.png)
 |
| Eric Bush Class of 2020 |
Many of my college-age peers know well the challenges a sub-par credit score can create. Buying that first car after graduation with no credit score, or even worse, a bad one, can present one with many hurdles and headaches. But imagine a system which measures not only our financial trustworthiness, but also our social trustworthiness.
“Black Mirror,” a television show which can be described as a twenty-first century “Twilight Zone,” explored this concept in an episode entitled Nosedive. In a dystopian future society, citizens rate each other after every interaction. For example, if someone were to buy a coffee, she would rate the barista on his friendliness and service, and the barista would rate her on her politeness and perhaps how much she tipped. Citizens each have a score, one to five, which is the average of their ratings over a period of time. The purpose of the system is to encourage good behavior, and one’s score can have a drastic impact on his life, affecting where he can live, if he’ll get an interview for a certain job, or even whether or not he’ll get bumped or upgraded on an airplane.
Perhaps Chinese government officials are fans of the show. Earlier this week in our Brave New World, more than eight Chinese government agencies signed off on a plan to implement a real-life social credit system. Initially, social faux paus like smoking where not permitted, or attempting to reuse a train ticket, or not paying fines will put one on a no-fly list. In the long term, the program hopes to create a comprehensive FICO-like score for each citizen, in part through the usage of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology. This score could determine whether one is admitted into a school, gets a job, or is eligible for a coveted membership in the Chinese Communist Party.
I won’t deny that there are bad apples in our society, and good behavior should certainly be encouraged. But do we want our government to decide what is good behavior? Or even worse, to hold immense power to negatively impact someone’s life when he acts contrary to what the government deems “decent?” In his essay, “After Priggery – What?”, C.S. Lewis raises two objections to government regulating bad social behavior. First, that such regulation will not work because “we do not wish the law to have too much power over freedom of speech.” Although a valid point, it hardly applies to a society such as China. The other reason, which Lewis deems more compelling, is that the only true way to stop bad behavior is for individuals to not indulge it, largely by refusing to associate with those who perpetuate it. He writes, “What cannot be done – and indeed ought not to be done – by law, can be done by public opinion.”
Admittedly, sometimes ignoring those who perpetuate bad behavior isn’t enough. As I sit on a plane writing this, I am irritated that the teenager behind me continues to kick my seat. In this case, I should turn around, give him the evil eye, and correct this malicious behavior. Still, as Lewis correctly identifies, the solution to stopping bad behaviors lies not in government but through proactive social pressure. Instead of implementing a social credit system, a better solution would be for all of us to hold our peers to a higher standard and not tolerate bad behavior.
Eric Bush, of Louisville, Ky., is a sophomore McConnell Scholar studying political science, economics, and Chinese.