[Here is a message from Ed that went astray, thanks to my strange
on-line mail server.]
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source.
...snip...
... suppose Ford and GM will survive? They will gone as quickly as
Data General and DEC vanished after personal computers were introduced.
I have some books of predictions from the late 19th century. People
then thought we would still be using sailing ships in the ...
...snip...
... enough to stop the Indian wars after Wounded Knee, and to stop
killing off buffalo and whales, so maybe we will also act wisely.
I agree, sooner or later, another source of energy will take the
place of oil. The only issue is how soon and how much pain we all
will suffer in the process. Because the oil companies are so rich and
powerfull all over the world and because an effective alternate
energy source would be so financially disruptive to every industry at
first, a great effort will be made to resist any rapid change. For
example, when cold fusion is made to work on a potentially commercial
scale, the negative propaganda would ask the public the question,
"This is a nuclear process, would you want an untested nuclear
reactor in your home or in your neighborhood?" Few people would be
given enough information to understand the difference between this
kind of nuclear reaction and the fission process. After all, the
system has been very effective in keeping even basic information
about CF from the general public for 19 years so far. This approach
would stop the transition for at least a generation while the method
was tested in the Third World on a very small scale. Even there,
attempts to sell operating reactors would be met with political
rejection based on the use of bribes. The only wild card would be
China ad Russia where bribes would not work and where citizen
objection would not count. So, it is easy to predict that development
of CF would mean even more pain for the good old USA as China and
Russia obtained one more advantage. Eventually, we would catch on and
make a change, but the suffering here would be huge. The world is
not a nice place when such high stakes are involved. Of course, I
hope I'm wrong.
Ed
