taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/18/87)
[The following is the slightly edited head of a discussion taken off a local conferencing system that readers of this digest should find most interesting. Please feel free to add your comments and replies to what is being said here too! -- Dave Taylor] From: Brian Cripe Subject: social impact statements Date: 11 Jun 87 14:04:29 GMT This morning on NPR's Morning Edition (6/11/86) I heard a commentary by Michael Harrington, co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America, concerning the impact of technology on society. Harrington advocated requiring companies to file "social impact statements" before introducing new technologies and major inventions. He likened this to an environmental impact statement, except it would deal with the impact on "unemployment, <something>, and racism." The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be involved in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it solely in the hands of "big-business and scientists." What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? ---- From: Niels Mayer Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:50:49 GMT Sounds like the NPR guy needs to be straightened out on feminism. He makes feminists sound like housewives and technophobes. This seems somewhat contrary to the nature of some feminists that I know -- women that repair their own motorcycles, and work in technical/technological fields like software and medical microbiology. And of course the men in power -- "big-business and scientists" -- are the cause of society's ills.... Arrrgh! -- Niels ---- From: Peter Marvit Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:05:00 GMT I, too, heard Michael Carrington's commentary, which caused me thought. I admit that I was taken aback at first, and started to put his comments into the bin of knee-jerk anti-technologists. After reflection, I've modified my view, but still take exception to his argument. I contend that it is far easier (though still non-trvial) to discuss potential physical/climatic/biologcal implications and repercussions of a particular physical process, be it a building, chemical addition to the environment, or whatever. I further contend that attempting to crystal ball the future as to the sociological and cultural effects of a particular piece of technology (or by analogy political policy) is nigh impossible in any concrete meaningful way. This extreme statement is not to imply that it shouldn't be done. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can toss off a "cultural impact statement" which contains informatino which we would trust to the policy makers. The Social Sciences have not progressed far enough, in my opinion, to have the powerful predictive models which characterize many of the physical and biological sciences. The insights we get from visionaries about technological impact on society are important aspects of scientific research. We should all be conscious of our thoughts, actions, products, and their consequences. I believ the fundamental theme of Michael Harrington's remarks still holds true: Scientists should *not* absolve themselves of thinking about the implications of their work under the pretense of amoralistic research. They (we) must make a conscious decision that the benefits from the fruits of our labors outwiegh potential or actual hazards. I believe that every human action is to some degree subject to a moral judgement. The final question, which Mr. Harrington ges and to which I have no answer, is who is to ultimately decide which code of ethics should givern the deployment of certian technologies, given such a "cultural impact statement" or even given colleagueal discussion or simply introspection? Finally, the practicality of his ideas holds little merit. If you were at Bell Labs 30 years ago (or whenever), what would be your "cultural impact statement" be on the transistor? It has since enable global communications, including to countries with repressive regimes. It has enabled computation devices which design ever accurate and deadly atomic tools. While Mr. Carrington's suggestions have emotional appeal, especially to the more liberal sections of this population (of which I count myself a member), his request for enforced social responsibility is misguided and reflects sort-sightedness in favor of political correctness. I agree with his call for exploring the implicationsof of our actions, especially in the scientific and technological fields, and feel we do not yet have the formal structure in which to do it in a consistant and objective fashion and so therefore must rely on informal forums, such as books, articles, op-ed pages, and conferences. ---- From: Bob Niland Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 16:28:51 GMT It sounds like this is the DSA's way of trying to make sure that the free world is as inefficient, bureaucratic, stiffled and impoverished as the socialist world. We should take the lead in OPPOSING this kind of BS. It is impossible to predict the impact of any single new technology. Heck, we can't even predict if our technologies will become a FACTOR by being successful in the first place. And what of the interaction between one of our new technologies and all the others in development that we don't even know about? Everyone needs to contemplate the consequences of their actions, and be willing to experience those consequences. I agree that considering the social impact of a new technology is something that our engineers ought at least to be conscious of - but not REQUIRED to do. Another problem with "social" impact is - who measures what is "good" or "bad", and by whose standards? If a new technology can make everyone more self-supporting and independent of government, you can bet the DSA will assert that this is a "negative" social impact. I think the whole proposal needs more study. In fact, I propose that all new legislation be required to submit both an environmental and a "social" impact statement. 10,000 pages each should cover it :-) ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 16:01:24 GMT The problem with this idea is that the predicatable social impacts are the minor ones while the major ones are totally unexpected and often happen long after the product is available. When the automobile was first invented, it was so expensive and limited in its ability to go places that it was widely regarded as a rich man's toy as opposed to horses which were available to even middle class people and could go anywhere and was real individual transportation. Today you have to be really poor to not be able to afford a car. The basic problem is that there is no scientific discipline for predicting these things. Such a requirement is effectively a carte blanche for people to espouse their personal biases rather than make reasonable predictions. That I think is really the motivation behind such a idea. Under the guise of an official document, you can present propaganda as scientific truth. ---- From: Russ Thomas Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:29:42 GMT His commentary concerned recent breakthroughs in superconducting technology. I agree with the other responses -- predicting the social impact of such basic technology is not traceable at the present time. When it is attempted (to justify research) nobody claims to predict the impact, only indicate possibilities. In my view, the problem with Harrington's suggestion centers on the issue of control. He is proposing central, governmental control over the social impact of technology. In an attempt to avoid the bad, they would also probably stifle the good. The government can play a useful role but only after the technology becomes a business (i.e. FCC regulation of frequencies). Turning technology into social benefit is a creative act on the part of the society as a whole. Social impact statements won't improve the process. ---- From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:22:08 GMT Hmmm... "racist" technology... Hmmm... Bombs that just kill white people? TV's that only turn on for unemployed black people? I'm afraid that the person that made this statement just created a large credibility gap for himself. How would the poets, artist, philosopher's et. al. like it if the engineers started making decisions about their work? Many of them like to ignore practical reality to make a "statement." Although it is possible that a useful form of social impact statement may be created, the speaker quoted is spouting nonsense. In my opinion, it is only appealing to shallow thinkers and those who wish control. (You get many shallow thinkers involved, you find it easy to influence shallow thinkers, you make the decisions through them. Can you say "Mass Media"?) I don't wish to offend, but the idea isn't well thought out; it just sounds good to the "socially responsible." If there is anybody out there who really feels that they could support such a thing as a social impact statement, I have a question for you. How can anybody (except God, Allah, et. al :-) be expected to predict the social impact of a thermal printer? Benjamin Ellsworth ---- From: Ken Shrum Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:52:49 GMT I don't agree with the concept of social impact statements, but I believe that there is a point to be made here: If you assume that technology is value-free, how do you decide what sorts of things are worth building? My belief is that technology is a means, rather than an end. Given that I decide that some goal is "worthwhile" (whatever that means) I can use technology to accomplish the goal. You may disagree as to whether my goal is "worthwhile", or moral, or any other thing, but that has nothing to do with values associated with the technology itself. If there are societal goals (and I'm not sure what goals make sense for society, so don't hang me on this) then society can make use of technology to achieve those goals. Now, if this "watchdog" group were to oversee Congress.... :-) ---- From: John Diamant Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:12:53 GMT > It sounds like this is the DSA's way of trying to make sure that the free > world is as inefficient, bureaucratic, stiffled and impoverished as the > socialist world. I agree completely. Engineers (and companies) making decisions should be responsible for their actions, but no one else can take that responsibility or authority away. Basically, if someone else were to make that decision for them, they would be accusing them of a "crime" not yet committed. ---- From: Craig James Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:56:47 GMT Seems to me we should laugh it off and forget it. The guy is out in the ozone, and to argue with him lends credibility to his position. ---- From: Bruce Erickson Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 21:38:53 GMT I heard this, too. I laughed. 