🚀 go-pugleaf

[Note: this article is a test of a different header format.  If you see
 any problems with this, please send a copy of the ENTIRE header to me
 via email.   Thanks.			-- Dave]

> I'd like to comment on a point Henry Spencer makes in a previous 
> posting (just posted, so this'll be as new as that!).
>
> Henry says "To repeat the point:  technology is *neutral*"
>
> I can't agree.

Well, I can't really see that your argument following is in conflict
with what Henry was getting at.  You are reacting as though he had said
"the effects of technology are neutral", which he didn't say.  To
paraphrase, I think Henry said "you can't evaluate the impact of
technology without looking at how it is used".  You replied, in essence
"you can't evaluate the impact of technology while looking *only* at how
it is used".

Well.... you are both right.  But so what?  All Henry was getting at was
that technology *in* *and* *of* *itself* cannot be termed either good or
bad, in that it doesn't universally lead to good results, nor does it
universally lead to bad results.  You didn't say anything that
contradicts that point, unless I missed it totally.  Note that your
central argument, which I take to be:

> Objects *cannot* be considered without considering what they are being
> utilized for, the materials they are made from, the moral and ethical
> ramifications of their use, and so on.

strongly *supports* Henry's position (as well as your own).  It shows
that the "objects" produced by technology cannot be classed as "good" or
"eeeeevil" without considering how they are used, and the impact their
use has.  If from this agreement we three seem to share you conclude
that technology is not neutral, then as Arthur Dent might say, "this
must be some use of the term 'neutral' with which I am not familiar".


To conclude, a semi-serious mini-flame:

Aaauuuggghhh!  Why does everyone say "utilized" when "used" will do just
as well, and is less silly-sounding?  The recent overuse of "utilize" is
enough to give a sensitive person ulcers!  Why, it's as bad as the
Pentagonspeak and Governmentspeak that flourished in the Nixon years!  I
suppose I should be grateful that this is a mild case of the
infestation, and you didn't say "ramifications of their utilization"!
It's those cursed word processors, I bet!  :-)

(Actually, I think that word processors are dandy for turning things
 like "what they are being utilized for" into things like "how they are
 used".  But maybe folks who don't like them get things like that
 "right" on the first try.  (I think WPs are neutral too, BTW.))
--
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw