No Metal

Metal plays a key role in our lives. So what would have happened to human development if metal was never discovered?

Car engines today are based on the principle of burning fuel to create energy in the form of motion. But if our society was limited to materials like wood or stone, modern engines would simply not be possible. We would still be riding wooden bicycles and using canoes. This last point is particularly important. Since motorized travel will be impossible, water will be the most convenient and most efficient way to travel. Indeed, much of civilization would have congregated around bodies of water.

But we would still be able to accomplish much more than one might initially think. It is possible to carve gears and levers with a stone knife or something similar, allowing for construction of complicated machinery. Indeed, in a world where human civilization continued developing without the discovery of metal, we might be living in a "woodpunk" (taken after the word "steampunk") world -- with complicated wooden machinery buzzing all around us.

Returning to our starting point, look around you: metal everywhere. Without metal, we can accomplish so much yet so little. Indeed, removing such a staple in our life forces us to thing hard about living in a new situation, even a new planet in the future. So what other possibilities and impossibilities can you imagine in a world with no metal?

The Paper Texture

There is a dramatic difference between the experience of reading on paper and on a screen. I firmly believe that the medium should not obscure the information, and text is no exception. Just as reading a brightly colored, elaborate font is tiring, the brightness and flashiness of a screen distracts attention away from the material. Paper, however, is the most plain and unobstructive texture possible. It is simply more comfortable for the eyes and easier for the mind to read something from paper that from a screen.

How we read also makes a difference. When reading from a screen we stare straight ahead and we rest our hands on the keyboard or mouse or fiddle with office supplies. When reading a book or an article, however, we either set the paper on a desk and read downward or hold the paper/book in our hands; we are much more engaged in reading from paper, both mentally and physically. We retain information much better when we read it on paper than on a screen, and this happens because of the plain nature of paper and the habit of reading in a certain position.

So I think that eventually the notion of "computer monitor" will disappear. It will be replaced by devices like the Kindle and the Sony Reader. We will all own several of these flat devices which are all connected to a central computer in our home. Each of these tablets will function like a dynamic stack of papers, allowing us to organize our data not only via a "folder system" but also physically, and to manipulate it.

We will be able to have a separate tablet for a particular project or document at work, a personal journal, or anything else. This structure of information is versatile and natural; it is how we organized data before the invention of the computer, and it works. Transferring data will also be easy: just send a copy of the pages in your tablet to a tablet belonging to someone else. Finally, electronic ink technology will allow these tablets to be read as comfortably as text on paper. Paper and books is simply a more physically intuitive way to organize information than the system in place in computers. This tablet system of information is natural and efficient, and it meshes with the natural way we read and allows us to intuitively organize information.

My question is: is such a system necessary? Will this way of organizing and reading information be awkward, or does it have the potential to change the way we get things done?

A New Type of Communication

You want to set up a lunch meeting with your boss. With today's technology, you can e-mail him, text him, call him, instant message him, the list goes on and on. In our world of newfound connectivity, there is a myriad of ways to communicate with someone. But are so many options a good thing?

A text message is essentially a very short note, often one or two sentences. An e-mail is similar, but is usually longer. But we use two very different pieces of software, often even on two different devices to send these two similar types of communications. Why?

Several instant message clients offer voice chat, which is almost identical to calling. But to hold a voice chat with someone, you contact them via their instant messenger account, while to call someone, you use a telephone number. Again, why are two nearly identical types of communication so separated, not only by software but also by how you identify the person who you are communicating with?

As a final example, text messages and instant messages often look identical. But they are confined to two separate types of software. They are displayed differently and sent to different places via different networks, but they are essentially the same type of communication: they seek to convey the same type of data the same way.

So imagine we have a device that can manage all of these types of communications from one profile; really putting the "smart" in "phone". From one username (which is far more personal than a phone number), you can hold voice chats/telephone calls and send text. The inbox is continually refreshed, and you have the option of immediately showing replies to certain messages the moment they are received. This feature would be used for quick replies, as in instant messages and texts, while longer, more formal messages would go to the inbox first.

But these are all specifics. The crux of my idea is to unify the many ways we communicate in our twenty-first century world. The world is becoming more open and limits are being pushed and broken. And types of communication should adapt to this by likewise becoming more open, more efficient, and more free. We have invented many innovative and efficient ways to communicate; now we just need to unify these separate formats in a simple and functional way. We also need to communicate from a single, portable device.

What do you think? Do we need to overhaul how we communicate? And, if so, how should we do it?

If Cars could Fly

Suppose we invented a type of four-passenger vehicle about the size of a car that could fly. Clearly such an invention would revolutionize transportation. But there would be a couple of things to sort out before allowing such vehicles on the road.

First, these vehicles would be able travel to places and through places that cars could not go. And noise-making vehicles are undesired in many otherwise quite areas. So landowners would have to start making claims to "airspace" in response to such vehicles flying directly over homes and other buildings; we might have the same noise problem as airplanes, just more crafts but less noise per craft. Clearly it would be absurd to have every landowner make claims to the space above his land, so there would have to be designated "roads", columns of air where these crafts are allowed to fly.

An initial response would be that such technology wouldn't be so revolutionary taking such a restriction into account. However, suppose you are stuck in traffic. When you are unable to drive to either side or forward, imagine if you could drive up. Clearly, such transportation would more than quadruple the efficiency of roads.

But it would also be much, much harder to drive. Inevitably, there will be "levels" of travel, just like lanes in today's roads. And in each level, the normal traffic rules still apply. But now, you have four directions to drive: left, right, up, and down. And you also have to pay attention in four directions, that is, all around you, to other cars. Such technology would result in much more efficient travel, but would also result in driving being much more dangerous. But computer-driven cars will likely be invented before the personal flying craft, so this is not that big of a problem.

Now a general note about me: I find it interesting and liberating to think about situations like these, to break the rules with a whimsical invention. Not only does it test your creativity, it also forces you to realize the reasons behind the rules. Traffic rules and the existence of roads would be as much a presence with flying cars as with normal cars. And it would be harder to drive. So I don't think its fair to say that I shun all practicality; rather, I like to change some rules and see what conclusions follow.

So what do you think? What traffic rules and driving challenges would carry over to flying cars, and what is the importance of these rules now?

Introduction

Hello Readers (or lack thereof),

Welcome to "Fly Away". Here, I'll try to provide a break from reality, from always focusing on what is practical, and instead try to look at things from a more theoretical point of view. This is intentionally vague because (this being my first blog) I'm not sure exactly what to write here. What I do know is that this abstract point of view is how I see the world and my life.

So, once again, welcome to my blog. I hope you like it here.