COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	notes.ess[e86,jmc]	Notes for technology essays
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
notes.ess[e86,jmc]	Notes for technology essays

1. systematic approach - at least in part
sjm
Please update
material in gic[1,sjm] concerning present average income and
poverty level.  Probably a 1986 Statistical Abstract of the U.S.
which I am happy to buy has the info.  I know it's available in
the gov't bookstore in SF, but probably it can be found locally.

Servo-mechanisms

	Many people think of the future in terms of menaces.  They
have learned about some menace, and they see most people unaware
of it and the Government doing nothing about it, and this leads them 
to expect disaster.  However, any increasing
menace is bound to be noticed by some people sooner than others.
If it really grows, and it might not, then it will attract more
attention before disaster occurs.  Our present society is good
at handling menaces when the bureaucracy can do it.  For example,
as the killer bees approach through central America, the Agriculture
Department (which I believe has taken responsibility) will
recommend further action and it will probably be taken in reasonable
time --- assuming there is something that can be done.  However,
suppose the menace requires high level political attention, because
doing something requires that important groups in the population
change their ways.  Then there will be more fuss and less effectiveness,
because the political mechanism has only limited ability to pay
attention and because non-action and various inappropriate actions
are likely to have political constituencies.

	Nevertheless, it remains true that when a menace does enough
harm, it does rise to the top of even the political agenda and is
dealt with.

	As an example, consider nuclear fission power.  It is my opinion
that no good long term alternative exists for the generation of electricity.
If the world rejects nuclear power, it is doomed to poverty resulting
from energy shortages.  However, the anti-nuclear movement is politically
very strong.  It has won in some countries.  For example, Austria
has voted against putting a completed nuclear power plant in operation.
There is no guarantee that mere reason can beat the anti-nuclear
movement politically.  Many of my friends are very worried about
this and I have been persuaded to help with pro-nuclear arguments.
Nevertheless, I am not convinced by their more extreme worries, because
I believe that if we are right, the world will be persuaded by
energy shortages to correct its error.  How much poverty and
inconvenience it will take isn't obvious.  Actually, the nuclear
energy situation isn't so gloomy, because other countries like France
and Japan are pursuing nuclear energy vigorously.  If nuclear energy
helps make Japan more prosperous than the U.S., then after a while
our energy debates will be less narcissistic.

	The conclusion I draw from this example is that work put
into improving the technology and improving the options available
is more effective than work aimed at calling people's attention
to menaces.  If the menace turns out to be real, the public
will eventually have to pay attention.