X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:19:45 -0500
Reply-To: PSU-IST Staff Discussion <L-ISTSTA@lists.psu.edu>
Sender: PSU-IST Staff Discussion <L-ISTSTA@lists.psu.edu>
From: Steve Sawyer <sawyer@IST.PSU.EDU>
Organization: School of Information Sciences and Technology
Subject: [Fwd: NetFuture #103]
To: L-ISTSTA@LISTS.PSU.EDU
Longish -- but the opening comments (by Stephen talbott) and first
article (by Langdon Winner) are worth reading. They discuss a recent
poll of internet usage about to be released.
Steve
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NetFuture #103
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:56:45 -0500
From: Stephen Talbott <stevet@MERLIN.ALBANY.NET>
Reply-To: stevet@OREILLY.COM
To: NETFUTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
NETFUTURE
Technology and Human Responsibility
==========================================================================
Issue #103 A Publication of The Nature Institute February 29,
2000
==========================================================================
Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com)
On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/netfuture/
You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.
NetFuture is a reader-supported publication.
CONTENTS:
---------
Editor's Note
Tech Knowledge Revue (Langdon Winner)
Enthusiasm and Concern: Results of a New Technology Poll
DEPARTMENTS
Correspondence
We Need More Than Shocked Indignation (Miles Nordin)
I'm Not Sure I'm Ready to Trade in My `Defective' Body (Russell Lear)
Recognizing the Limits of Our Understanding (Joshua Yeidel)
About this newsletter
==========================================================================
EDITOR'S NOTE
NetFuture is not exactly known for its preoccupation with late-breaking
news. After all, only an infinitesimal percentage of the news that
needs
attending to is today's news. The current issue of NetFuture, however,
is
an exception. There's a major survey being announced today, sponsored
by
National Public Radio, The Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard. The survey was released in advance to
NetFuture columnist Langdon Winner so that he could offer commentary for
National Public Radio.
Check out NPR's "Talk of the Nation" today, where Langdon will be the
special guest for an hour. He's also provided a few verbal nuggets for
"All Things Considered" later in the day. And, taking advantage of the
occasion, he offers us below a full report on the survey results, along
with some of his own trenchant observations.
SLT
==========================================================================
ENTHUSIASM AND CONCERN: RESULTS OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY POLL
Langdon Winner (winner@rpi.edu)
TECH KNOWLEDGE
REVUE
2.1 February 29,
2000
Everywhere one looks these days there's giddy excitement about
technology,
a sentiment so common it often verges on mass ecstasy. In the media as
well as in conversations of everyday folks, "technology" is praised as
the
fount of everything that is new and promising in the world, a cornucopia
of fabulous jobs, higher incomes, better health, longer lives, and more
satisfying ways of living. Improvements that people once attributed to
modern civilization or perhaps to science, are now widely believed to
flow
from "technology," especially the realm of digital electronics and
computer networks.
But does the insistent buzz of news stories and personal anecdotes
reflect
what the great majority of people are actually thinking? Is the ardor
for
computers, cyberspace, and dot com enterprise displayed in tacky Super
Bowl ads also common in the populace at large? A poll released this
week
strongly suggests the answer is "yes."
The survey was designed and sponsored by National Public Radio, The
Kaiser
Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University and was conducted last November and December by International
Communications Research (ICR) of Media, Pa. Pollsters tapped a
nationally
representative sample of 1,506 adults 18 years and older, asking a long
list of questions about technology, especially their views of the
computer
and Internet. The same survey also asked 625 children, 10-17, for their
views on the matter. Results from this research are extensive, worth
lengthy analysis and interpretation. My comments here offer some
initial,
highly personal impressions, looking mainly at opinions from the sample
of
adults 60 years and younger.
Positive Feelings
-----------------
The survey confirms that computer use is indeed widespread: 92% of
adults,
18-60, have used a computer; 53% use a computer at work. Perhaps more
surprisingly, 69% of those polled reported having a computer at home; of
these 70% said they had just one computer, not more. For most people,
having a computer at home is a fairly new experience; more than half the
sample said they'd gotten their first computer just within the past five
years.
