......,..two ou.use a

nro(This is a multiple choice question.)

[ ~ tg~DRW!elh\r..1icroVAX'M3000 systems may be thenost versatile computers you've everlone business with. Most MicroVAX.nodels are compact and quiet enough

rest on a shelf or beside a desk. Sohey fit right on the factory floor, inhe front office, on the loading dock,1the R&D lab, in the retail store. Just

»lug one into the nearest wall outlet.\.nywhere people work, a MicroV AXystem can work beside them.

[~I~~6~frJePORMANCE~o other mid-range computer caniatch MicroVAX system price!.erformance. Prices start at under,8,500 for MicroVAX 3100 general--urpose systems and $7,000 forIlicroVAX 3100 servers that expando support 50 PCs. And owning a'.JlicroVAX system is just as affordableis buying one. Compared to its com-xtitors, MicroVAX 3000 systems cuthe cost of ownership in halF

, ::'il TO PUT ALL YOUR COMPUTERS.. .t1l ON SPEAKING TERMS.~~venthe smallest MicroVAX systemsl£fer local and wide-area communi-cations. They make it easy for you tointegrate whatever's on the desktop.

Imagine MS-DOS~OS/2:M andMacintosh'T'Cs, Sun, and otherUNIX®-based or VMS™ workstations,Ascn and windowing terminals allsharing information on a single, man-ageable local network, using Digital'sNetwork Application Support (NAS).Then think about using NAS to beable to exchange this information withIBM and other-vendor mainframesusing wide-area connections. Nowyou're talking.

I[Q]I ~g~~~~tlKb1wrs~~~,ITyou thought it just wasn't possibleto-buy one departmental computerto run all the applications you need,think again. MicroVAX 3000 systemsrun both technical and commercialapplications equally well. And theyrun most of the PC programs youalready use.In fact, over 6,500 VAXT

•

system applications, including factoryautomation, software development,and branch-office transaction process-ing, run on MicroVAX 3000 systemstoday.

E ~Bf8~b~%i~~~YOUR COMPUTER.

Every VAX family member is 100%software compatible. So you neverhave to rewrite applications as yougrow. Start with a single MicroVAXcomputer that lets PC or workstation

L

users stay with the system they likewhile gaining the extra disk capacityand file-sharing they need. You canchoose your starting point from theMicroVAX 3100 on up to the Micro-VAX 3900 system. And, you can alwaysupgrade to a larger MicroVAX system.Or keep your original as is and "clus-ter" it with a new one for double thepower, capacity, and availability. Needmore? Grow right on up to our VAX6000 system or new 9000 mainframe.There's no stopping you.

P t~~~6~~~CEED.MicroV AX computers have played akey role in many companies' successstories- Toys 'R' Us, BlockbusterVideo, and Alcon Laboratories, toname a few. That's why over 150,000MicroVAX-based systems have beeninstalled since their introduction in1985. Add MicroVAX systems to yourbusiness, and start a success story ofyour own.

[@] illn~§'~?FTHEABOVE,Por more information on how youcan use MicroV AX 3000 systems for acompetitive edge, call 1-800-842-5273,ext. 400. Or call your local Digital

sales office. D!gitalliasit

now

8 FIRST LINE

10 LETTERS

13 MIT REPORTERContemplating MurderFeeling Down? Try EatingTrading PlacesHave Umbrella, Will Travel

16 16 TRENDSBetter Homes for LessMore Than an Abortion PillRethinking DarwinSatellite StrifeClean Cars

70 THE CULTURE OF TECHNOLOGYLANGDON WINNERThe fax syndrome-obsession with instant communi-

22 cation-robs us of leisure time and in-depth ideas.

73 SCIENCE WATCHDAVID BALTIMOREUncertain funding is prompting many young investigatorsto forsake the joy of scientific discovery.

74 REVIEWSBOOKS: Rosalind Williams on modernization as culturalimperialism; Jane Holtz Kay on armories as bastions ofsocial order; Alan Strudler on the testing mentality.

80 NOTES73 Hard bodies, beach bummer, quasi-crystals,

biowar, and more.

