perm filename SOCIAL.TEX[ESS,JMC]1 blob
sn#046828 filedate 1989-01-12 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ā VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 SOCIAL VIEWS
C00013 ENDMK
Cā;
SOCIAL VIEWS
A book on technology that advocates its use for human
welfare must be based on views, however fragmentary, as to what
constitutes welfare. In this chapter, I will state my views. They
are rather definite and are based on considerable thought, but I
cannot give for them the same kind of fairly conclusive arguments
that I can give for my technological views.
Thus, on technological issues, I hope to be convincing, and
if I am not;, I will try to put it better, or if I have made a
mistake, to change my views. In most technological issues, it is
usually possible to reach an agreed position with technologically
trained and capable people.
In the case of social views, I am not so hopeful. I hope
that my views will appeal to others; at least they will tell them
where I stand. If you disagree, I may only be able to shrug my
shoulders. This is not because social matters are intrinsically
incapable of objective and convincing scientific treatment. It is
merely that the social science problem is very difficult, the
difficulties are compounded by emotion and commitment to the views
of one's social peers, and so not much progress has been made. I
should further confess poor acquaintance with the work that has been
done.
I recognize that the statement in the last paragraph that
social science and engineering are possible is controversial. I
have rejected the alternative of saying nothing about my social
views, because I wish to advance them in spite of their
incompleteness, and also I fear having attributed to me views that I
don't hold.
Of course, a reader with different social views might still
agree with some of the book's recommendations for reasons of his
own.
1. In the main, I shall identify human welfare with the
satisfaction of human desires. This has certain problems. First,
people don't always desire what "enlightened" people thing they
ought to, and this failure to want the good is often attributed to
improper influence. In my opinion, improper influence exists, but
affects desires only slightly, e.g. they really want those big
cars. Second, happiness does not necessarily come from getting what
one wants.
Two centuries ago, the authors of the U.S. got around this
problem by proposing a right to the pursuit of happiness rather than
a right to happiness itself. Two centuries later, this still seems
to be the best we can do.
As corollary of this, we shall consider societies and roles
that people migrate towards as better than those they migrate away
from. More precisely, when a person migrates from role A in
society B to role C in society D, we shall assume that he knows what
he is doing unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary.
2. Both capitalism as practiced in the United States,
Western Europe and Japan, and socialism as practiced in the Soviet
Union, Eastern Europe, and China work more or less, and neither is
likely to collapse for internal reasons. They will be changed only
when the people of the countries concerned through the political or
revolutionary mechanism decide to change them. At present, I think
that capitalism works better, but there is no guarantee that this
will always be the case. I am inclined to the view that some form
of socialism will be found to work better once social science is
understood well enough so that the bugs in present socialist
mechanisms can be fixed, but I don't think this is likely to happen
soon. The evidence that capitalism works better now is that
socialist countries require emigration restrictions, and capitalist
countries do not.
3. Equality is desirable, but there are two limiting
considerations. First, a society that accepted equality as its
primary social goal and sacrificed other considerations to achieve
it, might end up inferior to one that adopted other goals in that
the uniform standard of life of the equalitarian society might end
up at a low percentile of the other society. Second, at some point
of equalization, some members of the society might consider it to
their advantage to secede and form their own society without the
people they regard as less productive. Whether people should be
allowed to secede with their property may be questioned, but I
regard the right to secede with the clothes on one's back and one's
immediate dependents as a fundamental human right. Therefore, a
society should not be so equalitarian as to be unstable with respect
to secession. The most important reason for developing manned space
travel in the near future is to make this right effectively
available.
4. Many of the developments proposed in this book will first
become available to the more well-off members of the society. In
the main, I regard this as OK and subject only to slight
modification by social policy. I think that measures for equalizing
society should concentrate on equalizing money incomes and that
people should spend their money as they please. Free goods are
desirable only when demand is not much affected by price and there
is a substantial saving in not accounting for the item. Some of the
systems proposed, however, require universality for effectiveness,
and achieving the universality may require a subsidy, and giving
the subsidy may be in the interest of those taxed to give it.
If a way of achieving a benefit requires a social decision
and uniform adoption of new practices, I regard this as a blemish.
Such a way of achieving the benefit is to be regarded as inferior,
other things being equal, to one that requires only the marketing of
a product with the benefit given to the people who buy the product.
The product has the advantage over the system that each person make
his own decision on whether this benefit is worth more than another.
Of course, many benefits can only be achieved by systems, but in
important areas there are choices.
5. The reader of the book will note that many of the
proposals are intended to solve problems that are presently regarded
as moral. I am not against improved ethics in dividing pies, but my
talents run more to thinking of ways of giving everyone all the pie
he wants.
6. The social benefits obtainable from the products and
systems advocated here include increased prosperity, comfort, and
safety. However, the goal that is closest to my heart is increased
individuality - to increase what can be accomplished by a single
individual or a small group.