MovieChat Forums > Chain Reaction (1996) Discussion > Why Morgan Freeman's character is right.

Why Morgan Freeman's character is right.

posted 16 years ago by Bladerunner
4 replies | jump to latest

Morgan Freeman's character (Mr. Shannon) is right, you can't just dump this technology onto the world for free. There are many reasons that Shannon is right:

1. The U.S. had spent probably millions upon millions (the senator at the oversight committee meeting says so), that is a significant investment of *our* money. Do we spend all of that taxpayer money and then just *give* the technology away? That would be a pretty irresponsible stewardship of our tax dollars.

2. Our country has been spending billions and billions on foreign oil, which has helped amass a very large trade deficit. We need a way to help balance that deficit, and the way to do that is to come up with something that other people need. Selling our energy created with this new technology, or licensing the rights to the technology would greatly help us balance the trade deficit.

3. There is nothing wrong with making a profit from an investment. As a matter-of-fact if investors didn't get a return for their dollars, they wouldn't make the investment. The U.S. had a substantial investment in the discovery of this technology, and it is perfectly reasonable that they would make a profit from that investment.

4. Dumping cheap, clean and abundant energy on the world would be devastating (just as Shannon said). Not just for our country, but for many other countries as well. It would be MUCH better to begin construction here of plants that use this technology and let the world know (slowly) that we have it. That would create many advantages for us (leverage, power) and we could sell the technology to countries that can afford it, and gift it to countries who can't, creating alliances in the process. NO country would want this technology just dumped on the world.

5. What is wrong with our country being the sole owner of this technology for a while? Every country needs an edge, and advantage in today's global marketplace for the future of it's citizenry. Energy isn't just about "rich" people, it is about *everyone* who uses it. Poor people use it, to heat their homes, cook their food, burn lights so their children can study. The technology should be given freely to *our* citizens, and competition will drive the price way, way down, which would be a *huge* boost to our economy for many years to come.

This technology would be a huge moneymaker for our country, which would in turn mean housing, food, clothing and education for our people. Just giving this away would basically destroy our economy (along with most of the world's) and we would forfeit all the advantages we were working so hard to give ourselves by investing in this research and busting our ass to make it work.

Do we give away our patents? Do we give away all of our software, secret formulas and technology as well? It would be wonderful to give this to poor nations, or help them build plants based on this technology, but why would we just give this away to superpowers like China, Russia, France, Britain, and on and on?

This technology would be no different than any other investment to keep our country prosperous and strong. Giving it away would be absurd, it would mean that we had worked all that time and so very hard for nothing. Giving it (or "gifting" it) to poorer nations would be very rewarding to us, spiritually (which is the greatest reward), but we also have to think about our future. Apple doesn't give away it's iPod patent, or the Mac operating system, because that is how they stay afloat and continue providing jobs for thousands of people. This technology would do the same for the citizens of our country. Millions of us could get jobs building the new plants that provide energy based on this technology, here and abroad. The money we would make from this new energy source would put a lot of our people to work and pay off (probably) all of our foreign debt.

I think the technology should be offered to everyone, and given to poorer nations in exchange for alliances and such, but simply "giving" it away is the wrong thing to do. Our nation needs technology like this to keep our people fed.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Ctrl-Opt-Del 9 years ago

I'll bet if the two British scientists had stayed at home & developed the cold fusion technology in the UK then you'd not have a problem with the US getting the tech for free (indeed, you'd probably demand it)! 😉

[–] Vashramana 8 years ago

It is a delicate issue. Keeping the technology is not the answer, but letting the entire world know how it works right off the bat is not either. Anytime a new technology comes along that makes something obsolete, it needs to be done gradually. Electric cars are a good example of this. If all cars were immediately converted to run using electric engines nearly all auto shops, gas stations, refineries, etc...would all have to close, and millions would be out of a job.

Things will change, but you have to be patient.

[–] chester-copperpot-1 8 years ago

That's pretty ironic, since electric cars have been around since before the gas powered automobile. In fact, before the T-Ford, the world wasn't really sure gas was the way forward, electric cars were about on the same level. There was no infrastructure like gas stations, and so on. You had to buy gasoline over counter at the pharmacist or drug store. When the infrastructure was in place, and above all, gas powered cars could be made cheaply and in large numbers, like the T-Ford, development in electric cars more or less seized over night and for the next hundred years. On electric cars, we're more or less on the same level now than a hundred years ago. What's changed is environmental issues and the fact that gas is not an endless resources and that the price of gas will only go up. It has taken a hundred years, but electric cars will be cheaper to run in the future....

[–] Vashramana 8 years ago

I agree.