The future of technology is all hype. Science and technology are grinding to a halt

[MikeMcMann]

yea its funny how some of that star trek tech is pretty common nowadays. Grandpa lived in the mountains in India and had to get a job at the age of 12 as he was the only man in the house after great gramps passed away. I am pretty sure we grew up in different worlds. That man was not only a survivor but also thrived.

Much of what we saw in Star Trek is now reality even if only in the early stages.

- Transporter technology - Chinese Scientists Just Set the Record for the Farthest Quantum Teleportation

- Replicators -
Here are the 3D Printing Breakthroughs you Need to Know About

- Organ Replication -
Scientists create safer pig organs with goal of transplants for humans

- food replicators -
The Future Of Meat Is Meatless, Just As Tasty, And About To Change The World

- Tricorders-


Oh heck I just googled this list instead...

15 Star Trek Gadgets That Exist In Real Life

 

[Ruprecht]

I think there's a kind of paradox in that we're developing more complex and interesting new ideas, but the impact of them is way less than some of the simpler ideas. And that's precisely the issue. We've picked most of the low-hanging fruit. Further advances are much more difficult. We're making them anyway, but we shouldn't expect them to have as much of an impact.

The same process happens every time there's a fundamental shift. For instance with agriculture, then with industrialisation. The new paradigm generates massive change with feedback effects (such as dramatically increased population and increased diversity of occupation allowing for faster development of specialised technology) which taper off as you approach the next transitional barrier (such as the limits of manual farming, population holding capacity or with Moore's law the limitations of physical size and heat dissipation).
The speed at which those limits are met and transitions occur is usually what's referred to as accelerating change, which won't necessarily translate into massive increases in population, longer lives, or economic growth.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I disagree completely.

In only the past 5-10 years, I have personally seen many advances in science, technology, medicine, and many other areas.

yes it is just that the advances have shifted mostly from Consumer facing advancements.

Advancements in quantum computing are opening up all sorts of other areas to massive jumps. Again self driving cars is just one. Autonomous surgery is another. And that list goes on and on. Endless areas are now being pushed due to the extra computing power but they are not as visual to us as they are not as focused on consumer advancement and thus this OP fallacy.

 

[foxnoob]

I am not. Generally, accomplished researchers who are making the point with a platform that allows them to be heard are going to be at least in their 30s, but it's a matter of data here.
.

This part.. Are you an accomplished researcher or are you suggesting that your assertion is backed up by accomplished researchers?

The overall point you make is quite basic. Low hanging fruit has been picked. How is this not myopia? How is this not you falling into the exact same trap as the people who couldn't imagine the wheel or couldn't imagine the printing press? Low hanging fruit abounds but myopic people will never be able to pick it, as it is comfortable and lazy to rest on the assumption that all the low hanging fruit has been picked.

I appreciate your reply but you still seem trapped inside a box with your thinking. Maybe you're not on the ripe side of 50 but you share the quality of stuck in an older way of thinking as the old folks tend to do. We are in agreement that it is those under 40 who are going to lead the way for innovation, I'll take it a step further and say under 30. There is a clear line of delineation when people reach a certain age that renders learning new skills or using their imagination much more difficult or impossible for them.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

It's odd to me both that you take this so personally and that you assume others do. I think there's a kind of paradox in that we're developing more complex and interesting new ideas, but the impact of them is way less than some of the simpler ideas. And that's precisely the issue. We've picked most of the low-hanging fruit. Further advances are much more difficult. We're making them anyway, but we shouldn't expect them to have as much of an impact.

Agreed. It's similar to economic growth.

Poor countries often grow at rates of 10%+ per year, while rich ones are at 2-5% tops. It's unrealistic for Norway to grow at 11% because it's already very rich. But the Congo certainly has room to grow at 11 or even 15%

Through most of the 20th century we were the Congo, but now we've moved into rich country territory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

yes it is just that the advances have shifted mostly from Consumer facing advancements.

Advancements in quantum computing are opening up all sorts of other areas to massive jumps. Again self driving cars is just one. Autonomous surgery is another. And that list goes on and on. Endless areas are now being pushed due to the extra computing power but they are not as visual to us as they are not as focused on consumer advancement and thus this OP fallacy.

This is another good example. Autonomous surgery is super cool, and if you need it, you'll be damned glad to have it. But it won't do nearly as much to improve health as a clean water supply did or food regulations (manufacturers used to cover the color of tainted milk by adding chalk, and milk was regularly watered down with unclean water). Going from Ubering around to using driverless cars is cool, but not nearly as impactful as going from horses to cars was.

There's never been a better time to be alive, and it's still getting better, but the rate of change is undoubtedly slowing and will continue to.

 

[foxnoob]

Agreed. It's similar to economic growth.

Poor countries often grow at rates of 10%+ per year, while rich ones are at 2-5% tops. It's unrealistic for Norway to grow at 11% because it's already very rich. But the Congo certainly has room to grow at 11 or even 15%

Through most of the 20th century we were the Congo, but now we've moved into rich country territory.

