At least one scientist has pondered the idea of diminishing returns on scientific theories. I’m sure economists probably have an equivalent term as do most professions.
The idea is that eventually the closer we get to solving life’s puzzles or problems, the smaller the next discovery will be and the smaller the chances of finding the next discovery will be, exponentially. Therefore, the returns will be smaller and the investment will be smaller which, will bring diminishing returns.
The investment will be smaller because fewer people will put faith in something that promises fewer and fewer returns.
To expand on the idea, I think that as the worlds population grows larger and larger, the individual persons role becomes smaller and smaller almost to the point of pointlessness. This is one of the reasons I think celebrities are chosen so arbitrarily these days ( a last hurrah, a group idol for self validation) .
Who here has very strong feelings about their great-grandparents or their great great grandparents? Who even knows anything about them? What’s the biggest contribution an individual can make in our time? How long could it last?
If I could find a cure for cancer what are the chances that my cure would reach cancer patients? If my cure made it, what good would it do if the world’s population were growing out of control to the point of self-destruction anyway? Wouldn’t I just be adding to the problem?
Three things made me think of this:
The thread about how much beer each household consumed (in IMHO)
An HBO special about (phony) Christian televangelist miracle healers.
Tonight’s nightline, which covered some lady who’s dying.
Kind of tautological, no? Once we have sloved a problem, there will be no need to solve it further? Ah, but the key is solving the problem. Polio is no longer the scurge it once was. But as far as the fundamental problems-- well, we’re nowhere near solving them in any meaningful way.
I’m sure there’s a point to this thread, but it’s hard to find it among all the lamentations. I’m loking forward to our tech-heavy future with optimism.
John Mace , I was just trying to define what my idea of diminshing returns was. Sorry if it didn’t make as much sense as it should have.
Bryan Ekers , There’s a moderate chance that there is no point.
I’m completely optimistic about the future of technology and of civilzation in general. I was just commenting on the role of most humans alive as I see it. Maybe an important one overall but not so important that every individual is crucial to the outcome. I don’t see it as a bad thing. It gives people the oppertunity to persue anything they wish in life, no matter how silly.
The people standing in line to be healed by the prophet/tv preacher seem a little askew to me. As if their arthritis needs to be healed by God in order for the world to have true meaning.
I think maybe eventually science may reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. The reasons? Well, maybe one day we’ll reach a point where we know so much about the universe and the things residing within it that the things we do not know are of little consequence (little in the way of returns) or will cost an incredible amount of time and effort to learn more about (high costs). Also, comparing what we know now to what we don’t know, it’s easy to see that there is a lot we know near-nothing about. In virtue of that, it’s relatively easy to find something to research wherein you’ll be guaranteed some sort of result due to diligence and chance more than anything else (I don’t mean to demean research or science at all, I’m just kinda pontificating). Anyhow, I don’t see that day coming anytime soon, but I suppose it might come some day.
You’re right, but I don’t think we’re all that close to noticing diminishing returns across all of science. Clearly we don’t study the mechanics of trebuchets any longer, for example. But engine design is still a field that makes a difference.
Advances in technology enable, primarily, two things. One is the use of a resource that was previously not very useful. The other is extending the life of a resource. The latter is where we are most likely to see diminishing returns, but even at that, a few percentage points of efficiency for a vast resource is a significant increase. For example, we know how to get the salt out of saltwater. But we don’t know how to do so yet with an efficiency that matches obtaining freshwater sources. Still, as the latter’s supply decreases, eyes will look to the former as a potential solution. Hopefully the end result will be small gains in efficiency that will make a very large impact by drastically increasing the freshwater supply. (Illustrative purposes only.)
As the pool of Phd’s increases faster than the population their theories will likely proliferate also. As they tend to specialize in their fields of study they will learn and know more and more about less and less untill the know everything about nothing.
And then there are those who study every thing intensely learning less and less about more and more untill they know nothing about everything.
Both classes will compile and publish much rubbish, but a few gems will filter through.
As Soloman said: “my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”