Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: ljdickey%water.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET (Lee Dickey) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: The Impact of Inventions Message-ID: <2177@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 17:31:29 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2177 Posted: Mon Jul 6 17:31:29 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jul-87 01:37:01 EDT References: <2041@hplabsc.HP.COM> Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 28 Approved: taylor@hplabs Prentiss Riddle writes: >...all the decisions (and especially if we let them use the short-term profit > motive as their one and only golden rule), I have even less faith in the > government's ability to coerce them to behave responsibly through required > "social impact statements." It occurs to me that there may be a parallel between evolution of life forms and the "short-term profit motive" Priddle mentions above. If I understand what the biologists are saying to us, it is that every biological characteristic that happens as an evolutionary change and survives, does so because it is of immediate benefit to the posessor of that characteristic, and not because of some long term goal that may benefit a life form that may happen to come along at a later date. I interpret this to be a form of "short-term profit motive" in a biological setting. This is not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, I merely present it as curious idea. Please do not read "evolutionary social Darwinism" into my words either. I do agree with P. Riddle's statement that > we *all* share responsibility for the consequences of new (and old) > technology: as consumers, voters, and workers, among other things. We > all need to remember that just because technology is doable doesn't mean > it should be done ... L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo.