Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Chaka-Z0]

1: It will NOT "happen in it's own time", progress demands a need for change, otherwise we would still be single celled amoeba's.

Yep. This is literally at the center of the evolution process of our species. Prehistoric beasts were too hard to hunt alone, the need to hunt as a group developed revolutionary hunting techniques. Incredible advancements were made during times of war, because it demanded change in tactics, medicine and so on.

So yep, if the Govt doesn't force change or put rules in place to facilitate a transition, nothing is ever going to change, because there's no need for it.

[Annoyed]

Yep. This is literally at the center of the evolution process of our species. Prehistoric beasts were too hard to hunt alone, the need to hunt as a group developed revolutionary hunting techniques. Incredible advancements were made during times of war, because it demanded change in tactics, medicine and so on.

So yep, if the Govt doesn't force change or put rules in place to facilitate a transition, nothing is ever going to change, because there's no need for it.

How about when something better comes along?

Suppose next year, a sustainable, safe fusion process is developed, that will provide energy at 1/1000 of the cost of fossil fuels?

How long will fossil fuels last after that?

[jelgate]

The problem is your philosophy is that is impossible. It inhibits innovation

[Chaka-Z0]

Let me give you a clue, not many corporations do R&D for fun and philanthropic purposes. Why would they? Their first goal is to make money. As the saying goes, build it and they will come.

[Annoyed]

Let me give you a clue, not many corporations do R&D for fun and philanthropic purposes. Why would they? Their first goal is to make money. As the saying goes, build it and they will come.

Don't you think a company that invents such an energy technology would become successful in the marketplace?
Heck, they would have people beating their doors down to buy it.

[jelgate]

You're changing the subject again

[Chaka-Z0]

Of course Annoyed, just like Apple's products. New models have incredible features such as no earplug jack, bigger screens or perhaps a slight change in color, among many other insanely high-tech stuff. Every time a new product comes out, the customers (sheeps) are waiting in hoards ready to partake of the new iPhone, for a mere fee of a thousand bucks. And of course, what draws them there, is the emerging technologies.

[Annoyed]

Of course Annoyed, just like Apple's products. New models have incredible features such as no earplug jack, bigger screens or perhaps a slight change in color, among many other insanely high-tech stuff. Every time a new product comes out, the customers (sheeps) are waiting in hoards ready to partake of the new iPhone, for a mere fee of a thousand bucks. And of course, what draws them there, is the emerging technologies.

I'm still using an i-phone 6+ precisely because of that no headphone jack thing. I use it as a music player, and I'll be damned if I'll buy some additional gadget 'cause apple wants me to.

But you go invent an engine for my boat that I don't have to dump $100 bucks of gas into for a weekend, and I'll line up to buy it.

The new technology has to be wanted.

[Chaka-Z0]

I'm still using an i-phone 6+ precisely because of that no headphone jack thing. I use it as a music player, and I'll be damned if I'll buy some additional gadget 'cause apple wants me to.

But you go invent an engine for my boat that I don't have to dump $100 bucks of gas into for a weekend, and I'll line up to buy it.

The new technology has to be wanted.

Okay good for you, you're not like the other sheeps that buy every new products. But fact remains, that a LOT of people do it, the majority of Apple users, that is not something to be denied Annoyed. It's close to an addiction, for some it is one.

Of course new technology, if wanted and useful, will interest customers. But one thing I've learned in the business world is that its not about what the product is, its about what the product means. That includes branding, which is one of the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of a company.

[Annoyed]

Okay good for you, you're not like the other sheeps that buy every new products. But fact remains, that a LOT of people do it, the majority of Apple users, that is not something to be denied Annoyed. It's close to an addiction, for some it is one.

Of course new technology, if wanted and useful, will interest customers. But one thing I've learned in the business world is that its not about what the product is, its about what the product means. That includes branding, which is one of the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of a company.

But that weapon is completely ineffective on someone who has no inclination to follow the herd and doesn't give a hoot about what the rest of the world thinks and has confidence in their own ability to evaluate information and reach a conclusion.

The absolute best a marketer or advertiser can hope to do with me is to let me know they make something I might be interested in.

