On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Chemical Engineer <[email protected]>wrote:
This example, at its most simple message shows how corporations sometimes > see new technologies in the opposite light even though the world might > benefit. Agreed. Corporations sometimes see things in terms starkly different from what is understood to be in the common good. The tobacco companies in the US saw fit to advertise to adolescents a generation ago until the consequences of doing so (heavy penalties, lawsuits, etc.) outweighed the financial benefits. The logic of such advertising was impeccable -- if you get people hooked on cigarettes at a young enough age they will become lifelong consumers. But that logic was purely mercenary, blind to some basic things that the majority of people feel to be important and valuable; in this case, protecting the young from the predatory behavior of corporations. There are other examples of how the perceived interests of corporations differ significantly from the interests of society as a whole. These examples are helpful in understanding what underlies their behavior, in providing a cautionary tale of what one might be up against if remedial action of some kind is needed, and in offering insight into possible ways to encourage corporations to better align their behavior with the interests of the larger society. I don't think such examples are to be construed as reasons to avoid regulation or market interventions. The main challenge with interventions is that they often lead to unintended consequences. But being wary of unintended consequences is different from being concerned that companies will perceive things differently from ordinary people. My point here is that we should not be worried that corporations won't like the restrictions and inducements we decide to put in place, but we should be concerned about unintended economic consequences. Many of the big oil companies dabble in renewable energy because they do > not feel threatened by it. kW/Mw scale LENR if/when it is proven may get > ignored by big energy much like Kodak did with digital cameras. I suspect the energy companies will feel very threatened at some point. The lawyers will step out of the woodworks, and then if you want to develop or sell LENR devices you'll need to make a huge financial investment to satisfy certification requirements; even then, there will be onerous restrictions on selling to the mass market. It might take a generation or two to disentangle the technology from the webwork put up by vested interests. This will not have been a necessary outcome; it will have been the result of our particular willingness to coddle financial interests at this time in history. Eric
