Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences -- techies
Brad McCormick wrote: > I find > it rather remarkable that techies still have any [human] > interest in having mates, and that they make any effort to > find mates. Well, what about all those DINKs (double income no kids) who don't want to have their "standard of living" lowered by kids ? (costs, inconvenience and stress..) [Not to speak of those who would want kids but are too chemically polluted to have any.] Not all mates mate, so to speak... Maybe there's an numeric error in Keith's theory on the "corporate uebermensch"... Chris
Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences
To this interesting discussion I would only add that access to the technological infrastructure (based on income and social cultureal conditions of the family and country/region) that ensures quality food , medicines, clean water, maternity care, vitamins, childhood stimulation, etc., are all conditions (and, yes, technologies) that will continue to ensure the possibility of a growing divide. arthur cordell -- From: Keith Hudson To: Ed Weick Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences Date: Monday, January 17, 2000 4:47PM A few comments on Ed Weick's observations: At 11:11 17/01/00 -0500, you wrote: >Keith Hudson has written a provocative piece suggesting that the human >species will split on the basis of intelligence. It will, Keith theorizes, >do so on the basis of the extent to which it is able to intellectually cope >with, and utilize, advanced technology based on the microchip. He suggests >that this process will be augmented by genetic engineering, with those >(presumably the highest of the techies) able to afford it testing their >mates for intelligence and ensuring that their offspring are endowed with >the proper genetic material. I don't actually mean that the techies will positively select their mates by any sort of genetic test. It is just that like tends to marry like and those in the better, well-paid jobs will also marry intelligent people. The big difference will be that the average skill/intelligence threshold of standard well-paid jobs will now act as a selection barrier in a way that has never happened before because unemployment will start to occur increasingly among those with average skills and deprive their children (particularly the potentially bright children) of the right sort of early environment. I think we've already seen the beginnings of this effect in the UK. After WWII, the Education Act of 1944 unleashed a surge of working class children (of my generation) into the grammar schools and universities. This effect didn't last for more than about ten years or so. After then, the proportion of working class children in the older, high quality universities that then existed began dropping steadily, until today, it is now far lower than it was then. This effect is visible only by examining the entry records within each of the older universities because the national effect has been totally obscured by governmental policy of the last 30-40 years of rapidly expanding the number of universities and, as you might imagine, steadily reducing the entry qualifications. So, although the proportion of working class children at universities generally is higher than ever before, the general standard of degrees has dropped precipitately. The better quality universities are catering for overwhelmingly middle class children. They would only be too happy to receive more working class children but the supply isn't there at the standard they require. So I think this shows that the separation effect is already occurring. >This is an interesting idea, but it raises the question of what drives >intelligence. I would suggest that if there is such a thing as natural >selection in relation to intelligence (there probably is), it is highly >circumstantial in nature, and not driven by a single variable such as >technology. Whatever broad occupational group people find themselves in, >the more intelligent stand a much better chance of survival than the less >intelligent. Yes, indeed. Genetic specialists admit that they have little idea of how many genes are involved in intelligence (whatever that they be) but they usually talk in terms of hundreds, or even thousands, of genes being involved. >The survival of a hunting-gathering family depended on the >accumulation of a tremendous amount of knowledge about the environment and >its harvestable flora and fauna, and a very keen sense of observation about >what was changing in that environment. Many hunter-gatherer families simply >couldn't hack it and didn't survive. I would suggest that, in the >development of human intelligence to date, we probably owe far more to early >hunter-gatherers than we ever will to the microchip. I agree completely here. Millions of years of hunter-gathering evolution, as primates, long before we became man, have gone into our genetic make-up. >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 intelli
Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences
Brad McCormick: >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. It's not quite like that, Brad. Fortunately, my daughter does have her circle of non-digital, non-virtual friends. She uses the computer for what it can do to help her pursue things that she is interested in. She has some talent in the graphic arts, and has been experimenting to find what it can do for her in that field. She therefore uses the computer as a tool, and is not especially interested in it as a thing in itself. She also uses it to do her assigned homework, which her teachers encourage. Acessing the web seems to have become a substitute for going to the library. I suspect that a lot of kids use the computer the way she does. >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. What may be happening now is similar to what happened to the landed-classes with the growth of the factory system. Power shifted. Those who recognized this followed it. Others got left behind. Where power is moving now is uncertain. It does seem to be moving away from the nation state and toward multi-lateral organizations. Perhaps it is moving from "place" to cyberspace. >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".) But I would refer to what I said above. Like engineers who design physical things, techies will be needed to design the software for the next Martian lander. The techie may have no interest in the chemistry of the Martian soil or atmosphere, but, if the next lander does not fail, he will have been of tremendous help to the chemist who wants to know. Sadly, he may, as you suggest, also be of great value to 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. Brad, think of it this way. If we did not suffer, how would we ever know what is good and valid from what is bad and corrupt. >Yours in the hope for a more Matissean world (facilitated >by science and technology, among other cultural resources). Amen! Ed Weick
Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences
Keith Hudson: >the basic elements of a techno-culture, like all culture, is laid down so >early in a child's life, that street kids wouldn't have a chance of >establishing a toehold in a high-tech society. However, if our increasingly >high-tech society collapses -- and that's always a possibility to bear in >mind -- then the 'other' population of highly resourceful people (if it >then existed) would certainly have a better chance of surviving. Perhaps you're right. However, I would suggest that children are pretty flexible, and that the most important thing is not necessarily the content of what they learn when they are very young, but the circumstances under which they learn it. A child who is abused and traumatized at an early age would find it far more difficult to learn and socialize than a child who is loved. The latter should have far less difficulty with any content than the former. Most kids who live on the street would not likely have had a good start. Ed Weick
Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences
A few comments on Ed Weick's observations: At 11:11 17/01/00 -0500, you wrote: >Keith Hudson has written a provocative piece suggesting that the human >species will split on the basis of intelligence. It will, Keith theorizes, >do so on the basis of the extent to which it is able to intellectually cope >with, and utilize, advanced technology based on the microchip. He suggests >that this process will be augmented by genetic engineering, with those >(presumably the highest of the techies) able to afford it testing their >mates for intelligence and ensuring that their offspring are endowed with >the proper genetic material. I don't actually mean that the techies will positively select their mates by any sort of genetic test. It is just that like tends to marry like and those in the better, well-paid jobs will also marry intelligent people. The big difference will be that the average skill/intelligence threshold of standard well-paid jobs will now act as a selection barrier in a way that has never happened before because unemployment will start to occur increasingly among those with average skills and deprive their children (particularly the potentially bright children) of the right sort of early environment. I think we've already seen the beginnings of this effect in the UK. After WWII, the Education Act of 1944 unleashed a surge of working class children (of my generation) into the grammar schools and universities. This effect didn't last for more than about ten years or so. After then, the proportion of working class children in the older, high quality universities that then existed began dropping steadily, until today, it is now far lower than it was then. This effect is visible only by examining the entry records within each of the older universities because the national effect has been totally obscured by governmental policy of the last 30-40 years of rapidly expanding the number of universities and, as you might imagine, steadily reducing the entry qualifications. So, although the proportion of working class children at universities generally is higher than ever before, the general standard of degrees has dropped precipitately. The better quality universities are catering for overwhelmingly middle class children. They would only be too happy to receive more working class children but the supply isn't there at the standard they require. So I think this shows that the separation effect is already occurring. >This is an interesting idea, but it raises the question of what drives >intelligence. I would suggest that if there is such a thing as natural >selection in relation to intelligence (there probably is), it is highly >circumstantial in nature, and not driven by a single variable such as >technology. Whatever broad occupational group people find themselves in, >the more intelligent stand a much better chance of survival than the less >intelligent. Yes, indeed. Genetic specialists admit that they have little idea of how many genes are involved in intelligence (whatever that they be) but they usually talk in terms of hundreds, or even thousands, of genes being involved. >The survival of a hunting-gathering family depended on the >accumulation of a tremendous amount of knowledge about the environment and >its harvestable flora and fauna, and a very keen sense of observation about >what was changing in that environment. Many hunter-gatherer families simply >couldn't hack it and didn't survive. I would suggest that, in the >development of human intelligence to date, we probably owe far more to early >hunter-gatherers than we ever will to the microchip. I agree completely here. Millions of years of hunter-gathering evolution, as primates, long before we became man, have gone into our genetic make-up. >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. I disagree here. If you were selecting for resourcefulness alone, yes. But the basic elements of a techno-culture, like all culture, is laid down so early in a child's life, that street kids wouldn't have a chance of establishing a toehold in a high-tech society. However, if our increasingly high-tech society coll
Re: 2. Re: FW: The structure of future work and its consequences
Keith Hudson has written a provocative piece suggesting that the human species will split on the basis of intelligence. It will, Keith theorizes, do so on the basis of the extent to which it is able to intellectually cope with, and utilize, advanced technology based on the microchip. He suggests that this process will be augmented by genetic engineering, with those (presumably the highest of the techies) able to afford it testing their mates for intelligence and ensuring that their offspring are endowed with the proper genetic material. This is an interesting idea, but it raises the question of what drives intelligence. I would suggest that if there is such a thing as natural selection in relation to intelligence (there probably is), it is highly circumstantial in nature, and not driven by a single variable such as technology. Whatever broad occupational group people find themselves in, the more intelligent stand a much better chance of survival than the less intelligent. The survival of a hunting-gathering family depended on the accumulation of a tremendous amount of knowledge about the environment and its harvestable flora and fauna, and a very keen sense of observation about what was changing in that environment. Many hunter-gatherer families simply couldn't hack it and didn't survive. I would suggest that, in the development of human intelligence to date, we probably owe far more to early hunter-gatherers than we ever will to the microchip. 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. Ed Weick
