If you could undo one Invention, what would it be and why?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Less crowded, I honestly don't think lacking fossil fuels would result in less
F'in...world got pretty crowded before fossil fuels.

How do you think we're able to feed all these people? Cause it sure aint done with a horse and plow anymore, nor any small farm tractors. Fuel has a direct relation to how much were able to farm and harvest.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have to agree with Duci. Fossil fuels made us what we are today. Petroleum is in every facet of our lives.

Farming with science to get everything out of one acre! That includes farm equipment that runs on fossil fuels.

Before we were heavily dependent on fossil fuels people were hunter gatherers. Was the family really as big as say the Brady bunch?

[joegrundman]

yes almost every invention mentioned here has good sides as well as bad sides. With the exception of my own candidate for disinvention - bubble gum, and it's evil half-sister, chewing gum.

these items are evil, pure and simple, and the world would be a better place without them

[Nicolas]

Money!!!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I have to agree with Duci. Fossil fuels made us what we are today. Petroleum is in every facet of our lives.

Farming with science to get everything out of one acre! That includes farm equipment that runs on fossil fuels.

I'm not understanding why Duc thinks this is a bad thing, or why you presumably agree. The mechanization and modernization of agriculture has done a lot more to reduce population levels than it has to increase them. The wealthy, westernized nations of the world that use such practices or trade as freely as possible as those that do don't have to devote nearly as much to surviving as they do to thriving. As prosperity increases, so does the expense of having children and the populace is more educated as well. In pretty much every wealthy nation, birth rates are falling, sometimes into the negatives. They can be crowded, on occasion, but they are not overpopulated.

Compare that to the nations that do not have modern agriculture and don't trade freely with those that do. Many are overpopulated in every sense of the word. They are both crowded and can't sustain their populations, resulting in the deaths of millions through starvation, malnutrition, and disease. But that doesn't stop their populations from increasing. They live in a world where life is cheap and survival depends upon having enough viable offspring to provide the reliable labor source needed to provide income or bring in the harvest or tend the cattle.

Call me crazy but I think I'd rather live in the world that embraced petroleum and modern agriculture to the point where it can actually spare time to care about developing other energy sources than the one that lives a brutish hand-to-mouth existence.

Before we were heavily dependent on fossil fuels people were hunter gatherers. Was the family really as big as say the Brady bunch?

Well, the successful ones were, until the children died from disease or were killed. Many more just plain died. For the population to increase at all there must be at least one child born that survives to sexual maturity for each adult just to keep the population stable, so there must have been at least a few. But why am I explaining this? You should know this already from the examples of primitive tribal societies that exist today. They all have high birth rates and high death rates. The only thing that separates the size of their families from the Brady Bunch is that not all of their children are alive at the same time and Marsha Brady has a tendency to be recast after the original actor dies from childbirth complications.

I think I'll stick with the bra as my favorite invention to undo.

[tater]

Hunter gatherers lead brutish, short lives. In studies of (then) extant stone-age societies (Papua New guinea, etc), the typical chance of murder being someone's ultimate cause of death was over 25%. In some tribes higher.

Turning back the technological clock means consigning people to pretty awful lives, living "in harmony with nature" is grossly over-rated.

[Nicolas]

Technology don't make better men. I don't think we are advancing anywhere when the objective is not the persons well-being.

[VipertheSniper]

AUTO TUNE I hate it with a passion

[tater]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

AUTO TUNE I hate it with a passion

No, autoFILL on my phone.

/thread

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'm not understanding why Duc thinks this is a bad thing,

I'm not gonna get into a long drawn out explanation. Fossil fuels effect and enable us A LOT more then you seem to realize. It is essentually the crack coccaine of humanity. Nearly the entire human civilization is dependant on it. And "it" is non renewable, finite in quanity, past it's peak, and nobody can picture life without it. Thats a recipie for disaster. In the history of man, the time for oil will span perhaps 300 years. And like a crack whore, when the drug stops coming, were going to be in for some serious withdraws. We'd have been better off if we hadn't got dependant on it in the first place.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

How do you think we're able to feed all these people? Cause it sure aint done with a horse and plow anymore, nor any small farm tractors. Fuel has a direct relation to how much were able to farm and harvest.

Doesn't it also have a lot to do with powering our computation-random number-game playing-internet wire-thingys too?