This article was published in Zadok Perspectives 1989.

Introduction

It is common for us to cast judgements about whether recent changes in our society are progressive or regressive. For instance, we all have our opinions about the worth of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), the growth and acceptance of the “sex industry”, the education system, plastic money, electronic funds transfer, government monetary policy, computerised orbiting laser beam defence systems, etc. But such judgements are rather ad-hoc, without any explicit model of progress or any agreed method of evaluation. We have little or no framework for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of change. So in this paper I want to examine the question “How do you measure progress?”.

As Christians wishing to have a voice in the future direction of society this is an especially important issue. When the Church speaks on social issues it is too easy for people to hear it as conservative obstructionism. For instance, Christian opposition to abortion is seen as morally judgemental and as such it reinforces people’s predisposition to believe that the Church is repressive and that God has nothing better to do than stop anyone from enjoying life. Although this charge may be true of some sectors of the Church, it is most certainly untrue of our God who came in person to help sort out our mess so that we might have “life in all it’s abundance”[1]. What can we do to avert such misunderstanding?

The key way is to demonstrate rather than speak. We must exemplify, within our own ranks, the sort of life which we would like all people to enjoy. Then we could back up our social criticism with a working alternative.

Secondly, we need to recognise that different attitudes to change rely on different assumptions. For instance, on the abortion issue, much of the conflict arises from the dissonance between the assumption that Life is Sacred and the assumption that Personal Freedom is an Inviolable Right. Change is inevitable, but we typically allow change to be directed by unstated assumptions. The source and justification of such assumptions need to be brought into focus. As a famous Australian once wrote “Progress is like a wheelbarrow : if you don’t keep pushing, it stops”[2], though it is probably more accurate to say “if you don’t push it, someone else will”. Change must be managed, not allowed to roll free.

Thirdly, in order to avoid being seen as dogmatically opposed to all change, we need to show that our social criticism takes account of the overall consequences of change (not just the short term consequences) and that our motivation is to build a society which fosters abundant life. But this is only possible if we have some framework for evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of change.

Before developing a late 20th century answer to these issues, it is useful to take a tour through various historical attitudes to progress. With that as background, I then suggest six indicators which determine whether a particular change is progressive or not. These indicators can be used to evaluate any form of change[3]. The actual analysis of any particular change should be done by people with thorough understanding of that field of change, but my six indicators should provide useful guidelines for anyone undertaking such analysis. The final section of this paper is a first attempt at applying the indicators to my own field : information technology (IT).

As a starting point I should say that I see progress as necessarily good. By my definition, progress is any change for the better, the advancement of anything of benefit to human society. The issue then is not whether we want progress or not but rather how to establish whether something is “for the better” or not.

History of the idea of progress

Many pages have been written describing the history of progress. While this is important, it is at least as important to study the history of how people have viewed progress. Has progress been planned? Have people expected change to be for the better? Have people resisted change, and if so, for what motives? How has the development of science, technology and rationality related to the religious establishment? Is progress seen as primarily economic, technological, political or social? What is the aim of progress? Robert Nisbet has had much to say on these questions, and I recommend his book “History of the idea of progress”[4] for those who would like to see some detailed answers. For those less likely to wade through his 400 page exposition, this present section provides a selection of Nisbet’s observations.

Two Greek myths provide an early indication of conflicting ideas of progress. In one, mankind’s hardship and unhappiness prompts Prometheus to steal fire from Zeus and mankind’s lot is greatly improved. In the other, curiosity leads Pandora to open a chest and in doing so she releases all manner of terrors onto the earth. In one, initiative brings positive results, in the other, negative. It seems to me that these two possibilities still haunt us today. Does the advancement of knowledge and material prosperity really benefit us or are the benefits outweighed by the attendant costs?

There are basically three alternate conceptions of the march of history :

1. A past Golden Age has been lost. In some cultures this has been a major theme. It even sneaks into our culture occasionally (“remember the good old days?”) though it doesn’t dominate.
2. History is cyclical. This is especially prevalent in Eastern religions. The infinite cycle of history in Hindu thought is not just an account of the long term prospects of the universe, but a basis for the understanding of ethics and hence of personal morality, interpersonal relationships and social organisation.
3. Progression from a dim past to a bright future. This evolutionary view has certainly been the most prevalent in Western society for the last two centuries.

