A big one that comes to mind is embryo selection for intelligence.
Brain implants and/or genetic modification via viral vector for improvement of brain function (e.g. treating intractable depression).
Infrared dispersing paint/materials for roofs in hot climates.
CLARITY for room-temperature-stable brain tissue preservation that allows for repeatable non-destructive imaging.
The ‘Silver Lining’ ocean water cloud spraying for reflecting sunlight over tropical oceans in order to reduce global warming.
Biochar. Burning cellulose-rich agricultural wastes into charcoal, generating energy and sequestering carbon (the inorganic charcoal lasts tens of thousands of years in soil without breaking down, unlike just composting the cellulose which causes it to lose carbon to CO2). The resulting charcoal can then be impregnated with ammonia for a slow-release fertilizer which delivers fertilizer more efficiently to crops and thus reduces the total amount of fertilizer needed.
Treating burying used plastics in deep well-designed landfills as a good thing for the environment, because it’s an efficient way to do carbon sequestration.
Having a country that not only doesn’t limit, but actively recruits and sponsors immigration (including granting full citizenship rights without requiring previous citizenship be revoked) from anyone who scores above threshold on an IQ test or has a track record of impressive academic or entrepreneurial achievement and is at least a decade below retirement age. They are valuable users to be acquired! Countries should vie for these like apps vie for users!
Land Value Tax
Approval Voting (or, failing that, then at least Ranked Choice voting)
Better dam infrastructure management, like letting high-turbidity flows pass through during heavy precipitation events to reduce sediment deposition behind the dam.
and many more not coming to mind right now. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine. So many good ideas out there that I have no idea how to get the world to start using.
I think a lot of these technologies are very promising, but in most/all cases, I don’t think they’re analogous to Zoom, in terms of being available right now, for no money, to the average person, able to be used at will, and offering a highly favorable risk/reward ratio.
Embryo selection and brain implants/genetic modification are still relatively immature technologies, and are perceived by many as having serious moral problems (I disagree with this perspective, but it’s very common AFAICT).
I don’t know how common cool roof products are, but they’ve been in commercial use for 20 years. They’re just not perfect for many use cases: they can increase bills in cooler climates, they can promote mold growth via increased condensation on roofs, they can increase the severity of heat islands when a lot of roofs have cool roof coatings, and they cost $.75-$3 per square foot, with the average US house having a 1700 square foot roof (so a $1275-$5100 investment). In the hottest most humid parts of the US, an annual AC bill is about $525 (source), so it might take 2-10 years to pay off even in the hottest parts of the country.
Geoengineering projects, new voting mechanisms, dams, and the Land Value Tax aren’t available to the average person to just “try it and see if you like it,” the way Zoom is
Honestly the closest match to Zoom from this list is probably throwing away all your plastics. Anybody can do it, it’s probably better for the environment in most cases, and really the only thing that’s stopping individuals from doing so is social pressure or mistaken beliefs about the environmental outcomes of actual landfills vs. actual recycling programs.
The distinction between “a cool technology in need of wider investment and adoption on a research and policy level” and “a cool technology where we’re nothing but a social norm away from mass adoption” is important and clear to me, even though I’m passionate about both types of technologies.
Treating burying used plastics in deep well-designed landfills as a good thing for the environment, because it’s an efficient way to do carbon sequestration.
This. People seem totally confused when I say that plastic bags were not an environmental problem in developed countries because they were usually deposited in land-fills and this CO2 neutral.
Then that waste stream doesn’t count. That’s why I had to be specific about the goodness of well-designed landfills.
On the flip side, a lot of recycled plastic gets shipped elsewhere, and ends up just getting dumped in a low-quality landfill if it’s not valuable enough to actually bother recycling, so recycling isn’t a guaranteed fix to the issue either. If you care, you just have to look up your municipality’s waste stream practices in detail.
I wish! Very limited clinical trials only at this point. And that’s after like 20 years of needless delay after we had the basic tech and knowledge to do it. Medical research moves so frustratingly slow.
A big one that comes to mind is embryo selection for intelligence.
Brain implants and/or genetic modification via viral vector for improvement of brain function (e.g. treating intractable depression).
Infrared dispersing paint/materials for roofs in hot climates.
CLARITY for room-temperature-stable brain tissue preservation that allows for repeatable non-destructive imaging.
The ‘Silver Lining’ ocean water cloud spraying for reflecting sunlight over tropical oceans in order to reduce global warming.
Biochar. Burning cellulose-rich agricultural wastes into charcoal, generating energy and sequestering carbon (the inorganic charcoal lasts tens of thousands of years in soil without breaking down, unlike just composting the cellulose which causes it to lose carbon to CO2). The resulting charcoal can then be impregnated with ammonia for a slow-release fertilizer which delivers fertilizer more efficiently to crops and thus reduces the total amount of fertilizer needed.
Treating burying used plastics in deep well-designed landfills as a good thing for the environment, because it’s an efficient way to do carbon sequestration.
Having a country that not only doesn’t limit, but actively recruits and sponsors immigration (including granting full citizenship rights without requiring previous citizenship be revoked) from anyone who scores above threshold on an IQ test or has a track record of impressive academic or entrepreneurial achievement and is at least a decade below retirement age. They are valuable users to be acquired! Countries should vie for these like apps vie for users!
Land Value Tax
Approval Voting (or, failing that, then at least Ranked Choice voting)
Better dam infrastructure management, like letting high-turbidity flows pass through during heavy precipitation events to reduce sediment deposition behind the dam.
and many more not coming to mind right now. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine. So many good ideas out there that I have no idea how to get the world to start using.
I think a lot of these technologies are very promising, but in most/all cases, I don’t think they’re analogous to Zoom, in terms of being available right now, for no money, to the average person, able to be used at will, and offering a highly favorable risk/reward ratio.
Embryo selection and brain implants/genetic modification are still relatively immature technologies, and are perceived by many as having serious moral problems (I disagree with this perspective, but it’s very common AFAICT).
I don’t know how common cool roof products are, but they’ve been in commercial use for 20 years. They’re just not perfect for many use cases: they can increase bills in cooler climates, they can promote mold growth via increased condensation on roofs, they can increase the severity of heat islands when a lot of roofs have cool roof coatings, and they cost $.75-$3 per square foot, with the average US house having a 1700 square foot roof (so a $1275-$5100 investment). In the hottest most humid parts of the US, an annual AC bill is about $525 (source), so it might take 2-10 years to pay off even in the hottest parts of the country.
CLARITY is very cool tech that I hadn’t heard of before, but there’s, shall we say limited demand for brain preservation technology, and as of 2018, it appears there’s still plenty of technical work to be done.
Geoengineering projects, new voting mechanisms, dams, and the Land Value Tax aren’t available to the average person to just “try it and see if you like it,” the way Zoom is
Honestly the closest match to Zoom from this list is probably throwing away all your plastics. Anybody can do it, it’s probably better for the environment in most cases, and really the only thing that’s stopping individuals from doing so is social pressure or mistaken beliefs about the environmental outcomes of actual landfills vs. actual recycling programs.
The distinction between “a cool technology in need of wider investment and adoption on a research and policy level” and “a cool technology where we’re nothing but a social norm away from mass adoption” is important and clear to me, even though I’m passionate about both types of technologies.
Yeah, that’s fair. I didn’t adhere well to the question, I mostly used it as an excuse to rant about ideas-I-wish-would-be-adopted.
Also fair! I learned about some interesting new technologies, so thanks :)
This. People seem totally confused when I say that plastic bags were not an environmental problem in developed countries because they were usually deposited in land-fills and this CO2 neutral.
Developed countries ship a lot of their trash overseas and don’t deposit it in deep well-designed landfills on their own territory.
Then that waste stream doesn’t count. That’s why I had to be specific about the goodness of well-designed landfills.
On the flip side, a lot of recycled plastic gets shipped elsewhere, and ends up just getting dumped in a low-quality landfill if it’s not valuable enough to actually bother recycling, so recycling isn’t a guaranteed fix to the issue either. If you care, you just have to look up your municipality’s waste stream practices in detail.
Wait this sounds really cool.
>Can I get this personally?
I wish! Very limited clinical trials only at this point. And that’s after like 20 years of needless delay after we had the basic tech and knowledge to do it. Medical research moves so frustratingly slow.
here’s a link to a news post about a recent advance: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/09/421541/treating-severe-depression-demand-brain-stimulation