affects their lives. They seem to want the government to let them alone (“get off their backs” in one recently potent political slogan) even if sometimes they seem to want it to do more controlling of others. “That government is best which governs least,” the old Jeffersonian formula, seems to still be dominant as a value statement, at least in America, no matter how inconsistently it may be applied by its adherents (the people who rant against “big government” are often the same people who will exult when the space shuttle goes up and they can claim “we” are “number one”). Attitudes toward the economic realm seem almost the opposite. Here “freedom to” could be said to be more highly valued than “freedom from.” Most people unquestioningly accept the basic economic institutions of society which impinge on their working lives; having a boss, being forced to take a job or (usually) endure economic deprivations, being subject to work discipline and hierarchy, being paid in fixed wages or salaries, etc. Restricted options in the work process are rarely resented. Even the businessman who most vigorously fights against government regulation and “red tape” is often quite content to be under the control of large corporations, indeed it is often the powerful corporations which are most opposed to government regulation. What is resented are perceived restrictions not on productive activities but on consumption, not being able to purchase what is available on the market (or what might become available) with what money the purchaser has. Black markets spring up more readily than demands for workers' control over the workshop. “Freedom to” as a consumer has a clearly higher priority than “freedom from” as a producer, unlike the situation in the political realm where “freedom from” as a subject is preferred to “freedom to” as a citizen. None of the above statements can be scientifically demonstrated, even within the rather loose canons of validation currently employed in the social sciences. But if, on an impressionistic basis, they seem to be reflections of reality, they can perhaps help to illuminate the current debate about energy futures. ENERGY FUTURES: SOFT VS. HARD The major claims made on behalf of soft as opposed to hard energy sources is that the former as opposed to the latter make possible greater decentralization of economic power, both in the areas of production and of consumption (25).* The windmill or solar collector (especially of course the home solar collector) is more decentralized than the electric grid. In addition, an economy based on hard energy sources — above all nuclear power — will have political implications in that it will require tight governmental controls over individual behavior because of security and safety considerations (26-27). Generally speaking, advocates of the hard path have not sought directly to refute these claims, but have rather ignored them as irrelevant, giving priority to economic considerations. Other claims made by soft energy proponents are that hard energy paths imply international competition for scarce resources, leading to the danger of war, or that *On the relationship of centralization of electricity by various means (including nuclear) to politics and economics see M. Messing, H.P. Friesema and D. Morell (25). After a complex analysis of numerous case studies and changing patterns the authors conclude that “At the present, however, both centralized and decentralized system planning exists; both involve risks of technical feasibility and long-rut. costs; and either can be justified on the basis of favorable assumptions. Politically, decisions to centralize or decentralize the next generation of energy systems will ultimately affect not only the reliability and costs of our energy supplies but the structures of our political systems as well."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==