Where are the Flying Cars? Science, Technology, and Public Policy

By John Youker

Where are the Flying Cars? is not really about flying cars. It's a brief discussion of science, technology and public policy, and the need to confront the reality that not all new and proposed technologies will ultimately prove to be both successful and (hopefully) environmentally benign.
We as a species have been so successful in constructing various devices and machines, as well as artificial materials, that we tend to think that with enough money and creativity we can make anything work. The desire to do so becomes especially strong when the technology is, for one reason or another, particularly attractive.
The author wishes to encourage the reader to think critically about our technological future, and not just accept at face value the ideas and predictions of others. Failure to think critically about science and technology can lead to waste of public funds and ill-conceived regulations that do little good, and may actually be harmful.
Included is a suggested energy policy for America with some of the rationales behind the recommended actions.
The reader should feel free to critique what is written, and with real and alleged breakthroughs announced almost daily, circumstances may change and cars may yet fly en-mass.
July 2015

• Language: English
• Publisher: John Youker
• Release date: Jul 30, 2015
• ISBN: 9781310465031

John Youker

Retired college teacher. Taught chemistry in NY and NC. Also worked on emergency planning and response for hazardous materials accidents.

Book preview

WHERE ARE THE FLYING CARS?

Science, Technology and Public Policy

By

John Youker

Copyright © 2015 John Youker

(Revised July 2015)

INTRODUCTION

It seems as though every day brings some new revelation from the world of science and technology, apparently promising (plug-in hybrid cars), controversial (stem cells), or frightening (global warming). Since much of our scientific research and technological development is either directly or indirectly funded by government through grants and tax incentives, elected officials are placed in the position of passing some degree of judgment as to the worthiness of activities intended to advance our knowledge of nature and further manipulate it to our advantage.

Some may take offense at the phrase manipulate it (nature) to our advantage. Quite frankly, that’s what we do as a species. Perhaps it is in our genes. As animals we are puny, and without technology it is doubtful that we could even compete well against chimpanzees. We would probably just be a minor species living in the most favorable habitats. Our forte is tool-making and we truly excel at it. Even so-called primitive tribes used simple, but elegant devices such as the bow and arrow, blowgun and boomerang.

Arguments that we do not live in harmony with nature are philosophical rubbish. Nature is not harmonious. Upheavals occur and species come and go. They are just not aware of their impact on the environment and their own mortality. Several mass extinctions have occurred, and in the past species have crowed out their competitors. Every successful species affects its environment. Since we have been spectacularly successful at what we do, our impact is particularly large. We are fortunate to be aware of this so that we can work to avoid environmental catastrophe resulting from our success. We are not the proverbial lemmings who cannot avoid running off the cliff.

To insure our continued success in light of limited natural resources (the current buzzword is sustainability) and environmental damage, we need to modify the technologies that we use and pursue the science that will underpin them. The big question is of course, what technologies should we utilize in the future? Can we continue with a current (successful) technology, or must it be modified or replaced because it either causes too much environmental degradation, or is not sustainable with available resources? Are there new technologies that need to be developed?

As the title of this article suggests, not all technology, even though feasible in the laboratory, or workable on a small scale, proves to be practical on a large scale, and despite many dramatic advances in the last 100 years many concepts for future technologies have fallen by the wayside. Predictions of flying cars for everyone that were made over half a century ago have not come true. Supposedly 79 patents were filed just between 1918 and 1989 related to the concept of an automobile that would, like a transformer toy, convert to a light aircraft and back again. Prototypes have been built and flown. One of the latest is the Terrafugia. But to mass-produce such vehicles at a reasonable price, train everyone to be a pilot, and fill the skies with hundreds of thousand (millions?) safely would seem to be an insurmountable task. Should the public petition government to fund flying cars? Are they a practical solution to the expense of building and maintaining vast road networks? No matter how much some (or all) of us may want them, they may never be practical.

So how should the public deal with the funding of future technology? What should we encourage through government regulation, tax breaks, and outright grants and subsidies. What if we pin our hopes on promises of future flying cars? Betting the public purse on an unworkable technology (or the more expensive of several) can easily damage our economy and fail to avert environmental disasters.

An obvious example is the technology of energy production. Energy, and a lot of it, underpins our society. Unfortunately fossil fuels do cause environmental problems and their supplies are finite. What technologies need to be pursued? Should we leave these decisions solely to the so-called experts? They do not always agree, and it would be a mistake to think that they are totally objective. Leave it to the lobbyists and activist groups?

Elected officials involved in the decision-making process need to become more knowledgeable, not by attempting the