is technological progress really "snowballing?"

[Freejooky]

At a casual glace, it appears so: it seems like more has changed for humanity in the past 100 years than in all of recorded history up to that point. And when you think about it, we really did go from stagecoaches and primitive “frontier life” to airplanes, electricity, computers, antibiotics, in little over 100 years. Compared to the previous centuries of comparatively glacial progress, that was a hell of a leap in a short amount of time.

Many futurists claim that things really are “speeding up,” and that in even 30 years, we’ll have made such increasingly-large leaps that “you won’t recognize the place.”

So, what’s the deal? Is this blind optimism, or are we really snowballing in progress, barreling toward some undefined zero point? Is there a historical precedent for the state that we’re in now - ie, did people living in the aftermath of previous technological paradigm shifts like the discovery of fire or the invention/popularization of the printing press feel the same way that we do now?

[Thaumaturge]

The claim is probably correct, but you can’t really predict the future.

One unique thing now that didn’t happen back when say fire was discovered is the ease of the spread of information that we enjoy now. Even with the spread of the printing press, information was slow to move from point to point.

Now a discovery can be made and in less than a day many many someones elsewhere might be thinking of a new way to harness the discovery. Right now, the speed of discovery helps fuel itself. Also, there are many more minds working on each problem…more people thinking about a problem means a solution comes much faster. There is no historical precedent for what is going on now. We are truly in uncharted territory.

[Mathochist]

@Thaumaturge

There is no historical precedent for what is going on now. We are truly in uncharted territory.

One might say that this has always been the case, though in different ways. When was the phrase “The Undiscovered Country” coined?

[jimdigritz]

@Freejooky

Many futurists claim that things really are “speeding up,” and that in even 30 years, we’ll have made such increasingly-large leaps that “you won’t recognize the place.”

Vernor Vinge has some interesting ideas on the subject. He has expoused the idea of an impending technological singularity.

The first part of his Abstract to whet your appetite:

*The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. *

I am sure there are other threads about the Singularity, but I couldn’t be arsed to search…
Jim

[SentientMeat]

I’d suggest that technological progress isn’t quite as genuinely revolutionary as was the 20th Century, due to all the “easy” things having already been done. We are now left with a kind of ‘mopping up’ operation of applying the 20th Century discoveries and inventions while the 21st Century revolutions are altogether more difficult and intractable.

For example, lasers were invented with relative ‘ease’ and were put to work in all kinds of ways. Blue lasers, on the other hand, are only just becoming feasible to mass produce and, even so, are nowhere near as reliable as green or red. Computation is coming up against some tricky thermodynamic limits, and room-temp superconductivity is still practical pie-in-the-sky.

Having said that, biological advancement seems to be every bit as big of a ‘boom’ as vehicle, communication or computing technology was last century.

[LuckySevens]

@SentientMeat

I’d suggest that technological progress isn’t quite as genuinely revolutionary as was the 20th Century, due to all the “easy” things having already been done. We are now left with a kind of ‘mopping up’ operation of applying the 20th Century discoveries and inventions while the 21st Century revolutions are altogether more difficult and intractable.

For example, lasers were invented with relative ‘ease’ and were put to work in all kinds of ways. Blue lasers, on the other hand, are only just becoming feasible to mass produce and, even so, are nowhere near as reliable as green or red. Computation is coming up against some tricky thermodynamic limits, and room-temp superconductivity is still practical pie-in-the-sky.

Having said that, biological advancement seems to be every bit as big of a ‘boom’ as vehicle, communication or computing technology was last century.

They said that 100 years ago too you know
I think you are right though, we’ve discovered a spectrum of ideas last century, now we’re fine tuning them into more practical ideas, waiting for the next big leaps.

[BrotherCadfael]

@SentientMeat

I’d suggest that technological progress isn’t quite as genuinely revolutionary as was the 20th Century, due to all the “easy” things having already been done. We are now left with a kind of ‘mopping up’ operation of applying the 20th Century discoveries and inventions while the 21st Century revolutions are altogether more difficult and intractable.

In 1899, the Commissioner of the Patent Office, Charles H. Duell, recommended shutting down operations, because

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

[SmackFu]

A lot of it is computers and the things they affect. Has anything else in the world ever improved exponentially rather than linearly?

[Small_Clanger]

@Mathochist

. . . When was the phrase “The Undiscovered Country” coined?

Er. . . that would be that Shakespeare bloke sometime around 1600. From Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ speach:

But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns…

I don’t think he had technology in mind

[CalMeacham]

1899, the Commissioner of the Patent Office, Charles H. Duell, recommended shutting down operations, because

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

This quote (and at least one other claim that “everything has been discovered”) has been thoroughly debunked. The article has been reprinted twice in the SKeptical Inquirer recently, but the work was largely done many decades ago. It’s surprising that this myth has hung on as long as ithas. Getting printed in Christopher Cerf’s book The Experts Speak gave it a new lease on life, and others have cited it from there. But the claim doesn’t hold up.
Regarding Technological (and Scientific) progress, I see it continuing to increase. If the rate of expansion of journals and pages of journal articles is any indication, then we are definitely snowballing.
OTOH, I suggest that non-academic research in the US is falling off – Look at Polaroid, Bell Labs (Lucent), Kodak, etc. But other countries will, I predict, pick up the slack.

