pcmcgeer (09/21/82)
"The harmful effects of new technology" is a catch-phrase of the seventies and one that I, personally, hope will die in the near future. Frankly, I'd have a hard time thinking of any general-purpose technology that hasn't been of overwhelming net benefit to society as a whole; I'd also have a hard time thinking of one whose apparent social costs didn't outweigh its apparent social benefits *at the time of its introduction*. In sum, we can pretty reliably state that the downstream benefits of rapid computerization will outweigh any apparent costs now; if we start thinking about the apparent harm entailed in such a move, we'll never get around to making it. Rick McGeer. watmath!pcmcgeer
ech (09/21/82)
#R:watmath:-351700:whuxlb:5200005:000:2477 whuxlb!ech Sep 21 16:18:00 1982 "Damn the consequences, if we think about that we'll never do it." I'm afraid I view the "harmful effects of technology" -- or the "environmental impact statement" -- as a legacy of the seventies that's here to stay. There are several problems with assessing negative aspects of technology; such assessment is itself a fairly new endeavor and there isn't a lot of technology wrapped around it yet. But, in principle, I have to regard it as a good thing. The problems with assessing negative effects is that too many effects (positive and negative) are "third-partied" -- neither the proponents nor the opponents feel the really broad effects directly enough. The question is how we make technology assessment work effectively. The major problem is that proponents and opponents alike usually have powerful economic or political motives, and "environmental impact" has become an adversary situation, often involving litigation. As we all know (or should know by now!), the posturings and statements of special-interest groups, especially in formal decision-making bodies, are generally far removed from both reality or the long-term interests of the society as a whole. At the risk of sounding libertarian, Consumers Union does a very good job of technology assessment: for a fee, they buy, test, and assess products and sell the results of their research. By spreading their costs across the general population, they manage to represent the general interest; by doing it for a fee (as opposed to third-partying the cost via government!) they can resist the pressures of the special interests. So here's a problem to solve: how do you take what works for consumer items like cars and swizzle sticks and apply it to nuclear power or the space program? The major difference here is that I buy consumer goods with my own funds, which allows a high degree of individual choice, including whether to purchase CU's services and whether to heed their advice. Would you also be willing to buy a comparison of various energy-generation technologies? If so, what would you do with the results? Maybe you could buy a windmill or a solar heating system, but you are not likely to buy a nuclear or coal-fired generator. In short, I LIKE the idea of having the negative aspects available for inspection. I'm even willing to pay for the information, especially if I have faith in the detachment of the assessors. Then how do I EFFECTIVELY make my choice known? =Ned Horvath=
tony (09/22/82)
#R:watmath:-351700:pur-ee:4500002:000:2003 pur-ee!tony Sep 22 00:34:00 1982 Heavens yes, we wouldn`t want to sound Libertarian, would we. Anyway, I think Rick and Ned both made some good points, but let me offer another view. As I see it, there are two ways in which one can come into contact with "new technology": 1) BY FORCE - Which usually means that the government is involved in one way or another (nuclear power, for example). 2) BY CHOICE - In this case we can take advantage of the types of information gathering services that Ned mentioned. By the way, I believe that if the government stayed out of this business, we`d see a very healthy competition among companies, each trying to provide the most accurate and unbiased information. Ned`s problem: "How do you take what works for consumer items like cars and swizzle sticks and apply it to nuclear power or the space program?" My answer: You give people a choice as to where they get their power or their space exploration. Granted, there are technical problems to be overcome here, but nothing we aren`t capable of. If people could choose between two power companies, one of which chose not to use nuclear power plants, it would give the anti-nuke people something to do besides getting themselves arrested. They could try to convince people that they shouldn`t BUY nuclear power. The point isn`t whether they should or shouldn`t but that once we have a CHOICE, the whole situation becomes much less futile. This ignores problems such as what happens when plant A has a leak which harms customers of plant B, but there are reasonable solutions here as well. For a good discussion of these types of problems, see "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", by Robert Nozick. The same thing goes for NASA. I`m all for it, and I`d gladly donate to a private space agency, but I don`t believe the government has the right to FORCE anyone to. Well, enough rambling for now. I could talk about this for days, so I`ll just stop here and let people flame over the points I didn`t take time to defend properly. pur-ee!tony
ech (09/23/82)
#R:watmath:-351700:whuxlb:5200006:000:2613 whuxlb!ech Sep 23 15:01:00 1982 pur-ee!tony has focused the discussion somewhat, but as usual we are now open for a general political debate. The problem of collecting and implementing the choices of individuals as collective choices is the fundamental problem of politics for the last 10000 years or so. The libertarian problem is that there are decisions which, if made by each individual, would benefit the individual directly, but would destroy many if the decision were made by all. A simple example is to steal whatever you need; as long as there are only a few predators, it pays to be a predator, but if EVERYBODY does it the structure collapses. If you could choose not to pay taxes, but still reap the benefits of public roads and other tax-supported services, the individual choice would be obvious. Thus, "being able to choose the nuclear or non-nuclear power company" isn't a technical detail: if each option is popular enough, I have to put up with BOTH the nuclear waste AND the dirty air! The technical details end up in the political process. For example, how do you go about doing environmental protection? The fact that you even WANT to protect the air, water, what-have-you is that you recognize the existence of a finite, more-or-less closed system. The technical details are to (1) ASSESS the "indirect cost" -- i.e. third-party negative aspects -- of a given technology; (2) METER the damage done; and (3) CHARGE the user of the technology for the indirect costs. It is noteworthy that current political practice does not make use of the "assess, meter, and charge" model of the previous paragraph. Various people (e.g. M. Friedman) have proposed such techniques: "pollute all you like, but we will meter the damage and tax the producer." This permits the market to decide if the product produced at high cost to the environment is worth the now DIRECT cost of producing it. Current political practice is in sharp contrast: either ban the technology outright, or impose "maximum standards" with fines associated for exceeding the standards. The intent is the same, but the effects are quite different: the manufacturer is forced to locate "emission restriction" technology which MAY NOT EXIST. Finally, we can't just dismiss the technical aspects of "assess, meter, and charge"; they are distinctly non-trival, and of course the assessments (and damage fees) are always open to political challenge. So, here's a refined challenge: how do you get technology assessment done by an impartial, but technically capable, organization? Sounds like the definition of a "technical court system." Feasible? =Ned=