1) How do you predict how society will react to *anything*, let alone a technology that is new? To even predict only the *economic* changes boggle the mind ("if you want four opinions, ask two economists...") We simply do not have the knowledge to do this. 2) How do you decide what is "good" or "bad"? Knowing how many deaths the automobile causes every year, would we have "allowed" the invention of the automobile? Does the economic good outweigh the deaths? (How do you decide?) 3) This strikes me as a method of the "fearful few" to inhibit changes the don't understand and don't like. But then, again, I have never been sympathetic to the socialist cause.... ---- From: Dave Decot Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 20:48:17 GMT > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact > statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? Definitely. This type of thing has almost completely wiped out the valuable but belittled arts of calligraphy and illumination, reducing a once quaint and time-honored tradition to crass considerations such as "throughput". ---- From: Larry Dwyer Subject: Re: Re: social impact statements Date: 13 Jun 87 02:50:26 GMT For a good viewpoint on the social impact of technological advances, read James Burke's book "Connections". He points out that the impact of a breakthrough is often in an unrelated realm of society. His historical tracings show how the plow led to the hydrogen bomb. Would the inventor of the plow have thought to include in the socialal impact study that this invention will lead to the destruction of mankind, taking all of womankind along with it as a bonus? Even if social impact statements were made, would the failure to produce such a document prevent the invention of the technowidget? And once it was invented, could it be stiffled because of a lack of this document (or because of negative reviews of this document)? Not if someone wants that technowidget. It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. I think there is some obscure law of metaxenoplasmaphysics that states that inventions, like matter, cannot be destroyed ;-) ---- From: Scott Kaplan Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 14 Jun 87 06:11:33 GMT OK, 12 responses bashing Michael Harrington is enough. Yes, he did not make the best argument for his case. At the risk of going against the grain may I suggest some cases where we technical types need to be more then passingly concerned with the EFFECTS of our work. We can't blaim non-technical types for being petrified of technology, look at the things we have given them: Oppenheimer - atomic bomb Eli Whitney - Cotton gin (credited with revitalizing southern slavery) All of us - Computer (Rumor has it that the government of South Africa is using it for more than pac man) Noble - Dynamite (We forget that in its day, dynamite was the atomic weaponry of its day) Yes, I am playing devil's advocate (a little), but we as engineers have a reputation of being a bit too far "above" our work, not wanting to get involved in the uses of our technology. You can't go around bitching at people because they are scared of technology when we just drop it in their laps and they screw it up. Some of our toys may need to come with a little more advice then RTFM. Scott Kaplan ---- From: Les Hammer Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 16:08:37 GMT > The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be > involved in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it > solely in the hands of "big-business and scientists." I think legislation should be introduced to ensure that philosophers and poets use scientifically accurate information in what they produce. After all, if they are to have a degree of control over us we should likewise have some control over them. All kidding aside, I agree with the many who have responded here. The best people to decide what the impact of anything will be are those people who know most about it. We all like to speculate and express our opinions on a variety of topics ( hence the popularity of notes :-) but to say that the rest of the world should abide by our decisions in 'notes' is not wise. Let those who have studied the technology and its implications make the decisions concerning its impact ( to a certain degree ). But this should not be considered a license for scientists to do whatever they want. ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 16:07:48 GMT > Seems to me we should laugh it off and forget it. The guy is out in the > ozone, and to argue with him lends credibility to his position. A lot of people thought the same about Hitler. It's not the craziness of the idea that counts. It's the drive of the person behind the idea that's dangerous. ---- From: Scott Bayes Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 15:38:21 GMT What concerns me is that someone might CORRECTLY predict social impacts in social impact statements. Think what power could be gained from the legal right to stifle anything you don't like, and that is already identified for you as being "dangerous". 1984, here we come (without even inventing time travel!). Our last invention will probably have to be a begging machine or somesuch, that allows us to obtain food supplies, and "necessary", politically correct technologies from countries currently third-world. A Frustrated Capitalist/Free Marketeer ---- From: Dave Taylor Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 22:13:22 GMT Brian Cripe talks about Michael Harrington and DSA and all about the impact of technology on society. I think that not only does Michael raise some interesting points, but that Brian does too. Furthermore, I think a lot of people in this discussion have somewhat missed the boat here too. To wit: > Harrington advocated requiring companies to file "social impact > statements" before introducing new technologies and major inventions. I think this is a great idea!! As far as the points that we have very few people in our company (for example) that are aware of the potential impact of a technology on society, that's true. BUT there is no reason we cannot hire a qualified sociologist or something to assist us in our efforts to learn to THINK about what we're about to unleash on the world. For all too long us 'creative scientist' types have been working in a dark room and ignoring all possible ramifications of our work on the society around us. We live in a vacuum where we make token comments like "gee, it's too bad about rape" and then turn around and invent drugs to spray in peoples faces to make them passive, or make comments like "yeah the third world is in bad shape" and then invent yet another expensive computer, further widening the schism between those that have and those that have not. We're at the forefront of the Information Age being members of the technical staff of our company and we merely pay lip service to the ideas and needs of humanity as a whole. For example, we are much more likely to donate a computer or set of computers to a school that is already strong in the CS area in the hope that we will get a better 'return on investment' on our donation than to a junior high school in a poor urban area where people will LEARN, but will probably NOT actually ever give us anything back. I realize the economic necessities involved, and the fact that we're not, as a corporation, a charity, but what about as individuals? What have YOU done in the last month to try to improve the world you live in? When was the last time you just blue-skied and really thought about the impact of some of the things that you're involved in here? I mean, take away the marketing hype and the intense idealism and be realistic for a few minutes : all the stuff we're doing on AI, for example, won't ever EVER help the common person. I firmly believe that. What it WILL do is to allow more of a intellectual elite that can smugly sit and play on their tens-of-thousands of dollars worth of equipment and run 'simulations' of people starving to death. A classic example is I once talked to someone who was working on the portable plus about computing in the Third World. He turned around and said "oh yeah...we'll make 'em real cheap and then anyone in the world can plug it in to a phone line and cruise right along in the global network". That sort of attitude displays a shocking lack of realization of the world around us. For example, in a typical third world country people DO NOT HAVE TELEPHONES. And even if they did, they do not have the education to know how to READ, let alone use computers! Not to mention that their government might not be enthused about these ideas either. People *DIE* from this sort of ignorance about the political reality about them. People who publish alternative newspapers in dictatorial countries are SHOT if they are found. This is the world we live in, NOT one where everyone is in notes, or on Usenet, or 'illuminated'. In a similar sense we pay a lot of lip service to "user friendly systems" but I've yet to see anything on Unix, for example, that Ignorant Person could just sit down and use. Instead we spend thousands and thousands trying to teach people to modify their behaviour to match that which the computer expects to see (e.g. tutorials, classes, customer hotlines) instead of the better way of making the computer do the work. Even for programming - as a programmer *I* have to figure out what the types of the variables are