Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: The Impact of Inventions Message-ID: <2041@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Wed, 17-Jun-87 22:35:28 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2041 Posted: Wed Jun 17 22:35:28 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jun-87 04:45:45 EDT Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Lines: 641 Approved: taylor@hplabs [The following is the slightly edited head of a discussion taken off a local conferencing system that readers of this digest should find most interesting. Please feel free to add your comments and replies to what is being said here too! -- Dave Taylor] From: Brian Cripe Subject: social impact statements Date: 11 Jun 87 14:04:29 GMT This morning on NPR's Morning Edition (6/11/86) I heard a commentary by Michael Harrington, co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America, concerning the impact of technology on society. Harrington advocated requiring companies to file "social impact statements" before introducing new technologies and major inventions. He likened this to an environmental impact statement, except it would deal with the impact on "unemployment, , and racism." The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be involved in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it solely in the hands of "big-business and scientists." What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? ---- From: Niels Mayer Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:50:49 GMT Sounds like the NPR guy needs to be straightened out on feminism. He makes feminists sound like housewives and technophobes. This seems somewhat contrary to the nature of some feminists that I know -- women that repair their own motorcycles, and work in technical/technological fields like software and medical microbiology. And of course the men in power -- "big-business and scientists" -- are the cause of society's ills.... Arrrgh! -- Niels ---- From: Peter Marvit Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:05:00 GMT I, too, heard Michael Carrington's commentary, which caused me thought. I admit that I was taken aback at first, and started to put his comments into the bin of knee-jerk anti-technologists. After reflection, I've modified my view, but still take exception to his argument. I contend that it is far easier (though still non-trvial) to discuss potential physical/climatic/biologcal implications and repercussions of a particular physical process, be it a building, chemical addition to the environment, or whatever. I further contend that attempting to crystal ball the future as to the sociological and cultural effects of a particular piece of technology (or by analogy political policy) is nigh impossible in any concrete meaningful way. This extreme statement is not to imply that it shouldn't be done. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can toss off a "cultural impact statement" which contains informatino which we would trust to the policy makers. The Social Sciences have not progressed far enough, in my opinion, to have the powerful predictive models which characterize many of the physical and biological sciences. The insights we get from visionaries about technological impact on society are important aspects of scientific research. We should all be conscious of our thoughts, actions, products, and their consequences. I believ the fundamental theme of Michael Harrington's remarks still holds true: Scientists should *not* absolve themselves of thinking about the implications of their work under the pretense of amoralistic research. They (we) must make a conscious decision that the benefits from the fruits of our labors outwiegh potential or actual hazards. I believe that every human action is to some degree subject to a moral judgement. The final question, which Mr. Harrington ges and to which I have no answer, is who is to ultimately decide which code of ethics should givern the deployment of certian technologies, given such a "cultural impact statement" or even given colleagueal discussion or simply introspection? Finally, the practicality of his ideas holds little merit. If you were at Bell Labs 30 years ago (or whenever), what would be your "cultural impact statement" be on the transistor? It has since enable global communications, including to countries with repressive regimes. It has enabled computation devices which design ever accurate and deadly atomic tools. While Mr. Carrington's suggestions have emotional appeal, especially to the more liberal sections of this population (of which I count myself a member), his request for enforced social responsibility is misguided and reflects sort-sightedness in favor of political correctness. I agree with his call for exploring the implicationsof of our actions, especially in the scientific and technological fields, and feel we do not yet have the formal structure in which to do it in a consistant and objective fashion and so therefore must rely on informal forums, such as books, articles, op-ed pages, and conferences. ---- From: Bob Niland Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 16:28:51 GMT It sounds like this is the DSA's way of trying to make sure that the free world is as inefficient, bureaucratic, stiffled and impoverished as the socialist world. We should take the lead in OPPOSING this kind of BS. It is impossible to predict the impact of any single new technology. Heck, we can't even predict if our technologies will become a FACTOR by being successful in the first place. And what of the interaction between one of our new technologies and all the others in development that we don't even know about? Everyone needs to contemplate the consequences of their actions, and be willing to experience those consequences. I agree that considering the social impact of a new technology is something that our engineers ought at least to be conscious of - but not REQUIRED to do. Another problem with "social" impact is - who measures what is "good" or "bad", and by whose standards? If a new technology can make everyone more self-supporting and independent of government, you can bet the DSA will assert that this is a "negative" social impact. I think the whole proposal needs more study. In fact, I propose that all new legislation be required to submit both an environmental and a "social" impact statement. 10,000 pages each should cover it :-) ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 16:01:24 GMT The problem with this idea is that the predicatable social impacts are the minor ones while the major ones are totally unexpected and often happen long after the product is available. When the automobile was first invented, it was so expensive and limited in its ability to go places that it was widely regarded as a rich man's toy as opposed to horses which were available to even middle class people and could go anywhere and was real individual transportation. Today you have to be really poor to not be able to afford a car. The basic problem is that there is no scientific discipline for predicting these things. Such a requirement is effectively a carte blanche for people to espouse their personal biases rather than make reasonable predictions. That I think is really the motivation behind such a idea. Under the guise of an official document, you can present propaganda as scientific truth. ---- From: Russ Thomas Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:29:42 GMT His commentary concerned recent breakthroughs in superconducting technology. I agree with the other responses -- predicting the social impact of such basic technology is not traceable at the present time. When it is attempted (to justify research) nobody claims to predict the impact, only indicate possibilities. In my view, the problem with Harrington's suggestion centers on the issue of control. He is proposing central, governmental control over the social impact of technology. In an attempt to avoid the bad, they would also probably stifle the good. The government can play a useful role but only after the technology becomes a business (i.e. FCC regulation of frequencies). Turning technology into social benefit is a creative act on the part of the society as a whole. Social impact statements won't improve the process. ---- From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:22:08 GMT Hmmm... "racist" technology... Hmmm... Bombs that just kill white people? TV's that only turn on for unemployed black people? I'm afraid that the person that made this statement just created a large credibility gap for himself. How would the poets, artist, philosopher's et. al. like it if the engineers started making decisions about their work? Many of them like to ignore practical reality to make a "statement." Although it is possible that a useful form of social impact statement may be created, the speaker quoted is spouting nonsense. In my opinion, it is only appealing to shallow thinkers and those who wish control. (You get many shallow thinkers involved, you find it easy to influence shallow thinkers, you make the decisions through them. Can you say "Mass Media"?) I don't wish to offend, but the idea isn't well thought out; it just sounds good to the "socially responsible." If there is anybody out there who really feels that they could support such a thing as a social impact statement, I have a question for you. How can anybody (except God, Allah, et. al :-) be expected to predict the social impact of a thermal printer? Benjamin Ellsworth ---- From: Ken Shrum Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 18:52:49 GMT I don't agree with the concept of social impact statements, but I believe that there is a point to be made here: If you assume that technology is value-free, how do you decide what sorts of things are worth building? My belief is that technology is a means, rather than an end. Given that I decide that some goal is "worthwhile" (whatever that means) I can use technology to accomplish the goal. You may disagree as to whether my goal is "worthwhile", or moral, or any other thing, but that has nothing to do with values associated with the technology itself. If there are societal goals (and I'm not sure what goals make sense for society, so don't hang me on this) then society can make use of technology to achieve those goals. Now, if this "watchdog" group were to oversee Congress.... :-) ---- From: John Diamant Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:12:53 GMT > It sounds like this is the DSA's way of trying to make sure that the free > world is as inefficient, bureaucratic, stiffled and impoverished as the > socialist world. I agree completely. Engineers (and companies) making decisions should be responsible for their actions, but no one else can take that responsibility or authority away. Basically, if someone else were to make that decision for them, they would be accusing them of a "crime" not yet committed. ---- From: Craig James Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 19:56:47 GMT Seems to me we should laugh it off and forget it. The guy is out in the ozone, and to argue with him lends credibility to his position. ---- From: Bruce Erickson Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 21:38:53 GMT I heard this, too. I laughed. 1) How do you predict how society will react to *anything*, let alone a technology that is new? To even predict only the *economic* changes boggle the mind ("if you want four opinions, ask two economists...") We simply do not have the knowledge to do this. 2) How do you decide what is "good" or "bad"? Knowing how many deaths the automobile causes every year, would we have "allowed" the invention of the automobile? Does the economic good outweigh the deaths? (How do you decide?) 