Science

Where Is My Flying Car?

Where Is My Flying Car?

  • Downloads：1609
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-01-06 06:51:48
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：J. Storrs Hall
  • ISBN：1953953182
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

In Where Is My Flying Car？， engineer and futurist J。 Storrs Hall sets out to answer the deceptively simple question posed in the book’s title。 What starts as an exploration of the technical limitations of building flying cars evolves into an examination of the global economic stagnation that started in the 1970s。 From the failure to adopt nuclear energy and the suppression of cold fusion and nanotechnology to the rise of a counterculture hostile to progress， Hall recounts how our collective ambitions for the future were derailed， with devastating consequences for global wealth creation and distribution。 Hall then outlines a framework for a future powered by exponential progress—one in which we build as much in the world of atoms as we do in the world of bits， one rich in abundance and wonder。

Download

Reviews

Nick Swenson ，

Loved this book。 Speculation about relevant and transformative tech by a practicing scientist。 His erudition is obvious。 Terrifically entertaining writing。 Important for those who plan to live in the future。

Asiroh Cham ，

Must readThe books message is essential。 Some chapters meander though， others are complete powerhouses。 Thoroughly enjoyed， just get through the rather slow beginning

Jim French ，

Just started it。 I know it's just an example， but I really never wanted a flying car， and absolutely totally don't want flying cars flying around， so that kind of undercuts the book a bit。 （I don't like the sight or sound of airplanes going over。） Also I think climate change， based on what we've seen in the last few years， is going to be vastly more damaging than JSH thinks--hugely expensive to coastal cities， killing of lots of species （I love polar bears， walruses， seabirds nesting on sinking Just started it。 I know it's just an example， but I really never wanted a flying car， and absolutely totally don't want flying cars flying around， so that kind of undercuts the book a bit。 （I don't like the sight or sound of airplanes going over。） Also I think climate change， based on what we've seen in the last few years， is going to be vastly more damaging than JSH thinks--hugely expensive to coastal cities， killing of lots of species （I love polar bears， walruses， seabirds nesting on sinking pacific islands）， changing the Gulf Stream， boom/bust cycles of rain， drought。 So， he's lost me there。 And I think solar is probably a vastly better idea than nuclear。 All that radioactive waste， hanging around for tens of thousands of years？ Not！ Solar is great。 So， he's lost me there also。 But will keep reading。 。。。more

Matt ，

This is the latest release by Stripe Press， which focuses on publishing Science and Technology books。 Many are republished books that have long since been out of print and are hard to find， or selling for $800 on Amazon because they were mentioned on some podcast。 I have bought most of them， the covers are colorful and unique。 J。 Storrs Hall originally published Where is My Flying Car？ in 2018 in a version that was available online。 Several different people have notably focused on the thesis tha This is the latest release by Stripe Press， which focuses on publishing Science and Technology books。 Many are republished books that have long since been out of print and are hard to find， or selling for $800 on Amazon because they were mentioned on some podcast。 I have bought most of them， the covers are colorful and unique。 J。 Storrs Hall originally published Where is My Flying Car？ in 2018 in a version that was available online。 Several different people have notably focused on the thesis that we are in a Great Stagnation。 There were noticeable improvements in life from 1900 to 1960， but if you were in a room in 1960 compared to today it would mostly be the same。 Entrepreneur Peter Thiel summed it up: "We wanted flying cars; we got 140 characters。" Tyler Cowen published a book called the Great Stagnation in 2011 which theorized that all the low-hanging technological fruit has been picked except for in a few areas like computing and that as a result， our economy has slumped since the 1970s。 Ross Douthat recently wrote the Decadent Society that more broadly made this case that we are also slumping in other areas， see the 27 movies of the Marvel Universe。 The Jetsons which took place in 2062 presents a clear vision of what the future could be。 And while it is hard to tell if the predictions in The Jetsons were a satire of the science fiction of the time or realistic expectations， it is clear now that "Flying cars have become a symbol of a mismatch: The future as imagined in the first half of the 20th century seemed a lot brighter than the present we're living in now。" Hall however takes the argument beyond simply that we have stagnated and makes clear that the path to flying cars， cold fusion， nano-technology was achievable， in paths laid out by Richard Feynman and others to explore if we simply had the collective to achieve them。 And yet there is still hope for what he calls a Second Atomic Age which is a coming together of nano-technology， AI， and nuclear power if do not continue to make the same mistakes。 "Most of the technologies that I've examined here are those we could have had by now， had we not dropped the ball。 Second Atomic Age technology is not something beyond our grasp。" But we must be optimists （David Deutsch talks about this in， The Beginning of Infinity）。 We seem to not be living in the optimistic future of Robert Heinlein， but in the pessimistic and dystopian future of Philip K。 Dick。" Cowen recently has been optimistic that the mRNA vaccines and bio-tech are a sign we are coming out of the great stagnation， so hopefully， that is in fact the case， and we will have those flying cars soon。 。。。more

