Fil,
Thanks for taking some time to respond. I should clarify my view.
>> who takes the responsibility for implementing, maintaining and
>> endorsing the accident of major technological systems ?
>> [...]
>> Note that I am saying accident, not failure. What is, by essence, not
>> predictable.
>
> You're asking who takes responsibility for what is not predictable?
> Some kind of emergency response / expert group? I'm not sure I
> understand the question.
>
I am wondering who is in a position (or rather: can someone be in
such position ?) of taking such responsibility. With such systems,
there is no author, no single decision maker, and the maintenance
goes beyond generations. The accident highlights the fact that no one
can be responsible: in a way, all the anonymous victims are the
negative mirror of the anonymous decision making embedded in such
technological systems.
This is why I am asking myself such question.
It is very different from the individual accident.
> Jean, could you explain why you think it is odd that:
>> the destroying "potential" of some of our
>> technological systems (major dams, power plants, but also the
>> aggregated
>> consumption of natural resources) is close (for the human
>> community) to
>> those of natural disasters.
>
> I agree that they are similar. I don't understand why that similarity
> should be odd.
I think they are odd because you cannot sue weather, earthquakes and
tsunamis... and it doesn't make much sense to sue a politician ? a
few engineers ? a subcontractor ? for accidents. This means that the
discussion of justice and responsibility shifts so radically when we
are talking of such megasystems that it renders all our legal system
obsolete.
>
> Finally, Jean I admire your goal of developing a democratic decision
> making process. Any group that will perform such a process with
> respect to something having physical aspect - urban planning, policy
> about nuclear power, etc - will have to have a grounding in science
> far superior to that of the average population today. Without that,
> they'll make very democratic, but very wrong, decisions.
>
> I really don't know which is harder to achieve: making everyone an
> expert, or getting everyone to trust experts. :)
I do not have such an extensive ambition, because I am not aiming at
having the people to become or trust experts, and finally agree with
the suggested proposal (those of the experts). My point is rather:
let people say yes or no in regard to the risks and benefits, in
their personal terms and in the terms of a community. If an area
chooses to say no to mining, or to GM crops, or to a nuclear power
plant, or to windpower... accept it and make people take the
responsibility and the consequences for it.
Best regards,
Jean
|