The Maurai suppress "...a hydrogen-fusion generator which would end Earth's fuel shortage..." (p. 88)
In the present global economy, such a generator would not be used to solve energy problems. It would either be suppressed or be used to enrich its controllers.
Eyrie recruits are shown a post-Maurai future with:
a long period of peace;
efficient sailing fleets;
electrically powered dirigibles;
ocean ranches;
solar-energy-charged accumulators;
organic-waste-charged fuel cells;
scientific advances;
but a plateau in terms of social progress;
a phase of retrogression and violence;
a later peaceful but incomprehensible period;
"...huge silent devices and energies..." (p. 89);
"...crystalline air..." (ibid.);
good or a disguised monstrosity?
Havig has to learn more. We will read more.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I see nothing wrong with the builders who made a hydrogen fusion power and the investors who backed making a profit. Why shouldn't they? They took on the costs and risks of failure, so or course they should get back what they put up for it--and more!
That's exactly how I would feel if I invested in such a company--and bitterly resent anyone who smugly and arbitrarily say I should not get a profit.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my point is that things would be run so that energy shortages would continue.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I disagree, at least the way I think you mean it. Speaking broadly, there will always be shortages of one kind or another. The function of a marker, under the laws of demand and supply, is to respond to those shortages. A shortage of X means there is increased demand for that good--meaning a rational economic reaction would be for more resources (including labor) being applied to meet that demand. What entrepreneurs and investors do is provide the organizing and the means (funds) necessary for meeting that demand. A process ending with an increase of the supply of X.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But much need remains unmet.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Isn't that too broad a statement? I would think there would need to be SIGNIFICANT demand for a good or service before the process leading to satisfaction of that demand can even begin.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
On a world scale, there is great poverty and it is currently increasing here.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I put the blame for that mostly on bungling and incompetent gov'ts, who think they know better how to run things than PEOPLE do, acting to meet perceived needs and demands.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Here, at least, it is a government that makes very scant social provision.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Compared to the kind of gov'ts most of the world have to put up with, the UK's gov't is not that bad!
Ad astra! Sean
Disruptive innovation is a constant of competitive capitalist economies. "Creative destruction" grinds established power-holders into the dirt and raises up new ones.
This is not because capitalists like competition -- they generally hate it for themselves and love it for their suppliers, and as Adam Smith said people in the same trade can scarcely have a beer together without conspiring against the public interest -- but because that's one of the inherent features of the system.
Established interests -try- to suppress new discoveries that will take away their power and profits, but they generally fail, no matter how looming and dominant they appear.
Eg., during the 19th century, railroad companies were the largest single enterprises and often made monopoly profits because there was no alternative as a fast, low-cost form of long-distance transport for passengers and goods.
Naturally, a lot of people hated them.
But it wasn't railway companies that dominated the new industry of internal-combustion road traffic; nor did they succeed in suppressing it, even though they often tried very hard.(*)
Instead the car/truck industries were founded by outsiders, not any of the established interests, and they grossly disrupted and often bankrupted the previously dominant rail corporations, driving them out of the high-profit sectors and greatly diminishing their role in the economy.
The same thing has happened over and over again; it's happening now, as Tesla and SpaceX and their ilk disrupt and destroy the legacy firms they're overtaking.
The established car companies know, abstractly, that they're mortally threatened by electric vehicles, as the allied fossil-fuel companies are by renewables and bulk electricity storage.
They know that they should swing into these new industries and dominate them, or suppress them.
But they can't. The record's fairly clear on this.
(*) the countries where railroads came closest to suppressing the challenge of motor road traffic were those where railroads were government-owned (or backed) monopolies.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! Competitive free enterprise economics WORKS despite the inclination of many who were successful in the past to suppress new rivals. That's why I purchased a few shares of stock in Tesla.
But I think Tesla still has some problems. Elon Musk and his people need to solve the problem of making batteries small enough to fit in cars which, when charged, will give drives a decent mileage (say, 150 miles). Another problem will be to make it quick and easy to recharge a Tesla car (a few minutes instead of hours and hours). Solve those problems and bring costs per car down and Tesla cars should really start selling BIG.
And perhaps even more so if self driving by the car is included!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment