X-Envelope-to: GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:39:23 -0500
              <GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From:         PAOLIVER@INDYVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Value of Advanced Technology (a reposting)

  Regarding pt. A: A darkly amusing example which shows that even the
petty power lusters of the jungle share significant characteristics with
their professional counterparts in America and elsewhere. Perhaps it
throws light on the interesting fact that much GIS technology is targeted
at and used by goverment agencies....
    Regarding pt. B: This is just another example of the same old supposed
dilemma: "machines will take away jobs from people!" As you probably already
know, this was exactly the major argument of the Luddites in early
industrial England as they proceeded to smash machinery. It is the argument
of those who fear robots on assembly lines, computers anywhere, cars vs.
horses, planes vs. trains, etc. etc.
    Ayn Rand observed that philosophy's real world impact on the progression
of Western civilization (as well as its role in the supression of Eastern
civilization) was shown in the ongoing dichotomy between technological progress
and the use and analysis of technology. It was her view that the industrial
revolution -- essentially the application of reason to the problems of
human existence -- was a result of the power of Aristolean logic and its
associated scientific method, applied in a systematic and broad way for the
first time in human history. Thus, the explosion of mathematical and
other scientific knowledge, as well as the development of machinery based on
that knowledge (everything from steam engines to computer chips are examples
of the product of rational thought.) The dichotomy is in the APPLICATION of
the technology: this is guided by ethics. There is not NECESSARILY a
dichotomy, as Rand herself abundantly demonstrated with her own writings
and philosophy. But the dichotomy that has existed and still exists in
Western culture is that Aristotle's logic is used only to be mishandled
by people driven by Plato and Kant, the irrational-on-principle philosophic
opposites. Thus, the use of chemistry to make high explosives and nerve
gas (as well as millions of beneficial products); the use of E=mc^2 to
make both H-bombs and power plants, and eventually allowing humanity total
dominion over the Solar system and beyond; the use of computers to invade
privacy as well as all of the millions of beneficial uses; etc. etc.
   In short: What reason makes possible, irrationality will mis-use. So
the issue is not whether "computers (or GIS)" are "good" are not; it is
whether the people using them are good or not. Because the impact of
philosophy is so pervasive, it nearly impossible to analyze all of the
errors in thinking that any particular person commits every day (dependent
to a large degree on their philosophic principles, although even fully
rational people make mistakes!)  People may misuse technology; or they
may mistakenly believe that technology is being misused when it isn't.
For example, government restrictions via the FDA which make new drug development
almost impossible (as well as insane liability laws.) Or government
restrictions on new technological development by the "baby bells" in certain
areas. Etc. etc.
   If the taxi driver was annoyed that a computer system supplanted his
hard won knowledge, that's probably unavoidable. But one should distinguish
between emotions (which are not un-explainable, by the way) and government
policy. I can envision that some bureaucrat could, listening to enough
complaints, make the use of computers in a given application illegal. This
would be irrational (usually, certainly in the case of the taxi routing
system.) Legally, the irrationality involved is essentially about wrong
ideas of the definition and nature of the concept of "rights." In a sane
world, non-coercive free trade (a redundant expression) would be off limits to
any government control, and living off of the work of someone else would not
be considered the "right" that it is today. Taxis would not be "regulated",
it would open to ANYONE, prices would not be controlled, routing would not
be controlled, etc. at least by government agencies (airports, being properly
privately owned, could and probably would make private contracts to permit
only certain taxi companies to sit around on their property, which would be
their right being their property.) Ditto, and in a much more important sense,
for cable TV, broadcast TV, newspapers, electronic transmission over networks,
etc. etc.
  Coming from another aspect, it is simply in the interest of both taxi
companies and their customers to be able to get the most efficient service
possible. This is what free trade makes possible: better ideas are rewarded,
and the inefficient are rapidly eliminated or forced to catch up (for details,
look at IBM and COMPAQ.) And from yet another direction, there is the point
that, if the taxi trade were unregulated in Paris (almost certainly not the
case), the disgruntled taxi driver could buy his own vehicle, dispense with
the no doubt expensive computer system, and undercut the big taxi company
by using his knowledge to charge less while providing equal capbility. Again,
these points simply show that the issues    basically about technology, they're
   about legal rights.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU