3 ms·

This is unfortunately very true. We don't have a stagnation of tech progress, we keep going forward- but the grow rate seems to be decreasing. Some people app

by guylhem 14y ago

This is unfortunately very true. We don't have a stagnation of tech progress, we keep going forward- but the grow rate seems to be decreasing. Some people apparently think existing innovation (ex: mindstab comment) suffice to disprove this. It's not. Just look at the 40 or 60 to see some real innovation - like antibiotics, nuclear bombs- i.e. paradigm changing innovation in various domains. What did we got lately? Computers, internet, cellphone, social networking - ok, but it's a bit short, and it's mostly in one domain only. IMHO, for any self consistent conservative, it's far more worrisome than theoretical weather change, especially because we got used to this fast pace of innovation and growth, and there have built the core of our societies on such assumptions (interest rate for money, population grow for social security, etc) - like, we are expecting technology will improve so that we get new ways problematic (orbital mirrors, tweaking the albedo, ...) to fight climate change if it is indeed man made and The idea of a deceleration of progress has some merit - to me it's like multiple warnings indicators lighting up, even if I don't know any theory to explain it, except a reduction of the "will to live" in western societies (Nietzsche style)

stcredzero 14y ago
Just look at the 40 or 60 to see some real innovation - like antibiotics, nuclear bombs- i.e. paradigm changing innovation in various domains. Thorium reactors have the potential to be paradigm changing.
- caretu 14y ago
  Not really. It would just be an incremental improvement in nuclear fission. A traveling wave reactor would probably be better as it would use existing depleted uranium as fuel, and would produce abundant energy while making uranium stockpiles less of a problem. Not even fusion would be paradigm changing, unless its cold fusion
  - AlexandrB 14y ago
    By that logic, nuclear energy was not paradigm changing. Essentially we're still just heating water and using it to move a generator - just like coal or oil power.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Not really. It would just be an incremental improvement in nuclear fission. Typical techy shortsightedness. I'm not talking reactor geekery. It would be paradigm changing for society. There's a lot of Thorium out there in the world, and nuclear power would be disconnected from proliferation risk. > Not even fusion would be paradigm changing, unless its cold fusion Again, typical techy shortsightedness.
fudged71 14y ago
I think the biggest improvements to our quality of life will come from 1) energy advancements, 2) transportation (high-speed rail, self-driving cars, electric bikes/skateboards), 3) home advancements (automation, health, adaptive lighting)
btilly 14y ago
Get outside of your niche and look around. Progress is being made in lots of fields. And the rate is not slowing. For instance 20 years ago mapping a human genome was on the "some day" list and sequencing a single gene was a reasonable PhD thesis. 10 years ago we finished mapping a human genome. Now individuals can get their genome mapped and the price of that is dropping rapidly. 10 years ago, space travel had been stagnant for decades. Now we have SpaceX. 30 years ago scientists rejected the concept of monster waves out of hand, and ships that got destroyed by them were comedy material. (OK, so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg really is hilarious.) Today we know that we need to build ships to be 5x as strong. When I was a kid, superconductivity was an interesting phenomena that needed liquid helium to demonstrate. Today advanced countries (ie not the USA) have floating trains going at hundreds of miles an hour on superconductors. Recently we discovered preliminary evidence of superconductivity at room temperature. If that pans out, how much more will change? Carbon nanotubes are coming in a big way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbon_nanotubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbo... for some of what they will change. 3-d printers are real today, and the technology is improving rapidly. I could go on, but I think that my point is made. We are making progress at a lot of things that you're not aware of because you're only paying attention to one area of tech. When people look back in 50 years, this will NOT be seen as a period where technology stood still.
- guylhem 14y ago
  I never said we are not progressing anymore - just not as fast as before, and we were quite fast (log scale!). The fact that authors did believe we would have colonies on the Moon or Mars, or flying cars etc should tell you something too - we are not dreaming big anymore, even worse : we discard past dreams. Look at a GDP per capita curve and see the deep cut. Nothing that big ever before - expect the great depression, where no billion dollar stimulus was applied. Many other factors play of course, but a generally accepted key element for long term grow per capita is technological progress. Maybe I'm stuck in my niche but I seem to notice something - and share the opinion of other people who seems to spot something too.
  - 14y ago

by guylhem 14y ago

stcredzero 14y ago

Just look at the 40 or 60 to see some real innovation - like antibiotics, nuclear bombs- i.e. paradigm changing innovation in various domains. Thorium reactors have the potential to be paradigm changing.

caretu 14y ago
Not really. It would just be an incremental improvement in nuclear fission. A traveling wave reactor would probably be better as it would use existing depleted uranium as fuel, and would produce abundant energy while making uranium stockpiles less of a problem. Not even fusion would be paradigm changing, unless its cold fusion
- AlexandrB 14y ago
  By that logic, nuclear energy was not paradigm changing. Essentially we're still just heating water and using it to move a generator - just like coal or oil power.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Not really. It would just be an incremental improvement in nuclear fission. Typical techy shortsightedness. I'm not talking reactor geekery. It would be paradigm changing for society. There's a lot of Thorium out there in the world, and nuclear power would be disconnected from proliferation risk. > Not even fusion would be paradigm changing, unless its cold fusion Again, typical techy shortsightedness.

fudged71 14y ago

I think the biggest improvements to our quality of life will come from 1) energy advancements, 2) transportation (high-speed rail, self-driving cars, electric bikes/skateboards), 3) home advancements (automation, health, adaptive lighting)

btilly 14y ago

Get outside of your niche and look around. Progress is being made in lots of fields. And the rate is not slowing. For instance 20 years ago mapping a human genome was on the "some day" list and sequencing a single gene was a reasonable PhD thesis. 10 years ago we finished mapping a human genome. Now individuals can get their genome mapped and the price of that is dropping rapidly. 10 years ago, space travel had been stagnant for decades. Now we have SpaceX. 30 years ago scientists rejected the concept of monster waves out of hand, and ships that got destroyed by them were comedy material. (OK, so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg really is hilarious.) Today we know that we need to build ships to be 5x as strong. When I was a kid, superconductivity was an interesting phenomena that needed liquid helium to demonstrate. Today advanced countries (ie not the USA) have floating trains going at hundreds of miles an hour on superconductors. Recently we discovered preliminary evidence of superconductivity at room temperature. If that pans out, how much more will change? Carbon nanotubes are coming in a big way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbon_nanotubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_carbo... for some of what they will change. 3-d printers are real today, and the technology is improving rapidly. I could go on, but I think that my point is made. We are making progress at a lot of things that you're not aware of because you're only paying attention to one area of tech. When people look back in 50 years, this will NOT be seen as a period where technology stood still.

guylhem 14y ago
I never said we are not progressing anymore - just not as fast as before, and we were quite fast (log scale!). The fact that authors did believe we would have colonies on the Moon or Mars, or flying cars etc should tell you something too - we are not dreaming big anymore, even worse : we discard past dreams. Look at a GDP per capita curve and see the deep cut. Nothing that big ever before - expect the great depression, where no billion dollar stimulus was applied. Many other factors play of course, but a generally accepted key element for long term grow per capita is technological progress. Maybe I'm stuck in my niche but I seem to notice something - and share the opinion of other people who seems to spot something too.
- 14y ago