3 ms·

You're right, but you're not rebutting his point, you're actually reinforcing it: all of those things were possible in 1950, we just made them faster. The whole

by rakoo 11y ago

You're right, but you're not rebutting his point, you're actually reinforcing it: all of those things were possible in 1950, we just made them faster. The whole point of the post is that very little is completely new, meaning (close to) not understandable to a 1950 man: > They will no doubt be impressed with miniaturization as an evolutionary spectacle, but will tend to have a context for the functional capabilities of our gizmos You say that we can now face to face with people from the other side of the world in real time -- he says if there was as much innovation (and not just refinement) as there was between 1885 and 1950, we should be able to interact with a hologram of someone from the other side of the Solar System. The real change a 1950's man would see is probably how more linked humans are (mostly first world humans though) and how much more interaction there can be.

pixl97 11y ago
Welcome to science. First rule, exponential growth is not capable forever. Second rule, duplicating what is already there is far easier than creating something new. The second rule is what is important. All of our 'innovation' from 1750 to 1950 was because we decided to interact with the world using the scientific method. Once we started correctly classifying observations and experiments we quickly learned the limits of physics. Light speed is light speed and there is no getting around it. Instantaneous communications over long distance is not possible. The problem we have is non scientists attempted to make predictions of the future with no understanding of how reality works. This gave us the incorrect expectation that we could use unlimited energy forever. Just using more and more energy to get the job done is not innovative. With all the easily observable gains taken early, the things we do now are highly innovative, but require massive amounts of data to do. The reduction in the amount of energy required to accomplish a task will be the legacy of our century.
wutbrodo 11y ago
The distinctions drawn by him (and you) seem entirely arbitrary to me. Why is an atomic bomb more than just a big bomb, and voice transmission more than just an extension of signal transmission (telegrams), but somehow real-time transmission of video is nothing new? How do the first two somehow transcend "refinement" but the latter doesn't?

by rakoo 11y ago

pixl97 11y ago

Welcome to science. First rule, exponential growth is not capable forever. Second rule, duplicating what is already there is far easier than creating something new. The second rule is what is important. All of our 'innovation' from 1750 to 1950 was because we decided to interact with the world using the scientific method. Once we started correctly classifying observations and experiments we quickly learned the limits of physics. Light speed is light speed and there is no getting around it. Instantaneous communications over long distance is not possible. The problem we have is non scientists attempted to make predictions of the future with no understanding of how reality works. This gave us the incorrect expectation that we could use unlimited energy forever. Just using more and more energy to get the job done is not innovative. With all the easily observable gains taken early, the things we do now are highly innovative, but require massive amounts of data to do. The reduction in the amount of energy required to accomplish a task will be the legacy of our century.

wutbrodo 11y ago

The distinctions drawn by him (and you) seem entirely arbitrary to me. Why is an atomic bomb more than just a big bomb, and voice transmission more than just an extension of signal transmission (telegrams), but somehow real-time transmission of video is nothing new? How do the first two somehow transcend "refinement" but the latter doesn't?