10 Technologies that should be killed off?

[Azimaith]

Two bombs were dropped to give the Japanese no choice but to surrender. Its not genocide considering genocide means the complete destruction of a race, which is what Hitler was bent on, not us. Anywho, Take into account the Japanese mindset at the time, one Japanese general wrote that they would never surrender till no Japanese was left alive. It was death before surrender. By causing something so horrifying and fearful as the two nuclear bombs annihilating two cities in three days they induced surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped it was a month before they gave up.

Lets face it, there are tons of reasons that influenced the American action to drop the bombs.

1: Japanese war crimes: The Japanese were notorious for atrocities during the war, now they didn't sign onto the Geneva convention but it doesn't change the opinion of people who knew what they did to our soldiers. It went far beyond slave work camps.
2: Japan and America knew nothing of one anothers culture for the most part. For both sides they were less than animals. Naturally, this is how you desesitize soldiers to killing them as well.
3: They attacked Pearl Harbor: Regardless of what we found out later, at the time we thought they made an unprovoked surprise attack on our country obliterating alot of the Pacific fleet. For that, many people thought they had to pay.
4: America thought it was the biggest and the best when WWII started, suddenly its Pacific fleet is destroyed, they wanted to show the world that if you mess with the U.S. we'll pay you back 1000 fold.

While moral or not I won't judge, but understandable? Definately.

[ 10-28-2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Azimaith ]

[Azimaith]

Originally posted by Rokenn: It seems a few people need to bush up on their reading comprehension here. Bruce Sterling is not saying these technologies/devices should have never been developed. He is saying they are past their usefulness and need to be retired (like the 8 track tape). All these techs played an important part in getting us were we are now, but they have outlived their usefulness and need to be put out to pasture. Getting rid of some (like Prisons) would require a huge sea change in how society deals with the cause but can be done if society chooses to do it.

The DVD is past its usefulness? He's saying these technologies should die at this moment. Manned space flight past its usefulness? He even says that maybe later. Hes just saying it should be killed now and therefore I don't see the problem with alot of these posts.

[Rokenn]

Your opinion Az, I disagree. For example your lengthy posts defends the majority of these technologies on their past, not on how they stand with current alternatives that are less impactful or just plain superior.

You are looking at the past, Mr Sterling is looking at the future.

[Firestormalpha]

Guy's if you want to debate the moral implications of nuclear explosives, might I suggest a new thread on the subject?

At anyrate most of the technologies he's writing about we can do without in today's society. Instead of prisons why don't we pick a large area of fertile ground for criminals to inhabit. It should still be a prison, but one in which the criminals must make their own living without the tax dollars of law abiding citizens. Basically do what the British intended with Australia. They'll either kill each other or develop into a thriving society.

On the topic of DVD's? I don't know what this guy was thinking. My guess is that he started doing some crazy drugs towards that part of his article.

We can do without nuclear weapons now. They are not needed.

As far as Azimaith's call one coal power. The author of the article isn't calling for the removal of coal power without having a replacement powersource in place. Only an idiot would remove the current powersource without something to jump in the moment you take the old system offline.

Also you need to do some more research on fuel cell engines. They are actually quite effective now. Justifiy your claim to their ineffectiveness with documentation and facts.

That's all for now. If this all seems like a jumbled mess of words you have my apologies but I'm typing in a hurry.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Firestormalpha: On the topic of DVD's? I don't know what this guy was thinking. My guess is that he started doing some crazy drugs towards that part of his article.

My guess he had to take a skipping DVD back to Blockbuster one too many times [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]


There are other techs on the horizon that may supliment the DVD. With rise of home networks and low cost mass storage you could rip all your DVD's to your home server and stream em to your TV (a TIVO like solution). Also holographic storage always seems to be '5 years' away. If they could ever get that to mass-market you could have a rack of shiney crystals instead of all those boring DVD boxes [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Azimaith]

Look at what hes saying. He said: Manned Space flight should die. He said maybe in the future it will be useful, well you can't really get to the future of manned spaceflight without having it now can you? Nuclear Weapons have their purpose in life today as well, I've already outlined what they're good for in the previous post.

As far as Azimaith's call one coal power. The author of the article isn't calling for the removal of coal power without having a replacement powersource in place. Only an idiot would remove the current powersource without something to jump in the moment you take the old system offline.


Oh really? Maybe you should read this taken directly from his article.

If coal vanished tomorrow, we'd miss it: the U.S. would lose a quarter of its energy supplies. But that shortfall, daunting though it is, cannot compare to the ghastly prospect of blackened skies over China and seas rising out of their beds. The sooner we rid ourselves of this destructive addiction, the less we will have to regret.

He most definately did not propose a gradual process of removing coal.

On Australia:

At anyrate most of the technologies he's writing about we can do without in today's society. Instead of prisons why don't we pick a large area of fertile ground for criminals to inhabit. It should still be a prison, but one in which the criminals must make their own living without the tax dollars of law abiding citizens. Basically do what the British intended with Australia. They'll either kill each other or develop into a thriving society.

Or we could dump criminals in the atlantic and let decent people live on fertile land. Look, we don't exactly have sprawling expanses of land completely isolated from human civilization to dump unwanteds in. Sure there are thousands of tiny islands in the Hawaiian archipeligo but most are too small to support more than a tiny community. In short, we don't have the isolate, fertile land to put them in.

Nuclear Weapons:

We can do without nuclear weapons now. They are not needed.

