Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Excerpted from Dan McQuillan: “There are interesting weaknesses at the core of scientific hegemony. While most scientists choose to present their practice publicly as an infallible machine for the production of truths, the opinions behind the curtain are far more mixed, and for good reason. Even hard science is not immune to distortion by group-think … 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
“People centered” means that control of infrastructure, access, distribution, resources, and co-governance are now on the scale of the individual person. When an individual person with this empowerment reaches their individual carrying capacity to operate, they will tend to reach out to others who are operating like them, and a connection-based network will emerge. Economic development here targets individuals operating as self-employed independents who network together. Independents, small businesses, community groups, working together, with government, higher education, and larger business are the new economic driver. The more control people have an on individual scale of infrastructure, access, distribution, resources, and governance, *and* the more connectivity there is between those people, the that more growth happens in “people centered economic development”. When control of infrastructure, access, distribution, resources, and co-governance are now on the scale of the individual person, a new way of coopertive co-managing of existing resources, and surpluses of production tends to emerge. That new way of co-managing is known as “Resource Sharing”."
|
Scoop.it!
“Futuristic accumulation is the commodification of publicly created scientific knowledge, which via copyright and patent, is privatized as intellectual property for the extraction of monopolistic technological rents. Its central site is the research university, whose entrainment to business gradually evolved over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries in both Europe and North America but reached a watershed in the United States’ mobilization of university knowledge for atomic weapons, cryptography, ballistics and military projects by the United States during the Second World War. This process, intensified in the Cold War, directly linked academy and industry.
Scoop.it!
The NRC (Nuclear RegulatoryAgency) Probabilistic Risk Assessment gives the precautionary perspective, which is generally a priori, not manifested or empirical. The risk is stated to be at 1:1,000,000 chance of a nuclear accident. At the moment, there are 432reactors in the world. If we do the math, the probability of an accident is one every 2,500 years or the entire history of Western civilization back to the Greeks. Three reactor meltdowns at one time, that would be 1 million cubed giving 18 zeros; a major problem. I would argue that perhaps since it was in one place there may be a problem with the statistics of time and place, but only slight changes to 18 zeros. Prediction is one thing, and empirical is another. The evidence now shows that instead of a nuclear accident every 2,500years we could expect one every seven years, if we look over the past 35 years there have been 5 meltdowns, or one every 7 years. There were meltdowns before that, but this is giving the technology the benefit of the doubt. If we were to say there were five meltdowns over 35 years, that’s bad enough, but if we say there were three meltdowns in one month, or..over a few days at Daiichi, then the picture looks even worse.
jean lievens's insight:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 12:01 am and is filed under Collective Intelligence, P2P Energy, P2P Epistemology, P2P Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
|