Sebastian ，

Where Is My Flying Car？ investigates what Tyler Cowen has called "The Great Stagnation，" a strange period in the United States between roughly 1970 and the present where productivity has grown relatively slowly and few new innovations have transformed our lives save for advances in information technology。 If we set computers aside， our planes in 2021 are somewhat slower than 1970， there have been few step change improvements in robotics， nuclear reactors are shutting down， and our space program Where Is My Flying Car？ investigates what Tyler Cowen has called "The Great Stagnation，" a strange period in the United States between roughly 1970 and the present where productivity has grown relatively slowly and few new innovations have transformed our lives save for advances in information technology。 If we set computers aside， our planes in 2021 are somewhat slower than 1970， there have been few step change improvements in robotics， nuclear reactors are shutting down， and our space program can no longer send men to the moon。 What happened to innovation in the world of atoms （versus bits）？ And more importantly， where are the flying cars we were surely supposed to have by now？----------During World War II， "any promising technical advance was seized upon and perfected， mass-produced， and put to violent use" [15] and consequently， in the postwar period the American public emerged optimistic about the potential for technology to have a real， positive impact on daily life。 In the 1960s， futurists excitingly predicted that by the 2020s we would have many things we did develop like videophones， translation machines， contraception， and self-driving vehicles。 But there were many things we didn't build like fusion energy， cyborgs， and cheap transportation at 1000 mph。These futures were casualties of our Great Stagnation in the 1970s。 Hall shows median wages stagnating in real terms， slowing transportation speeds， and our collective derailment from the Henry Adams curve -- a curve showing historical per capita energy consumption in the US compounding at about 2% per year。 In one of Hall's better lines: "If you didn't know better， you would think the Department of Energy was established， on August 4， 1977， with the intent to prevent energy use" [33]。But what happened then？ Why did we get computers but none of the hypersonic jets and Mars colonies？It wasn't because of some fundamental blocker in R&D。 I was surprised to hear that there was indeed a nascent flying car industry in the late 1950s that never took off， mired in regulatory morass [51-52]。 Nanotech which could have delivered micro motors with absolutely stupid power density （1，000 horsepower in a square millimeter） was never seriously pursued， save for the tools available to us through biology -- far less precise ways to manipulate matter than what was envisioned [62-63]。 Meanwhile， scientists at the University of Utah appeared to be making great forward progress on cold fusion around 1985， for their research program to only fade to obscurity and ridicule [67-68]。Hall pins the cause of our stasis on a combination of different issues:（A） The Machiavelli Effect - a centralization of scientific funding in groups like NIH and NSF cartelized research and these institutions were captured by groups who didn't like to look stupid or lose the spotlight。 Hall: "Failures of Nerve and Imagination， which are particular prevalent among bureaucrats， went from being merely the incorrect predictions of pundits to causing resource starvation and the activate suppression of progress" [88]（B） Cultural Failure - as the saying goes， good times make weak men。 The US's status as leading nuclear-armed superpower then sole hyperpower meant "it was no longer the case that a society that slid into inefficient cultural or governmental practices was likely to [promptly suffer a military defeat]" [94]。 Shame and listlessness and distrust from Vietnam caused people to find meaning in things like obstruction and protests。。。 which is a convenient way to *feel* like you are doing a good thing and making the world better， even if you are solving no fundamental problems。 [97]（C） Red Tape - this was not examined as directly as the other two， but goes part and parcel with each。 Administrative agencies staffed with self-interested parties and spiritually bankrupt Woodstock hippies had no job except for slowing down progress。Hall believes that if we want to have a future of flying cars， we as a society have to collectively decide we want these things more than we don't。The final section paints a picture of a "Second Atomic Age" of abundant molten salt nuclear power， betavoltaic devices （nuclear batteries）， nanomachines cable of arbitrarily arranging matter， personal space travel， and climate-controlling weather machines。 We can have all these things！ We just have to actually want to solve these problems and let scientists build instead of spending a trillion dollars each year on climate mitigation efforts that will do diddly-squat in comparison to Hall's proposed aerostat device [272] -- which isn't that crazy of an idea。 Rather than making fun of the climate engineers， perhaps the climate change devotees could put on their listening ears and have the adults （i。e。 scientists who aren't religious zealots） work out a real solution for humanity。"Will we， as a society， pick a comfortable， static level of existence， requiring a modest amount of production that robots could easily supply？ Or shall we put a flying car in ever garage， usher in the next Atomic Age， and inhert the stars？" [280]。 Up to you （looking at administrative agencies， sneering journalists， and misguided nonprofits。）----------I'm not the first person to identify technological progressive versus technological conservative as a dividing line in society today。 But increasingly I see these two groups forming: there are STEM optimists who like David Deutsch believe all problems are soluble with knowledge that we can obtain through science。 Then there are the safetycrat pessimists who can only seem to regulate and prevent type 2 error -- but never actually reach towards a better tomorrow。When I was an undergraduate at Yale， there were a lot of smart students who stayed away from physical chemistry and instead padded their GPA with political science and other waste of time courses。 These are the same people today that work at law firms， nonprofits， and agencies， and because they can't truly solve climate change （e。g。 developing fusion energy）， simply say "no" to plastic straws， avoid blame， and stand athwart a higher living standard for all humanity。。。 and feel great about their contribution in return。We know when we are carrying water and when are not。 Good for people with an elite education to look in the mirror from time to time。 。。。more

😵‍💫❤️‍🩹 ，

for you i go hard hard， i’ve been on the drugs hard 👾🌌🤮

Peter Bednár ，

A compelling case for rapid technological advancement and investments in nuclear technologies， but a very poor rationale for flying cars。 Described urban proposals to accomodate flying vehicles in future cities are particularly dated， simplistic and dangerous。 Their implementation would require more strict bureaucracy than the current regulatory regimes the author justly criticizes。 Authors' proposal to house the whole population into villages of exactly 250 inhabitants sounds more extreme than A compelling case for rapid technological advancement and investments in nuclear technologies， but a very poor rationale for flying cars。 Described urban proposals to accomodate flying vehicles in future cities are particularly dated， simplistic and dangerous。 Their implementation would require more strict bureaucracy than the current regulatory regimes the author justly criticizes。 Authors' proposal to house the whole population into villages of exactly 250 inhabitants sounds more extreme than North Korea。 Forget flying cars， just give me a better bus！ 。。。more

Thomas ，

My life is changedThis book made be realize that there is very little getting in the way of a much better， richer life for everyone。 We just need to get out of our own way。 And really， not even all of us， just a few。 I will certainly be one of those few， and I hope you will be， too。

Peter ，

Offers a lot of great insight on the causes of the decline of technological progress since the 60s。 And also offers good insights on the future of technology that could happen， if humanity dropped the new， green， religion， and went full steam ahead to develop and use energy for the betterment of the human condition - instead of limiting ourselves to 'save nature' and praying to the wind and sun gods for our daily energy。 Then we will finally have our flying cars， and much more！ However， the book Offers a lot of great insight on the causes of the decline of technological progress since the 60s。 And also offers good insights on the future of technology that could happen， if humanity dropped the new， green， religion， and went full steam ahead to develop and use energy for the betterment of the human condition - instead of limiting ourselves to 'save nature' and praying to the wind and sun gods for our daily energy。 Then we will finally have our flying cars， and much more！ However， the book could have been a bit shorter， if the author had slightly limited his enthusiasm for a particular tech， 'real nanotech'， which was interesting at first， but to me this overemphasis started to detract from the overall structure of the book （it kept popping up all the time） and general enjoyment of reading the book。 But with that sidenote， I recommend the book。 。。。more

Ankit ，

Brilliantly written。 Though I would say the review which prompted me to buy the book was equally good。 Thought provoking， asking the "Why-not" questions。 One of the books which makes you think， and more importantly analyze current trends from an innovation tinted lens。 Brilliantly written。 Though I would say the review which prompted me to buy the book was equally good。 Thought provoking， asking the "Why-not" questions。 One of the books which makes you think， and more importantly analyze current trends from an innovation tinted lens。 。。。more

