Image Source: Self Made
In Dr. John Storrs Hall’s lecture over Where Is My Flying Car?, he focuses very heavily on the throttling of technological advancement. There are multiple reasons for the sudden halt of widespread development in commercially available technology, but as Dr. Hall discusses, it is a compounding of multiple reasons that has put us in the position we are in today. The basis for all of these reasons stems from the fact that by the 60s the average American was able to take their physiological and safety needs for granted. He explains that this extra energy then gets put toward developing their social capital. He elaborates further by explaining how the Machiavelli effect further entrenches the current status quo. In addition, economic trenches are created in certain industries where further development of a technology is too costly to be worth the improvement, and so the consumers must settle for technology that hasn’t improved in decades. My biggest critique of Dr. Halls lecture though, is the lack of explanation for why people started to fear energy and the production of energy. He only very briefly explains that people began to worry about energy and its production, but does not really delve into why.
The point of Dr. Hall’s lecture is to explain the reasons why people in the 60s expected to have some version of the flying car today, and why no such vehicle is commercially available to the general public. Much of the lecture focuses on the fact that we do have flying personal transport like small planes, helicopters, and even some more one off attempts at building a true flying road vehicle. However, this technology isn’t available to the general public because of how the flatlining of the Henry Adams energy curve prevented it from being developed in an effective and affordable manner. Further, as Hall continues to explain, the energy curve was killed because of a changing society, one that saw energy as dangerous and damaging. Dr. Hall sees the value of energy and how vital it was not only for the industrial revolution, but for developing an economy and reducing poverty.
However, as I stated earlier, I feel Dr. Hall does not really touch on how dangerous energy and the production of energy can be. Yes, in theory if we continued to pursue development of energy production then the production of energy should get safer, but there have already been many disasters in the production of energy over the years which Dr. Hall seems to not really address. Is it not reasonable to want to ensure that energy is being produced in a manner that is currently safe and does not cause long-term damage? In 1952 the great smog of London which was caused by excessive burning of coal killed roughly 12,000 people over the course of a few months due to inhaling the smog. There have been multiple oil tankers and offshore oil drills which have spilled thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, causing immense damage to the environment which can affect the area for decades. Even worse, over the decades there have been multiple nuclear reactor meltdowns. Today, improvements in technology have lessened the impact of these disasters but would it not have been reasonable to be someone in the 60s who saw the impact that poorly managed energy plants and excessive energy consumption could have, and in turn want to have a regulatory body to try to ensure these impacts are kept to a minimum? Energy production is inherently volatile and should be treated with care, to prioritize technological development over the possible ramifications of unsafe energy manufacture is to a degree reckless. Yes, there is a great upside but there is also a significant danger looming at all times.
I generally see the benefit of decreased regulation, but in this instance I believe that a level of regulation is necessary. Yes, the ultimate goal of humanity should be to continue to innovate to the greatest extent possible, but I am of the belief that an unignorable portion of innovators would knowingly or unknowingly cause immediate or latent damage in the pursuit of rapid development. Dr. Hall even explains that our future will require powerful technology power by powerful energy unless we all want to die in the dark, but fails to ever really acknowledge that this headstrong pursuit of exponential development could be the catalyst for dying in the dark. I am not saying that it is a sure thing that allowing for technology and energy to develop as Dr. Hall described would result in some horrific accident or the end of humanity, but with such a significant risk clearly at play it seems reckless to not impose some form of regulation.