3) This strikes me as a method of the "fearful few" to inhibit changes the don't understand and don't like. But then, again, I have never been sympathetic to the socialist cause.... ---- From: Dave Decot Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 12 Jun 87 20:48:17 GMT > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact > statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? Definitely. This type of thing has almost completely wiped out the valuable but belittled arts of calligraphy and illumination, reducing a once quaint and time-honored tradition to crass considerations such as "throughput". ---- From: Larry Dwyer Subject: Re: Re: social impact statements Date: 13 Jun 87 02:50:26 GMT For a good viewpoint on the social impact of technological advances, read James Burke's book "Connections". He points out that the impact of a breakthrough is often in an unrelated realm of society. His historical tracings show how the plow led to the hydrogen bomb. Would the inventor of the plow have thought to include in the socialal impact study that this invention will lead to the destruction of mankind, taking all of womankind along with it as a bonus? Even if social impact statements were made, would the failure to produce such a document prevent the invention of the technowidget? And once it was invented, could it be stiffled because of a lack of this document (or because of negative reviews of this document)? Not if someone wants that technowidget. It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. I think there is some obscure law of metaxenoplasmaphysics that states that inventions, like matter, cannot be destroyed ;-) ---- From: Scott Kaplan Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 14 Jun 87 06:11:33 GMT OK, 12 responses bashing Michael Harrington is enough. Yes, he did not make the best argument for his case. At the risk of going against the grain may I suggest some cases where we technical types need to be more then passingly concerned with the EFFECTS of our work. We can't blaim non-technical types for being petrified of technology, look at the things we have given them: Oppenheimer - atomic bomb Eli Whitney - Cotton gin (credited with revitalizing southern slavery) All of us - Computer (Rumor has it that the government of South Africa is using it for more than pac man) Noble - Dynamite (We forget that in its day, dynamite was the atomic weaponry of its day) Yes, I am playing devil's advocate (a little), but we as engineers have a reputation of being a bit too far "above" our work, not wanting to get involved in the uses of our technology. You can't go around bitching at people because they are scared of technology when we just drop it in their laps and they screw it up. Some of our toys may need to come with a little more advice then RTFM. Scott Kaplan ---- From: Les Hammer Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 16:08:37 GMT > The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be > involved in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it > solely in the hands of "big-business and scientists." I think legislation should be introduced to ensure that philosophers and poets use scientifically accurate information in what they produce. After all, if they are to have a degree of control over us we should likewise have some control over them. All kidding aside, I agree with the many who have responded here. The best people to decide what the impact of anything will be are those people who know most about it. We all like to speculate and express our opinions on a variety of topics ( hence the popularity of notes :-) but to say that the rest of the world should abide by our decisions in 'notes' is not wise. Let those who have studied the technology and its implications make the decisions concerning its impact ( to a certain degree ). But this should not be considered a license for scientists to do whatever they want. ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 16:07:48 GMT > Seems to me we should laugh it off and forget it. The guy is out in the > ozone, and to argue with him lends credibility to his position. A lot of people thought the same about Hitler. It's not the craziness of the idea that counts. It's the drive of the person behind the idea that's dangerous. ---- From: Scott Bayes Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 15:38:21 GMT What concerns me is that someone might CORRECTLY predict social impacts in social impact statements. Think what power could be gained from the legal right to stifle anything you don't like, and that is already identified for you as being "dangerous". 1984, here we come (without even inventing time travel!). Our last invention will probably have to be a begging machine or somesuch, that allows us to obtain food supplies, and "necessary", politically correct technologies from countries currently third-world. A Frustrated Capitalist/Free Marketeer ---- From: Dave Taylor Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 22:13:22 GMT Brian Cripe talks about Michael Harrington and DSA and all about the impact of technology on society. I think that not only does Michael raise some interesting points, but that Brian does too. Furthermore, I think a lot of people in this discussion have somewhat missed the boat here too. To wit: > Harrington advocated requiring companies to file "social impact > statements" before introducing new technologies and major inventions. I think this is a great idea!! As far as the points that we have very few people in our company (for example) that are aware of the potential impact of a technology on society, that's true. BUT there is no reason we cannot hire a qualified sociologist or something to assist us in our efforts to learn to THINK about what we're about to unleash on the world. For all too long us 'creative scientist' types have been working in a dark room and ignoring all possible ramifications of our work on the society around us. We live in a vacuum where we make token comments like "gee, it's too bad about rape" and then turn around and invent drugs to spray in peoples faces to make them passive, or make comments like "yeah the third world is in bad shape" and then invent yet another expensive computer, further widening the schism between those that have and those that have not. We're at the forefront of the Information Age being members of the technical staff of our company and we merely pay lip service to the ideas and needs of humanity as a whole. For example, we are much more likely to donate a computer or set of computers to a school that is already strong in the CS area in the hope that we will get a better 'return on investment' on our donation than to a junior high school in a poor urban area where people will LEARN, but will probably NOT actually ever give us anything back. I realize the economic necessities involved, and the fact that we're not, as a corporation, a charity, but what about as individuals? What have YOU done in the last month to try to improve the world you live in? When was the last time you just blue-skied and really thought about the impact of some of the things that you're involved in here? I mean, take away the marketing hype and the intense idealism and be realistic for a few minutes : all the stuff we're doing on AI, for example, won't ever EVER help the common person. I firmly believe that. What it WILL do is to allow more of a intellectual elite that can smugly sit and play on their tens-of-thousands of dollars worth of equipment and run 'simulations' of people starving to death. A classic example is I once talked to someone who was working on the portable plus about computing in the Third World. He turned around and said "oh yeah...we'll make 'em real cheap and then anyone in the world can plug it in to a phone line and cruise right along in the global network". That sort of attitude displays a shocking lack of realization of the world around us. For example, in a typical third world country people DO NOT HAVE TELEPHONES. And even if they did, they do not have the education to know how to READ, let alone use computers! Not to mention that their government might not be enthused about these ideas either. People *DIE* from this sort of ignorance about the political reality about them. People who publish alternative newspapers in dictatorial countries are SHOT if they are found. This is the world we live in, NOT one where everyone is in notes, or on Usenet, or 'illuminated'. In a similar sense we pay a lot of lip service to "user friendly systems" but I've yet to see anything on Unix, for example, that Ignorant Person could just sit down and use. Instead we spend thousands and thousands trying to teach people to modify their behaviour to match that which the computer expects to see (e.g. tutorials, classes, customer hotlines) instead of the better way of making the computer do the work. Even for programming - as a programmer *I* have to figure out what the types of the variables are and where to put all the funky punctuation characters. The computer smugly sits and informs me of the errors. Grrrr... On to the next idea presented... > He likened this to an environmental impact statement, except it would > deal with the impact on "unemployment, , and racism." Sounds reasonable to me. And if you doubt the impact of an invention on something like racism, call the NAACP and ask them about the long- term ramifications of systems that are based on WASP education patterns and are then used as the basis for highly paid technical jobs that minorities are then inherently less qualified for. And how that lets people turn around and say "see - they ARE more stupid!". An excellent, albeit non-technological, example of this are the SAT and IQ tests. They are both written based on growing up in a middle class white environment, and, sure enough, when these tests are administered to minorities or people that have had radically different childhoods, they tend to do quite poorly. This is THEN used as a justification for having, for example, worse teaching materials in inner city schools. And so it goes... This really IS a problem. And unemployment is a big evil spectre too. How'd you like to come in to work tomorrow just to have your manager tell you that you're obsolete 'cause they just bought this automatic programming system, and since you're one of 24,000 employees that are now obsolete, there is no possibility for you to transfer or change jobs. THIS STUFF HAPPENS. Again, call up one of the unions in Detroit and ask them about it. > The intention is to allow "feminists, philosophers, and poets" to be involved > in the decisions about new technology instead of leaving it solely in the > hands of "big-business and scientists." This is also quite reasonable. The key phrase, that I believe a lot of people here have been missing, is "to be involved". NOT "to decide", but just to be able to have some input. God knows that we're mostly so wrapped up in our own little universes and our own views of the universe that we can't see what's REALLY going on out there! Where's the harm in having some input and commentary from people that might just have a different view of the world? Remember - even if it is wrong it will at LEAST provoke us to thinking about why we think we're right. And thinking about non-technical issues is something that our industry desperately needs to do. Why? Because for all the Macintosh systems and all, the common view of computers is still slightly mystical, and fearful, and the