If you could go back in time and change one technological development in the last 150

AMKC

150 years what would it be?

Me I would go back and change it so that electric vehicles become the dominant mode of transport and that petrol and diesel would only be used for Trains, Planes, big ships and for heating houses.
Imagine how advanced electric cars, Van's, trucks would be now if that is what car firms had been working on for the last 120+ years and how much cleaner our streets in our villages, towns and cities and country would be.

So what advancement would you go back and change?

howamidifferent

I would have disrupted or stopped the development of nuclear weapons

AMKC

howamidifferent wrote: »

I would have disrupted or stopped the development of nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons are bad but they have also prevented a war from been prolonged as well aka World War 2. However now they are so powerful that any use of them would be M.A.D so long as they are never used then we are all ok. What's worse and has maybe done more lasting harm is nuclear power stations. Without them we would never have had the Chernobyl, Fukushima or the Three Mile island disasters.

Fr Tod Umptious

AMKC wrote: »

150 years what would it be?

Me I would go back and change it so that electric vehicles become the dominant mode of transport and that petrol and diesel would only be used for Trains, Planes, big ships and for heating houses.
Imagine how advanced electric cars, Van's, trucks would be now if that is what car firms had been working on for the last 120+ years and how much cleaner our streets in our villages, towns and cities and country would be.

So what advancement would you go back and change?

And what about all the "dirty" fuel that would have been burned to generate the energy for these electric vehicles over the decades ?

Would it not be been better to develop green energy production first ?

Archeron

A better design of resealabe ham packs. If they're not slicing your finger open, they're sitting there laughing at you as the reseal tab unpeels and your lovely fresh ham goes grey and curly.

Overheal

AMKC wrote: »

150 years what would it be?

Me I would go back and change it so that electric vehicles become the dominant mode of transport and that petrol and diesel would only be used for Trains, Planes, big ships and for heating houses.
Imagine how advanced electric cars, Van's, trucks would be now if that is what car firms had been working on for the last 120+ years and how much cleaner our streets in our villages, towns and cities and country would be.

So what advancement would you go back and change?

I can only pick one?

The development of healthcare tech, then, the advent of patented medicines and intellectual property and profiteering off products. The product, a life saving drug, has a *guaranteed* demand of buyers ie. sick and dying patients, and yet the supply is exclusively owned and priced for profiteering. I'd go back 150 years and establish a legal doctrine protecting basic social services like healthcare, education and defense from being part of the free market economy with regards to profit-seeking, ie. keep those endeavors strictly non-profit.

Overheal

Archeron wrote: »

A better design of resealabe ham packs. If they're not slicing your finger open, they're sitting there laughing at you as the reseal tab unpeels and your lovely fresh ham goes grey and curly.

...But that's also a prudent choice ^

AMKC

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And what about all the "dirty" fuel that would have been burned to generate the energy for these electric vehicles over the decades ?

Would it not be been better to develop green energy production first ?

That's yours then.

Archeron wrote: »

A better design of resealabe ham packs. If they're not slicing your finger open, they're sitting there laughing at you as the reseal tab unpeels and your lovely fresh ham goes grey and curly.

You have little to be worrying about so.

Overheal wrote: »

I can only pick one?

The development of healthcare tech, then, the advent of patented medicines and intellectual property and profiteering off products. The product, a life saving drug, has a *guaranteed* demand of buyers ie. sick and dying patients, and yet the supply is exclusively owned and priced for profiteering. I'd go back 150 years and establish a legal doctrine protecting basic social services like healthcare, education and defense from being part of the free market economy with regards to profit-seeking, ie. keep those endeavors strictly non-profit.

Good choice and well thought out. I agree with does.

odyssey06

The internet on phones other than some v basic apps for email, weather, bus times

* The irony of posting this from my phone is not lost on me

I would destroy any plans/development of a smart phone. I know they are hand but have had a horrible impact on society.

Bring back the days when I needed to take a pic, I used my standalone digital camera, needed directions, used my standalone sat-nav etc.

Purgative

You can have your nuclear weapons and WMD, I'd just get rid of Farcebook and Twitter

MUFC91CS

howamidifferent wrote: »

I would have disrupted or stopped the development of nuclear weapons

Why? They have undoubtedly made the world a safer place. In fact had they been created 150 years ago the two major world wars most likely wouldn't have happened.

Fake Scores

I would stop the discovery of Chaos Theory.

