[extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

[The Avantguardian]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
 
> I don't believe being an expert is required to form
> an intelligent  
> opinion.  Nor do I believe that waiting for a
> consensus of experts  
> before acting is prudent.  The experts will be
> accused of being  
> bought or having an agenda by this party or that. 
> We will need more  
> experts to sort out the charges.  Recurse at will. 
> When the smoke  
> clears oil is through the roof and their is no time
> to create  
> meaningful alternatives before we are in great
> trouble.

I have thinking a lot lately about the different forms
of luddism and how they apply to situations like the
"peak oil" controversy. There are generally two well
recognized forms of luddism. The first is the
conservative form of luddism typified by Kass et al.
This form of luddism seems to be reliant on religious
doctrine and makes the claim that there are certain
technologies that infringe on "God's domain" or are
otherwise "immoral". This is apparently the
justification for luddite behavior that is the most
popular amongst social conservatives.

The second recognized form of ludditism is the liberal
variety of luddism. This form of luddism, also called
"green" luddism, centers on the belief that certain
technologies pose a danger to the enviroment and
should thus be banned. This brand of luddism exploits
the left's concerns for the environment and an
exagerated belief in the fragility of nature, to
oppose certain technologies. This is apparently the
rationale of choice for liberal luddites.

But the actual historical record of luddism seems to
follow economic patterns independantly of any
political coloring or slant. Instead historical
luddism seems to be primarily economic in nature and
by extrapolation, it occured to me that all luddism
seems to be economic in nature. 

Many are aware of the  early history of luddism
begining with Ned Ludd and his early industrial era
saboteurs. Now the motive for these saboteurs,
whatever their rhetoric, was definately economic in
nature. The wool and cotton mills represented
"competition" that threatened to undercut Ned and his
gang's market niche of hand knitted fabrics. They
therefore responded with drafting of manifestos,
sabotage of the mill machinery, and attempts to
dissuade the adoption of the milling technology.

This sole instance would seem to implicate a
correlation between populist movements and luddism,
but other historic examples disprove this presumed
association. The next example to consider is the
luddism faced by Thomas Edison in his attempt to
change the public street lighting from old-fashioned
gas lamps to electric incandescent lighting. That
there was much controversy ellicited by this and that
"experts" lined up on both sides to both support and
oppose the development of elctrical lighting is very
telling. It firmly demonstrates that luddism is not
always associated with populist movements. Indeed as
the industrial revolution came into full force,
luddism seemed far more often driven by one industry's
defense of its market niche against the encroachment
of new technolgies.

The relevance of the foregoing to the peak-oil debate
is that if historic models of this economically driven
luddism are accurate, then clearly there is an
incentive on the part of oil companies to keep the
truth behind "peak oil", if there is any truth to it,
under wraps. Not for purposes of price fixing,
gouging, or other form of market abuse but instead, in
simple defense of the oil industry's market niche
against encroachment of alternative energy
technologies.

The oil companies would most likely underplay any
perceived scarcity of oil the same way that the
gas-light industry of Edison's time underplayed the
diminishing reliability of gas-lighting at farther
distances from the gas generating plants. Both
industries would likely attempt to use "experts" to
gloss over shortcomings of their respective
technologies both performance-wise and supply-wise.

Although I had originally thought about it terms of
the peak-oil debate, now that I have glimpsed the
economic forces underlying luddism, I am starting to
see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils
of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV
antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I
can explain why after so many billions of dollars
spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV,
there is still no cure. Its because the current market
emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment"
and not cure. The drugs that turn HIV into a chronic
condition that can be kept at bay with daily doses for
the rest of ones life, are a firmly entrenched
profitable niche-industry. One that competes for
resources with vaccines and other potential "cures".
So long as there is so much profit to be made by
treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in
wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it.

Keep in mind that in none of these instances is there
a "conspiracy" to suppress the threatening new
technology, merely a great many independant players
all making independent moves designed to protect their
market niches. Thus one can see the hidden
undercurrents of luddism are, more often than not,
driven by self-interested competive market forces even
though the propaganda espoused by luddites seems to be
that of a "higher calling".


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


	
		
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/