Prior to the Renaissance virtually all “Western” ideas of progress (Greek, Roman, early Christian, Medieval) were strongly motivated by religious belief. Possibly no aspect of any religion has had more influence on the idea of progress than the redemptive character of Christianity. The Christian conception of history combines both the first and third of the views above. Mankind is fallen, but redeemable. On occasions an emphasis on the fallenness of creation and the sinfulness of mankind has predominated, but the New Testament (and by-and-large the Church) makes clear that the aim of God is “to reconcile to himself all things”[5] . The Millenial hope results in an active responsibility to work towards the future age of peace and prosperity. Likewise, if we are told to pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, then we have a responsibility now to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.

After that time, however, (particularly after the French Revolution) faith in God was gradually replaced by a faith in mankind. Mankind can work independently of God (even in opposition to God) and yet still explain and improve their environment. Human achievement, individual freedom and later, individual rights became more significant topics and the conflict between individual advancement and advancement of the State became more debated. This conflict spawned two divergent views on progress. One understood progress in terms of freedom and the other in terms of power.

The first school is typified by Adam Smith who elevated self-interest to the status of a virtue. He picked up Mandeville’s catch-cry “Private vices, public benefits” and claimed that individual freedom should only be restrained by laws of justice. Self-interest should motivate and direct progress. The dominant theories of economics in the Western world have this as their foundation.

The second school was pioneered by Rousseau and finds its most developed form in Marx. Rousseau proposed that members of a nation should voluntarily enter into a “social contract” : a covenant of obedience to the State. The will of the People should determine the will of the Individual. A society ruled wisely by philosopher kings would result in well-directed progress for the good of all.

Saint-Simon, an early voice in this school, proposed a Parliament of three houses, with the following members :

1. Scientists, inventors, poets, artists etc who would supply creative initiative;
2. The cream of intelligentsia to examine the proposals of the first house; and
3. Businessmen who would see to the implementation of laws.

Hegel described the dialectic process – where a dominant thesis in society is opposed by its antithesis, and where the ensuing conflict gives birth to a superior synthesis. He proposed that this was the impetus (indeed the mechanism) of progress. Marx used this as one of the foundations of his economic theory. In Marxism, social progress cannot occur without revolution, at least partly because the dialectic must be driven by conflict.

Of course, underpining both these views is an understanding of natural history in terms of evolutionary theory and an almost religious faith in Progress, with Science as the chief sacrament. However, this faith has faltered since the Second World War. The Nazi agenda was based heavily on a particular understanding of progress : a belief in racial superiority which lead inevitably to the imposition of racial domination. In response, the great advances of science equipped America with the Hydrogen Bomb. The war left us with the question – was the solution any better than the disease?

Nisbet outlines five premises on which all theories of progress have stood and claims that each of these premises have been severely challenged in the second half of this century, leading to major disenchantment with progress as a whole :

• belief in the value of the past;
• conviction in the nobility, even superiority, of Western civilization;
• acceptance of the worth of economic and technological growth;
• faith in reason and the kind of scientific and scholarly knowledge that can come from reason alone; and
• belief in the intrinsic importance, the ineffaceable worth of life on this earth.

I think there are other forces, however, which counter this disenchantment. Firstly, in older times, little change was ever seen in one person’s lifetime. Since progress was almost imperceptible it was not a pressing or common topic. However, with the hectic rate of change today, progress is by necessity a dominant theme. The futurology industry bears witness to this. Secondly, since the Second World War, progress has been much more of a technological notion than a social or political one. In the West we have been pleased to allow technology to lead us into the consumer age, the long hoped-for Age of Plenty. Our acceptance and hunger for anything that is new has deadened us to more global and long-term issues.

How can one measure progress?

If we took snapshots of a society at two separate times, how could we decide whether progress had occurred? If a change is proposed for society, how could we decide whether its effects would be progressive or not?

I want to suggest six indicators by which progress can be measured. These indicators provide a check-list of the important consequences of change and hence provide a broad foundation for the analysis of any particular change. One could think of these as the axes of a six dimensional space. If a change rated well on every dimension, then it should be welcomed. Conversely, if a change rated poorly on each of the dimensions then it should be avoided. Of course, in the normal case, a change will measure up well under some of the indicators but poorly under others, and in such situations the relative weightings of the six dimensions become important.

1. Advancement of science and technology

It has been said that the best way to predict the future is to invent it! Science has been the key source of change in the last century or two and this indicator simply measures whether or not change has lead to or involved new scientific discoveries or the development of new technology [6]. Most major social changes in recent history have involved new technology (such as electricity, cars, planes, telephone, TV, computers) and hence are progressive along this scale.

Science and technology are inherently cumulative (always building on previous discoveries) and so the only changes which would not be progressive on this metric would be those which either caused the loss of known technologies or the prevention of research. For instance, mass annihilation of scientists (as happened during China’s Cultural Revolution), closure of research institutions, limitation of research funding, or legal restrictions on research (the issue of IVF comes to mind).

2. Advancement of arts and humanities

In contrast to the advancement of science and technology, arts and humanities is non-cumulative and hence progress in this field is hard to verify. To make some assessment of this metric, we would ask questions like: Is there now a better understanding of human needs, the inter-relationships between people, social structures, political process? Is there an atmosphere of creativity in literature, dance, music, painting, drama? Is there widespread public access (eg via education) and interest in these areas?

A case in point is the present government policy of emphasising technological studies in tertiary education. This emphasis limits the relative funding available for arts and humanities and discourages students from taking up studies in these areas. Hence, the effect of this policy is sure to be non-progressive under this metric.

3. Economic growth

This is the most easily measurable of the indicators due to the supposed maturity of modern market theories. In practice, it is the indicator with most impact on the direction of progress in the Western world. However, I wonder if the importance we place on statistics such as Gross National Product, balance of trade, inflation rate, and unemployment rate is simply because the economists can put an exact figure on them. Certainly, economic growth indicates an increase in material wealth and, presumably, that is progressive. Unfortunately, the popular statistics indicate little about the distribution of that wealth.

4. Long-term Sustainability

Change normally brings with it costs as well as benefits and these costs may not be sustainable in the long term. The recent concern over the ecological costs of our way of life demonstrates that there is a growing realisation that we must take sustainability into account in our progress equation. We should applaud the moves to include ecological damage as a cost of production and hence force the users of environmentally destructive goods to pay for corrective action.

But ecology is not the only issue to be considered. Some changes, while otherwise desirable may have deleterious long term effects on human population trends. Longer life expectancy, along with improved social welfare (which reduces the need of parents to have large families to support them in later life), result in a population curve much more squewed towards old age. Even though this squew will correct itself in a generation or two, there could be significant adverse repercussions before stability is restored.

The availability of contraception and the choices we have made about abortion have enlarged this trend. Since there are now less “unwanted babies”, the useful and once common practice of adoption can no longer be used to displace the frustration of childless couples. But of course there is a solution to this – a technological one as usual! – spend millions to develop an effective IVF program.

The decrease in employment may become another example of unsustainable cost. It is possible that a certain level of unemployment causes a downward pressure on inflation, and certainly a decrease in working hours is a welcome advance. But the long term ramifications of this, especially in terms of how human nature will cope with this shift towards a leisure oriented lifestyle, are unknown.

5. Quality of life

This, to me, is the most important (though least quantifiable) aspect of progress. It has too often been assumed that quality of life will necessarily increase as GNP increases. Apart from the fact that some minimal amount of economic activity is required to provide the necessities of life, there is virtually no correlation between quality of life and economic growth. Rather, quality of life is indicated by those non-economic issues which directly effect individuals, such as (in no particular order):

• Liberty.
• Provision of basic needs (food and shelter).
• Life expectancy.
• Capability of influencing the decisions which affect one’s life. The absence of this minimises an individual’s range of choices and leads to the hopelessness of being powerless.
• Personal satisfaction : this is very vague, but we’d like to know whether people enjoy life.
• Equality : is there an atmosphere which encourages everyone to reach their potential?
• Justice: are social relationships ordered in such a way that both the benefits of the relationship and the sacrifices necessary to maintain the relationship, are shared equally? [7]

6. The Activity of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is that part of God which acts in the world in order to glorify Christ, sanctify the followers of Christ, edify the Church, and evangelise the world [8] . We should favour changes which support these activities and which help all people to see that God is still active in his world.

The Holy Spirit works not only through Christians, but also in the lives of non-Christians, in societies and indeed in the whole created order. John V. Taylor suggests three criteria by which the activity of the Holy Spirit may be recognised [9] and I take these to be good indicators of spiritual progress.

