I hate to express the negative reaction I am
experiencing. It is clear that the document
is accurate, and a lot of thought went into
it. So what I am about to say is bound to be
demotivating. For that, I apologize in
advance.
But my personal reaction to the picture
presented here is that it is about as compelling
as a wet blanket.
It has the same difficulty as the colloquium,
in my view -- it covers way too much ground to
be a practical recommendation for anything.
When it begins talking about the "human system",
in particular, it reflects the colloquium. Like,
the colloquium, the specific impact on the
"human system" is never adduced. Three possibilites
spring to mind:
* Will the human system go on as before
unchanged? If so, it scarcely needs
mentioning.
* Will the human system evolve naturally
in the new environment? If so, the
evolution that will take place is worth
mentioning in a companion piece, but it
is not an integral part of the system
that is being proposed. The only significant
relationship to the human system (as far
as it leads to acceptance) is what *benefit*
will the system have on the human system.
* Is the proposal seriously attempting to
change human systems simultaneously with
a change in technology? If so, what is
going to be different, and why is there
any reason to believe that the effort
will be successful? (I suspect that any
such effort is fore-doomed. I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise, but have yet
to see a convincing argument.)
Analogy: What we really need is a
transportation system that allows your
personal auto to become part of a "train".
That allows efficient, hands-off travel
while preserving the benefit of autonmous
travel at your destination. But that
requires everyone to change everything,
all at once, and it just ain't gonna happen
in this lifetime...
Toffler pointed out that new technologies first
replace the preexisting models. Only later are
they expanded into new territories. It seems
clear to me that a system which provides immediate
benefits comes into use. The co-evolution that
occurs in system functionality and human use then
produces even greater benefits.
But to speak of the "human system" as anything
other than a naturally evolving system is to
defeat the project before it gets started.
If the evolutionary hypothesis is accepted, then
the only significant aspect of the system is how
it will make your life better today -- before you
change anything at all about the human systems
you are used to.
Again, I believe the document you've constructed
accurately reflects the issues as they have been
formulated to date. I just believe that the
particular formulation we've all seen has always
been, and will continue to be, an "impossible sell".
Believe it or don't, use it or toss it.
Them's my thoughts.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/2/_/444287/_/974851768/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 16:19:46 PST