and where to put all the funky punctuation characters. The computer smugly sits and informs me of the errors. Grrrr... On to the next idea presented... > He likened this to an environmental impact statement, except it would > deal with the impact on "unemployment, <something>, and racism." Sounds reasonable to me. And if you doubt the impact of an invention on something like racism, call the NAACP and ask them about the long- term ramifications of systems that are based on WASP education patterns and are then used as the basis for highly paid technical jobs that minorities are then inherently less qualified for. And how that lets people turn around and say "see - they ARE more stupid!". An excellent, albeit non-technological, example of this are the SAT and IQ tests. They are both written based on growing up in a middle class white environment, and, sure enough, when these tests are administered to minorities or people that have had radically different childhoods, they tend to do quite poorly. This is THEN used as a justification for having, for example, worse teaching materials in inner city schools. And so it goes... This really IS a problem. And unemployment is a big evil spectre too. How'd you like to come in to work tomorrow just to have your manager tell you that you're obsolete 'cause they just bought this automatic programming system, and since you're one of 24,000 employees that are now obsolete, there is no possibility for you to transfer or change jobs. THIS STUFF HAPPENS. Again, call up one of the unions in Detroit and ask them about it. > The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be involved > in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it solely in the > hands of "big-business and scientists." This is also quite reasonable. The key phrase, that I believe a lot of people here have been missing, is "to be involved". NOT "to decide", but just to be able to have some input. God knows that we're mostly so wrapped up in our own little universes and our own views of the universe that we can't see what's REALLY going on out there! Where's the harm in having some input and commentary from people that might just have a different view of the world? Remember - even if it is wrong it will at LEAST provoke us to thinking about why we think we're right. And thinking about non-technical issues is something that our industry desperately needs to do. Why? Because for all the Macintosh systems and all, the common view of computers is still slightly mystical, and fearful, and the view of people who use (and design) them is that we're monsters that are trying to create a WORSE universe, all the while thinking and trying to tell people it'll be better. Watch some TV show sometime or a film where they have computers. After all, the part of Spock that was the part we, the viewers, sympathized with was the HUMAN half, not the Vulcan/ computer-like/logical half, wasn't it? And we labour on, assuming that everyone is like us, and saying things like "but the output of date IS user friendly" all without ever realizing that some people can't even READ, let along figure out what 24-hour time is... > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Yes. > Should I start working on a social impact statement for thermal-inkjet > printing technology? No. You're not qualified to do so. Should your division consider hiring people to come up with reports on the effect of inexpensive, high-speed printing technologies? Yes. As it is, there are a lot of typesetting shops that are going bankrupt right now...the thrill of desktop publishing is more than enough to have people start doing their own (badly, but that's a different posting) `publishing' and not even bothering to subsidise the local printer and all. And THAT causes unemployment. And that also is racist, because the types of jobs where people can use DTP equipment tend to be 'high tech' jobs, and those jobs have traditionally discriminated against women and minorities. The poor inner city youths that had jobs minding the printing press are out of work now. And the techies that monitor the Laserjet assembly line (or design the Laserjet III) get paid more 'cause the system 'works'. And, again, so it goes... In summary, I think we're tossing away an all-too-real concern of people when instead we should be THINKING about what it represents and, while not necessarily bowing down to the DSA, perhaps coming up with some sort of impact forms of our own, to accompany major technological changes and inventions. EVEN IF THEY'RE WRONG. Why? Because the very act of us thinking about this, and perhaps getting test subjects to run with (which reminds me of the comment that a friend of mine who teaches intro to Unix classes said when he finally quit because he couldn't deal with telling people to type "date return" and having them type d-a-t-e-space-r-e-t-u-r-n and wait for something to happen) can't but be positive. ---- From: Scott McGregor Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 15:59:17 GMT > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact > statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? Sorry, but it is too late for us to take the lead in advocating this type of social responsibility. I remember reading several "social audits" that were self-conducted by various other Fortune 100 Companies back when I was in B-school and that was 7 years ago. I guess this also shows that however unfeasable it might seem, some companies do it. >From what I remember of these social impact studies, they focussed on such things as the number of jobs provided to the communities where factories were, the pollution problems and traffic problems that they created, the likely benefits of their products (1st generation effects, i.e. more land tilled for invention of a plow, not that it would ultimately lead to the hydrogen bomb) vs. potential for misuse of their technologies and the dangers from them. The impression I got was two fold: First, of course the positives always outweighed the negatives in these self-directed audits. It might be that the companies that did these audits were so socially concerned (afraid of lawsuits?) that they dropped off any projects where negatives outweighed the positives despite profitability (.i.e. a well rounded view to product planning), or they could have just been self-serving post hoc analyses. So you can be skeptical or not. However the second reaction is "Gee, at least I can see that they looked at the pluses and minuses." I think that reflects well on the company, and of course it also publicizes positives that are often taken for granted, like continued employment of a local population, etc. I'm offering no opinions on whether we should or should not follow the lead on this; just sharing some information with those of you who are interested in the picture outside of our company. ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 21:30:09 GMT It strikes me that philosophers at the very least should be required to file social impact statements before introducing new philosophies. If Karl Marx had never written Das Kapital, the world today would be very different. Many feminist writers are now having second thoughts about what they had advocated for the movement in the 60's and 70's because of unexpected adverse impacts of actually having what they advocated come true. (No fault divorce comes immediately to mind.) The social impact of new philosophies and ideologies seems to be greater than new technologies. After all, how many people do you know who would kill and die for room temperature superconductor? ---- From: Bob Campbell Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 16 Jun 87 18:26:49 GMT I cannot accept the argument of jobs lost as a reason to hold back tech- nologies. If we did away with combines, think of all the farm workers we could employ. The factories that didn't automate because of this reasoning don't all exist anymore. I enjoy the job security that our employer provides, but I do not confuse it with position security. [the discussion continues further, but in the interest of brevity and further branching I'd like YOU, the reader of the Computers and Society Digest, add some input of your own to this discussion. -- Dave Taylor]
00HFSTAHLKE@BSU.CSNET (Herb Stahlke) (06/22/87)
It's evident that many of your local respondents to Harrington's proposal are unaware of the social force represented by philosophers and poets--I omit feminists because they cross-classify. Lincoln credited Harriet Beecher Stow with starting the Civil War by writing *Uncle Tom's Cabin*, a slight but not unreasonable exaggeration. Nietzsche and Wagner played a frighteningly significant role in laying the groundwork for the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Khomeini, whatever we may think of him politically, is a major Shiite moral and legal thinker and bears heavy responsibility for actions verging on genocide. The non-quantifiable, empirically untestable non-technological products in thought and art of people like these have had greater impact, in unpredictable ways, for good or ill, than all the Nobels, Edisons, Eddingtons, and Bells combined. Jesus and Mohammed were persecuted not because of their dangerous inventions but because of their dangerous thoughts. Persecution of scientists and engineers because of the political misuse of their inventions is the stuff of science fiction and fundamentalism--Christian, Moslem, Sephardic, Luddite, whatever. If we are to demand social impact statements of anyone, it should be of the poets, essayist, novelists, teachers, philosophers, artists, musicians, and religious visionaries who shape the mores that in turn determine what society does with the inventions of engineers and businessmen. And the quickest way to stifle the development of technology, for good or ill, is to attempt to control thought. Herb Stahlke Department of English Ball State University 00hfstahlke@bsu.csnet
judea@CS.UCLA.EDU (Judea Pearl) (06/22/87)
Great idea! Only it should be extended to include politicians and "societal-impact" advocates : an impact-report should be required before making any statement that might have such impact. J.P.