• Does it give people “the more intense awareness of some ‘other’ who claims their attention or of some greater ‘whole’?” Think of the times when you have been taken outside yourself, maybe while viewing a waterfall, sitting in a cathedral, listening to some favourite music or falling in love. Such experiences are mediated by the Holy Spirit.
• Does it compel people “to make personal and responsible choices?” The nature of God’s love is such that he not only allows us freedom of choice, but that he actively and constantly lays choices before us.
• Does it “call out from people self-oblation and sacrifice?” The choices which God calls us towards eschew self-preservation; they ask us to die in order to gain life; they require that we put others before ourselves.

I would only add to these criteria that they need to be coupled with a growing understanding that the source and the goal of these experiences is the God of the Bible. Without knowledge of the Gospel, the activity of the Holy Spirit may be witnessed but it’s significance not grasped.

The Intention of these Indicators

My hope is that by making the issues explicit, future discussion of change could be phrased in terms of these indicators. There will undoubtedly be some disagreements about how I have categorised all the issues and plenty of discussion about the relative importance of each indicator. But if we hold this general framework in common, it will be easier to point out where and why we disagree about the worth of some change. The important thing is not that these indicators precisely define a set of mutually exclusive metrics, but that they act as a checklist to separate the various facets of progress.

The challenge to the reader is twofold: to refine this categorisation of the indicators of progress; and to apply this categorisation to their field of expertise. What follows is my application to the field of Information Technology.

Is the use of Information Technology (IT) progressive?

The development of electronics (especially computers) over the past 50 years has had an immense effect on the structure of our society. Tom Forester points out that in the USA, 70% of the workforce was employed in agriculture 150 years ago, whereas now it is only 3%. Today 70% of the workforce are employed by service industries, many of which are information-related. [10] Other effects include the vast increase in the amount of time available for leisure; changed work patterns due to office automation and the use of computer terminals at home; and an increasing number of non-manual jobs which alters the division of labour between the sexes.

Within the brief history of computing there has been a recent change of perspective : we no longer think of computers as data processors but as information processors. The difference is that whereas data is unstructured numbers and letters, information has meaningful content. A data processor systematically manipulates meaningless data in a rigidly programmed way, leaving the job of interpreting the data to humans. But an information processor understands some of the relationships between pieces of data and can make decisions based on those relationships. For instance, a data processor may store facts about activity on the stock market (eg a database of share prices and stock ownership) and produce graphs of market activity. An information processor could analyse the buying and selling patterns of major stock owners and compare them with graphs of share prices in order to detect possible instances of insider trading.

It should be stressed that the difference between a data processor and an information processor is a difference of perspective more than a difference in either hardware or software (although the change in perspective could not have happened without advances in both hardware and software). But to say that it is just a new way of thinking about computers is not to say that it doesn’t have tangible effects. It alters the way people use computers, creates totally new job categories, alters the whole way that some firms do business, and in fact has created a whole new industry : the Information Industry.

More and more people earn their living by gathering, storing, retrieving, summarising and graphing information. More significantly, more and more business decisions are based on advice from computer systems, and in a variety of fields people simply obey the instructions from an automated information processor. The information industry includes the use of computers in banking, stock exchange, medicine, engineering design, manufacturing, military intelligence, the use of credit cards, fax machines, and telecommunication. Some claim that we are in the middle of an Information Revolution which will have greater effect that the Industrial Revolution.[11] Where the Industrial Revolution changed the way we viewed manual work, the Information Revolution is changing the way we view mental work and that, it seems, is a good deal more threatening to our identity as humans.

Much has been written about the social impact of IT, and I think the secular analysis of these changes is quite accurate.[12] Regardless of such analysis, however, the direction and speed of change is largely being determined by market forces rather than any long term policy. I don’t intend to replicate, criticise or even summarise the secular analysis: rather, what follows is an extremely brief analysis to illustrate the use of the six indicators described above. There is most certainly a need for a more thorough Christian analysis of IT and I hope that future discussions among Zadok members will produce such an analysis.

1. Advancement of science and technology

The first electronic digital computer built in the US, ENIAC, was unveiled at the University of Pennsylvania in 1946. It weighed 30 tons, filled the space of a two-car garage, and contained18,000 vacuum tubes, which failed on average at the rate of one every seven minutes. It cost half a million dollars at 1946 prices. Today, the same amount of computing power is contained in a pea-sized silicon chip. Almost any home computer costing as little as $100 can outperform ENIAC.[13]

IT is the most rapidly advancing technology the world has ever known. No other technology has improved 1000-fold in 40 years with a 1000-fold reduction in cost. Not only is IT an example of phenomenal advancement of science and technology, but also the use of computers as a tool for research, design and manufacture has also enabled advances to be made in many other fields of science and technology.

