Should these technologies "die"?

[RogueMartian]

I see that MSN chose an interesting head story for the morning
http://www.bcentral.com/articles/isyn/default.asp?newsid=2003102115&cobrand=msn&LID=3800

Basically this guy argues that these technologies are more bad than good:
Nuclear Weapons
Coal Burning
Incandescent Light Bulbs
Manned Space Flights
Land Mines
The Internal Combustion Engine
Prisons
Cosmetic Implants
DVDs
Lie Detectors

I'm surprised that this guy is a sci-fi author. I've never read his stuff, or heard of him before now, but he seems to be grossly uninformed on certain technologies. I just thought it was amusing. Does anyone else think these technologies should bite the big one?

Edit: One further note: DVDS are the best. And if you don't know how to use the fast forward button on a dvd player, you need to have your children teach you.

[DianaGohan]

I agree with some of the items on the list (Nuclear Weapons for one) but DVDs?Can't say I approve of that.

[cross blues]

Nuclear weapons are bad, but nuclear power is not. Nuclear power is the most efficient we have. Of course, waste disposal is another issue altogether.

Burning coal isn't new technology. It's actually a primitive source of energy. So, yes, coal burning should "die". So should gas powered cars.

I think stem cell research should die. People are going to die regardless of any effort to stop aging. If people don't die, the world will become overpopulated faster than it is now. Then people will starve to death instead of dying from disease. (I am not trying to change the topic, so don't argue about it.)

[Tallaid]

I disagreed with him on pretty much every point possible. Not the least of which is manned space flight, though there may not be any huge reason to send people into space instead of machines, he's an author, I would think he'd understand the idea of being in space is a powerful one and just because it isn't ultra eficient doesn't mean you shouldn't have it. The point I think he messed up on the most was his opinions of nuclear weapons. Basically there's no reason to get rid of nuclear weapons now that they exist, they only exist for one purpose now, nuclear deterence. If all the countries that officially had them destryoed theirs, than his main argument would come to fruition and terrorists could easily annihilate anyone they wanted to. The only thing that can stop someone from launching a nuclear bomb, besides morals, is knowledge that the guy you're attacking has one he's prepared to fire right back at you, it's called nuclear deterence and nowaday's it's a fact of life that you just have to live with.

[Blue]

Sweet mother of god i was reading this at school...dvd's....prisons?? :eek:

[RogueMartian]

Sweet mother of god i was reading this at school...dvd's....prisons?? :eek:
Yeah, prisons aren't exactly a technology are they. They've been around as long as society has.

[SilverKnight]

Um. Maybe I'm not offering much to this discussion, but this guy is a moron. Someone please send him a dictionary with the definition of "technology" highlighted. Please.

[Romanesque]

I agree with a few of these choices, conditionally agree with others, but some are just plain stupid. Since I'm in a talkative mood right now, I'll address... everything! :D

1. NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Putting aside the few cases in which they have been used, they're really more of a "political weapon" than anything else. That having been said, it would be nice to live in a world without them. I suspect this will happen as soon as more insidious types of devices become common, making everyone wish we could go back to the good old days of conventional nuclear weapons.

2. COAL-BASED POWER

Ok, so what exactly is supposed to make up for losing a quarter of our energy supplies? Are we going to burn more oil instead...? Yeah, that solves a lot. There are already designs for truly safe nuclear power, but the plans for implementation are continually blocked (sometimes by the same people who are against nuclear weapons, no less). Coal based power will die when better alternatives are implemented on a wide scale, no sooner.

3. THE INTERNAL-COMBUSTION ENGINE

There's nothing wrong with internal-combustion engines, other than that they typically burn fossil fuels. Switch to renewable plant based fuels, and the engine's exhaust will be largely putting back into the atmosphere what the plants removed, helping to minimize the net polution gain.

He proposes switching to hydrogen power, but neglects to consider the largest sources we're using (or are planning to use) to obtain it... coal and natural gas. Even if the conversion can be done cleanly, the coal still has to mined (with all the associated dangers of coal mining and destruction of land) and many of the same sources we currently rely upon for oil will still end up being relied upon for natural gas.

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS

Will they eventually be replaced? Yes, but not until the required LED technology is perfected and distributed, which is going to take several years, at least... maybe an entire decade, or more. What are we supposed to do until then, live by candle light?

5. LAND MINES

Ok, this I agree with... I'm sure that'd make him happy. :p

6. MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

Can I please strangle him, now?

So space flights have risks. Wow, who'd have guessed? Are we then to abandon any and all fields of research that present potential health risks for individuals who are willing to do the work? How exactly are we then to perfect the associated technology to reduce or eliminate the risks...? Sorry, animals and robots can only go so far.

7. PRISONS

While the prison system might not be perfect... his ideas here scare me. =x

8. COSMETIC IMPLANTS

Some people have cosmetic surgury for reasons other than vanity. Like it or not, people judge others by appearances, and if you've been messed up by a disfiguring accident or have been born with a defect, all the "happy thinking" in the world isn't going to protect you from the kinds of discrimination you'll face from day to day. This "truly advanced medical technology" he speaks of is still just a promise of the future, and until then, our current barbaric methods will have to continue.

Furthermore, I find it surprising that he has no qualms with the concept of people altering themselves merely for their own vanity (and not social necessity). He just doesn't like the current procedures because they're not "advanced" enough for him. Yeesh.

9. LIE DETECTORS

He's right... current lie detectors are faulty. However, improved methods are in development. Whether or not they should be used in court, someone is going to be putting perfected lie detectors to use, even if it's not publicly acknowledged...

10. DVDs

First and worst, DVDs are unbearably frail.

I'd like to know what exactly it is that he's doing with the disks... actually... maybe I don't want to know...

VHS isn't exactly durable, either. Demagnetization over time, erasable by strong magnetic fields, wear & tear from moving parts, tape shredding VCR's, etc.

Any benefit one gets from "clearer pictures"-on what HDTV superscreen, exactly?

Someone needs glasses... and heck, DVD doesn't have enough resolution for HDTV. Where's he been?

Plus, just like CDs, DVDs as physical objects will prove to warp and delaminate.

In what, 50 to 100 years? By which point, the format will likely be obsolete, anyway?

The rest of his problems with DVD lie more with implementation that any fault in the technology itself. It can be used well or abused, much like anything else.

--Romey