• Goto NETFUTURE main page
  •                                  NETFUTURE
                        Technology and Human Responsibility
    Issue #94      A Publication of The Nature Institute    September 14, 1999
                Editor:  Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@netfuture.org)
                         On the Web: http://netfuture.org
         You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.
    NETFUTURE is a reader-supported publication.
    Editor's Note
    Quotes and Provocations
       When Everything Is Computed
       Schooling the Imagination
    Tech Knowledge Revue (Langdon Winner)
       The Voluntary Complexity Movement
       Readers Comment on the Jacques Lusseyran Issue
    About this newsletter
                                  EDITOR'S NOTE
    Nothing published in NETFUTURE has produced as much reaction, or as deeply
    felt reaction, as the material on Jacques Lusseyran in NF #92 (see
    http://netfuture.org/1999/Jul2199_92.html).  That is gratifying, since I
    would have wished it to be just so.
    I don't often print correspondence that serves little other purpose than
    to applaud the newsletter.  In fact, what correspondence I do publish
    tends to be selected disproportionately on the negative side (relative to
    what I receive), since I figure this is the better service for readers.
    But I've also been made aware of the fact that many readers care a great
    deal about the newsletter and like to hear occasionally about its success
    "out there".  And so I include in the correspondence section of this issue
    some excerpts from the reader response to NF #92.
    I received, by the way, not a single negative phrase about #92.
    Goto table of contents
                             QUOTES AND PROVOCATIONS
    When Everything Is Computed
    For years now worried parents have been shoving computers at their kids
    with the fervent hope that such high-tech toys would engage all those
    otherwise "wasted" childhood energies and transform the kids into rocket
    scientists.  So there's no little irony in the recent report suggesting
    that science may be losing out to ... what?  The computer!  For example, a
    corporate executive worries about his college-age son:
       Everyone says computer sciences are mandatory for him, but no one has
       ever recommended that he even look at chemistry.  It's truly sad that
       kids can graduate today without getting exposure to the fun of physical
    Warren Hein, associate executive officer of the American Association of
    Physics Teachers, says that
       The number of undergraduate majors in physics is at a post-Sputnik low.
       Kids are saying, "Why should I go into something as demanding and
       rigorous as physics when I can take computer science and make more
       money?"  (New York Times via San Jose Mercury News online)
    There's also a worry about computer studies replacing more traditional
    blue-collar training and subverting other engineering fields.  While the
    number of students in computer engineering grows rapidly, enrollments in
    electrical and environmenal engineering are said to be plummeting.
    But this raises the interesting question whether the choice of field
    really matters all that much.  Increasingly, from automobile repairing to
    ecological studies -- and perhaps most of all in the hard sciences -- what
    the student does is one or another form of computing.  When it comes to
    the choice between computers and these other fields, one might be forgiven
    for asking, "What's the difference?"
    That may be a slight exaggeration.  But it's not at all an exaggeration to
    say:  What educators really should be concerned about, especially at the
    primary and secondary levels, is how to prepare their students to hold
    their own in a world where more and more human activity is being reduced
    to computation.  And the solution to this challenge is neither
    "more and more exposure to computers" nor "more and more exposure to
    abstract, computational science".  It is, rather ... well, as I've often
    remarked, Waldorf educators seem to have gained the nearest glimpse of an
    Which brings us to the next article.
    Schooling the Imagination
    The Sep., 1999 Atlantic Monthly advertises Todd Oppenheimer's feature
    article about Waldorf education as an unveiling of what "may be the
    world's best-kept education secret".  Oppenheimer makes a strong case that
    the secret is well worth unveiling.
    He begins his story in the worst possible place:  a California school for
    juvenile offenders.  As the principal, Ruth Mikkelsen, remarked, "One of
    [these] kids in a normal class will pretty much destroy that class":
       "We had tried everything with these kids," Mikkelsen recalls.  "Nothing
       worked.  You can't lecture to them.  Independent study doesn't work.
       They need constant support and socializing."
    And yet, as Oppenheimer reports, he later found these young people proudly
    reciting memorized lines from Shakespeare and playing music instruments in
    ensembles.  In fact, the educational program was so successful that, when
    an outside evaluator was called in, he tried to deny the school's
       After his visit he told Mikkelsen that the effectiveness of her program
       for juvenile offenders couldn't be fairly judged, because it was clear
       that she truly did not have problem kids.
    This was several years after the school began to adopt some Waldorf
    methods.  When Mikkelsen heard the evaluator's remark, she "suddenly
    realized it was working".  So also John Cobb, the local probation manager:
    "Kids who can't make it anywhere else can make it here".
    While it's true that any education today must have a rehabilitative
    dimension (as long as there has been television, Waldorf teachers have
    unavoidably found themselves playing a rehabilitative role with chronic
    television watchers), Waldorf education is intended for the mainstream.
    The whole approach was founded in 1919 by Rudolf Steiner in Stuttgart,
    Germany, and has ever since embodied many of the reforms widely called for
    -- but rarely implemented -- in today's schools.  In Mikkelsen's words,
       All the things you read about public schools -- that you need to do
       this, you need to do that -- hell, they've been doing it for eighty
    Oppenheimer's article is lengthy, and I cannot begin to summarize it here.
    What follows are just a few items that caught my eye, along with a comment
    or two of my own.  You can, for the time being, read the article at
    http://theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/99sep/9909waldorf.htm .  Also, I
    have elsewhere written a somewhat fuller description of the Waldorf
    approach, available at http://netfuture.org/fdnc/appc.html.
    ** The Atlantic article's title, "Schooling the Imagination", says
    a good deal about the nature of Waldorf education, and, as Oppenheimer
    emphasizes, such a schooling begins with the senses.  A multi-sensory
    approach to education is widely advocated today; there is more and more
    recognition, for example, that mental capacities develop at least in part
    out of the activities of the young child's hands and entire body (which,
    incidentally, makes nonsense out of all the glib talk about reproducing
    neural patterns in digital media and thereby "cloning the mind").
    Likewise, music performance has been linked to enhanced mathematical
    skills.  "Yet few education systems in this country have the history with
    these methods that Waldorf schools do."
    ** Waldorf schools are run by the teachers, who have full authority to
    shape the curriculum in their own classes.  Textbooks are de-emphasized --
    or, rather, emphasized, with the difference that students create their own
    textbooks, often with considerable enthusiasm and artistic skill.
    Teachers must present their material directly, out of their own present
    engagement with the subject.  Students are not graded; they are given
    responses to their work.
    ** Oppenheimer quotes Steve Grineski, an interim dean at Moorhead State
    University (speaking before Columbine):  "The most serious problem in
    schools is kids not getting along.  The reason people get fired isn't
    their lack of job skills, it's their lack of social skills".  That, says
    Oppenheimer, is why Mikkelsen was attracted to Waldorf.  In Mikkelsen's
    words, "It's like learning to be a really good parent, plus tapping into
    every creative thing you ever thought of".
    ** Oppenheimer was struck by the crude dolls in a Waldorf kindergarten --
    stuffed cotton with almost no facial features.  Of course, every parent
    (at least, before the days of software for toddlers) had stories to tell
    about their child's long-term love affair with a scraggly rag of a doll.
    As one kindergarten teacher pointed out:
       The only thing an intelligent child can do with a complete toy is take
       it apart.  An incomplete toy lets children use their imaginations.
    ** "Waldorf teachers believe that one of their primary jobs is to help
    youngsters develop a strong will .... Students must learn that the rewards
    they reap from an experience require a commensurate amount of effort --
    mental, physical, even emotional."  But technology in our society tends to
    tilt the balance against this engagement.  According to Douglas Gerwin, a
    Waldorf high school teacher, technology "promises an experience by which
    we don't have to do anything to make it happen".  On the other hand, Peter
    Nitze, a Waldorf graduate, testifies:
       If you've had the experience of binding a book, knitting a sock,
       playing a recorder, then you feel that you can build a rocket ship --
       or learn a software program you've never touched.  It's not a bravado,
       just a quiet confidence.  There is nothing you can't do.  Why couldn't
       you?  Why couldn't anybody?
