What does the idea of “access” mean in these examples? What solutions are being called for and can you think of any others? How far should we go in changing existing structures to accommodate more people–do we draw the line anywhere? Are these instances unethical–why or why not?

In the ableism article, Andersen discusses how the disabled or less-abled people are discriminated in many contexts such as traveling and navigating around cities due to the lack of accessibility features in those areas. In the case of traveling, the airline industry’s push for economic efficiency encourages them to continue reducing seat sizes, legroom, and aisle widths. By doing so, airlines discriminate passengers of larger sizes and passengers who travel with mobility devices. In addition, passengers who travel with mobility devices may encounter pat-downs at security due to the sensory overload in the terminal. This can lead to their essential equipment breaking due to mishandling and rendering them unable to travel independently. In the case of navigation, there is a clear lack of design measures that integrate accessibility for the less-abled. This disallows less-abled people to navigate through cities.  In this example, the idea of access is fairly literal as it compares the ability of average people and less-abled people to travel or use certain products. The solution that is being called for in this example is the increase in accessibility features in the airline and food industry. This is justified by both making it fair for less-abled people to indulge in such industries as well as an estimated increase in sales by opening the market to less-abled people. I think that this is the right solution to call for, but should be slowly integrated, so as to provide a smooth transition that will isolate neither abled nor less-abled people. In terms of changing existing features to accommodating more people, I think that both ethically and practically, it should be done. This is because this will both create a fairer environment by enabling everyone to receive the same benefits while expanding the market that a product reaches which would generate more revenue.

In the technology gap article, Costa addresses the inequality in access to technology in the US – with households with higher incomes having much higher access to technology than households with lower incomes. This is an inherent issue of income inequality. Households with higher incomes are more capable to spend on technology than households with lower incomes. Thus, it makes sense for them to have greater access to technology. The idea of access in this article is the ability to use technology. The current solution being called for is to give kids from lower-income households ample access to connectivity and devices, even if it means direct subsidies to poorer and or more remote areas. While this solution sounds ideal in a society where we have infinite resources, we do not live in that kind of society. Our society has finite resources, thus it is impractical for the economy if the government spent on such grants. Instead, the government should invest more in the research and development industry so as to drive prices down. This would achieve the goal of increased access to technology as the product would be more affordable for all consumers, allowing households of lower incomes to have access to such technologies. In this case, I think that changing existing features to accommodate more people, it should be done as technology is an important asset for everyone and would boost economic growth. This would provide a level playing field for all households and benefit society as a whole in the long run.