Ed Weick wrote:
[snip]
> I have a fourteen year old daughter who is very familiar with the computer.
> It's certain that this marvelous tool has an impact on what she thinks about
> and how she solves problems. Yet I'm at a loss about how I would compare
> her intellectual development with that of some of the slum or street kids
> I've seen in Sao Paulo, Delhi or Moscow. Many of those kids need to think
> about their day to day continuity, and I very much doubt that they would
> apply any less intelligence to this than my daughter does to her computer.
> We should not overlook that about ninety percent of the world's population
> is like those street kids, in a continuous strategic mode around personal
> security and survival. If I were looking for a significant, next-species,
> advancement in human intelligence, I would be inclined to search for it
> among these people, and not among California techies.
As a 28 year veteran of data processing/information technology/computer
science research, I would certainly concur with Ed's concern about his
daughter's computer mediated socialization -- the concern being, of course,
that it may be computer dominated/computer fascinated/etc. largely
a-socialization.
However, I believe there are other forms of humanizing socialization
besides "the street". The old-monied rich have often grown up
to be statesmen, scientists, et al. *because* of their form of
socialization which, although very different from that of
the wretched of the earth, is nonetheless social in
a thoroughgoing way.
Why cannot we take the life of
"luxe, calme et volupte" -- in which persons freed from
necessity pursue autochthonously chosen (like, e.g., some of the
Rockefeller scions) -- as our *norm*? By this I mean that
technology should be oriented not toward the asocial activity
of "puzzle solving" in a vacuum (I have previously referred to
PhD computer scientists whose imaginative horizon is bounded
by the latest episode of StarTrek), but toward providing
for all the facilitating conditions which, prior to technology, were
possible only for a few at the expense of many. (And, of course,
the "vacuum" in which most "techies" in the socially privative
sense operate is not any vacuum at all, but "the military
industrial complex".)
Speaking from bitter personal experience, I have become convinced
in my middle age, when I have at last
learned about things which were not part
of my [culturally even if not materially deprived] social milieu of
origin, that there is no way that a person who has experienced
adversity in early life can not thereby be scarred, i.e., more
or less impeded (as with surgical adhesions)
in the free, graceful exercise of full human capabilities. I am
not sorry to say that I am convinced that any "benefit" that
accrues to anyone *after* suffering is not due to the
suffering, but despite it. As Bertolt Brecht said: That
land is happy which does not need a hero. I have known one
hero in my life -- I admire him greatly, but have
ZERO wish to *be* him.
Yours in the hope for a more Matissean world (facilitated
by science and technology, among other cultural resources).
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
