What makes a 'smart gun' smart?

January 11, 2016 by Donald Sebastian, New Jersey Institute Of Technology, The Conversation
The iGun’s RFID-type system is locked in the upper photo. In the inset, a user’s tag (in the form of a ring) is close enough and the weapon is ready to fire, with the firing mechanism no longer blocked. Credit: iGun Technology Corp, CC BY-ND

Every time a toddler accidentally shoots a friend or family member, a teen kills himself via gunshot or a shooter perpetrates an act of mass violence, public discussion circles back to "smart gun" technology. The concept has roots in a 1995 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study that recommended a technology-based approach to reduce the incidence of police officers killed in gun-grabs by assailants. More recently, President Obama's message on gun violence included specific recommendations on federal actions designed to promote the development and commercialization of electronic gun-safety systems.

The term "smart gun" has been embraced by the popular press as a catchall for all forms of electronic personalized safety technology. The idea is to make sure a gun can be fired only by its authorized user. But the different scenarios in which a gun could be inappropriately discharged call for fundamentally different safety systems.

The metaphor of a common door lock is a useful way to think about the various technological approaches. The key serves as the personal identifier. The pin tumblers that recognize the key inside the lock serve as the authenticator. And the latch serves as the block. All electronic gun safety systems must accomplish all three of these basic functions – identify authorized shooters, authenticate their credentials and then release the block to the firing mechanism.

How one satisfies those needs is subject to the performance constraints of the application environment and the physical constraints of the itself. These differences create distinct branches on the family tree of personalized-weapons technology.

Various groups are working on different ways to use fingerprint recognition to authenticate whose hand is on a gun. Credit: Kai Kloepfer, CC BY-ND

Proximity sensors – can you hear me now?

One group of solutions owes its heritage to the NIJ study focused on protecting police weapons from takeaway during a close quarters struggle. It suggested a token-based proximity sensor using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). A number of working RFID prototype guns have been demonstrated, beginning with Colt's 1996 handgun and including Triggersmart, iGun M-2000 and the Armatix iP1.

In a badge, wristband or ring, a user wears a passive RFID tag, like those embedded in products to prevent shoplifting. It's the "token" and serves as the key in the front door metaphor. Like a physical key, it can be duplicated or shared. What matters is possession of the token, not the identity of the token holder.

A wireless RFID reader is built into the gun and serves the role of authenticator. It generates a signal that activates the RFID tag to respond with an embedded code. If there's a match, the electromechanical components unblock the weapon firing system and the gun functions normally. The response time of these systems is generally dependent on the choice of electromechanical components used in the blocking system (e.g., servomotors, solenoids, shape memory metals), but are generally less than half a second. By design, the gun can remain active as long as there is a signal link, or in some configurations as long as pressure sensors detect the gun is being held.

If the tag is too far away from the transmitter to self-activate and respond, then it's like losing your key to the front door – the gun remains locked down. The Armatix iP1, for example, specifies a range of 15 inches. If you try to spoof the transponder with a signal that does not contain the individual code, it's like using the wrong key – it may fit the slot but cannot be turned because it does not match the tumblers – and the gun remains locked down.

Various designs interfere with the mechanical firing mechanism in different places – from trigger bar to firing pin. There are also different technologies including solenoid actuators, shape memory alloy-based components and even electronic firing systems that serve as the deadbolt to be released upon receiving an authentication system. The details are proprietary to the individual products on the market and reflect design trade-offs in power consumption, free space to accommodate components and response time.

Proximity of gun to token is not an absolute determinant of rightful possession during a close-quarters struggle. But the technology does offer simplicity of operation, easy weapons exchange across permitted users (i.e., partners) and reliably disables a weapon from use if the officer has been overpowered and the duty weapon taken.

NJIT prototype with Dynamic Grip Recognition™ sensors embedded in the handgun grip. Credit: Donald Sebastian, CC BY-ND

Biometrics – do I know you?

The benefits of a token-based system in a street encounter become a liability in the home. The viability of the approach is wholly dependent on the owner securing the token where it cannot be accessed by denied users. But guns used for home protection are more likely to have token and weapon stored together to prevent any delay in the event of an intrusion. And anyone who has both the token and the weapon can fire it.

A second group of technologies evolved in response to child-safe handgun legislation adopted in New Jersey and Maryland in the early 2000s, designed to prevent unauthorized use of personal firearms stored in the home. Biometric authentication systems eliminate the physical token. Instead, a measurable physical characteristic of any authorized user becomes the key. It can't be taken without permission, counterfeit or otherwise transferred.

To date, fingerprints have been the primary attribute used in biometric systems. Kodiak Arms Intelligun and Safe Gun Technology's retrofit for rifles use fingerprint detection as a primary mode of security. If the fingerprint is the key, then the sensor and pattern matching software are the pin tumblers that perform the authentication function in these guns.

The most widely used sensor technology relies on capacitance imaging of the fingerprint. The variation in distance between the ridges and grooves of the finger and the sensor plate creates a distribution of electrical charge storage (capacitance) that can be measured in an array of conductor plates in the sensor. Other fingerprint sensors rely on infrared (thermal) imaging, and some use pressure detection to create a digital pattern that is a unique representation of the print.

The sensor software needs to be trained to store acceptable patterns that may represent different fingers of a single user or various fingers from multiple authorized users. After that, any pattern that doesn't match within some specified tolerance is rejected. The reliability of the authentication process is influenced by the resolution of the sensor, the extent and orientation of the exposed finger, and physical factors that can interfere with the mapping. For example, moisture on the finger can defeat a capacitive detector, cold fingers can reduce the reliability of thermal imaging, and dirt, paint or gloves can obscure the fingerprint beyond recognition.

There are other types of biometric security being explored. One prototype sponsored by NIJ adopted vascular biometrics that detect the blood vessel structure below the skin surface. An emerging class of biometrics are dynamic or behavioral and combine some element of individualized physicality amplified by learned patterns of behavior. For instance, voice identification combines the structure of one's vocal chords with the breath patterns of speech learned in infancy. Electronic signature authentication captures the speed and pressure of pen on LCD pad (and not the image of the signature) as the signer executes handwriting in a pattern ingrained early in life.

The video will load shortly

Over the last 15 years, our research team at NJIT has developed a gun safety system based on a novel behavioral biometric called Dynamic Grip Recognition™ (DGR). The team demonstrated that changes over time to the pressure pattern created on the grip of a handgun as one counter-braces the force of trigger pull were individual to the user, reproducible and measurable.

Our prototype detects grip patterns during the first 1/10th of a second of trigger pull and unlocks the weapon with no apparent lag to the shooter. Because DGR works during trigger pull of a properly held weapon, the approach can also reduce accidental firings during mishandling of a loaded weapon.

Reliability – can I trust you?

Reliability is always a concern raised in discussions of electronic gun safety systems.

The interior of a firing weapon is not a friendly environment for electronics, but there is now a sufficient history of ruggedized circuitry that failure rates of the underlying electronic hardware are orders of magnitude less than the predicted failure rates of the mechanical weapon (somewhere between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10,000 depending on the precision and quality of the weapon).

Power is clearly a concern here, too. But advances in microprocessor technology and battery storage that have been driven by smart phones and portable electronics remove this issue as a show stopper. Motion detection and wake-up software can reduce battery drain during storage. Integrating the power supply to the ammunition clip and even charging by mechanical cycling are all ways to address power loss as a mode of failure.

In biometric systems, there is another element to consider: failure of the identification algorithm. Those are false negatives in which a rightful user is not recognized, or false positives in which an impostor is wrongly authenticated. The recognition rates for fingerprint detectors have been claimed to be as high as 99.99 percent (1 in 10,000 failure rate).

As the array of sensor technologies grows, one might expect a multisensor or multispectral approach to be the ultimate choice for biometric-based systems. These have the advantage of multiplying reliability rates when independent measures are used. For example, a fingerprint sensor with a 1-in-10,000 failure rate, coupled with a dynamic grip recognition with a failure rate of 1 in 1000, would produce a combined reliability of 1 in 10,000 x 1000 or 1 in 10,000,000.

