Hi Jed, "contempt" not "content".
Jack Smith > Jones Beene wrote: > > First off - how does anyone benefit, even an oil company > (if they were behind EarthTech's funding)? > > No oil company would ever benefit from maintaining the > status quo in the face of a real breakthrough advance, by > even a tiny fraction of the net effect of how they would > massively benefit by capitalizing on the advance itself. > > Jed Rothwell wrote on 11-27-08: > > That is incorrect for several reasons. > > First, oil company presidents, a U.S. Vice President and > most recently the Japanese Min. of Science and Technology > have told cold fusion researchers that they will not > allow funding for cold fusion research because if it > works it would "disrupt the energy economy." (Meaning it > would oil company profits.) That is what they said, and > I am sure they meant it. I personally have spoken to and > gotten written messages from high level decision makers in > corporations and governments who said this sort of thing. > > Second, read the history of technology and commerce and you > will find countless examples of corporations, government > departments, armies, navies and so on that fought tooth and > nail to prevent technological progress. They sometimes > succeeded for years, or decades. An example I often > give is the New York dairy associations that successful > fought to prevent the pasteurization of milk from 1870 > to 1917, because it would add a few pennies per bottle of > milk. During this time they sickened and killed hundreds > of thousands of their best customers -- small children, > including one of my great-grandmother's children. They > were finally forced to pasteurize when WWI U.S. soldiers > assembled on Long Island and were sickened by contaminated > milk. U.S. automobiles fought successfully to prevent > the use of seat belts and other safety measures from the > 1920s until the mid-1960s. They fought energy efficiency > and hybrid technology so well they have driven themselves > into bankruptcy. In the early 1980s, minicomputer companies > such as DEC and Data General fought a rear-guard battle > to avoid using microcomputers and compatible PCs, rapidly > putting themselves out of business. A few years later IBM > nearly destroyed itself trying not to modernize, because > it was run by people who did not themselves use PCs, > and held them in contempt. A Wall Street Journal writer > compared this to a music publisher run by tone-deaf people. > > I described reason #3 in my book. Oil companies have no > experience or qualifications to develop cold fusion or > the Mills effect. There is no chance they will play a > role in this development. This would be like expecting > the Pennsylvania Railroad to develop airplanes in 1903, > or an airline system in the 1940s. > > There are other reasons, such as the fact that there will > be little or no profit to developing cold fusion, as I > described in the book. It will reduce per capita energy > expenditures from ~$2,500 per person to a few dollars. > There will be profits in selling peripherals and cold > fusion powered machines, but not the energy itself. > > - Jed