    Nitze, who went on to graduate from Harvard and Stanford, is now a global-
    operations director at AlliedSignal, an aerospace and automotive-products
    ** Oppenheimer makes a large point about the "moral lessons" that young
    Waldorf students receive along with their fables and fairy tales, and in
    general he stresses the ethical teachings in these schools.  This strikes
    me as highly misleading.  I'm not aware that Waldorf schools even have any
    "units on ethics" in their curriculum.  In fact, that kind of separation
    of ethics from life is more a symptom of the fragmentation found in
    conventional education.
    Children are irreducibly ethical in outlook.  They find themselves living
    in a morally toned world.  The point, then, is that Waldorf teachers do
    not set out systematically to destroy, or even just to ignore (which is
    the same thing) this aspect of the child's world.  It's not so much that
    some sort of a moral lesson has to be tacked onto a fairy tale, as that
    the child is allowed to experience and respond to the tale in its
    fullness, which includes strong emotional and moral components -- though
    not necessarily components that you could easily reduce to rational
    Misunderstandings of this sort underlie the occasional misbegotten charge
    that Waldorf education is religiously motivated and therefore should not
    be allowed in public schools.  Unfortunately, things have reached a point
    in our political state where any publicly sanctioned act that reflects
    more than a strictly materialistic view of the world can be decried as a
    transgression of the boundary between church and state.
    ** Waldorf educators do not try to get students to read as early as
    possible.  In fact, they are quite happy to see reading delayed.  Reading,
    after all, is a lot more than mere word identification, and some of its
    other aspects may require attention prior to reading in the narrow sense.
    Jane Healy notes in Failure to Connect that
       reading consists much more of a person's `habits of mind' -- e.g.,
       sustained concentration, language, imagery, questioning strategies --
       than it does of reciting words or alphabet sounds.
    Waldorf schools cultivate a love of language -- through the spoken,
    rhythmical word, stories, poetry, recitation, and even the artistically
    transformed written letters -- before they push the highly abstract
    function of reading onto children.  It is well known that some of the most
    talented figures in modern history have been extremely late readers.
    (Oppenheimer mentions Churchill and Einstein.)  "Many Waldorf parents
    recall that their children were behind their friends in non-Waldorf
    schools but somehow caught up in the third or fourth grade, and then
    suddenly read with unusual fervor".
    ** In math and science, Waldorf teachers do not spoon-feed the concepts to
    their students and then provide after-thought demonstrations to illustrate
    the concepts.  Students face the experimental situations first, and then
    learn, over time, to draw out the meanings.  "Nowadays we always push
    people to think so fast, instead of letting them reflect", says one
    science teacher.  "One of the things I had to learn was to not answer
    their questions, especially in the twelfth grade.  If you give them
    answers, they'll just shut down.  It's amazing what they'll come up with
    if you wait long enough."
    ** "Despite Waldorf students' unfamiliarity with standardized tests, their
    SAT scores have generally come in well above the national average,
    particularly on verbal measures."  Also, "when they get direction on how
    to take multiple-choice tests [oh, to need such special instruction in
    mainline schools!], their scores soar."
    ** Oppenheimer tells this story:
       On one occasion, when I joined a Waldorf teacher-training class, I
       started the day by learning a complex singing round.  As I struggled to
       keep up, I could feel my thinking being pushed.  The process exhausted
       and stretched me in unfamiliar ways, and made me envious of Waldorf
       students.  My envy peaked one evening in New York City, at a parents'
       night for the Steiner School.  As part of a fundraiser, several faculty
       members had arranged to sing cabaret songs; when they finished, some of
       the eighth-graders, who were helping to serve food, decided that they
       would sing something too.  Moments later the adults sat transfixed as
       half a dozen teenagers performed James Taylor's "That Lonesome Road" a
       cappella, in slow, layered parts, with the polished harmony of a
       professional chorus.  "All I could think," Chris Huson, a banker and
       the parent of a Waldorf second-grader told me later, "is that when my
       kids grow up, I want them to be just like those guys."