Will we ever be able to buy one?

Throughout the 20-year-long discussion of "smart guns," the topic has been a lightning rod for debate between pro- and anti-gun lobbies. But too often, there isn't substantive knowledge of the underlying technologies, their appropriate use and their design limitations.

Personalized weapons technology can make a contribution to reducing death and injury from accidental or unauthorized weapons use. It is not a panacea – the technology can't stop shootings like Virginia Tech, Aurora or Sandy Hook, where lawfully purchase weapons were used. But it can be an option for gun buyers to ensure their weapons never fall into the wrong hands.

The existing platforms show that smart guns are not science fiction and could be a commercial reality much sooner than later. A recent survey by the NIJ identified 13 different personalized weapon systems, at least three of which were deemed to be in commercial preproduction. Obama's initiative could be an important step to accelerate development and promote private sector investment necessary to mature these technologies to the point of reliability and affordability that will spur consumer adoption.

Explore further: With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely

Related Stories

With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely

May 21, 2013

A high-tech startup is wading into the gun control debate with a cellphone controller that would allow gun owners to know when their weapon is being moved—and disable it remotely.

The trouble with taking biometric technology into schools

January 7, 2016

More usually criticised for their conservative approach to technology, schools are becoming proving grounds for some of the latest biometrics and portable biomedical engineering devices. Or so it would appear, with St Mary's ...

Recommended for you

Swiss unveil stratospheric solar plane

December 7, 2016

Just months after two Swiss pilots completed a historic round-the-world trip in a Sun-powered plane, another Swiss adventurer on Wednesday unveiled a solar plane aimed at reaching the stratosphere.

Solar panels repay their energy 'debt': study

December 6, 2016

The climate-friendly electricity generated by solar panels in the past 40 years has all but cancelled out the polluting energy used to produce them, a study said Tuesday.

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Blueman
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
A great idea, which I would support if the price is not too high. But what is the price for these controls? the article didn't say. If the cost is, for example $1000-$5100 per gun, and this is made law, it may (legally) price guns out of the range of the average law abiding person, thus again, only the very wealthy or criminals will have access to guns.
Please clarify the current price for these controls.
Llaotzu
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2016
Any legislation that would require "smart gun" technology be installed on firearms is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Smart gun technology is a perfect rock solid example of the infringement of the peoples right to bear arms.

There is no argument on this matter. If the people cannot bear arms freely, meaning without restriction..ie. pick up a weapon from their dead companion recently shot by his loving government and immediately use the weapon without hindrance, then their rights have in FACT been INFRINGED.

Lets not forget the number one killer of mankind behind mosquitoes, is their own government.

Democide: Governments Killed Over 260 Million in the 20th Century
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here and point out the obvious:

An electronic smart gun can be remotely disabled by jamming the RFID frequency used for identifying the owner, making a smart gun useless against a government agency or a criminal who is wearing a jammer device.

If in the future every gun was a smart gun, a criminal would buy an antique revolver and a wideband radio jammer, and shoot without being shot at.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Lets not forget the number one killer of mankind behind mosquitoes, is their own government.

Democide: Governments Killed Over 260 Million in the 20th Century


When was the last time you used your gun to stop the government from killing someone?
ab3a
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
When was the last time you used your gun to stop the government from killing someone?


Thankfully, not in my lifetime. And I sincerely hope I never have to. However, knowing that the public is armed what usually keeps politicians from enacting laws that the public did not or would not agree to. Like Nuclear Weapons, all that is needed is knowledge that these arms exist and that they're used by well trained people. I visit the range at least twice every month. That's more than many police officers.

I do respect our government, and it in turn should respect the citizens of this country. That's what the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to achieve. These notions were discussed in the Federalist Papers, so please don't think this was some sophistry hatched by evil gun manufacturers. It was discussed by the framers of the Constitution themselves.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2016
You are wrong, ab3a. We needed the "Well-Regulated Militia" because we had essentially no standing Army. It was NOT to "protect" us from the government, it was our only army at the time.

