jdj@munsell (Joel Jennings) (11/19/87)
My apologies for posting this in what may be an inappropriate newsgroup, but I have a silly question to ask. We all talk about the impact of computers and networks on society and the ills (or benefits) they may bring. How come nobody ever attempts to do something constructive? What I mean is, we have here an incredibly powerful tool in the USENET. Our readership has enough cumulative intelligence to reach the stars, and yet no one tries to use this capability to bring about the benificial social changes we all read about in SF novels. Everyone TALKS about the impacts on society, why doesn't anyone try to MAKE an impact on society? Joel Jennings
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (11/20/87)
Permit me to answer this if I may. Joel Jennings writes: > My apologies for posting this in what may be an inappropriate newsgroup, > but I have a silly question to ask. I don't think this is a silly question at all. > We all talk about the impact of computers and networks on society and > the ills (or benefits) they may bring. How come nobody ever attempts > to do something constructive? Many things are done constructively, it's just that you are impatient with people because they don't react as fast as interactive systems. You just need some perspective (the study of history). Keying on your word constructive: first, modern electronic computers were first used to compute ballistic trajectories. Agencies like DARPA had the foresight to see other uses for machines and we have some very visionary scientists like Vandy Bush, Ivan Sutherland, Alan Kay, etc. we also have the personal computer from the first Apples to the Mac II (and the famous but lesser known Alto which I had the pleasure of using). Lots of constructive things are done: CAD, simulation, etc. But I begin to bore myself. You know all these. One more thing to note is that different people have different perspectives of the world, like democrats and republicans, hindus/buddists and christians/jews/moslems, vegies and meat eaters, smokers and non, etc. > Our readership has enough cumulative intelligence to reach the > stars, and yet no one tries to use this capability to bring about the > beneficial social changes we all read about in SF novels. Well, we really don't know about reaching the stars. I won't go into that (maybe some of our children). This kind of optimism was what I found in Levy's book about Hackers and it is similar to some of the ideas that the military had about using modern technology to SOLVE Vietnam or to solve the problems of hunger or unemployment, etc. I also enjoyed Levy's comment about Gosper and the Saturn V. Part of the problem is that not every one in the world is connected, nor knows how to us computers. It is worthwhile to learn and understand computer "anxiety." Some people are threatened in completely different ways. Another part of the problem is a newtork is not a database. These (and your words) just fly off into the ether unless some one collects them, refines them, saves them, and some one finds them years from now (that's why past words are so precious and current words so inflated). We don't weigh them well. P.S. be careful in distinguishing SF from reality. I have met people who thought the Laws of Robotics were real. > Everyone TALKS about the impact on society, why doesn't anyone try to > MAKE an impact on society? We are making an impact on society. We are turning it upside down. Its a question of how much, of patience, or revolution. You just have to plug away at the changes, you have to educate the people around you, but you have to be prepared to give as well. The early computer folks (and many IBMers) thought good interfaces were inefficient. Eugene Miya
mfidelma@bbn.COM (Miles Fidelman) (11/20/87)
Joel, This doesn't seem silly or inappropriate at all. I agree 100%. A thought occurs to me: There are several organizations that run annual policy forum - notably the Domestic Policy Association and the Foreign Policy Association. I'm more familiar with the DPA so I'll describe their program. DPA is a non-profit organization supported by the Kettering Foundation. Annually, they recruit volunteer "convenors" around the country to host forums (large) or study groups (small) to discuss hot issues. DPA provides relatively balanced study guides on three topics each year (chosen through a relatively open process). In recent years, topics have included Social Security, Farm Policy, Nuclear Arms, etc. The intent of the forums is to have people educate themselves about issues, and then engage in face-to-face discussions of the issues. Conclusions are collected and eventually presented to policy makers at a conference held at one of the Presidential Libraries. Results are also presented in Washington at Capital Hill and White House briefings. A couple of years ago, I tried running a DPA study group via the Source, with limited success (probably because of the computer time cost). I've been wanting to try the same experiment via the Usenet. It would be an opportunity to dig into some issues and have a channel for our discussions to go somewhere. Any takers? Miles Fidelman