Mehran Jalali ，

Fantastic book。 Good depth on a lot of topics。 Examines why technological progression has lagged compared to previous expectations from many angles。 Written for people with above-average grasps of physics and history of progress。Not 5 stars because （1） the parts on the effects of climate change are not far from correct， and （2） neglect of the potential for iatrogenic effects from gene editing and climate control。

Mathew Kfouri ，

Was unable to get more than four or so sections in before having to stop， so take this with a grain of salt。 The actual investigation of the technical aspect and history behind flying cars is extremely interesting- especially the tendency of power structures to reject change。 It soon becomes clear that the author is in the process of grinding an axe with regulation and greens， and is profoundly intellectually incurious about any other or concurrent explanations for a slowing of progress。 The han Was unable to get more than four or so sections in before having to stop， so take this with a grain of salt。 The actual investigation of the technical aspect and history behind flying cars is extremely interesting- especially the tendency of power structures to reject change。 It soon becomes clear that the author is in the process of grinding an axe with regulation and greens， and is profoundly intellectually incurious about any other or concurrent explanations for a slowing of progress。 The handwaving of the positive effect of nearly 2 decades of strong government policy and centralization after the war， was about when I had to stop reading。 。。。more

Bartosz Pranczke ，

I enjoyed this book immensely。 I guess it's a rather niche book for people interested in science， progress， technology and flying cars at the same time， but for those， it is great。 Turns out to answer where is my flying car we need to dive deep into the progress studies， nuclear， avionics， civil engineering， nanotechnology， history and so much more。 This book is a perfect example of why I love to read。 Very smart author spends 10 years researching multiple domains and I can just read the summary I enjoyed this book immensely。 I guess it's a rather niche book for people interested in science， progress， technology and flying cars at the same time， but for those， it is great。 Turns out to answer where is my flying car we need to dive deep into the progress studies， nuclear， avionics， civil engineering， nanotechnology， history and so much more。 This book is a perfect example of why I love to read。 Very smart author spends 10 years researching multiple domains and I can just read the summary of it in days。 What an investment :） 。。。more

Brahm ，

Trying to figure out where to start on this review。 I think it's: 🤯In this self-published， Kindle-only book （just $4。12 CAD！ Apparently it's $π USD） J。 Storrs Hall digs deeply into the question of why we don't have flying cars， which is ostensibly the focus。 However I think the back half of the title "A Memoir of Future Past" is actually the focus: why isn't the future （i。e。， the present） as awesome as we thought it would be？ Why don't we have cheap， near-infinite clean energy？ Why are healthcar Trying to figure out where to start on this review。 I think it's: 🤯In this self-published， Kindle-only book （just $4。12 CAD！ Apparently it's $π USD） J。 Storrs Hall digs deeply into the question of why we don't have flying cars， which is ostensibly the focus。 However I think the back half of the title "A Memoir of Future Past" is actually the focus: why isn't the future （i。e。， the present） as awesome as we thought it would be？ Why don't we have cheap， near-infinite clean energy？ Why are healthcare and education so expensive？ And yes， where the hell is my flying car？ According to the internet， Hall is an independent scientist and author， who has written extensively "on nanotechnology， artificial intelligence， machine ethics， and other social impacts of technology" （source）。 His expertise in these areas and fluency in so many more areas is clear， but what I love is the "independent" attitude: Hall's calling it like he sees it， even if it's going to ruffle feathers and go against the grain， similar to some of my other favourite authors Gary Taubes and Nassim Nicholas Taleb （and in fact， quotes both of those authors at various points）。 What I absolutely loved about this book was even though I did not agree with everything Hall was arguing for （details to follow）， it was an absolute masterclass in building an extremely persuasive， engaging， and fun thesis。 Structurally， the arc of his argument was great， as Hall dives into different technological disciplines starting with aircraft design but continuing into nuclear power / cheap energy， nanotechnology， AI and more， and explores corresponding issues in government， regulation， industry， and academia， always coming back to "here's the impcat on flying cars" as an anchor point。 The chapters start and end with quotes from different historical figures， scientists， science fiction authors， futurists， and futurist naysayers （e。g。 people in the early 1900s saying it will take a million years before humans can engineer a flying machine）。 As a taste of the dry humour Hall imparts， his book opens by reflecting on how shitty modern travel air experiences are: Once I got near SFO， I had to refuel my rental car， return it to store， and drag my luggage onto the “airtrain。” This is a piece of Disneyfied transport engineering that appears to combine all the disadvantages of buses， trains， and roller coasters in one vehicle。 In regards to private aircraft - the critical path to adopting flying cars - which were exploding in popularity from the post-WWII 1950s through the late 1970s， Hall argues that an increased focus on product liability in the 70s led to an explosion of lawyers， leading to an explosion of liability lawsuits， leading to the complete eradication of the private aircraft industry。 He references a study claiming the US tort system consumes 2% of US GDP， on average， concluding:the long-run compound-interest effect on the economy as a whole is startling: without it our economy today would be twice the size it actually is。 This is the closest we can come to measuring the effect of taking more than a million of the country’s most talented and motivated people and put them to work making arguments and filing briefs， against each other so their efforts mostly cancel out， instead of inventing， developing， and manufacturing things which could have made life better。 On the practical impacts of regulation （recall this book was published in 2018） and the complexities that businesses and innovators have to navigate:One of the main ill effects of regulation， at least in the United States， is a significant breakdown of the rule of law。 Regulators are not elected and the regulations they promulgate are not subject to any significant check or balance。 Last year Congress passed 138 laws; agencies published 2，926 new regulations。 Federal courts handled about 95，000 cases; regulatory administrative courts a million。 [。。。] Because of the all-encompassing breadth and specificity of the regulations and the clueless literality with which they are enforced， it is essentially impossible to run a productive business without breaking some of them。 Later （I think in an Appendix）， Hall shows a concrete example that kneecaps the flying car: detailed， unbendable regulations around side mirror requirements on passenger cars inhibit flying car development: side mirrors are super disruptive to aerodynamics。 But regulators won't bend on accepting other options， like a camera-based system。 Case-in-point on regulations and private aircraft:One of the more ironic regulatory pathologies that has shaped the world of general aviation is that most of the planes we fly are either 40 years old or homemade—and that we were forced into that position in the name of safety。 Hall turns his criticisms about the future （present） on the energy industry。 We need limitless energy to support flying cars， after all， and what better option than nuclear energy？ Unfortunately， Hall argues， nuclear crashed at the same time private airplanes did， for about the same reasons （the downfall started before Three Mile Island）: Nuclear power is probably the clearest case where regulation clobbered the learning curve。 Innovation is strongly suppressed when you’re betting a few billion dollars on your ability to get a license to operate the plant。 Besides the obvious cost increases due to direct imposition of rules， there was a major side effect of forcing the size of plants up （fewer licenses）; fewer plants were built and fewer ideas tried。 That also meant a greater cost for transmission （about half the total， according to my itemized bill）， since plants are further from the average customer。 He even identifies a perfect counterexample clearly showing that regulation （to a lesser degree， public misinformation） is the biggest barrier in nuclear: the US Navy。 The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program lobbied （I think， in the 70s or 80s） for a single position of expertise and total accountability for the Navy's nuclear program， who could cut through all other regulations imposed on the rest of the US。 the result: The Navy has over 6000 reactor-years of accident-free operation。 It has built 526 reactor cores （for comparison there are 99 civilian power reactors in the US）， with 86 nuclear-powered vessels in current use。 Wow！ Continuing on the energy thread， Hall makes a good point that the LACK of cheap， boundless， clean power means that as a society we spend a ridiculous amount of time optimizing and being efficient with our expensive， unsustainable sources of energy， and this costs us money （"we have forced everyone to pay more for energy-efficient cars， houses and appliances （more dollars， less value）"）。 This resonates with me as I see this in all industries。 By chasing that 0。5% performance improvement， what step change opportunities are we ignoring？ Hall doesn't mince words to aspiring technologists hunting for that next generation of clean， boundless power:If you are a technologist working on some new， clean， abundant form of energy， I wish you all the luck in the world。 But you must not labor under the illusion that should you succeed， your efforts will be justly rewarded by the gratitude of the people you have lifted from poverty and enabled to have a bright and growing future。 You will be attacked， your work will be lied about by activists， demonized by ignorant journalists， and strangled by regulation。 But only if it works。 This review is getting long， and I think I've only got about halfway through Hall's arc， but I'm simultaneously running out of gas and probably not doing the book full justice， so I will get to some criticisms and wrap up。 As I said above， this book was a masterclass in crafting an argument and I enjoyed it for its own sake， but Hall is also pretty "out there" on some ideas。 He is voicing a technologist's argument， that is， every problem we have can be solved by technology。 Climate change？ No problem， just fill the sky with nanorobots that adjust their angles to deflect or allow the appropriate amount of sunlight to the earth's surface。 Humanity in total control of the temperature of the surface of the earth: what could possible go wrong？ BTW， he mentions， isn't CO2 good for plants - what's the problem？ BTW， he also mentions， controlling the weather could be a great way to change undesirable climates like Canada to desirable climates like California， or a great weapon to turn dissident states into cold， sunless wastelands。 Sounds amazing。 And can we talk about flying cars again？ In addition to his technologist/futurist perspective， Hall writes with what I'd call the US-centric automobile attitude， which is that the modern car is not only a gift from God himself， but an inalienable right。 He criticizes the "war on cars" and rails against public transit as "worthless"。 In his view， the individual's ability to get from A to B in the shortest time possible trumps all other variables。 What would a society entrenched in flying cars look like？ Hall barely considers possible noise impacts， and completely omits any mention about what such a sky would look like。 I'd prefer the future described in Happy City to the mile-high skyscrapers and floating cities surrounded by clouds of flying cars Hall envisions。 I discovered this book from this twitter thread and have to plug following @balajis for a fascinating futurist/technologist/bitcoin/media type dude。 Also in that thread is linked a much better review with some of the critical charts replicated， so check that out for a better overview， and some of the data sources。 I would highly！！！ recommend this book to futurists， sci-fi fans （sooo many sci-fi ideas explored in modern detail， and so many quotes from sci-fi authors to frame the arguments）， engineers or technology people interested in flying cars， nuclear， or nanotech， or anyone interested in reading a really great， well-built， feather-ruffling argument。 。。。more