You are comparing what amounts to a zero sum equation to imagination. Not the same ballpark, not even the same game. Economists are left brain and inventors are right brain. One is quantifiable and one isn't. Good grief.

 

[foxnoob]

There's never been a better time to be alive, and it's still getting better, but the rate of change is undoubtedly slowing and will continue to.

More baseless assertion. You perceive this so you are telling us it must be true but your perception is the flaw in this equation. Humanity is moving forward and thank goodness it doesn't require anyone's belief to be true. Peer reviewed science will always be > your anecdotes, no matter how charming.

 

[D3THRONED]

science completely disagrees with you TS. as someone who works in the STEM field I see technological improvements quite often.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This part.. Are you an accomplished researcher or are you suggesting that your assertion is backed up by accomplished researchers?

I cited Robert Gordon earlier. There are others, yeah.

The overall point you make is quite basic. Low hanging fruit has been picked. How is this not myopia? How is this not you falling into the exact same trap as the people who couldn't imagine the wheel or couldn't imagine the printing press? Low hanging fruit abounds but myopic people will never be able to pick it, as it is comfortable and lazy to rest on the assumption that all the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Wait, is the point basic (and presumably obviously true) or is it wrong? I would agree that it's basic, but it's obviously not appreciated. To spell it out:

1. The more progress you make, the harder it is to make additional progress, and we're at the limits in some areas (for example, we got infant mortality from 20% to under 1%--it can keep getting better, but the limit is 0%; or we've improved communication time about as much as we possibly can--note that Battle of New Orleans happened two weeks after the war ended, while just 54 years later and almost 150 years ago, the golden spike joining the transcontinental railroad being driven in was celebrated at the same time all over the country).
2. Explosive growth in standard of living is not normal in human history. It was more of a one-time event that appears to be winding down.

I appreciate your reply but you still seem trapped inside a box with your thinking. Maybe you're not on the ripe side of 50 but you share the quality of stuck in an older way of thinking as the old folks tend to do.

I think the fellow trapped in a box is the guy who cannot even entertain the idea that he might have something wrong without taking it personally and responding with ridiculous psychological analysis of someone more familiar with the relevant information.

We are in agreement that it is those under 40 who are going to lead the way for innovation, I'll take it a step further and say under 30. There is a clear line of delineation when people reach a certain age that renders learning new skills or using their imagination much more difficult or impossible for them.

Well, go to it and good luck. Again, I would say that you're more likely to make an important contribution if you think logically than if you just assume that any difference of opinion is driven by a psychological flaw.

More baseless assertion. You perceive this so you are telling us it must be true but your perception is the flaw in this equation. Humanity is moving forward and thank goodness it doesn't require anyone's belief to be true. Peer reviewed science will always be > your anecdotes, no matter how charming.

The assertion is not baseless. And what peer-reviewed science are you looking at? You're aware that labor productivity growth has been in a slowdown, yes?

Here's a look at TFP (related but distinct issue):

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/tfp-and-great-stagnation.html

 

[nac386]

Well, we do all still stand in line and vote in a booth in community centers and gymnasiums.

We should all boycott new electronics from all major companies until they come together and figure out a way for Americans to vote without taking off from work and standing in line.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This is another good example. Autonomous surgery is super cool, and if you need it, you'll be damned glad to have it. But it won't do nearly as much to improve health as a clean water supply did or food regulations (manufacturers used to cover the color of tainted milk by adding chalk, and milk was regularly watered down with unclean water). Going from Ubering around to using driverless cars is cool, but not nearly as impactful as going from horses to cars was.

There's never been a better time to be alive, and it's still getting better, but the rate of change is undoubtedly slowing and will continue to.

without a doubt the 'rate of change' as it pertains to how it impacts our health is slowing. that is because we went from a baseline of poor sanitation, poor diet and near non existent healthcare in the last century to quality in all three areas (in the first world).

Those will be the biggest impacters on health and they all take place on the proactive side of the ledger.

On the reactive side (treatment side) you will never see the impact be as big on health because if you do the first part well far less people get sick. But the advancements they are making on the reactive side are massive and amazing but if the new baseline is 'healthy people' ya you won't see the improvements you did when you took people from an unhealthy baseline to a healthy baseline.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Well, we do all still stand in line and vote in a booth in community centers and gymnasiums.

We should all boycott new electronics from all major companies until they come together and figure out a way for Americans to vote without taking off from work and standing in line.

lol. that technology exists and is more fraud resistant then in person voting.

Corporations use it for shareholder votes now.

the only reasons gov't do not use it is they want to control the process more and try and steer the voting more.

 

[7437]

Much of what we saw in Star Trek is now reality even if only in the early stages.

- Transporter technology - Chinese Scientists Just Set the Record for the Farthest Quantum Teleportation

- Replicators -
Here are the 3D Printing Breakthroughs you Need to Know About

- Organ Replication -
Scientists create safer pig organs with goal of transplants for humans

- food replicators -
The Future Of Meat Is Meatless, Just As Tasty, And About To Change The World

- Tricorders-


Oh heck I just googled this list instead...