    One final thought:  almost every element in the Waldorf program can go
    wrong -- badly wrong.  And all the more badly because the aim is so high.
    But that's pretty much the point.  Mainstream education today, because of
    its public funding, must try to avoid offending anyone.  This guarantees a
    kind of lowest-common-denominator approach.  The aim cannot be
    high, almost on principle, and therefore the result is a common disaster.
    If you do aim high, you set yourself up for a fall on one count or another
    -- but at least now you also have the chance of succeeding.  A great deal
    depends upon the true, inner qualifications of the teacher.  But there's
    no other way; this is the problem we must solve as a society.  The attempt
    to prevent failures by lowering one's sights is all too characteristic of
    our culture today.  School then becomes an information-shoveling bore and
    a social hell-hole.
    I worry greatly about the Waldorf movement's ability to train teachers
    adequately in the face of rapidly increasing demand.  And I worry even
    more about the life in the movement.  Steiner's whole emphasis was on the
    meeting between teacher and student in the current moment, and on their
    journey together.  The willingness to make this a journey of mutual
    discovery was what counted, and yet it can't be doubted that at least some
    teachers prefer a more comfortable approach:  they take Steiner's various
    advices as fixed formulations to be adhered to, rather than as guidelines
    that they must energetically transform into markers along a new path of
    their own making.
    Nevertheless, it is encouraging to hear that, in Oppenheimer's view at
    least, the movement is doing fairly well, presenting a worthy example for
    the larger society.
    Goto table of contents
                                  Langdon Winner
                                                          TECH KNOWLEDGE REVUE
                                                      1.3   September 14, 1999
    "Do these sneakers have a built-in pager, cell phone and Web browser?"  I
    asked the Nike salesman at the mall.  "I need to stay connected while I'm
    out jogging."
    "Not yet," he smiled, "but I suppose we'll have all that by next spring."
    "Good.  I'll check back."
    Although my question was facetious, it was not entirely absurd given
    today's tendency for electronics, clothing, appliances, vehicles, and
    buildings to merge as new, feature-rich hybrids.  Gone is the historical
    moment in which a tool had just one function or a limited range of
    functions.  No longer is a telephone just a telephone, a mirror just a
    mirror, a dishwasher just a dishwasher.  In the era of "ubiquitous
    computing" everything must become an "information appliance" communicating
    with all the other instruments a person uses.  According to the latest
    projections from the R&D labs, the creation, marketing and eventual use of
    these gadgets will be one of society's major preoccupations in the coming
    Proclamations of this great turning point are far from subtle.
    "Technology:  What You'll Want Next" exclaims the front page headline in
    the May 31 issue of Newsweek.  The drooling lead story by Steven Levy
    describes dozens of home conveniences sure to become tomorrow's
    necessities.  "Your automatic coffee maker will have access to your
    online schedule, so if you're out of town it'll withhold the brew."
    "Electrolux's Internet Refrigerator can tell when food supplies get low
    and order more from the supermarket."  Looking into the more distant
    future, the article describes the "really smart house" now on the
    drawing boards.  In the bathroom, for example, "The mirror over the
    sink has given Mom the headlines while she's brushing her teeth, and the
    toilet has monitored the family's general health by chemical sampling.
    The medicine cabinet identifies Dad through biometric recognition and
    allows him his daily meds, while keeping out the kids."
