COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	anti.ess[ess,jmc]	The anti-technological movement
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
anti.ess[ess,jmc]	The anti-technological movement

	In discussing the political difficulties of nuclear energy,
the supersonic transport, etc., writers both for and against these
developments, speak of the problem of public acceptance.  This
terminology is mistaken in a way so important that it substantially
obscures the actual nature of the problem of gaining acceptance
for new technology.

	The phrase public acceptance, both as a phrase and in the
way it is used, suggests that individual members of the public
hear about a proposal for new technology or the facts about the
initial implementation of it and react to this news as individuals,
and public reaction is the resultant of the individual reactions.
There is individual reaction to new technology, but for many
new technologies, individual public reaction is entirely swamped
in its effects by the reactions of organized groups and movements.

	Consider how group reactions and individual reactions can
differ.  Individual reaction to news is usually to the merits of
the case as perceived by the individual.  Sometimes this reaction
is affected by direct personal interests or
 previous positions the individual has taken, but
most people have not taken positions so prominently that they fear
loss of face from changing their minds.  It can also be affected
by loyalty to groups to which the individual is affiliated, either
organizationally or psychologically, or by the individuals perception
as to whether the sponsors of the new technology are good guys or
bad guys.  However, most individuals have few commitments or
prejudgments.  This remark is less likely to be true of intellectuals
of all kinds who often have intellectual or organizational affiliations
and antipathies that strongly affect their reactions to technological and
other events.  Many leftists, for example, feel and immediate antipathy to
any new activity by a corporation, and that includes most innovations.

	The reaction of an organized group, on the other hand, is much
more complex.  The group has previous commitments, it has friends and
enemies and formal and informal alliances, and its leaders have political
ambitions which require maintaining alliances.  Indeed the whole rationale
for the continued existence of the group and the support of its members
may depend on continuing positions that it has taken.

	The internal life of the group is also involved.  Its leaders
may owe their positions to internal alliances and to the results
of conflicts with rivals.  Changing a position may involve the
risk of losing power to such rivals.

	Consider how this relates specifically to technology.  Here's
an example about which I have only partial information.  Before 1975
the Sierra Club leaders were on the whole supporters of nuclear energy,
accepting the arguments that nuclear energy is environmentally benign,
because it doesn't involve such large scale mining, oil drilling and transportation
as other forms of energy.  Also it doesn't put great quantities of
particulates and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.  This worked out
well for them as long as it was a matter of individual opinion.  However,
in the few years before 1975, the membership of the Sierra Club expanded
greatly as it became a national rather than a mainly California
organization.  At that time, the leaders were outvoted in the
executive body, and the Sierra Club took a position in favor of
an anti-nuclear ballot initiative that was defeated.

 There is also the environmental lawsuit industry.

I remember Holt Ashley saying that engineers could work to realize
the public's values if the engineers knew what they were and thinking
that the values of the particular people to whom he was referring
included the idea that engineers were bad guys --- or at least not human.

The theory that imposed risks are some large factor less acceptable than 
voluntary risks doesn't take into account journalistic attitude toward
those who are seen as imposing the risks.