4 ms·

I think this article must come from a point of incredible ignorance about most of what science has been up to. Across the board there have been incredible advan

I think this article must come from a point of incredible ignorance about most of what science has been up to. Across the board there have been incredible advances in chemistry, physics, quantum physics (which allows us our tiny powerful processors in things like cellphones and laptops and tablets), commercial aerospace, normal aerospace (jet-set lifestyle was a term for rich in the 60s because you could afford to fly, now EVERYONE flies, we just haven't increased the speed for a bunch of well laid out elsewhere reasons[1]). Also, we're on the verge of self driving cars. Further it misunderstands progress in general. It seems to think progress in all fields must be linear so big advancements in new fields of days of yore should still be advancing at such rates today ignoring rapidly growing complexity as the field matures. Computers, the newest field, has advanced the most recently because it is still relatively new. This kind of thinking is just wrong and somewhat old fashioned. Just because we didn't get the future that star trek and pulp 60's sci-fi promised us doesn't mean we collectively screwed up somehow. The refrain "where's my flying car" or "where's my jetpack" is just misguided. We are living in the future, just not one predicted. Transportation speeds stopped increasing rapidly and went from exponential back to linear to nearly stalled, but as mentioned they scaled from a few rich to all. And there are good reasons for this, not cowardice etc. Meanwhile unexpectedly computation and communication technology exploded. I can video chat with everyone I know anywhere in the world for effectively free. I carry around a better than star trek communicator. This is old man thinking, stuck in one view of how the world was going to be and ignoring how the world is. It's ignorant and offensive and misguided. There is very little merit in this and it's ironic he's accusing the candidates of ignoring reality. Further reference: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth_of_the_starship.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth... http://warren-ellis.livejournal.com/92053.html http://warren-ellis.livejournal.com/92053.html http://www.doktorsleepless.com/index.php/You_Will_Never_Own_a_Jetpack:_Warren_Ellis%E2%80%99_Doktor_Sleepless_by_Steven_Shaviro http://www.doktorsleepless.com/index.php/You_Will_Never_Own_...

001sky 14y ago
I think this 'critique' is actually not well stated. confusing for example innovation (0,1) with scaled deployment (1 to N). Also, self driving cars are not impressive: go to LA. LA has been a disaster since the 1930s. Part of the problem is that what has been done to LA cannot ever be reversed, from the perspective of environmental damage, sociology, or sheer economics. The world has made choices with a certain element of path-dependency: yesterdays technology holding back future progress. Its not about the Jestson's per-se; its about being stuck with boat-anchor technology from the point of the development of actual human interaction. Do you really want to be stuck in a self-driving car in the 405 at rush hour? Or would you rather be walking to work, or taking a skateboard across a perfectly smooth elevated sidewalk on a clear night in Santa Monica (made up example, but feasible and likely more pleasant). Making faster, more powerful cars and bigger freeways did not eliminate traffic. Just the opposite. Self driving cars will have to overcome the social problem, but for this you likely need actual or orthogonal innovation. Not just more of the same, easier, less work, etc.
- mindstab 14y ago
  Ok but that's not really what he's talking about. I totally agree that being able to have everyone walk to work may be a better goal than self driving cars and sadly because of past choices our best option is probably demolishing cities (not terribly feasible). However the status quo doesn't have to be maintained, rezoning and incremental new development can fix much of this (look outside American city development) but now we are also dangerously off topic. Thiel says "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation. We have discarded a century of can-do ambition built on rapid advances in technology and replaced it with a cautiousness far too satisfied with incremental improvements." This is his standard libertarian line. More risk, less big government and safety nets. Putting a gun to more peoples heads (metaphorically) will somehow instantly make the world better, create more innovation, and etc etc etc. (There's actually some pretty good data backed evidence instead of gut feeling backed evidence that good social safety nets promote a healthier society that’s more innovative that came up in coursera's Michigan University Model Thinking class [https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking] https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking]) And he also buys into that false thinking of "yesterday was better" when he talks about "However, we bounded forward in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to a generation of scientists who did not just believe in a better future but invented it" and "The genuine progress in IT from the 1970s up to the 2000s masked the relative stagnation of energy, transportation, space, materials, agriculture and medicine." I don't buy this narrative at all for the reasons stated above. As I pointed out above, I don't buy his perceived stagnation and lack of innovation and I strongly don't buy into his current fears and solutions. Also, this is pretty much general libertarian/Peter Theil philosophy very loosely redressed to try and seem new and relevant in light of the recent election, but it's the same old view. In that light, some people agree with it, and some don't but there's nothing new here in this article either.
  - guylhem 14y ago
    It's indeed an ideological reply, because for someone with a libertarian approach (like - me), the slowdown seems to match quite well the rise of the welfare state. "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation" - that says it all. The competing ideology (let's say "progressive") cares about stuff like equality (ex: affirmative action) or safety (look at what you did as a kid, and what is allowed today) while most libertarians and conservative care about efficiency and freedom. Some equality and safety might be a god thing - but I worry much more about efficiency and freedom - a part of which is scientific progress. There's some basic differences here and there, but that is IMHO the core difference.
fudged71 14y ago
>The refrain "where's my flying car" or "where's my jetpack" is just misguided. I'll take autonomous private jets, drriverless cars, high-speed trains, and electrics scooters over these archaic ideas any day of the week!

