Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

That has always been one of my favorite quotes. not because it is kinda dark or anything but because he understood that he just invented something that could cause every other invention to disappear

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

This is gonna sound crazy, but...

The invention of the gasoline automobile has been extremely good for this country and this world in the 20th century. However, the harm is soon to come...

It has created an unsustainable economy based on fossil fuels. Big, heavy SUVs (especially Hummers) are the worst. In terms of moving the person or the goods concerned, SUV and Hummer engines are less than 1 percent efficient. That means that almost all of the gasoline is wasted. As you know, oil is a fossil fuel (nonrenewable), and it is running out, and production has either recently peaked or will peak in a short while. In the mean time, however, we have made an economy so dependent on oil that even a small reduction in production can cause a recession (I.E. the 1970s). What would the economy be like with, say 20 percent less oil production? 40 percent? HALF?? LESS??? It would be in total and complete ruin.

This is not even considering the vast ecological impact such as global warming that an oil economy has had on the environment. I will not rant about it here. There are plenty of websites for that.

Meanwhile, the leaders (of both major parties) down in Washington DC are idling around about energy policy ("Nukular" is not sustainable, at least not by the current methods, and "clean coal" pollutes). Understandably so. It would cause a political party great damage when such a policy is declared, and it would probably cause problems in the short term. In the long-term, however, there is a sustainable economy that will be there for many generations to come.

We are engineers, though, and can (or will be able to) solve these pressing issues. However, it is time for an honest, organized, and major endeavor. It is unfortunately too late to look for "Market Solutions". That time would have been in the 1970s and 80s, and everyone knows how the previous energy independence effort ended. It is time for an enormous bipartisan effort to solve this problem (Although, with the same cost of the current Iraq war per year over five years, will probably get us over 90 percent to the goal). It is time for nothing less than a new Manhattan Project, to gain energy independence.

P.S.: Such a project would also inspire millions of Americans to become engineers (and join FIRST) and would guarantee them with important, high-paying jobs.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

WTH??? My microwave oven is a lifesaver... I pity the people who don't have one.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

The combustion engine is a pretty big one. It drives our economy (and FIRST) and the automobile basically rules our lives (before the automobile most peoples lives never extended beyond the borders of their own towns).
But the automobile has also cause a dependency on oil that influences our foreign policy, the creation of pollutants that are basically destroying the earth and it's inhabitants, the decrease of natural land to roads, parking lots and such, ill health (why walk when you can drive) and the automobile is probably the most dangerous object you can freely buy (perhaps even more so than guns). It's alot of responsibility and I think there are alot of people driving who really shouldn't be.
It is a powerful invention.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Technological advances have already made oil a renewable resource. For example, there's a thermal depolymerization pilot plant near a Butterball facility in Missouri that produces more than two barrels of mid-grade oil from each ton of turkey offal it processes, with more than 80% of the energy content of the incoming waste ending up in the outgoing oil. The process works with any organic input, including plastics, sewage, and medical wastes. It's presently more expensive than imported crude oil -- the output from the pilot plant is something like $80/barrel -- but that'll go down with increased scale. That it uses up garbage in the process is a bonus.

Because the oil produced by TDP comes from wastes and is not a fossil fuel, burning it doesn't add to the carbon dioxide in the biosphere. The overall result isn't as clean as a hypothetical hydrogen economy could be, but it has two clear advantages: it makes full use of existing infrastructure, and it's a whole lot less expensive than producing hydrogen from non-fossil sources.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

I'd contend though that if it were utilized more, Nuclean Power would be a real benefit to the planet. It's cleaner and fairly safe (when people are not cheap and/or lax). Unfortunately you don't really have the ability to have the power without the potential for weapons.

The same could be said for gunpowder and similar explosives. If you don't want to limit yourself to modern technology, I'd place gunpower as more harmful then nuclear. Look at the number of people killed over time by guns, bombs, rockets, missiles, etc which are all based off the an explosive in some respects (i.e. gun powder). But also look at all the benefits. We would not have modern mining, or many tunnels, or roads and railroads through some tough terrain with out gunpowder and other explosives.

There is a moral question that engineers and inventors really have to deal with... Are the benefits worth the potential harm?