    What a world we're making!  Thanks to the wonders of microelectronics,
    pervasive presence of the Internet and the availability of low-cost
    communications, there's literally no gadget so outrageous that no one will
    try to design, promote and sell it.  In the Newsweek story and
    similar accounts, the basic assumptions of ubiquitous computing are
    presented in stark relief:
    *  Decisions about what happens in domestic life should be delegated to
       "smart" instruments able to communicate with each other and with the
       organizations that provide various services and supplies.
    *  From now on the objects we use will understand us thoroughly,
       anticipating our every need, whim, problem, and likely course of
       action.  (Your toilet will know more about you than your best friend.)
    *  What matters above all is extending the horizons of comfort and
       convenience for wealthy consumers.
    Descriptions of the world of ubiquitous computing are dazzling, if only
    for their sheer silliness.  If you rate humanity's needs for the coming
    century on a scale of 1 to 10, none of the products and services depicted
    in Levy's article rises much beyond a score of 1.5.  Here we find some of
    the greatest minds of our time, working long hours in high-tech Meccas
    like the Media Lab and Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, and what's the
    best they can come up with?  Hundreds of items slated for the Sharper
    Image catalog.  It's surprising that apparently nobody working in this
    field has noticed that all these new devices are not "intelligent," but
    simply dumb.  Even thoughtful people like psychologist Donald Norman,
    called "the movement's guru" by Newsweek, seem to have gotten caught up
    in all the hoopla.  Imagine sitting week after week in corporate
    meetings where all these weird gadgets are being scheduled for design
    and production and nobody stands up to say, "Hey, folks, let's face it.
    This stuff is just nuts!"
    Of course, the reason talented people are busily at work on all these
    absurd appliances and infrastructures is that there's likely tons of money
    in it.  Examples of success like the Palm Pilot (now the Palm VII)
    indicate how many billions can be made with a little ingenuity and clever
    marketing.  The fact that few of the items imagined today fulfill even the
    most basic standards of need or utility is beside the point.  We'll let
    the market decide, celebrating the fortunes made on one generation after
    another of superfluous techno-junk.
    As if to dignify the role of ubiquitous computing, spokesmen for the
    movement argue that its larger, more noble goal is to eliminate life's
    complexity.  As Levy explains, "Everything connected to the Net.  It's a
    combination that could change our lives by doing what the PC, for all its
    virtues, never managed to accomplish:  making things easy."
    Note this carefully.  A key selling point, it turns out, hinges on the
    frank admission that all those wonderful "personal" computers, touted for
    the past two decades as ways to make life simpler, have actually been a
    disaster -- complicated, confusing and difficult to use.  Figures prominent
    in hawking earlier models of the wired world, Michael Dertouzos and Kevin
    Kelly, for example, now lead the choir denouncing the old PCs as a
    failure.  As Kelly opines in Newsweek, "For years, we've been battling all
    these devices; because they've been so hard to use, they were in the
    center of our consciousness."
    Tears flow from my eyes.  Can this be the same Kevin Kelly we've heard
    extolling the utopian promise of wired society for the past decade?  Oh,
    never mind.  Just ahead, we are assured, things will get much better.  The
    new era of computing will eliminate all the vexations that riddled the
    previous one, at last making life truly simple.  Because the new devices
    are "ubiquitous and adapting to us instead of the other way around," Kelly
    maintains, "they'll retreat."
    Simplify.  Save time.  Reduce effort.  Liberate yourself from toil.  This
    has been the continuing siren song of consumer technology throughout the
    twentieth century.  Unfortunately, in its own terms, the dream is always
    self-defeating.  As people add more and more time-saving, labor-saving
    equipment to their homes, their lives do not become simpler and easier.
    Instead their days become even more complicated, demanding and rushed.
