The thesis of the article is plausible, but I think it’s missing the broader perspective. It makes sense that science picks “low hanging fruit” early on. Then,

The thesis of the article is plausible, but I think it’s missing the broader perspective. It makes sense that science picks “low hanging fruit” early on. Then, on average, later discoveries require more effort. But the rate of progress depends on both how much effort a discovery takes AND how much effort is available. The progress of society has made it possible to aim exponentially more resources at solving problems. Computers let us automate things. Medicine & farming mean more humans can do higher value work. Better politics means fewer people dying in wars. So I don’t care if each discovery takes more effort than the last. As long as we get exponentially more resources to go along with it, we can keep creating exponentially more knowledge for a looong time.