the ethics of flying cars

[Genecks]

They would disturb the ecosystem and environment.

Therefore, we should not have flying cars.

 

End of story.

There goes that idea.

 

Now, about those cool hoverboards like in Back to the Future...

I want a pink one...

 

Agree or disagree?

Edited July 29, 2008 by Genecks

[DrP]

They would disturb the ecosystem and environment.

Therefore, we should not have flying cars.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

I disagree - I've always wanted one of these: http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm - it looks ace.

 

As for the environment? Well there are so many cars already - and I can't see them poluting more than a plane. All in all pretty negligable pollution compared to industry and/or natural pollution (animal gas / volcanic erruption etc..) in my opinion - although that is obviously debatable (see other GW threads, which I am staying out of)

 

 

 

Now, about those cool hoverboards like in Back to the Future...

I want a pink one...

 

 

 

OK - can I have a blue one then - the pink one might look a bit gay on me.

[CaptainPanic]

I wonder if they are more polluting.

 

(Big) airplanes are actually rather clean, when you look at it in terms of pollution per traveled kilometer per person.

 

Of course taking off (going up) takes quite a bit of energy, but after that you save because you don't use any brakes, ever.

 

As for birds... yeah, a few will learn the hard way, most will avoid these little flying cars. They also learned pretty fast that big windturbines are bad.

 

I wonder how noisy such a flying car is... it's probably too noisy to have millions of them flying around in cities. (That's also why flying cars are popular: in Star Wars they merely hum a bit).

[doG]

They would disturb the ecosystem and environment.

Therefore, we should not have flying cars.

 

End of story.

There goes that idea.

 

Now, about those cool hoverboards like in Back to the Future...

I want a pink one...

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Disagree. With current combustion engine technology you might be correct but you can't make the blanket judgment that all technologies, present and future, that might enable flying cars, would disturb the ecosystem and the environment. Wouldn't a giant, enclosed hoverboard just be a flying car by another name?

[DrP]

we need 'Mr Fusion' .......Great Scot!

[Sisyphus]

Do you know something about flying cars that I don't? Because as far as I am aware, they don't exist, and therefore are totally pollution free! Seriously, though, you can't make a blanket statement about all potential technologies like that. I say we cross that bridge (or hover across the river) when we come to it.

 

As for fundamental issues of replacing things whizzing along the ground with things whizzing through the sky, I can't say I agree that the overall "footprint" would increase. Quite the opposite, actually. How much of the landscape is currently covered by paved roadways? Are more birds likely to be killed by flying cars than animals are currently killed by ground cars? How much pollution (and wasted time) is the result of sitting in traffic and circuitous routes?

 

That said, this is almost certainly a moot discussion. Flying cars aren't coming. We've been promised by popular culture that they're right around the corner for the better part of a century, and I'm done waiting. Plus, I can't help but think the problems are too great to be solved in the foreseeable future, anyway. Millions of poorly trained "pilots" sharing a tightly confined airspace? At best you couldn't have people controlling their own "cars" - everything would have to be automated and coordinated across entire regions. It's much more complex than ground transport, and failures are much more catastrophic: a fender bender with ground cars becomes a plane coming down on my roof with flying cars.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Sisyphus

[DrP]

Do you know something about flying cars that I don't? Because as far as I am aware, they don't exist,........ That said, this is almost certainly a moot discussion. Flying cars aren't coming. We've been promised by popular culture that they're right around the corner for the better part of a century, and I'm done waiting..

 

 

The Moller H400 has been in prototype for ages. Have a look! - http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm - I phoned the company about 5 years ago to asked how much they will cost. They said around £400,000 pounds at first - but you can't get them yet. It drives like a ordinary car on the road (that's the cool thing) but if you get stuck in a jam then you can do a vertical take off and zoom off at 400mph!

 

 

 

Plus, I can't help but think the problems are too great to be solved in the foreseeable future, anyway. Millions of poorly trained "pilots" sharing a tightly confined airspace? At best you couldn't have people controlling their own "cars" - everything would have to be automated and coordinated across entire regions. It's much more complex than ground transport, and failures are much more catastrophic: a fender bender with ground cars becomes a plane coming down on my roof with flying cars.

