From: runstrom@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott P Runstrom)
Subject: Re: Overcoming Human Limits
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:49:43 GMT

To: de0t+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Overcoming Human Limits
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures, wpi.students.voxhumana
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Cc: 
Bcc: 

> Fascinating topic.

Yes, it is.

> My first thought:  The main flaw in humans now is mental,
> not physical (or rather bodily -- the mind is physical too).
> Our problem-solving and reasoning skills are poor.  We honor

I agree fully

> sunk costs.  When we estimate probabilities, we give excessive
> weight to more familiar or obvious options.  We are gullible in
> the extreme.  We respond to emotional arguments, to fear and
> flattery, more than to facts and logic.  Our ability to choose the
> best course of action in a situation, for the most part, sucks
> turnips.  

And what exactly makes you believe that "facts" and logic are superior
than emotional arguments?  The only thing that makes something a "fact"
is an emotionally based belief in it, or an emotionally based belief in
logic, or the scientific method which led to the discovery (creation) of
this fact.  The irony of such logical processes such as the scientific 
method is that they claim emotionally based beliefs are useless, and 
themselves highly superior to these beliefs, even though they are 
themselves based on such beliefs, and originally, on emotion.
Note that "facts" can change over time and often do.  So much so that
in science, things are seldom talked about as facts, but instead as
the notion of a paradigm, or general consensus of thought among the 
scientific community.  Basically, "fact" has become a consensus of 
belief.


> Witness: We destroy our planet "to save money". We fight
> to decide who owns a town, but when the battle is over, the 
> town is a worthless ruin.  We elect our decision-makers in a
> popularity contest in which lying is the norm and discussion of
> the issues is a rarity.  
> We forget the lessons of the past: the current "war on drugs"
> ignores the lesson of prohibition (laws against something people want
> create crime and don't stop consumption). The USA's AIDS "education"
> policy ("Be afraid.  Don't have sex.") was tried before, with syphillis,
> during the first world war.  It failed.  The successful replacement
> ("Ok, have sex.  But do it carefully.") is now meeting with huge
> "moral" disapproval.
> In short, we're stupid.  We can figure out the correct answers to
> all these questions (and more).  We *do* figure them out.  But then
> we ignore them and follow our instincts or our morals or our emotions.

> If we intend to survive into the far future, this is what we must fix.

> Either humans must become more intelligent, better able to use the
> logic we've invented (discovered?), or we must turn the decision-
> making power over to machines or unbiased scientists: people who
> are *trained* to make rational decisions.  (Politicians are trained only
> to convince other people.  This is useful, but only when you're right.)

I agree completely that your examples are valid and demonstrate a
failure in human decision making.  Your solution has me very much concerned 
however.  Technology has shown a remarkable ability to create more problems
than it sets out to solve.  Your suggestion that we turn over our 
decision making power to this technological machine is actually very scary.
Many people already believe that technology is wildly out of control, 
beyond the capacity of humans to keep up with, and this process will 
ultimately lead to the destruction of society, and civilization, as we know 
it.  This may seem a wild assumption, but valid arguments for this conclusion
were made as early as the 1950s by the French sociologist Jaques Ellul.
Ellul basically says that technology is fast outpacing the human mind's
ability to control it, and once we turn over our decision making power
to this scientific mindset, the concept of efficiency becomes the 
overpowering criteria for determining what is right, and once this happens
there is no turning back.  We are basically doomed to slavery.  

The best example of how this can happen is the infamous cost benifit 
annalysis which originated with the President of Ford motor company
during the 1960s (sorry, dont remember his name offhand).  Cost 
benifit annalysis is quite simply a weighing off the costs vs the 
benifits of each course of action, and a decision based on the most
efficient, or "cost effective" solution.  
This sounds great in theory right?  Well, in practice the results are 
quite scary.  Remember the old exploding Pinto crises?  For those of you 
don't, basically, Ford built the Pinto as an economy car, thus there was a 
price cap under which the car had to bew sold.  To do this, costs had to be 
kept at a minimum.   The car was built, and was very successful in the 
marketplace.  However, there was a major flaw in the car's design.  When
rear-ended at over something like 30 MPH, the rear bumper supports of the 
pinto would be driven forward and rupture the gas tank.  Causing gasoline to 
spill and often the car to burst into flames, if not explode.  At the same
time (and here's the good part), bolts in the frame of the car would be 
driven forward into the doors, effectively locking them and preventing 
any chance of escape of the occupents from the burning vehicle.  It was a 
nearly perfectly designed deathtrap.
OK, I lied, here is the good bit.  Ford knew of this problem for years, and
didn't do a damn thing about it.  Engineers on the project had developed
a solution to the problem which would have cost only a few dollars per 
car to implement.  Yet Ford did nothing to fix the problem.  Why?
Because using the genious of cost-benifit annalysis, it was determined that
the cost of making the minor modification was greater than what Ford would 
have to pay for lawsuits against it from the families of the people
who were killed.  No one blew the whistle for something like 5 years.
It took the UAW (United Auto Workers Union), I believe, to break the story. 

