3 ms·

That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has bee

That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight. False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer. We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.

satvikpendem 6y ago
The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.
astrange 6y ago
Immunotherapy for cancer is actually making great progress. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expectancy-goes-up-as-cancer-deaths-go-down/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expe... Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-2020s https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-20...
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Like your article says, most of those deaths are things like less people smoking, and small increases in treating/early detection of specific cancers. But the underlying problem hasn't been solved. That is an evolution, not a revolution. Which is my point - less and less revolutions, more and more money spent, for small evolutions. > Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. Which, again, isn't scientific progress. If it's a sociological problem it's not really a scientific breakthrough - it could have been solved decades ago if the will was there. In fact I'd say we can gain MORE from sociological improvements, not pie in the sky science.

satvikpendem 6y ago

The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.

astrange 6y ago

Immunotherapy for cancer is actually making great progress. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expectancy-goes-up-as-cancer-deaths-go-down/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/u-s-life-expe... Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-2020s https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-the-20...

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Like your article says, most of those deaths are things like less people smoking, and small increases in treating/early detection of specific cancers. But the underlying problem hasn't been solved. That is an evolution, not a revolution. Which is my point - less and less revolutions, more and more money spent, for small evolutions. > Most other progress depends on cheap energy and governmental policies, which we’re getting again. Which, again, isn't scientific progress. If it's a sociological problem it's not really a scientific breakthrough - it could have been solved decades ago if the will was there. In fact I'd say we can gain MORE from sociological improvements, not pie in the sky science.