5 ms·

It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? E

It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? Everything humans do is progress forward so that thinking doesnt even make sense. > that they are fundamentally different from any other industry. They’re not. Yes, tech is fundamentally different from all other industries because it's not regulated. Regulation kills innovation thats why tech is progressing faster. Author makes the claim that tech is not random mutation like evolution, but then goes on to mention 1000 projects like smart diapers which are nothing than random mutations of existing products, most of them destined to die, leaving 1 or 2 which will thrive. That sounds a lot like evolution.

31073 7y ago
I assume technology came out of specialization. Which is fueled by population growth.
- buboard 7y ago
  it sure accelerated but technology has always been progressing since tool-making primates exist
daotoad 7y ago
The changes aren't random and generally small. It's closer to Lamarck than Darwin. Remember that successful products aren't necessarily good or beneficial. Tetraethyl lead in gasoline is one example. The Late nineteenth, early 20th century radium craze was full of other examples.
- buboard 7y ago
  Mutations in nature also aren't random and generally small. Different types occur with different probability, and nucleotides are replaced with other nucleotides and not some new life form. But just like startups, mutations are blind to whether they will be beneficial or not. Lamarck's idea of inheritance is not really related to this.
cat199 7y ago
> What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? no, it's suggesting that just because something is new it is not automatically an improvement, and progress exists both on the technological plane and also the moral/ethical/societal one.
- buboard 7y ago
  the title reads the myth of progress itself, not the myth of progress being an improvement
coldtea 7y ago
>It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? Sometimes yes, why not? As a great mathematician said, "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone". >Everything humans do is progress forward so that thinking doesnt even make sense. Well, nuclear warheads, and bio-warfare are not "progress forward". Many things non-war related aren't either. People should stop being naive and confuse mere technological innovation with societal advancement. Or to think that just because some technology is created and gets widespread it's necessarily more good than bad (nukes got widespread too). Technological progress could be the very opposite of societal progress, even help bring a regression in certain aspects (e.g. make it easier for governments to be despotic, and eventually kill democracy). That's not just something for luddites to say either - consider how people like Kurzweil, Hawking, or Musk warned about an "AI Singularity" that could enslave us all. Whether you consider that concern overblown, or not, in principle it shows that not all technological innovation is good.
- buboard 7y ago
  > man's inability yep. the wise mathematician saw that it's impossible > are not "progress forward" nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. Nuclear war and biowarfare are terrible, but the deterrence stalemate it creates is beneficial to the species. It's arguably the most stable recipe for peace so far > mere technological innovation with societal advancement "Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. The two are not related
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. And tomorrow they could wipe out the whole planet (besides the 250,000 people they've already wiped out). What would the verdict be at that case? Probably there wont be one, as there would be noone to make it (or noone who cares to make it). >"Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. My sentiments exactly. So one can't throw it willy nilly when they merely mean technological advancement. Nazi Germany was more technologically advanced than the Weimar republic that preceded it, for example, but few would consider it a "more advanced" society towards more social harmony in general... >Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics* Yeah, so? You can have technological progress without getting into politics on whether it's progress, but you can't have "progress" in abstract without defining towards what. "Freer markets" for example, or "more democracy" is already talking politics... >Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. That's also false. Civilizations have lost technology and regressed backwards at a few points (the "dark ages" after the Roman empire was one of them). And, magical thinking and wishing aside, there's no guarantee from the universe that it can't happen again, even in a much more severe state. Either caused by man (e.g. after a nuclear war or similar) or by forces of nature (e.g. a meteor or similar).
lordnacho 7y ago
> It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. Is this actually true? Doesn't technology stay fairly constant going back in history? For how long did we only have fire and rocks? I would say the current phase of technological change is fuelled by 1) We finally discovered a few thing about how the universe actually works, and we used those things to change how we live over the last few hundred years. 2) We were able to use the above to beat some natural constraints around how many people there can be, and the scale allows specialisation, giving us a bit more of the above again.
- buboard 7y ago
  > Doesn't technology stay fairly constant going back in history? For how long did we only have fire and rocks? The point is, it always progresses forward, except in rare cases where a population is completely lost, though the rate of change has varied widely. I m sure even fire-building would have been somewhat refined before the neolithic era.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

