agranok@udenva.UUCP (01/29/87)
I have been looking for the James Burke book _The Day the Universe Changed_.
I really enjoyed the PBS series, and I enjoyed the "Connections" series as
well. I was wondering if anyone out there has read them both and can recom-
mend one or the other as a gift. If I had the money I would buy them both,
but...What do you folks out there in computer land think about James Burke's
presentation of science in general? Are his books as interesting as the shows
he does for the BBC? If you don't like him, let me know, too.
--
Alex Granok
hao!udenva!agranok
"Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it."jelkind@ruby.berkeley.edu.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <2818@udenva.UUCP> agranok@udenva.UUCP (Alex B. Granok) writes: >I really enjoyed the PBS series, and I enjoyed the "Connections" series as >well. . . . What do you folks out there in computer land think about James >Burke's presentation of science in general? I saw "Connections" when it was first on, and was at the time very impressed. Since then, I've matured somewhat. I think that he makes a valid and interesting point in "Connections", namely, that change is not always the step-by-step orderly process that we often think it is, and that important advances can come from seemingly unrelated things. On the other hand, in order to make his point he tends to oversimplify and even "fudge" things just a little. He's not lying, mind you, but. . . well, take this example. In one essay, he argues that moveable type printing arose in part to the shortage of clerks after the Black Death. But moveable type wasn't invented for a century after the Black Death! What did people do for clerks in the intervening hundred-odd years? And surely the population of Europe would have been beginning to rebound in a century. So, while James Burke is entertaining and interesting, what he says should not necessarily taken as gospel. Richard Schultz > "Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it." "We are the music-makers, and we are the dreamers of the dream."
andres@ut-sally.UUCP (01/30/87)
Distribution:na The "Connections" book is much the same as the show.I personally like Burke very much because he has the intelligence to worry about where all this technical wizardry may be leading us,but I think he overestimates the power of these silly machines we're all so familiar with.
hansen@mips.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <7008@ut-sally.UUCP>, andres@ut-sally.UUCP (Bennett Andres) writes: > The "Connections" book is much the same as the show.I personally like > Burke very much because he has the intelligence to worry about where all > this technical wizardry may be leading us,but I think he overestimates > the power of these silly machines we're all so familiar with. [Author's note: I just got into the writing mood here, so this turned out a lot longer than I expected it would. Don't take all this too seriously, even if it sounds like the mad ravings of a gloom and doom lunactic - I'd like to think that I'm not.] Burke's work has been, for the most part, a classic refutation of the "Great Man Theory of Innovation," where little schoolchildren are taught (and expected to remember) personal tidbits about the people who Made Technology What It Is Today. Burke demonstrates that many of the REAL innovations were made by people who have been nearly forgotten in the history books, who were often quite forgettable because they weren't Great Men at all, but were simply in the right place at the right time. In many cases, some Great Man comes along who picks up the innovation from a Little Man, and gains further fame and fortune by his ability to provide "marketing support." A corrolary of the argument is that if this particular Little Man hadn't come along, some other Little Man would have done so at nearly the same time, since the innovation is the result of exposure to the requisite knowledge. Where Burke's view start to get controversial is when he draws on the Ever Increasing Rate of Technological Growth Theory to observe that technology is too complicated to understand in its entirety at the detailed level. The "Connections" series is carefully crafted to make tecnological growth look complicated and unpredictable, with a lot of fast-talking, forward- and backward- referencing, and cross-cutting that makes for a Very Entertaining and Enjoyable Show. Burke would have you believe that he's doing you a service by telling you just how complicating all this mucking about with technology has become and just how dependent you huddled masses are out there on all this technological stuff. Now, armed, with this knowledge about how hideously complicated it all is, you should go right out there and become members of the Amateur Technology Assessment League, telling the politicians out there what kind of technology you want to have and what you don't want to have. But the primary part of his argument, the refutation of the Great Man Theory, should result in the conclusion that the growth of technology is simply the inexorable result of the combination of the existing bits of the technology matrix. The only way to stop it is to keep the bits of the technology matrix from being combined, which would amount to classification, censorship and limitations on the distribution of technological knowledge. But technological knowledge is already widely distributed, and unless a Fahrenheit 451 society is in the cards, this won't be happening. Even if you tried to limit it, you couldn't figure out how the pieces would fit together so as to control the next step of technological innovation. Yep. Technological growth is out of control. You won't know where the next new invention will come from. However, when Burke shows you how complicated some ordinary household item really is inside and in it's history, he glosses over the fact that it usually doesn't matter how it's made inside, so long as it works and continues to work. He'd like to get worried that it will stop working, but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. So you can safely ignore the complexity of existing technology. What you can be worried about this that the complexification and stratification of technology makes it harder for people whether working individually or as a group, to put it all together and make innovation out of it. We can worry that the rate of technological innovation is/will be slowing down, and that has important economic considerations for us all. After all, the businesses of manufacturing technological items are dependent on having a new bit of technology that the consumers don't already have. The automobile industry is in the pits because new cars don't go faster, look better, or fall apart slower than the old cars - there's nothing but useless complexity and marketing hype in this years models. Similar comparisons can be drawn on the computer industry where even though the rate of technological change has been great, the delivery of advantages to consumers of the technology has not kept pace. If you look carefully, you can spot "Limits to Growth" problems developing in many areas, not so much due to a lack of raw materials, as the Club of Rome reports forecasted, but due to the increasing complexity of technology and society. Burke's and my disagreement (of course, he hasn't even heard of me) can be likened to the expanding universe versus the contracting universe disagreement - we may not know which one is right, but there ain't much we can do to change the outcome. Burke seems to be worried that technology will get much too complicated in the future, and I'm worried that it won't. Let's just wait and find out...For my part, I'm getting prepared for the service-oriented society by working on the intonation of the phrase "Would you like fries wid dat?" -- Craig Hansen | "Evahthun' tastes MIPS Computer Systems | bettah when it ...decwrl!mips!hansen | sits on a RISC"
andres@ut-sally.UUCP (Bennett Andres) (02/02/87)
In article <937@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >.................. but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits >of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. That's a long time,isn't it? Should we really have so much faith in our inventions? To me,that's the crux of the matter - that people will be so overwhelmed by the brilliance of it all that they forget that anything man-made will eventually break. Only a fool would think that anything good could come out of trying to restrict technological change, but it's quite possible to go overboard in the other directon.
rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/02/87)
I unhesitatingly recommend Burke's "Connections" and "The Day The Universe Changed" in either book or video form. Anyone who enjoyed Sagan's "Cosmos", Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man", or Attenborough's "Life on Earth" will find these programs/books fascinating. Even if one does not agree with Burke's point of view, his perspective is certainly refreshing; and his wry sense of humor permeates throughout. Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (02/02/87)
I saw Connections and read the book and enjoyed both very much. Though, as has been pointed out here, he oversimplifies and even lies a little bit. This is less pronounced in the book, however. (The posting that mentioned movable type was interesting. I think in Connections he gives a slightly different story than in The Day the Universe Changed. Might be interesting to compare the two.) I have not read The Day the Universe Changed, but I enjoyed the series. However, he's much too much of a relativist. He sounds like somebody who has just read Kuhn and was struck by the rightness of it all without stopping to be critical. The book lists two or three references by Kuhn and one or two by Feyerabend. It would be nice to see some balanced consideration of scientific realism (though realism seems to be out of fashion in science). There's only so much you can do for a popular audience, I guess. Maybe he overstated his case a bit just to make the point to those who've never thought of things in quite that way. He also seems to be too much in love with computers. Those of us who know something about them may tend to down-play their importance. But people who know a little bit tend to attach too much importance to them. UUCP: ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!tanner ARPA: tanner@ohio-state.arpa
salem@sri-unix.UUCP (02/02/87)
I think that people responding to the querry about James Burke's view of Science in "Connections" have not made one of his central points, made in the first and last episodes, chapters of the book: We depend on a technical world whose structure we could not individually rebuild from scratch if we were suddenly stripped of it. If we wanted to wrest control of our lives from the technological infrastructure that has been created over the past 1500 years what should we do? Destroy it and start over, do nothing, try to understand how its parts create our world? The middle sections of the series offer a whimsical account of how seemingly unrelated incidents suggested innovations that lead to modern inventions and science. I think that the value of Burke's presentation is not only that it is fun, but that ideas arn't often formed in some formal and dry way, but often in a climate of necessity, sometimes frivolous need, but someone is there to see the