Advancement vs profits =are we doomed?

[surtur]

So just want to start a discussion on technological advancement of humans vs the profitable advantage of no change.

So in the 70's i think was the invention of a high performance electric car today they are crap. my friend had a car made in the 80's that got 45MPG yet today they struggle to get half that.

People can make fuel out of water and electricity in a garage for a few bucks what would happen if we tossed a few billion into the mix.

how about nuclear energy that has had safer alternatives to current methods for 50+ years.

free energy could it have been possible like Nikola had envisioned. ?

the trillions spend on war and weapons what if it was focused on curing cancer?

plus many other things that have been hindered because of the financial impact it would have on someone with power.

if over the last 100 years for example if we had focused on advancing the human race and life on earth and beyond how much further ahead do you think we would be. and can things change?

I love science but i hate people . everything is based on profits and profit margins that safety and advancement is hindered beyond repair and unless something drastic happens ( ie a complete collapse of the monetary system where individual wealth takes a back seat to a global advancement)it will never change.

like everyone else money means a lot to my way of life how can we change that?

It would be so easy for someone with nothing to say give up what you have for humanity but for someone who has everything how can you justify advancing humanity and life as we know it when they already feel that they are the echelon of humanity.

are we 100 years behind ? 1000? 50 ? will we ever make up the time lost due to money?

[Watermelon]

Don't expect electricity to completely dominate until every last drop of oil is sold

[taxi]

Except that what you're saying simply isn't true. We did not have the battery technology to make usable electric cars until recently. The electric cars earlier were crap. They required special charging stations, they took forever to recharge, and could only go about 40 km on a charge. Over time the batteries got worse and worse and needed to be replaced.

Nuclear power has been the target of various environmental smear campaigns. Although they exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power, the danger is most certainly there. Plus what do you do with the ultra dangerous waste.

And no you cannot make every out of water in your garage. I'm assuming you're referring to hydrogen fuel, which currently requires more energy input than it generates.

And yes humans have spent all sorts of energy and cash on researching all three of the energy sources mentioned.

[BanTSN]

If the monetary system collapses, then who's going to pay for all this theoretical global advancement?

[Derp...]

There was a guy in the 70's who invented an engine that ran itself and soon after he was killed i'm pretty sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwsjJf_WpE

[Grapefruits]

we're doomed

[Offensive Threat]

There was a guy in the 70's who invented an engine that ran itself and soon after he was killed i'm pretty sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwsjJf_WpE

Theres a very good reason the US patent office stopped taking applications for perpetual motion machines.

EDIT: For the OP. Many major positive advancements in our world have come directly from the pursuit of profits.

[drummer4now]

Theres a very good reason the US patent office stopped taking applications for perpetual motion machines.

EDIT: For the OP. Many major positive advancements in our world have come directly from the pursuit of profits.

Like the development of the personal computer..

[Ghostsof1915]

As I posted elsewhere.

[Ronalds.Kenins41]

Well for electric cars your actually a bit correct in that they were invented long time ago except your missing one big part of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjt_olYVm4U

If your too lazy to figure it the answer to the question its the oil companies who did the video explains in detail how. But basically few companies are willing to use the concept now as a result.

[ronthecivil]

Are you trying to bait the conspiracy theorists?

As offensive was pointing out, no perpetual motion machines. They violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Using biofuels is a good idea if done correctly, but you have to make sure it's just using the extra waste, not resources that could be used for food. It already happens, every beehive burner at a lumber mill is actually a biofuel heat reactor that works off of wood waste. But there could be more, and as energy prices go up, the economics of the biofuels will ensure that efficiencies in the system are increased. Just make sure you don't start starving people to make it!

Wind power is fine but it has two issues. First of all it's not all that nice to the birds. Second of all, as we note in people pissed about the private power contracts being handed out in BC, the cost of producing that power, at least in the short term, is expensive. The provincial government actually bit the bullet on paying for a lot of green power (the kind of thing no doubt the OP is supporting)and now is taking quite a bit of flack for it. So there's two lessons here; EVERY source of energy has an environmental impact and while economics is always important there are also political pressures to enforce those economics.

Which is why oil is so popular. As much as people like to complain about the price of gas, it makes governments and shareholders tons of money, and it's the cheapest power source for the masses. If you don't think economics matter on a personal level, go take a look around at your local Walmart at any time of day. It's forever full due to it's perceived cheapness, and if you questioned the people in there about the unfair labour practices, the environmental not caringness, or any of the many issues, they would basically point out that they themselves can't afford it. You don't understand their situation. They NEED to save the money.

In other words, it's good to be green, as long as it's someone else paying for it, and they don't have to suffer any changes to their lifestyle.

[etsen3]

As others have said most of the technological advancements you mentioned were never practical to be adopted for mass use. Currently people are working to improve these technologies to get to that point, but the money for research and development has to come from somewhere.

For example, how can a company like Tesla (builder of electric cars) have money for research and development if they don't make a profit? And in turn, what's the point of inventing new technologies that no one wants? The more money they make, the better they can be at selling their product, and round and round we go.

Now there will of course be competitors that will be too lazy to innovate and try to block other companies' progress. They may do this through lobbying the government to create new regulations or using unfair business tactics. But, for companies that do innovate, there is huge financial reward if they can make a product that the public needs. Profit is actually a huge driving factor of new technology because companies must do something to create a competitive advantage.