Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (08/23/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 22 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 48
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - The Worth of Technology (2 msgs) &
Impact of Computers on our Culture (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12-Aug-83 11:50 PDT
From: DRH.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: The influence of technology to our well being
It is truly gratifying to see a comment on this subject which reflects
the truth of the real world, not just the wished-for reality of the
technocrats. Often it seems that in our efforts to expend our energy
on new technology, we fail to look into the philosophical
ramifications of what we are doing, the impact not just on ourselves,
but others too. The point is well taken regarding the reality that
human beings haven't changed one bit. That is, their persons haven't
changed. Their natures certainly have.
In the context of philosophy (as opposed to normal linguistic usage),
nature refers to all the things that can be said to describe an
entity. Such things as hair color, height, weight, behavioral
characteristics, attitudes, all are part of ones nature. Person, on
the other hand, cannot be described. It is the indescribable essence
of the individual which exists apart from that individual's nature.
Thus, any aspect of a human being that can be described is part of
nature, not person.
Now, the advent of modern technology has certainly not changed our
persons one bit. But the environment does markedly change the nature
of the persons who are part of it. When I stop to think about the
differences in the attitudes and behavior of my parents (who grew up
in a fairly sophisticated technological age) and my grandparents (who
were primarily concerned with survival, food, shelter from the
elements, etc.) I seriously wonder whether our technology has made any
improvement in our natures at all or rather has produced generations
which are morally, socially and philosophically confused.
After all, the more technologically optimistic people are now saying
that wonders from the laboratory are making nuclear war a survivable
option! Our government is now encouraging citizens to make plans for
evacuation of major cities in case of a thermo-nuclear explosion (the
implied assumptions being that there will be someone left to be
evacuated, and that the survivors will find an environment worth
living in). The government is once again making noises about cleaning
up toxic waste dumps all over the country, toxic waste that was
produced by the very technology that is supposed to clean it up (talk
about the fox guarding the hen house)!
Medical science is producing a society which is more and more
dominated by retired people, whose life expectancy is growing
dramatically. Wonderful. But twenty or thirty years or fifty from
now, who is going to pay the price? Demographic projections show that
eventually the proportion of working people supporting the elderly
will be such that Social Security (if it even exists) will take a
larger chunk out of payrolls than the IRS! Technology is changing our
natures, but is it for the better?
Are we any better off? No. We are just learning how to use our
technology to reduce the standard of living for some while raising the
standard of living for those cultures which produce the technology.
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Colonialism is not
dead, just computerized.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 83 1539 PDT
From: David Lowe <DLO@SU-AI>
Subject: The value of technology
The answers given so far to the question of whether technology has
improved our lives have tended to ignore the distinction between
individual choice and effects on society. So while most of us choose
to buy cars, computers and electricity--and therefore obviously prefer
to have those things rather than go without them in our social
context--the long-term effects on our happiness and social conditions
are far less obvious. In fact, there are many arguments which can be
made to the effect that several hundred years of technological
development have not improved human happiness or satisfaction with
life. The incidence of suicide and clinical depression have generally
risen greatly, although there are of course many complicating factors
in using these statistics as a measure of unhappiness. I have seen
some statistics which claim that in opinion polls people would
generally say they are less happy now then they would have one hundred
years ago in Western countries. And this discussion has generally
ignored effects on the majority of humans--those living in the Third
World--who have often had actual decreases in living standards with
loss of land and with cash crop farming, and have certainly often had
decreases in political welfare.
My own opinion is that the overall human condition is no worse and
often quite a bit better than it was several hundred years ago. But
it is remarkable that the large advances in technology and ability to
control nature have not had a better effect than they have. I would
lay part of the blame on scientists and technologists who do not care
much about how their work is applied. It is rather sad to think that
even hundreds of years from now, after the great advances in science
and technology that we are working on, it is quite possible that the
world will be no more pleasant to live in than it is now.
A factor in human happiness that many people ignore is that it is
often relative rather than absolute wealth that makes people satisfied
with their economic condition. So saying that even poor people can
now have things that the richest king in the Middle Ages could not
afford (and so they should shut up and stop complaining?) is not
addressing the important factor. And, of course, economic wealth is
only one factor in human satisfaction. The unfortunate thing is that
many people trade things which are important to their social
well-being for economic rewards (as when they accept split shifts that
cut them off from social events, or move away from their friends for a
better job, or accept an unrewarding, meaningless occupation). And if
they turned down these offers for economic improvement, they would
also suffer social loss through reduction in self-esteem, reduced
status as compared to their neighbors (important for securing friends
and partners), and so on--as long as their neighbors continue to take
the other direction. The obvious solutions to some of these problems,
such as working towards economic equality or deemphsizing the
importance of economic wealth, are not technological problems and we
cannot expect improved technology to solve them. In fact, the demands
of technology can exaccerbate them in political and social ways that
I'm sure you all understand. Well, isn't technology necessary for the
world to avoid famine and feed itself? Yes, but we could do that now
and we don't.