mandel@well.UUCP (Tom Mandel) (06/22/87)
Harrington's call for "social impact assessments" of new technologies is nothing new. There was a flurry of interest in an area of analysis called "technology impact assessment" in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This interest resulted in the formation of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, a small group that is attached to the U.S. Congress. OTA, which got off to a shaky start, is currently doing rather well, and the quality of its reports -- mainly impact assessments -- is rather highly regarded these days. Critics are correct in noting that there is no "science" capable of rigorously analyzing the future impacts on society of a new and poorly understood technology. For that matter, many analysts are still arguing about the various impacts (first, second, and third order) of the automobile on American society. And that technology, one of the two or three most important of the entire century, has been around for roughly 70 years. Nevertheless, there are many tools for forecasting the penetration, applications, evolution, and impacts (consequences) of technologies. There is a fairly specialized literature on the subject (for example, the excellent journal _Technological Forecasting and Social Change_), and there are many specific analytical tools for addressing questions of this sort. Most of these tools attempt to account for the inherent problems of predicting social change by employing scenarios and related approaches for dealing with complexity (of society) and uncertainty. There is a growing literature, both speculative and analytical, popular and academic, addressing questions of the future impacts of new technologies. And there is a small cadre of professional futurists who struggle with these issues on a regular basis. However, Harrington's suggestion raises much deeper questions than simple -- I mean, hard -- analyses. Given the inherent uncertainties in such analyses, how should we manage such new technologies. OTA's role, for instance, is to provide relevant policy analyses to the Congress on request. It is up to the Congress to do something about it. Bluntly, there are no mechanisms in a political system such as ours to *control* technology in general. Nor should there be. In practice, trying to stop the implementation of a particular new technology because an analysis shows that it *might* have some deleterious effects on the position of this or that group in society -- a debatable conclusion in most instances -- is tantamount to blocking the development of a technology entirely. This is, in my view, a for of neo-Ludditism. Harrington's position, while perhaps morally and ethically admirable, assumes much more knowledge than is possible or practical. But the study of such impacts ought to be encouraged as guides to politicians and policymakers and to the public. --Tom Mandel mandel@well.UUCP mandel@kl.sri.com
riddle@woton.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle ) (06/22/87)
A most interesting posting. My two cents' worth: although I agree with Michael Harrington that the world hasn't got much longer to survive if we continue to let the technocrats make all the decisions (and especially if we let them use the short-term profit motive as their one and only golden rule), I have even less faith in the government's ability to coerce them to behave responsibly through required "social impact statements." "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is a principle that applies as much to policy planning as it does to computing, and you get a bunch of corporate consultants together to try to predict anything as elusive as the outcome of new technology and you'll soon be even further "out in the ozone" than Michael Harrington. Just ask anyone who has had any exposure to the Environmental Impact Statement process: the definition of an EIS is a 2000 page lie, with appendices -- its sole useful function is to provide a tool for environmentalists to slow the advance of destructive projects by bogging their proponents down in paper wars. Instead, it's time we realized that we *all* share responsibility for the consequences of new (and old) technology: as consumers, voters, and workers, among other things. We all need to remember that just because technology is doable doesn't mean it should be done, and that just because a product is on the market doesn't mean it should be bought. The hamburger that you buy at Burger King is contributing to the destruction of tropical rain forests and the air conditioner you use in the summer is eating up the ozone layer; most of us don't know that sort of thing, but we should, and we can't afford to depend on corporate or governmental "experts" to tell us. But, you'll say, modern industrial society is too complicated for us to understand it well enough to behave responsibly. Correct -- and that's one of the reasons why industrialism may need to be on its way out if we're to survive. Prentiss Riddle
mjr@well.UUCP (Matthew Rapaport) (06/23/87)
Except that one cannot predict before hand WHICH philosphers thoughts (or which thoughts of any given philosopher) will so grab the times as to have a major impact in the first place... How could one predict that the world was ready for Marx back in the late 19th century. Why did Dewy and James have such a strong influence on American education and not Whitehead? Why did Komenhi have such an influence on his people while Teilhard and Buber harldy affected anyone outside academic circles, etc...