By we you do mean the entire world right? Nuclear weapons are a tremendous deterrent force against invasions by larger armies. They are the ultimate equalizer. Since so many people here are convinced there is an imperial american empire, whats to keep us from rolling into western europe and taking France? The truth is no army on the planet can really compete with the America's army at the moment. Why can't we? Because we would nuke each other into oblivion thats why. As far fetched as it seems, nuclear weapons are an insurance policy.


Hydrogen Fuel Cells:

Also you need to do some more research on fuel cell engines. They are actually quite effective now. Justifiy your claim to their ineffectiveness with documentation and facts

Fuel cells are an important enabling technology for the hydrogen economy and have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our nation, offering cleaner, more-efficient alternatives to the combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels.

DOE is working closely with its national laboratories, universities, and industry partners to overcome critical technical barriers to fuel cell commercialization. Current R&D is focused on the development of reliable, low-cost, high-performance fuel cell system components for transportation and buildings applications.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...lls/fuelcells/
Taken from the US department of energy.

To be more specific I've taken this from their PDF:

10
PEM FUEL CELL DEVELOPMENT MUST ADDRESS TECHNICAL CHALLENGES BEFORE
SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION APPLICATIONS ARE POSSIBLE
Despite significant recent advances, PEM fuel cell technology must progress beyond the current state-of-the-art before it can be considered a viable alternative to the ICE. The technical challenges include the fuel cell stack, the fuel processor, and balance-of-plant components.

Size and Weight Reduction. The size and weight of current fuel cell systems must be reduced substantially to meet the performance requirements for automobiles. This applies not only to the fuel cell stack, but also to the ancillary components and major
subsystems (e.g., fuel processor, compressor/expander, and energy storage device) making up the balance of the power system. Size and weight reduction are being addressed both in basic fuel cell technology and in power system development. For instance, the program is developing:

• Fuel cell stacks using lighter weight materials, operating at higher current densities,
and/or near atmospheric pressure.
• Compact, lightweight, on-board fuel processors.
• Improved on-board hydrogen storage systems.
• Integrated, compactly packaged heat exchangers, compressor/expanders,
condensers, radiators, etc.
Manufacturing Cost Reductions. Cost reductions must be achieved before fuel cell
power systems are competitive with ICE technology. Currently the costs for automotive ICE
power plants are about $25-35/kW; fuel cell system costs need to be less than $50/kW for the
technology to be competitive. Further cost reductions are being sought by developing:
• Fuel processor and stack designs specific to the transportation sector, reduced
catalyst loading, and selection of appropriate materials conducive to high-volume
manufacturing.
• Fuel cell stack technology with higher power density.
• Low cost components and materials such as bipolar plates, membrane electrode
assemblies (MEAs), carbon paper, and catalysts.
Significant technical challenges
must be met for PEM fuel cell
power systems to reach their
potential, including:
• Size and weight reduction
• Manufacturing cost reduction
• Rapid start and operation
• Durability and reliability
• Fuel storage, conditioning,
and delivery.
Rapid Start and Operation. Start-up time for automotive applications must be less
than a few seconds to reach full power. Until faster-starting fuel cells are developed,
vehicles can be designed so that energy stored in on-board batteries can be used during
the first few minutes of operation while the fuel cell system reaches required power levels.
In addition, improved transient response of the complete fuel cell system, including the
fuel processor subsystem and other components, must be developed and demonstrated.
Rapid start-up and load-following requirements are being addressed by development of:
• Improved PEM fuel cell technology, with quick start-up capabilities from a cold
condition.
• Fuel processors with inherent load-following capability.
• System designs which incorporate batteries, ultracapacitors, or hydrogen storage to
improve dynamic response and handle load surges and regenerative braking.
Durability and Reliability. Fuel cell power systems will be required to achieve the same
level of durability and reliability, and to function over the full range of operating
conditions (-40o C to 80o C), as do current automotive engines.
Fuel Storage, Conditioning, and Delivery. Significant advances in fuel processing and
delivery are necessary for fuel cells to make a substantial market penetration. In the
long-term, hydrogen will be the preferred fuel, but the fueling infrastructure does not
exist to service a large number of cars. In order to use the existing fueling infrastructure,
compact, low-cost fuel processors capable of reforming common (petroleum-based and
alternative) transportation fuels are required. New and/or improved catalysts that can
operate effectively over a broad range of conditions are necessary to produce hydrogen
from other transportation fuels. Fuel infrastructure issues are being addressed by:
• Developing fuel processor capability which provides fuel flexibility.
• Defining fuel supply and distribution strategies and integrating ongoing research
with DOE Hydrogen and Alternative Fuels Programs.
• Coordinating activities with alternative fuels providers and developers in government
and industry.

[ 10-28-2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Azimaith ]

[Firestormalpha]

Azimaith your belittling tone is not appreciated. In fact it's insulting. Reserve it for debates on the CE forum.

[Azimaith]

Originally posted by Firestormalpha: Azimaith your belittling tone is not appreciated. In fact it's insulting. Reserve it for debates on the CE forum.

Excuse me? Belittling? Why because I prove someone wrong? I put down what I thought of his article and went through all ten of his technologies and refuted each and everyone. Then I got some opposistion, its only right that I back them up. So I went and put out my opinions and when I was asked for information on hydrogen fuel cells I put it down. Theres no belittling going on, I defended my post and thats all there is too it. If you don't like it you don't have to type anything about my replies.