>>Let me get this straight. You claim that there are revolutionary
>> inventions, that would allow us to economically obtain energy from,
>> say, solar power, and they are well documented. Yet, none of the
>> solar sites references the clearly established documentation for this
>> invention...even though it is put on the internet by the US government?
>> Dan M. that's not what i'm saying, dan, you're putting words in my mouth.
> Well, I didn't mean to do that, I just tried to parse the meaning of your
words.
i was echoing the message in the film, "who killed the electric car". you
may want to rent it, or read this review:
http://www.stoked.cc/blog/archives/000405.html
what is your explanation why american industrialists chose to go with oil and
the internal combustion engine rather than electric automobiles 100 years ago.
henry ford could just as easily have used mass production to manufacture
electric cars, but then standard oil would have had to find a different market
for petroleum.
why do you think it is taking so long to progress beyond the internal
combustion engine? do you really thing the technology would be that difficult
to develop? after over a hundred years with this type of engine; i would
think that competent engineers, if given a free hand, would be able to produce
a car that got 100 mpg without sacrificing too much acceleration. i am sure
there would be a market for such a vehicle, even if it was quite small and
light, but there are government regulations that degree they are unsafe. i
wonder why that is the case, but motorcycles are allowed, even with helmet
regulations they are highly dangerous vehicles.
i am not saying there is a deliberate effort to prevent clean technology, but
why we are still stuck in an oil based economy after all these years, despite
what it is doing to our planet? neither am i saying that there is a vast right
wing conspiracy to direct scientific research in areas that would prevent
alternate technologies, but the market does drive what kind of technologies are
most profitable. nevertheless, i don't buy your implication that renewable,
clean sources of energy can not be competitive.
it is true when new technology is implemented it is often used to put in hi
tech devices in existing products, such as automobiles. consumers are sold
the latest fad, even if their present vehicle, or device is satisfactory.
corporate capitalism, in it's mindless quest for greater and greater profit,
promotes materialism by creating demand for endless products, even if it fucks
up the environment and causes cancer and all kinds of other terrible side
effects. it isn't planned, it is the result of "kill or be killed"
competition, "survival of the fittest".
i believe that the money we have spent on iraq, if put into a manhattan type
project to wean us off oil. along with conservation, that should be enough to
supply our energy needs. THAT is how to defeat the arabs.
corporate industry does impede progress in all kinds of research. the
industrialist approach is to develop products that are more competitive, rather
than built to last. of course they use capital for buyouts and mergers in
order to achieve monopoly. it is a standard business practice to protect your
investment. the government allows this because politicians receive money from
powerful lobbies. i mentioned buying the rights, because that is what a smart
capitalist does, not just to suppress, but to appropriate as well.
being a capitalist doesn't imply that you are an unscrupulous opportunist,
any more than being a marxist implies that i am a totalitarian. the principle
of individual private enterprise is what this country was founded on, not
corporate takeovers and insider trading.
under corporate capitalism, an economy that produces more cars increases
demand for oil, creating more profit. more cars, more oil; they feed off each
other like symbiotic organisms.
japan understood this principle and emulated our model, beating us at our own
game, by producing smaller cars that were more fuel efficient. south korea
soon followed. china is the latest to copy that model and is polluting the
world with even less epa controls to fuel their industry so it is more
competitive. i doubt that is what you want to happen? future advances in
technology can not be prevented, but the auto and oil companies are determined
they stay in business and are not be replaced by a less profitable means for
transportation. they are not interested in clean technology if it interferes
with exploiting nonrenewable natural resources. oil production is based on
supply and demand, the less supply, the more demand, the more profit. president
bush is part of that plan:
http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm
of course, if we tamper with that status quo, it will cause economic chaos
and a lot of very wealthy people will be hurt. the hi tech bubble is one
example of capitalism gone wild, there are many more and a lot of what goes on
in board rooms, and on wall street, is outright criminal. once in a while
someone gets busted, but they are the exception of course
all CEOs don't try to eliminate the development of all new products and
features, especially if they can be co-opted. when someone comes up with a new
product like the the ipod or iphone, does no one gets hurt? what about the
consumer who has to throw away the old tech and keeps buying and buying updates
and new models every year or so... what happens to all the used batteries
and out of date electronics? thrown in the garbage to create more pollution and
waste.
huxley was right when he wrote "brave new world". this is why i am against
corporate capitalism, because of ruthless competition, doing whatever they can
to expand their market share.
microsoft comes out with new software, but they are losing market share to
apple. i use a ibook with panther and have no idea how to use most of its
features. i refusedto upgrade. when i had a cell phone. didn't want something
that texts, or takes pictures, or can play music and video games. i can't even
figure out how to use speed dialing. i just want something for cheap voice
communication. people using these devices when driving. another thing that
bothers me.
when i first got on the world wide web around 1990 i was excited about all
the possibilities. i read dr. brin's novel. "earth", he had anticipated how the
internet could become a tool for empowerment and a vast interface for the
marketplace of ideas. moveon.org and dailykos.com and various political blogs
are starting to have influence. then, on television and talk radio,
mediocrity, sensationlism, celebrity worship, etc. reached a larger audience.
fox news has double the number of viewers as cnn.
along with the advent of broadband, the internet has mutated into becoming a
powerful market tool for ebay, computer dating, pornography, and even for
terrorist networking. the capitalists didn't try to stop the internet, they
took it over, just like they take over the sea, the land, the air, and now
space. other repressive governments have tried to control the internet and
failed. just that there have been no successful regulations that have been able
to stop the destructive use of technology, especially in third world countries
like china where they are trying to catch up by exploiting their labor and
selling toys with lead.
what happend to the tucker car happened in then 50s. planned obsolescence
has come a long way since then. like ronald wilson reagan said, "at general
electic, progress is our most important product. globalization, and the new
world order rule, and you can not deny that juggernaut is headed for collapse.
maybe some inventions are being hidden, but most new technology can be
adapted for further profit, sometimes after it is bought out. i am not denying
that. i am saying that is a bad thing. materialism and greed are bad things,
and coupled with fear and hate, an unscrupulous monster like bush can share the
spoils with his cronys and hasten that destruction.
the point is not that alternative, renewable sources of energy can't compete
with oil, the point is that because we have become dependent on oil, in massive
quantities, we have created a society that is hell bent for collapse. i don't
want to wait 60 years, when we start to run out, before we are able to start a
massive reduction in fossil fuel use.
even though i am an atheist, i see apocalypse, a self full-filling prophecy
on the horizon, unless, a breakthrough in clean technology can get us out of
the mess technology created. unfortunately, by then, where will all the
flowers have gone? vanishing habitats, vanishing species; a world made of
plastic and rubble, concrete and steel. industry gear for massive production
of food and other products to satisfy the appetite of 12 to 20 billion people.
jon
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
