Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: craig%unicus%math.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET (Craig D. Hubley) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: The Impact of Inventions Message-ID: <2241@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Mon, 20-Jul-87 13:55:59 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2241 Posted: Mon Jul 20 13:55:59 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jul-87 00:43:36 EDT References: <2041@hplabsc.HP.COM> Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Organization: Unicus Software Inc., Toronto, Ont. Lines: 57 Approved: taylor@hplabs Martin Taylor writes: >Not strictly accurate. Evolutionary changes that survive need not >benefit their possessor. They only enhance the probability that >the characteristic propagates, which can be done to the detriment >of the possessor of the characteristic. That doesn't look like >short-term profit motive to me. Indeed, short-term profit would >be likely to have the opposite effect, considering the expenditure >(energy, time ...) involved in producing progeny. Short-term profit seems to me to be quite narrowly defined here. You seem to have defined it as an intense form of selfishness that includes ONLY the organism and nothing else in which it might have interest, including its family and friends. >We probably don't see the progeny of organisms that (by mutation?) >developed a strong short-term profit motive, because they invested >in themselves and not in the survival of their genetic structures. Why is investing in oneself different from investing in the survival of one's genetic structures? Clearly, if one doesn't survive to propagate, or one's progeny are not born with access to a sufficient set of resources accumulated by their parents/other interested parties, the genetic structure does not survive. It would that interests run parallel for at least most of the time, so far as animals (including humans) are concerned. And I would suggest that we usually see progeny of organisms that developed a short-term profit motive to some degree. The sociobiological explanation for altruism seems to cover most exceptional cases. By perishing while performing some lifesaving activity, the altruistic organism loses its own genetic potential, but PRESERVES THAT CONTAINED IN ITS CLOSE RELATIVES. Thus the demarkation between "short-term" and "long-term" profit is perhaps defined here, rather than between the individual and its relatives. Unless, of course, you intend to apply an inherent negative qualifier to "profit". >The same probably holds for societies in which short-term profit >is a dominant motive, whether it be of the citizens or of the >government. If you mean "we're here for a good time, not a long time", I agree. Such sentiments tend to produce what they deserve. We have been treating our environment this way for some time. If you mean altruistic, "common-good" collectivist societies last longer than capitalist, "don't tread on me" individualist societies, then I'd like to see some evidence. Despite their declared ideological leanings, most enduring societies have upheld the latter, at least so far as leadership and foreign policy are concerned. The "short-term profit" motive has always been quite clear in the machinations of ruling cliques, etcetera. To bring this back to the purpose of comp.society, what are the motives of our present breed of "technocrats", net.readers? I'd like to propose a question: What, if anything, do you think computing contributes to society? More personally, why are you involved in the field? Maybe we'll see what, and how "short" or "long" term these motives are.