[PREV - MILCOMP] [TOP]
THOUGHTSPACE
I think that Jerry Mander underestimates (see MILCOMP)
the importance of computers on the human
intellectual environment... they don't
just "help writers" crank out fluff...
automated literature searches are
becoming common, dwellers in places like
the usenet are confronted with at least a
crude form of intellectual debate, a
number of public domain texts are
becoming available via ftp so the texts (Apr 3, 2004:
themselves can be analyzed by keyword Heh: "available via ftp".
searches, and so on. I wonder when this was
written, eh...? A guess:
I have hopes that someday all of this 1993/4.)
activity will lead up to the Grand
Hypertext (that is to say, all
information in the world accessible in a
computerized, easily indexed form),
perhaps using PAX (Public Access Xanadu)
as designed by Ted Nelson himself. HYPER
This Sierra Club book by Mander is an
example of a nasty problem I hope Xanadu
may be able to solve. It was published
in 1991, but from skimming through this
excerpt it looks like a collection of
urban myths, half truths, and perhaps an
occasional good point. It doesn't matter
that half or more of these notions have
been rigorously disproved, the memes are
still out there replicating and spreading
faster than the anti-memes can catch up
to them... The hope is that in a more
hypertextual world, links would form
faster between arguments and refutations,
speeding up the resolution of public
technical debates like this.
Just to make it clear what I'm talking
about, here are my picks for "obvious"
myths, half truths, and good points:
Myths:
(1) Nuclear energy is NUKE
dangerous.
(2) Nuclear waste must be
guarded for 250,000 years.
(3) Nuclear energy is
expensive.
(4) "Workers and the general
population are being exposed
to the most deadly chemicals
that have ever been
synthesized."
(5) VDT radiation causes
"fatigue, eye strain,
migraines, cataracts". And
miscarriages.
(6) Workers don't benefit
from technical advance under
capitalism.
(7) Computerization increases
unemployment.
Half-truths:
(1) Solar energy
is completely decentralized.
(what about semiconductor fab
lines? Or pipe
manufacturing?)
(2) Solar
energy is clean
(manufacturing photocells is
no cleaner than any other
semiconductor process).
(3) Semiconductors are a dirty
technology (certainly it used
to be, to some extent. I
think it's much cleaner now,
for example they use lower
quantities of solvents, and
safer ones where possible.)
(4) Centralization always
leads to autocracy.
(5) Military applications are
evil.
Good points:
(1) Technology isn't neutral.
(2) The consequences of
computerization are worth
thinking about.
(Now I bet you'd like me to support my claims with some good
references, right? I wish I could give them to without
spending a year on it. That's what Xanadu is all about.)
--------
((topic is?))
I think there's another
contributing problem that a
global hypertext alone won't
solve. (Maybe "science
courts" or "fact forums"
would help).
The rules of thumb that many
people use to judge issues in
the absence of evidence are
faulty. The formal principle
may be that the speech should
be judged, not the speaker,
but in practice, when you're
short on time (and we almost
always are) the rule is
"consider the source".
And I disagree with the way
people judge their sources.
For example, it's usually
assumed that you can't trust
a company spokesman. If a
researcher has been funded by
someone with an interest at
stake, then they must be
corrupt, right?
On the other hand, an
independent, "altruistic"
source like Ralph Nader is (Funny: in 11/2000 I
always trusted. But I would voted for Nader for
argue that Ralph Nader is in Prez. Desperate times...)
the hysteria business. The
more he can frighten people
the more money and power his
organization gets (and if you
want to be a little
charitable, the more able he
is to do the things he
believes need doing).
An interesting detail: RJ
Reynolds is the classic
example of slimy corporate
liars, always citing research
results that "prove" that
cigarettes aren't so bad. So
these researches must all
have been corrupted by their
source of funding right? Not
really: I understand that
even Reynolds funded research
comes to the conclusion that (But still: wouldn't it be
cigarettes are evil, the PR the duty of the scientists
flacks just lie about the involved to publicize their
results. results, to let everyone know
that RJ Reynolds is
misrepresenting their work?
Why don't they? There are
degrees of corruption...)
Anyway, one might conclude
that a university
Health-Physics department is
a good place to find out
about nuclear energy, even if
both the utility companies
and the naderites are biased.
--------
Some things left out:
--------
Alternate approach: Personal
odyssey. When I was a kid I
was really into solar. Then
I heard some disquieting
things about nukes, e.g. Paul
MacIssac. Thought about it
some more, talked to some
anti nukes in my high school,
noted fanaticism... Started
getting into Jerry
Pournelle's column in galaxy
(modulo criticism). Read
some other things... became
convinced that...
--------
[NEXT - LIES]