Poll Results on Tech Priorities
Yesterday we posed this question: Which of the following would you most like to see accomplished through the development of emerging technologies?
Zogby International, an opinion research firm, polled more than 13,400 US citizens, and here is what they said:
- An end to world hunger: 18.2%- An end to disease: 20.5%
- Extended life-span: 5.4%
- Exploration of the universe: 4.7%
- An end to fossil fuels: 45.6%
- None/Not sure: 5.6%
Read more here.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
Definitely exploring the universe, or preferably colonizing it. (I'm in the minority?!?)
That's what I'd most like to see. But in terms of what's likely to happen first, it's probably curing disease and ending fossil fuels, followed by an end to hunger and extended lifespan - and those are all things we should celebrate.
On second thoughts I might have to answer not sure. I want them all!!
Posted by: Roland | March 16, 2006 at 02:28 AM
World hunger could definitely be solved today, without the least technological advancement, because it's only a matter of distribution and politics.
Fossil fuels might well be in range as well. With existing technologies like thermal depolymerization and of course wind/tidal/solar energy, combined with energy saving, we might be able to discontinue the use of fossil fuels today.
Posted by: Matt | March 16, 2006 at 03:09 AM
Seeing as how Exxon and Shell quickly got rid of their "renewable energy" sectors, CEO of Exxon saying "we're a oil & gas company, our business is oil & gas", Bush saying by 2025 we'll only IMPORT 25 percent LESS oil and the future "fuel" hyrdrogen will be made from natural gas I'm pretty sure oil & gas is gonna be around and booming for another 50 years easily.
btw I can't believe world hunger and disease combined got less vote than end to fossil fuel, kind of disturbing to see how short sighted and self involved people are.
Posted by: DT | March 16, 2006 at 03:49 AM
Hydrogen can be made from fresh water as well as natural gas. Water is not a fossil fuel.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan | March 16, 2006 at 11:53 AM
DT, just because oil industry people project it, doesn't mean it's true. Fossil fuels have at least three major problems.
1) Contribute to political instability in several nations
2) Add CO2 to the atmosphere
3) May become unexpectedly scarce if extraction falls behind schedule (e.g. more Gulf hurricanes, difficulty finding new fields) or distribution is interrupted (see 1)
Those who voted for fossil fuels over humanitarian problems probably believe that fossil fuels are about to cause even worse problems.
Phillip, the question isn't where you get the hydrogen, but where you get the energy. It'll be a while before we have enough non-fossil energy that it makes sense to pull hydrogen off of oxygen rather than carbon.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | March 16, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Interesting that more people said "none/not sure" than said explore the universe or extend human lifespan.
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 16, 2006 at 09:05 PM