Brilliant story huh!  The point is that yes, Ford made the most efficient 
decision.  We probobly all agree that it was wrong, but only because
of emotional beliefs.  Logic and efficiency are not the cure-all that 
some people make them out to be.

As an aside, the president of Ford who introduced cost-benifit annalysis
was rewarded for his innovative ideas with a position in the Nixon 
administration, where he applied his ingenious philosophy to the waging
of the Vietnam war.  Hence the nightly "body count", which convinced
the government that we were winning the war, for the Vietnamese could not
hold out long while taking such losses.

For a user-friendly look at Ellul's concepts of technology out of control, 
read "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut.  We are closer to this technological
dystopia then you may think. 
 

> [Footnote:  If you want details about how badly we make decisions,
> read "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World" by (I think) Robyn
> Dawes.  Also read "Metamagical Themas" by Douglas Hofstadter, 
> particularly the chapter on the Prisoner's Dilemma.  And if you're
> interested in human gullibility, read "Flim Flam" by James Randi.]

Again, for the implications of how dangerous your "solution" is,
read "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegutt, or just about anything
by the French sociologist Jaques Ellul.

> Physically, we're ok.  We can communicate quite well with our voices
> and hands. We can travel ok with our legs and cars and airplanes.
> We live a reasonable length of time -- longer would be nice, but
> not until we learn to keep our numbers down and feed everyone.
> (We have plenty of food-production capability, but we don't use it.
> Nations starve because of petty politics.  We pay farmers NOT to
> grow crops.  We use resources inefficiently -- we use enormous
> amounts of grain to feed cattle, instead of just eating the grain
> directly, which would give us several times as much food.  Again,
> these are not physical problems but problems of poor decision-
> making.)  We have the knowledge and skills now to overcome any
> physical disadvantages we have.  Our senses are fine, our motor
> skills are ok (both strength and dexterity).

> Really, humans are pretty well designed.  And we can build anything
> that isn't built into us.  But we're not quite smart enough.  All the
> remaining problems of humanity can be traced to this one factor,
> I think.


The problem may very well be an over-reliance on technology as a cure-all,
and not enough faith in the human spirit.  There was a time when people
had a much greater sense of history than they do today.  Then came
the electronic revolution and attention spans dropped as people simply 
expected everything to be done for them.  This seems to me to be the problem,
people seem to be cut off from their history, from thier abilities, and 
from the world around them by what has become modern culture.  People
feel disenchanted, and lose thier sorrows to TV, alcohol, or other
diversions.  They dont think they can do anything so they don't.  Hence
voter apathy. loss of history, and poor decision making ability.


> So what are we going to do about it?

Good question, I think fundamental changes have to be made in the way we 
think about the world, and our relationship to it.  This will lead to 
changes in culture, and better decisdion making on a personal and global 
scale.  Our culture has changed the world, now we have to change ourselves.
The solution is not outside, in giving away our rights to decision making,
it is inside of each of us.  We must take back our power in making decisions,
and take more responsibiblity for them. 


> Disclaimer:  All of the above are my opinions.  They are only my
> opinions.  If you disagree, post your opinions and we'll have a 
> discussion.  (I don't participate in arguments.)  That's why we're
> doing this, right?

>	 ---Daniel Efran
> ----------------------------------
> An it harm none, do as you Will.
> Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.


These opinions are not those of any organization, political party, or any
individual other than myself.  Please excuse any fuzyness in my ideas,
as I was just working them out whilst writing.

	-Scott.



Newsgroups: alt.society.futures,alt.society.revolution