TED Conversations

Darren Piggott

This conversation is closed.

Have capitalism, globalisation and greed stunted our technological growth?

I have often wondered if oil is the reason we are not driving around in hover cars or more cars running on alternative fuels, any car that could hover with precision, accuracy and long periods would probably not use a combustion engine, take also tires cars with the technology to hover would not require rubber tires.

I have no doubt we could have acheived these technologies years ago, but oil and rubber tires are extremely lucrative and make the few very rich, imagine a world of hover cars that are completely automated you wouldn't need to pay road tax they don' t need roads and car insurance would be drastically lower granted it may still be needed just incase!, but our whole society seems centred around a system of wealth and power to which only a few are privy, we seem to have spent the last sixty or so years continually reinventing the car, television and video in one form or another, because these few simple technologies keep us in a perpetual state of consumerism, not to mention our computing abilities which have managed to keep most of the western society in a state of wage slavery.

Our monetary system can only take the human race so far, but to get past our current statewe may need an overhaul of everything we know, not just our monetary system but our politics and our moral compass?

This is just a small example of how we could have expanded our technology over the last sixty years i'm sure there are many more.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 17 2012: @ Dustin McKnight--- so you feel capitalism, globalist philosophy, and greed have stunted our technological growth? Also, there is tradition in physics concerning property rights. . . it states that two objects cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.
    • Apr 18 2012: No, I do not feel capitalism has itself stunted innovation, I simply feel that innovation can not exist when in an environment that is hostile to the change of the status quot. At times capitalism has driven the advance of technology in way in which we are still decades later coming to terms with. But it's a selective growth, in which nothing prospers that could be a threat to the major economic interests of the moment. I agree in principal with the philosophy of capitalism, I just feel that in order to keep it healthy, we have to prune away the dead and withered branches from time to time. I am no threat to capitalism. Halliburton and Monsanto are the real threats to both capitalism and our continued pace of technological innovation. I simply feel it is time to once more put these and similar organizations back in their places or dismantle them if necessary. The Survival and continued well being and advancement of humanity are just more important than a quarterly gain in profits. It's not capitalism that's to blame, it's shortsighted foolishness.

      As for the second matter, While i will concede that this law deals with the potential and actualized state of an object in its relation to other objects, it certainly has nothing to do with said objects legal dispensation or status of ownership. I doubt very seriously if nature itself has an opinion on this matter, as it is a purely human institution based on a game of make believe, that we utilize to keep order amongst ourselves because we are to primitive to deal directly with one another without it.

      Thank you
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2012: We agree Mr. McKnight that shortsighted foolishness will stunt the growth of just about anything, Re: matter #2, what if the two 'objects" are Europen immigrants and residing Indian nations in 18th-19th century North America? Probably another topic? Thanks for your thoughts.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.