computersandthepursuitofhappiness

COMPUTERS AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

David Gelernter

, a professor of computer science at Yale University, has written many books and

articles on the role of technology in people

’

s lives. The following reading is and excerpt from his

essay

“

Computers and the Pursuit of Happiness,

”

which deals with the influence, on individuals

and on society, of computers and the Internet. The essay first appeared in the journal Commentary

in 2001. Included with Gelernter

’

s essay is a letter to the editor disagreeting with various aspects

of his argument.

In recent years we have been notifies

almost continuously that we are living

in an

“

information

age.

”

Mankind (it is suggested) has completed a sort of phase shift: the solid agricultural age was

replaced two centuries ago by the liquid industrial age, which has now given way to the gaseous

(so to speak) age of information. Everyone says so, but is it true? Has an old age ended, and are

we, thanks to computers and the Internet, living in a new one?

A

related question: computers have

been around for roughly a half-century; have they been good or bad for mankind? And finally: are

likely to do good or bad over the next half-century

.

We

are

not

in

an

information

age,

and

computers

and

the

Internet

are

not

a

revolutionary

development in human history.

In

the

old

industrial

age

(people

say)

coal,

steel,

and

concrete

mattered;

in

the

new

age,

information counts. Y

et it is obvious that coal, steel, and concrete still count just as much as they

ever did. We have always needed food, clothing shelter, possessions, and above all each other. We

have always will need those things, and the

“

information revolution

”

will never lessen our needs

by half a hair

’

s breadth. So whom are we kidding?

What nouveau cyber- billionaire ever used his

billions to buy information? Who ever worried about poverty because he would be unable to keep

his family well-informed?

Not long ago I saw a rented U-Haul trailer with the inevitable Web address in big

letters on the

side,

“

”

–

the information age in nine easy characters. Y

es, it is convenient to check a

Web site for information about trailers for rent; but the Internet will never (can ever) change our

need for physical stuff, or for trailers to haul it around in. Fifty years from now, it may be possible

to down loaded artistically designed experiences and beam them via trick signals into your brain.

(To many

people

will

sound

like

a

junior

grade

of

hell,

but some

technologists

think

of

it

as

a

Coming Attraction.) The interesting fact remains: virtual gourmet

[

讲究吃喝的

]

food will make you

feel full but will not keep you from starving. V

irtual heat will make you feel warm but will not

keep

you

from

freezing.

Virtual

sex

will

make

you

feel

satisfied

in

the

sense

that

a

pig

feels

satisfied.

About computers in particular, believers in a new information age make three arguments. They say

it

is

a

new

age

because

we

now

have

sophisticated

machines

to

create,

store,

and

deliver

information; because meachines (in their own special areas) can act intelligently.

All three claims

are

wrong.

Computers

have

done marvelous

deeds

–

but

in

each case,

their

great

deeds

are

in

keeping with the long-established patterns of the industrial age. Computation today is a dusting of

snow that makes everything look different

–

on the surface.

Fancy machines to create, move, and store infromation were a main preoccupation of the whole

th

20

century

,

not

just

the

computerized

part

of

it.

Movies,

phonographs,

color

photography

and

color printing, the electronic transmission of photos, the invention of radio and redio networks and

interantional

radio

hookups,

newsreels

[a

short

movie

dealing

with

current

events]

,

televsion,

transistorized electronics, long-distance phone networks, communication satellites, fax machines,

photocopiers,

audio

and

video

tapes, compact

disks, cell

phones, cable

TV

–

and

then, with

the

emergence of PC

’

s and the Internet, suddenly we are in an information age?

The 20

th

century was

one

information-gusher

after

another

;

information

pouring

into

people’

s

lives

through

more

and

more stuck-ioen faucets.

The

defeat

of

geography?

In

Cyberspace

and

the

American

Dream

(1994),

distributed

electronically by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a distinguished group of authors argued

that

“

we constitute the final generation of an old civilization and, at the very same time, the first

generation

of

a

new

one.

”

Their claim

centered

on the

idea

that,

thanks to computer

networks,

geography had (in effect) been overcome

’

henceforth, shared interests and not physical proximity

would shape community and society.

But using techonology to defeat distance has been another goal of the industrial revolution from

the start, from railroads through the Panama Canal and onward. Rail networks, telegraph networks,

air and phone and highway and radio and TV networks

–

the Internet is the latest in a long line.

The 20

th

century teemed with smart machines, too, long before the computer showed up

–

simple

ones

like

the

thermostat

or

a

car

’

s

electrical

system

(with

auomatic

spark-advance);

complex,

sophiscated ones like automatic transimissions or the Norden bombsight in World War II. Granted,

computers are a huge advance over the machines that came before, but huge advances are the stuff

of the industrial age. The Web is a big deal, but flying machines were a pretty big deal, too. Radio

and

TV changed

the

nature

of

American

democracy

.

The

electric-power

industry

turned

society

inside out.

The cost of not knowing history is not ignorance so much as arrogance. A

popular book about the

Internet and the Web begins with this

“

personal note

”

from the author:

The Internet is , by far, the greatest and most significant achievement in the history of makind.

What? Am I saying that the Internet is more impressive than the pyramids? More beautiful

than Michelangelo

’

s David? More important to mankind than the wondrous inventions of the

industrial revolution? Y

es, yes and yes.

