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: 27 Jul 92 21:33:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The RAND Corporation.

In article <1992Jul27.175917.10964@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> mgundeko@pcserver2.Naitc.Com (Murthy Gundekota) writes:
>In article <3641@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
>>Thus television (for
>>example) might be accused of spreading values which oppose tradition and
>>family life, but that has to do with the programming and not the
>>technology itself.
>
>This argument has been used time and again to justify technological
>artifacts.

>Examples:
>
>*The problem is not with guns, but the gun owners (justifying  shoot
> out deaths by IRA) 

I think you mean "NRA".  Your example does nothing to further your point;
the technology isn't the evil, nor is the evil inherent in the
technological artifact.  The evil is in the use to which that artifact is
put.  Now, it could be argued that the principle use of firearms in our
society is an evil one, and that they should be controlled or eliminated
(a practical impossibility, at least in the US, but I suggest it for the
sake of argument).  There would be no reason to call for such a
restriction in a society where no such evil use of firearm technology
occured.  Furthermore, there would be little reason for anyone to seek
technological refinement (e.g. concealability) of firearms for such use.
It is society, not technology, which makes firearms a menace.

>*The problem is not cars, but drunken drivers (justifying highway
> accidents related to poor safety in cars) 

Unsafe cars are a problem in proportion to the number of accidents.
So there are two problems involved, here, since there will be accidents
even if drunkenness is eliminated.  This is not an either/or proposition.
Furthermore, improving cars means further application of technology,
which hardly supports your original argument.

>*The problem is not with alcohol, but with people who are drunk
> (justifying alcohol related illnesses by the liquor lobby)

There is no evidence that responsible, moderate use of alcohol causes
illness.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Immoderate or irresponsible
use is another matter, but once again we are dealing with behavior
and/or illness and not technology.

>*The problem is not cigarettes, but with people who smoke (justifying
> smoking related illnesses by the tobacco lobby)

Although the tobacco lobby is not known for using logically consistant
arguments, I've /never/ heard them use this one.

>So one heuristic that emerges out of these is: 
>
>``The problem is not with artifact X, but in person Y who uses X and
>cannot control his/her behavior while using X.''

Yup.  Funny how little all this has to do with technology, though.
And funny how you insist on forcing either/or logic on situations
which are considerably more complex that that.

>(And then to counter this counter-point, people say, ``So what is the
>alternative if technology didn't provide X?'' ``Can yo live without
>it?'' ``If you can live, go ahead and make my day!'')

Some of us don't think it is much of anyone else's business what we
live with or without, given that it does not injure others.  Others
of us are nosey, or worse, feel we must control the behavior of others.
Or feel we must prohibit artifacts solely on the basis that they
might be misused.  This meddling attitude seems to be trans-cultural...

>All ancient cultures have ``theories'' to address this behavior. The
>meta-physical theories of Hinduism, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are examples
>of such blame/credit assignment. Eventually when science exhausts its
>potential to improve or mitigate its bad side-effects or outweight its
>good vs. its own bad, even science and technology become inadequate.

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.

>But then, such a possibility may not happen in the near future. So we
>don't have to give up hope on science and technology until proven
>otherwise (a theory in itself!).

You can imagine my relief!  :-)

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.

>>One thing is clear, though: repressive regimes--including some of your
>>"ancient countries"--frequently oppose informantion technologies because
>>they tend to dilute the power of those in command, which might eventually
>>lead to their overthrow.  
>
>Au contraire, regimes know how to best use TV and other information
>sources to meet their ends. My slogan for such regimes is:

You forgot to include what I said in my next paragraph:

>>The funny thing is that those in power
>>usually have no problem in accumulating all sorts of technological
>>goodies for themselves, for the purpose of making their control of
>>the people easier and for intimidating their enemies.

>``TV with religious programming is the opium of the masses.''

A paraphrase of Karl Marx.  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.  (I don't claim this
myself, however--certainly not in this country.)

>Substitute religion with sex, violence, etc. 
>
>I won't unfairly exclude western governments from this definition of
>``regimes. ''

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.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:26187 soc.women:14196 talk.abortion:29295