31073 7y ago

I assume technology came out of specialization. Which is fueled by population growth.

buboard 7y ago
it sure accelerated but technology has always been progressing since tool-making primates exist

daotoad 7y ago

The changes aren't random and generally small. It's closer to Lamarck than Darwin. Remember that successful products aren't necessarily good or beneficial. Tetraethyl lead in gasoline is one example. The Late nineteenth, early 20th century radium craze was full of other examples.

buboard 7y ago
Mutations in nature also aren't random and generally small. Different types occur with different probability, and nucleotides are replaced with other nucleotides and not some new life form. But just like startups, mutations are blind to whether they will be beneficial or not. Lamarck's idea of inheritance is not really related to this.

cat199 7y ago

> What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? no, it's suggesting that just because something is new it is not automatically an improvement, and progress exists both on the technological plane and also the moral/ethical/societal one.

buboard 7y ago
the title reads the myth of progress itself, not the myth of progress being an improvement

coldtea 7y ago

>It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. What is the article suggesting, that we sit on our chair doing nothing? Sometimes yes, why not? As a great mathematician said, "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone". >Everything humans do is progress forward so that thinking doesnt even make sense. Well, nuclear warheads, and bio-warfare are not "progress forward". Many things non-war related aren't either. People should stop being naive and confuse mere technological innovation with societal advancement. Or to think that just because some technology is created and gets widespread it's necessarily more good than bad (nukes got widespread too). Technological progress could be the very opposite of societal progress, even help bring a regression in certain aspects (e.g. make it easier for governments to be despotic, and eventually kill democracy). That's not just something for luddites to say either - consider how people like Kurzweil, Hawking, or Musk warned about an "AI Singularity" that could enslave us all. Whether you consider that concern overblown, or not, in principle it shows that not all technological innovation is good.

buboard 7y ago
> man's inability yep. the wise mathematician saw that it's impossible > are not "progress forward" nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. Nuclear war and biowarfare are terrible, but the deterrence stalemate it creates is beneficial to the species. It's arguably the most stable recipe for peace so far > mere technological innovation with societal advancement "Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. The two are not related
- coldtea 7y ago
  >nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. And tomorrow they could wipe out the whole planet (besides the 250,000 people they've already wiped out). What would the verdict be at that case? Probably there wont be one, as there would be noone to make it (or noone who cares to make it). >"Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. My sentiments exactly. So one can't throw it willy nilly when they merely mean technological advancement. Nazi Germany was more technologically advanced than the Weimar republic that preceded it, for example, but few would consider it a "more advanced" society towards more social harmony in general... >Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics* Yeah, so? You can have technological progress without getting into politics on whether it's progress, but you can't have "progress" in abstract without defining towards what. "Freer markets" for example, or "more democracy" is already talking politics... >Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. That's also false. Civilizations have lost technology and regressed backwards at a few points (the "dark ages" after the Roman empire was one of them). And, magical thinking and wishing aside, there's no guarantee from the universe that it can't happen again, even in a much more severe state. Either caused by man (e.g. after a nuclear war or similar) or by forces of nature (e.g. a meteor or similar).

lordnacho 7y ago

> It's not a myth, it's the default state of humanoids to invent new tools all the time. Is this actually true? Doesn't technology stay fairly constant going back in history? For how long did we only have fire and rocks? I would say the current phase of technological change is fuelled by 1) We finally discovered a few thing about how the universe actually works, and we used those things to change how we live over the last few hundred years. 2) We were able to use the above to beat some natural constraints around how many people there can be, and the scale allows specialisation, giving us a bit more of the above again.

buboard 7y ago
> Doesn't technology stay fairly constant going back in history? For how long did we only have fire and rocks? The point is, it always progresses forward, except in rare cases where a population is completely lost, though the rate of change has varied widely. I m sure even fire-building would have been somewhat refined before the neolithic era.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]