They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?

  • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it’s not currently profitable in most cases. Capitalism ensures that the merit of an idea comes secondary to it’s profitability. We don’t get the best things, we get the profitable things.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What kind of benefits are there to maglev trains that are not cost related?

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Better acceleration, steeper inclines, tighter curves at same speed, better ride quality and less wear. As someone has mentioned below, normal trains could go a lot faster than they do in practice, because the ride quality, wear and wind resistance get atrocious, and the tracks need to be exceptionally straight. Making a maglev go fast is more feasible, though you still have the wind resistance issue obviously.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then it’s good that we don’t have them, isn’t it? Kool_Newt’s post implies that it’s due to a failing of capitalism, but this sounds like a win to me. I’d rather my money go towards food and housing than a faster or more comfortable experience doing something I rarely need.

          • Venutianxspring@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but if it lessens the impact on the climate from air travel and vehicles, then it’s a good thing. Especially if they can become reliable and convenient enough that people don’t need to have their own vehicles to drive everywhere.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s basically evolution. It’s not that we don’t get the best things, it’s that when something evolves traits that require more energy than they are worth, they inevitably die out. I’m reminded of the film The Man in the White Suit.

      It’d be nice to always have the “best” things, but the “energy” to support them has to come from somewhere.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But unfortunately the mechanism that is dictating which traits are carried through and which are left to die out, is capitalism. Not just that, but short sighted capitalism.

        I’m not saying maglev is the be all and end all, I’m just saying that this “evolution” is sort of (extremely) fucked.

    • Joker@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where are all the maglev trains in non-capitalist countries? Sooner or later, in any system, someone has to do a cost benefit analysis and decide whether it’s worth it. It’s not just about profitability. There are plenty of situations in the US where something is unprofitable but still funded because the benefit is worth it.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          China is very much capitalist and has been for at least three decades now.

      • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where are all the maglev trains in non-capitalist countries?

        There aren’t really any non-capitalist countries except maybe like N. Korea, which is not known for deciding things on merit.

        There are plenty of situations in the US where something is unprofitable but still funded because the benefit is worth it.

        I suppose, in some rare cases where there is not heavy lobbying and massive industry resisting it in an effort to preserve their power and wealth.

    • traches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to defend capitalism in general, but it’s really good at answering these sort of “is it worth the cost?” aquestions. The whole point is to allocate scarce resources efficiently; the problem is that it assumes nobody is a scumbag and all the costs are accounted for.

      • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also really good at “externalizing” costs one does not want to factor in – making it worthless for the stated purpose.

      • The current, dominant form of capitalism isn’t and doesn’t, though. It maximizes short-term profits and ignores all other medium and long-term costs. The efficient allocation of scarce resources doesn’t happen when inefficient allocation yields greater short-term profit. The stock market ensures that high short-term yields with lower total returns will be favored over the inverse. In particular, it emphasizes competition over cooperation, which is more resource wasteful for the gestalt.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t. Most decision makers of capitalism are very unaware of science. You’d know this if you work in research. The ideas that see light of day do so not because they’re good in any quantifiable sense. It is because they convince the capitalists. This can be affected by so many things that aren’t merit or even cost based.

        Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective. Profit isn’t just about cost. There’s margins, competition, longevity, etc. Something can be of moderate costs, but if the margins are too low or it is too long term or a project, it is of low value to capitalists.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m really struggling to understand what you’re getting at here.

          Whether or not a decision maker is aware of science, their products will still be subject to the laws of physics.

          Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective.

          For example?

          • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To simplify it, when capitalism answers “is it worth the cost?”, it is not answering “is the benefit of this thing to society worth the cost?”. They’re answering “are the profits I would get out of this and the risk worth the cost?”. And profits do not always agree with what’s good for society.

            One example of moderate-to-low cost investments that are of demand in society but not very profitable and hence does not see focus is low-income housing (at least in the US). Housing developments disproportionally target high income or even luxury housing, as the margins on those are far better (but the costs are also much higher). Even nowadays, that this trend has been going on for a while, and luxury housing has really fallen out of demand (which greatly increases the risk), it continues. Luxury housing still looks a better investment to investors, when society does not need more luxury housing. It needs more moderate and low income housing.

            • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              To simplify it, when capitalism answers “is it worth the cost?”, it is not answering “is the benefit of this thing to society worth the cost?”. They’re answering “are the profits I would get out of this and the risk worth the cost?”

              Perfect