pmd@cbdkc1.att.com (Paul Dubuc) (11/24/87)
This reminds me of the popular reasoning, "We can put a man on the moon by we can't [solve a paticular social problem]". I don't know if this is the reasoning being used here but, in any case, it's important to realize that human social problems are much harder to solve adaquately than problems of a more purely technical nature. Technical problems tend to exclude moral issues (rightly or wrongly) as being out of the scientific domain. I don't know what kinds of "social solutions" are being referred to in science fiction literature, but I suspect that those we might think are good examples do not fully take into account the moral complexity of human beings. Surely that technology that is available for good use is also available for evil--and there are many example of that as well in the literature. Would anyone like to share their ideas on the implications of treating social problems as technical ones? Paul Dubuc
glg@sfsup.ATT.COM (Gerry Gleason) (11/24/87)
Miles Fidelman writes: > A couple of years ago, I tried running a DPA study group via the Source, > with limited success (probably because of the computer time cost). I've > been wanting to try the same experiment via the Usenet. It would be > an opportunity to dig into some issues and have a channel for our discussions > to go somewhere. > Any takers? Sounds like a great idea, how do we make it happen. Gerry Gleason
taylor@hplabsz.UUCP (11/28/87)
> We all talk about the impact of computers and networks on society and > the ills (or benefits) they may bring. How come nobody ever attempts > to do something constructive? I think this topic is extremely relavent, and important to our future. I have been spending a considerable amount of time reading and posting to the network, and I am considering stopping because we appear to be doing nothing more than shooting-the-breeze. The reason for this is probably unavoidable, netnews is a broadcast medium, and therefore not suited to advancing *action*. Another answer is that your assumption that nothing is happening is unjustified, but it is not happening in netnews, but in e-mail, etc. To broaden the topic to computer networks in general, there must be many BBS's dedicated to doing constructive things in particular domains. > Everyone TALKS about the impact on society, why doesn't anyone try > to MAKE an impact on society? What projects, etc. do you suggest? Netnews seems appropriate for initiating a project, and publisizing it to the USENET community. Then mail would be used to coordinate work on the project, and keep the participants informed. One project that we could take on in this way is an investigation of the general question of how we can use networks to accomplish these ends. It could start by looking at what is already happening, and continue by splitting off subgroups to work on specific issues that are identified. Also, the topics of nanotechnology and hypertext have been hitting several newsgroups lately. I think that hypertext could be the basis for both a constructive project, and a better way to utilize the network to document and communicate the work being done. Nano- technology, when/if it becomes practical, is an important reason we must consider the impact of technologies. They clearly ARE having an impact on society. We, the technologists, can no longer consider our work independantly of its effects. It is often claimed that technology itself is neutral, neither good or evil, but this does not mean we can abandon the responsibility of making informed choices on *what* to work on. We must choose between creating ever-more-complex weapons systems, and systems to eliminate poverty through education (in my opinion this is the only way to solve this and related problems such as over-population and hunger), care for our environment, or reach for the stars. I am interested in participating in taking some of these issues out of talk-only and into action. How should we start? Who else is willing to get involved in this? Gerry Gleason
taylor@hplabsz.UUCP (11/28/87)
Joel Jennings writes: > Many things are done constructively, it's just that you are impatient > with people because they don't react as fast as interactive systems. > You just need some perspective (the study of history). You are correct here and in your examples, but I think Joel is interested more in the question of how communications networks such as USENET can be used to accelerate the process. Also, we need a more effective system to facilitate informed decision making on behalf of the whole society (Eric Drexler discusses this issue in _Engines_of_Creation_). > One more thing to note is that different people have different > perspectives of the world... Yes, this is a major reason that netnews is not a very good place to make decisions and further action. Concensus is impossible in such a diverse community. > Part of the problem is that not every one in the world is connected, nor > knows how to us computers. Yes, computer phobia is a problem, but this is going away quickly as young people grow up with computers. They will soon be as ubiquitous (more?) as