(04-13-2009 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Change "months" to "years" in the foregoing, and you'd have a much more likely projection. Putting all our eggs in the basket of alternative energy is an extremely stupid strategy. We need to get there someday, but we're not going to do anything but cripple our country and our economy unless we realize that "someday" is probably at least 20 years in the future, and we need to find a way to get from here to there first.
As a good rule of thumb, something that exists only in a lab today is at least 20 years from being implementable on a large scale. Something that is being worked on in a lab today, but so far hasn't actually happened, is even further away.
The oft-repeated mantra that, "If we could put a man on the moon in ten years, we can solve the energy problem in less time," rests squarely upon the great misconception that the space program consisted of JFK giving a speech and our landing on the moon less than 10 years later. We were already 15-20 years into a concerted effort to get to the moon when JFK gave his speech. The first seven astronauts were selected during the Eisenhower adminstration, and several of them had already flown in space by the time JFK gave his "why does Rice play Texas?" speech (as I like to call it), to give at least two examples of how far along we were. What JFK's speech did was to make a decision between two then-competing strategies--one, to build a space station first and then go to the moon from the space station (the preferred approach of Werner Von Braun and the army, which would have had us on the moon by about 1975), or two, to go straight to the moon from earth (which JFK's timeline essentially commited us to, since this was the only option that had any chance to get us there during the decade). That's all it did. It didn't start the space program.
Starting with a gross mischaracterization of the truth, and implying that it somehow suggests speedy resolution to a totally different problem, is a bit disingenuous at best.
I brought up the futurist because of your request for something, anything that may preclude your suggested collapse.
Well, you can imagine from my posting history that I listened to most of his commentary with a raised eyebrow, however challenging a guest speaker in front of 200 of your industry peers (especially when the futurist is not really related to our industry, he was just a speaker to keep our interest) is poor form. He also was completely convinced of the "it takes a village to raise a child" form of socialism, though he never called it socialism.
Other points of interest from Houle:
**Intellectual property is the new technology. Those who can show their technology as cool, and protect that technolgy, will be the new business leaders. His example of course? Apple.
**The Millenial Generation will be completely raised with and on the internet. To many of this generation, established institutions such as libraries, newspapers, TV, movie studios etc (information providers) are archaic and un-needed. Soon, all the information ever known, every letter in every book in the Library of Congress, and every social need will be completely technology based and instantly available via download on a Smart Phone. Don't underestimate how this access to knowledge will change the business field. If you company doesn't allow access to Facebook, IM, iTunes etc at work, you will have difficulty in recruiting the very best of the Millenial Generation. He likened it to your company telling you that you cannot make personal phone calls from your desk.
** There are markets in Africa, Asia and South America being opened simply through cell phones. These cell phones will be what will change the fortunes of these areas - instant information on local events, instant prices from 10 middlemen for your crops, instant instant instant..... Someday, cell phones will alter the landscapes of places that 70 years ago where nothing but exotic pages in National Geographic.
Owl, your point about technology being 20 years out is probably more correct in my view, however another point, raised by Fo, is the astronomical increase in computing power. It really is the wild card here - you all know the examples of "the first Space Shuttle had the computing power of a good current graphing calculator" etc etc.
If it took us so long to bring technology to fruition, certainly some of that delay is a direct result of a historical need for slide rules and other more antiquated computing systems? As computing technology increases, how does that not increase the speed at which we can bring impressive technologies to table?
Since the time between each of the last three large advances in Human Technology
have consistently shortened, should we not to assume that our next big Technology (lets just call it Green Technology for sake of writing) is that much closer?
Let me paraphrase here from memory from Houle:
**Humans that we would recognize have been on earth for 150,000 years.
**Modern man and the Age of Agriculture from were from 5000 years ago to the 1800's.
**Industrial Revolution from 1800s through 1970
**Age of Technology from 1970 to 2010?
**Green Technology from 2010 forward.
So his point is that technology is so quickly advancing human knowledge that maybe we can make these big jumps forward without the vast waiting periods of the past.
And as a result of those new technologies, perhaps there is hope for a reprieve from what to some looks like a blackhole of recession, unemployment and general malaise?
He did believe that this next technology, whatever it is - will be an American invention.
...NO...There won't be a need to steal from anyone.
