Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: wfi@rti.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Impact of Inventions
Message-ID: <2114@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 18:00:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2114
Posted: Fri Jun 26 18:00:10 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 11:43:58 EDT
References: <2041@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 78
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Kent Paul Dolan writes:

> ...the second world war propaganda machines kept all the poets, song 
> writers, and essayests available in the various combatant countries [busy]...

This was certainly true in wartime. For example, Ezra Pound propagandized 
for the fascists in WW II and was imprisoned for it. However, few artists
today are paid by the military-industrial complex (except DoD illustrators,
filmmakers, etc.): those who are are in the minority.
 
>> Unfortunately, few people READ the poets, essayists and philosophers, 
>> including college students at our 'best' universities.
>
>Nowadays, few people read at all, so the poets are writing TV jingles.
>You think that influences "few people"!  The essayests and philosophers 
>are busy filling up the op-ed pages, and I doubt the ones who aren't read 
>keep getting published.

When I said 'poets,' I was referring to people like Ted Hughes, W. S.
Merwin, John Ashbery, Ruth Stone, Amy Clampitt, and folks like them
who are writing something other than jingles for TV commercials. How
many of these names are as familiar to the public as (say) Robert
Frost or Carl Sandburg? They are among the most significant poets of
our time, yet no one (except a few academics) read them. They continue
to publish because there's a small academic market for their work and
a number of low-circulation literary magazines. Sure, essayists and 
philosophers fill up the op-ed pages, but how many people spend time
reading the op-ed pages? Most people want their news and opinions served
up short and sweet by someone like Dan Rather or Andy Rooney. They don't
want to read a substantive discussion of the issues in the New York Times,
the Nation, or the National Review (that ought to keep everyone happy :-).
 
>> I think you're overrating the impact of academic theorists on society
>
>Oh, if we could only restrict them to academia, where there is at least
>enough average intelligence for critical reception of their output!
>These guys have the full attention of the nation five or six hours a
>day, 'cause they're busy writing screenplays for Three's Company to convince
>us that mixed roomies and giggly sex is cute, and newscripts for the nightly
>news trying to make heros out of folks dumb enough to hang around a religious
>war zone and get caught in the crossfire in Lebanon.

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Are you actually claiming that
there's some hidden agenda behind sitcoms and superficial nightly news
broadcasts? I find this hard to believe. Actually, I'd rather NOT believe 
it's possible. It seems to me that Three's Company and the nightly news 
are both pandering to the television industry's vision of what the
unwashed masses want to hear. I don't see any evidence that there's
anything more sinister behind it than stupidity.
 
> Nah, your politics are blinding you.  The BIG bucks are in finding the 
> next hula hoop, or writing the next 400 page piece of pseudo-historical
> drivel that gets bought up for a mini-series.

But not for scientists and engineers. The big bucks right now are in
(guess what?) SDI-related research, and everybody's scrambling for
their piece of the action.
 
>>It's not the technologists who will be 'persecuted' and 'stifled' if 
>> they're given free rein to implement their ideas without having to answer 
>> to the taxpayers who are funding their research.
>
>Sure they will; they breathe the same air, and live on the same planet as
>the rest of us; worse, they vote for both major political parties (a round
>condemnation of technical education in America), and live in the same
>target areas.

This is beside the point. The original posting implied that constraints
on technology amount to persecution of technologists and the stifling
of their creative abilities. What I'm saying above is that we ALL end
up paying for the short-sightedness of the technologist who has a 'good
idea' and doesn't consider its effects in areas he/she knows nothing about.

(By the way, I tried to respond to a mail message you sent me a while
 back and have been unable to figure out a path as yet that would get
 my reply through)

						-- Bill Ingogly