Leg End Reject

I'd stop the development and widespread use of plastic.

Archeron wouldn't have faced the despair of the oxymoron of resealable packs, so I'd have successfully killed two birds with the one stone.

Church on Tuesday

Twitter.

If you want to expose yourself to the absolute dregs of humanity, pop onto Twitter.

Lord Nikon

Social Media.

Lord Nikon

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Twitter.

If you want to expose yourself to the absolute dregs of humanity, pop onto Twitter.

TikTok is worse.

Church on Tuesday

Lord Nikon wrote: »

TikTok is worse.

I believe it.

Claw Hammer

I would have stopped the teabag. They are the devils own pickings.

bucketybuck

AMKC wrote: »

Imagine how advanced electric cars, Van's, trucks would be now if that is what car firms had been working on for the last 120+ years and how much cleaner our streets in our villages, towns and cities and country would be.

Now apply that reasoning to nuclear power. Where would we be now if nuclear energy did not have the stigma attached to it?

CoBo55

AMKC wrote: »

That's yours then.


You have little to be worrying about so.



Good choice and well thought out. I agree with does.

Compulsory spelling exams that must be passed before being allowed to progress into secondary school or go on the internet.

CoBo55

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I would have stopped the teabag. They are the devils own pickings.

Spoken like a true "Clairvoyant"

blackbox

Overheal wrote: »

I can only pick one?

The development of healthcare tech, then, the advent of patented medicines and intellectual property and profiteering off products. The product, a life saving drug, has a *guaranteed* demand of buyers ie. sick and dying patients, and yet the supply is exclusively owned and priced for profiteering. I'd go back 150 years and establish a legal doctrine protecting basic social services like healthcare, education and defense from being part of the free market economy with regards to profit-seeking, ie. keep those endeavors strictly non-profit.

And who is going to develop new medications if they can't make a profit from it?

The J Stands for Jay

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And what about all the "dirty" fuel that would have been burned to generate the energy for these electric vehicles over the decades ?

Would it not be been better to develop green energy production first ?

It's probably better to have the production of energy centralised. It would likely be cleaner than everyone driving round with their own engine. There's also be no tankers driving round to petrol stations which would reduce emissions. And don't forget, the higher demand for electricity from an earlier statue would speed up development of generation technology and likely make it cleaner

Montage of Feck

Lord Nikon wrote: »

TikTok is worse.

The dregs of the dregs, Chinese spyware marketed as lolz for the kids.

McGinniesta

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd stop the development and widespread use of plastic.

Archeron wouldn't have faced the despair of the oxymoron of resealable packs, so I'd have successfully killed two birds with the one stone.

What would you replace it with?

Doing away with plastic is mindless unless you have an equal or better replacement.

McGinniesta

It isn't so much a technological change but more of a societal change.

I'd completely reshape how we educate our children.

As I see it, one of the most important aspects in modern life that will never go out of fashion is finance. This is the one thing that will dictate how you live the rest of your life and will have an impact on every major decision that you make.

An understanding of how finance works is imperative as is the proper use of language and technology. If you leave school with a good working knowledge of these areas then it will be far more beneficial than learning complete nonsense like poetry or civics.

You dont necessarily need to do a leaving cert exam in them.

There are university graduates in this country that can barely spell their own name.

Capt'n Midnight

bucketybuck wrote: »

Now apply that reasoning to nuclear power. Where would we be now if nuclear energy did not have the stigma attached to it?

Nuclear would have a glowing future.

Capt'n Midnight

CoBo55 wrote: »

Compulsory spelling exams that must be passed before being allowed to progress into secondary school or go on the internet.

Truth be told, long ago people weren't sent to school until they could read and write because otherwise you'd be wasting the schoolmasters time.

Defo not allowed on a STEM course until you have a good grasp of maths or provide extra maths, because far too much of first year courses wasted going back over it.

Junglejoe

I would just have them make smaller transistors and ICs rather than opting for large valves

Kewreeuss

I would stop the development of oil.
If it was just left as a footnote, a strange black liquid that no-one could find any use for.
Just think how different the world would be socially, environmentally and tecniologically.

Wanderer2010

That you speak to a human being straight away when you ring 3, Virgin, Electric Ireland, instead of the usual press 1 for....etc, or a programmed bot designed to get rid of you and push you on their website. Very frustrating when you just want to speak to a human being.