The Internet is now widely available to Americans: 75% of adults have
used
it at one time or another; 53% have access to the Internet or email at
home while 27% use the Internet at work. For those who log on to the
Internet on the job, 63% said it was "essential" for their work.
The data suggests that people use the Internet at home primarily for
information gathering and leisure activities -- current events (43%),
entertainment, sports and hobbies (44%), travel (38%), and health (31%).
But the more practical, business-like uses are much less common: paying
bills (11%); investments (10%); and shopping (28%). Can it be that
people
are dragging their feet when it comes to exploiting the economic
functions
of networked computing in the home? For now, the data suggests as much.
Seeking a larger context to situate its findings, the poll asked people
to
list the one or two technological developments of the twentieth century
they found most significant. The computer received far and away the
highest ranking with 65%. Next came the automobile with 33%. Far down
the list were older technologies, ones heavily promoted in their heydays
decades back, but now evidently fading in the public's esteem.
Remember the saving power of nuclear energy and the "revolution" it
promised in the 1950s? Only 11% of those polled now place it among the
most significant technologies. Similarly, the halo that once surrounded
space flight seems to have lost its shine; only 14% placed rocketry in
the
top rank. Even television scored rather low in the pantheon of
technical
systems, coming in at a mere 19%. Given the prominence of TV in
people's
lives, it is fascinating to see it pale in significance when compared to
the computer. Rankings of other notable contenders include the airplane
(15%); broadcast radio (12%) and genetic engineering (14%).
Several questions in the poll tried to discover how people feel about
changes in their lives brought about by technological transformation.
Adults were asked to respond to the assertion, "Science and technology
make our way of life change too fast." Those who agreed "strongly" or
"to
some extent" totaled 56%. Asked how well they were adapting to
computers,
56% said they were "keeping up", 43% "being left behind."
Answers to the lifestyle questions produced what is probably the most
important headline to emerge from the study, namely, that most people of
all ages and income levels now have very positive feelings about the
computer. Those who have a computer at home were asked whether "a
computer at home has made your life better or worse, or hasn't it made
much difference?" A large majority, 64%, said the computer had made life
better while 2% answered "worse" and 34% indicated not much difference.
The children sampled were even more positive; 91% said they thought the
computer made life better for Americans. By comparison, only 42% of
adults and 35% of youngsters thought television made their lives better.
In fact, computer use seems to be cutting into American's TV watching;
28%
of adults and 45% of children say they have watched less TV since the
computer entered the home, although the exact amount of time was not
measured.
Toward a Solitary Life
----------------------
But the findings about computers and the better life come with a
stunning
paradox. Of those who have computers at home 57% report they now spend
less time with families and friends. This mirrors controversial results
in other surveys of our emerging computer culture. A 1998 survey at
Carnegie Mellon University found astonishing levels of loneliness among
first-time computer users. Another poll just released by political
scientist Norman Nie of Stanford University also finds computer users
spending less time with friends and attending fewer social events.
Stories in the *New York Times* have dubbed this phenomenon the "Newer,
Lonelier Crowd," recalling studies from sociologists of the 1950s that
described the collapse of community life in America and the rise of an
isolated individualism.
Today's advocates of virtual community howl in disbelief whenever
results
of this kind are released; they prefer colorful anecdotes about all the
people they've seen energetically connecting online. But when
substantial
numbers of people in scientifically selected random samples tell you
they
are disconnecting from those closest to them, all those lovely stories
about close community in cyberspace seem like wishful thinking.
Let's face it: Large numbers of Americans are finding satisfaction in
computer games, email, chat rooms, and Web browsing and are perfectly
happy doing these things in more or less solitary ways. Is this news
really all that surprising? Unlike television viewing that at least
provides families a semblance of social interaction as they watch shows
together, computer use is typically a one-person, one-tube affair.
