Has the Rate of Technical Progress Slowed? 712
Amiga Trombone writes "An article in the IEEE Spectrum argues that the rate of technological progress has slowed in the last 50 years. While there have been advances in areas such as computers, communications and medicine, etc., the author points out that these advances have largely been incremental rather than revolutionary. He contrasts the progress made within the life-span of his grandmother (1880-1960) with that in his own (1956-present). Having been born the year after the author, I've noticed this, too. While certainly we've produced some useful refinements, little of the technology available today would have surprised me much had I been able to encounter it in 1969. While some of it has been implemented in surprising ways, the technology itself had largely been anticipated."
Ray Kurzweil (Score:5, Informative)
would disagree with the article.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 [kurzweilai.net]
Not so excited about excitement as I used to be (Score:2, Informative)
I'm feeling lately that a lot of "advances" haven't really improved our lives. Our "technologically advanced" running shoes don't offer any more protection than what Roger Bannister wore fifty years ago when he ran a four minute mile. (See "Born to Run", Christopher McDougall). Our food supply system as a result of the "green revolution" (by which I mean industrial agriculture following World War II, not the environmental movement) that was supposed to feed the world is actually making us less healthy than the family farms that used to supply our food. (See "The Omnivore's Dilemma", Michael Pollan). Plastic, what was enthusiastically proclaimed as "the future" for Benjamin in "The Graduate" in 1968, turns out to be the bane of living things when it disrupts our endocrine systems. (See "Our Stolen Future," Theo Colborn, et al). I'm not a Luddite. I just don't see all technology or "The Future" in general exclusively through rose-tinted glasses.
Re:Lately (Score:4, Informative)
Where is the fastest growth in video cameras: the Flip and mobile phones, not pricey 1080p camcorders. Fastest growth in computers: netbooks, not high-powered desktops. Biggest thing in health care: clinics to handle minor ailments, not full-service hospitals. So-so call quality from Skype? No problem. MSWord getting too bloated and expensive by feature creep? Try Google Docs, even if it is slow, requires an internet connection any time you want to do something, and was perpetually in Beta.
I'm not sure I agree with this thesis entirely, but is does make some interesting points.
This is not exactly to say that Good Enough doesn't represent technical progress. Indeed, the ability for Good Enough to be good enough is a testament to technical progress, because that has allowed computer power to become cheap and ubiquitous. In some cases, like the Flip, some might say that creating a simple device that actually does what it is supposed to, simply and easily, is progress compared to a device that tries to do everything, but is a total kludge.
Re:Flying Car (Score:5, Informative)
Just for the sake of Accuracy, supersonic commercial flights didn't start until the 1970's.
And for those who complained about the cost, yeah flying over the pond was very costly but many thousands of people flew Concorde on charter flights and experienced flying at twice the speed of sound for far less money than a transatlantic trip.
I flew Concorde to JFK had three nights in NYC and sailed on the QE2 back to the UK for £1999.00. A memorable trip to celebrate my 15th wedding anniversary.
Re:How could this be? (Score:2, Informative)
...which is it, since a patent is a government-issued ("legal") decree that one ("mono") company or person can control the manufacture of a thing.
Bell Labs' successes mostly came during the pre-AT&T breakup age, when it was part of a heavily regulated monopoly telecommunications company. A heavily regulated monopoly can provide conditions conducive to innovation: if it starts exploiting patents, or not producing new ideas, its regulators can smack it into line, while at the same time the lack of competition can allow a longer-term view.
On the other hand, patent trolls use the monopoly granted by a patent is a unregulated way.
Fppt.. (Score:3, Informative)
Author misses lots of things, and makes all sorts of invalid comparisons.
For example, the invention of the electric light may seem like a big thing, but there were centrally powered lighting systems already when it was invented - such as town gas lighting. Sure, electric lights are better, but one could say it's just an 'incremental improvement'. It's just a matter of perspective.