    Historians and sociologists have studied this phenomenon thoroughly and
    can explain its predictable, recurring dynamics.  Ruth Schwarz Cowan's
    book, More Work For Mother, for example, describes the attempts of several
    generations of women to "save time" by using new household appliances.  As
    people adopted these conveniences, they also changed their expectations
    about what the good life should include.  Thus, families that bought
    washing machines after World War II did not spend less time washing
    clothes, but more.  The reason was that the machines enabled them to have
    clean clothes more often, something that mom, dad and kids found
    Over several decades the same pattern appears in other areas of cleaning,
    cooking and household management; new gadgets actually take up more time
    and effort, but are welcomed because they seem to enhance people's
    material well-being.  When the automobile and suburb are added to the
    equation, one sees families spending enormous amounts of time taking care
    of the supplies, services and repairs needed for the everyday maintenance
    of the "good life".  Thus, the minutes and hours supposedly "saved" are
    never put in the bank and never draw any interest.  The phantom of
    simplicity and ease vanishes as people frantically dash about trying to
    squeeze out the last ounce of satisfaction.
    But that was then, this is now, right?  Surely the smart equipment slated
    for our domestic tomorrow will finally help us achieve the trouble-free
    existence of our dreams.
    Don't count on it.  All one has to do is look at how the best-equipped
    families in America's high-tech neighborhoods are now arranging their
    everyday lives.  In Silicon Valley, for example, several anthropologists
    are studying the detailed movements of people employed in the electronics
    and computing industries.  Their findings, summarized recently in USA
    Today, suggest that, if anything, the rat race identified by Professor
    Cowan and others is being reproduced and greatly intensified.  Adults work
    long hours, commute long distances and spend little time at home.  Their
    children shuttle from schools and day care centers to their soccer games
    and music lessons, driven by services like "Kids Kab" that fill in for
    busy parents.  Mom and dad stay in touch by cell phone and pager, check
    the Web for schedule changes, and coordinate the next day's agenda by
    synchronizing their Palm Pilots when they meet at night.
    Conditions of this kind take shape as people who work in technical fields
    adapt family life to the norms and pulse of their high-tech jobs.
    "They're multitasking like mad," researcher Jan English-Lueck told USA
    Today.  "I'm stunned at all they do."  The picture that emerges is of
    an endlessly busy, complicated, precariously balanced, strung-out
    existence in which traditional boundaries between work and leisure have
    evaporated.  "Parents go to events for their kids because they know
    they'll also be meeting parents of other kids who will be good business
    contacts," notes anthropologist Charles Darrah.  "Is that home or work?"
    Adding smart machines to every corner of the built environment does
    nothing to alleviate these patterns of hurry, stress and disconnection
    from people.  Indeed, this is the very path through which the madness
    spreads, grasping us more firmly.  Most appalling, we Americans scarcely
    notice the pathologies our choices spawn.  Sometimes it takes an outsider
    to remind us what we're doing.
    Recently, I asked a German friend, Ernst Schraube, a psychologist now
    finishing a sabbatical in the U.S.A., what he found most surprising about
    our country.  "Oh yes," he said, "one thing that amazes me is how hard
    Americans work and how little free time people have.  They fill their days
    with activity and seem to leave little room to relax or be with family or
    friends.  By European standards this is unthinkable.  In Germany, for
    example, the work week is thirty-five hours and we have six weeks paid
    vacation.  I don't know how you Americans stand it."
    But stand it we must, cramming more and more tasks into already harried
    days, adopting all kinds of digital technology as glue to hold things
    together.  It never occurs to us that real time could be saved doing away
    with some of the routines and equipment that fill our lives.  It never
    seems an option to reduce our workloads to enjoy being with the ones we
    love.  So complete is our embrace of voluntary complexity that one
    strategy alone seems sensible:  Push on and hope for the best!
    Tech Knowledge Revue is produced at the Chatham Center for Advanced Study,
    339 Bashford Road, Valatie, NY 12184.  Langdon Winner can be reached at:
    winner@rpi.edu and at his Web page:  http://www.rpi.edu/~winner .
    Copyright Langdon Winner 1999.  Distributed as part of NETFUTURE:
    http://netfuture.org.  You may redistribute this article for noncommercial
    purposes, with this notice attached.
    Goto table of contents
    Readers Comment on the Jacques Lusseyran Issue
    Responses to "Can Technology Make the Handicapped Whole?" (NF-92)
    It would have taken considerable effort to secure all the permissions that
    would have been necessary in order to attribute the following excerpts to
    their authors, so I have left the text unattributed.  Several of these
    responses come from high-profile academics and authors whose names many
    readers would recognize.  SLT
    ** "You keep getting better and better.  Your essay in #92 is profoundly
    good, moving, inspiring.  Awesome.  Thanks for doing it.
    "You keep revealing to me, in one domain after the next, how much I've
    yielded to the mechanistic interpretation of human beings."
    ** "Steve, thanks for this amazing article.  Fantastic."
    ** "Thank you .... After scanning far enough to see R. Kurzweil's name, I
    dropped everything and read it through.  A few months ago, when I asked
    your reaction to The Age of Spiritual Machines, I wouldn't have been
    prepared for such a compelling, completely human, yet spiritually based
    response. Indeed, I wasn't prepared today.  But you've answered that
    nagging doubt and sense of hopelessness which contemplation of such a
    future engenders.  I can't wait to get a copy of And There Was Light, and
    Lusseyran's autobiography.  You do have a knack for sending one to the
    ** "Whew!  What a tour de force!  Thanks for that, it's inspiring.  I've
    passed it on to our Disabilities Officer for a read."
    ** "This is the first time I write to you.  I want to thank you for a
    beautiful and inspiring issue of NETFUTURE (#92).  Looking at things `from
    the other side' as you do, makes you remember that we're constantly
    subject to `propaganda' advocating a way of looking at the world that is
    not necessarily the only valid one and certainly not the least limited
    one.  Keep up the good work."
    ** "WOW!  There is no other way to describe this text, which is perhaps
    the most interesting one I have sent over the months since I started [an
    Internet forwarding service].  Netfuture is simply the best online
    newsletter.  In this issue, Stephen Talbott brings the amazing story of a
    blind Resistance fighter, who could `see' despite his blindness.  This is
    all I can say about it.  You simply have to read it!"
    ** "Thanks so much for this. You provide a remarkable service, and I am
    very grateful for it."
    ** "I read each issue of Netfuture with great interest, and can honestly
    say your writing has changed how I view the world and technology."
    ** "i just read your piece in netfuture on Jacques Lusseyran.  it is one
    of the most beautiful and insightful essays on technology i have ever
    seen.  thank you for alerting us to Mr Lusseyran himself and for such an
    insightful appraisement of the wider issues his case raises.  i shall get
    a copy of his book and review it when it appears."
    ** "Another wonderfully inspiring issue.  I am especially glad to see you
    tackle the whole area of `disability.'  Lusseyran's life is truly
    fascinating and shows so clearly the limits of technological thinking
    about human potential."
    ** "This issue was really moving, not only Lusseyran's story, but the way
    you told it.  I ordered and just received his book And There Was Light."
    ** "I want to thank you for your last Netfuture article which I found
    extraordinary .... I was particularly impressed by your sensitivity to the
    deeper meaning and implications of technology on the way we think and
    ** "I just got around to reading this wonderful issue of NETFUTURE.  Your
    discussion of Jacques Lusseyran was compelling, and it's been quite a
    while since anything I've read has given me as much to think about."
    Goto table of contents
                              ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER
    Copyright 1999 by The Nature Institute.  You may redistribute this
    newsletter for noncommercial purposes.  You may also redistribute
    individual articles in their entirety, provided the NetFuture url and this
    paragraph are attached.
    NetFuture is supported by freely given reader contributions, and could not
    survive without them.  For details and special offers, see
    http://netfuture.org/support.html .
    Current and past issues of NetFuture are available on the Web:
    To subscribe or unsubscribe to NetFuture:
    Steve Talbott :: NetFuture #94 :: September 14, 1999
    Goto table of contents

  • Goto NETFUTURE main page