Five Worst Inventions

Berlin Wall

A few days ago I was taking my (almost) daily walk along the beach, allowing the water to wash around my feet, ankles, and calves. I listened to the waves lapping upon the shore and the sound of gulls flying overhead. The sounds and sights were pleasant and calming.

As I continued walking and paddling I noticed a man coming towards me holding a mobile phone in front of him, peering at it. When we passed I waved and offered a cheery “good morning.” There was no reaction, he continued on, not seeming to notice his surroundings or my greeting.

I thought to myself, mobile phones have to be one of the worst inventions we humans have ever made. For the rest of my walk I thought about that, and wondered what would be my “top five” worst inventions? What criteria would I use to make such a judgment?

By the end of my walk I had come up with these three criteria for deciding on the “top five” worst inventions of humankind: 1. That the invention had a negative impact upon the earth and our relationship with nature, 2. That the invention served to increase the separation between us and exacerbate our intolerance of one another, and 3. That the invention worsened our mental health and/or our sense of well-being.

With these criteria in mind, here are my “top five” worst inventions. Please note that these are subjective and you may not agree, and may have a different “top five.” Also, each of these inventions may have their benefits, but, as I see it, the harms are greater. What are my “top five”? In no particular order they are:

Fences. The purpose of a fence is to either keep someone or something in or keep someone or something out. Their main purpose is to divide. Archaeological evidence shows that the first fences, often made of earth mounds, stones, or wood, appeared about 10,000 to 5,000 BCE. They arose in conjunction with sedentary agriculture and functioned to keep predators and scavengers out of crops, or to keep domesticated animals in.

Eventually, because of the transition from hunter/gathering to sedentary living, fences became walls around villages, towns, and cities. They were erected to provide security from opposing groups of humans. They also became markers of a new human feature – the privatisation of land. Take a walk in the countryside these days and how many times do you see a sign on a fence that reads, Keep Out, Private Property?

Walls (simply more elaborate fences) are used commonly to separate and divide. In the last 100 years two of the most well known walls have been erected: the Warsaw ghetto wall erected in November 1940 used to imprison 460,000 Jews in an area of just 3.4 km², and; the Berlin Wall, erected in August 1961, which divided the city of Berlin and separated families, friends, and lovers. Even today, walls exist in many cities of the world, and their purpose is to divide also. Most of us do not even think of them – they go under the rubric of gated communities.

Fences serve to separate us. They also serve to maintain our dominance over domesticated animals.

Ploughs. Ploughs are also linked to our domestication of plants and crops. Ploughs allow us to turn a diverse area of land into mono-agriculture, which is dependent upon the addition of pesticides, fungicides, and artificial fertilisers to ensure crop production.

The first ploughs seem to be hand-held plough-like devices used by early Egyptians to clear rocky soil. By the 6^th millennium BCE oxen were being used to pull early ploughs in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.

As time progressed, ploughs became mechanised and automated. Ploughs have enabled huge multinational agriculture companies to wreak havoc upon the land with mono-cultural cropping.

Ploughs and plowshares are often referred to as the goal of pacifist and peace movements worldwide. The phrase, ‘They shall beat their swords into plowshares’ comes from the Bible (Isaiah 2.4). A statue bearing this sentiment is on display in the United Nations Art Collection.

Yet, as Stephen Jenkinson caustically points out, ‘From the land’s point of view, there is no difference between swords and plows.’ ¹

Guns. The first guns were invented in China around 1000 AD, following the invention there of gunpowder in the ninth century. Guns spread throughout Eurasia during the 14^th century, with the word gun coming to us from the Old Norse word gunnidr meaning war-sword. Hence, guns have been associated with warfare and violence since their inception.

It would be hard to propose a more lethal means of killing another human being (or animal for that matter) than a gun. Since the 14^th century guns have morphed into; arquebuses, muskets, pistols, revolvers, machine guns, cannons, artillery, mortars, howitzers, tanks, and the modern-day drones that enable dissociated and anonymous killing.

