- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
So weve had this thread, on the super-flu free genetically engineered chicken, and this excellent thread on the nature of the electric and hybrid cars. I was absent MT for most of both threads, and a quite a few others, save to offer thanks while I occasionally followed on my droid-my thumbs are too big for posting with the damn thing, so thatll rarely happen. Ive also had a few PMs from some of you with questions about possible technological solutions to some of our current problems. No, I havent come up with cold fusion, yet, :lol: , but I had a few thoughts on the nature of technology, and how it comes to develop, that I thought I might share for discussion with those who are interested.
Technology really starts, for man, with the implementation of tools for killing things. The spear is actually thought to be 400,000 years old, maybe 250,000 for homo sapiens. Then, about 30,000 years ago, someone came up with this, and improved the performance of the spear. Sometime shortly after that, we got the bow and arrow .Thats been the pattern for technological development for most of our history: a need is recognized, in this case, the need to kill large mammals for food, and a means of addressing that need is invented, then improved upon. The point really being that as long as that need is being met, no further development takes place or is necessary-this is why Europeans arrived on North America to find natives using the bow and arrow and even atlatl to obtain game: their needs were being addressed by the system and no improvement was needed. As soon as they saw what was to them new technology, though, the natives had to have it, recognizing the efficiency of new things like steel knives and rifles.
Interestingly, sometimes a new technology supplants the old one that fulfilled the same need for reasons beyond mere efficiency. Oil lamps were, until about 1859, filled with whale oil, almost all around the world, and that, or candles, is what provided people with light during the night. In 1859, we had the start of the petroleum industry, and kerosene provided light-and petroleum didnt provide much else until the invention of the internal combustion engine. By now, of course, the world is dependent upon petroleum for many things besides fuel: plastics, drugs, dyes, and lubrication are all uses of petroleum in addition to motive force, and oil lamps have long been supplanted by the electric bulb.
In 1798,the economist Thomas Malthus predicted that as the worlds population increased, food shortages would bring a rapid halt to the improvement in standard of living. By the end of the 19th century, many thought that they were seeing it come true. It well might have, had it not been for the development of fixed nitrogen technology-this, coupled with other early 20th century developments, increased food production with the introduction of new man-made fertilizers, as well as the development of many other ancillary technologies. For an excellent treatment on this particular part of our technological history, I cant recommend Thomas Hagers, The Alchemy of the Air enough. Its also a good cautionary tale on the development of new technologies: fixed nitrogen is also essential for the manufacture of explosives, and the process helped fuel Hitlers war machine.
At times in our history, weve moved forward technologically at a rapid pace because of an individuals vision, as in the case of Henry Ford. People associate Ford with the moving assembly line, but his vision was to make the car accessible to the masses: he wanted to build a machine that the people who worked for him could own, and not just rich people. The assembly line helped this by increasing production output while decreasing costs, but he also aided his vision by instituting profit-sharing and other amenities for his workers that increased their standard of living-innovations that got him called a socialist at the time.
At other times, weve moved forward because of a group impetus, a recognized perceived need and the will to set about attaining it. The best and most personal example I have this is the development of the atomic bomb. Leo Szilard composed a letter to Roosevelt, and he and Einstein signed and sent it in 1939. Six years later, we had the bomb, as well as the beginnings of nuclear power from reactors.
We went from coal to nuclear power in six years with the Manhattan Project. Along the way we invented entire new sciences, technologies, and methods of calculation, whose impact-positive and negative-are still felt today. The same can be said of the so-called space race: we went from barely orbital to the moon in a decade, and, along the way, developed a wide variety of technologies that most of us couldnt avoid coming into contact daily.
Which kind of brings us to the question I always ask: wheres the Manhattan Project to cure cancer, or AIDS? Wheres the Manhattan Project to wean us away from oil, just to bring it full circle? We clearly cant afford to remain dependent upon it-its running out, largely controlled by others, irrevocably pollutes our planet. Yet we keep trudging along on a steady diet of the stuff why?
No perceived need. Unless an individual comes up with a game-changer, some alternative to internal combustion, say, well only see a smattering of developments away from oil until its readily apparent to all that the stuff is rapidly going away. Until then, well continue to pay whatever they ask at the pump, chant Drill here, drill now until were blue in the face, drill ANWAR, offshore, oil sands, Yellowstone and Yosemite if we have to. Ditto "clean coal," though there are interesing developments in that area. And forget about fusion, cold or otherwise.