wfi@rti.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/23/87)
Herb Stahlke writes: > The non-quantifiable, empirically untestable non-technological products > in thought and art of people like these have had greater impact, in > unpredictable ways, for good or ill, than all the Nobels, Edisons, > Eddingtons, and Bells combined. ... not because of their dangerous > inventions but because of their dangerous thoughts. But the 'dangerous thoughts' of scientists also have a great potential for influencing the structure of society and economic systems. Early 20th century immigration laws, for example, discriminated against southern and eastern Europeans because they were 'provably' inferior people. Bad science has always been used to reify the prejudices of the people who control society's purse strings. In recent history, I refer you to the writings of people like Wilson, Herrnstein, Shockley, Jensen, and Dawkins. > Persecution of scientists and engineers because of the political misuse of > their inventions is the stuff of science fiction and fundamentalism... > If we are to demand social impact statements of anyone, it should be of > the poets, [etc.] who shape the mores that in turn determine what society > does with the inventions of engineers and businessmen. And the quickest > way to stifle the development of technology, for good or ill, is to > attempt to control thought. Poets [etc.] usually are not in the service of the military-industrial complex. Most scientists and engineers go where the money is, and the money is in research that supports our right wing fantasies about Russia's Evil Empire and the bloodsucking welfare state. It would be nice to believe that poets, essayists and philosophers have great influence outside academia. Unfortunately, few people READ the poets, essayists and philosophers, including college students at our 'best' universities. I think you're overrating the impact of academic theorists on society and underrating the role of technological Babbitry in defining our political and economic realities. It's not the technologists who will be 'persecuted' and 'stifled' if they're given free rein to implement their ideas without having to answer to the taxpayers who are funding their research. -- Bill Ingogly
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/25/87)
William Ingogly writes: > Poets [etc.] usually are not in the service of the military-industrial > complex. [...] I admit I was a bit young to remember this myself, (born 12/43), but the second world war propaganda machines kept all the poets, song writers, and essayests available in the various combatant countries churning out patriotic ditties, "our heros" flicks, and reams of news copy, all saying "our guys are the good guys, the enemy are subhuman, the hardships can be borne, the goal is worth the cost" and so on. Without this stirring up of passions, the common people would have called off the war immediately for lack of interest in suffering and dying, despite all the shiny new toys the weapons whizzes could create. It is exactly the poets who keep these things going. Refer Kipling, in an earlier era. > It would be nice to believe that poets, essayists and philosophers have > great influence outside academia. You better believe they do! > Unfortunately, few people READ the poets, essayists and philosophers, > including college students at our 'best' universities. Nowadays, few people read at all, so the poets are writing TV jingles. You think that influences "few people"! The essayests and philosophers are busy filling up the op-ed pages, and I doubt the ones who aren't read keep getting published. > I think you're overrating the impact of academic theorists on society Oh, if we could only restrict them to academia, where there is at least enough average intelligence for critical reception of their output! These guys have the full attention of the nation five or six hours a day, 'cause they're busy writing screenplays for Three's Company to convince us that mixed roomies and giggly sex is cute, and newscripts for the nightly news trying to make heros out of folks dumb enough to hang around a religious war zone and get caught in the crossfire in Lebanon. > and underrating the role of technological Babbitry in defining our > political and economic realities. Well, the hula hoop didn't do that much harm, except for creating enough bad backs to get chiropractic quackery accepted as "medicine". ;-) > Most scientists and engineers go where the money is, and the > money is in research that supports our right wing fantasies about > Russia's Evil Empire and the bloodsucking welfare state. Nah, your politics are blinding you. The BIG bucks are in finding the next hula hoop, or writing the next 400 page piece of pseudo-historical drivel that gets bought up for a mini-series. >It's not the technologists who will be 'persecuted' and 'stifled' if > they're given free rein to implement their ideas without having to answer > to the taxpayers who are funding their research. Sure they will; they breathe the same air, and live on the same planet as the rest of us; worse, they vote for both major political parties (a round condemnation of technical education in America), and live in the same target areas. Kent
wfi@rti.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/27/87)
Kent Paul Dolan writes: > ...the second world war propaganda machines kept all the poets, song > writers, and essayests available in the various combatant countries [busy]... This was certainly true in wartime. For example, Ezra Pound propagandized for the fascists in WW II and was imprisoned for it. However, few artists today are paid by the military-industrial complex (except DoD illustrators, filmmakers, etc.): those who are are in the minority. >> Unfortunately, few people READ the poets, essayists and philosophers, >> including college students at our 'best' universities. > >Nowadays, few people read at all, so the poets are writing TV jingles. >You think that influences "few people"! The essayests and philosophers >are busy filling up the op-ed pages, and I doubt the ones who aren't read >keep getting published. When I said 'poets,' I was referring to people like Ted Hughes, W. S. Merwin, John Ashbery, Ruth Stone, Amy Clampitt, and folks like them who are writing something other than jingles for TV commercials. How many of these names are as familiar to the public as (say) Robert Frost or Carl Sandburg? They are among the most significant poets of our time, yet no one (except a few academics) read them. They continue to publish because there's a small academic market for their work and a number of low-circulation literary magazines. Sure, essayists and philosophers fill up the op-ed pages, but how many people spend time reading the op-ed pages? Most people want their news and opinions served up short and sweet by someone like Dan Rather or Andy Rooney. They don't want to read a substantive discussion of the issues in the New York Times, the Nation, or the National Review (that ought to keep everyone happy :-). >> I think you're overrating the impact of academic theorists on society > >Oh, if we could only restrict them to academia, where there is at least >enough average intelligence for critical reception of their output! >These guys have the full attention of the nation five or six hours a >day, 'cause they're busy writing screenplays for Three's Company to convince >us that mixed roomies and giggly sex is cute, and newscripts for the nightly >news trying to make heros out of folks dumb enough to hang around a religious >war zone and get caught in the crossfire in Lebanon. I'm afraid I don't understand this. Are you actually claiming that there's some hidden agenda behind sitcoms and superficial nightly news broadcasts? I find this hard to believe. Actually, I'd rather NOT believe it's possible. It seems to me that Three's Company and the nightly news are both pandering to the television industry's vision of what the unwashed masses want to hear. I don't see any evidence that there's anything more sinister behind it than stupidity. > Nah, your politics are blinding you. The BIG bucks are in finding the > next hula hoop, or writing the next 400 page piece of pseudo-historical > drivel that gets bought up for a mini-series. But not for scientists and engineers. The big bucks right now are in (guess what?) SDI-related research, and everybody's scrambling for their piece of the action. >>It's not the technologists who will be 'persecuted' and 'stifled' if >> they're given free rein to implement their ideas without having to answer >> to the taxpayers who are funding their research. > >Sure they will; they breathe the same air, and live on the same planet as >the rest of us; worse, they vote for both major political parties (a round >condemnation of technical education in America), and live in the same >target areas. This is beside the point. The original posting implied that constraints on technology amount to persecution of technologists and the stifling of their creative abilities. What I'm saying above is that we ALL end up paying for the short-sightedness of the technologist who has a 'good idea' and doesn't consider its effects in areas he/she knows nothing about. (By the way, I tried to respond to a mail message you sent me a while back and have been unable to figure out a path as yet that would get my reply through) -- Bill Ingogly
vnend%a.ecc.engr.uky.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET (D. V. W. James) (06/30/87)
Les Hammer writes: > The best people to decide what the impact of anything will be are > those people who know most about it. Without agreeing with the original comment, I would like to disagree with Mr. Hammer. I'm sure we've all seen or at least heard of projects which were continued long after they should have been scrapped, merely because they were someone's 'pet.' Quite frequently the people closest to a project are the ones LEAST suited to decide about it's merits. Vnend
kurt@tc.fluke.com (Kurt Guntheroth) (06/30/87)
Remember, just as, for every Einstein there are 1,000 ordinary engineers and scientists, so, for every Shakespear, there are 1,000 copy-writers, editors, ad-men, and corporate-relations specialists. Many of these people aspire to the heights of literature the same way scientists dream of the Nobel Prize. You can never escape the words of these people, on your TV screen, on your newspaper, in the speaches and posturings of your favorite politician. Let no one who considers themselves a philosopher or poet delude you into thinking that the average literatary contributor is motivated in any way differently from the average technocrat. Why should people not be motivated by short-term profit? Isn't that what survival is about? Live long enough to reproduce? This is our heritage as biological organisms. Think of society as an organism. Society evolves due to changes in the environment. Trying to change the organism without modifying the environment simply weakens it. Trying to consciously control an organism leads to overcontrol of the most obvious kind. (Try typing a response to this note, but for each letter, think consciously which finger is nearest to the key you want to press). The mistake philosophers and politicians make over and over is to arrogantly believe that their consciousness is powerful enough to firmly grasp and control all aspects of a society. (Look at our overcontrolled economy and the nasty cycles that result from economic oversteering. Look at the record of failure of communist central planning.) What is needed is a change in the environment that will cause society to evolve naturally into a 'better' organism. Instead of trying to block certain lines of thought because their effects are considered undesirable, why not simply demand that undesirable effects be taken into short-sighted, profit-minded consideration by taxing them, regulating them, or removing the limits on liability for them? How many companies would manufacture weapons of war if any victim the world over could sue the manufacturer for injury sustained as a result of the use of a weapon? How many polluting industies would not re-think their waste management procedures if they had to set aside each year a sum sufficient to isolate their waste products from the environment for their entire (multi-thousand year) life? Do we have to prevent thought? No. Do we miss out on a useful byproduct (fusion power) of seemingly undesirable research (nuclear weapons)? No, although certainly fusion research would proceed more slowly without weapons money. Man became a 'success' by learning to manipulate his environment, and I submit that we may not have exhausted all lthe 'good' from this evolutionary adaptation.
