DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Will StarTrek Phasers be part of iPhones over next 30 years?
Debate Information
As technology evolves and many of the StarTrek predictions becoming true, will gun phasers become real in the next 20-30 years and if so, would it get embedded as part of an iPhone?
Live Poll
Will startek Phasers be part of iPhones over next 30 years?
To me, it is highly likely that lasers can be available and once they do, they can be in small mobile devices. So yes, I'd say there is a god chance that will become available.
They are removing features, not adding. And besides, Apple can't do anything without copying someone else, so someone else will have to invent it first so that Apple can copy it.
We already have what you might call 'laser cannons' on ships. They don't shoot fancy beams or anything like in movies, but they are essentially a laser cannon that works, is very cheap to shoot, and is basically like using a very large magnifying glass, to put it very simply. Lasers like in Star Trek are probably going to be a reality, as it would be much cheaper than ballistic weapons and it would save on metal. As for how they would work, well that's something we're just going to have to research.
Technology has proven itself constantly to evolve as our knowledge expands. Naturally, there will be a limit to this, but I don't think we will approach it any time soon.
1) There are weapons that could conceivably be part of an iPhone now, like a taser or hell even a flick knife. That Apple are not pursuing this approach indicates they have no interest in doing so.
2) iPhones are not weapons. it isn't part of the concept of the iPhone and there is no more reason to think that they will add a weapon to the iPhone than they will add a swiss army knife or a magnifying glass.
3) It would hurt sales. Many countries have bans or restrictions on weapons, including the USA where there are licensing restrictions, etc. By including a weapon they drastically reduce the market they can sell to. Not only that but even where it may be legal to do so, for ideological or safety reasons it will turn a lot of people off. For instance, how many parents will trust their children with a weapon? Not to mention all the people that just generally don't like carrying firearms?.
4) The physical requirements of a laser weapon functioning anything like a phaser's lower settings (completely ignoring the ability to disintegrate) are immense. The only things vaguely comparable are weapon systems like the XN1-LAWs. For a single burst that will have some marginal effect on a human we're looking at 30 kW. For reference, that's enough energy to power an average person's iphone for about 10 - 20 years. Even putting aside the feasibility of developing batteries which can sustain this and fit in an iPhone (we're a long way off and batteries have basic physical constraints to the amount of energy they can hold which makes this unrealistic) and shrinking down all the other components by a factor of about 10,000, is this really where they would want to spend the power even in the face of massive technological progress? I'm pretty sure for instance that an iPhone that never needed to be recharged would be far more marketable and profitable.
@AlwaysCorrect, excellent research. I now agree with you that it's unlikely. I think that Apple wouldn't do it for reasons you described. I think that technological challenge you described in point 4 maybe overcome though in the next 30 years, and once that happens we may get a mobile version of laser...but just not from Apple.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
We already have what you might call 'laser cannons' on ships. They don't shoot fancy beams or anything like in movies, but they are essentially a laser cannon that works, is very cheap to shoot, and is basically like using a very large magnifying glass, to put it very simply. Lasers like in Star Trek are probably going to be a reality, as it would be much cheaper than ballistic weapons and it would save on metal. As for how they would work, well that's something we're just going to have to research.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Technology has proven itself constantly to evolve as our knowledge expands. Naturally, there will be a limit to this, but I don't think we will approach it any time soon.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are a number of reasons for this:
1) There are weapons that could conceivably be part of an iPhone now, like a taser or hell even a flick knife. That Apple are not pursuing this approach indicates they have no interest in doing so.
2) iPhones are not weapons. it isn't part of the concept of the iPhone and there is no more reason to think that they will add a weapon to the iPhone than they will add a swiss army knife or a magnifying glass.
3) It would hurt sales. Many countries have bans or restrictions on weapons, including the USA where there are licensing restrictions, etc. By including a weapon they drastically reduce the market they can sell to. Not only that but even where it may be legal to do so, for ideological or safety reasons it will turn a lot of people off. For instance, how many parents will trust their children with a weapon? Not to mention all the people that just generally don't like carrying firearms?.
4) The physical requirements of a laser weapon functioning anything like a phaser's lower settings (completely ignoring the ability to disintegrate) are immense. The only things vaguely comparable are weapon systems like the XN1-LAWs. For a single burst that will have some marginal effect on a human we're looking at 30 kW. For reference, that's enough energy to power an average person's iphone for about 10 - 20 years. Even putting aside the feasibility of developing batteries which can sustain this and fit in an iPhone (we're a long way off and batteries have basic physical constraints to the amount of energy they can hold which makes this unrealistic) and shrinking down all the other components by a factor of about 10,000, is this really where they would want to spend the power even in the face of massive technological progress? I'm pretty sure for instance that an iPhone that never needed to be recharged would be far more marketable and profitable.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra