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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would just like to say that it's going to impossible for cars to fly. I did a project on flying cars, and trust me: it's not going to happen anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteLet's examine a large aircraft. It flies hundreds of miles per day, and the rate of gas burning is about 7 miles per gallon. That means it consumes thousands of gallons of fossil fuel per month. Compared to a car, that's a LOT! Even if it's a small jetcraft, it's still going to use up a lot of gas because of the energy used for lift. Automobiles don't really have to worry about lift because they travel on land.
Secondly and obviously, there's a lot of safety issue involved. A man idle in a flying aircraft is more like die than a man idle in a car. So, the precautions must be taken to the extreme. One mistake and it's a life gone. Speaking of lives lost and safety, It's going to be easier for terrorists to do more 9/11 stunts.
Despite everything I've written, if it succeeds it could solve our traffic problems and it can improve commute time.
But think again, is it worthy to risk so much for some gains in commute time?
Don't forget that anything is possible in a theoretical world. And what is merely science fiction (or even just fiction) will be possible several decades from now. It's a general law that any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic, and the converse holds true: in the future, we will be able to achieve impossible things using new developments, new methods, and new ideas.
ReplyDeleteMore specifically, suppose we develop a new propulsion technology that does not use fuel. Maybe it just uses electricity, maybe magnetism, maybe some mysterious force we simply haven't even discovered yet. Just because options are limited now doesn't mean that new developments in other fields won't open up new opportunities in the present one.
Second, safety advances, like all advances, will be realized only in a matter of time. New materials are being developed every day, and technologies applicable to computer driving are also being researched at a quick pace. So imagine if you have a flying car that can drive itself. And there are flying military units and police that will intercept rogue craft.
In the future, anything is possible. So thinking about a theoretical world is like thinking about one possible future. Maybe you don't know the specifics of how we will achieve that future reality, but predictions and insights are still possible to make, many of which are relevant even today.
So you are saying that in about 30 years:
ReplyDeleteWe will develop a much more efficient form of energy, or truly harness the power of the atom.
We will create a flying vehicle that is safe and nonviolent.
We will alter our society so that it supports flying vehicles.
So, a lot can happen in the future...
Just look at all that has happened in the past thirty years, and the past century. Not only have marvelous inventions been created, information gathered and indexed (although Google has a long ways to go), our very perspective about the world has changed drastically.
ReplyDeleteAnd society's development always increases in pace, so we may accomplish in twenty-five years what we could accomplish in thirty before. Never underestimate the power of time.
But do rely on Moore's laws.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there will be an end to the development of technology due to physical and political incapabilities.
Actually, I believe there will always be a balance in political power. There may be swings and instability, but eventually, everything will balance out. And also, one of the guiding principles I strictly follow is that time makes everything possible. You never know what we will accomplish, and the only way you can find out is to wait.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. We learn History because of the undesirable shifts in world power and how we wish from our mistakes.
ReplyDeleteEverything will balance out? Wow. Balance out after the extinction of mankind.
But surely, after two World Wars, some bombings here and there, a couple dictators, and everything else, the world is not on the edge of Armageddon, is it? Take another look at all that has happened in history, all the terrible things and the wonderful things that have happened to our world and ask yourself if these things have not only balanced out but have also melded together to fundamentally define our society as it is today?
ReplyDeleteWell I can argue that:
ReplyDeletePeace will become one-sided. Balance will shift as time goes on.