[Popup]

@Freejooky

Is there a historical precedent for the state that we’re in now - ie, did people living in the aftermath of previous technological paradigm shifts like the discovery of fire or the invention/popularization of the printing press feel the same way that we do now?

One of my more prized posessions is a book printed about 1860 stating (roughly - my translation)

Technology is moving so fast, what with electricity, steam engines, magnetism etc. Things which our parents could never dream of, but that our children will take for granted. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand how these phenomena work, why this book will only attempt to give a broad overview.

So, No - we’re not the first to feel that way. Our great-great-grandparents probably felt the same way.

(On preview I see the Cal has already debunked BrotherCadfaels claim, but I’ll keep this rebuttal anyway, as it has an online cite.)

@BrotherCadfael

In 1899, the Commissioner of the Patent Office, Charles H. Duell, recommended shutting down operations, because

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

Remember that we’re here to fight ignorance!
From the US Patent Office (link (scroll down to the bottom))

Rumor has it. that a Patent Office official resigned and recommended that the Patent Office be closed because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented had already been invented!

While that statement makes good fun of predictions that do not come to pass, it is none the less just a myth. Researchers have found no evidence that any official or employee of the U.S. Patent Office had ever resigned because there was nothing left to invent. A clue to the origin of the myth may be found in Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth’s 1843 report to Congress. In it he states, “The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end.” But Commissioner Ellsworth was simply using a bit of rhetorical flourish to emphasize the growing number of patents as presented in the rest of the report. He even outlined specific areas in which he expected patent activity to increase in the future.

Taken out of context, such remarks take on a life of their own and are perpetuated in publication after publication whose authors, rather than check facts, copy and quote each other. For example, recent publications have attributed the “everything that has been invented…” quote to a later commissioner, Charles H. Duell, who held that office in 1899. Unlike Ellsworth, who may have been merely misquoted, there is absolutely no basis to support Duell’s alleged statement. Just the opposite is true. Duell’s 1899 report documents an increase of about 3,000 patents over the previous year, and nearly 60 times the number granted in 1837.

[Mangetout]

Whilst I don’t by any means think that everything possible has been done, I also don’t buy the “Yes, but back in the stone age, they never thought we’d fly, so anything could happen” argument; there are such things as limits in this universe and sooner or later, we will run up against them (or more likely we will never actually quite attain them).
It is true that we don’t know what we don’t know, however what we now do know strongly implies that certain things (FTL travel, for example) may well remain permanently beyond the grasp of the human species. Stone age man had no sound basis for thinking either that we could or couldn’t fly - that is the difference.

Having said all that, I do believe there will continue to be impressive technological advances for some time to come.

[Popup]

@SmackFu

A lot of it is computers and the things they affect. Has anything else in the world ever improved exponentially rather than linearly?

While it is true that computer speed is growing exponentially, I see no proof of computer usage following the same curve. It might have followed an exponential growth early on, but I believe that it’s levelling out. (Of course this all depends on how you count. If you meassure the amount of data shuffled around on internet (a very interresting metric) you might still get an exponential growth, but if you look at e.g. time spent in front of computers I’m fairly convinced that the second or third derivate is decreasing.
However, what I wanted to point out was that I believe that the advent of first writing, then paper, and finally the movable type printing press probably had an equal, if not larger impact.

[chappachula]

@Freejooky

more has changed for humanity in the past 100 years than in all of recorded history… in 30 years, “you won’t recognize the place.”

in the space of 100 years -from 1865 to 1965–we made huge advances.(from horses to jet planes, from morse code to telephones,from chamber pots to flush toilets )
In the next 30 years, 1965-1995,we made NO major advances–just improved the existing ones(plane travel became cheaper, but no faster)

I predict that between the 30 years from 1995 and 2025 will not see major, revolutionary new changes in technology.(maybe planes will fly without a pilot,but it will still take the same 6 hours from London to NY.)You’ll still be able to “recognize the place” .
Sure, 1995 started the internet boom–very important, but it’s a social change, not a huge technology revolution.(basically, its a much-improved telephone)

But social changes may occur due to the new technology–.Especially cell phones!.People will become so used to being “wired” and accessible all the time, that our sense of privacy may change.
If anything truly revolutionary happens, it will come from biology, not technology. Genetic engineering may enable us (within the next 30 years) to grow replacements for body parts, which may let some people who are alive today live to age 100 or so.
But the really overwhelming revolution will come if it becomes possible to slow down the body’s aging process. The theoretical genetic research is just beginning ,.But tests on human subjects will take generations.

So maybe by the year 2285 people will have changed so much that “they wont recognize themselves”–because they are routinely living for 200 years
.
But within our own lifetimes, I expect to see lots of new gadgets.But nothing so revolutionary that life would be impossible without it–like the toilet.