Technology ReviewQSSN 0040-1992), Reg. U.S. Patent Office, is published eight times each year (lanuary, February/March, April, May/june, July, AugustlSeptember, October,and NovemberlDecember)by the Assodation of Alumni and Alumnae of the Massachusetts Institute of Thchnology. Entire contents ©1990. The editors seek diverse views,and authors' opinions do not represent official MITpolicy. We welcome letters to the editor. Please address them to Letters Editor.

Editorial, circulation, and advertising offices:7/;cbnology Review, Building W59, MIT,Cambridge, MA02139 (617) 253-8250. Printedby LanePress, Burlington, VT. Second-class postage paid at Boston, MAand additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send address changes toThcbnology Review, MIT,Building W59, Cambridge, MA02139.

Subscriptions: $24 per year, libraries and organizations $27. Canada add $6, other foreign countries add $12. Send inquiries to7/;cbnology Review, PO. Box 489,Mount Morris, Il, 61054

Advertising respresentanves: Mark E. Lynch, Eastern Sales Manager, West Ossipee, NH (603) 323-7807; The Leadership Network, 254 Filth AVe.,New York, NY 10001(212) 684-5500; James G. EUiollCo., Los Angeles, CA(213) 746-8800; Donald MoeUer,Dallas, TX 75226 (214) 559-5730; IMICorp., Tokyo, Japan; Keith Olson/Media,Birmingham, MI(313) 642-2885; Joan Stapleton, Washington, DC(202) 331-7494.

TECHNOLOGY REVIEWVOL. 93/No. 4

DEPARTMENTS

Mort RankinMorketing Representoli'le

The six people on this pagearen't professional models oractors. They're part of the newTexaco. Their chargeis this: ifthere's a better wayto discover it,recover it, produce it, ship it or sellit ... "go for it:' For our part, we'reeliminating the procedures andobstacles that can get in theirway. The results have been

Collie MitthellSenior Supp~Representative

rather incredible."There's a tremendous team

dynamic in the company now thatwe hadn't had before. You canactually feel the energy aroundhere:' Ron

"Exactly. Wedon't have two orthree years to get a project rollinganymore. These days, weattackprojects. Weget the necessary

Ron RimardsMonager, Environment Affoir1

people together in one room, andwe don't come out until theproblem issolved. Now we're offthe drawing board in three to fourdays:' Kelly

"Our customers are beinginvolved in the process, too. It'salmost like we flip-flopped thecorporate ladder. Instead of the CEOsitting on the top, the customer has

Bill StudzinskiChemist

become the most importantperson. I think they're still a littleamazed that we evenask for theirinput:' Marc

"It's really paid off in ournatural gas liquids business. We'vequadrupled our customer base, andnow we're a worldwide leader:'Callie

"We're heading that way in

Carol TriebelSuperintendenl, Planning and Shipping

fuels, too. Our newSystem-gasoline has a lot of ourcompetitors taking a secondlook:' Bill

As you can see, there's a newenergy at Texaco. We're aggres-sively searching for new oil.Getting more from our existingfields. Developing products fortoday that are designed to serve

Kel~MayoSyslelm Analyst

into tomorrow. And pioneering theclean energy sources that mustguide us into the future.

"I'm glad to see Texaco takinga leadership role.I'm really proud thatI'm a partof'it,too:' carol

So are we, carol.StaroftheSo are we. . American Road

TEXACO-M'VE GOT THE ENERGY.

tomobiles sold today get twice as manymiles per gallon as those on the marketin 1973. Beginning that year, the econ-omy grew for over a decade without us-ing additional energy.

Today, less developed countries stillneed enormous GNP growthto achievea decent quality of life. The average in-habitant of these countries consumes atenth as much energy as a North Ameri-can. Though we may consume toomuch, it would be hypocrisy to denythat they need to consume more, andthey constitute three-quarters of theworld's population. As they build theirinfrastructures, their energy use willprobably increasefaster than GNP (asin the United States before the 1920s)because they will need materials rang-ing from concrete to chemical fertilizersthat require a lot of energy tomanufacture.