Guns have since become penile substitutes.
ab3a
5 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
gkam, if you expect reasonable discussion, you would do well to refrain juvenile insults and unsupported arguments.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
You are wrong, ab3a.


Non Cher, you are. Again.

We needed the "Well-Regulated Militia" because we had essentially no standing Army. It was NOT to "protect" us from the government, it was our only army at the time.


T. Jefferson's reason for the 2n Amendment. IN HIS OWN WORDS,,,

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."


Do you actually start out to see if you can say something wrong? Seems like.

glam-Skippy. Yet another time you let your emotions overrule your reasoning power (if you ever had the power to reason to start with.)

Guns have since become penile substitutes.


Hooyeei, well I guess you got us with that one Cher. What that even mean Cher? Must be something you read on one of those new-agey old hippie blogs.

gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2016
What are the very first words of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which puts the entire section in perspective?

And the "juvenile insult" was an observation of the "need" for guns.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
It was NOT to "protect" us from the government, it was our only army at the time..


You might want to ask Google-Skippy about that Cher. You need all the help you can get. We have had a national "standing army" ever since 1776. Continually. G. Washington was it's first commander in chief, before he was President.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2016
I want to invent a gun which lets a deer shoot back.
24volts
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
The first time a policeman or two armed with one of these gets killed because the guns wouldn't recognize them or wouldn't fire due to some electronic malfunction you can expect these to be relegated to the dustbin of history where they the idea behind them belong.

What will happen to many of them when and if sold to the public will simply be the fact that the electronics will be stripped out and bypassed so the gun will operate purely by mechanical means anyway.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Even "smart" guns can find their way into the hands of idiots who go out to shoot the pen-raised wing-clipped quail, only to hit their friends in the face.

It takes real guts to go out and face whose wild creatures, armed only with an automatic shotgun, a bevy of armed friends, and a squad of Secret Service, to keep the birds from hurting you.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
What are the very first words of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which puts the entire section in perspective?.


Your perspective. There was no "national militia" couyon. It is concerning the rights of citizens in the states. There WAS a national "standing army", that is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

No court, high or low, has very ruled that the "well regulated militia" phrase in any way means the right is only for the context of serving in the militia. Never, not in 225 years. Was every one of those courts wrong? It's the law of the land Cher. Change the Constitution, the Founders were smart and left us ways to do that.

But they also really smart to make it hard to do, just for peoples like you who think they think better than everybody else. Law making by emotion is a couyons work.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
Snarkiness aside, we need a way to reduce the violence, folks. What you suggest?

Arming evryone will result in a bloodbath. And our civilian arms are not going to stop Big Brother, since we gave away our Democracy to the Police State.

The interesting thing is, from what is reported, we have essentially the same folk buying all the guns, not more people buying guns.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Snarkiness aside, we need a way to reduce the violence, folks. What you suggest?


Stricter background checks so peoples with mental conditions have a harder time getting them. Stricter controls and record keeping so better to keep up when a gun "goes missing" and a year late shows up in a crime. And education. Non, not so much about guns, but how to be good citizen and respecting your fellow citizens.

Nothing will work unless the children start learning values again, from the cradle again.

And our civilian arms are not going to stop Big Brother


Non, not a bunch "patriot" hilly bills it won't.But when 200 or 300 millions all start thinking things have gone to far, yeah, they can stop that. I don't see it ever coming to that.
since we gave away our Democracy to the Police State

The interesting thing is, from what is reported, we have essentially the same folk buying all the guns, not more people buying guns


What the heck does that mean?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
I want to invent a gun which lets a deer shoot back.


Yeah, I can see you doing that. Cher, you really got some serious thinking flaws. Oh, I'm sorry, that was meant to be witty and glibby and wise? Sorry. Yeah hooyeei, that is the good one Cher.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Yup, them folk with the guns is real rational. Just ask anyone in Oregon.

We need guns which require rational thought. It can reduce suicides, over half of the gun deaths, and rage-induced murders, some of the rest.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
We need guns which require rational thought. It can reduce suicides, over half of the gun deaths, and rage-induced murders, some of the rest.


