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: The Neutrality of Technology Message-ID: <473@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jul-86 15:57:27 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.473 Posted: Thu Jul 17 15:57:27 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 02:38:00 EDT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 54 Approved: taylor@hplabs Reference: <445@hplabsc.UUCP> [Note: this article is a test of a different header format. If you see any problems with this, please send a copy of the ENTIRE header to me via email. Thanks. -- Dave] > I'd like to comment on a point Henry Spencer makes in a previous > posting (just posted, so this'll be as new as that!). > > Henry says "To repeat the point: technology is *neutral*" > > I can't agree. Well, I can't really see that your argument following is in conflict with what Henry was getting at. You are reacting as though he had said "the effects of technology are neutral", which he didn't say. To paraphrase, I think Henry said "you can't evaluate the impact of technology without looking at how it is used". You replied, in essence "you can't evaluate the impact of technology while looking *only* at how it is used". Well.... you are both right. But so what? All Henry was getting at was that technology *in* *and* *of* *itself* cannot be termed either good or bad, in that it doesn't universally lead to good results, nor does it universally lead to bad results. You didn't say anything that contradicts that point, unless I missed it totally. Note that your central argument, which I take to be: > Objects *cannot* be considered without considering what they are being > utilized for, the materials they are made from, the moral and ethical > ramifications of their use, and so on. strongly *supports* Henry's position (as well as your own). It shows that the "objects" produced by technology cannot be classed as "good" or "eeeeevil" without considering how they are used, and the impact their use has. If from this agreement we three seem to share you conclude that technology is not neutral, then as Arthur Dent might say, "this must be some use of the term 'neutral' with which I am not familiar". To conclude, a semi-serious mini-flame: Aaauuuggghhh! Why does everyone say "utilized" when "used" will do just as well, and is less silly-sounding? The recent overuse of "utilize" is enough to give a sensitive person ulcers! Why, it's as bad as the Pentagonspeak and Governmentspeak that flourished in the Nixon years! I suppose I should be grateful that this is a mild case of the infestation, and you didn't say "ramifications of their utilization"! It's those cursed word processors, I bet! :-) (Actually, I think that word processors are dandy for turning things like "what they are being utilized for" into things like "how they are used". But maybe folks who don't like them get things like that "right" on the first try. (I think WPs are neutral too, BTW.)) -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw