Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/soli...ater-autonomy/
The first prototype li-ion battery was in 1985. Sony had the first commercial one in 1991. How would this curve have changed with more R&D earlier? I argue it really wouldn't change much, because the cutting edge advances rely on material sciences that wouldn't have been any further along. You can only force progress in a specific field so much, when it relies on many fields to advance. I'm saying that we are where we are, not for a lack of trying. |
Without research you don’t know what technology you actually need, which lowers demand for said technology to be researched and developed. This isn’t the chicken or the egg type scenario you’re trying to make it out to be, more research will always lead to more knowledge, alternative method trials using existing technology and a higher likelihood of progress than with less investment in research.
Quote:
|
It 's like, why haven't we solved cancer yet? We probably will, once other fields advance to give the tools for success. It's not like we haven't been trying for decades.
|
By that logic we shouldn’t be donating any money to cancer research because the technology doesn’t exist to make any advancements in treatment. Again, you don’t know what your current limitations are and what technology you need unless you are researching it.