4 ms·

Hypothesis: 1. Advances in fundamental science are what ultimately dictate the growth rate of an economy. For example when you discover quantum mechanics you c

Hypothesis: 1. Advances in fundamental science are what ultimately dictate the growth rate of an economy. For example when you discover quantum mechanics you can make lasers, circuit boards and therefore computers which boosts everything enormously. 2. The more science you have done the harder it is to do more. You can only discover a truth once. For example discovering new elements is extremely hard now compared to when Hennig Brand discovered phospherous in his urine. Consequences: 1. When a society gets the scientific method right it goes through an S shape curve (logistic curve), where science accelerates for a while and then plateuas out. 2. When you hit the plateau of the curve the maximum growth rate of the economy becomes very limited, it's just not possible to have new ideas which are worth developing very fast. 3. Human labour still provides a surplus so what you get is more and more resources piling up with nowhere to invest them. Look at Apple's $245bn cash pile, if they had new ideas they would put that money to use. This will cause bond yields to fall to almost nothing and loads of money to be pumped into any startup with a vague hope of accomplishing something. If we are in this situation it would also mean that the 08 crisis is not needed to explain the slowing growth in the world, things are slowing because we don't have many new ideas. Common objections: 1. But what about X invention that happened in the last few years? Invention still happens on the plateau, just slower, NN's, crispr, exoplanets, smartphones are cool, they're not relativity, quantum mechanics, electrification, aeroplanes etc. 2. Scientific progress is exponential! : Accurately fitting a curve to a logistic curve gives you an exponential up until it shifts on you and starts slowing. 3. China and India are still growing strong. : Essentially they are still deploying the previous discoveries. China's growth is slowing over time precisely as it has less and less discoveries to deploy. More to read: DOE finds it can't get supercomputers like it used to. https://www.nextplatform.com/2019/05/06/doe-on-collision-course-with-end-of-moores-law/ https://www.nextplatform.com/2019/05/06/doe-on-collision-cou... https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminish... https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/26/is-science-slowing-down-2/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/26/is-science-slowing-dow...

HNisCurated 7y ago
My one criticism is that 30 years ago how difficult was it to program? Half million humans knew this at Best. Between accessibility to technology and resources to learn it, imagine the scale of new minds. The only reason we'd see stagnation is if the human mind couldn't comprehend what is needed to build a system. Like CERN
NTDF9 7y ago
This is false. There is a LOT of work to be done. A lot of houses can be made out of better material. A lot more books can be produced. A lot of drainage and clean energy systems can be built. But why aren't they? Surely not because the science of it doesn't exit. It's because the printing of money has inflated the bare necessities of humans. Housing, food, education have become crazy expensive. Heck, even a simple iPhone cable is expensive. All these expenses impede progress.
Vekz 7y ago
This is an optimistic invention driven growth curve hypothesis. There is an alternative pessimistic version. Where challenges like climate change, growing infertility rates, anti biotic resistant bacteria, require reactionary invention.

HNisCurated 7y ago

My one criticism is that 30 years ago how difficult was it to program? Half million humans knew this at Best. Between accessibility to technology and resources to learn it, imagine the scale of new minds. The only reason we'd see stagnation is if the human mind couldn't comprehend what is needed to build a system. Like CERN

NTDF9 7y ago

This is false. There is a LOT of work to be done. A lot of houses can be made out of better material. A lot more books can be produced. A lot of drainage and clean energy systems can be built. But why aren't they? Surely not because the science of it doesn't exit. It's because the printing of money has inflated the bare necessities of humans. Housing, food, education have become crazy expensive. Heck, even a simple iPhone cable is expensive. All these expenses impede progress.

Vekz 7y ago

This is an optimistic invention driven growth curve hypothesis. There is an alternative pessimistic version. Where challenges like climate change, growing infertility rates, anti biotic resistant bacteria, require reactionary invention.