Pete ，

Where Is My Flying Car : A Memoir of Future Past （2018） by John Storrs Hall is a unique view of why we don’t have flying cars。 Storrs Hall has a PhD in Computer Science and has worked extensively on nanotechnology and other fields。 Where is My Flying Car asks the question about why we don’t have flying cars that were predicted by many futurists in the 1930s to 1950s。 While investigating why we don’t have Flying Cars Storrs Hall looks at why technological progress has slowed since the 1970s。For a Where Is My Flying Car : A Memoir of Future Past （2018） by John Storrs Hall is a unique view of why we don’t have flying cars。 Storrs Hall has a PhD in Computer Science and has worked extensively on nanotechnology and other fields。 Where is My Flying Car asks the question about why we don’t have flying cars that were predicted by many futurists in the 1930s to 1950s。 While investigating why we don’t have Flying Cars Storrs Hall looks at why technological progress has slowed since the 1970s。For anyone interested in the book there is an excellent hour long interview on the podcast The Power Hour with Alex Epstein of Storrs Hall that discusses the book。In looking at aviation， Sorrs Hall points out that planes are now slower than they were 50 years ago， although many， many more people are flying now。 Storrs Hall puts the blame of slowing technological advance at people who have slowed technological advance because of increasing bureaucracy and people becoming， as he describes it， Eloi agonists。 Such people are like the Eloi of HG Wells’s book the time machine， but modern incarnations that enjoy their wealth in a directionless way and are also environmentally worried。 The book points out that our range of activity is driven by how far we can easily travel。 With flying cars we’d be able to have a range of everyday activity of 200km fairly easily rather than our dramatically smaller range now。The book makes many fascinating points。 I’d never heard of the general aviation crash of the early 1980s。 Also the way in which development of auto-gyros slowed massively due to excessive regulation。 Storrs Hall generalises his meditation on the fate of flying cars to look at why technological progress has slowed。In the book sections on Flying Cars present a plethora of data on how speeds increased and power densities improved and then flat-lined。 Storrs Hall works through a lot of data on how， if people had kept working more on better turbines and different forms of power it could have been done。 He also looks at the range of modern flying car vehicles that are starting to appear and displays some hope。Storrs Hall describes in particular how progress on nuclear energy and nanotechnology has stalled。 He includes a number of quotes from famous environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich， Jeremy Rifkin and Amory Lovins about how finding a cheap， clean source of energy would be a terrible thing。 He points out that Green activists have been working for ways to stop nuclear energy since the 1970s and have come close to succeeding in the West。 He goes into detail about how he believes nuclear fission is already a cheap， clean source of power and had it been researched more since the 1970s it would be even better。The idea of a 'space pier' is put forward。 A space pier would be a 100km high series of towers with a 300km ramp that could electromagnetically accelerate objects to speeds fast enough to go into orbit。 While it sounds incredibly difficult to build it is actually easier to build than a space elevator。 Storrs Hall now works in a Nanotechnology firm and worked on Nanotechnology in the 1990s when the US was allegedly making a push into the field。 However， very little was put toward making universal self-replicating nano machines that he believes would have led to viable real nano technological assemblers by now。Where Is My Flying Car is a really interesting， if somewhat rambling book that looks at how we don’t have flying cars and how our technological progress has slowed。 It could do with being somewhat shorter and having a better editor but it’s nonetheless really quite enjoyable and given the price is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in why technological progress seems to have slowed since 1970。 。。。more