We need to be down to 'ten years of oil"-then, and only then, when we recognize that its going away, will we devote all our technological know-how to finding an alternative ..just hope its not too late.
Technology really starts, for man, with the implementation of tools for killing things. The spear is actually thought to be 400,000 years old, maybe 250,000 for homo sapiens. Then, about 30,000 years ago, someone came up with this, and improved the performance of the spear. Sometime shortly after that, we got the bow and arrow .Thats been the pattern for technological development for most of our history: a need is recognized, in this case, the need to kill large mammals for food, and a means of addressing that need is invented, then improved upon. The point really being that as long as that need is being met, no further development takes place or is necessary-this is why Europeans arrived on North America to find natives using the bow and arrow and even atlatl to obtain game: their needs were being addressed by the system and no improvement was needed. As soon as they saw what was to them new technology, though, the natives had to have it, recognizing the efficiency of new things like steel knives and rifles.
Interestingly, sometimes a new technology supplants the old one that fulfilled the same need for reasons beyond mere efficiency. Oil lamps were, until about 1859, filled with whale oil, almost all around the world, and that, or candles, is what provided people with light during the night. In 1859, we had the start of the petroleum industry, and kerosene provided light-and petroleum didnt provide much else until the invention of the internal combustion engine. By now, of course, the world is dependent upon petroleum for many things besides fuel: plastics, drugs, dyes, and lubrication are all uses of petroleum in addition to motive force, and oil lamps have long been supplanted by the electric bulb.
In 1798,the economist Thomas Malthus predicted that as the worlds population increased, food shortages would bring a rapid halt to the improvement in standard of living. By the end of the 19th century, many thought that they were seeing it come true. It well might have, had it not been for the development of fixed nitrogen technology-this, coupled with other early 20th century developments, increased food production with the introduction of new man-made fertilizers, as well as the development of many other ancillary technologies. For an excellent treatment on this particular part of our technological history, I cant recommend Thomas Hagers, The Alchemy of the Air enough. Its also a good cautionary tale on the development of new technologies: fixed nitrogen is also essential for the manufacture of explosives, and the process helped fuel Hitlers war machine.
At times in our history, weve moved forward technologically at a rapid pace because of an individuals vision, as in the case of Henry Ford. People associate Ford with the moving assembly line, but his vision was to make the car accessible to the masses: he wanted to build a machine that the people who worked for him could own, and not just rich people. The assembly line helped this by increasing production output while decreasing costs, but he also aided his vision by instituting profit-sharing and other amenities for his workers that increased their standard of living-innovations that got him called a socialist at the time.
At other times, weve moved forward because of a group impetus, a recognized perceived need and the will to set about attaining it. The best and most personal example I have this is the development of the atomic bomb. Leo Szilard composed a letter to Roosevelt, and he and Einstein signed and sent it in 1939. Six years later, we had the bomb, as well as the beginnings of nuclear power from reactors.
We went from coal to nuclear power in six years with the Manhattan Project. Along the way we invented entire new sciences, technologies, and methods of calculation, whose impact-positive and negative-are still felt today. The same can be said of the so-called space race: we went from barely orbital to the moon in a decade, and, along the way, developed a wide variety of technologies that most of us couldnt avoid coming into contact daily.
Which kind of brings us to the question I always ask: wheres the Manhattan Project to cure cancer, or AIDS? Wheres the Manhattan Project to wean us away from oil, just to bring it full circle? We clearly cant afford to remain dependent upon it-its running out, largely controlled by others, irrevocably pollutes our planet. Yet we keep trudging along on a steady diet of the stuff why?
No perceived need. Unless an individual comes up with a game-changer, some alternative to internal combustion, say, well only see a smattering of developments away from oil until its readily apparent to all that the stuff is rapidly going away. Until then, well continue to pay whatever they ask at the pump, chant Drill here, drill now until were blue in the face, drill ANWAR, offshore, oil sands, Yellowstone and Yosemite if we have to. Ditto "clean coal," though there are interesing developments in that area. And forget about fusion, cold or otherwise.
We need to be down to 'ten years of oil"-then, and only then, when we recognize that its going away, will we devote all our technological know-how to finding an alternative ..just hope its not too late.
