Aihps3.200
net.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!houxi!ihnss!ihps3!pcl
Fri Jan 29 10:32:47 1982
"humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets!
"humanist, n.  A person having a strong interest in or concern for human
	       welfare"  [Random House College Dictionary]

I take strong exception to the sharp dichotomy watmath!pcmcgeer assumes
between humanists and technologists!  I consider myself to be both, and
see many others here at work and on these nets (Usenet & ARPAnet) who I
would describe similarly.  And it's not just that I'm a technologist while
sitting at my desk, and a humanist when considering the best remedy to living
in an unratified state - we can be both at the same time!  Of course, *some*
*activities* may fall into just one category or the other, and it is
(unfortunately) possible to find some technologists who are clearly not
humanists.

On the point pcmcgeer was addressing, I think it is those of us who
are *more* than just technologists who are in a position to affect society
the most.  The technology by itself doesn't tell you how to get it out
of the lab, where to put it, how to use it, or even WHY ANYONE SHOULD
BOTHER!

This point applies to more than just the topic of this news group/digest,
and should probably be in HUMAN-NETS, but it does seem to have some
connection to the 'popular' argument against funding for space ("Why not
spend all that money on something that will benefit the masses?").  If
ALL we are is technologists, or even if that's how the 'public'
perceives us (and we perceive ourselves), we won't be able to refute that
argument effectively.

					Paul Lustgarten
					Bell Labs - Indian Hill