brian%asci.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Brian Douglass) (06/30/87)
Kent Paul Dolan writes: > Nowadays, few people read at all, so the poets are writing TV jingles. > You think that influences "few people"! The essayests and philosophers > are busy filling up the op-ed pages, and I doubt the ones who aren't read > keep getting published. In my opinion, the best Poets around are not writing TV jingles, but Rock Songs. Rock and Roll is the modern day asylum (?) of the Poet, and who can deny their power to influence, ask any teenager what head bangin' is. Some of their work can even be considered quite literary. Recent examples are Steve Winwood teaming with Will Jennings, as well as Peter Gabriel. Then of course, there is the all time leader in displaying poetic power in Rock, and that was and still is, YES. And last I heard, none of these guys was working for the military-industrial complex (which is just average folks doing a job they know has to be done) (I'll excuse Kenny Loggins for Top Gun). Brian Douglass
netoprhm%ncsuvm.bitnet@RUTGERS.EDU (Hal) (06/30/87)
Two diverging points:
A. Signifigant poets, philosophers....
The question was asked "Where are they now?"--The answer given was they
are all writing jingles. Actually, they are all writing rock music. A
few names: Patti Smith, Lou Reed, Jim Carroll. I am sure you can think
of others. Patti Smith predicted that Rock music would eventually be
seen as a legitimate art form, and I believe that day has arrived. Want
to here what tommorrow's leaders attitudes are? Listen to "indie" stuff.
And yes, people actually _do_ listen to the lyrics.
B. Social Impact vs. rationalism
The idea of doing a rational study on a proposed new technology's impact
on society is ludicrous. The decision to devise and implement new
technologies is never based on any sort a rational thought. Try
justifying nuclear weapons rationally. You eventually get to the point
where "They have it, we must better it." Now, does this solve any real
problems. No, it simply fills a _percieved need_, which is what
the implementation of technology is all about.
Do we really need to go to Mars? No, but we want to. So, we eventually
will. The point I'm trying (obliquely) to make is that instead of
"impact studies" and other justifications draped in "rational thinking",
it's about time we (humankind) took a good long hard look at exactly
what it is we want to accomplish and why. Will this happen? Probably
not. We are having too much fun with our toys to give them up.
Hal
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET
haas%gr@cs.utah.edu (Walt Haas) (07/01/87)
Kurt Guntheroth writes: > Why should people not be motivated by short-term profit? ... The mistake > philosophers and politicians make over and over is to arrogantly believe > that their consciousness is powerful enough to firmly grasp and control > all aspects of a society... What is needed is a change in the environment > that will cause society to evolve naturally into a 'better' organism... > why not simply demand that undesirable effects be taken into short-sighted, > profit-minded consideration by taxing them, regulating them, or removing > the limits on liability for them? First let me say that I consider this basically an excellent idea, and it is one that I have given a great deal of thought to. However there is a basic problem in attempting to do this in a representative democracy. The problem is as follows: Suppose I manufacture something which has a slight social cost which is borne by the general public, but the profits from sale of the thing all come to me. Let us say for example that I make $10 million per year in profit from this thing, and the total cost to the American taxpayer is also $10 million per year. Now I have a *VERY* strong incentive to keep receiving the profits from this product, but each citizen (let's say there are 240 million of them) can recover only about $.04 (10/240 dollars) by forcing me to pay all the social cost of my product. Now suppose a political movement starts with the intent of forcing me to eat all $10 million in social cost by paying that cost myself. If I did this I would lose my entire profit, so naturally I would have to raise my prices, thus losing sales. Suppose that I were to raise prices somewhat and lose 20% of my sales, I would then lose about $2 million (probably more) in profit. So it is worth $2 million a year to me to make sure this social movement fails, and only $.04 a year to you to make this movement succeed. Guess who is going to lobby their elected representative harder? The biologist Garrett Hardin has studied and written about this issue at length. The basic problem is called a "common pasture" problem. It is explained at length in Hardin's book Managing the Commons. A common pasture incentive system always causes Adam Smith's invisibile hand to produce the wrong result. The particular example above is discussed in Hardin's book Filters Against Folly, as the Private Profit/Commonized Cost situation. What to do about it? You tell me... Cheers -- Walt
andy@rocky.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) (07/02/87)
Walt Haas writes: > So it is worth $2 million a year to me to make sure this social movement > fails, and only $.04 a year to you to make this movement succeed. Guess > who is going to lobby their elected representative harder? You are going to lobby harder, but with a slight change in the rules, I don't think you'll succeed. The change is simple, candidates currently can accept contributions from almost anyone but only citizens resident in the candidate's district can vote for them. If we restrict contributions to a candiate/official from entities that aren't eligible to vote for that candidate to, say, 10% of the total raised by that candidate, your influence is restricted to your representative. My representative is going to listen to me because he has to get votes and contributions from me, you can't offer him either; your influence is limited to vote trades between your rep and mine. (Of course, if we have the same rep, you'll win, but everyone won't be at that disadvantage.) Yes, I realize this change wreaks havok with national organizations. I'm willing to modify it so that local branches can collect contributions from residents and contribute them to local candidates, but no more. The NRA (AFL-CIO, NEA, GM) can decentralize into independent subsidiaries if they want to contribute to local elections. If they can't get the contributions in a given district, life's hard. -andy
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/02/87)
Wonderful idea, I knew it had to have been tried ,and sure enough it has.
Seems that if you tell candidate X not to accept money from outside his/her
district that the folks from the outside just start their own group to get
their candidate elected. Seems that they have this first amendment right
to say what they want.
I still think it's a good idea, I would amendned it so that non district
support has to be pointed out. Say if the TV ad was paid for by someone
far away then at the end of the ad a voice says "This ad was paid for from
contributions from out of district". Of course people will find a way around
this, but maybe something along this line will help.
One real problem is getting someone who knows the high (and often black,
sigh) art of Law Writing to do the first draft. Then to try to pass it
somewhere large enought to test it, say San Francisco.
||ugh Daniel
hugh@well.uucp hugh@hoptoad.uucptaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/02/87)
Bill Ingogly writes: > When I said 'poets,' I was referring to people like Ted Hughes, W. S. > Merwin, John Ashbery, Ruth Stone, Amy Clampitt, and folks like them > who are writing something other than jingles for TV commercials. This strikes me as a very snobbish response. If there is an outlet whereby poets have a large impact, that establishes the importance of poetry. Whether the poets in question are the ones commonly thought of as poets, and anyone's opinion of the quality of their work, are both beside the point. Furthermore, I would guess that the "serious" poets have more influence than you think, through exactly these channels. Without any real first-hand knowledge on the question, I believe that the people who write the TV jingles and sitcoms think of themselves as part of the literati, and are, in vastly disproportionate numbers, amongst the readers of the serious poets. One might argue that commercial writers have no real impact, since they have to write what they are told to write. I think this is a very hard position to maintain. There is still a creative process, and a myriad ways in which the ideas of the writer can be reflected in the finished product. On the original assumption: I think that institutions like the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment are far more appropriate for this kind of function than trying to have the developers produce an impact statement. The developers are experts in how their product works; to assess impact, you only need to know what it does, but must be in expert in understanding social interactions. In the end, though, I don't think we *can* really control our technology. If one group doesn't develop something, somebody else will. The best we can do is to try to understand the implications, and change the details here and there for best effect. But ultimately, we are captives of our technological development, and can only hope we like where it takes us. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
wfi@rti.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/07/87)
[The discussion continues, but we *are* getting a bit off track, so let's try to steer it back to technology and society please... -- Dave ] >> When I said 'poets,' I was referring to people like ... > >This strikes me as a very snobbish response. If there is an outlet whereby >poets have a large impact, that establishes the importance of poetry. >Whether the poets in question are the ones commonly thought of as poets, and >anyone's opinion of the quality of their work, are both beside the point. So what sells is poetry. Aesthetics, content, and skill are beside the point. If I can outsell poet X I am by definition a more important poet. What's wrong with this picture? >... I believe that the people who write the TV >jingles and sitcoms think of themselves as part of the literati, and are, in >vastly disproportionate numbers, amongst the readers of the serious poets. I in fact have known people who write greeting cards and romance novels. They may consider themselves part of the literati, but they know that what they're doing for a living is hack work. Their interest (if any) in serious poetry has little connection with their professional output. >In the end, though, I don't think we *can* really control our technology. >If one group doesn't develop something, somebody else will. The best we can >do is to try to understand the implications, and change the details here and >there for best effect. But ultimately, we are captives of our technological >development, and can only hope we like where it takes us. This is a fatalistic attitude that assumes technology by its nature must or should remain forever beyond our control. I fail to see why: technology doesn't possess an existence independent of the people and social forces that make it what it is; people and social forces can be influenced and changed; what is it, then, about technology that makes it impossible to control? -- Bill Ingogly
tomr@drilex.UUCP (Tom Revay) (07/07/87)
> The mistake philosophers and politicians make over and over > is to arrogantly believe that their consciousness is powerful enough to > firmly grasp and control all aspects of a society. (Look at our > overcontrolled economy and the nasty cycles that result from economic > oversteering. Just to point out: the cycles were MUCH worse in the 19th century. Some panics were precipitated by erratic actions of government on the economy (Panic of 1819 from the demand for taxes to be paid in gold, also Jackson's famous specie circular in 1836, leading to another panic), but some of the high-amplitude cycles of the 1880's & 1890's were precipitated by the lack of currency in the market, the paper money being closely tied to gold. This was a major complaint of the Free Silver party, and the farmers interests. The point being: economic oversteering isn't good, but there is an important role for government in smoothing out economic cycles, and since the '30's, the cycles have been smoother, by historical standards. > Look at the record of failure of communist central planning. Yeah, just look. Pretty appalling. The socialist philosopy sounds good until you see that socialism doesn't seem to produce healthy economies, at least not on any scale. > What is needed is a change in the environment that will cause society > to evolve naturally into a 'better' organism... Although I think you're in danger of falling into your own "oversteering" category when you start talking about selective taxes to eliminate certain types of behavior, I agree with your suggestions wholeheartedly. But remember: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy," a double edge sword, indeed! ..............................Tom
andy@rocky.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) (07/07/87)
Hugh Daniel wrote: > Wonderful idea, I knew it had to have been tried, and sure enough it has. >Seems that if you tell candidate X not to accept money from outside his/her >district that the folks from the outside just start their own group to get >their candidate elected. Seems that they have this first amendment right >to say what they want. They can say whatever they want. If it is support the rule counts it as a contribution even if the candidate doesn't control it. The penalty for excessive outside contributions is that the candidate loses the election. (If the winner doesn't break the rule, everything is fine, otherwise a special election, with none of the candidates who cheated the first time, is held. If an official is found guilty of breaking the rule after he's seated, he's out.) If it's a first offense, we won't ban him/her from running for that office during the next regular election. I'll bet that outsiders won't insist on their right to dump their candidate. They do have this right since they're not penalized; the candidate is. There are problems with deciding who to charge an external contribution to. (Think about smear campaigns.) There are also problems with valuing non-monetary contributions. Mandatory public disclosure of contribution sources (outside district percentages) might be adequate if done before the election. The trick is to prohibit post-election contributions. One way is to make campaign debts uncollectable (at least after the election). Only fools will give credit to candidates under those circumstances. -andy
ljdickey%water.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET (Lee Dickey) (07/07/87)
Prentiss Riddle writes: >...all the decisions (and especially if we let them use the short-term profit > motive as their one and only golden rule), I have even less faith in the > government's ability to coerce them to behave responsibly through required > "social impact statements." It occurs to me that there may be a parallel between evolution of life forms and the "short-term profit motive" Priddle mentions above. If I understand what the biologists are saying to us, it is that every biological characteristic that happens as an evolutionary change and survives, does so because it is of immediate benefit to the posessor of that characteristic, and not because of some long term goal that may benefit a life form that may happen to come along at a later date. I interpret this to be a form of "short-term profit motive" in a biological setting. This is not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, I merely present it as curious idea. Please do not read "evolutionary social Darwinism" into my words either. I do agree with P. Riddle's statement that > we *all* share responsibility for the consequences of new (and old) > technology: as consumers, voters, and workers, among other things. We > all need to remember that just because technology is doable doesn't mean > it should be done ... L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo.
