SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) (04/04/89)
To you who wonder if its really the public bored with things, or if its
the execs at NBC (fill in your favorite station here), where've you been!
The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
unworthy of talking about. Since nuclear is associated with bomb, tho, we
have to live with it.
I'm an undergrad right now, and I see it all the time (tendency away from
technology). Most of my friends are in the sciences, but I'd be willing to say
that those not in the sciences aren't too interested in them, in general. This
is not to say things are black and white. Anything having to do with physics,
computers, or math is viewed with distaste by many, many people. The fear of
math is going to kill us. People think its great that we have birds flying,
but they don't understand what is happening. I'd bet that most people couldn't
name Newton's laws. They don't think its 'magic', but it is close enough that
there is no difference. I'll admit, I don't understand biology, but I can
follow the basics. Same with most other subjects. But most poly sci majors
probably wouldn't get far in physics ... same with much of the social sciences.
I guess mayhaps most of this doesn;t belong here, but I hope everybody reading
thinks about how things are out there. One cannot really judge what everybody
thinks of his area of work by listening to those he hangs around with the
most. The people you hang with are those who have similar interests, and they
will only enforce your own biases.
Anyway,
Scott Hess
<Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) (04/04/89)
In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu>, SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes: > The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology, > and towards use of it. [...] > I see it all the time (tendency away from technology). Anything > having to do with physics, computers, or math is viewed with distaste > by many, many people. The fear of math is going to kill us. [..] This started in the sixties, where emphasis on introspection and subjectivity was paramount. I think the tendency is not directly Luddite, but more a desire to balance. As numerous examples illustrate, the leverage of the modern technology toolkit allows a few people to cause (wreak) enormous effect on the surroundings - latest example being one man in Alaska. This "out-of-controlness" is emphasised by the accelerating growth of new technology and understanding thereof, and the increasing hopelessness of closing the chasm between 1st and 3rd world nations under this scenario. All this doesn't deeply worry me (mainly because I'm a 1st-worlder maybe!) since, as this half-century is unprecedented technologically, it's to be expected that vast upheavals and irrational, unsettled responses will exist. The state of change is unlikely to change, but rather augment; so we'd better get used to confusion - including Crystal Strokers. Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the 'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people..... ===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip
rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) (04/04/89)
In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes: >and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile >Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost >unworthy of talking about. An explosion no, but the chances of a meltdown were quite good. Most average folks are pretty well informed that an explosion isn't the real danger after seeing the "china syndrome", which broke at around the same time. If you've ever read the transcript of what took place at TMI it boggles the mind. The fact that the core was "rubblized" and nothing worse happened is pretty much blind fate. Lots of stupidity in evidence. For example, once the core was exposed (water level too low due to human error) the control rods are exposed to oxygen and started to burn. Anyone in the control room could have deduced this was happening as the temperature of the steam in the vessel was superheated. Looking at the pressure and temp of the steam, and referring to any set of steam tables would have told them so. Why didn't they pick up on this? Why, there wasn't anyone in the building, at the time, with more than a high school education. Also, I don't think there were any steam tables to be had. (Nor a computer to do it for you.) Millions of valves, gauges and dials, and not enough neurons to deal with all that information. ---------------- The point of this reply is actually to underscore my agreement with some of what you say. But, 3 Mile Island *was* a dangerous fiasco, in my opinion, because of the moronic engineering for human factors, and the cavalier attitude toward licensing reactor control room personell. Both however may have roots in more basic problems. Paul K. Rodman rodman@mfci.uucp __... ...__ _.. . _._ ._ .____ __.. ._