Jason E Free ，

This is an excellent "big idea" book， a work of hopeful futurism- where are our flying cars？ why don't we have all the Jetsons-like technology we've been promised over the last 50 years？ It's complicated。 One of the most common complaints in reviews is that this book meanders too much， and that's a fair criticism， but it it doesn't detract from the book too much。 The reason we don't have flying cars are numerous- it requires discussing aeronautics， manufacturing and nanotechnology， energy techno This is an excellent "big idea" book， a work of hopeful futurism- where are our flying cars？ why don't we have all the Jetsons-like technology we've been promised over the last 50 years？ It's complicated。 One of the most common complaints in reviews is that this book meanders too much， and that's a fair criticism， but it it doesn't detract from the book too much。 The reason we don't have flying cars are numerous- it requires discussing aeronautics， manufacturing and nanotechnology， energy technology and policy， social forces， regulatory limitations， and many other facets of our world。 Hall provides an excellent and accessible overview of all these topics and dives in to how they relate to the flying cars and human progress in general。 As a bonus， there are many great quotes from science fiction authors throughout the book， and that will no doubt provide me with several other fiction works to add to my reading list。 。。。more

Bria ，

I find his basic theses about what killed the flying car to make a lot of sense。 If you're into tons and tons of technical specs， then this is for sure the book for you， but even if not， you learn a lot about technology and history and how things are made， and， of course， about why we don't have flying cars。 Maybe it'll even change your mind about something important！But I have two main complaints。 The first is that it's extremely US-centered， without really justifying why。 I mean， most likely b I find his basic theses about what killed the flying car to make a lot of sense。 If you're into tons and tons of technical specs， then this is for sure the book for you， but even if not， you learn a lot about technology and history and how things are made， and， of course， about why we don't have flying cars。 Maybe it'll even change your mind about something important！But I have two main complaints。 The first is that it's extremely US-centered， without really justifying why。 I mean， most likely because that's the easiest research to do。 But one could make an argument that Europe was war-torn and so would have been behind technologically， maybe same with Japan， China didn't become a tech powerhouse until too recently， etc。 Or some other argument about why if the US didn't invent flying cars they wouldn't get invented。 There were a few throwaway references to some being developed in other countries， but otherwise all the arguments about regulations and cultural shifts focused on the US。 Was this true in other countries？ Just tell me so， or otherwise explain or justify why you barely acknowledge the rest of the world。The second， and biggest complaint about this book is that it completely strawmans environmentalism。 He spends about 2-3 sentences saying that there is a Green religion today that considers energy use and humans to be bad by fiat， and then bases much of the rest of the book on this assumption。 I think there's a lot of truth to this general idea， but he doesn't waste any energy explaining or defending that stance， which is where I think a great number of people would need to be convinced。 I'm worried it would make an otherwise very influential book not have the impact it could， as many people would recognize how uncharitable his characterization is and thereby give up on the rest of the book。 Maybe this book is not meant to 'convince' anyone of anything - merely explain what he found， in answer to the title's question， in which case maybe it does the job well， except for the last few chapters which run wild into future territory。Overall， well worth a read - even if you think it's not the full story， or don't agree with some aspects of it， you will undoubtedly learn a lot。 。。。more

Miles Gould ，

I read this on the strength of Jason Crawford's excellent review: https://rootsofprogress。org/where-is-。。。 I think Crawford does a great job of summarising the book， but am still glad I read the whole thing - I highlighted literally hundreds of passages。 In particular， the section on urban planning was a revelation: he points out that the entire job of cities is to increase the number of valuable possible journeys by bringing lots of people close to lots of desirable destinations， and that citie I read this on the strength of Jason Crawford's excellent review: https://rootsofprogress。org/where-is-。。。 I think Crawford does a great job of summarising the book， but am still glad I read the whole thing - I highlighted literally hundreds of passages。 In particular， the section on urban planning was a revelation: he points out that the entire job of cities is to increase the number of valuable possible journeys by bringing lots of people close to lots of desirable destinations， and that cities with slow/unreliable transport networks are failing at that job - he thinks that cities should be enormously better-connected， with many levels of highways and entirely separate pedestrian infrastructure。 There are also many eye-opening factual claims， like his claim that the study of physics at the scale of atomic nuclei has basically stalled since the '60s， or that R&D output is negatively correlated with federal funding。His overall claim is roughly - flying cars are technically feasible （indeed， they have been made） - they would have huge benefits - they were strangled in the crib by a combination of over-regulation and alarmist environmental activism。I don't know enough about aviation to properly assess his claims on point 1， though the existence of working prototypes makes a strong argument。 He skates over some difficulties - for instance， an engineer friend said "let me know when you get to his answer for air-traffic control"， and I had to disappoint him - Hall touches on ATC a couple of times， but never gives a properly clear answer， other than to say that modern ATC （like much about modern aviation） is very tightly regulated in a way that assumes and bakes-in the technological limitations of a previous era。 A ground-up redesign （as may be happening for drones） would look very different， and should be able to support much higher traffic density。I think his criticism of Green activism is much too strong （for instance， he thinks the harms of climate change aren't worth the cost of mitigation - I checked his citation of an IPCC report， and I think he's confusing cost of mitigation with total cost if we don't mitigate）， but it's useful to see someone making a （mostly） strong argument for activism's downsides。 Likewise， I hate cars， so found it challenging and somewhat refreshing to read someone making an actual quantitative argument for why they are good， and why flying cars would be better。My main criticism of the book is that he needs an editor， both to trim down the most-crankish stuff （cold fusion， in particular）， and to clarify the overall structure of the book so it's more clear what he's proposing。 He has a tendency to switch rapidly between - what was actually done （autogyros in the '30s， various forms of converting cars in the post-war years） - what could be done technically， starting from where we are now （better autogyros at the low end， VTOL ducted-fan electric aircraft with electricity generated by gas turbines at the high end; nuclear reactors and nuclear batteries everywhere） - what could have been done by now if the level of innovation and regulation from the 1930s had continued to the present day （hard nanotech， weather control， orbital megastructures - this is the most fun part， but also the most handwavy）。。。 so it's sometimes hard to get a handle on what he's actually claiming or proposing。 。。。more

