Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big question is how much of that global impact will land on the US, and how much on other economies. It will depend on how much each country's economy is willing to invest in its place on the ladder or the ground floor, and sadly, the US is probably going to harvest a very small share of this.
It would be interesting to see comparative figures on how much R&D capital for these areas is coming from US wealth, compared to other economies.
My thoughts are this study is flawed. I think they are making the same mistakes most people make. Making future predictions using linear not exponential growth projections for information technology. I think that is why they under estimate some technologies.
It's the same old game of thinking that we'll just refine and improve what we've already got in the future. Then the internal combustion engine or silicone microchip comes along and takes us to completely new places instead.
In my opinion, Nanotech will be the biggest thing to drive our economic future. It has the potential to completely revolutionize how we make things, will result in batteries that can actually hold a decent amount of energy and recharge instantly (actually making electric cars better than gas) and completely reinventing medicine... thanks to nanotech it won't be long before popping a pill that fills our entire bodies with chemicals seems as ridiculous and archaic as bleeding or trephination.
It's the same old game of thinking that we'll just refine and improve what we've already got in the future. Then the internal combustion engine or silicone microchip comes along and takes us to completely new places instead.
In my opinion, Nanotech will be the biggest thing to drive our economic future. It has the potential to completely revolutionize how we make things, will result in batteries that can actually hold a decent amount of energy and recharge instantly (actually making electric cars better than gas) and completely reinventing medicine... thanks to nanotech it won't be long before popping a pill that fills our entire bodies with chemicals seems as ridiculous and archaic as bleeding or trephination.
Why do you guys think Renewable Energy is at the bottom of the list?
Because it's based on the year 2025, like it or not fossil fuel will be with us for many decades to come. As far as the renewables go my money is on geo thermal.
Because it's based on the year 2025, like it or not fossil fuel will be with us for many decades to come. As far as the renewables go my money is on geo thermal.
It might seem that way today but its not. Look at this article.
Current estimates suggest that solar might be as cheap as coal by the end of the decade, and half the cost of coal by the end of the next decade:
Personally I think new methods of getting cheap crude and natural gas will drive the future. Why because cheap energy makes so many thing possible in being competitive and it even change the global politics like nothing we have seen for decades. I can remember seeing prediction of new energy sources for decades in the past years even now Wood still remains the closest to 1% of all. Then of course we have to replace 13K other essential products form crude alone. Being 65 I can tell you don't put your eggs in what is predicted because the world today is nothing like predicted even in the 50's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.