connection between two or more effects whose sum is greater than the "bits". This process does not always involve great men, often practical men of no great intellect. In the subsequent series, and book, "The day the Universe Changed", Burke is looking at this same process, but more soborly, for a few critical events where a number of things came together to make a great change in the subsequent culture. Again, this is not the Great Men approach. I have seen some of the PBS episodes, and read only some of the chapters of the book, I could go review this material and comment on it later. I should add that I think that Burke mentions pieces of history that are well mentioned in traditional history of Science and Technology books I have seen, but adds some novel ones and his own unique interpetation. Some people may disagree with the slapstick way he does this, but he is trying to present a complicated topic in an entertaining way, at least in the first series. I don't find anything In either series or book that I strongly object to, or do I know of any case where he has got his facts wrong. I think that the support of our way of life by a technical infra- structure that could be easily destroyed, say by global nuclear war, and not easily replaced, is a powerful concept. I have often wondered if there is a repository of our current knowledge that could survive the total destruction of the global or regional communications system we use for disemination of technical culture? Are there places, vaults, underground, where backup copies of University libraries are stored? Do people put records, blueprints, textbooks, scientific monographics in some form that could be stored for thousands of years? Are Compact Disks used for this purpose? Do we know that CDs last for any length of time? Is there a better way to store information? I know that corporate records are stored in vaults. Near Menlo Park, at Ben Lomond Mountian there is such a place. I suppose a deeper question is, if we were to experience some catastrophy that destroys the infrastructure of technology, something caused by the technology itself, nuclear war, some worldwide climatic change, a pandemic that decimates world population, etc., would we lose so much faith in the accmulation of knowledge so it gets destroyed by us, like the burning of the library at Alexandra by Christians in the Fourth Century? What perserves the value of knowledge? Bruce Salem
rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/03/87)
In article <937@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >.................. but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits >of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. Nonsense. The technology we rely on fails...frequently. If you happen to catch the first program in Burke's "Connections" series, where he discusses the New York blackout, and the consequences that would quite likely ensue if it continued for any length of time, you'll see a rather chilling scenario unfold. Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
jc@cdx39.UUCP (02/05/87)
> > >.................. but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits > >of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. > > That's a long time,isn't it? Should we really have so much faith in our > inventions? Well, the historic record has shown a few losses. It was just recently that someone finally figured out how to make Damascus steel. We no longer know how to make concrete that is as stable as some of the stuff used to build the Roman roads, and is still good after a couple millenia. There are probably some historians around who will add to the list (hint). It has been observed that a culture is only as old as its oldest member. Technology only exists, in any usable sense, if we have people who can understand it. It would be very easy to lose a lot of things. Consider, for example, the growing disaster in math and science education in the American public school system. We are in serious danger of having a population that is mostly ignorant couch potatoes, and a few (mostly foreign-born) inner-motivated individuals who have learned math on their own despite the schools. This may soon have a big impact on what sort of technology we can support. There was a curious example of technology loss back during the Vietnam years. One of the Viet Cong's effective techniques was to make crossbows out of non-metallic materials. Thus armed, they could sneak up close to areas 'protected' by electronic surveillance. At close range, it turns out that a good crossbow is often a more dangerous weapon than most guns. Modern military people tend to sneer, of course, which only added to the vulnerability of a lot of soldiers. [This is really an example of arrogance rather than technological loss.] Oh, yes, another loss: Back in the 40's and early 50's, we had high-school biology texts that did a reasonably good job of introducing the concept of evolution; religious pressure caused the publishers to eliminate this part of the texts. Now we have a population that thinks that it is reasonable to debate whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in schools. The very fact that they can get away with using such a phrase and not be laughed out of the room is evidence of how much we have lost on this front. Among the results are the current malaria epidemic throughout the tropics; you can probably add your own entries to a list of biological problems due to a general failure to understand the mechanisms of evolution. As for technology working forever, well, antibiotics and pesticides don't. -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Clever-Saying: Uucp me out of here, Scotty; there's no AI on this node!
