H.G Wells foresaw the world government and scientific control

We need a more scientifically rational populace. But it is certainly curious that most people who say they like the SFF genre don't really seem to be science enthusiasts.
Yes, people need to be more rational and better educated.

I don't see why there should be a correlation between liking a genre and the background? How many people that read Western novels ever fired a gun or rode a horse? Or readers of Detective fiction go in for becoming Detectives, Coroners, Forensic experts etc?
No doubt some people are inspired to take up science, detecting, riding, minding cattle on the range, but most people read fiction for enjoyment?

Romance and related fiction is the most popular, SF one of the least. The most popular books sold have stuff that hardly anyone wants to emulate (except in most general sense) and are totally unrealistic. It's about fantasy, escapism?
 
Yes, people need to be more rational and better educated.

I don't see why there should be a correlation between liking a genre and the background? How many people that read Western novels ever fired a gun or rode a horse?

It's about fantasy, escapism?

The difference is that the technology is changing around us, like it or not, and we and our children must decide what to do with it. If we don't make the decisions then we can be sure someone else will. I recognize different types of science fiction. A Fall of Moondust by Clarke is very different from Orphan Star by Alan Dean Foster. I enjoy them both but there is more than just enjoyment or an additional kind of enjoyment for me to Clarke's book. Clarke uses the word "infrared" 17 times in Moondust. Infrared is a factor in our Global Warming problem. I think we have STEM Fiction as a subset of science fiction. There is real science to be learned by osmosis in STEM fiction.

No one told me that when I started reading SF in 4th grade, but I had certainly noticed it by 6th grade. Especially since the nitwit nuns I had for teachers never taught science. It is because I regard science as part of the entertainment that I wrote my word counting program.

Moondust has an SF word density of 1.218 while Orphan Star is 0.497. Books that I regard as hard SF normally score over 0.7.

So what would happen if we encouraged grade school kids to read such books? Even if they don't become scientists or engineers certain concepts would become part of their thinking. Watch a detective movie from before the 1980s and see if there is any mention of DNA. We all know what cars did to horses even if some people enjoy Westerns. I have tested Westerns with my program, some stuff by Zane Gray is in the Public Domain, it scores less than 0.15. So even soft SF uses more science words.

psik
 
We need a more scientifically rational populace.
psik

Science, fine. But not scientism. "Science" doesn't have the answers because it doesn't have the principles upon which sound ethical decisions can be made.

Unit 731 was "good science."

Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of science education needs to be telling people about stuff like that. Or like this:

Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not well educated in science if you think science can be the basis for policy affecting people's lives. Science can help us gain knowledge that can be used for ethical ends, and it does -- colossally; which has given people the erroneous notion of "scientism" that I've criticized here.
 
You are not well educated in science if you think science can be the basis for policy affecting people's lives. Science can help us gain knowledge that can be used for ethical ends,

Are people who don't know about planned obsolescence "well educated"?

How is it that the economics profession cannot tell us what consumers lose on depreciation of cars every year? Is it ethical foreconomists toignore physics? How do millions of people with college degrees not notice that since the Moon landing?

psik
 
Science, fine. But not scientism. "Science" doesn't have the answers because it doesn't have the principles upon which sound ethical decisions can be made.
I wasn't supporting a technocracy, just saying that, despite predictions by HG Wells, we don't have one. Science does not give us ethics, however not ever decision is an ethical one. Science does give us a good basis on which to make many other decisions i.e. how strong to build a bridge? Once we would exceed all tolerances and just make as strong as possible. That is very, very expensive, slower, and it may still fall down in a severe event such as an earthquake. Now, all the possible scenarios are measured and considered, including the risk of such events.

My problem isn't that we don't have scientists in charge of government, my problem is that those in government either have no knowledge of science, or are actively against it, preferring to make decisions for religious or mystical reasons, or, they do know the correct decision to make on the basis of science, but find it politically unsuitable because the electorate is so scientifically ignorant.
 
I too would very much like there to be more scientific understanding underpinning government decisions. There is some in the UK - I've seen House of Lords reports examining the energy market for example and analysing the claims made of the benefits vs costs. I don't know how much of this actually goes into the decision making. It certainly isn't loudly talked about in press conferences.
The words "government" and "science" in the same sentence always remind me of a documentary I saw about the Star Wars weapons programme, made after it all went thud, they interviewed various people who were involved, including scientists and one who was at a presentation on laser development that was being pitched to a government funding committee. I can't remember the exact numbers or the units, but basically the presentation said "to successfully use the lasers, they need to be at 10 to the power of 16 (I can't spot a superscript option on here to do the scientific notation properly) and currently were are at 10 to the power of 8.
"Oh my gawd" said a committee member "We're half way there."