Improving technology is the only wayto produce the necessary energy and besure of preserving the environment. Onepromising approach, for example, is geo-thermal energy derived from forcingwater through underground rock for-mations that are two to three times theboiling point. A thousand times the an-nual world energy consumption existsin this form and could be tapped togenerate electricity at current marketprices, according to estimates by Jeffer-son W. Tester of MIT's Energy Lab.

However, if the Third World istoadopt environmentally benign technol-ogies, advanced nations will have tohelp. Consider China's planto build 100million refrigerators in the next decadeusing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) forcoolant-the same chemicals thatdeplete stratospheric ozone, thus in-creasing skin cancer, and that are the sec-ond most important greenhouse gas. Byusing CFCs, which are cheaper thanmore benign alternatives, China canmake more of the refrigerators it sorelyneeds. The developing nations willadopt destructive practices of the pastunless advanced countries subsidize thecost of doing better .•

Earth Day Revisited

ONEarth Day 1970 the "ecolo-gy" movement signified theneed for society to reexaminenot only its relationship with

the human habitat but its most basicpremises, particularly its insatiable de-sire for more cars, pesticides, smoke-stacks, pollution-more everything.

Leo Marx, a historian then at Am-herst and now at MIT, traced theWestern obsession with growth to the"aggressive, man-centered attitudetoward the environment fostered byjudeo-Chrisrian thought." He arguedthat the ecology movement accordedwith an alternative pastoral tradition inAmerican literature, the tradition ofJefferson and Thoreau, that distinguish-es "between a commitment to unendinggrowth and the concept of materialsufficiency. The aim of the pastoraleconomy isenough-enough produc-tion and consumption to insure a decentquality of life."

A few scientists, such as Barry Com-moner of Washington University andPaul Ehrlich of Stanford, spoke outabout ecology, but the vast majoritywere silent, and the media rather freelyadapted what it heard. "Scientists havesolid experimental and theoretical evi-dence;' proclaimed Life, that "in a de-cade, urban dwellers will have to weargas masksto survive air pollution." In-creased carbon dioxide in the at-mosphere would lead to "mass floodingor a new ice age."

Two decades later, the scientific de-bate about the environment hasprogressed immensely, and technolog-ical advance looks more like the solu-tion than the problem. Careful readerscan glean a picture of what is and isn'tknown. Consider the vexing problem ofglobal warming. We know that theamount of carbon dioxide and other"greenhouse gases" in the atmospherehas increased. Most climatologists be-lieve this will raise global temperaturesover the next century, but we know thatthey disagree as to how much.It could

.FirstLine

be O.SOC (manageable) orSOC (ecolog-ical disaster). Local conditions such asincreased rainfall, severe droughts, orintense storms will be what really mat-ter, but these are even harder to predictthan overall warming. We know that wemay not know what we need to formany years.

Capitalizing on such uncertainty, thePresident's Council of Economic Advi-sors recommends that the nation waitand see what to do. But most technolo-gists I know of believe the world shouldundertake serious efforts to curb green-house gases. MIT President Paul E.Gray and the new Brazilian secretary of

8 MAY/JUNE 1990

JONATHAN SCHLEFER

Twentyyears later;

technological advancelooks more like the solution

than theproblem.

-science and technology, Jose Goldem-berg, concurred on this at a recent con-ference here on "Energy and theEnvironment in the Twenty-FirstCentury."

That conference made clear the needfor technological advanceto help cleanthe environment. Some problems suchas poverty, which grew worse in theUnited States and worldwide during the1980s, result from the social and eco-nomic system. Other problems such assmallpox, which has been eliminated,are subject to a "technical fix." The en-vironment may fall largely, though notcompletely, in the second category.

Consider the progress technology hasalready allowed the United Statestomake in preserving the environment.The higher the "energy intensiry'<-fheamount of energy required per dollar ofgross national product (GNP)-theworse the pollution. Energy intensity inthe United States has dropped steadilysince the 1920s. The energy crisis of theearly 1970s issued a warning that weneeded more conservation, and U.S. au-