There is one objection to this argument that I'll try to answer before
anyone makes it. I think most people intuitively realize that greater
wealth does not in itself increase human satisfaction, so the argument
for technological growth that is most often given is the impact it has
had on medicine and life expectancy. Who could argue against life and
health? However, the same argument holds to some extent that
satisfaction is relative. You are content with a life span that is
above average. For example, a person in their 90s might feel
satisfied with the length of their life as much as a person of age 60
in the previous century. One valuable contribution that modern
medicine can make is a reduction in the amount of physical pain that
people must suffer, but unfortunately people are often still made to
suffer extreme pain in modern medical practice. A basic contribution
of modern medicine is that it has tended to equalize life expectancy,
so the tragedy of early death is less frequent. While I think
medicine has made important contributions to human welfare (to that
fraction of the world's population to which it is available), there is
a tendency to greatly overestimate its value by concentating on
individual rather than social impact.
In summary, I think technology has been a good thing overall, but far
less than individual choices in the current social context would
indicate. It is also not going to solve all our problems.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 1983 1620-MDT
From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Impact of the computer on our culture
One of the most important differences between computer networks and
the other forms of cultural memory is that the computer network is, at
least potentially, a much more unified cultural memory. Printed
libraries take months to diseminate new information, whereas bulletins
such as newspapers and the electronic news media usually present
information organized on the basis of how current the information is.
A few specialized systems, such as the stock exchange and the airline
reservations systems, have made some special kinds of current
information indirectly available for reference by the public.
It will be interesting to see how the voting public will be affected
when at any moment each voter can look up, for example, what economic
theory Politician X advocated in the past and how that theory has
subsequently fared. Right now this information is available to the
public only if a publication like Newsweek decides to put all the
facts together in an article. I know that I for one would like to be
able to access up-to-the minute data on whoever was running for
office, or whatever major purchase I was about to make, among other
things.
Incidentally the Bureau of Reclamation makes available a dialup data
base which allows you to find out the current flow in the various
rivers around here. This service is vary popular with the local river
runners.
------------------------------
Date: 20 August 1983 07:08 edt
From: Ithiel de Sola Pool <Pool -at Multics>
Subject: Wyland (Ag 11) on Impact of Computers on Culture
Wyland <SRI-KL.ARPA> makes a number of excellent points in his August
8 meassage on the impact of computers on culture including the
speeding up of diversity and therefore change. Certainly he is right
and the Orwellian view wrong because "the usefulness of computers go
up in proportion to their numbers, not their size."
However, I believe he minimizes the importance of network effects in
what he calls the "improvement in the capabilities of public, cultural
memory." These are points I deal with at some length in a new book
"Technologies of Freedom" just published by the Harvard University
Press, most particularly in the Chapter on Electronic Publishing. The
explosion of individual cultural products in constantly modified form
on personal computers with large knowledge bases does not make a
workable culture. The ability to interact on line, and to find
conventions for limiting the things to be taken seriously is also
essential.
Certainly "our computer networks ... are different from
telephone/telegraph/mail/newspaper systems because of the capability
to store and manipulate messages: to select and abstract the
information", but the two functions are intextricably intertrwined in
complex ways.
Certainly, "the 1984 style central computer will give way to
individual personal machines, as the railroad gave way to the car and
the truck", but cars and trucks don't work without road systems, gas
stations, and standards.
Incidentally, I'd be very grateful for any comments on the book from
the informed population of Human-Nets members, to the extent that this
population is still reading books (which would be an interesting
subject to survey.)
P.S. 8/20/83
Since sending the above, Richard Treitel (Treitel -at SUMEX-AIM)
has suggested a different survey of the message reading and writing
habits of Human-Nets members. Do the members think a small on-line
survey would be a good idea?
------------------------------
Date: 21 August 1983 14:44 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Impact of computer on culture/advantages of personal computer
I don't agree that personal computers give you total security of data,
although they do help. If you don't live in a fortress, somebody can
break into your home and access your data. If it's not encrypted,
you're unprotected. If you use your computer for any sort of
communications, it's possible for somebody to plant a trojan horse
program in your system by one means or another (deceit, or break-in)
and then any time you are connected to another computer there's the
chance the trojan password will be entered and your system will enter
slave mode and give out any info the other computer asks for. If you
have any truly valuable data on your computer, these scenerios aren't
farfetched. If you store military data of course you can be personally
tortured until you reveal your encryption key.
But still you're better off than on a timesharing system I agree.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************