poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (05/30/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Thu 30 May 85 Volume 5 Number 24 Contents: Book review Scourge of the Spaceways For Their Own Good ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoSH@rutgers Subject: book review I've read a bunch of books recently which I haven't seen discussed (but should be), so I'm introducing a book review "department" to Poli-sci. For a while. And at random intervals. The first book of interest is "Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980" by Charles Murray. In 1950, the poverty level in the US stood at roughly 30%. With the increasing level of affluence, the poverty level dropped so that in 1965, it was 13%. By 1980, it had plummeted to--still 13%! What had happened, why had the poverty level suddenly levelled off? Murray examines the question in great detail. First he devotes several careful and well documented chapters to showing that this is really what happened, "really and truly" and not merely the flash of some doctored statistics. Well, what had happened? The answer is simple and painful: the War on Poverty. Murray is critically interested in the poverty programs and their effect; although it isn't mentioned in the book, he was the architect of some of those very programs. He knew that the conclusions would arouse a storm of controversy; so his arguments are low-key, very carefully drawn, and well backed by evidence. "Losing Ground" is a must for anyone interested in poverty and social policy. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1985 11:19:28 EDT From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa Subject: Re: space pioneers Ten people on a nearly self-sufficient space station and zillions of robots is almost guaranteed to cost a lot less and make a lot more money, and therefore is much more likely to get built, than a commune in the sky. In a few decades, there won't be that many people involved in direct manufacturing. People in space will always be expensive than people on the ground. Therefore the ratio of manufacturing robots to people in space will be even higher than on the ground. People will work in other industries, like services. But most services tend to require (some inherently) contact with other people, and those other people will be on the ground. I still haven't heard sound arguments about why 1000s of people in space will be economically viable anytime in the next few decades. I don't like this situation, but I don't see how it can change. It seems like the cost of space robots will decline faster than the cost of space people, making this situation worse, not better. [I may be missing something here, but I think there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere. The fact that there exists an A more likely than B does not mean either that B is less likely than without A, or that B is any other sense less desirable. In fact I would claim that the possibility of space factories of any kind would *enhance* the likelihood of a viable colony. The thing to remember is that the purpose of a colony is different than that of a factory. In the same analysis, compare a conventional factory to a suburban neighborhood. The neighborhood doesn't make any money at all-- indeed, it absorbs money as people commute out of it to work in factories, offices, etc. In simplest terms, the factory is a capital good, the neighborhood a consumption good. The driving force behind space industry is people who want to make money (and are willing to invest to do so); the driving force behind a space colony is people who want to live in space (and are willing to pay to do so). Like most non-political endeavors, the two are not only not exclusive, but are mutually beneficial. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 85 12:21:34 edt From: research!grigg!ark Two recent trends alarm me. The first is the idea that people should be held responsible for things they might have done, or almost did, but didn't do. The second is that people do not have the right to run their own lives. Either of these ideas alone would be bad enough. The two of them together scare the living daylights out of me. Let me start with the first idea. The process seems to go something like this: the legislature notices that people are doing X, which is deemed undesirable, but difficult to control. They also notice that people who do X usually do Y first. Y is something that is not bad by itself, but it is easy to notice and control. Therefore, in an attempt to get people to stop doing X, they restrict Y. For example: 1. It is hard to stop people from injecting themselves with heroin, so the government restricts the purchase of hypodermic needles. I remember that when I was a child, my father had a hypodermic syringe around the house. He used it to inject water into the pin-block of the piano, to prevent the wood from shrinking and loosening the tuning pins. 2. In some states, it is illegal to sell devices intended to allow you to get into a car without using a key or damaging the door. I suppose the people who made those laws have never locked their keys inside their cars by mistake. 3. Here in New Jersey, the penalty for drunk driving (for a first offense) is a 6-month license suspension and about $5,000 in fines, surcharges, etc. Because of the generally terrible mass transportation in this state, losing your license may well mean losing your job. The best recent example of the second idea is the seat belt legislation sweeping the country. People are required to wear seat belts because they might get hurt if they don't. Well, THAT particular justification can be used for detailed government control of every aspect of our lives. Students who watch television get lower grades than ones who don't, so let's prohibit television. Tobacco and alcohol are bad for you; ban them! While we're at it, let's go over all the foods you can buy and prohibit those that are less beneficial than the rest! What? Not everyone agrees as to which foods are good and which ones are bad? No problem -- let's do it by vote. This is a democracy, right? Next time you see the government trying to do something TO people because they claim it's good FOR them, ask yourself if the government really has the right to do what they are proposing. ps-- I have heard it said that a substantial number (40% sticks in my mind, but since I don't remember where I heard it...) of fatal auto accidents are really suicides. This number sounds high, but it's what I recall. Any comments? ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------