EV is a well-intended innovation

                             EV is a well-intended innovation.

Success covers all blunders and failures fuels the flames of cynics with an attitude of I thought as much, or I was expecting this to happen.

Everything in every field is a work in progress and they are in the evolutionary process. Some may get adopted and some rejected. But attempting , testing , making choices , always looking for alternatives will be there. Some choices, decisions, alternatives work well and succeed and some do not.

This is the law of nature, even for every emerging species of the tech world. Unfortunately, excessive hype and concomitant hyper publicity creates their own counter productive vultures waiting for the carcass, which in my opinion will have dampening effect on the world of adventure in innovations.

If it does not work, then further in depth scrutinises and  studies will be done to rectify and to improve or to discard and to move on to the next.

John Brockman’s books with maximum one or two pages on each item are interesting to read and I have read all his works and have some  of his books  in physical form too.

One among them is this. This is what must be done. EV may evolve or combine with something else.   

                        THIS IDEA MUST DIE

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES THAT ARE BLOCKING PROGRESS

edited by John Brockman ‧

 

Although they often beat dead or nonexistent horses, these ingenious cerebral tidbits will stimulate, provoke and confuse...

New science has a difficult time. As physicist Max Planck said long ago, a good idea does not automatically replace a bad one; “opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

In his latest compendium, Brockman (What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios that Keep Scientists Up at Night, 2014, etc.), publisher of the online science salon, Edge.com, asked 175 scientists, philosophers and intellectuals for ideas that have outlived their usefulness. At one to four pages, these are thoughtful essays that answer the question when they’re not doing the opposite (defending the author’s life’s work) or wandering off to answer a different question. There are the usual suspects. Free will, Malthusianism, racism, IQ tests and religion do not do well. Mostly, the contributors hate simple explanations. Scientists studying the brain insist that it’s not a computer, that the left-brain–right-brain dichotomy is silly, and that studying neurological activity won’t explain consciousness because it’s an illusion. Some ideas were never true: Rationality is not a major feature of human behavior. Some debates (nature vs. nurture) are nonsense. Occasionally, the news is good. Altruism is not necessarily self-sacrifice. We benefit as individuals, and most of us experience pleasure when we help others. Finally, novelist Ian McEwan disparages the book’s theme, pointing out that you never know when you’ll need an old idea. “It might rise again one day to enhance a perspective the present cannot imagine.” No one wants to retire Shakespeare. Other contributors include A.C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, John McWhorter, Sherry Turkle and Jared Diamond.

 

Although they often beat dead or nonexistent horses, these ingenious cerebral tidbits will stimulate, provoke and confuse (in a good way) intelligent readers.

 

https://www.themarginalian.org/2015/02/23/this-idea-must-die-john-brockman-edge-question/