Perhaps the computer finally offers ways to resolve a problem identified
by Jean-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Another favorite theme among proponents of computerized social life --
that the Internet will be a tonic for democracy -- also finds scant
support in the poll. The computer and Internet, you'll recall, were
supposed to revitalize politics by making it easier and more attractive
for citizens to participate. I wait by my window each day looking for
signs that this is actually happening. Alas, very little political
activity is reflected in the NPR/Kaiser Foundation/Kennedy School data.
Only 12% of adult computer users had ever visited a political
candidate's
site on the Internet and only 2% had contributed money to a political
candidate or charity online. By comparison, 31% of children with
computers in the home said they had visited a pornography Web site (if
only by accident).
Of course, the political findings do not begin to measure the kinds of
high-speed, online mobilization and lobbying one sees among activists
nowadays, a phenomenon that Bruce Bimber has termed "accelerated
pluralism". But if one's talking about engagement of the populace as a
whole in public affairs (and isn't that what democracy is all about?)
then
the widely predicted reinvigoration of political life does not seem to
have reached some 88% of us who are currently asleep at the mouse.
Race, Income, and Jobs
----------------------
Today's worries about the "digital divide" are to some extent confirmed
by
the study, although the inequalities are not as drastic as the
worst-case
scenarios have suggested. Among persons with low income ($30,000 per
year
or less) 35% use a computer at work and 48% at home; among the less
educated (high school or less) 38% at work, 57% at home. The gap
between
income levels is most prominent when it comes to Internet use at home
where 72% of families with incomes of $50,000 or more are connected
while
only 31%, of low income families have Internet links. Among blacks and
whites there was a relatively small gap in computer use at work, 28% vs.
36%, but much larger signs of inequality at home: 35% vs. 52% in
computer
use and 19% vs. 34% in the availability of the Internet or email.
The specific ways people use the Internet is more greatly influenced by
income and education than by race. Both high-income blacks (27%) and
whites (38%) reported doing some shopping on line. But this figure
drops
to 6% of low-income blacks and 10% of whites. Thus far the poor have
not
caught the bug of E-Commerce. (Once again social science does a
wonderful
job of revealing the obvious: Those with lower incomes tend to shop
less
frequently.)
About half of those polled (46%) said they believe that differences in
access to computing have widened gaps in income and opportunity in our
society. Apparently more generous than their elected leaders or today's
talk show hosts, 61% of the sample affirmed that government should help
low-income people gain access to computers and the Internet.
How realistic are the popular views reflected in the poll? In my
reading,
people seem to have a fairly well-balanced understanding of what
computers
can do and also know of their drawbacks and dangers. Hence, while there
was overwhelming enthusiasm for the Internet, more than half of adults
polled said they trusted the information found on the Net just a little
or
not at all. Given my own experience, that seems about right. The data
also revealed folks to be profoundly wary of a host of troubles linked
to
computer use -- loss of privacy, smut on the Web, dangerous strangers
online, and other ills.
Interestingly enough, large majorities of those who recognized problems
in
the online world -- pornography, information on building bombs, gun
purchasing, hate speech, false advertising, etc. -- believe that
"government should do something about" these matters, a conclusion that
candidates running for office this year might well notice. As reflected
in the survey, the general public seems worried about the darker side of
cyberspace, far more so than the digital cognoscenti in Silicon Valley
or
our free-market-happy political leaders.
Whether people are realistic about computers, jobs and income is a
fascinating question as well. An astonishing 87% of those polled said
they are not concerned that computers might eliminate their jobs. In
addition, some 40% believe that computers in the workplace will increase
wages, while 39% think it will make no difference. While these views
reflect the glowing economic optimism of the Clinton years, they seem at
odds with some longer-term historical trends. In recent decades the
introduction of computers has eliminated whole categories of jobs
formerly
held by ordinary folks -- telephone operators, bank clerks, and the
like.
