Metalenses are a relatively fringe optical technology — at least, they were. Until now, it has been largely pursued by startups and scientists but that is changing as Canon has jumped into the fray and not only makes them but also produces the equipment necessary to manufacture them.
I wonder when companies are going to shift from making stupid stuff we don’t need like this and start working on things to clean up the environment they destroyed making things for the last 40 years.
Why would they?
I’m not being trite, I’m being serious. If they’re not given a reason to do so, companies don’t do things.
But you gotta admit that this is fucking cool. And its relatively innocent compared to some other inventions.
If you really think that is a viable business then you should be shifting towards creating said business that makes money working on things to clean up the environment.
He didnt ask when companies will shift to making money. He asked when will companies shift to making things we need.
Money is a useful tool, but it is not life sustaining by itself. Our species existed without money for longer than we’ve had money.
What humans really need is a habitable planet where we can feed ourselves, have shelter and cultivate culture with others.
Unfortunately the desire for money has disincentivised taking care of the ecosystem that provides food, protects us from solar radiation and keeps us and our crops from baking or freezing to death.
It’s wishful thinking to hope that companies will change their goals and prioritize whatever someone else says. Ultimately companies are trying to create profit by providing value. If we want them to change we need to understand what motivates a company. If someone “disagrees” and thinks reality should be something else, then no one is stopping them from forming a company and run it under those principles.
Agreed! I think your first paragraph was the commentor’s point, though I dunno
It’s pretty sad that actually doing things to help our ecosystem is for the most part very unprofitable.
I think we need to address the problem by preventing companies from externalizing their costs. If they had to pay exactly as much as it cost to clean up the pollution they emit then they will actually internalize that cost and have financial incentives to decrease pollution. I am obviously oversimplifyng since the cost is not constant and this would create a financial incentive to create companies that remove/ filter pollutants more effectively and efficiently.
It’s complicated because it requires international agreements but it’s a more realistic approach than thinking companies should do it because we need them to.
Hell yeah!
Great point. The WTO has been effective at enforcing international trade agreements.
Most of their enforcement has been things like forcing countries to import tuna caught with dolphin- killing nets and other messed up stuff… … but they could totally enforce a carbon & pollution fee system for internationally traded goods.
Being that they are essentially run by international conglomerates, I doubt they will, but they are positioned to.
Please shut up.
Stop whining
Okay 👌