COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\magnification\magstephalf
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
\magnification\magstephalf
\parskip=\medskipamount
\noindent{\bf 25.  SOCIAL VIEWS}
\medskip
	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.

\item{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.

\item{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.

\item{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.

\item{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.

\item{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.

\item{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.
\bye