Text File

Aucbvax.6000 fa.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space Sat Jan 30 03:53:48 1982 SPACE Digest V2 #92 >From OTA@S1-A Sat Jan 30 03:46:29 1982

SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 92

Today's Topics: HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS Technologists and Humanists Government funded research Technologists "vs." Humanists Government Funding of Exploration "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets! Re: Government Funding of Space Re: Technologists and Humanists ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 January 1982 07:24-EST From: Steve Kudlak <FFM MIT-MC AT> Subject: HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Actually, I honestly can't see what humanists and technologists fight over so much. Both want to see the world changed for the better. Humanists(philospher's artists writers etc) infleuence the world more indirectly but they do exert, in my view a considerable influence. By pointing out things they see in the world and how they feel about it artists and writers definitely influence the social climate that the technologist types work in and the like. Technology types that I have known have been seriously influenced by "works of art" especially literature and this causes them to do things differently than they would if they were not so influenced.

Technology types do things that at thier best give power to people. Like the power to express my ideas to many people in many different areas quickly. Most technology types are not cold, crass individuals at all, and 99% of them bleed if you prick them.

The problem is dealing with stereotypes of what artists and technologists are like. These stereotypes are usually quite funny. I STILL MEET PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT COMPUTER HACKERS TALK IN A DULL MONOTONE VOICE LIKE ROBOTS IN SOME OLD MONSTER MOVIE.

Once upon a time science, technology and art were not considered mutually exclusive realms. It would be nice if we could recapture some of that rather than fighting about which is 'better' and 'more useful'.

Have fun Sends Steve

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 1982 0842-PST From: Tom Wadlow <TAW AT S1-A> Subject: Technologists and Humanists To: space at MIT-MC

Having met quite a few people in both the Arts and the Sciences, (I am an engineer myself) I have noticed that there seem to be far more technologists influenced by art, or even active participants in artistic endeavours, than vice versa. Many of the technologists I have known embrace art and see it in their work, while the artists (actors, literary types, film types) I have met seem to be afraid of, or claim to despise technology. This is, of course, not a general rule. But it is far too common to be comfortable with.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 1982 1317-EST From: MPH at MIT-XX Subject: Government funded research To: space at mc

To those who question the usefulness of government funded research, I would like to point out that the electronic digital computer, as we now know it, was originally developed by research funded directly by the U.S. government (e.g. ENIAC, EDVAC) and by the British government (e.g. EDSAC). It took commercial development to make the computer ubiquitous; however, it seems quite implausible that any responsible profit-making enterprise would have undertaken computer research and development in the late 1940's without the foundation laid by the government projects. For instance, the very first commercial computer company (the Electronic Control Company, 1946) was founded by the leaders of the ENIAC project on the basis of the ENIAC patents. Even with this head start, it had severe cash flow problems, and survived only by being bought out by a larger company.

"It is a noteworthy feature of our American system that much of the computer field owes its existence to the generosity of our government in giving to its employees and university contractors the rights to *inventions made with government funds*" H.H. Goldstine, The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, p 71 (my emphasis).

-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 1982 1127-CST From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM AT UTEXAS-20> Subject: Technologists "vs." Humanists To: space at MIT-AI

First of all, I would lump myself in with the "Technologists" w.r.t. life goals and modus operandi. However, the statement about "nothing of significance being accomplished by `humanists'" cannot go unchallenged. I will simply point to one of the more spectacular existence proofs: amongst the various Nobel prizes for what amount to technologists, there is tucked away an item known as the Nobel Peace Prize. I shall leave the reader to fill in the details. 'Nuff said?

Now maybe we can go back to talking about Space?? -------

------------------------------

Date: Fri Jan 29 18:52:55 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer@Berkeley Subject: Government Funding of Exploration Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

capitalists haven't ever been able to explore new frontiers without some government assistance. Even the enthusiastically laissez-faire 19th Century British governments supported financially and legally extraterritorial firms. A classic example is the East India Company, and, as jcwinterton pointed out, the Hudson's Bay Company. The anti-space enthusiasts may have a point, though. Contrary to popular leftist belief, an Empire doesn't usually materially benefit the Imperial nation. Britain bled itself white subsidizing Canada, Australia, India and South Africa, and didn't exactly make a killing on the American colonies. Space will, one suspects, ultimately be of tremendous benefit to the human race - but that portion of it that remains on Terra herself may not be the principal beneficiaries. Oh, well, with any luck, the only people on Earth by 2200 will all be amed Proxmire - and their heads firmly rooted in the sand. Cheers, Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Jan 29 10:32:47 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!houxi!ihnss!ihps3!pcl@Berkeley Subject: "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets! Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri Jan 29 14:23:00 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley Subject: Re: Government Funding of Space Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

small-companies-are-good), we get the problem that no private organization is big enough to finance space exploration and research. In the last big exploratory push, things were financed by people who had every right to expect profits from the ventures. Some of the funding organizations were governments but not in the sense of governments today. The king of Spain financed Columbus for profit (territory, resources) and the Company of Gentleman Trading our of Hudson's Bay had exactly the same motive. Because of our *advanced* technology, we are now able to explore beyond the boundaries of our present space conveyance, and to venture into the next ocean. We have even managed to explore, briefly, the next island. Now, if a PRIVATE consortium of investors could be LEGALLY brought together, I wonder if we wouldn't be a lot further than we are? Present governments tend to be monolithic and conservative to the point where they timidly take mousy-steps where giant-steps are needed. Mind you, to take giant-step you have to take RISKS! Not only do you have to risk money, you have to risk LIVES. We honor those pioneers who gave their lives in settling our continent and romanticize about them greatly. Life wasn't regarded as cheap in those days, no matter what you may read. Realism simply demanded the risks be taken. The population pressure was the cause. We are coming to the same pressure levels in the global village. If there are too many of us here, we will have to go there. If some go there for breathing room, others will follow to get thinking room too. History does repeat, but with some skewing. The present skew seems to have to do with bureaucratic inertial and general tail covering. Grrrrr.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Jan 29 21:35:00 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley Subject: Re: Technologists and Humanists Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I expect that this is due to the feeling that there must be more to living than hacking away at some scientific persuit, eating, sleeping, having kids, etc. People in the arts already know this, and probably have no inclination to seek other horizons to expand because of the diversity that they already have. How many technologists do you know that have embraced other technologies than their own on a *for interest* basis? I can think of very few....

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest *******************

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.