edhall@randvax.UUCP (02/05/87)
In article <3037@osu-eddie.UUCP> tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner) writes: > .... >He also seems to be too much in love with computers. Those of us who >know something about them may tend to down-play their importance. But >people who know a little bit tend to attach too much importance to >them. I think we, as computer professionals, are far too close to the trees to see the forest. And those of us who use the computer for public communication like USENET often don't realize just how unique it is as a social phenomenon. Assuming a computer-literate society and completely reasonable extensions of resources and technology, this sort of communication has a potential for social impact far exceeding that of the telephone. But it will be a few generations before we know just where the computer communication revolution will lead no matter what technical progress is made; I don't think we realize just how very young computer technology is in social terms! -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
hansen@mips.UUCP (02/06/87)
In article <3083@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes: > In article <937@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: > >.................. but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits > >of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. > > Nonsense. The technology we rely on fails...frequently. If you happen > to catch the first program in Burke's "Connections" series, where he > discusses the New York blackout, and the consequences that would quite > likely ensue if it continued for any length of time, you'll see a rather > chilling scenario unfold. I think I'm being quoted out of context and misinterpreted. What I mean here is that "technology" doesn't disappear easily. Even the New York blackout was a temporary affair, and the attention paid to the problem resulted in significant improvements in the electrical distribution network. The folly of man is not to be underestimated, but mercifully, the laws of nature have been reasonably constant over the last few millenia. The point is that even a catastrophic event doesn't destroy the "technology matrix" - electricity would still have been a well-known phenomenon even if the New York blackout had (quite frankly, unimaginably) lasted for weeks. -- Craig Hansen | "Evahthun' tastes MIPS Computer Systems | bettah when it ...decwrl!mips!hansen | sits on a RISC"
janw@inmet.UUCP (02/08/87)
[jelkind@ruby.berkeley.edu.UUCP ] >to make his point he tends to oversimplify and even "fudge" >things just a little. He's not lying, mind you, but. . . well, >take this example. In one essay, he argues that moveable type >printing arose in part to the shortage of clerks after the Black >Death. But moveable type wasn't invented for a century after the >Black Death! What did people do for clerks in the intervening >hundred-odd years? And surely the population of Europe would have >been beginning to rebound in a century. So, while James Burke is >entertaining and interesting, what he says should not necessarily >taken as gospel. > Richard Schultz I agree about Burke; but the particular conjecture on population is, I believe, wrong. The population of Europe kept falling for a century after the Black Death. It fell by perhaps a third in the Black Death itself, but it probably fell by something like *two thirds* during the next century. The main cause was that the plague returned every few years as population not immune to it accumulated. Among other causes were birthrate decline, change in mores making for less hygiene, and other epidemics. (Recommended source: The Black Death, by Robert S. Gottfried, Free Press, New York). Richard Schultz's argument above still holds: Europe must have accomodated somehow to the immediate shortage of clerks in the 14th century, and the gradual depopulation may not have anything to do with the printing problem. Burke does stretch points; the value of his method lies, I believe, not in discovering *the* true causal connection between facts, but in indicating what *kinds* of connection exist. It is half history, half thought experiment (aka fiction). Jan Wasilewsky
firth@sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (02/09/87)
In article <1035@sri-unix.ARPA> salem@sri-unix.UUCP (Bruce B. Salem) writes: >... like the burning >of the library at Alexandra by Christians in the Fourth Century? >Bruce Salem Agreed that many Christians were (and judging by the Meese Report still are) inveterate pyromaniacs; but this atrocity was perpetrated by Moslems in the seventh century.
gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <547@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <1035@sri-unix.ARPA> salem@sri-unix.UUCP (Bruce B. Salem) writes: >>... like the burning >>of the library at Alexandra by Christians in the Fourth Century? >>Bruce Salem >Agreed that many Christians were (and judging by the Meese Report still are) >inveterate pyromaniacs; but this atrocity was perpetrated by Moslems in the >seventh century. It was committed by various groups at various time for various reasons. The fourth century burning was of a branch library, as the main one had been already totaled by a previous riot (related to the Imperial succession). I believe the Moslem thing is a bum rap; the library was already gone. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt
rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <944@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >In article <3083@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes: >> In article <937@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >> >... but the nice thing about technology is that even the bits >> >of it that you don't understand will keep working the same way forever. >> >> Nonsense. The technology we rely on fails...frequently. > >I think I'm being quoted out of context and misinterpreted. What I mean here >is that "technology" doesn't disappear easily. Even the New York blackout >was a temporary affair, and the attention paid to the problem resulted in >significant improvements in the electrical distribution network. The folly >of man is not to be underestimated, but mercifully, the laws of nature have >been reasonably constant over the last few millenia. The point is that even >a catastrophic event doesn't destroy the "technology matrix" - electricity >would still have been a well-known phenomenon even if the New York blackout >had (quite frankly, unimaginably) lasted for weeks. I did not intend to quote you out of context, and do not think I did so. However, that issue aside, I feel that your statement is untrue regardless of the context. Why? Because I think you are blurring the difference between science and technology. It is certainly true that physics continues to operate regardless of the extent of physics-knowledge possessed by human beings (I herein ignore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as I'm mostly concerned with macroscopic phenomena), but it is not true that technology (in the large) continues to operate when human beings forget how it works. To map this into the New York blackout example: yes, electricity would continue to be an observable and controllable physical entity, in spite of the [extended] blackout. However, things like turbines and generators and power distribution equipment are technological items that *will* fail, sooner or later, and will thus require human intervention for maintenance. It is these items which will NOT "keep working the same way forever" if they become "bits of it that you don't understand". We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost; the medieval art of making stained glass still holds secrets that have not been re-discoverd. There are many instances of ancient constructions that were built with techniques that are still unknown--although many of these are now being gradually deduced. Physics hasn't changed; but the technology doesn't work anymore because we simply don't know how to make it work. Maybe we're arguing a semantic issue; perhaps we need to draw a line of some vague sort between science and technology. (I would agree with your original statement if it concerned science, not technology.) Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
hansen@mips.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes: > We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost; the > medieval art of making stained glass still holds secrets that have not > been re-discoverd. There are many instances of ancient constructions that > were built with techniques that are still unknown--although many of > these are now being gradually deduced. Physics hasn't changed; but > the technology doesn't work anymore because we simply don't know how > to make it work. > > Maybe we're arguing a semantic issue; perhaps we need to draw a line > of some vague sort between science and technology. (I would agree with > your original statement if it concerned science, not technology.) Well, I guess I'm still not making myself clear. Along with the scientific developments, society has put an elaborate system in place of recording, publishing, and training others in scientific methods and discoveries. This system is what I mean by the "technology matrix," and the fact that it wasn't fully in place in medieval and ancient times simply serves to amplify the point. If we are in fact losing contemporary technological knowledge, I'd be very surprised. Yes, individual objects fail, and yes, old technology becomes outdated and irrelevant, but the capacity to recreate that technological item from the "technology matrix," provides a robust mechanism to ensure the continued progress of technology. As an example of how the mechanism works, suppose a company is formed in which substantial technological discoveries are made. In order to exploit the discoveries in a product, patents are filed to claim the exclusive right to do so by the company, but only for a limited time. Those patents, after a suitable delay, end up in the "technology matrix," and become widely available to other people and companies. Thus, even if the company were to fail to exploit the technology itself and have the patent rights fall through a series of mergers, acquisitions, and liquidations, the invention does not fail to become part of our technology in the long term. -- Craig Hansen | "Evahthun' tastes MIPS Computer Systems | bettah when it ...decwrl!mips!hansen | sits on a RISC"
bob@uhmanoa.UUCP (02/17/87)