15 Star Trek Gadgets That Exist In Real Life

you seen the comunicators in star trek? no one wants that flip phone shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

without a doubt the 'rate of change' as it pertains to how it impacts our health is slowing. that is because we went from a baseline of poor sanitation, poor diet and near non existent healthcare in the last century to quality in all three areas (in the first world).

Those will be the biggest impacters on health and they all take place on the proactive side of the ledger.

On the reactive side (treatment side) you will never see the impact be as big on health because if you do the first part well far less people get sick. But the advancements they are making on the reactive side are massive and amazing but if the new baseline is 'healthy people' ya you won't see the improvements you did when you took people from an unhealthy baseline to a healthy baseline.

Right. And likewise, transportation and communication improvements are working off a very different baseline.

So if the framework you're looking at is change in how we live, the kind of changes brought on by what Klaus Schwab calls the second Industrial Revolution are going to be hard to top. Doesn't mean that we're not continuing to come up with cool new stuff that will make our lives better. But I do think it means we should adjust our expectations, which has political and economic implications that are very different from those of techno-optimism (different problems, different potential solutions that make the most sense). @waiguoren keeps talking about political realignment, and this could be a motivation for it. If we're heading for a world of no scarcity where all demand for goods and services could be met with only a small portion of the population working, that could mean no more conflicts over resources but it could also mean a world of unimaginable inequality or one where communism is needed. On the other hand, if growth is slowing, that could mean more fighting over resources (because a growing pie tends to make everyone happy) and more need for immigration.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I like posts that offer a fresh perspective and make me think— not necessarily ones that I agree with.

The OP made me think (something no post of yours has ever made anyone do).

I think I got you

Lold good at that post making you think. Yeah in 60 years our innovations and future tech will be coming to a halt!! Lmao!

 

[dirtypablo]

There are a lot of overly simplistic views of the products and the way technology advances here. Most technological innovation in the past occured gradually, just as it does now. A car was not a radical new idea - it's a horse and buggy with the horse swapped out for an engine. Not only that, the first cars sucked - they were slow and didn't work well, and without an infastructure of roads to use them on, not practical. It was over 100 years between the first car with an internal combustion engine to mass produced vehicles. We look at the innovation as a car, or a cell phone, or some other consumerc good without acknowledging the thousands of innovations hidden inside the end product or manufacturing process that were required to make that product feasable.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Right. And likewise, transportation and communication improvements are working off a very different baseline.

So if the framework you're looking at is change in how we live, the kind of changes brought on by what Klaus Schwab calls the second Industrial Revolution are going to be hard to top. Doesn't mean that we're not continuing to come up with cool new stuff that will make our lives better. But I do think it means we should adjust our expectations, which has political and economic implications that are very different from those of techno-optimism (different problems, different potential solutions that make the most sense). @waiguoren keeps talking about political realignment, and this could be a motivation for it. If we're heading for a world of no scarcity where all demand for goods and services could be met with only a small portion of the population working, that could mean no more conflicts over resources but it could also mean a world of unimaginable inequality or one where communism is needed. On the other hand, if growth is slowing, that could mean more fighting over resources (because a growing pie tends to make everyone happy) and more need for immigration.

It is going to be interesting times for sure but I still don't agree the pace is changing. Within a few decades I believe that almost every job done by man today will be being done by machines. that includes the hereto safe 'knowledge jobs' and jobs in the arts. Nothing will be safe.

Human obsolescence in the work field is imo the biggest advancement thus far.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You are comparing what amounts to a zero sum equation to imagination. Not the same ballpark, not even the same game. Economists are left brain and inventors are right brain. One is quantifiable and one isn't. Good grief.

Yeah, but both are still bound by real things like materials, labor, technology.

Human imagination itself has limits and capacities. It's nice and uplifting to say "There's no limits to what we can do!" but it's not literally true. Humans are organic creatures and just like all organic creatures, they have limits.

We took a massive jump going from horse and buggy to orbiting space in half a century, but that doesn't mean that we'll continue to take massive jumps and start mining the solar system for resources in another half century. The latter simply takes a lot more intelligence to accomplish than the former.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, but both are still bound by real things like materials, labor, technology.

Human imagination itself has limits and capacities. It's nice and uplifting to say "There's no limits to what we can do!" but it's not literally true. Humans are organic creatures and just like all organic creatures, they have limits.

We took a massive jump going from horse and buggy to orbiting space in half a century, but that doesn't mean that we'll continue to take massive jumps and start mining the solar system for resources in another half century. The latter simply takes a lot more intelligence to accomplish than the former.

I think a more well-grounded understanding of technological progress also helps with the Fermi paradox. The wiki page on it offers several possible explanations, but "maybe we're roughly as far along as you can get in terms of moving objects and communicating" isn't one of them ("aliens lack advanced technology" is one, but the implication seems to me that they didn't even get started rather than that they started and reached a high level but just not high enough).