Networked computing makes it extremely easy to get rid of the middle
man,
the person who stands between the information or product desired and its
ultimate consumer. But these middle-level jobs are exactly the ones
most
people still hold, the very ones targeted by "innovators" who hope to
reap
profits by "cutting costs." While the booming economy of the past
decade
may continue to create new kinds of work and keep unemployment rates
down,
the belief that computers do not pose a threat to a great many existing
jobs seems bizarre. Perhaps Americans have gotten used to having their
lives shaken up by upheavals in "The New Economy." And perhaps they
have
come to accept wage levels that have remained essentially flat for
several
decades. A key message from the poll: Computers are fun and I'm still
working. What, me worry?
Another contradiction revealed in the survey is a tension between the
overwhelmingly positive feelings expressed about computers and the
deteriorating estimate people have of television. Only about 4 people
in
10 said that television had made life better; even beepers (of all
things)
received a higher score, 50% on the "makes life better" scale. With a
64%
positive rating, computers and the Internet seem well situated to pull
society toward Nirvana.
But perhaps the public is unaware that in the next several years the two
boxes -- computer and TV -- are destined to merge into a single entity,
one that will (if its corporate planners have anything to say about it)
bring a torrent of advertising, entertainment and commercial messages
into
the home, crowding out many of the charming features of the Internet
that
folks now find so appealing -- its flexibility, openness and way of
putting ordinary people in control. The survey gives no indication
folks
realize that there's likely to be trouble ahead as today's romance with
the computer encounters pungent economic forces.
Unasked Questions
-----------------
The IRC research gives us much to ponder. It is certainly a relief to
have some solid numbers to help test the various claims and counter
claims
advanced as Americans flock to the online world. At the same time, it
is
worth noting some serious limitations of polls like these, especially
their unwillingness to move beyond conventional assumptions about
society
and politics.
For example, the poll did not ask people for their opinions about
improvement or decline in the communities in which they reside. An
excellent question would have been: "Is online commerce making your
neighborhood, town, or city a better or worse place to live?" But
nothing
remotely like that question was asked of the hundreds surveyed. The
underlying worldview of the survey and its sponsors projects a society
of
individuals who move back and forth between the workplace and family,
but
encounter nothing in between. Thus, the poll sheds no light on crucial
issues about computers and the vitality of present and future
communities,
issues hotly debated in writings about cyberspace and society.
In a similar way, the survey did nothing to encourage people to share
their opinions on emerging concentrations of economic and political
power,
developments obviously connected to the development of digital
electronics
and widely recognized as such. Perhaps the pollsters found opinions on
these matters too volatile to explore, too difficult to measure. But
the
gaping absence of such topics lends an air of eerie unreality to
otherwise
valuable research.
Most Americans are perfectly aware that the new millionaires,
billionaires, and media conglomerates are bringing substantial and rapid
change to our ways of living. All of us know at least a little about
Bill
Gates, the antitrust suit, mega-mergers between AOL and Time Warner, and
the like. Why not ask our opinions about wealth, power and conflict?
Those who designed the poll evidently decided to err on the side of
politeness, not bothering to inquire about public issues that only make
people unhappy.
One last gem popped out at me from the reams of data and analysis.
Buried
in the sample was a small but not insignificant minority of persons who
don't have a computer and evidently don't plan to get one. Of all the
people queried, this group seemed consistently most contented. Although
almost unimaginable in the year 2000, these rugged souls claim they're
actually able to do their jobs, communicate with friends, obtain
information, and even go shopping, all without the power of digital
equipment. Simply amazing! Asked if they feel "left out" of the world
taking shape around them, three quarters answered "no." Obviously, they
don't know what they're missing.
* * * * * * * * *
Tech Knowledge Revue is produced at the Chatham Center for Advanced
Study,
339 Bashford Road, North Chatham, NY 12132. Langdon Winner can be
reached
at: winner@rpi.edu and at his Web page: http://www.rpi.edu/~winner .
Copyright Langdon Winner 2000. Distributed as part of NetFuture:
http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/netfuture/ . You may redistribute this
article for noncommercial purposes, with this notice attached.