What kind of gobbledygook it that? Cher it don't even say anything more than hysterical hand-wringing is part of your mental make-up.

What the heck is a "gun with rational thought anyway"? It is not the gun you got to be afraid of Cher. It's the morally corrupt peoples among you. And the fact there now 8 or 7 billions of them taking up resources and space that can handle maybe 1 billion comfortably

Want to do something for the quality of lives? To protect the environment? Cher all that pie sky stuffs you keep in you slogans won't do nothing until you come to gripes with the fact there are too many consumers on the planet, and more and more are able to afford to consume more stuffs. That's the elephant in the room Cher. Too many peoples.. Growing populations with shrinking resources and space.

kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
Yup, them folk with the guns is real rational. Just ask anyone in Oregon
I suggest eliminating psychotropic medications would be more effective than banning tools
antigoracle
3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
I just have to say it.
Smart guns for dumb Americans.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2016
But when 200 or 300 millions all start thinking things have gone to far, yeah, they can stop that. I don't see it ever coming to that.


The main reason it won't come to that is because a situation where the government suddenly starts to oppress its people is impossible. It always takes some kind of lead-up, which means you won't get a 300 million uprising against the people in Washington one blue morning when everybody up and decides enough is enough.

It will be more like 150 million against the other 150 million who side with the government - and everyone has guns. A civil war.

That's the major reason why the 2nd amendment reasoning is the age old "crocodile whistle" argument: you keep blowing into it and the crocodiles stay away - especially when there's no crocodiles around. When a real crocodile appears, it won't listen to the whistle.

Perhaps the real reason is that some people still really -want- to have a re-match of a civil war.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2016
Perhaps the real reason is that some people still really -want- to have a re-match of a civil war.


Well I for one don't want to survive that thing. Before it comes to that, I want to be dead and dust a long time.

The world populations are growing and growing. There is only so much land for them to grow into. There is only so much resources for them to use.

But most peoples don't tink about the fact that there is 6 or 5 billions of peoples who want to get to the standard of living we have in the 1stest world. It is not possible. It won't ever be possible. That is the issue that is facing humanity.

There is not enough stuffs to make the peoples in Somalia able to live like the peoples in Arizona. There is not enough stuffs to turn New Delhi into New York. There is not enough stuffs to turn Beijing into Los Angeles. Or Rio into Chicago or London.

99% of the geniuses here on the phyorg have no idea how those peoples live and how they want to live..
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2016
There is not enough stuffs to turn Beijing into Los Angeles. Or Rio into Chicago or London.


There probably isn't any need for them either.

Much of the "living standards" we enjoy in the first world are effectively a waste of resources.

For example, buildings in the US are still sometimes built with AC systems that run independently, so one part of the house is being heated while the other part is being cooled. Or, some homes in London don't even have double glazed windows. The hotel I was in in Scotland had all the sewers and water pipes running on the outside of the walls in the inner courtyard with no thermal insulation on them etc. etc.

The general impression was that the people were frugal with electricity because you have a meter on the wall and a switch on every power socket, but had absolutely no idea when it came to gas consumption or energy efficiency in general.

Windows fogging up after a shower? Just turn up the heat and open the windows.

gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2016
A smart gun shoots corks.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2016
Much of the "living standards" we enjoy in the first world are effectively a waste of resources.


I am not talking about heat and air conditioning or hot water. I am talking about stuffs. Those peoples are all getting the internet. They want their own cars, their own 1200 sq ft apartments, their own closets full of clothes, their own dozens of restaurants to choose from. They see what we have in the west, and they want it too. Conservation is a noble idea, but peoples are basically selfish in their genes. Something's got to give. Because they all want what you got, I got and what glam-Skippy's got.

So who is going to give up their lifestyles? All the peoples in the west? You think so? Ain't going to happen. And all those 3rd world peoples aren't going to quit wanting it. And there are not enough resources to turn Asia into North American. Or Africa into Europe Or South America into Australia

The affluent peoples is massively outnumbered.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2016
Guns?

We have become a nation of personal cowards.
Llaotzu
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2016

There have been some fairly ignorant remarks made on this thread.

