I am reading "the Future does not Compute" by Stephen L. Talbott. I wonder if anyone else has gotten into this. Its a fairly interesting read that is some of the typical trendy reactionism against the utopianism of various visionaires promoting cyberspace and the bit revolution. Talbott however seems to be awfully vague in his criticisms. They seem to amount to, "I'm not sure what the net is missing, but it lacks something crucial that is the essence of our humanity". It reminds me of the various criticisms against AI by Penrose and Searle, "the technology fundamentally lacks, and will continue to lack, that inexpressible something that makes us human which is impossible to define or characterize." One quote drew my attention. He quoted an anonymous participant on an "irvc-l" discussion list: While I'm not forecasting Utopia, I think networks of the future will be the most incredibly egalitarian technology ever invented. It will transform our entire societies. Imagine that homeless people or single parent children can "interconnect" with anybody who is willing to talk to them in the *world*. The possibilities are rather dazzling. Sure, there might be even cyberspatial outcasts, but the point is that we will be doing *at least* as well as we are now, which is not something to "write home" about. The writing seems vaguely familiar, yet I can't quit pin it down. I think I might have been on that list in the time period, and I am trying to figure out the authorship. (And am a bit annoyed at Talbott for not giving proper credit.) Surely one of the visionaires like Gilmore, Barlow, Rotenberg, or somesuch. Its an interesting theme; I think it may have been the same author who said, quoted by Talbott, "the net is fundamentally democratizing and leveling." If anyone recognizes that quote, maybe drop me a line. Talbott uses this theme of whether "the Net is inherently democratizing and leveling" as a counterpoint thought to the chapter, even at times the whole book. I am inclined to agree with Talbott in general, by the way, and I think the quotes are overstated. In my opinion networks are like all other technologies: they bring out the best and worst in human beings, beyond what was known previously. In this way technology is like a magnifying glass on our virtues and vices. We may find the things that work about our society magnified, but at the same time our failings become expanded and exacerbated as well. That is what I like about great technology. It is not necessarily an ends in itself, but a way of learning about the essence of our human psychology. It forces us to confront what we find uplifting and what we find despicable, and removes the possibility of denial. It seems to me that networks are inherently democratic in a society that craves democracy, but I don't really believe that there is fundamentally something egalitarian or democratic about certain kinds of technology. Actually, I think that is true in general if *everyone* is given access to the techology, but the problem is that some governments can use the technology for themselves as a powerful instrument of control by the elites over the downtrodden. To me Talbott has a very good point, that we should be thoughtful in the creation of new technology, and examine our axioms as to whether we can even achieve what we are attempting to derive from it in the long run. The Thoreauian quote, "men have become the tools of their tools" comes to mind repeatedly when I read Talbott. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ \ / ~/ |\| | | |> | : : : : : : Vladimir Z. Nuri : : : : <vznuri@netcom.com> \/ ./_.| | \_/ |\ | : : : : : : ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vz/vznuri/home.html