[OT] Ten Technologies That Deserve to Die

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/print_version/Sterling1003.asp

Author Bruce Sterling lists 10 technologies he feels we are better off without. Some I agree with, some I don't. What do you think?
What technologies would you put on your list of 10 that we would be better off without?

 

[Estlor]

Honestly, I have to agree with the guy wholeheartedly on the internal combustion engine. We have the technology to make a reliable electrical engine with the same output as a gas-powered engine without severe charging restrictions... yet why hasn't it been put to use? Because that would put a lot of people in the oil refinery and supply business out of a job, that's why. So instead we get hybrids and hydrogen cells.

I mean, to heck with that. I 100% believe that cold fusion was both properly discovered and repeated, but quickly suppressed because of the implications a population with the potential to generate infinite power from garbage or water alone would have. Could you imagine the results of putting an entire industry out of business?

But, hey, it would get rid of both the internal combustion engine and coal power, wouldn't it?

 

[hong]

1. Squeezable cheese.

 

[Czhorat]

Internet message boards. I waste more times in these places.

All joking aside, I can't agree with Mr. Sterling on a few of these. While he's dead-on right about the shortcomings of incandescent lightbulbs, he hasn't been able to present a viable alternative. I could make an argument that everything in the world could be replaced by a more advanced version that's not yet been invented. I can say the same for CDs and DVDs. While they may not be as robust as one would like, they don't wear as badly as the magnetic tape in VHS tapes, and not nearly as badly as music recorded physically on vinyl. I also believe that the romance of it and the need for a goal for humankind to dream about makes manned space travel a virtual necessity.

That's my two cents.

 

[Mercule]

Lessee.

I guantee my #1 tech to lose would seriously irritate some people. Therefore, I'll censor myself.

I can agree with no nukes. His reasons are pretty much dead on.

I can also agree w/ coal power. My understanding is that coal actually throws off more radioactivity than nuclear plants do. More disturbing is that coal waste is thrown into the air, while nuclear plants put theirs in barrels.

The IC engine isn't ready to go away, yet. Yup, it'd be nice to see something cleaner, cheaper, etc., but we don't have anything that fits the bill right now. Fuel cells are getting close, but we're also starting to find out that they may not be as great as we thought.

DVDs are great, though. Sure, it'd be nice to see the next generation of storage, but DVDs are the best we've got right now. Pretty much everything else is magnetic which is even easy to damage and degrades naturally on its own and has lower capacity and is more error prone.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the others.

I'd like to add automated dialing machines to the list, though. You know, like what the telemarketting firms use to call you. I don't care if the caller clicks my name from a list and it dials me, but it's an absolute insult to have a machine call me and then pick a sales person at random for me to talk with if one happens to be available. I don't much like phone solicitations at all, but it's the difference between an annoyance and an insult.

 

[Shemeska]

I mean, to heck with that. I 100% believe that cold fusion was both properly discovered and repeated, but quickly suppressed because of the implications a population with the potential to generate infinite power from garbage or water alone would have./QUOTE]

That's tinfoil hat talk there. The original experiments were horribly designed and flawed. And what results they claimed as evidence for 'cold fusion' could never be repeated in a controlled environment, despite numerous attempts to do so.

Hype trumped good science in that case, and ruined a number of careers in the process. When people want a certain result so badly the science suffers. Such was a similar result when it was first reported that EM fields around high tension power lines led to increased cancer rates in humans. The original researcher is currently banned for life from federal funding because he was found to have fabricated portions of his evidence, and selectively used other portions. The science was worthless and unfounded, and yet most people still don't know that his original findings aren't worth the paper they're printed on. *shrugs*

And people still want to hope for a 'cold fusion' holy grail. It's not coming, not in the form it was supposedly discovered in years ago.

 

[TiQuinn]

The only one that I thought was interesting was manned spaceflight. I'm not saying that nukes or land mines weren't good choices, just that they're kind of like "Well, no duh!" choices. Sending astronauts into outer space, however, seems like a very expensive proposition for what seems to be very little benefit. There's a plethora of things that we can learn without having to endanger pilots, and it's got to be far more costly to do as well. Given what we've learned from satellites like Pioneer and Voyager, they seem far more effective.

DVD's though?

Jeez, I think this guy needs to stop using them as coasters or frisbees. I've never had a problem like he describes.

 

[Bastoche]

I mean, to heck with that. I 100% believe that cold fusion was both properly discovered and repeated, but quickly suppressed because of the implications a population with the potential to generate infinite power from garbage or water alone would have./QUOTE]

That's tinfoil hat talk there. The original experiments were horribly designed and flawed. And what results they claimed as evidence for 'cold fusion' could never be repeated in a controlled environment, despite numerous attempts to do so.

Hype trumped good science in that case, and ruined a number of careers in the process. When people want a certain result so badly the science suffers. Such was a similar result when it was first reported that EM fields around high tension power lines led to increased cancer rates in humans. The original researcher is currently banned for life from federal funding because he was found to have fabricated portions of his evidence, and selectively used other portions. The science was worthless and unfounded, and yet most people still don't know that his original findings aren't worth the paper they're printed on. *shrugs*

And people still want to hope for a 'cold fusion' holy grail. It's not coming, not in the form it was supposedly discovered in years ago.

As a physicist, I have to concur with that. Cold fusion is a scam.

As for the DVDs, I have to things to add: my scratched CDs/DVDs still works very well. Just don't buy a cheap laser reader. And the pleasure of not having to rewind a videotape is priceless!!!

 

[Storminator]

Honestly, I have to agree with the guy wholeheartedly on the internal combustion engine. We have the technology to make a reliable electrical engine with the same output as a gas-powered engine without severe charging restrictions... yet why hasn't it been put to use? Because that would put a lot of people in the oil refinery and supply business out of a job, that's why. So instead we get hybrids and hydrogen cells.

<SNIP>

There's actual reasons we still have gas powered cars. First among those reasons is that there isn't a good electric replacement. And by laws (those are LAWS people) of thermodynamics, it's extremely inefficient to use electric cars. You convert some other energy source to electricity, and electricity to motive power. Each conversion costs you energy, so switching to electric cars INCREASES your fuel requirements. It also pushes all the power generation currently done in vehicles (200 million vehicles times 80 horsepower each times 746 watts per horsepower... and that's just in America) onto your electric grid.

That's why folks want fuel cells. It eliminates one wasteful energy conversion step. But then there are refueling issues. This is an economics problem. What do you think the total outstanding (i.e. already spent) investment in gasoline refueling is? Oil wells, pipelines, ocean tankers, refineries, gas stations... trillions? Dozens of trillions? To replace gasoline you need to overcome that entrenched economic advantage. In other words, first you need to spend a few trillion dollars, then you can compete.

That's why we still have gasoline.

PS

 

[jasper]

the brighter and more exploratory kinds of children... AND How bright is jody to get herself blowup after Joey got blow up last week.
7. you be a bad bad person we take away your drivers license. Oh boo hoo how many drunks get caught with supsended license. Crossbolt to head! Problem solve.

I could go on but I have seen better reasoned arguements on this board.