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

George,
I have to disagree. The amount of radioactive waste that is building up in holding pens is getting bigger everyday. We need to look at the fact that this material needs watching for thousands of years or we need a better way of safely disposing of it. (quite frankly, I would think that grinding it up, mixing it with the tailings of uranium mining and sticking it back down in the hole it came from would work better than what we are currently doing.) The breeder reactors that France is so fond of are another source of fear in many repsects. The fact that they produce additional radioactive material as a product of operation and that sodium is used as the primary coolant scares me.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Indeed, an article in this month's MIT Technology Review by Stewart Brand, a prominent environmentalist, does a good job of explaining why nuclear power shouldn't be ignored as an alternative to fossil fuel-burning power plants. Many environmental experts are now saying that the problems of waste storage/disposal and proliferation issues should be addressed rather than rejecting nuclear power outright.

The regulatory issues need to be worked on as well -- as long as it's essentially forbidden to do anything with the radwaste except sequester it, nobody will be able to come up with a better solution. The most promising technology is "forced transmutation", but the only available place to do experiments on it is the French Phenix breeder reactor, which is reaching the end of its useful life and should be decommissioned in the next few years.

The last time I checked, there was only one sodium-cooled breeder reactor operating in France, and it's being kept in operation mostly because it's the only source of the kind of fast neutrons that can transmute long-lived radwaste into less problematic elements -- it's the one I mentioned before. Besides the Phenix, all of France's nuclear power plants use pressurized-water reactors.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

I'll buy that. I think if you look at it from a perspective of the energy produced vs the waste product created it is cleaner. But Nuclear waste does take a LOT LOT longer to get rid of. How do they run nuclear reactors in closed systems such as submarines and aircraft carriers. I don't think those produce a whole lot of waste (but I could be wrong - on the whole subject really).

I think the problem, esp with the any power generation technology, is that it seems to cause some kind of harm somewhere. Coal produces smog, strip mines, and health problems for miners. Oil produces oil spills, and carbon monozide. Even Hydroelectric can be a problem if it the dam destroys and ecosystem or floods some archilogical site (or potential site). Wind? The commercial wind farms could be considered an eyesore and they might effect birds flying by. Solar may be ok. (But it might help heat up the earth too, who knows?)

I think it's easy to find problems with technological advances. Almost as easy as it is to find benefits. The issue is recognizing, or theorizing, the problems before hand and minmizing them. And weighing the benefits against the problems.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

There is no "perfect" energy generator. Like Newton said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What we are trying to find is the lesser of the evils. What technology will let us produce the most energy with the least amount of harmful byproduct?

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

George,
I am under the impression that ship board nuclear generators succumb to the same problems land based reactors do. The core material reaches a point where there is a diminishing return on the amount of energy produced vs. the energy left and the core gets swapped out. At some point the reactors need to be refurbed or replaced. Perhaps someone on the east coast has a better answer.
Alan,
I was under the impression that all French breeders were liquid sodium cooled. If there is but one left, then they must have seen the light and decommisioned. It seems to me that there may have been as many as seven at one time. Do you have any info on the French system at present? I am going to check and see what I find.

ed. My fault for not keeping up on this, but it appears that most countries have abandoned breeder reactor programs, France included. The one remaining online is the Phenix as outlined by Alan while thier second remaining breeder reactor is undergoing rebuild. All others have been decommissioned. The rather large sodium fire in a Japanese reactor in 1995 made many operators take a second look at breeders and many have revised their programs. In the articles I read online, Russia seems to be still working on breeder research as other governments like Germany, close down plans for breeder production. 90 percent of French electric energy is generated by nuclear plants according to a Feb 2005 article.

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Even worse- Sesame Street-

it essentially trains little kids that everything in education (therefore life) needs to be entertaining in 2 minute clips. As a result when school gets tedious or hard the kids just switch channels and give up.

I blame a good part of the problems we have in education with the development of kids being spoon fed educational TV and not a work ethic. Luckily FIRST opens the door to fix this.

Yeah- as Eugenia said- I'm an old guy. This is my opinion. Going out to chase those pesky kids off the lawn.....

WC

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Wayne,
Did I ever mention I work for the most watched Public Television Station in the U.S.?

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Al - That would have what 20 viewers? (kidding!)

Wayne - I might disagree with you a little on the Sesame Street thing. I grew up with it and turned out fine and sane. (well, maybe not sane, but relatively ok) Unless they've change significantly since I was a kid. You have to look at the intended age group. Sesame Street is meant from kids like 4 and under. They don't have the ability yet to have a work ethic. Thier attention spans are short at those ages. Can't expect a 4 yr old to watch a documentary on the Learning Channel...

<George Walks away singing "Rubber Ducky, you're the one...">

Re: What technological advance has caused more harm than good?
 

Peanut butter and jelly in the same jar.