We've argued with each other enough; do you really think I'm the docile, follow the herd type?

[Chaka-Z0]

To quote GF, cannot read I see.

I literally said that you weren't like them. Here's some more info for you, corps don't care about lone wolves because the money is in the sheep.

[Annoyed]

To quote GF, cannot read I see.

I literally said that you weren't like them. Here's some more info for you, corps don't care about lone wolves because the money is in the sheep.

No, I saw that and read it right But we've argued so much that I was surprised that it would even enter your mind that I might be a sheep.
I'm more along the lines of this..

*PS: If you don't recognize this hand in your sci-fi fan card.

[aretood2]

Don't you think a company that invents such an energy technology would become successful in the marketplace?
Heck, they would have people beating their doors down to buy it.

Businesses are averse to risks. They only take risks if it is a sure thing or if they have no other choice. Making a current product hard to sell forces them to take risks to develop alternatives they otherwise wouldn't do. That's how it works. A lot of innovation came from government projects like DARPA. Nuclear tech was developed because of the need for it due to WWII. The Space Race was there because of its need due to the cold war. If incandescent light bulbs aren't blocked, then there's absolutely no need to take a risk with LED.

The inventors of the 19th century and early 20th century lived in an entirely different landscape where the barriers to the markets were almost non existent. These days you have a plethora of large corporations who spend a good chunk of change eating up patents of anything that can threaten their products. These corporations are slow at innovation and the only ones innovating are the ones where their is significant competition. This is also why the US has horrible internet and telecom services, because it is mostly in the hands of monopolies and oligopolies.

There's more reasons as to why inventors today can't be the same as those a hundred years ago. For example, it is easy to invent the wheel, but very very very hard to invent cold fusion power generation.

[Chaka-Z0]

I don't think anybody could've given a better explanation than Tood

If I may add, even as late as WW2, many wealthy businessmen were doing business directly with the different regimes/countries behind their own country's back.

Thankfully nowadays there's a couple philanthropists such as Musk that actually focus on development of new tech. Reusable rockets is one of those, but again, it's more of an amalgam of technology than a specific big breakthrough.

That being said, I think people don't realize how fast our society is changing and will change.

The Quantum Computer could become a reality in a couple decades, granted it is not kept behind closed doors.

I've read an article today about a Dr. from Montreal that found the gene that could result in a vaccine for cancer. Supposedly he looked into the 98% of the "junk adn" where most scientists had disregarded by logical thinking. This gene is the trigger to enable the immune system to identify the cancer cells.

Tech evolves so quickly it becomes almost banal.

[Annoyed]

Businesses are averse to risks. They only take risks if it is a sure thing or if they have no other choice. Making a current product hard to sell forces them to take risks to develop alternatives they otherwise wouldn't do. That's how it works. A lot of innovation came from government projects like DARPA. Nuclear tech was developed because of the need for it due to WWII. The Space Race was there because of its need due to the cold war. If incandescent light bulbs aren't blocked, then there's absolutely no need to take a risk with LED.

Not true. If they perceive there may be a market for a new item, they will do the research. Pharmaceutical companies do it all the time to develop new drugs.
Take LED's for example. Electricity costs money. If I can invent a light bulb which uses 1/10th or less of the electricity that incandescent do, and works as well as incandescents do, I'm pretty sure I can sell them.

The inventors of the 19th century and early 20th century lived in an entirely different landscape where the barriers to the markets were almost non existent. These days you have a plethora of large corporations who spend a good chunk of change eating up patents of anything that can threaten their products. These corporations are slow at innovation and the only ones innovating are the ones where their is significant competition. This is also why the US has horrible internet and telecom services, because it is mostly in the hands of monopolies and oligopolies.

On big reason our inet/telcom is poor is the age of the infrastructure; this place has been wired a lot longer than other parts of the world, where the infrastructure has just been installed.
But on this one topic, I don't think it should be in the private sector. Inet/telcom ought to be a very heavily regulated utility, like electric was before the era of mass deregulation.

There's more reasons as to why inventors today can't be the same as those a hundred years ago. For example, it is easy to invent the wheel, but very very very hard to invent cold fusion power generation.

Everything has already been invented? That's a weak argument.