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/07/87)
Point of clarification: >It occurs to me that there may be a parallel between evolution of life >forms and the "short-term profit motive" Priddle mentions above. > > L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. This has been referred as the Ontogeny and Phylogeny argument. If you wish to consider it further, Steve Gould has his classic text book by the same name published in 1977 on the subject. --eugene miya
kurt@tc.FLUKE.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (07/08/87)
Bill Ingogly questions "What is it about technology that makes it impossible to control?" Technology is mostly ideas. Technology is a way to do something more easily than before or something that was previously not possible. To 'control' technology, you must control thought and countervene the tendency of people to do things more easily or that were previously impossible. This is an intractible task, even for a poet.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/13/87)
>It occurs to me that there may be a parallel between evolution of life >forms and the "short-term profit motive" Priddle mentions above. If I >understand what the biologists are saying to us, it is that every >biological characteristic that happens as an evolutionary change and >survives, does so because it is of immediate benefit to the posessor of >that characteristic, and not because of some long term goal that may >benefit a life form that may happen to come along at a later date. I >interpret this to be a form of "short-term profit motive" in a >biological setting. Not strictly accurate. Evolutionary changes that survive need not benefit their possessor. They only enhance the probability that the characteristic propagates, which can be done to the detriment of the possessor of the characteristic. That doesn't look like short-term profit motive to me. Indeed, short-term profit would be likely to have the opposite effect, considering the expenditure (energy, time ...) involved in producing progeny. We probably don't see the progeny of organisms that (by mutation?) developed a strong short-term profit motive, because they invested in themselves and not in the survival of their genetic structures. The same probably holds for societies in which short-term profit is a dominant motive, whether it be of the citizens or of the government. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers, the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves intelligence now?
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/15/87)
>It occurs to me that there may be a parallel between evolution of life >forms and the "short-term profit motive" Priddle mentions above. Not strictly accurate. Evolutionary changes that survive need not benefit their possessor. They only enhance the probability that the characteristic propagates, which can be done to the detriment of the possessor of the characteristic. That doesn't look like short-term profit motive to me. Indeed, short-term profit would be likely to have the opposite effect, considering the expenditure (energy, time ...) involved in producing progeny. We probably don't see the progeny of organisms that (by mutation?) developed a strong short-term profit motive, because they invested in themselves and not in the survival of their genetic structures. The same probably holds for societies in which short-term profit is a dominant motive, whether it be of the citizens or of the government. Martin Taylor
craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (07/18/87)
In <2228@hplabsc.HP.COM>, taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM (Martin Taylor) writes: >Not strictly accurate. Evolutionary changes that survive need not >benefit their possessor. They only enhance the probability that >the characteristic propagates, which can be done to the detriment >of the possessor of the characteristic. That doesn't look like >short-term profit motive to me. Indeed, short-term profit would >be likely to have the opposite effect, considering the expenditure >(energy, time ...) involved in producing progeny. Short-term profit seems to me to be quite narrowly defined here. You seem to have defined it as an intense form of selfishness that includes ONLY the organism and nothing else in which it might have interest, including its family and friends. >We probably don't see the progeny of organisms that (by mutation?) >developed a strong short-term profit motive, because they invested >in themselves and not in the survival of their genetic structures. Why is investing in oneself different from investing in the survival of one's genetic structures? Clearly, if one doesn't survive to propagate, or one's progeny are not born with access to a sufficient set of resources accumulated by their parents/other interested parties, the genetic structure does not survive. It would that interests run parallel for at least most of the time, so far as animals (including humans) are concerned. And I would suggest that we usually see progeny of organisms that developed a short-term profit motive to some degree. The sociobiological explanation for altruism seems to cover most exceptional cases. By perishing while performing some lifesaving activity, the altruistic organism loses its own genetic potential, but PRESERVES THAT CONTAINED IN ITS CLOSE RELATIVES. Thus the demarkation between "short-term" and "long-term" profit is perhaps defined here, rather than between the individual and its relatives. Unless, of course, you intend to apply an inherent negative qualifier to "profit". >The same probably holds for societies in which short-term profit >is a dominant motive, whether it be of the citizens or of the >government. > >Martin Taylor If you mean "we're here for a good time, not a long time", I agree. Such sentiments tend to produce what they deserve. We have been treating our environment this way for some time. If you mean altruistic, "common-good" collectivist societies last longer than capitalist, "don't tread on me" individualist societies, then I'd like to see some evidence. Despite their declared ideological leanings, most enduring societies have upheld the latter, at least so far as leadership and foreign policy are concerned. The "short-term profit" motive has always been quite clear in the machinations of ruling cliques, etcetera. To bring this back to the purpose of comp.society, what are the motives of our present breed of "technocrats", net.readers? I'd like to propose a question: What, if anything, do you think computing contributes to society? More personally, why are you involved in the field? Maybe we'll see what, and how "short" or "long" term these motives are.
craig%unicus%math.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET (Craig D. Hubley) (07/20/87)
Martin Taylor writes: >Not strictly accurate. Evolutionary changes that survive need not >benefit their possessor. They only enhance the probability that >the characteristic propagates, which can be done to the detriment >of the possessor of the characteristic. That doesn't look like >short-term profit motive to me. Indeed, short-term profit would >be likely to have the opposite effect, considering the expenditure >(energy, time ...) involved in producing progeny. Short-term profit seems to me to be quite narrowly defined here. You seem to have defined it as an intense form of selfishness that includes ONLY the organism and nothing else in which it might have interest, including its family and friends. >We probably don't see the progeny of organisms that (by mutation?) >developed a strong short-term profit motive, because they invested >in themselves and not in the survival of their genetic structures. Why is investing in oneself different from investing in the survival of one's genetic structures? Clearly, if one doesn't survive to propagate, or one's progeny are not born with access to a sufficient set of resources accumulated by their parents/other interested parties, the genetic structure does not survive. It would that interests run parallel for at least most of the time, so far as animals (including humans) are concerned. And I would suggest that we usually see progeny of organisms that developed a short-term profit motive to some degree. The sociobiological explanation for altruism seems to cover most exceptional cases. By perishing while performing some lifesaving activity, the altruistic organism loses its own genetic potential, but PRESERVES THAT CONTAINED IN ITS CLOSE RELATIVES. Thus the demarkation between "short-term" and "long-term" profit is perhaps defined here, rather than between the individual and its relatives. Unless, of course, you intend to apply an inherent negative qualifier to "profit". >The same probably holds for societies in which short-term profit >is a dominant motive, whether it be of the citizens or of the >government. If you mean "we're here for a good time, not a long time", I agree. Such sentiments tend to produce what they deserve. We have been treating our environment this way for some time. If you mean altruistic, "common-good" collectivist societies last longer than capitalist, "don't tread on me" individualist societies, then I'd like to see some evidence. Despite their declared ideological leanings, most enduring societies have upheld the latter, at least so far as leadership and foreign policy are concerned. The "short-term profit" motive has always been quite clear in the machinations of ruling cliques, etcetera. To bring this back to the purpose of comp.society, what are the motives of our present breed of "technocrats", net.readers? I'd like to propose a question: What, if anything, do you think computing contributes to society? More personally, why are you involved in the field? Maybe we'll see what, and how "short" or "long" term these motives are.