the telephone is now. As for the network not being a database, you are right, but this is why I think the development of hypertext is so important. It will fix this problem. Also, this is another reason netnews is not good for this kind of thing. For a project to have continuity, someone must be responsible for keeping track of things. > We are making an impact on society. We are turning it upside down. So true, so true. Not only upside down, but inside out. Patience is necessary, but technology has already undergone a revolution. We need a similar revolution in our ability to incorperate change without destroying ourselves and our environment in the process. We must focus more on human beings that the actual technology. People *are* more important than machines. Bad interfaces are inefficient because they sacrifice the efficiency of the user. Gerry Gleason
jack@fabien.UUCP (Jack Waugh) (11/30/87)
How about using the net to form a new political party? [*ahem* Please reply to the author, not this group - we're going quite far afield with this. -- Dave Taylor]
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (12/06/87)
Gerry Gleason replies to my posting (not Joel Jennings, as Gerry noted): >> Many things are done constructively, it's just that you are impatient >> with people because they don't react as fast as interactive systems. >> You just need some perspective (the study of history). > >...Eric Drexler discusses this issue in _Engines_of_Creation_. I have not become a convert to Mr. Drexler's way of thinking. I should get a copy of his book and read it. From what I know currently, he does not impress me. > Yes, computer phobia is a problem, but this is going away quickly as > young people grow up with computers. They will soon be as ubiquitous > (more?) as the telephone is now. As for the network not being a database, > you are right, but this is why I think the development of hypertext is > so important. It will fix this problem. Phobia: I was walking out the door when just as I was turning the TV off (from the news) there was this show about touring the country. They interviewed a buckeroo (a cowboy) in Nevada: surpise! It near an area where friends live [near Elko Nev. and the Ruby Mountains], so I listen. They ask this 37 year-old buck what's on his mind: Persian Gulf and Computers. Here's a guy who fears them. (Has 3 kids.) He wants to raise cattle, not be told by some machine that he would get a more efficient yield, etc. I could say more, but I think we have to find these people as a resource and here what they have to say. I agree with ubiquity, but I don't believe in quick fixes. Notecards is a much better system than many other hypertext systems, but too few people use it. Let's not overinflate the importance of a tool until it's gained winder acceptance. I made a comment in a personal note to Dave which he posted by mistake (that's okay Dave). What's neat about computers is that they remove cues about the physical character of people: skin, religious biases, physical handicaps. One of my all time favorite Usenix talks was a talk about DEAFNET. Networks keep that part of our intellect and removing many of our bias cues. We need more of this in the real world; how? that's a good question. Eugene
jsk@phoenix.UUCP (Jerry Kickenson) (12/06/87)
There is an organization that attempts to address social issues and do something about them. It is called Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Members write papers, give media intreviews, testify before Congress, man booths at computer conferences to get other professionals thinking about social issues, etc. The emphasis has been mostly on the perceived problems with SDI as it has been publicized in the press and by the administration, but has lately expanded to include computer systems in military systems generally (SCI, early warning) and privacy issues (NCIC, FBI, credit databases). There are local chapters and contacts that are active in very different degrees. The most active are in Palo Alto, Seattle, and Boston. The national office may be contacted at: CPSR, Inc. P.O. Box 717 Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 322-3778 There is also the IEEE Computer Society Committee On Public Policy (COPP) subcommittee on Social Issues. I am a member, and have been contacted by the subcomittee chairman, and I have responded. As of yet (1 month later) I have not heard from him. So, I do not know if this subcommittee will really do anything, but I have hopes. If there are enough people, something will happen. It does have some, if limited, funding. As far as some activity on the net, I'd be all for discussing some constructive action to take. If enough agree on some action, we could actually DO something. Possibilities are ways to prevent malicious use of databases containing sensitive information (even by those maintaining the data), programs that are more sensitive to errors, ideas for software/hardware that may aid handicapped persons to communicate or move, educational aids, methods to ensure that data are consistent across a database (especially in a crime database such as NCIC or credit databases), etc.
malcolm@keilir.UUCP (Malcolm Cohen) (12/06/87)
Gerry Gleason writes: >... netnews is ... such a diverse community. No way. Netnews is nowhere near as diverse as the "real world"; you know, where the "real problems" are. The people communicating on Usenet seem *very* similar-minded to me. > [someone else] >> Part of the problem is that not every one in the world is connected, nor >> knows how to us computers. or *wants* to use computers...I am not talking about phobia here. > ...the development of hypertext is so important. No. The development of hypertext is only of real interest to the educated elite. And only the technologically-minded ones at that. Not everyone gets their kicks from interacting with a terminal. Television is so popular *because* it requires no interaction (i.e. thought). But television is not watched by many people (3rd world etc). > ... We must focus more on human beings that the actual technology. I couldn't agree more. > ... Bad interfaces are inefficient because they sacrifice the efficiency > of the user. A typical computernik thing to say. Bad interfaces are nasty simply because they are so unpleasant. The efficiency/inefficiency issue is not an issue for non-computer people - if the computer is being nasty to them they'll not like it (and if not required to use it they'll go and do something else). Malcolm Cohen
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (12/15/87)
Forgive the old joke, but, "Who are you calling, 'WE,' white man? WE cannot change society because WE do not want to change society. I personally would like to change society. So would the other 49 people who voted for soc.human-rights. But out of a quarter million usenet readers, 100 votes did not exist, so there will be a mailing list, not a net group. Those who proposed soc.human-rights appear to believe that people did not vote for the group because they just don't have time to participate. I cannot agree. Voting for a group does not imply any agreement to participate. Many more people voted for this group than are actively participating. I believe that those who did not vote for soc.human-rights fall into one of the following categories: 1) Would like to support human rights, but are afraid of getting involved. Fear that if their vote was published, they themselves might become victims of human rights abuses for having become involved. 2) Are totally unaware of human rights abuses, or if aware, are totally indifferent. Are satisfied with the status quo and devote their time to technical andor recreational groups. Do not believe society needs changing. 3) Actively oppose human rights and social change. I believe that only individuals, not groups, change society. And I am heartened by the individuals who proposed the group, those who went against the flush and dared to vote for the group, and those who decided that 50 votes were sufficient basis for a mailing list. I have often been called paranoid for stating my belief that 90% of the usenet readership is indifferent to or opposed to human rights. Now that a vote has been called, my estimate turns out to have been extremely conservative. At a minimum, in order to change society, you need people who want to, and who aren't afraid to try. Human rights is a self-interest survival issue for human beings. What sort of "WE" is it that does not self-identify as human and support human rights? Mark Ethan Smith
glg@sfsup.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/15/87)
With regard to Eric Drexler and _Engines_of_Creation_, I don't agree with everything he writes either, but I do recommend reading his book. It probably seems that his claims are more extreme in shorter articles, etc. In the book he does outline some possibilities that are pretty outlandish, but he backs them up with clear arguments, and often softens some of them by pointing out the uncertainties involved. Even if you do not agree, it is worth reading. As far as `computer phobia', yes, some will continue to fear them, but they grow old and eventually die. The next generation whose parents grew up with computers will not even remember that they were once so feared by so many. Quickly, well maybe not that quickly, but what is a few generations relative to history or a possibly open future? Finally, I may be overinflating the importance of Hypertext (etc), but this is only transitory. We need to design future systems today. You point out yourself that change is accelerating. We cannot wait until the systems arrive before begining to consider their impact, and taking steps to direct technology in a direction that serves us rather than allowing it to pull us down a path we have no control over. Gerry Gleason
glg@sfsup.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/15/87)
Malcolm Cohen points out that Usenet is nowhere near as diverse as the real world is, and he is right, in part. There are some dimensions that do not vary much in the Netnews community, probably mostly white males with technical educations. On the other hand if you take a look at the political and religious groups, many points of view are represented, from the middle to almost any extreme. It could be more diverse from the standpoint of postings because people will be more likely to post if their viewpoint is not already represented (admitted some will continue to beat their point of view into the ground regardless). Yes, there are some groups not represented at all, but that does not mean it is not diverse. As far as people not wanting to use computers; People did not *want* to use telephones very much at one time either, but that did not stop them from becoming so commonplace. Malcolm also says that the development of Hypertext isn't `important' to the real world around us. Well, importance is not the same thing as being of interest. The majority of the world knows nothing about and has no "interest" in modern technology. Nevertheless it is important to them and does effect their live, whether they know it or not. It's a "good thing" that Reagan and Gorbachev are talking about arms reductions this week, but these weapons do exist, and are important to everyone. Interest is another matter. It is only recently that any societies had literacy rates over 10%, now literacy is a necessary skill in many societies. This trend will continue. Hypertext will be important because it will reduce the monopoly of the educated elite on information, just as the development of the printing press did. Maybe it won't be called hypertext, but that kind of access to information will be available and important to everyone in the future. Finally, bad interfaces are only 'unpleasant' because they waste your time, and, more importantly, thoughts. I program computers for a living, and I stay away from ugly programs in a large part because they interfere with my thinking and fill my head with many useless details. Give me a program that I can sit down to and use without looking up obscure details in the manual. Call it ugliness and unpleasantness, or call it inefficiency, it the same thing. Gerry Gleason
judy@mcgp1.UUCP (Judy Johnson) (12/29/87)
[Mark E. Smith lists three reasons why he feels people aren't interested in changing society, citing the lack of response to the USENET discussion on the creation of a human rights newsgroup; soc.human-rights] I can think of 3 additional catagories of people who failed to vote for soc.human-rights: 1. Those, like myself, who were not on the network yet when the vote was taken. 2. Those to whom human rights seems like too big an issue to be discussed in the depth it deserves in this type of forum. Sometimes the frustration of seeing something important covered superficially or trivialized by endless semantic arguments is enough to discourage participation. 3. Those who believe in human rights so deeply that they would tend to react emotionally and take all the inevitable rancor personally. There is so much social ignorance and hatred in this world that one may be tempted to limit one's exposure to what is absolutely necessary; or, to areas in which one's potential to change or enlighten is worth the emotional toll. Judy Johnson
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/29/87)
Mark E. Smith writes: > I believe that those who did not vote for soc.human-rights fall into one > of the following categories: > 1 ...Are afraid of getting involved. > 2 Are totally unaware of human rights abuses, or if aware, are totally > indifferent. > 3 Actively oppose human rights and social change. I would think that there are many more motivations (or lack of motivation, as it were) than those three. First, in my opinion, would be simple inertia. I have never seen a new group creation effort that could claim to have gotten even one percent of the net readership to vote. Second, there was all of the concern expressed that the new group would simply be a forum for Amnesty International. The number of postings that held to this belief tend to give credence to my feeling that this was never refuted in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Finally, I believe that you are making an error in ascribing the desire to change society even to those who did vote YES to the new group. I do not see a particular correlation there. Those who wish to change society will try and do so, in whatever fashion they feel appropriate. even if that only means changes within themselves. Those who do not wish to change will not. The existence or non-existence of a human rights group on Usenet only affects Usenet - the refusal to create a human rights group simply means that we who are concerned about human rights issues have no central forum for those discussions, and must, perforce, scatter them over the net in places where they are appropriate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our committment to social change or our ability to facilitate that change. I will not stop working for social change from my own position, and, I suspect, neither will you. Michael J. Farren
ecl@mtgzy.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/05/88)
I am not opposed to human rights; I am quite active in Amnesty International's letter-writing campaign, for example. But I think that Usenet is about to collapse under its own weight as it is, and I think that the sort of discussion that is generated on Usenet often does more harm than good. Usenet to me is a good way to hear technical chit-chat, to talk about books and movies, to find out where to go on vacation, but I don't see it as an effective way to accomplish anything real. The recent creation of soc.culture.china with its hundreds of articles all quibbling about the group's name has only reinforced that belief. I would much rather see, for example, a regular electronic mailing from AI to everyone who wants to sign up for one. Evelyn C. Leeper