In terms of this indicator, IT is most definitely progressive.

2. Advancement of arts and humanities

The development of a technological mindset leads people to hope for (and expect) technological solutions to what used to be seen as human/social problem. IT is part of this general trend which is shown in symptoms such as:

• large scale consumerism (“new is better”) and resultant waste;
• a move away from producing goods of an aesthetic nature towards goods produced just to serve a particular function (the demise of craftsmanship);
• decrease in the study of history and literature;
• decrease in the depth of human interaction.

IT can’t be blamed for these changes, but it does assist and encourage them.

On the other hand, computers have proven to be a great tool in sociological research and literary analysis; they have sparked new levels of creativity in visual art, allowing a degree of abstractness never before possible; and to an even greater extent, they have allowed the emergence of new musical forms.

Overall, I’d say that Western society is less oriented towards the arts and humanities than it was 50 years ago. Since IT has been a major catalyst in this change, it rates poorly under this indicator.

3. Economic growth

I’d guess that the major impetus for change in the modern Western world is economic growth (for which you could read “greed”). Given that, it is highly unlikely that governments and corporations would back IT as they do if it wasn’t progressive in this sense.

There is, of course, the question of unemployment. Computers have put people out of work (by performing tasks previously performed by people) but have also created many jobs (the whole computer industry). It could also be argued that manual information processing would not be able to cope with the quantity nor the speed required in today’s business world, and hence the recent rate of economic growth would be impossible without IT. I’d like to see a detailed analysis of this topic, for it seems to me that most accounts are too shallow.

4. Long-term Sustainability

The direct drain on natural resources is small : IT does very little damage to the environment. To date, the claim that computers save paper may be doubted, but it will be increasingly true as networked computers become more widespread, as the communication between people and computer becomes more human-like, and as people develop the same relationship with a computer screen as they have now with pen and paper. When every home and work place has a computer, phone books and newspapers will become unnecessary.

A less concrete but more disturbing cost of IT is the risk which accrues when we depend so heavily on computer hardware (which, fortunately, is quite reliable) and software (which is notoriously unreliable). Taking control out of human hands should lead to lower error rates, however, the consequences of the errors which do occur may be far worse than under manual control. Examples of this have, of course, already been seen : the incorrect calibration of alarms at Three Mile Island; several near-miss episodes with nuclear weapons; and automatic stock market selling based on programmed triggers.

5. Quality of life

In many ways, IT has enhanced our quality of life : we have more access to information; a wider range of goods and services (eg banking facilities); the possibility of personalised education through CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction); with the assistance of computers in medicine, we have become a healthier and longer living society; the range of choices available to individuals has been enlarged.

But IT also provides the mechanism for loss of privacy, centralised surveillance[14] and control. Personal dignity is threatened by treating people as a number and thus ignoring individual personality and needs. People often feel powerless in the face of bureaucracies which hide behind claims that you can’t argue with their computer.

Although it can’t be blamed solely on IT, there is a diminishing sense of personal satisfaction with our modern, technological, consumer lifestyle. The disillusionment with the state of Australian society is evidenced by many statistics: rate of suicide (highest in the world among some young age groups); rate of rape (one of the highest in the world); familylessness[15] and its chief symptom – homelessness.

The good and bad may balance each other out here, but what we should learn is that progress would be greater if we could find ways to re-humanise IT.

6. The Activity of the Holy Spirit

Computers are proving to be very useful in Christian settings. By and large we gain from the computer in the same areas that secular users do : word processing (eg correspondence, reports, form letters), desktop publishing (a slowly increasing number of church organisations are producing high quality newsletters and brochures themselves rather than paying for professional typesetting), databases (eg membership details, address lists), information packages (eg Bible concordance tools), games and education (particularly simple software such as children’s Bible quizzes). However, this isn’t really what I mean by “The Activity of the Holy Spirit”, and there are already resources available for anyone thinking of making use of computers in these ways.

Regarding Taylor’s three indicators of the Spirit at work, there is little to say (although I’m afraid it takes me a while to say it!). This indicates that computers are basically neutral in their effect on the spiritual aspect of progress.

Communion with a “greater whole”

Since the chief aim of IT is to make information more readily accessible to its users, IT should help people to develop a broader knowledge of the world community and expose them to a wider range of experiences than they would otherwise encounter. However, IT users are more likely to report being frustrated with IT and threatened by it. They rarely develop any sense of awe, or awareness of “otherness”.

