6 ms·

Same as It Ever Was: Why the Techno-Optimists Are Wrong

25 points by nkurz 11y ago

ageek123 11y ago
Same as it ever was: articles with the PoV expressed in this headline inevitably have the following sentence, or one nearly identical to it: "Fourth, we may need to redistribute income and wealth on a large scale" Only problem with this one is that you had to read a bunch of bloviation to get to it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
talleyrand 11y ago
I'm fascinated by this idea: " It would be possible, for example, for the state to obtain an automatic share of the income from the intellectual property it protects." Why shouldn't creators of IP pay for the protection they receive, beyond the relatively small filing fee they currently pay?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Be careful what you incentivize, lest you get more of it. That has the potential to turn into blatant revenue-generation, which is not necessarily beneficial.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Isn't that exactly what the author is saying?
- ams6110 11y ago
  The constitution provides for the protection of intellectual property "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to extract money from it. Besides, financially successful inventions are already taxed in a variety of ways.
- Strilanc 11y ago
  Would definitely be preferable for Disney to pay to keep just Mickey and friends, instead of having them lobbying to extend all copyrights. You'd probably still want the first 10-20 years to be free, though.
tim333 11y ago
This was up a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748195
foundart 11y ago
The article does a reasonable job of describing why our current innovations are less significant than previous ones such as the internal combustion engine and so forth, but is much weaker on predictions for the future. To cherry pick: The author claims, without any support, that "Three-D Printing is a niche activity-- fun, but unlikely to revolutionize manufacturing." The reality here is that 3-D printing, by supporting rapid prototyping, is already revolutionizing the development of products. See for example https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/manufacturing/rapid.htm https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/manufacturing/rapi...
- batbomb 11y ago
  Yes, but there's been no real singificant growth in the sector in the last ~2 years. See: DDD, SSYS, XONE, etc... All three companies are struggling very hard when the future was so bright. Yes, there are other companies, but these are the market leaders.
ef4 11y ago
I am convinced that people are dramatically underestimating the explosive progress that is going on in basic life science right now. Our ability to understand and manipulate biology is accelerating tremendously. There is always a lag between the science and the applications, but I expect to live to see revolutions in medicine and biological engineering.
- transfire 11y ago
  It may be more likely that we live to see the rise of Grey Goo.
  - ef4 11y ago
    I suspect that if it was easy to accidentally make Grey Goo evolution already would have done it. Or more accurately, evolution already did, and we are the Grey Goo's descendants.
    - Terr_ 11y ago
      Exactly: Any "successful" gray-too is going to require us to equip it with some novel techniques or biochemistry... I'd worry much more about us leaking a trait that existing bacteria could transfer horizontally.
ewzimm 11y ago
The arguments here are pretty well-considered, but I also disagree with almost all of them. The problem is that it is using measurements invented by those who rose to power through the industrial revolution to prove how it was more impactful than recent revolutions. It's as if the author were trying to prove how the first industrial revolution was a disappointment because it resulted in slower growth in worldwide feudalism. The invention of broadcast television and radio increased instant access to information more than the Internet, but old media only allowed a few broadcasters. As more people gained access, fewer had a voice. This trend continues in recent times. In 2012, 6 companies controlled 90% of the American media, down from 50 in 1982. http://read.bi/16Yhrsh http://read.bi/16Yhrsh But as old media was consolidating, the Internet was diversifying. People upload 5 hours of video to YouTube every second, up from 1 hour per second in 2012. http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t The Writers Guilds of America combined have around 25,000 members, but more than 1 billion people across the world use YouTube and can reach nearly any American. The top contributers are more popular with teenagers than mainstream celebrities. http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb So which has more impact: distributing a single story to many people, or allowing more people to tell stories? The choice of what is measured determines the value of the measurement, and not just in media penetration.

25 points by nkurz 11y ago

Same as it ever was: articles with the PoV expressed in this headline inevitably have the following sentence, or one nearly identical to it: "Fourth, we may need to redistribute income and wealth on a large scale" Only problem with this one is that you had to read a bunch of bloviation to get to it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

talleyrand 11y ago

I'm fascinated by this idea: " It would be possible, for example, for the state to obtain an automatic share of the income from the intellectual property it protects." Why shouldn't creators of IP pay for the protection they receive, beyond the relatively small filing fee they currently pay?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Be careful what you incentivize, lest you get more of it. That has the potential to turn into blatant revenue-generation, which is not necessarily beneficial.
icebraining 11y ago
Isn't that exactly what the author is saying?
ams6110 11y ago
The constitution provides for the protection of intellectual property "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to extract money from it. Besides, financially successful inventions are already taxed in a variety of ways.
Strilanc 11y ago
Would definitely be preferable for Disney to pay to keep just Mickey and friends, instead of having them lobbying to extend all copyrights. You'd probably still want the first 10-20 years to be free, though.

tim333 11y ago

This was up a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748195

foundart 11y ago

The article does a reasonable job of describing why our current innovations are less significant than previous ones such as the internal combustion engine and so forth, but is much weaker on predictions for the future. To cherry pick: The author claims, without any support, that "Three-D Printing is a niche activity-- fun, but unlikely to revolutionize manufacturing." The reality here is that 3-D printing, by supporting rapid prototyping, is already revolutionizing the development of products. See for example https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/manufacturing/rapid.htm https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/manufacturing/rapi...

batbomb 11y ago
Yes, but there's been no real singificant growth in the sector in the last ~2 years. See: DDD, SSYS, XONE, etc... All three companies are struggling very hard when the future was so bright. Yes, there are other companies, but these are the market leaders.

ef4 11y ago

I am convinced that people are dramatically underestimating the explosive progress that is going on in basic life science right now. Our ability to understand and manipulate biology is accelerating tremendously. There is always a lag between the science and the applications, but I expect to live to see revolutions in medicine and biological engineering.

transfire 11y ago
It may be more likely that we live to see the rise of Grey Goo.
- ef4 11y ago
  I suspect that if it was easy to accidentally make Grey Goo evolution already would have done it. Or more accurately, evolution already did, and we are the Grey Goo's descendants.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    Exactly: Any "successful" gray-too is going to require us to equip it with some novel techniques or biochemistry... I'd worry much more about us leaking a trait that existing bacteria could transfer horizontally.

ewzimm 11y ago

The arguments here are pretty well-considered, but I also disagree with almost all of them. The problem is that it is using measurements invented by those who rose to power through the industrial revolution to prove how it was more impactful than recent revolutions. It's as if the author were trying to prove how the first industrial revolution was a disappointment because it resulted in slower growth in worldwide feudalism. The invention of broadcast television and radio increased instant access to information more than the Internet, but old media only allowed a few broadcasters. As more people gained access, fewer had a voice. This trend continues in recent times. In 2012, 6 companies controlled 90% of the American media, down from 50 in 1982. http://read.bi/16Yhrsh http://read.bi/16Yhrsh But as old media was consolidating, the Internet was diversifying. People upload 5 hours of video to YouTube every second, up from 1 hour per second in 2012. http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t The Writers Guilds of America combined have around 25,000 members, but more than 1 billion people across the world use YouTube and can reach nearly any American. The top contributers are more popular with teenagers than mainstream celebrities. http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb So which has more impact: distributing a single story to many people, or allowing more people to tell stories? The choice of what is measured determines the value of the measurement, and not just in media penetration.