In a message dated 5/14/2001 2:40:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
johnmarlow@gmx.net writes:
<< "As far as the future is concerned, any political or sociological
prediction is impossible. The only area where there is any
possibility of success is the technological future."
--Arthur C. Clarke
jm >>
I read that many years ago when I read Sir Arthur's book, quite avidly.
Let's look at Herman Kahn's forecast's when he was involved at the Hudson
Institute. I would say the 90% of his forecasts, turned up goose eggs. No
cigar, and no home-based nuclear reactors. So what is holding back
technological progress? Basically there is development and research money
available, not as much as all the companies and universities want; but
substantial sums, nevertheless.
I disagree that it is psychological human inertia. I believe that its simply
most companies (World-Wide) tend to focus on rapid return on their capital
investments. Regarding this, I have observed last Fridays' USA Today business
section, which focused on the fact that many companies are now backing away
from being a 'public' company and opting for private corporation, that do not
sell stock and IPO's. This seems to be an emerging trend.
The things that have driven successful technologies, have been profit, wars,
international competition, and climatic change, resource depletion
(independent of climate) and accidental discoveries. Everyone on this list is
well versed in these notions, but we can argue this contention later, if
anyone wishes.
In a way, our technologies have achieved a level of comfortable living. Most
of us, who are healthy enough, young enough, can note that most people in our
respective countries are fairly contented, at least not driven to the point
of demanding actions by the government en masse.' So, this is a quandary,
that good living may dissipate the demand for progress. Ah! But there are
some intractable such as disease and aging and death. So we see that the
Lion's share goes into medical research, which "may" be slowly paying off, if
the new cancer therapy developed seems to indicate:
<<Leukemia Drug Shows Promise Against GIST Tumors
By Lisa Richwine
Reuters
SAN FRANCISCO, (May 13) - Gleevec, the cancer pill approved in record time
for its unparalleled power against a type of leukemia, has had success
fighting untreatable gastrointestinal tumors, U.S. researchers reported
Sunday.
Made by Swiss drug giant Novartis AG Gleevec was evaluated ...>>
Nuclear Fusion appears too daunting as a large scale energy source, though
the promises keep coming from researchers. I suspect Z-pinch will gather dust
as money other fusion concepts have. Solar--always too expensive now, but in
5 years...always 5 years. Fuel cells are facing some foot dragging in the
market place.
Will Kamens' stirling engine really do the trick? Sounds like hype to me.
I guess its a matter of focus and perceived necessity.
Mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:05 MDT