From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,alt.culture.us.asian-indian,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Family values and the West.
Keywords: Marriage, Family, Industrial, West.
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:50:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: RAND Corporation.

In article <1992Jul28.175206.17260@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> mgundeko@pcserver2.Naitc.Com (Murthy Gundekota) writes:
>In article <3653@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes
>in reply to several things I've posted.
>
>I think you have kept the bathwater and threw away the baby. The various
>examples I've provided relate to the ``concerns'' at the individual
>level that have little to do with technology or religion. 

... and then does nothing to show how I have "kept the bathwater and
thrown away the baby."

Your opinion that I've done so is interesting, but I don't see how
this assertion advances the discussion any further.  We were, after
all, discussing the ethical implications of technology, so if you
now say your examples " have little to do with technology or religion,"
why did you use them?  Or were you trying to change the subject?

>>I'm sorry, but I fail to see how traditional theories of blame/credit
>>apply to technologies.  It seems to me that they apply directly to the
>>ethical behavior of humans.
>
>Yes, and some humans are also scientists and engineers spinning off
>technological marvels (Ex: genetics).

Who denied that?  Once again, you stripped out my comment on the matter:

|*>Nothing I have said should be construed to excuse any technologist from
|*>considering the ethics of the application of technology.  The moment
|*>a technology it put to use, it ceases to be value-neutral.

I don't mind cutting quotations down for brevity, but it is intellectually
dishonest to pretend I didn't address an issue when in fact I did.

>>. . . . .  I don't think religious programming, per se,
>>is a problem.  In fact, such programming might conceivibly form a
>>counter-balance to the moral rot you decry.  
>
>No I didn't cry :-)

Good for you.  I never said you did.

>>Hmmm... How much sex, religion, or violence has the U.S. Government
>>programmed lately?  I think Sudhi was closer in his original post
>>when he wrote of unrestrained market forces.  I've no problem with
>>capitalism, but merchants shouldn't shirk the fact that they, too,
>>have ethical responsibility for their behavior.
>
>Classic case of `our government is perfect.' Have you heard about the
>senators trying to cut down PBS funding? Their reason: the PBS
>programs are leftist. I guess, like everyone else, PBS should market
>sex and violence to get govt. approval. I know this is my perception
>only. 

Actually, they are trying to get sex off of PBS, too.  Given the
recent two-track productions PBS has done with the BBC (wherein
the US version is watered-down) they are having some success...

I don't think the U.S. government is anywhere near perfect.  They've
done many evil things, including putting my mother-in-law in a
concentration camp because of her ancestry.  But despite all the wrong
things the U.S. government has done, I wouldn't trade the U.S. system
for any other.  I'd rather stay here and try to fix it.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian