Usually, the Arthur thoroughly and insightfully covers every story it reports from the social-justice angle. Matt Jarvis’ column, however, falls short of these standards.
Truth is, the potential benefits of Berger’s artificial hippocampus and Gallant’s fMRI work go far beyond saving time for students and accomplishing the poorly-defined goal of “true empathy”. They can dramatically lower the cost of a world-class education, bringing it within reach of the poor both locally and in the developing world. Even before an encoding technology is developed, neuroprosthetics alone will be a great leap forward in curing learning disabilities.
Why is the Arthur so vocal whenever technology threatens to create a social problem, yet silent when it promises to solve one?
Trent’s science and computing programs need and deserve a lot more respect from the public than they have. It can’t help when our only paper shows a Luddite bias.
Sincerely,
Chris Hennick
Editor’s note: Arthur does have a “Luddite bias” mainly because we need more volunteer contributors who are studying sciences and/or computing. We publish the stories that our volunteers pitch! Send your ideas to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Wanna give writing a try? Email us or come to a story meeting. The next story meeting is for Issue 14 and occurs Tuesday, Jan. 3 at 1pm in the Arthur Office in Sadleir House.