view of people who use (and design) them is that we're monsters that are trying to create a WORSE universe, all the while thinking and trying to tell people it'll be better. Watch some TV show sometime or a film where they have computers. After all, the part of Spock that was the part we, the viewers, sympathized with was the HUMAN half, not the Vulcan/ computer-like/logical half, wasn't it? And we labour on, assuming that everyone is like us, and saying things like "but the output of date IS user friendly" all without ever realizing that some people can't even READ, let along figure out what 24-hour time is... > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Yes. > Should I start working on a social impact statement for thermal-inkjet > printing technology? No. You're not qualified to do so. Should your division consider hiring people to come up with reports on the effect of inexpensive, high-speed printing technologies? Yes. As it is, there are a lot of typesetting shops that are going bankrupt right now...the thrill of desktop publishing is more than enough to have people start doing their own (badly, but that's a different posting) `publishing' and not even bothering to subsidise the local printer and all. And THAT causes unemployment. And that also is racist, because the types of jobs where people can use DTP equipment tend to be 'high tech' jobs, and those jobs have traditionally discriminated against women and minorities. The poor inner city youths that had jobs minding the printing press are out of work now. And the techies that monitor the Laserjet assembly line (or design the Laserjet III) get paid more 'cause the system 'works'. And, again, so it goes... In summary, I think we're tossing away an all-too-real concern of people when instead we should be THINKING about what it represents and, while not necessarily bowing down to the DSA, perhaps coming up with some sort of impact forms of our own, to accompany major technological changes and inventions. EVEN IF THEY'RE WRONG. Why? Because the very act of us thinking about this, and perhaps getting test subjects to run with (which reminds me of the comment that a friend of mine who teaches intro to Unix classes said when he finally quit because he couldn't deal with telling people to type "date return" and having them type d-a-t-e-space-r-e-t-u-r-n and wait for something to happen) can't but be positive. ---- From: Scott McGregor Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 15:59:17 GMT > What do you think? Should we take the lead in advocating this type of > social responsibility? Should I start working on a social impact > statement for thermal-inkjet printing technology? Sorry, but it is too late for us to take the lead in advocating this type of social responsibility. I remember reading several "social audits" that were self-conducted by various other Fortune 100 Companies back when I was in B-school and that was 7 years ago. I guess this also shows that however unfeasable it might seem, some companies do it. >From what I remember of these social impact studies, they focussed on such things as the number of jobs provided to the communities where factories were, the pollution problems and traffic problems that they created, the likely benefits of their products (1st generation effects, i.e. more land tilled for invention of a plow, not that it would ultimately lead to the hydrogen bomb) vs. potential for misuse of their technologies and the dangers from them. The impression I got was two fold: First, of course the positives always outweighed the negatives in these self-directed audits. It might be that the companies that did these audits were so socially concerned (afraid of lawsuits?) that they dropped off any projects where negatives outweighed the positives despite profitability (.i.e. a well rounded view to product planning), or they could have just been self-serving post hoc analyses. So you can be skeptical or not. However the second reaction is "Gee, at least I can see that they looked at the pluses and minuses." I think that reflects well on the company, and of course it also publicizes positives that are often taken for granted, like continued employment of a local population, etc. I'm offering no opinions on whether we should or should not follow the lead on this; just sharing some information with those of you who are interested in the picture outside of our company. ---- From: Danny Low Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 15 Jun 87 21:30:09 GMT It strikes me that philosophers at the very least should be required to file social impact statements before introducing new philosophies. If Karl Marx had never written Das Kapital, the world today would be very different. Many feminist writers are now having second thoughts about what they had advocated for the movement in the 60's and 70's because of unexpected adverse impacts of actually having what they advocated come true. (No fault divorce comes immediately to mind.) The social impact of new philosophies and ideologies seems to be greater than new technologies. After all, how many people do you know who would kill and die for room temperature superconductor? ---- From: Bob Campbell Subject: Re: social impact statements Date: 16 Jun 87 18:26:49 GMT I cannot accept the argument of jobs lost as a reason to hold back tech- nologies. If we did away with combines, think of all the farm workers we could employ. The factories that didn't automate because of this reasoning don't all exist anymore. I enjoy the job security that our employer provides, but I do not confuse it with position security. [the discussion continues further, but in the interest of brevity and further branching I'd like YOU, the reader of the Computers and Society Digest, add some input of your own to this discussion. -- Dave Taylor]