic and possible methods of time travel, I have come to the conclusion that time travel, no matter the method, would NEVER be ethical for humans to take part in. The main reason is because we should never alter the events in the past. Period. Events that happened have happened for a reason, and our world as we see it today is shaped entirely on that basis. Even going back to change a tragedy, such as preventing a terroristic attack, would severely alter the world, possibly for the worse. We can only travel forwards in time for a reason; the world would simply be too unpredictable and adaptive for humans.

Cloning

Cloning has been a debatable issue since its conception. Many people are against this idea of "creating" life, but just as many believe the benefits are far too great to pass up. Cloning is an issue where I simply cannot agree with. The potential for disaster is far too great to risk the manufacturing of life forms, no matter what could become of the clones.  Life is meant to be reproduced naturally, not in a laboratory. The truth of the matter is that nobody even knows if these clones have "souls" or not, since they are exact copies of an already existing organism.

In order for cloning to become a more viable option, the yield of successful clones must be much higher; today's rate of only about 2% of clones is simply unacceptable. We would also have to prove that these copies are just as adaptable to everyday life as naturally-born organisms. Lastly, we would have to somehow prove that these clones have their own unique personality, and hence "soul", since having a soulless creature goes against everything our beautiful planet stands for.