 

 

Nah! Just hand out a few NVQ Level 2 skycar pilot instructor certificates once they have taken a short course and they will be able to teach everyone else! - No, but seriously - how is this any different to privately owned helecopters or planes? They are only for the rich and the licence restrictions are pretty strict. I mean loads of celebs have them - Johny Cash, Colin McRae etc.!

Edited July 29, 2008 by DrP

[Sisyphus]

The Moller H400 has been in prototype for ages. Have a look! - http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm - I phoned the company about 5 years ago to asked how much they will cost. They said around £400,000 pounds at first - but you can't get them yet. It drives like a ordinary car on the road (that's the cool thing) but if you get stuck in a jam then you can do a vertical take off and zoom off at 400mph!

 

No, it doesn't do those things. That company promises it will.

 

Nah! Just hand out a few NVQ Level 2 skycar pilot instructor certificates once they have taken a short course and they will be able to teach everyone else! - No, but seriously - how is this any different to privately owned helecopters or planes? They are only for the rich and the licence restrictions are pretty strict. I mean loads of celebs have them - Johny Cash, Colin McRae etc.!

 

Well, it's different because private aircraft are extremely rare, take off and land at airports, are closely monitored by (already stretched) air traffic controllers, and are flown by pilots with rigorous training, including many, many hours of one on one instruction from certified instructors. The idea of a "flying car" that can do anything like take the place of ground cars obviously implies enormous differences from that.

 

I'm not trying to be a downer. I'm a technological optimist (and a sci fi fan) and I know that technology and society can change in unexpected ways in relatively short amounts of time, so I'm not saying it's "impossible," just "currently unforeseeable." Remember, the first "flying cars" were marketed in 1937! Where are they?

Edited July 29, 2008 by Sisyphus

[DrP]

No, it doesn't do those things. That company promises it will.

 

 

 

Well it drives like a car and it does the vertical take off and landing thing(VTOL)..... They just haven't got the transition from VTOL to full aerodynamic flight yet. They are however taking deposits should you want to ensure you get one of the first ones when they do succede fullly. Genius con?!

 

 

Hey - perhaps we should start a company taking deposits for faster than light drives and teleporters on the promise that when we have them, those who have paid their deposits will the first to receive their units! A bit like selling off plots on the moon, but at $100,000 a pop!.

 

 

w.r.t. safety issues - I agree with you really, it would be a bit dangerous at first, but with the right regulations put in place it wouldn't be too bad. They said that a train travelling at 15mph would be dangerous 150 years ago. We used to have walkers in front of road vehicals to restrict speeds. You're right - it would be chaos if everyone had one, but I doubt they would be for the masses - just the very rich, famous, important and probably the military.

[foodchain]

They would disturb the ecosystem and environment.

Therefore, we should not have flying cars.

 

End of story.

There goes that idea.

 

Now, about those cool hoverboards like in Back to the Future...

I want a pink one...

 

Agree or disagree?

 

 

 

I have to agree. Technology used by humans still pertains to being either a biotic or abiotic variable if you want. IN regards to environment then I would think that technology should be used that does not threaten us with extinction. I think the continued use of such even while knowing its bad is pretty much going along the same lines as being a crackhead, professionally I would just like to know the difference.

 

I don’t think people have a clue on how to build green technology really. This mountain of a hump has to be overcome at some point really. I was thinking if you could mutate some bacteria to overproduce electrons in relation to photosynthesis, if these electrons could be routed in some medium that would be nifty, I think biotechnology needs more focus, along with solar.

[Pangloss]

The thing about air cars is that it's not so much about developing an efficient transportation system as it is about developing far more sophisticated control and navigational systems. Put the average person in a Cessna at 5,000 feet and they probably wouldn't be able to find their way home, much less land the aircraft. Even in broad daylight, in clear weather, from just a few miles away. And god only knows what they'd run into; power lines, buildings, hills?

 

It's quite amazing how complicated that third degree of movement makes things. 60 Minutes did a report a while back looking at all the air cars in development, and some of them mentioned computer stability control concepts that were promising, while others talked about more sophisticated, GPS-based navigational systems (more idiot-oriented than what they use now), but in the end I wished they'd just put the reported in a Cessna for a check flight. They'd have probably just nixed the story completely.

[Genecks]

I created this thread with little detail on my part to see how it would turn out.

Also, we're into the 21st century a little, so I thought it would be nice to talk about "what if we had the technology."

 

If we did have flying cars, they would probably create a lot of pollution. Unless they were created to be green and safe.