==========================================================================
CORRESPONDENCE
We Need More Than Shocked Indignation
-------------------------------------
Response to: "On the New Eugenics" (NF-102)
From: Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET>
I'm in the MCD biology program at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
so
perhaps I have some vested interest in what you're saying. I would like
to reserve blunt agreement or disagreement and make a very simple point.
Many of the scientists you quoted were not attempting to make a
statement
about morality. Many of my professors here are uncomfortable discussing
morality, perhaps because they realize they cannot do a good job of it,
and they are better off contributing other ideas to those who can. This
*relative* lack of philosophical moral skill may be bad, or it may be
unavoidable -- I leave it as a separate issue for the moment. The
important thing is, that's the way things *are*.
If they're not discussing morality, then what are they discussing?
Several of them are telling you what *they* believe, as scientists,
*will*
happen. Not what they want to happen. Not what should happen. Rather,
what *will* happen. They may be wrong, but that's not the point. The
point is, they never intended to answer your philosophical questions.
They are not talking about what they, or anyone, *wants* to happen, much
less what *should* happen. They are telling you with the sort of blunt
honesty that only an incredibly strong individual can deliver, what they
truly believe is going to happen.
These people will do what they say they can do. They won't do it to
spite
you, or because they are morally foolish -- they'll do it because they
know that no one is in any position to stop it from happening -- not
you,
not them, not any coalition of interested people likely to spring into
existence soon enough to matter. Not even another World War could stop
this from happening. It is an immense amount of work, but the work will
be done. They know who does the work. And they know who pays for the
work. They know the work is going to get done. And, Genius is not
required. It will happen, because it is trivial work. That is why they
are so certain. That certainty is the information these statements were
meant to convey.
I suggest that you take them seriously, and no matter how awful their
future vision might be, try to react with something more effective than
shocked indignation.
Miles Nordin / v:+1 720 841-8308 fax:+1 530 579-8680
555 Bryant Street PMB 182 / Palo Alto, CA 94301-1700 / US
* * * * * * * * *
Miles --
You say that achieving the radical vision of the genetic engineers is
trivial work. It is also trivial work to walk up to someone and thrust
a
knife in his chest. But, as a society, we've learned to discourage
that.
Likewise, it's reasonable to believe that, when we become aware of the
tremendous destruction and suffering implied by some of the current
genetic work, we will find ourselves discouraged from pursuing it in
anything like the current manner.
My essay was an attempt to move toward an understanding of the problems
inherent in those various statements about genetic engineering. Why in
the world do you describe it as mere "shocked indignation"? Do you
simply
assume, without really reading, that anyone not sufficiently
tough-minded
to accept the inevitability of the engineers' brave new world must only
be
capable of emoting? I do wonder, though, why I should worry about
conveying anything more "effective" than indignation if in fact we're
all
helpless before the inevitability of events.
I don't see how to read those various quotations without recognizing
that
the speakers are content to side with the developments they describe.
You
yourself suggest that *of course* they side with these developments,
since
the developments are inevitable. That *is* a rather shocking view,
since
it denies choice where obviously each one of us does have choice, and it
denies our responsibility for the future. It is exactly this attempt to
separate the practice of science from ethics -- as if there were any
practice that could possibly be isolated from its ethical dimensions --
that is the root of all the dangers presented by both science and
technology.
Steve
I'm Not Sure I'm Ready to Trade in My `Defective' Body
------------------------------------------------------
Response to: "On the New Eugenics" (NF-102)
From: Russell Lear <lear@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Steve,
I have cerebral palsey, so your occasional thread on how technologists
seek to help or prevent less than perfect humans is particularly
interesting to me. (Basically, my muscles are spastic and tend to work
against one another, making it difficult to get around or, at times, to
talk clearly.)
I think that many technologists would do well to talk to some of the
people they're seeking to help; they'd find much more ambivalance than
they might have expected.
For instance, when you had the article on Spiritual Machines, I took an
informal poll of people I know with CP, asking what they thought of the
prospect of trading in their "defective" body for an industrial
strength,
computer enhanced model. There weren't any takers.
