From: shomer@Cadence.COM (Steve Homer)
Subject: Re: Suppressing innovations (was Mander and Television)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Mar31.061917.10381@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>In comp.society.futures article <1992Mar27.205254.14755@Cadence.COM> [Steve Homer] wrote:
>> Historically, technological 
>> change has always been guided by government intervention. States encourage 
>> some innovations and suppress others. Our government is no different; 
>> it spends billions on research and targets that money according to 
>> political priorities. 
>
>It's a fact that this occurs.  How do you evaluate this?  Is it good?  Bad?
>People said the same thing about slavery 150 years ago..."Every great civilization 
>in history has had it so we shouldn't bother ourselves worrying about whether 
>it's right or wrong.  It just is that way."

It's "good" or "bad" depending on the priorities of governments and whether you or I
agree with those priorities, Brian. To use your slavery analogy, slavery is a lousy
idea if you're a slave, but if you're in a position to own slaves it might be
attractive. (Please let us not digress into a discussion of libertarian views on
slavery.) I think our government's priorities are pretty screwed up: skewed towards 
the military in particular. Regulation of technology (e.g., the work of the EPA,
FDA,...) tends to be done by agencies that were designed to serve a liberal agenda.
Even when the conservatives take over, the institutional bias of these organizations
keeps them accomplishing more good than harm. Promotion and funding of new 
innovations tends to be done by agencies that are strongly influenced by the military
and big business (e.g., the DoD, DoE, NSF), and I think those of us to the
left-of-center politically ought to make changing those agencies' priorities more of
a priority for ourselves. 

>> Many people respond to any criticism of particular
>> technologies (like nuclear power) by calling for a lassiz-faire policy
>> towards innovation and a demand for faith in the supposedly progressive
>> [some text seems to have disappeared]
>What is an "apologist for technology" anyway?  What I'm an "apologist" for is the right of people to build technological devices and sell them to voluntary customers.  You seem opposed to this kind of freedom.  Who are you to tell others what they can and can't build and trade?

An "apologist for technology" is someone who either believes on principle that all
technological innovations are good, or who has never met a technology s/he didn't
like. 
>
>> My point was that innovation is already guided by political considerations. 
>> We cannot, as a practical matter, stop this. What we can do, as practical
>> activists, is try to substitute our own political priorities for those of 
>> big business and the military. 
>
>"Our own"?  Who are "we"?  At least businesses aren't telling you how you must spend 
>your money.  You are not forced (except by government intrusions into the economy) 
>to buy anything you don't want.  In fact, if you want to go live like an animal in 
>a cave and not buy anything, you are free to do that too.  You just have to live 
>with the consequences.

Businesses are telling the government how to spend MY tax money on
research to increase their profits in building products that poison my drinking
water. Surely as a libertarian you can understand why I object to this.

>Nobody is forced to buy a TV or live in a modern house or drive a car or
>eat irradiated food.  You can live in your own little commune and produce what you 
>want and do so however you want.  Of course you ARE coerced into not coercing 
>others into your little utopia, but that's not the same thing.  If you can't 
>see the difference then you probably can't tell the difference between using 
>a gun to rob someone and using it to shoot a robber.

How can I live in a commune if I can't buy any land? How can I buy seeds and
tractors? Most of us are stuck living in cities working for a wage, 
if we can even find a job. We cannot live in the state of nature (which not
even Rousseau believed existed historically).

>Face it, it's not the technology you want to limit.  You want to limit the actions of 
>the PEOPLE who desire to make or use the technology.

Right, and I think it's really misleading to think we can disentangle technology from
the people who control it. I see nothing wrong with trying to limit the actions of
the people who want to poison my drinking water with their industrial wastes.

>> I'd rather
>> try to predict what harm a technology will cause, and suppress it if the
>> odds look bad -- knowing that such predictions are always imprecise, 
>> colored by our biases, and frequently wildly inaccurate. 
>
>So you are saying you want to strongly restrict the actions of other people
>based on biased, imprecise, and inaccurate predictions?  Gee...how tempting!

True. Public policy-making requires decision-making in the face of uncertainty. 

(Apologies to mss if I've confused your comments with Brian's)
-- 
________________
Steve Homer 	I'm a consultant here ... just passing through.
		If you want to send me email, please use my "home"
		address: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Xref: sparky comp.society.futures:215 alt.fax:30