 

I mean, let's think about the past few decades.

 

I don't know about any of you, but I never came across someone mentioning that flying cars, if made, should come with the idea of being environmentally friendly.

 

That's one reason why I created this thread.

 

I figured we had some decent scientists here, and it would be something to keep in mind.

 

The provided posts have been interesting and information.

And I appreciate foodchain's post the most.

It was a good counter-argument.

 

Yes, I know we don't have them yet.

But if we did, then we'd be screwed if we didn't think about environmental concern, right?

 

And yet, a lot of us still want flying cars.

But should we still pursue that issue knowing that it could damage the environment?

Should we, knowing that it could damage things more than now, give up on the idea of flying cars?

[Mr Skeptic]

Hydrogen powered flying cars would be green, at least until they explode

[npts2020]

For the moment I think we need to give up the concept of having them in widespread use but I am all for developing the technology.

[DrP]

I created this thread with little detail on my part to see how it would turn out.

Also, we're into the 21st century a little, so I thought it would be nice to talk about "what if we had the technology."

 

If we did have flying cars, they would probably create a lot of pollution. Unless they were created to be green and safe.

 

I mean, let's think about the past few decades.

 

I don't know about any of you, but I never came across someone mentioning that flying cars, if made, should come with the idea of being environmentally friendly.

 

That's one reason why I created this thread.

 

I figured we had some decent scientists here, and it would be something to keep in mind.

 

The provided posts have been interesting and information.

And I appreciate foodchain's post the most.

It was a good counter-argument.

 

Yes, I know we don't have them yet.

But if we did, then we'd be screwed if we didn't think about environmental concern, right?

 

And yet, a lot of us still want flying cars.

But should we still pursue that issue knowing that it could damage the environment?

Should we, knowing that it could damage things more than now, give up on the idea of flying cars?

 

 

Well if we are talking 'what if' technology, then i suppose we could genetically engineer a horse/eagle hybrid to create some kind of pegasus type beast. They'd be enviromentally freindly and much safer than a flying car. How cool would they be? .

[Pangloss]

Well again, this is pure fantasy, for the reasons I described in post #11. It's fun to imagine possibilities, but it's just not realistic to think the average modern driver will be able to hop into any kind of air car and go anywhere they want with a minimum of training -- even heavily automated and computer-navigated. The environment and the problems are just radically different from what people think from watching movies and flying in commercial jumbo jets.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you look at the current proposals and plans and even developed equipment it's pretty laughable stuff. The idea that Dick or Jane would be able to drive to the mall in one, even find the mall in one, while arguing with the kids in the back, talking on the cell phone and yelling at the air car that just blew by, is pretty ridiculous.

The moment the first single-mother-of-three runs out of gas at 5,000 feet it's all over -- the entire industry dies overnight. Seriously, guys -- go take a flying lesson (it's a blast!) and see what the navigation problems alone are like, much less the wind issues with light aircraft or the problems of landing space in crowded metropolitan regions. You really just have no idea.

[JohnB]

i suppose we could genetically engineer a horse/eagle hybrid to create some kind of pegasus type beast. They'd be enviromentally freindly and much safer than a flying car. How cool would they be?

Not to rain on your parade, but do you have any idea the impact velocity of horsesh*t from 5,000 ft?

[DrP]

Not to rain on your parade, but do you have any idea the impact velocity of horsesh*t from 5,000 ft?

 

Ah well, what your forgetting is that we have genetically engineered this horse you see, so that its waste gets stored in a marsupial like sack just benieth it's behind - it gets stored there for emptying upon landing.

 

Anyway - if you did happen to get some spillage, then the effects of impact would be umplesent, but probably not fatal. Also - there would be no need to fly at 5,000 feet - you could stick to a couple of hundered feet.

[JohnB]

Ah well, what your forgetting is that we have genetically engineered this horse you see, so that its waste gets stored in a marsupial like sack just benieth it's behind - it gets stored there for emptying upon landing.

So long as you are thinking this through properly.

[DrP]

So long as you are thinking this through properly.

 

 

Well of course! If you don't think these things through properly then they'd never get off the ground.

[JohnB]

Yes, and we couldn't have a half arsed flying horse, could we? It would miss the pouch.

[Guest m0tvl]

If we all had bicycles, where would we put the passengers.

[JohnB]

Here.

[CaptainPanic]

Or here, here, or here.