And while the lightbulb was a big invention, it was largely unchanged for the first 50+ years. Almost every light bulb was a hot filament in a vacuum. More recently, we've been making entirely new sources of light, using entirely new chemical or physical principles.Think LEDs, OLEDs, all sorts of lasers, bioluminescence that we can now splice into rats and bunnies at will, etc... We've even made rather esoteric sources of light like beta-radiation powered lights that last for a decade.
The author also makes comments like this:
But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.
Well... duh. Something has got to kill us in our old age eventually, and it'll be the diseases that are hard to cure, obviously. Until we develop some sort of immortality, that's not going to change. 100% of people will die, of something, no matter how good medicine is.
Until we all become immortal, what about the major advancements, like the recent developments in growing organs? It's still in it's early stages, but even what we've got now is a massive leap forward in medicine, almost as big as the invention of modern surgical techniques.
Re:Flying Car (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Two reasons (Score:2, Informative)
There's a couple of reasons why technology has sort of fizzled out, as I see it.
First of all, DIY is dead or dying. Electronic components are harder to get hold of, and information about electronics is harder to get hold of (Internet is all good, but it really doesn't compare to the old electronics magazines).
DIY dying? Seriously? I am incredibly encouraged by the Maker movement _enabled_ by new electronic components and Internet information sharing that is happening today. Check out Make magazine if you want to see some of what's going on. Look at sparkfun.com or adafruit or any number of blogs. Then go out and make something.
Re:Flying Car (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flying Car (Score:3, Informative)
It should be relatively easy to establish "rules of the sky" where the northern/eastern most plane can take either up or North/East and the southern/western most plane can take either down or South/West to avoid a collision much like (in the US) a driver should steer right to avoid one.
In effect this is already in place as planes on a collision course will invariably be at slightly different altitudes the higher one climbs whilst the lower dives. This is already standard practice in civil aviation and happens an awful lot more than the stats say as the stats don't include near misses that resulted from aborted landings (At least here in the UK).
Re:Flying Car (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flying Car (Score:3, Informative)
Since you know absolutely nothing about aircraft, let me enlighten you.
http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-400/2009-CESSNA-400/1150661.htm [controller.com]
$600,000 for a new 4 seater with all options. That's still a MAJOR distance from 1.5M.
And actually right now, if you have the money to buy one you can probably get that plane for $500,000...
Besides, who here for their first car, bought a brand new Mustang GT or other car (Yes my comanche was the Mustang GT of 4 seater single prop)? nobody but the rich kids that daddy bought it for them.
P.S. my old plane had higher tech and far more reliable electronics in it than your new car.
Re:Flying Car (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Two reasons (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Flying Car (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the way it does with small single-engine airplanes today? In small general aviation craft, an engine failure, electrical failure, or mechanical failure is frequently a serious emergency, with potentially fatal consequences. However, unless you're doing something seriously stupid, a competent pilot is very likely to survive a rather large subset of such failures -- basically anything excluding "wings fall off".
To extend your logical argument, then we don't need to develop flying cars --- we already have them. They're called "single-engine airplanes". Put some road wheels on them and you're done.
However, in practice the concepts are quite different. The canonical "flying car" is expected to be much smaller and maneuverable than an airplane, piloted by a non-expert, capable of flying in a much more crowded environment, and most importantly should not require the use of long runways (ideally it should have VTOL capability). Unfortunately, it's precisely these characteristics that militate against the safety characteristics you describe.
And even without those extreme requirements, small airplanes still get in plenty of trouble.
Re:Flying Car (Score:3, Informative)
faster travel means less maneuverability which is why planes can't turn on a dime; they are travelling much faster.
Actually, no - a plane's maneuverability is linked to the way that it flys. Air moving over control surfaces just react differently than wheels on a road. However, the faster a plane goes the MORE maneuverable it becomes. Indeed, if you slow a plane down close to it's stall speed it gets so sluggish that it barely wants to do anything.