Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Possibly, but what happens if either "government" or "science"
encounters problems that may not be technically unsolvable, but are
>practically unsolvable because of the high level of politics and
controversy that surrounds them, so much so that it actually drains
>the energy of those who attempt to solve them?
>For example, you speak of publicly provided water:
>If you ever lived in a city like Los Angeles, where in many places the
>water is (or at least was, when I lived there a few years ago) unfit
>to drink unless it's boiled, you'd realize that practically speaking,
>neither "government" nor "science" can do anything about these
>problems because of the circumstances under which the problems exist.
>Arguably, there are individuals who might possess either the political
>experience to have funds allocated (or raised) to pay for the
>scientific and engineering expertise that would rectify these
>problems. However, because of the great deal of controversy that
>surrounds these problems, said individuals either tire of those jobs
>and wind up resigning, or refuse to take those jobs. This leaves the
>jobs to whoever is selected to do them from the remaining candidates.
>Yet, in the absence of significant progress on water treatment, a lot
>of money has been made by private companies who supply water to
>individuals.
But this is precisely why there is government and there is science.
There will be private sector companies that can make a mint off
of the pollution of the public water supply and thus they will
become strong advocates of doing nothing to solve the public
problem.
But the pollution of the water supply is a disaster to the
city and thus there is a need to have government and science
work together to solve the problem.
>While the analogy between LA city water and DNS may not be exact, I
>think there are some parallels. You should not expect "government" or
>"science" to be able to solve any problem that comes along,
>particularly when those problems are highly complex and
>controversial.
To the contrary. That is why there is a need to have governemnt
put its foot down and declare the situation a public question
and NOT allow private interests to prevent a public solution
to the problem.
This is an abuse of the public by the private interests and this
is why government exists to take on such situations. This is
a serious problem of public health.
>--gregbo
And that is why I feel it is important to learn how government
functioned as ARPA/IPTO as that was doing something good as
government, rather than the current way that government in the U.S.
is welcoming the private sector interests to take care of their
desires at the expense of the public.
C.P. Snow in his book Science and Government makes clear that this
is a particular challenge of our times that needs to be taken
on and understood and made progress dealing with.
That when a problem is scientifically difficult for government to
understand they can fall prey to such manipulation by private
interests and that government is responsible to have something
better happen. And more to the point, it is in the public
interest and within the obligations of those in the scientific
and technical community to take on this challenge.
Once one recognizes what the problem is, then one can take on to
figure out how to solve it.
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
