I’ll Take Their Flying Cars, Then
Apparently David R. Henderson is at least intrigued by Joshua Gans, who writes:
We should question the premise of whether we want flying cars. We would like quicker and less constrained options from getting from A to B but flying around in a car, while it may be a representation of the future with such freedom, when you think about it, cannot really deliver that value, at least in cities. Indeed, the fact that flying cars do not exist where they might be of value — in less dense areas — leads us to question whether people want them at all. This is at least enough to give us pause on the issue.
I was going to give a dry economic analysis, explaining that densely populated cities would be the first place to see highways in three dimensions, just like you’d expect big cities to use skyscrapers and elevators more than densely sparsely populated regions. But instead I’ll just post this video; just watch a few seconds from the middle of it and you’ll get the idea:
He makes a great point. Sci-Fi has generally been a rather poor predictor of future technology, mainly because it offers subtle improvements of existing products without re-imaging the product entirely.
Even as recently as 15 years ago, fiction would often depict “video phones” existing in the future, that it to say, a phone attached to a wall with a screen where you could watch people on the wall as you talk to them. Reality gave us video chat on phones we carry around with us everywhere. Even President Skroob didn’t have that (this is an unlisted wall!).
The “cool inventions of the future” are impossible to predict, because if we could predict them, we’d already be well on our way to having them. Flying cars serve little practical purposes in today’s society. Radical changes to our living spaces would be necessary before they became feasible.
” Sci-Fi has generally been a rather poor predictor of future technology,”
Except for submarines (Jules Verne), rocket ships (Verne), communications satellites (Arthur C. Clarke), water beds (Robert Heinlein), invisibility (HG Wells), flying cars (duh), cell phones (Star Trek), robots, space tourism (2001: A Space Odyssey), genetic engineering (Aldous Huxley), tablet PCs (Star Trek)…. I’m sure I could find more if I went looking.
Also, scientists are thinking that warp drives may be possible according to quantum mechanics, so….
Cell Phones were Robert Heinlein as well ( Starship Troopers, Between Planets, Space Cadets to name a few instances ).
Actually I would suggest silly movies being the least likely place to see real ‘science’ fiction whereas the world of actual written sci fi is full of ideas that are either implemented, being implemented, or will be implemented.
I believe that water beds actually existed well before Heinlein described them.
For a long time now, I’ve been of the opinion that over-regulation is the reason we don’t already have flying cars. They have been produced already. They have wings that unfold and can be stored in a normal-sized garage. The technology exists. If there is a market for segways, there is a market for flying cars. But you can’t fly an airplane – even with a license – without special permission from the FAA. I don’t think you are even allowed to enter airspace in a motorized vehicle except from an airport.
I don’t think anyone can figure out how to produce a flying car that can just pull out of your garage and start flying. But it’s not a challenge of engineering; that problem has already been solved. Instead, it’s a problem of licensing and regulation. So they don’t exist.
You mean *under* regulation. Just require it.
[evil grin]
Physical force is the opposite of reason.
Your joke isn’t even the least bit funny, because it makes no sense.
Google Dr. Paul Moller and his Skycar; he’s actually working with the FAA on it.
Are flying cars the ultimate libertarian fantasy? Because then nobody will have to build the roads.
That’s right, because we all know that roads would not exist without the state. Got any more original commentary?
thatsthejoke.jpg
Har har har. Is that another meme? The blahblahblah.jpg? Sheesh.
I’m libertarian and I thought that was a pretty good joke.
“We should question the premise of whether we want flying cars.”
Can someone tell me why anyone should be “intrigued” by a comment that denies individual preferences?
Gans’ paragraph might as well have come out of a Borg cube.
Want is being used in the sense of “should want”, as in “trust me, you don’t want to do that”.
We are not amused.
Fortunately, the FAA came after planes or we might not have them yet.
Flying cars are simply not ecomonical. Flying means that you constantly have to fight gravity which uses up a lot of energy. It really only makes sense if a) there is no road to drive on (think helicopters in hard to reach places, or b) you can go much faster than cars (like commercial airplanes).
This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be flying cars. But I doubt they would play the same role that cars do now.
On flying cars, Gans writes: Let’s start with flying cars. We should question the premise of whether we want flying cars. We would like quicker and less constrained options from getting from A to B but flying around in a car, while it may be a representation of the future with such freedom, when you think about it, cannot really deliver that value, at least in cities. Indeed, the fact that flying cars do not exist where they might be of value — in less dense areas — leads us to question whether people want them at all. This is at least enough to give us pause on the issue. And Twitter? Gans writes: Twitter is not just 140 characters. It is a new communications network. The best example of this is how you can communicate with customer support of companies. When you have a problem with, say, an airline, it is often easier to tweet about it and wait for the airline to respond than to contact the airline’s support number. Now this is currently an advantage from congestion but, in reality, you can see how it may be superior overall. First, complaints are limited to 140 characters. That is a feature, not a bug. That means if a company is getting lots of complaints about something, it can see it really quickly. Second, it is easier to find a way of communicating with a company via Twitter than searching for support numbers. It is just straightforward. Twitter is an address book with easy search. My point here is that Twitter is a new communications protocol and more than just social media. That puts it on a path to something more than just the trivial.
I thought the article went off the rails when it presumed we should have flying cars by now and because we don’t have them anywhere, then people don’t want them at all, ever. What I don’t want is something that is more expensive to buy, maintain, and operate (all three) than the already approved and available helicopter. Furthermore, even if I’m made of money, I may find I prefer to own/operate the more efficient helicopter because it can actually go farther on the fuel it carries than any current flying car design. And while no one would claim helicopters are ‘fail-safe’, I like my chance a helluva lot more with ‘auto-rotation’ than with the falling-brick method of unpowered landing. What I ‘would’ like is something that is no more expensive to operate than my Tahoe, preferably less, and has the equivalent range on a single tank (or whatever power-source reservoir will need to be invented to supply the energy density required to make this point a reality), combined with the fail-safe of the Tahoe that if the engine dies, no one else has to.