4 ms·

I wonder if anyone has any theories as to why? Assuming it's true that technological innovation peaked in the mid 40s/50s, it begs the question why it has grou

I wonder if anyone has any theories as to why? Assuming it's true that technological innovation peaked in the mid 40s/50s, it begs the question why it has ground to such a halt now. Recognizing that is a big assumption of truth, would anyone here be willing to posit an explanation?

JustSomeNobody 6y ago
My pet theory is we rely too much on computers.
adwww 6y ago
1940s-1950s two big factors - necessity to win a war. But also opportunity. Even widespread mains electricity is fairly new back then, there were a lot of fairly obvious opportunities to quickly exploit.
sanderjd 6y ago
Maybe check out Ross Douthat's recent book about "decadence" as a place to start. Not sure I buy the argument, but this is part of what he's talking about. For me personally, I think it's just the point we're at in the current technological revolution (in the Carlota Perez sense). We're due for a new one (maybe biotech, eg. driven by crispr, mrna, etc.) so things feel stale.
mikewarot 6y ago
We don't have a government anymore... it started breaking down with the death of FDR. The only thing that kept it going was the cold war. We don't invest in research like we should.
Negitivefrags 6y ago
It’s a combination of factors but all with the same theme. Basically nobody is willing to take any risk for anything. This is on every level, from being wrong about a simple decision all the way up to not taking any personal risk with your life. And it’s impossible to argue against it because at any point you can always make an argument for reduction of risk, and anyone arguing against it is demonized. How can you argue against more health and safety standards after all? More rigourous engineering standards? More environmental protection standards? More consultation with the public? But it’s not just a government thing, it’s on a societal level. In large companies it’s the same exact phenomenon of buck passing and responsibility dodging. Each thing only has a tiny multiplicative cost, but the sum total of all of it is the inability to make any progress.
FooHentai 6y ago
Necessity is the mother of invention. In the mid 40s a very large urgent necessity, the war effort, went away. There were some residuals after that as motivations and industries shifted.
xwdv 6y ago
Because it’s not worth it. People built all the low hanging fruit of cool shit already. A plane would have been “cool shit” 100 years ago, today it’s just a glorified bus. What else is there to build? Spaceships? For what? We’ve seen Mars and the Moon. More military crap? USA already won now it’s just showing off. AI stuff? Turns out people think it’s creepy and they like to keep their jobs anyway because it makes them money. Mega structures and arcologies? NIMBY! We’re in the long tail of cool shit now. Each generation gets harder and harder to impress.
Shingbogle 6y ago
I mean, it's kinda well known that war is the mother of all innovation right? That explains it right there if you take the theory as true. WW2, Cold War. I mean even the moon landing was part of that cold war era technology advancement. So now instead of governments/military pushing for needs, it's now companies trying to innovate for money. Which can work, but you need CEOs to take risks like Musk or even Jobs.
golemiprague 6y ago
I think it is the feminisation of everything. Men explore, innovate and disregard the rules. Women creates rules and conformism and stagnation. When HR became more important than engineering you find yourself in the state we are in. We need to admit that feminisation of the workplace was a mistake which didn't benefit anyone in any way. Society invest huge amount of money in educating and employing women but get nothing in return, no new business, no innovation, no productivity. A housewife is much more beneficial to the economy than most jobs done by women. We need to to encourage women to go back to be housewives so only the 10% that are really useful will actually go to work and do those useful things.

JustSomeNobody 6y ago

My pet theory is we rely too much on computers.

adwww 6y ago

1940s-1950s two big factors - necessity to win a war. But also opportunity. Even widespread mains electricity is fairly new back then, there were a lot of fairly obvious opportunities to quickly exploit.

sanderjd 6y ago

Maybe check out Ross Douthat's recent book about "decadence" as a place to start. Not sure I buy the argument, but this is part of what he's talking about. For me personally, I think it's just the point we're at in the current technological revolution (in the Carlota Perez sense). We're due for a new one (maybe biotech, eg. driven by crispr, mrna, etc.) so things feel stale.

mikewarot 6y ago

We don't have a government anymore... it started breaking down with the death of FDR. The only thing that kept it going was the cold war. We don't invest in research like we should.

Negitivefrags 6y ago

It’s a combination of factors but all with the same theme. Basically nobody is willing to take any risk for anything. This is on every level, from being wrong about a simple decision all the way up to not taking any personal risk with your life. And it’s impossible to argue against it because at any point you can always make an argument for reduction of risk, and anyone arguing against it is demonized. How can you argue against more health and safety standards after all? More rigourous engineering standards? More environmental protection standards? More consultation with the public? But it’s not just a government thing, it’s on a societal level. In large companies it’s the same exact phenomenon of buck passing and responsibility dodging. Each thing only has a tiny multiplicative cost, but the sum total of all of it is the inability to make any progress.

FooHentai 6y ago

Necessity is the mother of invention. In the mid 40s a very large urgent necessity, the war effort, went away. There were some residuals after that as motivations and industries shifted.

xwdv 6y ago

Because it’s not worth it. People built all the low hanging fruit of cool shit already. A plane would have been “cool shit” 100 years ago, today it’s just a glorified bus. What else is there to build? Spaceships? For what? We’ve seen Mars and the Moon. More military crap? USA already won now it’s just showing off. AI stuff? Turns out people think it’s creepy and they like to keep their jobs anyway because it makes them money. Mega structures and arcologies? NIMBY! We’re in the long tail of cool shit now. Each generation gets harder and harder to impress.

Shingbogle 6y ago

I mean, it's kinda well known that war is the mother of all innovation right? That explains it right there if you take the theory as true. WW2, Cold War. I mean even the moon landing was part of that cold war era technology advancement. So now instead of governments/military pushing for needs, it's now companies trying to innovate for money. Which can work, but you need CEOs to take risks like Musk or even Jobs.

golemiprague 6y ago

I think it is the feminisation of everything. Men explore, innovate and disregard the rules. Women creates rules and conformism and stagnation. When HR became more important than engineering you find yourself in the state we are in. We need to admit that feminisation of the workplace was a mistake which didn't benefit anyone in any way. Society invest huge amount of money in educating and employing women but get nothing in return, no new business, no innovation, no productivity. A housewife is much more beneficial to the economy than most jobs done by women. We need to to encourage women to go back to be housewives so only the 10% that are really useful will actually go to work and do those useful things.