Great post. I am very much an anti-war type, but there’s no denying the importance of a credible deterrence. MAD kept the world at peace for half a century. With the advent of asymmetrical warfare in the form of inexpensive drones, the US definitely needs to step up its game. On that front, having recognized the problem, I am convinced that the young entrepreneurs will solve it and, per your post, are.
Perhaps acting more like a law bounded Republic instead of a crazed Empire would be in order? Then, the US could participate in mutually beneficial trade instead of illegal military operations. Pretty straightforward, actually.
Andy: If you lived thru the 80s and 90s in the the USA, then you should know that the choice to hollow out American manufacturing was American, not Chinese.
My favorite part of Matt Ridley's writing is how prosperity comes through "Specialization and exchange." Trump is doing his best to kill the global prosperity enabled through free and fair trade, and basically causing the US to become a pariah state instead of the "city on a hill" we have been in the past.
and which part of China's trade do you think is fair? You can believe fair trade is great, but if all parties don't play by the same rules, you need to consider the potential negative consequences of trying to do it the "right" way. we've already seen that with the hollowing out of American manufacturing.
Compelling writing, as always. Regrettably, I think we as fair minded rationalists still must ask the question "What if we are NOT the good guys?" Current regime in the US does not have anything that could be confused by any fair observer as a "moral compass." The Iran war debacle proves this, not just to me but to the world. I want the US strong but not idiotic. Anyone agree?
I would submit every peace treaty agreed upon and followed (a peaceful state achieved) and every peace treaty agreed upon and subsequently violated (unethical behavior) as evidence. Our country couldn’t even abide by an MOU. Why? Because as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said: The USA is agreement incapable.
Your evidence? And, evidently, you have the whole history of mankind from which to derive your argument. Please proceed.
OMG...I wrote my comment before I read any others...and it turns out I am not alone in my disgust about current US bullying and terrorist activities. Thank you, fellow rationalists and well-read global citizens!
You mentioned that liquid rocket engines are having a Renaissance like nuclear batteries are. I have invented the world's first rechargeable nuclear battery that can be manufactured in any popular existing battery form to suit any application.
My batteries are perfect solutions for anything space related but also for medical applications including powering prosthetic limbs. My batteries are designed to use their full capacity and then they will self-recharge to 100% while not being used. I see huge opportunities in robotics for them as well. Of course there are huge defense related or military related applications for such batteries.
The problem is that I cannot get generate any support to develop my technology. All of my efforts fall on deaf ears. My batteries are designed to use low level, safe, pure alpha and beta emitters. Of course regulatory issues prevent me from being able to perform any kind of hands on development without proper facilities and licensing.
I'm hoping you can help put me in contact with groups that are working in this space.
"Peace" agreements are only as good as the "people" that sign them. There is no "world court" to enforce the agreements. That is why a country needs to be able to defend itself against ALL types of "humanity". I support the notion and belief of "preemting" any thoughts of attacks against us through a strong and capable defence force.
The history of technology is full of “premature inventions” — ideas that were sound in principle but defeated by the limitations of their era. Today, we have the opportunity to revisit some of these concepts. Someone needs to write the book on this topic. I recall reading about airships and how they were popular in the 1920s into the 1930s before a fiery conclusion over New Jersey.
A classic example is the airship. The great rigid airships of the early twentieth century were elegant machines, but they suffered from problems their designers could not overcome: flammable hydrogen, heavy metal frameworks, limited weather prediction, and engines that were unreliable by modern standards. A modern revival would look very different. Helium would replace hydrogen, lightweight carbon-fiber composites would replace heavy metal structures, and computer-controlled navigation systems would make operation far safer. Hybrid airships could potentially provide efficient cargo transportation to remote areas, disaster zones, and places without extensive road or rail infrastructure.
What other old ideas might be ready for a second life?
1. Sailing Ships for Modern Freight
At first glance, sailing ships seem like a technology from the past. But modern materials and automation could transform them into something entirely new. Computer-controlled rigid sails, kite systems, and advanced weather routing could allow large cargo vessels to use wind power as a supplement to engines.
The goal would not be to return to the Age of Sail, but to combine the best of both eras: modern ships with dramatically reduced fuel consumption. With shipping responsible for a significant share of global emissions, an ancient technology might become part of a cleaner future.
2. Underground Cities and Subsurface Architecture
Humans have lived underground for thousands of years, from ancient caves to elaborate underground cities. Yet modern society mostly abandoned this approach because excavation was expensive and lighting, ventilation, and climate control were difficult.
New tunneling machines, geothermal technology, LED lighting, robotics, and advanced ventilation systems could make underground living far more practical. Underground structures could provide natural temperature stability, protection from extreme weather, and efficient use of land in crowded regions.
Rather than imagining cities spreading endlessly outward and upward, perhaps some of tomorrow’s cities will expand downward.
3. Nuclear Power Reimagined
Nuclear energy is another example of an old idea that may benefit from a technological reboot. Early nuclear plants were designed around the engineering realities of the mid-twentieth century. Newer concepts such as small modular reactors, advanced fuel designs, and improved safety systems attempt to address many of the concerns that limited earlier generations.
The lesson is not that every old technology deserves a comeback. Some ideas failed for good reasons. But we should be careful not to confuse “old” with “obsolete.” A technology that was impractical in 1925, 1955, or even 1995 may become realistic when paired with modern materials and computing.
Progress is often less like replacing the past and more like discovering that the past was waiting for the right tools.
The future may contain inventions that our grandparents would recognize — but improved enough that they finally work.
I thought the solid fuel missils have a decisive tactical advantage - they can be instantly erected and launched, while the liquid fuel missils have to be stand up to be fueled and satellites can see that, negating first-strike surprise. But maybe that's more relevant for nuclear ones.
Solid fuels, or stable liquid fuels, are absolutely necessary for instant reactions, such as "hitting a bullet with a bullet". This article does a poor job of describing that, especially switching between the glories of throttleable and restartable liquid rockets, containerized launch systems, and so on. I.m assuming the actual rocket scientists know the difference, even if the author doesn't make it clear.
great article on Chandler. And we need better defense. We also need to stop attacking others needlessly and provoking them to attack in defense. And you know this intimately!!
This comment section has morphed into China vs America mfg/trade commentary. Fair enough.
I would suggest that if we did a better job of keeping our technology safe from theft from the Chinese (especially), we would be in a much better position to prosper.
Yes. Armed conflict is perhaps the most coldly rational of human endeavors. Want to end it? Then make it clear one side has overwhelming power.
I want that side to be us.
We just started a war because we thought we had overwhelming power.
Plus, he didn’t/doesn’t have the end game.
The purpose of war is to force the enemy to do your will.
The Pax Romana kept a large part of the world free of conflict for two hundred years.
Great, so long as you are the one with overwhelming power.
Great post. I am very much an anti-war type, but there’s no denying the importance of a credible deterrence. MAD kept the world at peace for half a century. With the advent of asymmetrical warfare in the form of inexpensive drones, the US definitely needs to step up its game. On that front, having recognized the problem, I am convinced that the young entrepreneurs will solve it and, per your post, are.
Perhaps acting more like a law bounded Republic instead of a crazed Empire would be in order? Then, the US could participate in mutually beneficial trade instead of illegal military operations. Pretty straightforward, actually.
Andy: If you lived thru the 80s and 90s in the the USA, then you should know that the choice to hollow out American manufacturing was American, not Chinese.
My favorite part of Matt Ridley's writing is how prosperity comes through "Specialization and exchange." Trump is doing his best to kill the global prosperity enabled through free and fair trade, and basically causing the US to become a pariah state instead of the "city on a hill" we have been in the past.
and which part of China's trade do you think is fair? You can believe fair trade is great, but if all parties don't play by the same rules, you need to consider the potential negative consequences of trying to do it the "right" way. we've already seen that with the hollowing out of American manufacturing.
It’s interesting you mention Malcolm Maclean - have you read The Box about the history of the shipping container?
I have not but it's promptly been ordered. Thanks for the recommendation.
Compelling writing, as always. Regrettably, I think we as fair minded rationalists still must ask the question "What if we are NOT the good guys?" Current regime in the US does not have anything that could be confused by any fair observer as a "moral compass." The Iran war debacle proves this, not just to me but to the world. I want the US strong but not idiotic. Anyone agree?
Peace has only ever come through strength, and always will.
Actually, peace comes through agreeing to act peacefully. It is unethical behavior that compounds, to the detriment of all.
No it doesn’t, never has in the history of man.
I would submit every peace treaty agreed upon and followed (a peaceful state achieved) and every peace treaty agreed upon and subsequently violated (unethical behavior) as evidence. Our country couldn’t even abide by an MOU. Why? Because as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said: The USA is agreement incapable.
Your evidence? And, evidently, you have the whole history of mankind from which to derive your argument. Please proceed.
It takes two to tango. It only takes one to fight. Iran has been choosing fight since 1979.
Iran has only been defending itself from Western aggression. After all, they were there first. The history is not hidden; check it out for yourself.
Exporting terrorism to neighbors is not defense. You don't like Trump's war? It works both ways.
And the Jews were there before Islam, so their intent to kill all Jews and erase Israel is not defense either.
Check it out yourself.
We just started a war because we thought we were strong
No, a war was started 47 years ago because we were weak. It was unanswered until now because we were weak. The cost of weakness compounds.
Iran has never exported terrorism. They have assisted with the defense of Palestinian and Lebanese people, though, which is not terrorism.
And, the Jews were not in Iran before the Persians, although Jews have lived peaceably in Iran for centuries.
Good grief.
OMG...I wrote my comment before I read any others...and it turns out I am not alone in my disgust about current US bullying and terrorist activities. Thank you, fellow rationalists and well-read global citizens!
Hi Stephen,
You mentioned that liquid rocket engines are having a Renaissance like nuclear batteries are. I have invented the world's first rechargeable nuclear battery that can be manufactured in any popular existing battery form to suit any application.
My batteries are perfect solutions for anything space related but also for medical applications including powering prosthetic limbs. My batteries are designed to use their full capacity and then they will self-recharge to 100% while not being used. I see huge opportunities in robotics for them as well. Of course there are huge defense related or military related applications for such batteries.
The problem is that I cannot get generate any support to develop my technology. All of my efforts fall on deaf ears. My batteries are designed to use low level, safe, pure alpha and beta emitters. Of course regulatory issues prevent me from being able to perform any kind of hands on development without proper facilities and licensing.
I'm hoping you can help put me in contact with groups that are working in this space.
Regards,
Eric Delangis
mailto:Ericdelang@gmail.com
"Peace" agreements are only as good as the "people" that sign them. There is no "world court" to enforce the agreements. That is why a country needs to be able to defend itself against ALL types of "humanity". I support the notion and belief of "preemting" any thoughts of attacks against us through a strong and capable defence force.
Good piece
The problem is WE start all wars now because we had military advantages. Pretty much non stop for profit not protection. I'm disappointed in you.
The history of technology is full of “premature inventions” — ideas that were sound in principle but defeated by the limitations of their era. Today, we have the opportunity to revisit some of these concepts. Someone needs to write the book on this topic. I recall reading about airships and how they were popular in the 1920s into the 1930s before a fiery conclusion over New Jersey.
A classic example is the airship. The great rigid airships of the early twentieth century were elegant machines, but they suffered from problems their designers could not overcome: flammable hydrogen, heavy metal frameworks, limited weather prediction, and engines that were unreliable by modern standards. A modern revival would look very different. Helium would replace hydrogen, lightweight carbon-fiber composites would replace heavy metal structures, and computer-controlled navigation systems would make operation far safer. Hybrid airships could potentially provide efficient cargo transportation to remote areas, disaster zones, and places without extensive road or rail infrastructure.
What other old ideas might be ready for a second life?
1. Sailing Ships for Modern Freight
At first glance, sailing ships seem like a technology from the past. But modern materials and automation could transform them into something entirely new. Computer-controlled rigid sails, kite systems, and advanced weather routing could allow large cargo vessels to use wind power as a supplement to engines.
The goal would not be to return to the Age of Sail, but to combine the best of both eras: modern ships with dramatically reduced fuel consumption. With shipping responsible for a significant share of global emissions, an ancient technology might become part of a cleaner future.
2. Underground Cities and Subsurface Architecture
Humans have lived underground for thousands of years, from ancient caves to elaborate underground cities. Yet modern society mostly abandoned this approach because excavation was expensive and lighting, ventilation, and climate control were difficult.
New tunneling machines, geothermal technology, LED lighting, robotics, and advanced ventilation systems could make underground living far more practical. Underground structures could provide natural temperature stability, protection from extreme weather, and efficient use of land in crowded regions.
Rather than imagining cities spreading endlessly outward and upward, perhaps some of tomorrow’s cities will expand downward.
3. Nuclear Power Reimagined
Nuclear energy is another example of an old idea that may benefit from a technological reboot. Early nuclear plants were designed around the engineering realities of the mid-twentieth century. Newer concepts such as small modular reactors, advanced fuel designs, and improved safety systems attempt to address many of the concerns that limited earlier generations.
The lesson is not that every old technology deserves a comeback. Some ideas failed for good reasons. But we should be careful not to confuse “old” with “obsolete.” A technology that was impractical in 1925, 1955, or even 1995 may become realistic when paired with modern materials and computing.
Progress is often less like replacing the past and more like discovering that the past was waiting for the right tools.
The future may contain inventions that our grandparents would recognize — but improved enough that they finally work.
I thought the solid fuel missils have a decisive tactical advantage - they can be instantly erected and launched, while the liquid fuel missils have to be stand up to be fueled and satellites can see that, negating first-strike surprise. But maybe that's more relevant for nuclear ones.
Solid fuels, or stable liquid fuels, are absolutely necessary for instant reactions, such as "hitting a bullet with a bullet". This article does a poor job of describing that, especially switching between the glories of throttleable and restartable liquid rockets, containerized launch systems, and so on. I.m assuming the actual rocket scientists know the difference, even if the author doesn't make it clear.
Thank you for this inspiring and optimistic story of a young entrepreneur building something vital!
great article on Chandler. And we need better defense. We also need to stop attacking others needlessly and provoking them to attack in defense. And you know this intimately!!
This comment section has morphed into China vs America mfg/trade commentary. Fair enough.
I would suggest that if we did a better job of keeping our technology safe from theft from the Chinese (especially), we would be in a much better position to prosper.