Cover Image: September 2010 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Good Riddance: Human Creations the World Would Be Better Off Without [Preview]

Our highly selective list includes Teflon, dropped calls and the space shuttle















Share on Tumblr

space shuttle

END OF DAYS: This pickup truck to low Earth orbit was neither cheap nor safe. Image: COURTESY OF NASA

In Brief

We'd like to wave goodbye to:

  • Daylight savings time
  • The space shuttle
  • Teflon
  • Landfills
  • Walled gardens
  • Dropped calls
  • Bunker fuel
  • Gene patents
  • Human drivers
  • Bisphenol-A

 

More In This Article

Daylight Savings Time  The extra hour of sunshine comes at a steep price

Daylight savings time has marginally scientific origins: its inventor, New Zealand naturalist George Vernon Hudson, published two papers in the late 19th century arguing for a seasonal two-hour clock shift to “more fully utilize the long days of summer.” The primary appeal, though, has always been to save on energy costs, because extra daylight in the evening reduces the need for lighting. Germany instituted Sommerzeit (“summertime”) as a means to save coal during wartime, and by 1918 Europe, Russia and the U.S. had all followed suit. Clocks went back to normal in peacetime, until daylight savings was temporarily mandated again during World War II. In 1966 the U.S. Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, the first nonwartime implementation of the practice (although, technically, each state could decide whether to go along); daylight savings has since been extended as a response to energy shocks such as the oil embargo of the 1970s.


This article was originally published with the title Good Riddance.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

24 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. dbtinc 08:52 AM 8/23/10

    I must be having a senior moment - is this SA or People Magazine?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. Sisko 09:26 AM 8/23/10

    LOL- careful- SA has begun deleting comments they consider contrary to the site's agenda of fluff

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. eddiequest 10:48 AM 8/23/10

    Good Riddance: teaser issues.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. ChrisJones 12:19 PM 8/23/10

    The space shuttle?! What, are you stupid? And, just what the hell is wrong with teflon? This guy sounds like some kind of luddite moron to me. Well, it has been coming for a while now, but I think SA has pretty completely cleared the shark now. Had to say good bye to The History Channel and the Learning Channel was home-makeover-crap from the very beginning... Now it's goodbye Scientific American.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. egghead1619 12:29 PM 8/23/10

    It's not Daylight Savings Time, it is Daylight Saving Time.

    Why should I subscribe to your website just to read an article? Don't you realize that you could be earning more from advertisements if your community is expansive? Locking down the content simply drives people away from your website. I'm sorry, but I feel that you have stripped this website of its value by adding a subscription paywall. I could understand paying for a physical magazine as it has real material costs associated with its production (not content production, that has always been paid for by advertising), but a digital version does not incur any marginal costs (it costs the same to produce 1 as it does to produce an infinite supply).

    I don't doubt that this comment will be blocked, but hopefully at least some human moderator will read this and begin asking the right questions. Thank you.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. jtdwyer 04:08 PM 8/23/10

    Well, for me, reading the prior commentators excellent comments made it all worthwhile. Thanks - to them!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. Telrunya 04:36 PM 8/23/10

    Sa sinks to a new low with malthusian luddite philosophy. It amazes me that a business that prospers on people (the more the better contrary to malthusian theory)reading their magazine (printed on paper from cut down tree's) or on the internet powered by dirty coal electricity

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. rjones137 05:20 PM 8/23/10

    @ChrisJones. the Article is in it's entirety in the print version. I subscribe.

    Space Shuttle, because if we had kept on using the Saturn, for the same cost, we would have been able to build on the moon, and still have an orbital space station.

    Teflon, because the old style of non-stick often left flakes in folks gut, and was toxic to some wildlife. Newer non-sticks are not Teflon.

    The article is written mostly by staff. It is worth reading. Buy a copy, or go visit the library.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. frgough 06:53 PM 8/23/10

    Maybe some day we can say goodbye to environmentalism. The ideology that has a documented history of causing death and human suffering everywhere it is applied.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. robert schmidt 10:25 PM 8/23/10

    @frgough, stupidity has caused much greater suffering but I don't see you doing anything to stop it. Think globally, act locally.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. SolaceAvatar 11:36 PM 8/23/10

    "Human drivers" count as an invention? Also, in the foreseeable future, AI drivers have a far greater shot at driving into walls and over pedestrians than human drivers do. Heck, in games, where the computer has supposedly perfect knowledge of the area's layout, you /still/ get AIs running endlessly facefirst into walls.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. SolaceAvatar 11:37 PM 8/23/10

    "Human drivers" count as an invention? Also, in the foreseeable future, AI drivers have a far greater shot at driving into walls and over pedestrians than human drivers do. Heck, in games, where the computer has supposedly perfect knowledge of the area's layout, you /still/ get AIs running endlessly facefirst into walls.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. SolaceAvatar 11:37 PM 8/23/10

    Whoops, delete one of those, obviously. And this when you do.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. robert schmidt 08:10 PM 8/24/10

    @SolaceAvatar, "Heck, in games, where the computer has supposedly perfect knowledge of the area's layout, you /still/ get AIs running endlessly facefirst into walls" right solace, because code from computer games would be used to drive cars. I think they use a version of space invaders to control the space shuttle.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. S.H.Bouwhuis 06:27 AM 8/25/10

    I'm also surprised about Teflon. Can someone tell us what is wrong with Teflon?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. David Edwards 07:33 AM 8/31/10

    Patents are intellectual property; hence a gene patent does not give its holder ownership of the gene, but of the new ideas concerning it. This is true of all patents. So, unless one is against all patents, there is no reason to be prejudiced
    against genes, or for that matter, software, mathematics, or laws of nature.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. In-Tokyo 02:39 AM 9/3/10

    The Walled Garden cited does not have nearly the negative impact as software patents.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. BobG in reply to dbtinc 12:42 PM 9/3/10

    This particular issue is "Unscientific American".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  19. 19. Therapistmumbles 09:13 PM 9/10/10

    All of the "Baby Einstein" products need to be eliminated. There use can probably be directly related to the rise in ADHD this country. Infants and toddlers do not benefit from constant electronic stimulation.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  20. 20. harrisjw 09:25 PM 10/12/10

    What's really dopey is that they want more for the digital subscription than for the print. Reminds me of the old ma bell that wanted everyone to shift to touch tone phones...so they charged extra for it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  21. 21. rlocatelli1 09:37 AM 10/19/10

    Why do you insist on perpetuating the myth that DST increases the daylight hours? It merely shifts the arbitrary clock time for the daylight hours. I expect more concise reporting from SA.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  22. 22. Colin den Ronden 01:57 AM 1/14/11

    How about email because it wastes so much productive time? When they had to rely on faxes they only got read by who they were meant for. Now you have people sending emails to everybody in an organisation, and they have to check it out in case there is something significant to them hidden in the text. But they use the excuse that the subject header is adequate. All these whizz kids can do is create more time-wasters like Farmville, but not address this problem.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  23. 23. Chester Graham 01:04 PM 2/9/11

    The world would be better off without 20th-century packaging. Carbon-chain synthetics make lousy packaging. When we are in the workshop, the kitchen, the playroom, and the garage, we re-use glass, metal and cardboard containers. Plastic sacks are less worth keeping. Worth least of all are hooked bubble packs made not to contain, but to display goods of less worth than their extravagant wrapping.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  24. 24. cephalis 03:53 AM 11/11/11

    Why not have one time for the whole Earth? GMT, or what ever. You could put plus or minus after it to indicate our time zone-- the way we do when we set up our computers.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Good Riddance: Human Creations the World Would Be Better Off Without: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X