[OT] Ten Technologies That Deserve to Die

[mythago]

Good grid. Did he dig this up from an old college essay?

His reasons for eliminating prisons are ridiculous and solipsistic. Sure, HE would have trouble in life if he couldn't get on an airplane. Does he think that people in what we used to call 'the underclass' really find it impossible to live without a driver's license? If you don't have a credit card anyway, you couldn't afford a plane ticket even if you had somewhere to go, and you needn't worry about banks because there isn't one anywhere near your home, who cares if your ID is suspended? Perhaps Sterling could drop by the day workers' center in my town and tell the folks there that because they don't have legal government ID, they might as well be in jail for all the good it does them.

Internal-combustion engines running on biodiesel or vegetable-oil fuel bypasses his moans about stinky garages.

As for cosmetic implants, the whole point is that they don't behave like flesh. Flesh grows. It changes. It scars, it bends, it responds to gravity. That's why breast implants are made out of artificial material: having flesh is what got you into trouble in the first place.

Most of his other recommendations are either noncontroversial (really, where are the passionate defenders of coal fuel?) or dealt with so briefly that even if I agreed with him, it wouldn't be for the specious reasons given.

 

[TiQuinn]

1. Squeezable cheese.

Bite your tongue, Hong! Squeezable cheese is the only way to make true Philly cheesesteak sandwiches! That's reason alone to keep it around!

 

[LightPhoenix]

Pardon my turn of phrase, but this guy is just talking out of his ass.

He names a couple of "safe" "technologies" - nuclear bombs and land mines. Right, duh.

He then goes on to list eight seemingly random technologies that he offers little to know explanation on how they should be replaced. It seems this is a list of technologies that this man has issues with, rather than being "obnoxious" and "deserve to die".

For example... incandescent lighting? Come on now, I can think of tons of technology that's better to get rid of. And his solution? Well... okay, so he doesn't have one. But he says, "They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool, and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely suited to a consumer’s human eyeball." Great pal, start working on it.

Being a biochemist, I'm going to take particular umbrage with "Cosmetic Implants". "...any truly advanced medical technology would simply grow the flesh into the desired shape, using the human metabolism...," he says. Well, great, I'm glad he thinks it's that easy to do. I'll be sure to suggest it if he's ever covered in burn scars. And I'll try not to laugh too much.

Prisons is just a pointless topic, and DVDs suggest to me that this man doesn't even use them. Fragile? Sure, on a relative scale of things... I mean, using them as frisbees is going to mess them up. But if you take care of them, then they're fine. And it's no harder, maybe less so, than taking care of an oak table. I mean, it's not hard to put a DVD back in a case...

Note again with Coal Power this guy doesn't suggest how we make up a quarter of our power output. "But that shortfall, daunting though it is, cannot compare to the ghastly prospect of...," blah blah blah. Hey, I'm sure this guy will be singing praises when he doesn't have any power. And I'm curious where all the power needed to research new energy sources comes from then?

I'll admit though, some things I agree with - mostly the parts where he takes veiled swipes at the US government... in coal power and space flight, for example, suggesting that our government (and associated big business) is intentionally holding back. Yeah, and I think land mines suck too.

One final comment... "Nevertheless, if you stand inside a closed garage with any internal-combustion engine, it will kill you. That is bad." This man deserves an award for stating this. Seriously. How many people didn't know this?

 

[cptg1481]

No Nukes?

Hey,

I like nukes, they bring some spark to life. I mean they are the ultimate Armageddon that keeps us sharp and able to appreciate our lives. I mean a world without fear of annihilation by a nuclear fireball is just boring.

I for one support nukes.....

Land mines too, they are a key component of a viable military defensive strategy. Just like with guns, the problem is when they are used irresponsibly by unqualified parties not in possession of or used by competent individuals or governments.

Prison....I've never been but I'm glad those who are there have been put there. The house arrest and denial of a drivers license would be easy to overcome for, what are these people called, oh criminals. See they don't think, hey, I don't have a drivers license so I guess I'd better stay home and not commit crime. They say, hey cool, house arrest, I can create a network of contacts to get me whatever illegal items and services I need to carry on with my criminal pursuits. It would create another class of criminal technicians to counter the house arrest technologies of law enforcement. Soon they'd be out on the street, committing crime again instead of behind a set of good solid bars committing crime. Prison is so bad because they prisoners are scum and make their own lives worse. Arguably, there is more crime in prison then on the average street. The prisoners buy and sell each other, make and sell weapons, traffic drugs, rape, kill and maim each other and worse. Most are unable to be rehabilitated. I say keep them there.

 

[The Sigil]

Three little words...

"Digital Rights Management."

And two more...

"Trusted Computing."

These not only deserve to die, all of their families deserve to go with them.

That includes the "technology" built into DVDs/DVD players that keep me from skipping through commercials or going to the point of the disk that I want to. "Experiencing it as the artist intended" be darned. It's a weak and hollow argument that really means, "keeping control in my hands and not in yours - despite the fact you paid for it." Ultimately, the artist wants ME to pay for the work. That, in essence, means it is a work for hire. Artists hate that term, BTW, because it means they have to "give up" the rights to their work - but I think it's certainly a fair exchange - if I put up money for it, I want it done to my specs, not yours. When you're going to use my money, you do it to my standards, not yours. And I get control, not you.

{/rant}

EDIT: I wrote this before reading the link. Looks like his #10 is on my list.

--The Sigil

 

[Tsyr]

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?

The only one I even come CLOSE to agreeing with is 2, and even there, I think it has valid uses.

 

[TiQuinn]

Personally, I vote for the wheel.

We should all be using hovercraft technology now. Wheels are so 3000 B.C.

 

[buzzard]

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?

The fact that you actually believe in cold fusion explains why you could make your set of claims.

buzzard

 

[Tsyr]

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.

*cough*

 

[myrdden]

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.

That is mostly correct. The amount of natural radioactivity released into the atomosphere (in the form of uranium, radium and potassium) can be greater than the amount of gas released by a nuclear power plant. The amount varies depending on the type of coal, the quantities used and the scrubbing technology used to clean the air in the stacks.

Myrdden