i want to make something clear: flying cars are not a better idea. flying cars were a dream that came out of an era before infrastructure, before we had roads, lots of paved roads that take us nearly everywhere.
flying cars removed the need to build this infrastructure, but our grandfathers rolled up their sleeves and got to work once they were tired of dreaming.
and this is why the attention is on innovating the infrastructure instead of leaving it behind. what's more is the infrastructure is, for the most part, a public entity, a shared space and effort. public roads are about as close to utopia as we have ever made.
i understand the dream for flying cars, or personal human-carrying drones, but this would require the building of an infrastructure. there are companies that work to build infrastructures like roads and cell towers and large lines of fiber optics running through the ocean and across continents, and there are other companies that work to build technologies that ride on the backs of those infrastructures.
the reason we do not have flying cars is not because we can't make it happen, it's because of the bottlenecked infrastructure of air-borne anything. airports are tightly controlled, air trafficked is managed by towers and other types of hubs. there is no sort of public infrastructure that could manage the democratization of flight.
i'm sure that innovations in personal flight could help the developement of infrastructure, but without attention to how to manage three dimensional movement is another question entirely.
for the most part, driving is two dimensional: you either go forward or back, left or right. there is no up or down in driving. flying on the other hand becomes immensely more complicated because it adds an entire additional dimension.
in some ways information can be a sort of infrastructure, and this is one element that has allowed us to fly up to this point: training of pilots and support personnel has provided our planes with the proper safeguards to guide our flying, but specialized training is not democratic.
driving requires a certain level of skill, practice really, but there is nothin as complicated as g-forces or other kinds of physical phenomenon. the difference in dashboards is apparent enough to show the amount of training required for operation. the comedy "airplane" even gags at this by scanning the camera over an inordinate amount of switches and gauges.
at any rate, this article was intended to be a short expression of my frustration at people not recognizing the need for infrastructure in the development of technology. my basic point is that: technology requires infrastructure, either physical or mental.