The ultimate “gun” today is undoubtedly the nuclear warhead. There are well over 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world today, held by nine different countries. Russia and the USA hold the majority of these with more than 5,000 apiece.

Guns have worsened the divide between us.

Automobiles. I tossed up whether to identify this worst invention as the combustion engine or the automobile (utilising the combustion engine.) However, since there are now many vehicles that do not use the combustion engine as its automotive power, I opted for the automobile.

Whether the motive power is the combustion engine or an electric engine (or a combination of both) the automobile has had a terrible impact upon the environment of the Earth. Automobiles take up huge amounts of space in many of the cities of the world. The amount of land devoted to them (roads, streets, car parks) can be as much as 25% of the city’s area. The pollutants that automobiles emit are well known, but what may not be so well known is the weight of vehicles that contribute to the wear and tear of tyres. Some research suggests that tyre wear contributes 2,000 times more particulate pollution than the exhausts. EVs (electric vehicles) are not immune to this, indeed are worse, as the weight of an EV is significantly greater than that of a combustion engine vehicle.

In 2023 I coined the term autobesity to label the problems of automobiles. The blog is accessible here.

Mobile Phones. The mobile phone has only been available commercially since 1983 yet it has probably been responsible for an increase in social isolation, cyber bullying, teenage anxiety and depression, e-waste, environmental degradation, an increase in electricity usage, and a dumbing down of our cognitive abilities than any other such contraption.

When the inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, was testing out his invention he walked across a street whilst speaking on his phone. He later admitted to a friend that doing so was ‘probably the most dangerous thing I have ever done in my life.’ He is correct. A study in the US in 2009 found that 5,474 people had been killed because of the use of mobile phones in traffic. Repeated studies show that the use of mobile phones are responsible for 25% – 50% of all police-reported vehicle accidents.

I have covered this topic in greater depth in a blog available here.

The Worst Is Yet To Come

One invention that is currently underway could easily be the worst yet. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has the potential to exacerbate all other problems, making them worse than they already are (if that is conceivable.)

The godfather of A.I., Geoffrey Hinton, has been warning us for a few years now. In a recent interview Hinton cautioned that ‘If you want to know what life is like when you’re not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.’ A short (2 min) excerpt from the interview is here, a longer (21 min) clip is here.

Even though he recognises benefits of AI, Hinton warns that ‘unless we do something soon, we’re near the end.’ A chilling thought. The lessons from the other five worst inventions would suggest there may not be much hope of us doing something soon.  

Next week I will post my "Five Best Inventions" list.

Note:

1. Stephen Jenkinson, Come The Romans, on the CD Dark Roads, Orphan Wisdom, 2020

Autobesity

Artist: Dave Derret
(used with permission)

Obesity for a human is not good for human health.

Autobesity is not good for the Earth’s health.

A comment relating to a recent “New Yorker” article¹ on SUVs suggesting that that this was a case of “car obesity” prompted me to coin the word autobesity to label one of the world’s most pressing environmental health problems.

A standard measurement of how underweight or overweight a person is uses the Body Mass Index (BMI.)² The most extreme score used to be known as morbid obesity (although now it is referred to by the less emotive term obese (class III).)

If such a measurement were to be applied to our use of vehicles (Perhaps an AMI – Automobile Mass Index) then we would have to make the diagnosis that we are suffering morbid autobesity.

Autobesity has become steadily worse since WW2, and morbidly so in the past 7 years. In 2015 there were 618 million vehicles in the world. In the seven years since then that figure has more than doubled to an estimated 1,446 million (yes! – that is 1.446 billion.)³ We went from autobese to extremely autobese to morbidly autobese in just a few years.⁴

Autobesity (as with human obesity) carries with it harmful health outcomes. As we know, obesity in humans is a risk factor for clogged arteries.

