COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00004 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	begin with parallel to Kagan's nineteenth century revival
C00003 00003	1. Present time-sharing and terminal based technology with applications
C00004 00004		It has become a truism that a scientist or technologist should
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
begin with parallel to Kagan's nineteenth century revival

I hope this trend won't get as orthodox and, above all, won't
elicit a maximal leader.
end with Admiral Dewey's, don't cheer boys
bah! above seems too cute.

3 points
	1. progress lives
	2. some goodies are here
	3. opportunities in computer technology

1. Present time-sharing and terminal based technology with applications
to the work of the professor.

2. Demonstration of some AI lab facilities.
	1. editor 2. messages 3. PUB and its output 4. ns

3. future applications
library of congress, new publication form

4. social significance
richer news, deterrent to hit-and-run politics

why not already, anti-technology
	It has become a truism that a scientist or technologist should
concern himself with the social consequences of any technology he is
developing.  I will first explain why I don't much agree with this and then
do it anyway.

	Every new bit of technology puts new opportunities before
individuals and society.  Some technologies can be used by individuals
for their personal benefit (at least if products embodying these
technologies are for sale), others require an organization like a
company for implementation and benefit primarily companies, and still
other options apply only on the scale of the government.

	Consider a new product that can be manufactured on a small scale,
i.e. by a million dollar company.  (It doesn't matter for my argument
whether the product can be more economically manufactured on a larger
scale).  I am inclined to regard the availability of a new product as
a %2prima facie%1 good thing.  There are two arguments: a natural
rights argument and a social utility argument.  The natural rights
argument is that a person has a right to decide for himself how he will
lead his life, and denying him a new product is as reprehensible as
taking away an old one.  Let me remind you that the public judged that
all the demonstrated harmful effects of alcohol were an insufficient
argument for continuing Prohibition.

	The utility argument depends on whether one
regards people on the whole as the best judges of their own interests,
or one believes that current social science and politics have reached
a stage where the political process makes lots better judgments than
people themselves.

Slogans:

Each man is the best judge of his own interests.

Products are better than systems, other things being equal.

	There is positive and negative technology assessment.  The
former deals with what new technology might be made available with
society's help.  The consequences of its mistakes are wastes of
relatively small amounts of money.  Larger amounts of money can
be wasted and actual harm done by wrong decisions to implement
large systems.
Negative technology assessment sometimes comes to the conclusion
that a technology shouldn't be allowed.  Its mistakes lead to denial
of individual rights.

Negative technology assessment, which is what the name has genr

	Having denounced negative technology assessment as a guide to
policy, I'll do some positive technology assessment.