There are some exceptions. A portion of the population (largely teenage boys) become totally absorbed with computers. They spend most of their spare time playing games, studying how the computer works, reading computer magazines, and swapping information with other computer users (sometimes face-to-face, but more often via electronic message sending systems). It’s hard to say whether this absorption with “otherness” is favourable or not.

Among computer professionals there is a much stronger sense of being taken outside oneself than there is among computer users. There is a sort of elegance (even beauty) about designing and implementing computer systems. Contrary to popular opinion, computer programming is not so much a science as a craft and as such, it opens the programmer to transcendent experiences of natural order. In common with mathematicians, it is the intellectual order of nature which is experienced rather than the physical order.

Responsibility and choice

As noted previously, IT increases the range of options available to people, but it also tends to take the actual decision-making away from people. To the extent that people rely on computers to make decisions for them and blame computers for mistakes, this must be seen as detracting from personal responsibility and choice.

Personal sacrifice

Here, IT seems to have no impact.

Taylor’s three indicators show that IT is a neutral tool, but the uses of IT will need to be evaluated separately. For instance, when you examine the effects of electronic banking facilities, it clearly reduces the number and quality of interpersonal contacts. This is common to many areas of IT, but also to other conveniences in our society such as self-serve petrol pumps and toll collecting machines. This is spiritually regressive, since much of the Holy Spirit’s work relies on personal relationships.

Conclusion

Measuring progress is elusive. And much reported progress is illusive. In order to rationally discuss progress, the underlying assumptions need to be brought to the surface and some common framework established. I have suggested that any evaluation of progress must take into account at least these six issues: the advancement of science and technology, the advancement of arts and humanities, economic growth, long-term sustainability, quality of life and the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Analysing the effect of IT in these six areas suggests that we come out about even : in some respects progressing but in others regressing. One could be more or less optimistic depending on which indicators you consider more important. Given the financial and materialistic basis of our society, IT must be seen as progressive, but this is to ignore a wheelbarrow full of significant, non-economic issues. These issues ought to be included in any decision- making about the future use of IT.

One of the saddest (and for me, most surprising) comments I’ve heard comes from an Australian teenager on a Page One television documentary. This street-kid said the one TV show he absolutely hates, the show he simply couldn’t stand, was Towards 2000. Whenever he saw it he wanted to kick the TV in. The show represents for him a horrible future where technology ruled. He saw a society where all the gadgets on Towards 2000 usurped any sense of warmth or freedom or purpose in life. I imagine that IT instils a similar fear in many people. And, at least in part, the fear is justified.

---

[1] John 10:10

[2] Ginger Meggs; The Sun Herald, 17 Dec 89

[3] Although the model is designed for change in a society as a whole, it should even be useful for personal decision making.

[4] Nisbet, Robert; “History of the Idea of Progress”; pub. Random House, 1982

[5] Colossians 1:20

[6] Technology, so I’m told, includes anything which wasn’t around when we were children!

[7] This interesting definition of justice comes from Klaus Nürnberger, in “The cost of reconciliation in South Africa”, Encounter Publications, 1988.

[8] From talk by John Stott on the role of the Holy Spirit.

[9] John V. Taylor; “The Go-Between God”; pub. SCM, 1972. The quotes are from p39, but the concept permeates the whole book.

[10] Tom Forester; “The Information Technology Revolution”; pub. Basil Blackwell, 1985. Page xiv. This collection of articles is a good introduction for anyone interested in the social effects of IT. Forester has recently edited a second book in a similar vein entitled “Computers in the Human Context”.

[11] See, for example, Yoneji Masuda’s “Computopia”, in Forester, op.cit.

[12] For instance, Barry Jones’ “Sleepers! Wake”, pub Oxford University Press, 1983; and a Commission of the Future publication edited by Trevor Barr called “Challenges and Change”, Oxford University Press, 1987.

[13] Forester, op.cit., page xii.

[14] Think about what banks know about the people who use credit cards and electronic funds transfer : our names, addresses, income, regular payments, the pattern of when we spend money, even the shops from which we make purchases! And think about the uses to which this sort of information could be put by greedy marketeers, intelligence agencies or dictatorial governments.

[15] The idea that familylessness is a greater social concern than homelessness is well presented in a paper entitled “Familylessness”, published by Fusion in 1985.