>I'm always weary of people who claim that the solution for the better (and, for that
>matter, the "common good") goes through the suppression of "useless relics of the
> past". First, it usually ends in a ghastly way, and next, this is not how progress works.
Sometimes the suppression comes as a consequence of other forces that we all agree to be for the better. For instance:
1.) Steam-engine train locomotives are museum pieces and historical curiosities. They are too slow, not powerful enough, require too many fuel/water stops and pollute too much to be acceptable for modern rail transport. They were everywhere a mere 60 years ago, but today they have been completely replaced by diesel, diesel-electric or even all-electric traction. This replacement happened despite the greater cost of diesel fuel versus coal and the cost required for electrifying rail routes.
2.) Vacuum-tube electronics have been almost entirely replaced by transistors, the exceptions being some high-end audiophile gear (curiosities) and certain categories which 50 years ago did not exist as consumer items (microwave ovens).
3.) Flat-head, side-valve automobile engines are relics, not produced for many years. They lost too much energy as heat and did not breathe well enough to produce the power/weight desired by consumers. An overhead-valve engine is bulkier, has more parts and costs more, but today they have the entire automotive market.
4.) Pollution regulations have eliminated the sale of new 2-stroke motorcycles (and their emissions of unburned fuel and oil) from the USA.
Some of these changes happened over a very short time, yet few people really cared all that much. The catalytic converter caused another gas pump marked "Unleaded" to appear for a while, but now that's all there is; the air is a lot cleaner as a consequence, and cars are still cars. We have other changes coming, due in part to government incentives to purchase hybrid cars. Toyota Prius buyers sit on a waiting list measured in months, and Ford just licensed Toyota's technology.
>engineering is good. Engineering society is not.
The USA currently spends about USD 50 billion (that is 5e10 dollars in scientific notation) per year to protect the Middle East oil-trade routes alone. Total spending on defense needs related to oil or Arab military threats was a much larger part of our defense budget, roughly half of USD 360 billion - and that was before the USD 87 billion requested for the first year of the Iraq affair.
The USA uses about 110 billion gallons of motor gasoline per year, plus about half that much "distillate fuel oil" which fuels diesels.
If the defense costs related to oil were charged directly to motor fuel, the pump price of fuel in the USA would roughly double. Speaking as an American who knows Americans, if motor gasoline cost $3.00 to $3.50 per gallon there would not be many people wanting to buy Hemi-powered trucks for driving to work. Had this change occurred ten years ago there would be many more people already driving cars like the Prius and there would already be many different models using such technology. You would not need government diktat to achieve this end. All you would have to do is charge the costs to the goods which produce those costs, and let people choose freely between the alternatives. (I have been saying this for ten years. Just because nobody wants to listen does not mean it is not true. ;-)
Let me reverse that argument: we have been indulging in social engineering for many years, using subsidy of petroleum consumption with our tax and defense policies. These subsidies have resulted in great problems, including despotic regimes which sponsor terrorism. It is time to change these policies, remove the subsidies and force the necessary adjustments to begin.