Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Re: The Neutrality of Technology Message-ID: <465@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 16:04:00 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.465 Posted: Tue Jul 15 16:04:00 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jul-86 23:37:09 EDT Reply-To: tektronix!watmath!watdragon!rfpfeifle Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 28 Approved: taylor@hplabs Reference: <445@hplabsc.UUCP> This article is from Ron Pfeifle and was received on Mon Jul 14 21:19:25 1986 I don't know--I might have a very naive view of things--but I must say that I both agree and disagree with your perception of the "nature" of technology. Certainly, any item used by human beings (computers, rocks, even ideas) looses any "neutrality" it might have possessed when pressed into use by humanity. This results simply because the "object" is being used to some *purpose*, and this purpose defines the nature of the object in this context. Even an atomic bomb can have non-military applications (although they may be far-fetched; perhaps to persuade an asteroid in the (far?) future to leave our planet alone). At any rate, certainly the object itself has no "goodness or badness," even though it is easier to use some things for destructive purposes than constructive. An aside--let's assume for the moment that we've developed a thinking machine (I see those flame jet's firing up now), and that we "program" it to be "bad". Is it the machine that's "bad," the "program," the instance of the program on the machine at the the machine is running, or is the whole thing neutral and the programmers are really the baddies?... Ron Pfeifle, Lowly UnderGrad University of Waterloo, ....watdragon!rfpfeifle (I hope that that's enough pathname...)