4 ms·

The opposing viewpoint is that since we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises (come

by tomp 12y ago

The opposing viewpoint is that since we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises (come on, it's a messaging app!), a new kind of space race that inspires generations to come might exponentially accelerate our progress, just like the last space race did!

damon_c 12y ago
> decelerating our technological progress Deceleration from what velocity? That of the 1800s? the 1900s? It seems obvious to me this isn't the case.
- tomp 12y ago
  That of the 1950/60/70s. The last space race and the cold war provided us with plenty technologies (transistor, computers, GPS, internet) that are still the main drivers of progress nowadays.
  - jl6 12y ago
    I think this point of view ignores all the boring, unsexy, non-headline-grabbing progress that has developed 1950s inventions into what we have today. Progress is the aggregate of millions of very small advances.
    - damon_c 12y ago
      Yes, and you could also argue that if our progress rate was sampled at a rate proportional to the total duration of human progress, the period from the 1950's to today is really one sample and the curve at this moment is just beginning to look like a hockey stick.
- jchrisa 12y ago
  Here's a lengthy counter argument. https://libcom.org/library/flying-cars-declining-rate-profit-david-graeber https://libcom.org/library/flying-cars-declining-rate-profit...
thenmar 12y ago
Really? We're "decelerating our technological progress"? That's a bold enough claim that I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for it beyond, "someone made a dumb iPhone app instead of curing cancer".
- freehunter 12y ago
  Agreed. The best minds in one area (marketing, business, etc) don't apply to other areas (cancer research, physics, rocket science). Put Biz Stone to work at NASA and I'll bet he could make communication at NASA 10x better, but he's not going to be changing the fan belt on an Apollo booster any time soon.
earless1 12y ago
|we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises Sure let's forget about all other examples of technological progress and point to the sell of a startup as a key indicator of modern day progress
cwyers 12y ago
The idea that sending people off to live on a cold, lifeless world with no shielding from deadly solar winds is some noble endeavor, but enabling people living on this warm, green, living world to communicate with each other is "trivial" is such an incredibly backwards way of thinking.
- danielweber 12y ago
  with no shielding from deadly solar winds This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    That's false. Because Mars has no magnetic field, and because its atmospheric pressure is only 0.06 that of Earth, the radiation level at the surface is occasionally life-threatening. In the event of a solar storm, human astronauts would have to take shelter underground. And the cumulative radiation levels in normal circumstances pose a danger over time, even in the absence of a solar storm: http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radiation-will-the-settlers-be-exposed-to http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radia...
  - cwyers 12y ago
    I may have misspoke, but there is a real danger from solar radiation on Mars: "Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earth’s surface. These storms are awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where we’re protected by Earth’s blanket of atmosphere. Remember, there’s every reason to believe that storms on the sun have been happening for billions of years, since the sun and Earth came to be. If that’s so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence. What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal." http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us Mars lacks a magnetosphere.

by tomp 12y ago

damon_c 12y ago

> decelerating our technological progress Deceleration from what velocity? That of the 1800s? the 1900s? It seems obvious to me this isn't the case.

tomp 12y ago
That of the 1950/60/70s. The last space race and the cold war provided us with plenty technologies (transistor, computers, GPS, internet) that are still the main drivers of progress nowadays.
- jl6 12y ago
  I think this point of view ignores all the boring, unsexy, non-headline-grabbing progress that has developed 1950s inventions into what we have today. Progress is the aggregate of millions of very small advances.
  - damon_c 12y ago
    Yes, and you could also argue that if our progress rate was sampled at a rate proportional to the total duration of human progress, the period from the 1950's to today is really one sample and the curve at this moment is just beginning to look like a hockey stick.
jchrisa 12y ago
Here's a lengthy counter argument. https://libcom.org/library/flying-cars-declining-rate-profit-david-graeber https://libcom.org/library/flying-cars-declining-rate-profit...

thenmar 12y ago

Really? We're "decelerating our technological progress"? That's a bold enough claim that I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for it beyond, "someone made a dumb iPhone app instead of curing cancer".

freehunter 12y ago
Agreed. The best minds in one area (marketing, business, etc) don't apply to other areas (cancer research, physics, rocket science). Put Biz Stone to work at NASA and I'll bet he could make communication at NASA 10x better, but he's not going to be changing the fan belt on an Apollo booster any time soon.

earless1 12y ago

|we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises Sure let's forget about all other examples of technological progress and point to the sell of a startup as a key indicator of modern day progress

cwyers 12y ago

The idea that sending people off to live on a cold, lifeless world with no shielding from deadly solar winds is some noble endeavor, but enabling people living on this warm, green, living world to communicate with each other is "trivial" is such an incredibly backwards way of thinking.

danielweber 12y ago
with no shielding from deadly solar winds This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
- lutusp 12y ago
  That's false. Because Mars has no magnetic field, and because its atmospheric pressure is only 0.06 that of Earth, the radiation level at the surface is occasionally life-threatening. In the event of a solar storm, human astronauts would have to take shelter underground. And the cumulative radiation levels in normal circumstances pose a danger over time, even in the absence of a solar storm: http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radiation-will-the-settlers-be-exposed-to http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radia...
- cwyers 12y ago
  I may have misspoke, but there is a real danger from solar radiation on Mars: "Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earth’s surface. These storms are awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where we’re protected by Earth’s blanket of atmosphere. Remember, there’s every reason to believe that storms on the sun have been happening for billions of years, since the sun and Earth came to be. If that’s so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence. What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal." http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us Mars lacks a magnetosphere.