The need for better analysis tools (was Re: Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls)
Paul D. Fernhout
> Nuclear is a really really bad alternative, it's not economical, it's
> depletable, it sets up humanity with a huge and probably unsolvable
> pollution problem, and, accidents WILL happen. All it will take is one
> accident and the current industry driven hype for huge government subsidies
> will disappear again.
>
> Let's focus on renewables and not be sidetracked,
And:
Stan Rhodes wrote:
> Yes, nuclear fuel is depletable, but the rest of Michel's criticism is
> ill-informed. Good nuclear technology has been around for decades:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
This sort of back-and-forth shows why we need much better tools of analyzing
these sorts of issues. And often, as with Places Rated Almanac's software
analysis tools for good places to live, the choice you make depends on how
much you weigh different factors (in the case of picking a place to live,
how you weigh access to nature, access to arts, access to medical
facilities, cheap rent, proximity to farmland, being near universities, lots
of jobs, etc.). For example, retired people might want access to nature and
medical facilities most, young people might want access to universities and
jobs and cheap rent (which themselves may be contradictory, as rents are
often expensive near jobs and universities).
For the nuclear debate, even when people agree on the presumed "facts" (rare
enough, and not here), they may differ on how the weigh aspects related to
social policy. For example, even if we all were to agree nuclear power
issues with waste were not significant or could be handled, then we would be
left discussing the implications of centralized power plants or waste
handling facilities as far as a democratic society. Someone who believed
more strongly in decentralization might well take a different position than
someone comfortable with, say, a progressive Wester European government
style of management.
These issues will not get resolved here. I'd suggest we need much better
tools to do this, both to lay out the "facts" or controversies about them,
and to then weigh those against our personal preferences.
And that is part of what I hoped to do with OSCOMAK, even if I've had little
success to date with it (and that is inspired and informed also by Doug
Engelbart's and other's ideas for such systems for structured argumentation).
But here at least is one government group making a related attempt
(previously mentioned):
"NIST Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing"
http://www.nist.gov/mel/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
"""
As green manufacturing has become more efficient and economical, industrial
manufacturers are considering innovative production techniques that will
benefit both the environment and their consumers. But they are confronted
with too many choices involving ethical decisions and often vague concepts.
Does “sustainable” have a precise meaning? Must the carbon footprint of
every single object used be taken into account? Is it better to send
disposable products to a landfill or to clean reusable products with
potential waste of energy, water and perhaps chemicals? Having government
and public agreement on these concepts is only the first step --
manufacturers using computer models to find the best practices to
accommodate a triple bottom line of economics, environmental stewardship,
and cultural relevance need to know that the software they rely on embodies
a quantitative, precise understanding of this new green territory. The
manufacturing floor, with its dependence on smooth-running software, simply
cannot afford to use ill-defined concepts. Even environmentally-minded
consumers agonize over using unsustainable, unrecyclable Styrofoam coffee
cups or disposable diapers, for example, or wasting wash-water when using
the more permanent version. As an independent party -- and with a huge
knowledge base in mechanical expertise due to its connections to the largest
automotive and aerospace manufacturers -- NIST is uniquely qualified to
determine objective measurements and standards for such heretofore
subjective judgments. NIST’s project in Sustainable and Lifecycle
Information-based Manufacturing has three primary objectives. First is
providing the standards requirements for sustainable manufacturing. This
includes analyzing and defining the relevant standards from carbon footprint
determination to energy resource management to hazardous material
management. The project is also developing a scheme for computing the carbon
footprint of any manufactured product -- a critical mathematical “score”
that can help resolve concerns such as the issue of reusable versus
disposable products. As always, NIST is not looking to reinvent the wheel
but to ensure that new standards mesh with current practices, so researchers
are working to harmonize their green information standards with the existing
software standards for manufacturing product data, known as Standard for the
Exchange of Product model data (STEP).
"""
So, even if we are all unlikely here to agree exactly on some of these
issues right now like nuclear vs. renewables, I can hope we can all agree
that it would be nice to have better open manufacturing tools to explore
these issues, like the ones NIST talks about.
Or maybe even better tools than NIST, as NIST may be tempted to gloss over
this issue of differing preferences and assumptions if they really think any
one "independent" party can "determine objective measurements and standards
for such heretofore subjective judgments", at least without some long
involved social consensus building process, like the Dutch do with the
"Polder Model"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_Model
--Paul Fernhout