And I'd also say that we cannot make decisions based on ethics and principles alone, because to make it work in the real world, you need to include science and engineering. I do also find it frustrating that there appears to be an assumption that scientists are not ethical unless there is someone keeping check on them. Yes, some scientists have done unethical things, so has every group (dodgy builders, greedy bankers etc, etc - it is easy to tar everyone with the same brush). I think that what should be done, and at times is, is the situation of laying out the pros and cons of doing something - that incorporates the money, time and human costs and benefits. Building a dam would be a good example - how much will it cost to build? How long will it last? How many people will benefit? How many will lose their farms? Will it really work as well as the people who want to build it say it will? Is it OK to harm a few people to benefit many? Is there a totally different solution that will harm none but will cost more?

There is also a third part of government decisions as well as ethics and science - business. Whether it is simply the cost, or a company lobbying and promising economic growth and lots more jobs, it is very influential.

However the political system does seem to include a lot of snap decisions and reluctance to change minds later. You have to be seen to be decisive and a strong leader and saying "That is way too complex for me to answer now, I'll come back to you tomorrow after consulting a panel of experts" is not done. It should be, it isn't. (If it is and anyone can point me to examples I'd be really cheered up. :) )

I too would like to see sound science in SF (well the bits that aren't totally made up....:) ) where it touches on the real world as I have learnt a lot of history from well researched historical fiction. As a scientist I find it throws me out of the narrative when something that to me is simple science is done incorrectly - momentum in weightlessness for example - but a great deal of SF is relying on <insert magic here> - will it ever really be economic for there to be interplanetary trade fleets and tourists? When you add the cost of heaving stuff out of the gravity well at current technology, no. If you do invent some <super space engine> then it becomes possible. However even with books with <insert magic here> when they include science at the level of current knowledge done inaccurately, I find that irritating.

I would also note that if the engineering makes it possible, then there will be interplanetary trade - after all look at the stuff that thunders round earth that could be made locally - clothes, plastic toys etc. Mankind finishes up in a weird world at times - international trade and what is traded was not carefully decided in one big analysed decision, it just evolved as a series of decisions, some ethical others definitely not.
 
Last edited:
Are people who don't know about planned obsolescence "well educated"?

How is it that the economics profession cannot tell us what consumers lose on depreciation of cars every year? Is it ethical foreconomists toignore physics? How do millions of people with college degrees not notice that since the Moon landing?

psik

Of course the economics profession can tell us what people lose on depreciation of cars every year- now. They can't predict that completely into the future because of things like oil shocks and progress in developing electric cars, or new regullations. Though it is a problem with economics that it too often assumes people are rational utility maximisers, whereas in truth people are easily spooked and just follow the herd.
 
Of course the economics profession can tell us what people lose on depreciation of cars every year- now.

Want to try to provide a link? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. At $1,500 per car per year that would be $300,000,000,000. I noticed this lack of information in 1976. I have not noticed the subject being brought up since then. The auto industry deals with the "scrapage rate". Planned Obsolescence increases GDP as far as I can tell. It must put more CO2 in the atmosphere but I haven't seen anyone mention that yet.

psik
 
Planned Obsolescence increases GDP as far as I can tell. It must put more CO2 in the atmosphere but I haven't seen anyone mention that yet.
They have even given government grants to scrap cars here if you buy new, in the past , arguing that newer cars will be lower emissions and more efficient. It's a dubious claim for most of the perfectly good cars scrapped, esp, know we know that many figures in last ten years are fake. Mitsubishi was over-inflating the tyres, gives better economy!

Apple especially relies on the "faithful" buying the nearly identical new model. They even since very first iPhone kept back many features all other smartphones had so as to incrementally add them in on each release (copy & Paste on other smart phones since 1999!). They didn't even have 3G on first iPhone (so it could be on next model and save royalties, virtually every other smartphone had it).
 
The American Robber Barons and a certain Austrian Corporal placed great store in Darwin's theories, While Lysenko - under Stalin - preferred the theories of Lamarck, in both cases because it told them what they wanted to hear.

Wells didn't do too badly in, "The Land Leviathans," or in, "The Shape of Things to Come," but audiences laughed out loud at the film version of the latter when a fleet of bombers crossed the English Channel to devastate Anytown (a thinly disguised London). When the bombers came - a few years later - they were compelled to operate at night, and while the damage was extensive, London never came close to the kind of destruction portrayed in the film (although other cities did).

