I was happily reminiscing about my days as a Loughborough University undergraduate when I came across the idea for this article. Back in 2008, I was in my mid to late twenties and determined to get to University – something my own personal circumstances had prevented at the traditional age of eighteen. Yet here I was, with the opportunity ahead of me and a fascination with all things crime, deviance and society related – so I enrolled on a Criminology and Social Policy course with barely any hesitation.
Twenty eight year old Kate had no clue as to the technology that would develop in the decades after graduation. I recall learning that the single biggest contributor to crime in the 20th century was the invention of the motor car (source unknown), yet here we are in the 21st century with technology and AI advancing faster than society can adapt to it. Not only are educated, white collar criminals exploiting the new opportunities that this tech is offering, it is also creating vast divisions within society and within the workforce itself.
What could be said to be a two tier society is becoming much more multi-faceted than a simple divide between “those with tech” and “those without tech”. The polarisation of those without tech is occurring at a rapid pace, with poverty and health at the root cause of many people’s exclusion from the golden age of AI. Back at University, I studied the concept of the underclass, as posited by Charles Murray in 1989, with long term detachment from work, rising crime and social exclusion beginning to form nearly forty years ago. As we look at this issue today, the gaps in society are simply widening, with AI causing a new divide and a new definition of the underclass.
People are thrust unwittingly into this sub-class, the third tier, often through no fault of their own. Take my 71 year old mother. She is terrified of computers and smartphones, they are completely alien to her. She lives with me, and it is me who runs the household, orders groceries, pays the rent and looks after her bank account. Without me to help, she would be forced to remain in residential care. She is one of the lucky ones, however. Many elderly people do not have family on call 24/7, and can only sit back and watch as society shoots forward at a breath-taking speed, technology – taken for granted by a huge swathe of us – being completely unobtainable for them. These are people who would have been active, working members of society when Murray wrote his seminal essay, yet now they are cast aside as we embrace AI and automation with barely a second thought for those who “have not”.
So what is the future likely to hold in this two tier system? As the gaps widen, how can we collectively bring those who are left behind back into the mainstream? The concept of Universal Basic Income has been raised, offering each citizen a minimum basic payment to ensure a standard of living sufficient to allow equitable access to modern technology. It is difficult to see how this could be achieved without a complete overhaul of our taxation system, with the 23,000+ pages of tax laws condensed, simplified and loop holes closed, enabling a much greater income for this country which is – to put it kindly – on its back foot. But from a social sciences perspective, collectively we can all bring about change by considering the impact our actions as individuals will have. Just as we think of each person’s carbon footprint, think of our digital inclusion footprint. What steps can we take to ensure that the people surrounding us are not left behind? From checking in on elderly relatives and helping them access and learn new tech, to starting non-profit organisations to help bring tech and AI to the sick and disabled, there are measures that each of us can take to do our bit while we wait for the monolith that is modern society to catch up.
This divide is not news to us. We have known about it for decades, Charles Murray warned us about the emerging underclass, and unless we collectively take action, this divide will only continue to grow, and the prospects for those left behind is looking grim. The tech sector will only command more of society’s wealth and resources, leading to even greater divide between the haves and have nots, and a dystopian future is not beyond the imagination unless we take personal responsibility and act now. It is our moral and ethical duty to consider those less fortunate and take personal, individual steps to bring them back into the welcoming arms of society.
Kate Stapleton
https://linktr.ee/katestapletonfusion
Review