So too, it is with autobesity. Automotive arteries (roads, parking, and right-of-ways (ROWs)) get clogged. Unlike a human body though, instead of removing the blockages, more arteries get built. In rich nations of the world the amount of land relinquished to roads, parking, and ROWs is around 2% of the total land area. In cities, the figure is substantial. New York has 22% of its land area devoted to roads and parking. In London the proportion is 23%, Tokyo 24%, and 25% in Paris. Between one-fifth and one quarter of the land in the world’s major cities is set aside for automobiles.

That is autobesity.

Other harmful effects of autobesity are well known, such as the poisons and pollution emitted from vehicle exhausts – i.e. CO₂, nitrous oxides, benzene, fine and ultra-fine particulates etc.

What may be less well known, however, is that these emissions (due mainly to increased exhaust regulations around the world) are not the most harmful feature of vehicle use.

Tyre wear is responsible for around 2,000 times more particulate pollution than are exhausts. These particulates include Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)⁵ and toxic compounds (including carcinogens.) These seep into all parts of the body of the earth – air, water, and soil.⁶

As with human obesity, the weight of the vehicle contributes to this problem. To add to the issue of soaring numbers of automobiles, the weight of automobiles has also increased. In 1908, when Henry Ford began producing the Model T Ford, the heaviest of his vehicles weighed 750 kg. The average vehicle weight today is 1,800 kg. What is more, vehicles are getting heavier (contributing further to tyre wear), and likely to put on even more weight if EVs (Electric Vehicles) become more prevalent (as EV proponents predict and promote.)

Because of the battery in an EV, an average EV weighs around 30% more than an equivalent fossil-fuelled vehicle. In terms of our autobesity, EVs are not helping.⁷

Although EVs reached 10% of global vehicle sales in 2022, they are not replacing vehicle stock – but adding to it. Between 2015 and 2020 the total number of EVs in the world increased from less than one million to 10.2 million. Impressive – maybe? However, in the same period the total number of vehicles in the world rose from 618 million to over 1,100 million. That is just one EV for every 50 or so conventional vehicles.

What Are We Doing About Our Autobesity?

Not much, is the short answer.

A doctor, cardiologist, or other medical professional will usually prescribe a combination of diet and exercise for a person suffering obesity.

Shouldn’t we adopt a similar regime with autobesity?

But we aren’t. A significant proportion of vehicle trips are short, very short. In the U.S. 60% of all car trips are less than 10km in length. In Australian cities the distance varies from city to city, with between 30% - 60% being less then 5km in length. Melbourne takes the lack of exercise to the extreme, with 47% of vehicle trips being less than 2.5km long.⁸ 

All these distances are easily achieved by walking or using a bicycle.

Our autobesity is now morbid and epidemic (at least in the rich nations,) so much so that (as with obesity) it is propelled by addictive mechanisms. Replacing one type of vehicle with another (EV, hybrid, hydrogen fuelled, or whatever) will not reduce our addiction, and hence autobesity will continue to harm the planet.

Many working in the addiction field tell us that abstinence is a crucial factor in helping addicts to overcome their addiction and then maintaining a more healthy lifestyle.

It is now clear that autobesity is no different.

Only total auto-abstinence will help to heal the harm caused by autobesity.

Notes:

1. Elizabeth Kolbert, Why S.U.V.s are Still a Huge Environmental Problem¸ The New Yorker, 3 March 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-suvs-are-still-a-huge-environmentalproblem?fbclid=IwAR1XA_xJ0BBu5lQiV6tx17vdNdokwBC1kXVsrMRvq3VvrgHT7OCxJQS_umo accessed 13 March 2023

2. A person’s BMI is calculated by dividing their weight (in kg) by the square of their height (in metres.

3. Source: PD Insurance, 22 April 2022, https://www.pd.com.au/blogs/how-many-cars-in-the-world/ accessed 13 March 2023

4. If you line up all the world’s vehicles bumper-to-bumper around the Earth’s equator they would encircle the Earth more than 160 times!