>>... The point is that even >>a catastrophic event doesn't destroy the "technology matrix" - electricity >>would still have been a well-known phenomenon even if the New York blackout >>had (quite frankly, unimaginably) lasted for weeks. > >To map this into the New York blackout example: yes, electricity would >continue to be an observable and controllable physical entity, in spite >of the [extended] blackout. However, things like turbines and generators >and power distribution equipment are technological items that *will* fail, >sooner or later, and will thus require human intervention for maintenance. >It is these items which will NOT "keep working the same way forever" if >they become "bits of it that you don't understand". Unimaginable as as an extended blackout might seem, such things have happened. Here's a little story that actually involves some "forgotten" technology, too. On Thanksgiving evening 1984, Hurricane Iwa---essentially without warning---hit the islands of Kauai and Oahu, destroying major portions of the electrical grids on both islands and knocking out all electrical generation. It was several days before power was restored to portions of Honolulu (incidentally, the 11th most populous city in the United States), several weeks before power was completely restored. One of the reasons it took so long was that all of the generators were designed to be "jump-started" from another running generator on the grid, and no one knew how to bootstrap up a generator all by itself. The whole story is rather too long to go into here, but here are some of the key points... There was no satellite meteorological coverage for the central Pacific, because the GOES East satellite had failed, and the GOES West had been moved over to cover the Atlantic...which the Weather Service figured was more important. Weather observations from ships told of a strong hurricane developing west of the islands, but a military reconnaisance flight sent out on Thanksgiving day failed to accurately locate the storm. There was no historical precedence for the path it took that led right to the population centers. In the afternoon, winds started rising, and the Weather Service issued a Hurricane Watch, then quickly a Warning, but still didn't have a precise fix on Iwa, nor accurate information on speed or direction. Early in the evening, after dark the winds started gusting well above 60 mph, and the electrical grid went down, surprising the electrical utilities who had taken no precautions to isolate any of their systems...taking down all their generators. [This could be a separate story in itself, but suffice it to say that the Civil Defense Emergency Broadcast system didn't work. Besides all the TV stations, all the radio stations---except one--- went off the air that night. The single radio station that had an operating emergency generator was running "on automatic", playing religious music.] By the next day, one or two other radio stations were up (and the religious station had hastily converted to all-news), but power was still out...remaining out for days. The first thing people missed was water, the water distribution system being driven by electrical pumps...though some places that had gravity feed from tanks above in the hills were lucky for a while. Traffic was a shambles since no traffic lights were working...though that became less of a problem over the next day or so since no gas stations were pumping and people realized that they were stuck with just whatever gasoline they happened to have in the tanks of their cars, and started being very careful about how they used that up. Food in refrigerators and freezers spoiled. Long lines developed at grocery stores as people tried to buy more food...and clerks had to add up by hand. Most resturants stayed closed; the few that opened---cooking with gas---soon closed again as the city gas system began losing pressure. Electrical generators (even small ones) were not available for love nor money, ice and candles (when available) went for premium prices. The most-listened-to person in the islands was the spokesman for the electrical company who spent virtually all of his waking hours on one radio station or another detailing the repair work underway Meanwhile, the electrical utility company crews worked around the clock to restore portions of the electrical grid, and devise ways to start up even one major generator. I don't know the full story behind the restart effort, except that lots of different techniques were tried, one of which finally worked on Oahu. The Navy dispatched a nuclear submarine to Kauai in an effort to "jump start" the main generator there. It seemed like forever, but it was only a few days until electricity was available to some parts of Honolulu. We lived with rolling blackouts for about a week more. Outlying areas on the islands weren't fully restored for over two weeks. There were some fatalities, due mostly to "freak" accidents of various kinds...and a small, but statistically significant "baby boomlet" some 9 months later. If this had happenedd to a major mainland city in winter there would have been considerably more fatalities, and the story would be much more widely known. As it was, if it had lasted too many more days, water would have become very critical... -- Bob Cunningham bob@hig.hawaii.edu
rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <954@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >In article <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes: >> We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost... > >Well, I guess I'm still not making myself clear. Along with the scientific >developments, society has put an elaborate system in place of recording, >publishing, and training others in scientific methods and discoveries. This >system is what I mean by the "technology matrix," and the fact that it >wasn't fully in place in medieval and ancient times simply serves to amplify >the point. If we are in fact losing contemporary technological knowledge, >I'd be very surprised. Okay, I'll try to surprise you with an example: vacuum tubes. Twenty years ago, most graduating electrical engineers learned about tubes in their curriculum the way today's EE's learn about CMOS and TTL technologies. But just try to find a [recently graduated] EE today who can even tell you what the pins on a 6V6GT are, how to bias it, or even what it might *do*. I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of the EE's around here (and we have a couple thousand) could do it. In another twenty years, vacuum tubes will be nearly forgotten, except in those applications where they're still needed (and there aren't many) and by those people working on those applications. >... but the capacity to recreate that technological item from the >"technology matrix," provides a robust mechanism to ensure the continued >progress of technology. Mostly, yes. But I don't find that mechanism quite as robust as you do (I think); especially in the case of catastrophic events. However, I do agree that in most cases, it's hard for things to get lost. Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
piner@pur-phy.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <3305@j.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Wombat) writes: >In article <954@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >>In article <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes: >>> We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost... >> >>Well, I guess I'm still not making myself clear. Along with the scientific >>developments, society has put an elaborate system in place of recording, >>publishing, and training others in scientific methods and discoveries. > >Okay, I'll try to surprise you with an example: vacuum tubes. Twenty >years ago, most graduating electrical engineers learned about tubes in >their curriculum the way today's EE's learn about CMOS and TTL >technologies. But just try to find a [recently graduated] EE today who >can even tell you what the pins on a 6V6GT are, how to bias it, or even >what it might *do*. I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of >the EE's around here (and we have a couple thousand) could do it. In >another twenty years, vacuum tubes will be nearly forgotten, except in >those applications where they're still needed (and there aren't many) >and by those people working on those applications. > >>... but the capacity to recreate that technological item from the >>"technology matrix," provides a robust mechanism to ensure the continued >>progress of technology. > >Mostly, yes. But I don't find that mechanism quite as robust as you do >(I think); especially in the case of catastrophic events. However, I >do agree that in most cases, it's hard for things to get lost. > Well, I'll toss in my two cents worth two. My cousin's husband is getting ready to retire from his post as a plant engineer. He is a Purdue grad. He has, of course, interviewed a number of recent Purdue grads as replacements. He is not happy with the results. He needs a person that understands motors, three phase juice, and high power systems. Twenty years ago he would have found lots of graduates to fill the bill, but now it is almost impossible. Finding someone with basic electrical engineering skills is almost impossible. In our rush to "high tech" we are forgetting the fundamentals. While things might be written down in some text book somewhere, that is not the same as practical experience. Text books don't make factories run. Our system is on very shaky ground. When the post-world war two engineers all retire, the US will have a very hard time replacing them. Our schools no longer have the people to teach "bread & butter" engineering to young people. While the knowledge is not lost in the academic sense, it is not in the hands of enough people to meet practical economic needs. So we are in a pinch. If all our engineering grads are schooled in new sexy technologies, we will come to a time when we can build great computers, but there won't be any power plants to provide the electricity. On the other hand, if we change course, and start teaching basic engineering skills needed by more mundane applications, we will have a short fall in people needed to advance technology. Clearly, we just plain need both. Which means more engineering grads. Which means a bigger University system. Which means more support. Which means higher taxes. Which means we are in deep trouble. Richard Piner piner@galileo.physics.purdue.edu
leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.UUCP (02/20/87)
[begin: spouting off: I think the kind of power engineering methods needed to run factories are now "technology" and probably should be taught in tech schools. (That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught). We don't need a bigger university system. What we need is a dichotomy between universities (which are places for learning, thinking, and growing) and technical/trade schools (for skills, business techniques, how to make big bucks fast, etc.). The biggest problem with the US college system is that the students aren't there to learn a damn thing, they're mostly there to be force-fed a career. If you ask me, the American university system is a mass-production mess. end: spouting off] Ben Leimkuhler (leimkuhl@p.cs.uiuc.edu)
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <646@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: > Oh, yes, another loss: Back in the 40's and early 50's, we had high-school > biology texts that did a reasonably good job of introducing the concept of > evolution; religious pressure caused the publishers to eliminate this part > of the texts. Now we have a population that thinks that it is reasonable > to debate whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in schools. > The very fact that they can get away with using such a phrase and not be > laughed out of the room is evidence of how much we have lost on this front. Agreed wholeheartedly. I've never felt the effects of such debates, but it's scary to think they're taking place at all. -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: Actually, what I'd like is a little toy spaceship!!