That sort of statemnet suggests that technologiests are fundamentally unserious. By the way: it is a

useful

and

interesting

book.

But

the

author

protests

too

much.

It

is

hard

to

picture comparable

statements

greeting

the

airplane

’

s

or the

electric

power

industry

’

s

emergence;

they were

too

big

and

too

obviously

important

to

need

this

sort

of

cheerleading.

What

the

author

is

really

announcing is not a new age of information but a new age of hype, a new age of new ages.

Computers

and

the

Internet

have

made

a

revolution

in

science

and

engineering.

Studying

computational models of reality can be cheaper and better than studyi reality. Sometimes reality is

impossible to measure or too steep to scale, and computational models are the only way to get any

purchase on it. Those are the actual computer revolutions; the others are mostly potential and not

real,

locked

up

in

awe-inspiring

icebergs

that

just

float

around

eliciting

admiration

and

making

trouble. The computer revolution is still frozen, latent, waiting to happen.

As for the information age, it must have begun at least a hundred years ago if it exists at all.

Are

we

better

informed

than we

used to

be?

I

doubt

it.

Is

anyone

prepared

to

assert

that

the

U.S.

electorate is better informed today than it was at the time of (say) the 1960 pressidential election?

That our fifth graders are better informed?(recently my fifth- grade son learned from his English

teachers that

“

in credible

”

and

“

incredulous

”

are synonyms. That

’

s the information age for you.)

II

Have computers been good or bad for mankind since they were invented roughly 50 years ago?

Other things being equal,

information

is good. Wealth is good. Computers have supplied

lots of

information, and generated much wealth.

But we are marvelously adaptable. We can take miserable conditions in stride and triumph over

them; we can take wonderful conditions in stride and triumph over them. Humannity in any given

age

has

a wealth

threshold

and

an

information

threshold.

If

you

are

below

either

one,

living

in

poverty or ignorance, you need more wealth or information. But once you are over the threshold,

only the rate of change matters.

Acquire more wealth or information, and presumably you will be

happier;

then

you

stablize

at

your

new,

higher

level,

and

chances

are

you

are

no

happier

than

before.

It

is

not

exactly

a

deep

or

novel

observation

that

money

doesn

’

t

buy

happiness.

Neither

does information.

In this country, the majority

–

obviously not everyone, but most of us

–

have been over-threshold

in wealth and information for several generations, roughly since the end of World War II. That is a

remarkable achievement; it ought to make us proud and thankful. But it follows that increasing our

level of wealth or information is unlikely to count terribly much in our new wealth or infromation

won

’

t matter much.

Here is a small case in point. My two boys, who are ten and thirteen, love playing with computers,

like

most children

nowadays.

The

computer

is

their

favourite

toy,

and

unquestionably

it

makes

them happy. Computer play as it is practiced in real life, at least at our boys are allowed at it or

they

would

spend

all

day

wrecking

pretend

Porsches

and

blowing

up

enemy

airplanes.

But

mindless activities are fine in reasonable

doses. It’

s good for children to have fun, and

I’

m glad

ours have so much fun with computers.

When

my

wife

and

I

were children,

we

didn

’

t

have

computers

to

play

with.

We

lacked

these

wonderful, happiness-generating devices. But

–

so what? Other things made us happy

. We never

felt deprived on account of our lack of computer power.

It would be crazy to deny that computers

are great toys, but it would be equally crazy to argue that they have made children any happier, on

the

whole,

than children

used

to

be.

Fifty

years

from

now,

the computer-based

toys will

make

today

’

s look pathetic, and children will love all their snazzy new stuff

–

just as much, probably, as

children loved their bats and balls and blocks and trains and jump ropes and dollhouses in 1900.

What

we

ordinarily

fail

to

take

into

account when we

are

adding

up

the score

is

the

nature

of

tecnological

change.

Technology

is

a

tool

for

building

social

structures .

Granted,

each

new

technology is better than one

it replaces. But new technologies engernder new social structures,

and

the

important

question

is

not

whether

the

new

technology

is

better

but

whether

the

new

structure is better. Except in the case of medical technologies, the answer will nearly always be

debatable;

nearly

always

must

be

debatable.

We

can

easily

show

that,

with

each

passing

generation, paints have improved. It is much harder to show that art has improved.

Human

nature

does

not

change;

human

needs

and

wants

remain

basically

the

same.

Human

ingenuity dreams up a new technology, and we put it to use

–

doing in a new way something we

have

always

done

in some

other way.

In

years

past,

many

towns

had

shared

public wells.

They

were communal gathering places: you met neighbors, heard the news, checked out strangers, sized

up the competition, made deals, dates, matches. Plumbing was a great leap forward, which few of

us (certainly not me) would be willing to trade

in. The old system was a nuisance, especially if

you

were

the

one carrying

the water;

but

it was

neighborly.

The

new,

plumbing-induced

social

structure was far

more convinient,

not

to

say

healthier.

It

was

also

lonelier.

The

old

and

new

structures excelled in different ways, and cannot be directly compared.

The

Web

is

an

improvement

much

like

plumbing,

without

the

health

benefits.

Fifty

years

ago,

most shopping was face to face.

In the Internet age, face-to-face stores will not survive long, any

more than communal wells survived the advent of plumbing To our great- grandchildren, shopping

will mean