wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuelprices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village.He unfortunately has hit a nail right on the head, there is a price to be paid for everything we want. For instance the damage to the environment because of our lifestyle, the tax hike required to pay for adequate social services or the lack of civil liberties as a result of hysterical demands for perfect security. People do not seem to be prepared to pay these prices and politicians play on that by promising not to implement any of these unpopular policies or lie about the true cost. A related problem is that people have very little idea about risk and how much can be reasonable eliminated (very little as it happens). The price for eliminating risk is high, both financially and socially. People demand that children be protected by the government social services infrastructure and are indignant when something tragic happens, however the same people decry the encroaching 'nanny state' and the interference in their affairs. Their is a conflict in these demands and people do not seem to be prepared to engage in a dialogue on how this should be addressed. On the main points that Matthew Taylor raises in the article, I suspect myself that it is not the Internet itself that is to blame for these attitudes and problems. However the Internet does provide a vehicle for people to make their views (right or wrong) more visible.
powered by performancing firefox