Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Sure, but there have been costs too. >> >> Social impact studies should be required by law just as environmental impact >> studies are now required by law. > > That is impossible, even in principle. The social impact of cold > fusion, or any other technology, is always a matter of choice. We > decide what the impact will be. > > Any technology can be used for good > or evil.
Yes, but I think we also need to be a little more circumspect of new technology. The new way is not necessarily the better way. > Of course some disruption is inevitable, and jobs will be > lost, but that can easily be balanced by social improvements and new > jobs. But we have to decide that is how things will be. We have to > make decisions, set policies and allocate money. When the U.S. built > railroads, highways, computers, modern agriculture, the Internet and > most other major technology with a society-wide impact, the projects > were planned by and paid for mainly by Uncle Sam. So the public had a > direct and decisive role in planning the outcome. > > When the price of gasoline rose in the 1970s, nations in Europe and > Japan decided to make changes. They raised gasoline taxes so that > fuel cost about $6 per gallon. They improved efficiency. That is why > countries like Italy are roughly twice as energy efficient as the US, > and why the record high price of oil will have little impact on their > economy. I believe Norway and Sweden intend to phase out the use of > oil completely in the next 10 or 20 years. They can do this because > they deliberately set out to change their society 30 years ago. We > could have done the same but we chose not to. If we had joined Italy, > France and the others, the U.S. would now be a member of OPEC. We > would be exporting oil and we would be delighted that the price has > reached $72 per barrel. > > - Jed > Harry