001sky 14y ago

I think this 'critique' is actually not well stated. confusing for example innovation (0,1) with scaled deployment (1 to N). Also, self driving cars are not impressive: go to LA. LA has been a disaster since the 1930s. Part of the problem is that what has been done to LA cannot ever be reversed, from the perspective of environmental damage, sociology, or sheer economics. The world has made choices with a certain element of path-dependency: yesterdays technology holding back future progress. Its not about the Jestson's per-se; its about being stuck with boat-anchor technology from the point of the development of actual human interaction. Do you really want to be stuck in a self-driving car in the 405 at rush hour? Or would you rather be walking to work, or taking a skateboard across a perfectly smooth elevated sidewalk on a clear night in Santa Monica (made up example, but feasible and likely more pleasant). Making faster, more powerful cars and bigger freeways did not eliminate traffic. Just the opposite. Self driving cars will have to overcome the social problem, but for this you likely need actual or orthogonal innovation. Not just more of the same, easier, less work, etc.

mindstab 14y ago
Ok but that's not really what he's talking about. I totally agree that being able to have everyone walk to work may be a better goal than self driving cars and sadly because of past choices our best option is probably demolishing cities (not terribly feasible). However the status quo doesn't have to be maintained, rezoning and incremental new development can fix much of this (look outside American city development) but now we are also dangerously off topic. Thiel says "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation. We have discarded a century of can-do ambition built on rapid advances in technology and replaced it with a cautiousness far too satisfied with incremental improvements." This is his standard libertarian line. More risk, less big government and safety nets. Putting a gun to more peoples heads (metaphorically) will somehow instantly make the world better, create more innovation, and etc etc etc. (There's actually some pretty good data backed evidence instead of gut feeling backed evidence that good social safety nets promote a healthier society that’s more innovative that came up in coursera's Michigan University Model Thinking class [https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking] https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking]) And he also buys into that false thinking of "yesterday was better" when he talks about "However, we bounded forward in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to a generation of scientists who did not just believe in a better future but invented it" and "The genuine progress in IT from the 1970s up to the 2000s masked the relative stagnation of energy, transportation, space, materials, agriculture and medicine." I don't buy this narrative at all for the reasons stated above. As I pointed out above, I don't buy his perceived stagnation and lack of innovation and I strongly don't buy into his current fears and solutions. Also, this is pretty much general libertarian/Peter Theil philosophy very loosely redressed to try and seem new and relevant in light of the recent election, but it's the same old view. In that light, some people agree with it, and some don't but there's nothing new here in this article either.
- guylhem 14y ago
  It's indeed an ideological reply, because for someone with a libertarian approach (like - me), the slowdown seems to match quite well the rise of the welfare state. "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation" - that says it all. The competing ideology (let's say "progressive") cares about stuff like equality (ex: affirmative action) or safety (look at what you did as a kid, and what is allowed today) while most libertarians and conservative care about efficiency and freedom. Some equality and safety might be a god thing - but I worry much more about efficiency and freedom - a part of which is scientific progress. There's some basic differences here and there, but that is IMHO the core difference.

fudged71 14y ago

>The refrain "where's my flying car" or "where's my jetpack" is just misguided. I'll take autonomous private jets, drriverless cars, high-speed trains, and electrics scooters over these archaic ideas any day of the week!