3 ms·

Interesting. I don't think I would take that bet. Historically, it's always taken fewer and fewer years for really "radical shifts", for lack of a better word,

by tommit 7y ago

Interesting. I don't think I would take that bet. Historically, it's always taken fewer and fewer years for really "radical shifts", for lack of a better word, to happen. Imagine sending someone from the 1200's to the 1500's. They would probably have less of a shock than the guy sent from the 1900's to today, in terms of how much around them has changed, even though they have traveled more years ahead. It's something I read in an article at some point, but couldn't find it just now from a quick google search. I feel like it makes sense though. With the pace we're inventing things at, Clarke's 3rd law will kick into effect more frequently: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

simonh 7y ago
I think most of the low hanging fruit from the rapid technological advances in the 20th century have now been picked. Jet aircraft, ground vehicles, helicopters, space rockets, computers. I don't see anything fundamentally revolutionising those in the next generation. Hand computers took their own sweet time to come, but now we have them. I think it's all incremental from now on. Technological advances are never exponential forever. They always follow an S curve and all our technologies are at the top of the S and levelling off. Many of them actually started levelling off decades ago, such as air travel and ground vehicles. Electric cars are substitution not revolution. Reusable rockets are going to get pretty cool though.
- tommit 7y ago
  Yes! I remember reading an article about the S-curve that each new paradigm brings with it. I would agree that we're closing in on the upper part of the S with regards to the internet and personal computing. But in my opinion that in no way means we will stagnate now. Bar from anything devastating happening, I would assume one is right in looking at the past to assume future development, albeit in a field that's not yet quite apparent. There is no reason to assume there isn't the next S waiting for us at the end of this one, even if you and I cannot really picture it just yet.

by tommit 7y ago

simonh 7y ago

I think most of the low hanging fruit from the rapid technological advances in the 20th century have now been picked. Jet aircraft, ground vehicles, helicopters, space rockets, computers. I don't see anything fundamentally revolutionising those in the next generation. Hand computers took their own sweet time to come, but now we have them. I think it's all incremental from now on. Technological advances are never exponential forever. They always follow an S curve and all our technologies are at the top of the S and levelling off. Many of them actually started levelling off decades ago, such as air travel and ground vehicles. Electric cars are substitution not revolution. Reusable rockets are going to get pretty cool though.

tommit 7y ago
Yes! I remember reading an article about the S-curve that each new paradigm brings with it. I would agree that we're closing in on the upper part of the S with regards to the internet and personal computing. But in my opinion that in no way means we will stagnate now. Bar from anything devastating happening, I would assume one is right in looking at the past to assume future development, albeit in a field that's not yet quite apparent. There is no reason to assume there isn't the next S waiting for us at the end of this one, even if you and I cannot really picture it just yet.