5. Laura Kokko, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tyre Production, M.Sc. thesis, Tampere University of Technology, February 2017

6, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show accessed 13 March 2023

7. Research at a Netherlands University shows that EVs are contributing significantly to the deterioration of road surfaces. https://www.brusselstimes.com/61738/heavier-electric-cars-wear-out-roads-faster accessed 13 March 2023

8. https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au//media/ProgramsandProjects/PlanningHealthyEnvironments/Attachments/vhtransch3.pdf?la=en&hash=BD49C15BA932B97CF11275C5EE7CEA85A17176F3 accessed 14 March 2023. Although this paper is from 1999, there is little reason to believe that the proportions have changed. If anything, personal observation suggests the figure may now be more dire.

Is Our Commuter Hierarchy Upside-Down?

In 1865, the U.K. Locomotive Act required, in the case of multiple-wagoned road vehicles, that a man bearing a red flag walk at least 60 yards in front of the vehicle. Furthermore, vehicles were restricted to 4 m.p.h. in the countryside, and 2 m.p.h. in cities.

Since this and other restrictions were lifted towards the end of the century, our commuter hierarchy has been turned on its head.

No matter where we go (in cities or in countryside) it is hard to escape the realisation that the car is king. Roads are designed primarily for the private motorcar. Footpaths are shunted off to the side, if they exist at all. Cycleways are often an after-thought.

The hierarchy nowadays is clearly the car is at the top, followed by the cyclist, with pedestrians at the bottom of the pyramid of privilege and right-of-way.

Yet, if we think in terms of vulnerability then, surely, we have the hierarchy upside-down.

Consider a collision between a private car and a cyclist, or a private car and a pedestrian. We all know who is going to come off worst.

The physics alone should tell us. Damage done in a collision can be attributed in big part to the kinetic energy (KE) of the colliding bodies. KE is easily computed if we know the mass (m) of the body and the velocity (v) at which it is travelling.¹ Kinetic energy is measured in Joules. The greater the number of Joules, the greater the energy. Consider these measurements:

The average mass (weight) of a private car is 1300 kg. Suppose a car is travelling at 50 km per hour (13.9 metres per second) then the kinetic energy of the vehicle is approximately 125,000 Joules (J). Travelling at 30 k.p.h. (8.3 metres per second (m.s.)) turns out to be approximately 45,200 J.

A male cyclist, on the other hand, weighing 87 kg (the average weight for an adult Australian male) and cycling at 20 k.p.h. has a kinetic energy of approximately 1,400 J. At 25 k.p.h. the kinetic energy is over 2,200 J. For an average Australian woman, the equivalent kinetic energy is 1,200 J and 1,900 J respectively.²

Now, consider a pedestrian, walking at 5.5 k.p.h. (1.6 metres per second). The kinetic energy of an average Australian male pedestrian is about 110 J. For an average female pedestrian, the kinetic energy is about 90 J.

Damage

Imagine a car with a kinetic energy anywhere from 45,000 J to 125,000 J colliding with a cyclist with between 1,200 J and 2,200 J. Who is going to be damaged the greatest?

What about a pedestrian with kinetic energy of only around 100 J?

Surely, if we are serious about lives, potential damage, and harm, then we should be upending our commuter hierarchy. The car is king does not make sense in terms of vulnerability.

It Doesn’t Make Sense in Other Ways

Nor does giving the private vehicle its high esteem and privilege make sense in other ways.

The private vehicle is possibly the most environmentally damaging piece of technology that an individual can own. We have known for decades the damage from exhaust fumes. We know too the damage that the road network has on local ecosystems, as well as the sheer amount of land given over to parking and roading that our addiction to the motor-vehicle requires.

Plus, our addiction to the private vehicle as a means of transport has seen our weights rise, so that now obesity rates in some parts of the world are at epidemic levels. We have sacrificed well-being for comfort.

Should we not be thinking it is time to turn our commuter hierarchy up the other way, so that we privilege the most vulnerable? 

Time to bring back the red flag.   

Notes:

1. The formula for those interested is KE = ½ mv²

2. Using an average bicycle weight of 8 kg. The kinetic energy will vary from person to person. Significantly, for a child the kinetic energy is much less.