Where Is My Flying Car? book club questions

1. 1.

   Hall argues the post-1970 technological plateau was caused by specific choices, not physical limits. What evidence would you need to see to be convinced that's the right diagnosis?

2. 2.

   The defeat of nuclear power in the 1970s is Hall's central case study. Do you think the outcome was a mistake, a reasonable response to genuine risks, or something more complicated?

3. 3.

   The gap between progress in information technology and progress in physical technology is striking. Why do you think those two tracks diverged so dramatically after 1970?

4. 4.

   Hall makes a regulatory-capture argument: that regulations ostensibly designed to protect the public often end up protecting incumbents from competition. Where do you see that pattern, and where do you think it's overstated?

5. 5.

   What's the strongest counterargument to Hall's thesis that the Great Stagnation was a policy failure rather than a reflection of genuine physical or economic limits?

6. 6.

   If Hall's flying car projection had been realized—personal air vehicles by 2000—what would cities, suburbs, and transportation networks look like today?

7. 7.

   Hall is explicitly pro-energy-abundance and skeptical of the environmental movement's anti-growth wing. Does that framing help or hurt his argument for readers who don't share those priors?

8. 8.

   The book distinguishes between legitimate safety regulation and performative regulation that creates costs without proportionate benefits. How would you draw that line?

9. 9.

   Which of Hall's historical case studies—nuclear, supersonic flight, construction—do you find most persuasive? Which least persuasive?

10. 10.

    If the regulatory environment loosened substantially in the next decade, which physical technologies do you think are closest to breakthrough, and which would remain stuck?

11. 11.

    The book is a work of technological optimism written from a libertarian perspective. How do you separate the technical claims from the political ones, and does that separation matter?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.