Disruptive Technologies: technologies that when they appear often will almost overnight destroy existing technologies.
The old technologies are made either obsolete or prohibitively expensive in comparison.
Examples like the Fuel Cell.
There is the opportunity that a viable and more importantly affordable solution could be found at any time.
The sort of middle of the night "OH My God!" discovery.
This could easily lead to the destruction of several industries. Affordable units that will be capable of more than adequately powering homes
would negate the need entirely for power plants and power companies themselves.
It is generally accepted there would be enough leftover extra power YOU could charge the Power Companies for your extra juice.
Another example is a type of chip developed by a company called Mesh Technologies in Florida.
Basically anywhere you put this chip turns it into a kind of wireless relay station ( a quick easy visualization for the tech impaired)
The more places these chips are the more efficient the lines of connection are. you don't even need clear line of sight like satellites.
They can go into anything; car radios, radios in general, just paced in cars, put in home computers, PDAs, cell phones, on peoples homes, places of business etc.
The information of say, your phone call, could easily find a way to get to its destination.
It would quickly destroy the phone companies. It would become impossible to charge for air time. There is the distinct possibility that communication becomes free.

(the only remaining market would be in making the chips to provide the communication. alright it's far fetched but not impossible)

You could make calls from anywhere to anywhere and it would be so cheap most telcos would fail for lack of attainable income
(There is also the more immediate threat of VoIP. )
Research into ceramics and nanotubes have provided material much more useful than steel.
They are hundreds of times more durable, infinitely lighter and can actually be grown in to the desired shape and form.
Steel has reached a point where it will not get any more efficient to make and at least in this country cannot be produced
economically enough to compete in the global market.
The point of this debate is. This could and probably would lead to massive unemployment as these companies fall.
Whole job markets could disappear almost overnight.
While new industries and jobs would appear, as uses for the new technologies are discovered OR
restraints from the limitations of the old technologies were removed, this wouldn't happen that quickly. Probably a ten year window..
Needless to say this could cause Grande problems economically.
This won't always result in fear over the ensuing loss of jobs. As we saw with the Telemarketers over the "Do Not Call" list most people had
absolutely no sympathy for the jobs to be lost there. Say a phone company (Telco) were to be decimated (Sprint, MCI, AT+T) many people hold a grudge with some of these companies for what is felt as unfair business practices)

Similar is the need for better energy supplying resources instead of relying on limited natural resources which will fail sooner rather than later,
Example the auto makers. The gas powered engine is OLD technology. It is wasteful, it is harmful to the environment and it depends on a
resource that is limited and easily leads to military conflicts and death.
it is easy to see that allowing industries to stagnate is dangerous and that
in this new world it wouldn't take much to turn a superpower into a third world country.
Were we to fail to embrace a new technology to support and old one or are forced to by well positioned lobby groups with the ear (pocketbooks)
of politicians and their parties. Who then make it prohibitively expensive to enact the new technologies by placing taxes on such technologies so that no one could afford them. Even industries themselves regularly destroy any competition. Ever seen "Tucker" or the prices of the hybrid cars.
There are often claims that the market decides. However interference from governmental taxes and tariffs. Protections from competition all contribute to corrupt the free flow of competition in the marketplace.



My questions for debate are that should such a technology break loose. (One will it is inevitable these days.)

Should the old technologies and their markets be protected. (The jobs that will be lost)

Can those markets be protected?

In the case of unpopular markets (phone comps) would the knowledge of economic troubles cause people to want to support job protections OR would there be massive unrest and anger over what many might see as corruption and allowing "Big Business" to screw over the little guy by protecting those jobs?

Should industries be forced to evolve?

How about foreign countries who are less well developed than we. Or those that are socialist and depend desperately on the status quo to survive. A disruptive technology could very well destabilize them throwing them into terrible disarray.
So should these technologies then be suppressed?

This is my first attempt at a debate question. I look forward to any responses.