Itay ，

טוב זה היה ארוך。פרופ' הול עושה את הכל לא נכון。 הוא מפרסם ספר בהוצאה עצמית， במחיר של 3。14$ （פאי דולרים， חה！）， לא שוכר עורך ולא לומד כתיבה לפני כן。 ועדיין， 4 כוכבים וקריאה מהנה שהיה כיף לסיים איתה את שנת 2020。הול， פרופ' למדמ"ח העוסק בננוטכנולוגיה שואל שאלה פשוטה。 איפה， קיבינימאט， המכונית המעופפת שלי？ מכוניות מעופפות כבר היו קיימות， מסתבר。 כבר בשנות ה-50 היו דגמים של מכוניות מעופפות。 לא על הריצפה， אלא באוויר。 עם אלפי שעות טיסה。 החל ממכוניות עם כנפיים מתקפלות וכלה במכוניות הנעה אנכית - היזמים והמהנד טוב זה היה ארוך。פרופ' הול עושה את הכל לא נכון。 הוא מפרסם ספר בהוצאה עצמית， במחיר של 3。14$ （פאי דולרים， חה！）， לא שוכר עורך ולא לומד כתיבה לפני כן。 ועדיין， 4 כוכבים וקריאה מהנה שהיה כיף לסיים איתה את שנת 2020。הול， פרופ' למדמ"ח העוסק בננוטכנולוגיה שואל שאלה פשוטה。 איפה， קיבינימאט， המכונית המעופפת שלי？ מכוניות מעופפות כבר היו קיימות， מסתבר。 כבר בשנות ה-50 היו דגמים של מכוניות מעופפות。 לא על הריצפה， אלא באוויר。 עם אלפי שעות טיסה。 החל ממכוניות עם כנפיים מתקפלות וכלה במכוניות הנעה אנכית - היזמים והמהנדסים ציפו לעתיד מעופף ומזהיר。 אז מה השתבש？ השאלה הזו גורמת להול לעשות סיבוב עתידני בכל הטכנולוגיות שנמצאות ב-cutting edge שלפני הפריצה。 היתוך קר， ננוטכנולוגיה， רובוטיקה， המהפכה האטומית השנייה。 אין להול עורך שיקצר אותו， ולכן אין שום דבר שמונע ממנו מלזרוק בכל פרק עשרות ציטוטים， טבלאות， ניתוחים וצלילות עומק לתחומי מדע רק כדי להסביר אנקדוטה לא חשובה。 לפעמים זה מעייף， ומצאתי את עצמי מדלג， אבל לפעמים החפירה פשוט מרתקת。 הול הוא פשוט גיק שמחזיר אותי לילד המתלהב ממד"ב של פעם。 היה נחמד להרגיש את זה שוב。650 עמודים לא הולך ברגל。 מצד שני， כולה 3。14$。 。。。more

Sergio ，

La exploración de progresos tecnológicos contrafactuales es entretenida， pero me pareció que le faltaba rigor。 En particular， al afirmar que distintas políticas o regulaciones tuvieron como consecuencia un enlentecimiento en los avances sobre distintas áreas， serían ilustrativas comparaciones con naciones donde tales medidas no se tomaron （aunque puede ser complicado desenredar las condiciones iniciales tecnológicas diferentes y otros factores）。 La estructura general me resultó un poco confusa， La exploración de progresos tecnológicos contrafactuales es entretenida， pero me pareció que le faltaba rigor。 En particular， al afirmar que distintas políticas o regulaciones tuvieron como consecuencia un enlentecimiento en los avances sobre distintas áreas， serían ilustrativas comparaciones con naciones donde tales medidas no se tomaron （aunque puede ser complicado desenredar las condiciones iniciales tecnológicas diferentes y otros factores）。 La estructura general me resultó un poco confusa， y con temas a veces innecesariamente alargados o repetidos。 Uso abundante de unidades imperiales en vez de métricas。 。。。more

Danny LaPorte ，

While I certainly don’t agree with everything， this is a wide-ranging， informative （if speculative） and imaginative book that is worth the read。

Jeff ，

A meandering book that splits the line between seriously trying to answer the eponymous question， where are the flying cars we were promised， and taking that as an example of how the future envisioned in science fiction up to about the 50s seemed to hit a wall and stop in its tracks。 On the flying car question， it turns out， we could technically have flying cars today within the affordability of many people and within a couple decades most people。 It’s technically feasible。 And it would be very A meandering book that splits the line between seriously trying to answer the eponymous question， where are the flying cars we were promised， and taking that as an example of how the future envisioned in science fiction up to about the 50s seemed to hit a wall and stop in its tracks。 On the flying car question， it turns out， we could technically have flying cars today within the affordability of many people and within a couple decades most people。 It’s technically feasible。 And it would be very useful - not to make the trips we already make today but to expand our range of day-trip travel and commuting by a factor of 10。 Imagine how that could expand the radius of cities and allow many more people to live where they want and have the space they want。 So what happened？ Answering that question takes the rest of the book and is difficult to summarize。 The general idea I would say is that in a variety of realms we simply lost the mindset that enabled us to make such。 Rapid progress in the first half of the 20th century， and then we lost the optimism or the confidence that such progress was possible。 The author explores the failure of imagination and the failure of nerve and various other shortfalls that have and forms of malaise that have taken root。 And the book itself I think is meant to be a kind of antidote， a way of shaking the reader out of this stupor of complacency and realizing just how incredible the future could be， and very likely will be， eventually。 We are within a few decades of having the technology to build things like sky scrapers a mile into the air - large enough that the entire population of the US could live in about 20 such buildings with the rest of the land between them given back to nature if we so desired。 Or building a mile wide aircraft that flies endlessly in the upper atmosphere populated by millions of people each with more than 4000 square feet of living quarters to themselves。 That’s larger than the average suburban home。 These are a couple of many， many examples。 I loved this book。 After reading it I no longer see the idea of flying cars as something vaguely embarrassing or naive but deeply disappointing。 。。。more

