🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from ihnp4!ho95e!jrk
 and was received on Mon Aug  4 18:18:48 1986

		[quoted section trimmed down a tad!]
 
>Dave Taylor writes;
>
>The tragedy is indeed tragic.  There are, as you say, all too many
>examples of this sort of behaviour...

In your response to Steve Rice, I think you might have missed a crucial
point. No one is going to dispute your analysis of the grenade-versus-house-
hold-implements comparison. The trouble is that the real controversy arises 
with respect to technological innovations that are not designed to harm people,
but which might have the (possibly unforeseen) capacity to do so. I'm talking
about things like nuclear power plants, DC-10's, any industrial operation
producing waste, pesticides, and the list goes on and on. These are all 
things designed with the universal good in mind, and yet for each one, you 
will find a large group of people claiming the devices are bad.  And it is 
items just like this that lead to the "is technology neutral" argument. 
The argument is much more than an analysis of "potential for intentional 
misuse."

"A clean desk is a sign of			Robert Kennedy
nothing to do, and being caught			AT&T Bell Laboratories,
up in news."					Holmdel, NJ
						..!ihnp4!ho95a!jrk