robert1 (09/22/82)
Re this note previously submitted to the net, as a comment on the "Harmful Effects of Technology" poll: --------- "The harmful effects of new technology" is a catch-phrase of the seventies and one that I, personally, hope will die in the near future. Frankly, I'd have a hard time thinking of any general-purpose technology that hasn't been of overwhelming net benefit to society as a whole; I'd also have a hard time thinking of one whose apparent social costs didn't outweigh its apparent social benefits *at the time of its introduction*. In sum, we can pretty reliably state that the downstream benefits of rapid computerization will outweigh any apparent costs now; if we start thinking about the apparent harm entailed in such a move, we'll never get around to making it. --------- Sorry, but I disagree. A path of blind acceptance of anything that seems to be a cost-effective or desireable solution is dangerous. This might be likened to producing fission-based space heaters in the early days of nuclear energy, assuming that it could be cost-justified and that we knew of "no reason NOT to" implement it with that technology. I don't mean to be seen as one who hopes that "higher powers" (e.g. government, intelligentsia, whatever ...) should look over and always protect us from ourselves, nor do I think that further study is perpetually needed before the product is made generally available. However, the "computerization" of our society is the extension of a very powerful trend in the communication - the exponential rise in the amount and access of information. This trend includes the proliferation of "technology", which is not synonymous with "good". By this, I mean that there exists a gap in our ability to apply technology, and to apply it wisely. In my opinion, the possible futures of this communications explosion are difficult to ascertain with any degree of clarity [Hasn't this been true historically of advances in technology? Take the integrated chip as an example - only recently are people beginning to understand the profound ways that its development will affect our lives, and society as a whole.] I therefore question the sensibilty of letting technology run rampant (letting people run rampant with technology). Do you expect project designers to ensure that your rights will be preserved? Can system designers anticipate (all of) the potential uses of their products, and the side effects on *your* life? I am not that trusting of technology, of the powers of foresight and prediction that we exhibit, and in general of our ability to effectively control the effects of technology - particularly NEW technology that impacts the way we THINK. Does anyone care to help to answer these questions? Possibly I am mistaken, but this does not seem to be a general discussion of government intervention and the like. This discussion seems to be aimed at the need for restraint and careful thought in the design of new communications systems. This is not restricted to concerns about the flow of information, but extends to other effects on an individual e.g., does the electronic cottage limit our social interaction and fail to reinforce various social needs?, what of long-term economic effects?, etc. I do not pretend to know the answers to such questions, but I certainly think that they are not best left to chance. I am sure that there are those among us that do not place a great deal of credence in the ability of psychologists to analyze such situations and inform us of what is good for us. However, I contend that some sort of study should be performed, and who better to do it? Perhaps some trials of new systems would be of help - much as computer conferencing has been studied for its social effects [see reference]. This would give us a piece by piece analysis, and would not measure the overall effects, including potential accumulations, interactions, and synergistic effects. These trials needn't be performed before a product is introduced; I suppose some fear this to be a restraint of product introduction in free trade, much as the FDA is criticized for its efforts in product testing and screening. -------------------------------------------------- Who is to judge what is good for society? vs Should we exhibit restraint and forethought in the application of new technology? -------------------------------------------------- Any takers for this problem? I am open for intelligent discussion here, and I think it an unsolved any worthy problem for our consideration. Let's hear more informed comment on this one. Cheers! Robert Duncan Bell Labs, Chicago ihuxx!robert1 ----- Reference: "Group Communication Through Computers", Institute for the Future, Report R-41, supported by NSF grant APR 76-00512. Vol. 2 "Study of Social Effects" Vol. 4 "Social, Managerial, and Economic Issues" Vol. 5 "Effects on Working Patterns" Institute for the Future 2740 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 ----- P.S. For those of you who made it this far through these ramblings - Sorry for the length, but I never was one for brevity. No grades for terseness, please!
wagner (09/23/82)
So far, most of what I have read on this topic has taken the
attitude that exploration of future technology and its impact
will lead to a go/nogo decision by someone/some agency.
It would be nice if the study of a product would result in
significant changes to minimize the undesirable social effects,
but simply publishing the results of the study would be of
significant social value. As for who should make decisions
to withdraw products ("how could we withdraw cars now"), it is
to be hoped that the availability of good product evaluations
would force obviously bad products off the market. If they arent
obviously bad, then they must be good for someone, and therefore
probably should stay. Here we do get into libertarian
philosophies, which I am not qualified to discuss.
In summary, impartial evaluations of new technologies/products
are of significant educational value even if they are not used
by a government agency or other censoring body to pass judgement
on the technology/product.
Michael Wagner, UTCS