It isn't that these people are against technology (computers and the
internet have done a lot to help with communication), but after years of
being guinea pigs for the latest technologies and theories, people are
much more aggressive about discussing the side-effects & the pains vs
the
benefits. And if the benefits are primarily or solely cosmetic, there
tends to be real skepticism.
To be sure, I'm not going to win any races (but then neither are some of
my couch-potato co-workers), climb a mountain (ditto) or dance with the
grace of Fred Astaire (ditto), but I can enjoy and take delight in the
races, the exploits and the grace of others. And I believe I and my
couch-potato co-workers contribute through our efforts to work with
others
to create a safe, loving and interesting community.
I don't know that I can say I'm totally at peace with my body and its
appearance or (mal)functioning, but I do believe that a pre-occupation
with refining the body's appearance and function will lead to endless
tweaking and improving.
I'm all for using technology to improve our lives, but I'm with you (I
think) in hoping we'll pay attention to what we're doing and ensure that
our actions reflect what we really value.
Long-windedly,
Russell.
Recognizing the Limits of Our Understanding
-------------------------------------------
Response to: "On the New Eugenics" (NF-102)
From: Joshua Yeidel <yeidel@wsu.edu>
Stephen,
You wrote:
The range of our moral responsibility, however, is determined not
only
by the range of our power to act, but also by the extent of our
understanding. Our first responsibility is to recognize the limits
of
our understanding and the true springs of our actions.
I believe this is the most profound pair of sentences I have understood
of
what you have written (some things you have written I don't understand
yet, so I can't say how profound they might be). You are right to
compare
the impact of Martha Beck's story with that of Jacques Lusseyran's
story.
Both stories reinforce my conviction that, no matter what techno-power
humans accrete, there are other and greater powers which give this world
its soul, and which are trying to give us our souls back, too. (You
might
use the term "meaning" instead of "soul", and perhaps you might prefer
"laws" or "relationships" to "powers"....in the cultural cross-wash
between reaction against hyper-religion and reaction against hyper-
science, we probably need to keep both barrels of our verbal shotguns
loaded.)
Thinking about the sentences I quote above in the context of my work in
"Higher Education", it's clear to me that our first *educational*
responsibility is to help our students meet their first moral
responsibility -- "to recognize the limits of our understanding and the
true springs of our actions." No one will be surprised that I don't
find
this often in the curricula I encounter.
One more point: You say
my own surmise about the new, materialistic mysticism that speaks
glibly of Metaman and spiritual machines and digital immortality is
that it arises from fear. I mean the fear that we may not be just
our
molecules, or just the patterns of organization imposed on our
molecules.
I see it just the other way .... that the fear that animates the techo-
power juggernaut is the fear that we *may* be "just our molecules", that
no soul-power (or law of meaning) exists to lift us above the best that
we
poor pitiful humans can do, and so we must grasp at everything with our
own hands. Even so, it comes out just as you say, a flight into *doing*
from the responsibility of *becoming*.
Thank you so much for your efforts. I hope you are bearing up well.
Joshua
==========================================================================
ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER
NetFuture is a freely distributed newsletter dealing with technology and
human responsibility. It is published by The Nature Institute, 169
Route
21C, Ghent NY 12075 (tel: 518-672-0116). Postings occur roughly every
couple of weeks. The editor is Steve Talbott, author of *The Future
Does
Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst*.
Copyright 2000 by The Nature Institute.
You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. You
may
also redistribute individual articles in their entirety, provided the
NetFuture url and this paragraph are attached.
NetFuture is supported by freely given user contributions, and could not
survive without them. For details and special offers, see
http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/netfuture/support.html .
Current and past issues of NetFuture are available on the Web:
http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/netfuture/
To subscribe to NetFuture send the message, "subscribe netfuture
yourfirstname yourlastname", to listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu . No
subject line is needed. To unsubscribe, send the message, "signoff
netfuture".
Send comments or material for publication to Steve Talbott
(stevet@oreilly.com).
If you have problems subscribing or unsubscribing, send mail to:
netfuture-request@maelstrom.stjohns.edu .