It comes down to this. This 2nd amendment say what it says. It is very clear.

In addition to that, there are many written comments from the men who wrote the 2nd amendment about their intentions and reasoning.

Now... if the people of the USA want to change the 2nd amendment, I won't agree, but it is our right as a nation to do so.

BUT! until that day comes we will FOLLOW the law and RESPECT our bill of rights. Do not try to put me or others down for protecting our rights.

Do not expect to be treated kindly when you try to deny me my rights. I do not want to control you, i expect the same in return.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
"This 2nd amendment say what it says. It is very clear."
----------------------------------

Yes, . . the very first phrase puts it all into context of government-run "Well-Regulated" state militia.

You want a gun? Join the State Guard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
"This 2nd amendment say what it says. It is very clear."
----------------------------------

Yes, . . the very first phrase puts it all into context of government-run "Well-Regulated" state militia.

You want a gun? Join the State Guard.
Oh yeah and in addition to all his other phony claims of knowledge and experience, george thinks he knows more about law than all the judges who have decided otherwise on this issue.

This is the sort of delusion that the disease of psychopathy bestows on the afflicted.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
otto is jealous of his neo-Fascist buddies in the States, who get to have Big Guns. All otto gets is Mommy's keyboard.

I outgrew them, otto. Perhaps you could, too, if they let you have one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
otto is jealous of his neo-Fascist buddies in the States, who get to have Big Guns. All otto gets is Mommy's keyboard.

I outgrew them, otto
You mean you grew old and decrepit right? Hell I thought a tuffguy vet spook like yourself wouldve wanted to join the militia.

Oh thats right - soldering circuit boards in nam and riding around the Thai countryside on your little scooter made you sick of killing.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
"nam"? Where did you earn the right to call it "Nam"?

It's like your OBE: Stolen Valor.
Llaotzu
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016


"This 2nd amendment say what it says. It is very clear."
----------------------------------

Yes, . . the very first phrase puts it all into context of government-run "Well-Regulated" state militia.

You want a gun? Join the State Guard.


I already have guns bud. So in your opinion the only way anything can be "well-regulated" is by the government. Talk about proving the point. Government tools everywhere.

Ok.... nice of you to leave out the rest as well. Your comprehension skills are elementary at best.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2016
Your need for a man-killer says more about your fears than your words.

Please read the first phrase of the Second Amendment and write it down here for us, . . okay?
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 14, 2016
I am not talking about heat and air conditioning or hot water. I am talking about stuffs.


"Stuff" is cheap. The gallon of gasoline you pour into your fuel tank can be made into a dozen new shirts on the basis of the raw material and energy contents, and you blow it up the sky probably every morning you drive to work.

Most of the stuff what we consume day to day pales in comparison to the raw energy we waste, and most stuff is recyclable if only we have the energy to do so. There's enough materials to make everyone just about everything - but not enough energy to do so.

If we had unlimited energy, we could build a factory that makes clothes, fuel, building materials, toilet paper, almost anything you want - even food - out of simply sea water and air. Carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen - that goes a long way.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2016
So who is going to give up their lifestyles? All the peoples in the west?


Quite likely, since saving energy is also saving money, so you can afford even more "stuffs" you can make with all the energy you saved. The question is simply about getting the same things for less.

For example, I pointed out under another article that US drivers drive three times as much despite living in cities and towns where people live just as densely as in France. The difference being that everything in the US was planned and built when gasoline was cheap, whereas everything in France was made when they had a gasoline shortage after WW2.

Both enjoy roughly the same living standards, but the Americans have to drive more because that's just how it's done in the US of A. There's no inherent reason to maintain this "lifestyle" - except bad reasons like "It's the American way".
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2016
"nam"? Where did you earn the right to call it "Nam"?

It's like your OBE: Stolen Valor.
Ahaahaaahaaaaa so you earn the right by riding your little scooter through the Thai countryside, and also soldering wires and plugging things in?

Or do you need to wait until these things make you 'sick of killing'?

Ahaahaahaaaaaa what a fucking joke you are.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.