ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/20/84)
-- Well, not to many folks have responded to my query. I asked: >> There are rules, and not only don't you break them, you don't question >> them either. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else" argument >> is thus another popular netlandism. And indeed, most people engaged in >> intricate technology have very traditional lifestyles. Why? >> The other side of this question is: >> Why have recent movements for social and political change in America >> consistently failed to attract followers with technological expertise? One nice person thought I sounded a bit glum and recommended that I try Jesus. A few others misunderstood comments I made about "the Farm", a commune in Tennessee. I noted that The Farm, organized along very traditional social lines, had the technological expertise to produce a manual on CB radio for dummies. This was meant as praise--manuals for neophytes are the hardest of all technical materials to produce. But The Farm is still not an alternative lifestyle. And even at that, it's apparently going to hell in a handbasket, according to a respondent who visited recently. We did get a small discussion on the attractiveness of libertarianism in high-tech, but that died as it got into red-baiting. Still, there were some meaty ideas. One claim was that techies tend to be social outcasts, with poorly formed social skills. They therefore adopt the default profile. The libertarianism was explained as the logical choice of logical thinkers. This submission also gets to the heart of the matter: >> John Milton summarized the two types of people in his poems: >> "Il Penseroso" ( the thinker ) and "Il Allegro" ( life in the >> fast lane ). >> Rick GIGI::Merrill I'm starting to think that most techies are very insecure. They need a high degree of order in their lives because the world is just too chaotic for them to deal with head on. If they can't find the order, they invent, nay impose, one. But that's what scientific thinking is all about. And thus, they are scientists. And good ones too, clutching for patterns--any patterns at all. Oh the joy of wielding Occam's razor, the Excalibur of our times. In the rush to find patterns we paint prisons around us. Lots of bars but few windows, which we see through oh so rarely, when the light reaches just the right angle. Kuhn's famous "paradigm shifts." But how we cling to the deceptively simple. Like libertarianism. And most religions. We spend most of our conscious existence in ruts. So why do we box ourselves in, ever tighter? Isn't there enough imposed order already? Can "Il Penseroso" never change lanes? Why paint bars? Why not melting clocks? Why not get up tomorrow and say, "Well, we know this all works. Let's try something else now and see how that works."? We do just that, every day, *AT WORK*. But not in our larger lives. Thoreau did. It's a long, long way from Silicon Valley to Walden Pond. (...but my heart lies there.) -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 19 Jun 84 [1 Messidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (06/20/84)
Whether or not "movements for social or political change" attract technocrats depends a lot on their philosophy. Many of the "back to nature" movements are (sometimes explicitly) anti-technology and anti-intellectual. Although many technically oriented people support environmental groups, they don't usually share this attitude. Many of the pro-space groups get almost all their support from the technical community. Perhaps many technical people are less political because they are more absorbed by their work than the average person?
delano@sunybcs.UUCP (Harry DeLano) (06/23/84)
Ah, tomorrow! Tonight I say that I will awake tomorrow and say "Chuck it!". Tomorrow I WILL wake up and say: "I have to do what I can to bring order to the chaos!"