[pf] Nader on technology (LA Times)

· Good sense, from Ralph Nader. In the LA Times last Monday.
Including:
 "Most Americans don't realize how badly they're being harmed by the
unchecked commercialization of what belongs to the commonwealth," Nader
told Harper's magazine this month.
 ... , instead of focusing on: 'What is all this for?' [the economic push
on certain technologies.] "Only when you have a small democratic context do
you have the right context for discussing these issues."
  Nader is at his most controversial when he says there's no significant
difference between the Democratic and Republican parties these days. He has
called his opponents, provocatively, "Gush and Bore." He told Harper's
magazine, "When people tell me that I'm wrecking the Democratic Party, I
ask them, 'What's left to wreck?' "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 21:23 on Wed, 6/9/2000 +1200, David Parker sent to the GV-NZ list:

Published on Monday, September 4, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times

Nader Shows Real Byte in His Campaign Against 'Techno-Twits'

by Gary Chapman

If you were to compile a list of the Americans with the most influence on
technology in the last 40 years, Ralph Nader might not be on it. But he
should be. Nader, of course, is running for president and he still has a
lot to say about technology in contemporary America.

Nader actually began his career writing about technology, when he burst
upon the national scene with his 1965 book "Unsafe at Any Speed," a
withering critique of the auto industry and General Motors in particular.
He followed that with campaigns against nuclear power, pesticides,
dangerous drugs, workplace hazards and, most recently, Microsoft's
monopoly. Nader hosted the first national conference on Microsoft as a
monopoly; the Justice Department filed its case a few weeks later.

In his presidential campaign this year as the Green Party candidate, he is
aiming his formidable rhetoric at massive corporate power and the rampant
commercialization of American culture, including the political process.
"Most Americans don't realize how badly they're being harmed by the
unchecked commercialization of what belongs to the commonwealth," Nader
told Harper's magazine this month.

"Technology follows corporate power," Nader told me last week. "The vast
bulk of our federal R&D [research and development] spending is to serve
civilian corporate interests or military institutions. We need a much
broader public debate about the purposes of technology and the harm of
technology.

"Only when you have a small democratic context do you have the right
context for discussing these issues. In a corporate or government
environment, you always get a distorted discussion," he said.

Nader noted that whenever the "technological faithful" get together, which
is often, their discussions about technology are "always a plus, never
considering a subtraction. It's like the GDP [gross domestic product].
Everything is a plus in the GDP, never a minus--pollution, crime, workplace
injuries, these are all plusses."

Nader said, "Even within the computer [and] Silicon Valley framework,
there's this obsession [that] first you have computer hardware. Then you
get computer software. Then you get software upgrades that you don't need
but have to have because your equipment won't communicate without the
upgrade. Then you get viruses. Then programs to combat viruses. Then you
get magazines about viruses, and computer conventions about viruses, and so
on.

"We keep backing up and backing up, instead of focusing on, 'What is all
this for?'

"There are certain technologies that are very important to human beings and
the planet that are subordinated in every way to the glamorous and
lucrative technologies," he said. He contrasted solar power with the mania
over the Internet and telecommunications. "It would be far better for the
world if solar technology were promoted more than telecommunications
technology. Which is the most important technology? Solar tech doesn't get
any press, any public support, Clinton and Gore don't fly to 'Solar Alley,'
and so on," he said. Federal support for renewable energy research is lower
now, even in the face of global warming and crushing oil prices, than it
was in 1981, when President Carter left office.

"Our culture fosters a technology because it happens to be a moment in time
when it makes a lot of money," Nader said. "This spawns a lot of stories
about mega-millionaires and their lifestyles, lots of glitzy conferences.
Are we advancing technology for its corporate power sake or for people's
sake?"

Nader is at his most controversial when he says there's no significant
difference between the Democratic and Republican parties these days. He has
called his opponents, provocatively, "Gush and Bore." He told Harper's
magazine, "When people tell me that I'm wrecking the Democratic Party, I
ask them, 'What's left to wreck?' "

In the technology policy area, he's right. There's been a subtle but
profound transformation of what we call "technology policy" in this country
today. Now, when journalists ask either the Gore or Bush campaigns about
their positions on technology, they're pointed to billionaire advisors from
industry. "Technology policy" has become synonymous with what industry
wants: tax relief, more foreign workers, no regulation and support for
research that industry doesn't want to fund itself. The reason both parties
have abandoned any idea of technology in the public interest is clear: They
can't afford to lose access to the money the industry wields.

On the tech industry, Nader again pulls no punches. He says the industry is
dominated by what he calls " 'techno-twits': people who just push
technology for profits or their own personal gain, or people who just talk
tech because they're fascinated and obsessed with it. They're far removed
from the question of 'Quo vadis?' [where are you going?]."

One organization Nader set up, and which he continues to support, is the
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington. CPT has helped press for more
public accountability of the Internet's management, such as forcing the
Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, to hold elections
for better representation on its board of directors. Those elections are
scheduled for next month.

CPT and Nader have also fought for more government transparency, for
citizens' right to know about what the government is doing.

"Every member of Congress has a Web page now," said Nader, "but no member
of Congress posts his or her voting record. Can you believe that?" Nader
said he wrote both Al Gore and George W. Bush to ask them to endorse his
proposal to require members of Congress to post their voting records. "They
didn't answer me," he said. "I've been doing that--writing them letters
with ideas--because I think a presidential election should produce more for
the people than just a winner and a loser."

In his nomination acceptance speech at the Green Party convention in July,
Nader quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "We can have a
democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the
hands of a few. We cannot have both."

Nader is the only candidate who has the verve and the spine to put that
choice on the table this year.

* * *

Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the University of
Texas at Austin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent to Positive Futures discussion list by David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
******************************************************

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics