You're breaking my balls, humanity

I found these two little videos very interesting, so I thought I would share them with you.

Jay Leno, in my opinion, is one of the very few personalities that is both intelligent and capable of being on American television (I respect John Stuart too, but he's just too political for me). Oh, and Leno has a cool garage too - hehe.

Anyway, the first video brings up an interesting point - the death of the electric car. Much like the diesel engine that is more fuel efficient, reliable, and clean than our everyday unleaded fuel engines, the electric engine never reached the masses. Why? Because it was too feminine (says Leno). The diesel engine reached the masses but did not have the success of the other. Why? Perhaps it was too loud. Either way, from a technological stand point, it should have succeeded. This brings me to my first point. It is probable that many inventions and scientific discoveries are in our possession and are not being used purely for marketing reasons.

Today, the fuel companies and the US are investing more money into ethanol than any other alternative fuel source. Why? Because it would allow the fuel companies to keep their infrastructure of fuel dispensation and it would allow America to produce its own fuel and thusly their (both, the US, and the corporations') grip on the world. This is a bit of an issue. I believe that the future lies in electric vehicles (granted, it would be a much more drastic change in our infrastructure). Hydrogen cars (fuel cell cars) or battery-powered electric cars both create zero emissions and run on renewable resources. And, most importantly would push the world to invest more money into fusion (because of the rising need in electricity). Also, electric vehicles, especially the battery powered cars, require virtually no up-keep and could potentially be refueled at home (for hydrogen, we'll have to wait).

Long story short - economics get in the way of a speedy technological evolution.

This leads me the main point.

I have always advocated that free market economics paired with improved communications (globalization) was the fastest and most efficient way to evolve socially. Although, this theory is currently leading us in the right direction (the green movement), we may not be moving fast enough. What that theory does not account for, is the speed at which social awareness advances and the sample size - it has a statistical base after all. So far, it seems that, as masses, we have been thinking in unity and our social herd-psychology pushes us to react adequately - however, I don't think that this is necessarily enough since in the end, those who make decision and control the masses aren't a large enough sample to create a "free market psychological approximation".

Explanation: By "free market psychological approximation", I mean that our human psyche can be approximated and trends can be clearly seen in the evolution of the markets. What this entails is that whenever there is a world issue large enough to affect the bulk of the population, humans will adapt in a way so as to fix the problem - a sort of bee-hive approximation. As a crude example, we can take ecology; sixty years ago, when pollution was unseen, it was also unheard of; today, when we can see a disgusting cloud of grayish brown enveloping the Greater Los Angeles area and taste chemicals in spring water, we can't help but be brought aware of an issue and our instincts tell us all (as a mass - and for the most part) to make a change. And so, we begin to change, and this can be observed in our world economical trends (growing ecological markets, Whole Foods, etc... ).