Give Wells credit for what he actually predicted ( and a nod to Verne at this stage, too), but try and keep an eye on the real world.
 
Want to try to provide a link? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. At $1,500 per car per year that would be $300,000,000,000. I noticed this lack of information in 1976. I have not noticed the subject being brought up since then. The auto industry deals with the "scrapage rate". Planned Obsolescence increases GDP as far as I can tell. It must put more CO2 in the atmosphere but I haven't seen anyone mention that yet.
psik

I'm afraid I don't understand your point- you complain that economists can't give a value for depreciation on cars in the US and then promptly give that value. I don't know where your $1500 number comes from, but it seems reasonable. What's the question?
 
I'm afraid I don't understand your point- you complain that economists can't give a value for depreciation on cars in the US and then promptly give that value. I don't know where your $1500 number comes from, but it seems reasonable. What's the question?

That $1,500 is nothing but a guesstimate on my part. It seems reasonable to you? LOL I have never seen anyone try to come up with a number and explain how they computed it. Do you believe something just because you read it? But the 200,000,000 number I did find somewhere. Considering that there were only 8,000 cars in the entire country in 1900 and 100,000 to 150,000 horses in New York City at the time then technology and economy of the US has certainly changed in the last 120 years. I would not say economists can't, I simply point out that they do not. I suspect that they can't only because they do not collect the necessary data and also do not tell us that they do not collect it. It seems to be a case of deliberate ignorance.

Bytes: The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

But how can people claiming to be scientists not figure out the planned obsolescence of automobiles 47 years after the Moon landing? It is as though our "experts" operate in intellectual boxes and refuse to comment on the nonsense happening in other boxes.

psik
 
But how can people claiming to be scientists not figure out the planned obsolescence of automobiles 47 years after the Moon landing? It is as though our "experts" operate in intellectual boxes and refuse to comment on the nonsense happening in other boxes.

psik

OK. Company I worked at years ago in a materials science division - one part of the job in the lab next door was working out ageing. So for example ageing of outdoor paint. Now, other than painting a panel and putting it outside, how to you do ageing, in a timescale that is economic. As in you can't afford to develop a paint, leave samples outside for 10 years before you market it as being good for ten years. So you come up with methods of accelerated ageing. You can read all about this kind of thing on Wikipedia for example - Accelerated aging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
So, how do you scientifically work out the lifespan of a car?
What ends the life of a car? Paint failing, metal rusting, parts going, engine failing - but some people get these things fixed. Now, there is clearly a body of knowledge/tests done on some components - as in the timing chain on our old diesel car had a lifespan of 70,000 miles and then it was best replaced. (If you didn't and it snapped the engine went tinkly crash boom.)

Now, with all these complexities in a car, I was thinking - mm, planned obsolescence in a car. Not going to be an exact science at all. (Unless of course you have one key component, like the timing chain on a diesel engine, that you know will break at 70,000 miles and you don't tell anyone.)

Then I looked up planned obsolescence and found all sorts of variants on planned obsolescence - quite interesting. Planned obsolescence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also a comment in there on how Japanese cars lasting a lot longer than US cars rather undermined the planned obsolescence strategy.

So it is going to depend on the make and model of the car, how well you look after it and so on.

Wandering back to the comment on experts not figuring it out - well unless you have a lot of data from manufacturers on the tests they did on the their materials, their components, their paint (rusting of the car) it is going to be very hard for anyone to figure it out other than the manufacturer themselves.
 
Then I looked up planned obsolescence and found all sorts of variants on planned obsolescence - quite interesting. Planned obsolescence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also a comment in there on how Japanese cars lasting a lot longer than US cars rather undermined the planned obsolescence strategy.

There are essentially 3 types that will fit the literal definition:

1. Planned technological obsolescence. When Intel was selling the 8085 microprocessor the 8086 was under development. The 8085 had about 6,000 transistors and the 8086 would have 29,000. The new one would make the old processor obsoleste but it was an objective improvement.

2. Psychological obsolescence via styling changes. How many different styles of Ford Mustang have there been since it was introduced in the 60s? Do the Laws of Physics change every year.

3. Deliberate use of material that do not last as long as they could. If #1 and #2 are occurring then does making along lasting product make sense.

The trouble is that in every type of product all 3 can be occurring simultaneously. Who is making the judgements? But does #2 really make any economic sense in the long run for a society? Henry Ford made the Model T for almost 20 years. He probably should have made changes every 5 years because of true technological advance but tehe price of the car went from $850 in 1908 to less than $300 when it was discontinued.

Model T - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

So suppose they had truly tried to design excellent cars in 1960 and kept making the same models for 50 years, how much would they cost today and how long would they be made to last? There would be plenty of time for testing durability. Since I have found cars boring forthe last 40 years the lack of change would not matter to me. The car lovers would go crazy though.

psik
 
So it is going to depend on the make and model of the car, how well you look after it and so on.
Didn't USA put lots of chrome (which accelerates rust when scratched and looks terrible as it gets older)?
Didn't they design fenders/bumpers to fall off etc?

Apple with iPhone did ploy of only putting minimum features and having a bunch of features they already knew how to do (3G, copy & paste etc) and then add a missing feature each year. Also seal cases and glue in batteries, as a battery on average is 18 month life and poor capacity after a year. Other phones you easily bought a replacement battery and popped it in. Then changing connectors for dock etc. Apple has heavily relied on existing users upgrading every year. A phone should last at least 4 years.
 
So what you are now saying is economists cannot predict the value of technological changes deep into the future. Fair enough.

Your original staement was:
How is it that the economics profession cannot tell us what consumers lose on depreciation of cars every year?

Which they certainly can. Try Kelley's Blue Book for a fairly accurate estimate of the depreciation of every model of car on the market; then calculate how many of each model was sold and is still running. Presto. Of course something like the 1973 oil shock will change future calculations, but your original statement is simply not true. Maybre you intended to say somethng else.
 
So what you are now saying is economists cannot predict the value of technological changes deep into the future. Fair enough.

Your original statement was:


Which they certainly can. Try Kelley's Blue Book for a fairly accurate estimate of the depreciation of every model of car on the market; then calculate how many of each model was sold and is still running. Tedious, but doable. Of course something like the 1973 oil shock will change future calculations, but your original statement is simply not true. Maybe you intended to say something else.
 
Thinking about it, planned obsolescence and depreciation are not the same thing. I still think that doing a proper material science study predicting the lifespan, or in fact the range of lifespans depending on the usage, of a car would be an extensive exercise. (Though data from previous models could be wrapped in, given how long cars have been around. I'd be interested to see such a study - all the factors, how they are modelled, how the accelerated ageing is calibrated against the real world etc .)
However as far as I know - depreciation - it is what people are prepared to pay for a second hand one. This is linked to the lifespan of the car, but there are many other factors. Put simply, Volvos have a long lifespan, some people wouldn't ever buy one because it doesn't suit their image. So depreciation should be reasonably predictable - plot graphs of second hand car prices. (Presumably what Kelley's Blue Book does.) There will be regional variations and a spread of prices, but that should do it. Just plot the bulk real world data with no detailed scientific study based on accelerated ageing or any other material science study. (Boring.....:( )
When a new model comes out, there won't be second hand prices for a little while - but you could do an extrapolation from other models by the same manufacturer. In fact, such studies would probably influence the second hand price when they do start to sell. "I'm not paying that much. XXX magazine says the depreciation will be yyyy."
 
Which they certainly can. Try Kelley's Blue Book for a fairly accurate estimate of the depreciation of every model of car on the market; then calculate how many of each model was sold and is still running. Presto. Of course something like the 1973 oil shock will change future calculations, but your original statement is simply not true. Maybre you intended to say somethng else.

I am not talking about future prediction only an accurate record of the past.

What does "can" mean?

Can I fly a plane. At this moment no. Could I pay for flying lessons and spend a lot of time learning? Possibly.

Can an economist pick up a book today and tell us what American consumers lost on the depreciation of automobiles every year for the last 20 years? I doubt it. Could they go back and dig through huge amounts of statistics and come up with reasonable numbers? Probably.

But since they haven't even mentioned doing anything like that since I noticed they ignored Demand Side Depreciation in 1976 I rather doubt that they are goingto do it any time soon. But that has not kept all of the durable consumer goods from wearingout for the last 50 years has it?

So what economists have been telling us and politicians have been paroting is nonsense.

Here is an amusing paper:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp03-20bk.pdf

It has lots of nice mathematics and seems to demonstrate that the writer knows what he is talking about. But it says nothing about "passive backplane" computers. What is a passive backplane? The old S-100 bus was a passive backplne machine. They could be up graded by pulling out a CPU board and putting in a more advanced one. So if IBM had introduced that design in 1981 how would that have affected the manufacture and depreciation of computers since then?

Wells died in 1946. He never saw how much technology would infiltrate itself into society and economics. Our economists need to stop leaving out information. But if they are technological morons then what good are they?

psik
 

Similar threads


Back
Top