From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech Newsgroups: net.followup Title: Re: Computers \& Society - (nf) Article-I.D.: whuxlb.585 Posted: Tue Sep 21 16:44:24 1982 Received: Wed Sep 22 06:14:53 1982 #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=