COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
	Professor Shubik is precisely right in saying
that the goal of computer modelling of social phenomena should be to
increase both democracy and individual freedom, and I agree with him
that there are great potentialities.
I wish he would elaborate his ideas on how to %2"improve the scope
of individuality"%1.
Unfortunately, few will be convinced by the
article itself that computer modelling will contribute much to these
goals in the immediate future.
There just isn't enough information about the actual successes and
failures of the computer simulations that have been attempted and
the prospects for the near future.
Modelling duels mathematically and solving the travelling salesman
problem by computer just can't convince a reader that society can now
be usefully modelled.

	This unconvinced reader will be further distressed
by the remarks in the introduction to the effect
that unless advances are made in modelling, society won't survive.
Thus
%2"This technology is a necessary ... condition for the survival
α... of modern high technology mass societies which wish to preserve
democratic and libertarian values"%1.  Is this just a routine puff for
the author's topic or can the author identify some
ongoing process that will destroy our society unless computer modelling
wins its race with chaos?  Weizenbaum (%2Computer Power and Human
Reason%1) also says that computers have saved or will save
society from collapse.  While computer modelling and other uses of
computers will improve our society, no case has been made that we can't
bumble along as long as necessary without much help from computer
modelling.  Except that we must adapt our technology to lower grade ores,
I don't see any sense in which our society is "riding a tiger".

	I also don't understand, %2"This is a raw data rich but
information poor society."%1 Compared to what?

	Why are intelligent machines closer than wise or
skeptical machines?