# Taught to conquer nature – we’d have unlimited food, power



## Waterboy (Sep 20, 2011)

In Germany in 1579, angry weavers strangled the inventor of a machine that could weave several ribbons at once, and then destroyed his invention.

In 1753 in England, weavers wrecked the home of the inventor of the flying shuttle, and drove him out of the country. During the next 60 years, rioters continued to smash spinning machines and power looms.

A giant transport tool that benefits the U.S. and Canada was held back for more than 50 years. In 1903, plans were first drawn to build the St. Lawrence Seaway, the river and canal system connecting the Great Lakes with the Atlantic. Railroads, coal companies and port interests succeeded in holding it up until 1954, when Congress finally approved a bill to build it.

A 1937 U.S. government report stated that the telephone company (the only one - Bell) had 3,400 patents on new inventions that it had locked away and never used. Bell Telephone bought the patents to prevent anyone else from using them in competition with it. Another government report listed inventions for steelmaking that the steel industry rejected or ignored.

A tool invented that could pick as much cotton in 7.5 hours that a hand picker could in 5 weeks also was neglected. Even into the late 1950s, plantation owners found it cheaper to use hand pickers at low wages.

Other earlier barriers to inventions include slavery. When tools were invented that enabled a farmer to produce more food than he ate, slavery spread. The masters, who lost contact with farming and the crafts, had no need for laborsaving tools, which led to the dying out of invention from 3000 B.C. to 2000 B.C.

I gathered this information from a discarded library book, "Tools in Your Life," copyrighted in 1956 by Irving and Ruth Adler. The book states, "It is important that we find the answers to these questions so that bottlenecks that stand in the way of industrial progress may be removed. You who read this book will help find the answers during your lifetime."

Have we found the answers yet?

We were taught in the 1960s and 70s that quiet, energy-efficient electric cars would replace gasoline-powered cars in the near future. Instead, we have SUVs. What happened?

Incidentally, there were "about 50 million automobiles in the U.S. in 1956 - enough to carry every man, woman and child in the country at the same time."

The drawing included here is of a shaduf, an ancient Egyptian and Babylonian water lift made of a pole resting on a high post. The device worked like a seesaw, allowing one man to raise about 600 gallons of water a day.

I wonder what obstacles have been placed in front of inventors working to create hand pumps to extract water from great depths, or other devices that function without electrical or other power.

In the book's final chapter, predictions are made for future energy sources, such as atomic energy supplying a growing share of industry's power. Attempts also were being made to control the energy of the hydrogen bomb for peaceful use.

"Sunlight, too, will be used as a source of power. The solar battery, when it is perfected, will help to transform deserts into flourishing centers of civilization.
"An unlimited supply of power will be matched by an unlimited supply of food.

Chemists are studying the process by which plants make food out of water and carbon dioxide. When they uncover all of its secrets, people won't have to grow their food any more. They will be able to make it in factories."

I suppose that accounts for margarine.

In the pre-Apollo days, a moon trip was fantasy. The authors predicted that with our "endless supplies of power and food," men and women will have time and means to venture into outer space.

Although the book was an interesting review of man's progress and ingenuity, the final sentence bothers me:

"We can move into the future with confidence by making the fullest use of the tools of today to conquer nature for the benefit of everybody."

Should we be conquering nature - or adapting to it? At what cost have we attempted to conquer nature?

Can we still look to the future with great hope?


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

It is harder for greedy people to get more than their share if we were to cooperate with nature. :gaah: look at stick frame housing for example , they wont be standing like in 200 years like some of the older more in tune methods.


----------



## stayingthegame (Mar 22, 2011)

any one remember the sterling engine? where is it today?


----------



## Waterboy (Sep 20, 2011)

stayingthegame said:


> any one remember the sterling engine? where is it today?


I'll have to Google that. I've never heard of a Sterling engine. Thanks.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

stayingthegame said:


> any one remember the sterling engine? where is it today?


in my back yard!... at the focal point of a mylar covered 8' satellite dish! 

too bad Ohio isn't 'geographically optimized for solar'


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The_Blob said:


> in my back yard!... at the focal point of a Mylar covered 8' satellite dish!


Good on you... the most efficient solar power station in the world is actually a Sterling engine just as you described, not photovoltaics.

http://www.npu.edu/seminars/index.php?m=11&y=08&entry=entry081126-200257

http://www.treehugger.com/solar-tec...rling-engine-made-by-car-parts-suppliers.html


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Humans have been pushing for and stifling forward progress ever since Gorg invented the club and it was taken away by Klob in 2901 BC (for the purpose of disclosure I _may_ have just made that up). But in all seriousness that was a very interesting post. It's amazing how self preservation and greed can get in the way or morality and the betterment of all mankind.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

We'll never have unlimited food and power. Food takes a lot of water to produce. In many parts of the US there are ancient aquifers that are running out of water. In many parts of the world prime agricultural land is taken out of production and used for housing developments or golf courses.

A partial solution on the coasts is to build nuclear power plants with desalination plants. It takes a lot of water to cool a nuclear plant anyway so building a desalination plant makes a lot of sense.


----------



## itstime (Sep 2, 2012)

I think we should not conquer nature but that is just what we are doing. I don't believe America will back down anytime soon. It is a scary thought that we are running out of so many resources as in oil, water, and many more... Greed will turn this country against Its self...


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

BillS said:


> A partial solution on the coasts is to build nuclear power plants with desalination plants. It takes a lot of water to cool a nuclear plant anyway so building a desalination plant makes a lot of sense.


The Israelis were the pioneers in this. There is even a proposal to build a huge water pipeline from the Gulf Coast in Texas with feeders to San Antonio, Austin, and the DFW area. It makes a lot more sense to desalinate sea water, recover the minerals, and pipe the drinking water north than it does to try and steal water from the aquifers in the wetter, more rural parts of the state.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Working in the steel industry for a company that bucks the traditional means, I can say that when someone comes up with an idea, they can patent it. This doesn't mean it's more efficient or better in any way, just different. We were the first to use electric arc furnaces on a wide scale and forgoing the traditional blast furnaces used by everyone else. We've also put to use the first facility that can take molten steel to a 1mm thick sheet without a rolling mill (Castrip) as opposed to casting bars in the 2 inch range that have to be sent through many rolling mill stands to reduce the thickness.

I haven't read that book so I can't comment on the telephone patents. I'm sure all weren't useful anyway. Many companies buy blocks of patents just to obtain the few they can actually use. Landline phones are not exactly inefficient. The electrical loads are very low and the lines are self powered. 

Special interest groups have always done what they can to protect what they have. No group wants to be replaced and companies have an obligation to the shareholders. They're not out for the betterment of the world. Sadly, greed is what drives humans. Why was the US so technologically advanced compared to the USSR during the cold war? People in the US had incentive to come up with new ideas so they could make money. Those in the USSR had no such motivation. Even countries such as China currently gets most of it's technology from reverse engineering what others invent.

Take everything a step further and you have countries trying to protect what they have and prevent others from gaining an advantage while the lesser countries are doing whatever it takes ethical or not to catch up.


----------