Tom Davies ，

Very interesting exposition of the idea that we have missed opportunities in nanotechnology， and that we could profitably use far more energy than we do。And a lot of interesting data and history on flying cars。

Lenny Isf ，

Very detailed and impressive。 Probably the stand-out book I read this year - has framed a lot of issues around technological improvement in a simple and compelling way。

Brian ，

The author is upset that there are a lot of people who act out of self-interest or ignorance to prevent other people from getting s*** done。Interesting， but kind of repetitive。

Jack Jacobson ，

Somewhat disorganized， with no clear flow through the book。 Nevertheless， a unique book that explores areas that are not often combined。 The book forces you to consider things you've never thought of， and also explores many of the human reasons why we fail to take full advantage of the gifts of technology。 It is also an exploration of the economics of technology。 I've never seen so many different ideas explored in a single book。 Amazing Somewhat disorganized， with no clear flow through the book。 Nevertheless， a unique book that explores areas that are not often combined。 The book forces you to consider things you've never thought of， and also explores many of the human reasons why we fail to take full advantage of the gifts of technology。 It is also an exploration of the economics of technology。 I've never seen so many different ideas explored in a single book。 Amazing 。。。more

Jake Sylvestre ，

This book was absolutely mind blowing。 The author manages to analyze political philosophy， the failures of the ivory tower， policy makers and the technological advances of the past half-century into a coherent argument for a "second atomic age" by combining nuclear and nano-science。 The book does go into some long and meandering tangents about aeronautic and half-lives of different fissionable elements that seem extraneous but are both essential to making the authors argument and fascinating in This book was absolutely mind blowing。 The author manages to analyze political philosophy， the failures of the ivory tower， policy makers and the technological advances of the past half-century into a coherent argument for a "second atomic age" by combining nuclear and nano-science。 The book does go into some long and meandering tangents about aeronautic and half-lives of different fissionable elements that seem extraneous but are both essential to making the authors argument and fascinating in their own right。 。。。more

Joel ，

Where have you gone， Tom Swift？Wow。 I’m exhausted。 This is an unexpected book， far-ranging in subjects， about why so many things we expected in earlier years just never happened: widespread nuclear energy， flying cars， cities under the sea。 The mechanics of flying cars， the politics of nuclear regulation， the exception of information technology， all are discussed with an eye to detail。 I’ll be chewing this one over for awhile， I’m sure。