salem@sri-unix.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <12533@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >In article <646@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >> Oh, yes, another loss: Back in the 40's and early 50's, we had high-school >> biology texts that did a reasonably good job of introducing the concept of >> evolution; religious pressure caused the publishers to eliminate this part >> of the texts. Now we have a population that thinks that it is reasonable >> to debate whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in schools. >> The very fact that they can get away with using such a phrase and not be >> laughed out of the room is evidence of how much we have lost on this front. > > Agreed wholeheartedly. I've never felt the effects of such debates, >but it's scary to think they're taking place at all. > > -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) There are several ways to look at this. Some possible interpetations: 1) The schools, especially public schools, have been co-opted into thinking they have to please everybody, every minority that has a voice in their community and state, and not offend anyone. This view holds that you water everything down that is controversial because it can't be handled in the classroom, or it must be handled legally, administratively, at the state level. Maybe this is a symptom of a fundemetal trend in problem solving in this nation. 2) The science curricula have been suffering from a peak of support in 1963 because national priorities have shifted away from support for basic science. Science is being more poorly taught now than it was before. People don't understand what science claims anymore. They con't distinguish it from non-science, cult or religion. 3) The country has gone Conservative. It is older demographically, and the conservatives, who have always been there, are getting their views aired because of the political mood of the nation and the administration in Washington. 4) The opposite view may be the case, the 'fundies are getting smoked out of the pulpet, the Creationists are getting their view aired in a real examination of the issues. What do you think? Is it all of these? Are there any more? What could we do about it as technocrates and, some of us, with advanced degrees in science? -- Bruce B. Salem UUCP: hplabs!ames!spam!sri-unix!salem ARPA: salem@unix.sri.com SRI International PHONE: (415) 859-5334 PN309 333 Ravenswood St. Menlo Park Ca. 94025
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <1416@sri-unix.ARPA> salem@sri-unix.UUCP (Bruce B. Salem) writes: >In article <646@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >> Oh, yes, another loss: Back in the 40's and early 50's, we had high-school >> biology texts that did a reasonably good job of introducing the concept of >> evolution; religious pressure caused the publishers to eliminate this part >> of the texts. Now we have a population that thinks that it is reasonable >> to debate whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in schools. >> The very fact that they can get away with using such a phrase and not be >> laughed out of the room is evidence of how much we have lost on this front. > > There are several ways to look at this. > > Some possible interpetations: > > 1) The schools, especially public schools, have been co-opted into >thinking they have to please everybody, every minority that has a voice in >their community and state, and not offend anyone. Unfortunately, there is a point to be made that, since children legally must go to school, what they are taught there must be acceptable. Acceptable to whom is a trickier point. Takers? >People don't understand what science claims anymore. They con't distinguish >it from non-science, cult or religion. Could I ask for evidence of this? If true, things are worse than I thought. > 3) The [U.S.] has gone Conservative. True. > 4) The opposite view may be the case, the 'fundies are getting smoked >out of the pulpet, the Creationists are getting their view aired in a >real examination of the issues. No comment. :-) > What do you think? Is it all of these? Are there any more? What could >we do about it as technocrates and, some of us, with advanced degrees in >science? > >Bruce B. Salem UUCP: hplabs!ames!spam!sri-unix!salem ARPA: salem@unix.sri.com >SRI International PHONE: (415) 859-5334 >PN309 333 Ravenswood St. >Menlo Park Ca. 94025 -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: RHAPSODY in Glue!