Adam ，

A refreshingly idiosyncratic， indulgent book， expressive of its author's whole personality in a way that no anodyne pop-science or academic non-fiction could touch。 That alone makes it a fun read， but it's also a bracing wake-up call to the imagination and a compelling-if-not-entirely-satisfying exploration of the dynamics of cultural evolution in technological progress （very much in the classic sense of that phrase）。 Most of the book is framed around the titular flying car。 There are tons of ch A refreshingly idiosyncratic， indulgent book， expressive of its author's whole personality in a way that no anodyne pop-science or academic non-fiction could touch。 That alone makes it a fun read， but it's also a bracing wake-up call to the imagination and a compelling-if-not-entirely-satisfying exploration of the dynamics of cultural evolution in technological progress （very much in the classic sense of that phrase）。 Most of the book is framed around the titular flying car。 There are tons of chapters here on the aviation history， design challenges， travel theory， infrastructure considerations， traffic management， etc， involved in getting from a world with no human flight to a world where flying cars are as accessible as high-end pickup trucks。 The point of all of it is to answer， with as much careful consideration as possible， the question of why sci-fi writers of the early 20th century accurately predicted so much about current technology but overestimated the proximity of the flying car。 Was there some unanticipated technical hurdle that made this intuitive technology out of reach？ Or did something happen to knock us off course from achieving what was within our grasp？Hall is decisively in the latter camp。 He has a hypothesis about what happened and he's got a chip on his shoulder about it。 There's no real secret of that。 But that doesn't mean he doesn't take the challenges seriously。 It feels open-minded and even-handed when it comes to the tradeoffs and logistical obstacles on the flying car question。 He points out that helicopters are， in essence， flying cars， but that there are good reasons they were not able to fill the role。 Good reasons， as opposed to regulation。 One of the major points in the flying car-specific material is that private aircraft ownership and private pilot's licensing were growing rapidly until regulations hit in the 80's that basically killed the industry。 If that hadn't happened， perhaps innovation in the intervening years would have finessed the tradeoffs in a viable way。 But the overall conclusion is that that's not especially likely。 More planes would just mean more planes， because the flying car challenge requires something special: a revolution in energy density and materials science。This is where the flying car bit becomes merely a case study for the book's overall point， which gets applied to practically everything Hall can think of--or perhaps， everything he read about in scifi books as a kid （every subsection of each chapter has multiple epigraphs， many of which are from Heinlein， Clarke， Asimov， and older scifi）。 The thesis of the book is essentially that the world was on an exponential growth curve in total energy output until around 1970， when it became linear。 And if that energy growth had continued， the world today would be utterly transformed。 So many things now challenging would become possible。 The second point， which seems to get less direct exposition because it was the subject of Hall's previous book， is that nanotechnology， which can be used to create materials with properties vastly exceeding what we can do now， could have been much farther advanced had we taken a different approach to its development than we did。 These two technologies combined， for Hall， enable not just another industrial revolution but a Second Atomic Age （since the power density he envisions is one way or another nuclear）， something that would trivialize essentially every problem many people currently take to be intractable and catastrophic。 If I'd read this 10 years ago， I would have had no patience with its claim at all。 It is *exactly* the sort of appeal-to-technology that anti-civ， degrowth， and deep ecology types are sworn enemies of。 Fortunately I'm not in that camp anymore so I can consider Hall's case with an open mind。 And not entirely coincidentally， it dovetails very nicely with the conclusions I've recently come to in my research on overpopulation。 The emphasis environmentalists place on fossil fuels is， I now believe， vastly overstated。 The cause of the Industrial Revolution was not fossil fuels but the accumulation of the cultural adaptive potential driving technological progress。 Since coming to that realization， even moreso than from my interest in cultural evolution more broadly， has changed my feelings on technology。 I feel a lot more interested not than I was 10 years ago in things like appliance design or manufacturing processes， because they make simple and accessible the process of ratcheting， iterative problem solving and design that occurs in evolution on a scale that is utterly incomprehensible。 It's a window into the mind of the mindless designer。 The interesting thing revealed by the few glimpses I've taken through channels like Technology Connections and Stuff Made Here is that human technology is still extremely crude。 Part of the appeal of a lot of TC videos in particular is that while appliances require some knowledge of physics or access to some rare， purified materials， their design is elegantly simple。 And while the same can be said of many specific things in nature， in aggregate， living things are just a mess by contrast。 When you think about it that way， Hall's argument starts to make a lot of sense。 Once cultural evolution gains the ability to work on the same molecular scale as genetic evolution has done for the past 4 billion years， then we're in for some real changes。 The most interesting thing about this book for me was simply to sort of shake up the breadth of my imagination of the scope of cultural evolution。 The path that brought us the capacities we have today was obviously not inevitable， but what we spend less time considering is that given the unconstrained pace and compounding， ratcheting nature of cultural evolution， the range of possibilities is much wider than we tend to appreciate。 Things could， obviously， easily be much worse， in a dozen different ways。 But they might very well also have been better。 In the most obvious case， if nuclear power had continued to proliferate on its original exponential trajectory， it would be cheaper， safer， and more portable than ever， with a different set of social norms about radiation and a wide range of secondary products like batteries。 We would have seen the same learning-by-doing there as we're seeing now in solar， but before the majority of greenhouse gasses were emitted， before the most egregious petroleum and coal extraction atrocities were committed， before fracking or tar sands exploitation were even invented。 There's nothing speculative about it; it obviously could have happened and didn't for reasons that in retrospect seem deeply foolish。 So why did it， and similar cases of missed potential， turn out that way？ In my mind this is by far the most important and interesting question Hall raises--kind of a negative inverse to Mokyr's Culture of Growth。 And he's not really prepared to explore it。 This really is just a book about flying cars and nanotech and the conceivable pathways to golden age scifi tech like floating cities and jetpacks and stuff。 There are answers; they're just not probed with any kind of scholarly caution or curiosity。 They're thrown out with a bitter sense of factional animosity。 Half of his answer is the "Machiavelli Effect，" in which scholars with a favored approach are able to quash competing ideas utterly， through some combination of social sway and institutional control--this is why Hall believes nanotech went the wrong direction， for instance。 The other， more important half， is "ergophobia。" Fear of wasting and overusing energy led a generation of effort to be wasted on efficient use of fossil fuels and not actually finding huge new energy sources （which just leads to Jevons paradox results on one hand or regulatory caps on the other， both bad outcomes for Hall）。 The funny thing about this is that it's the diametric opposite of the degrowth ideology I just read in Collision Course: Endless Growth on a Finite Planet--which of course doesn't do much to help Hall's credibility， even if I were otherwise inclined to agree with him。 His case is that while recent turns to science have broken the habit a bit， people are fundamentally superstitious and we just have an unshakable， irrational aversion to having and using power， which was able to reassert itself and quash progress as soon as we were economically comfortable enough to lose our desperation for power。 But while I have certainly made statements about the "green religion" that aren't too far out of line with Hall's disparaging take myself， I think this causal reasoning is ludicrous。 His implication that environmentalist baptists and oil industry bootleggers quashed nuclear power is much closer to the truth， I think--this example was somewhat sobering for me， since it showed me that I'd almost without thinking internalized a faith in market forces to overcome obstacles to profitable outcomes that made me skeptical of the potential harms of regulation。 The nuclear story shows regulations can do real harm， and harm that accumulates over years of lost progress。 But the idea that environmentalists have superstitious， irrational values and motivations is hogwash。 The funny part is that Hall's argument is extremely compatible with a genuinely environmentalist value and goalset。 His point about nuclear energy would fit extremely well with an argument that followed his but *was* itself concerned about climate change and habitat loss and extinction rates。 But he's not that guy and he's not gonna hide it。 Hall is a climate skeptic。 He believes the process is occurring， driven by fossil fuel emissions， but he is convinced by low estimates of economic impact and argues that ignoring it and focusing on growth would leave us better off in 100 years than wasting time and effort on fighting it in ways that will mostly probably not work。 And like， if you were going to use that argument to make a point about nuclear power， it works。 If you're going to use it to say nanotech will vastly accelerate decoupling: great。 But to just say you think there's no concern at all？ Looks sketch， reduces his credibility as a forecaster of the future in general and saps some of the benefit of the doubt on his concern for the poor （though overall I'm totally on board that technological growth is a much more promising way to end poverty than redistribution）。 So there are plenty of questions left up in the air here by his incomplete hypotheses， but without a more thorough investigation， there's not much more to do than speculate。 It's all "accident of history" stuff--what if the fossil fuel industry had held less sway in the US？ What if other， freer countries had had larger markets， to lessen the influence of US or EU regulation？ Why didn't China or Russia take up the nanotech or nuclear mantle？ Etc。 Going forward， though， Hall is optimistic （it's in the nature of a futurist） that technological progress will sidestep the regulatory and political barriers that have held us back for the last 50 years。 Drone tech is opening a new path to flying cars。 AI and robots are at least on track where they should be。 Biotech is creating an alternate path to nanotech。 Etc。 We'll get there long before we have to worry about catastrophic climate change， one way or another， he assures us。 And I guess based on my overpopulation article， I kinda agree with him。 I just think to get there， we need a much more serious， scholarly account of the pathologies of cultural evolution and some tactics on how to overcome them。 。。。more

Sandy Maguire ，

EDIT 2021-12-22:Well， I finally got around to finishing this book， and it's actually fantastic if you can slog through it。 This is the first book I've seen in a long time that has any coherent view of what the future should be， that isn't just that our phones will get faster and our cameras will have more megapixels。 It's inspiring as hell， though not without flaws。ORIGINAL REVIEW:Started off great， but it meanders aggressively and was unable to maintain the author's or my attention。 His claim i EDIT 2021-12-22:Well， I finally got around to finishing this book， and it's actually fantastic if you can slog through it。 This is the first book I've seen in a long time that has any coherent view of what the future should be， that isn't just that our phones will get faster and our cameras will have more megapixels。 It's inspiring as hell， though not without flaws。ORIGINAL REVIEW:Started off great， but it meanders aggressively and was unable to maintain the author's or my attention。 His claim is that the technology exists for flying cars today， but the political wherewithal for them hasn't kept up。 Regulations and environmentalism have gotten in the way。 This corresponds well to my priors， but he downplays environmentalism more than I think is deserved; when I dug into his citations they were of poor quality， which unfortunately makes me shift away from the bit of his premise that I agree with。 2/5 due to abandonment。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Where Is My Flying Car?

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Where Is My Flying Car?&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Where Is My Flying Car?&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0