[ianzin]

Very mild hijack… my favourite statistic in this regard is that from the Wright Brothers’ first flight to Neil Armstrong on the moon took just 66 years. Less than one average life span! Isn’t that incredible? Think of starting off in 1903, when most people doubted powered flight was even possible, and all the small improvements that had to be made, and problems that had to be solved, to get to '…the Eagle has landed".

Sometimes, the slight variant I cite is that from the Wright Bros at Kitty Hawk to the first space shuttle - a ‘plane’ that could fly into space and back again - took just 78 years (1903 to 1981). Astonishing.

[Chronos]

A lot of it is computers and the things they affect. Has anything else in the world ever improved exponentially rather than linearly?

I’d say that technological progress in general grows exponentially, or faster. Technology builds on previous technology, such that the development of new technology is proportional to the sum total of all technological advancements over history. The only mathematical function with this property is the exponential. This is also supported by the fact that, all through history, we’ve had this sense of “technology is advancing faster now than ever before”. I think I even once saw something of the sort attributed to Aristotle, and certainly (as other posters have demonstrated) over a century ago. And again, only with an exponential growth will every era look equally unprecedented by the previous eras.

Sure, 1995 started the internet boom–very important, but it’s a social change, not a huge technology revolution.(basically, its a much-improved telephone)

But by the same token, the telephone is basically just a much-improved telegraph, and you’re considering that development to be a major one. Most of the progress in computers in general has happened in the past forty years. I’m not sure what your standard is, here, for saying that nothing much has happened since 1965.

[Epimetheus]

@chappachula

in the space of 100 years -from 1865 to 1965–we made huge advances.(from horses to jet planes, from morse code to telephones,from chamber pots to flush toilets )
In the next 30 years, 1965-1995,we made NO major advances–just improved the existing ones(plane travel became cheaper, but no faster)

I guess it depends in which convuluted way you define “major.”

You could just as easily say that there have been no major advances since electricity, and all have been mere ways to utilize it. You would be just as wrong. There have been major technological breakthroughs, and even though many of them have been improvements on existing technologies or theories, they are not any less major or signifigant.

I think it is being very short sighted by classifing major as you have. Nothing that is an improvement is major. Might as well say gunpowder was not a major advance. It was, after all, merely an improvement on other projectile weapons, such as the sling.

[Epimetheus]

Oh, and I would like a cite showing that the fastest jet in 1995 is the same speed as the jets in 1965.

I don’t understand how the transition from morse code to telephones is a MAJOR advance, but the transition from regular telephones to Cellular phones isn’t :rolleyes:

[chappachula]

@Chronos

But by the same token, the telephone is basically just a much-improved telegraph, and you’re considering that development to be a major one. I’m not sure what your standard is, here, for saying that nothing much has happened since 1965.

In 1965, my father worked for a large international company .The company that existed in 1965 could not have existed in 1925.–it relied on a revolutionary change–the telephone–to do international business.But in 1995, the same company still existed in the same offices. They use computers, of course, not telephones— but that is not a revolutionary change, just a big improvement.

My grandfather in 1915 rode a horse, and could never imagine doing business in London. By 1965, my father’s life was radically different.By 1995, my life was radically different from my grandfather’s, but not much different from my father’s.My “horse” was a Ford just like my father’s in 1965, and my flight to London was no faster.(yes,phone calls were cheaper, and I had email-but those are improvements, not radical changes.)
I have similar experience as my father, and can share his knowledge on caring for my car.But he never shared in his father’s experience , and asked for advice on caring for a horse.

In the next 30 years, my children will be able to share in my knowledge of computers or cars. What I have experienced will still be relevant to their world—unlike the 30 year gap between my father and his father.

[Epimetheus]

Yeah, but in 1964, if I had severe headaches and bleeding from the nose, I would be out of luck. Today we can go in and get an MRI and something can be done about it. That is revolutionary.

In 1964, If I was out in the middle of nowhere, and my car broke down, I would have to walk to some strangers house and knock, hoping that they had phone lines that far out in the fields. Today we have satellites and celluar towers everywhere, and I can just call my friend and have him pick me up, or call a tow truck. That is revolutionary.

In 1964 if I was lost, I had to find a gas station and ask for directions. Now directions are at the touch of a button. That is revolutionary.

In 1964 if I wanted to look up something I had to drive to the library, look up books by dewel decimal number and spend hours and hours researching stuff. Now I just go to google.com. That is revolutionary.

In 1964 if I had high blood pressure I was at risk for a stroke. I would likely die from one. Today I can take medication that will lower my blood pressure and drastically lower my risk of stroke. THAT is revolutionary.

In 1964 the amount of research done in pharmeceuticals was near nothing compared to the levels today. Jobs are plentiful, money is made, and peoples lives are saved. (though sometimes at a rather costly dollar amount)

Your arbitrary classification is flawed. What you consider is major is nothing different from the ones I listed above. You dare say flight was more revolutionary than all the advances in medicines, the advances in technology, computing power, wireless internet, cochlear implants, cars with fuel injection, computers, cellular technology, digital cameras, satellite, MRIs, pharmecuetical breakthroughs, nanotechnological breakthroughs, the discovery of alloys, buckyballs, major discoveries in every single field of science? Your logic is flawed, and your comparisons are weak. Major breakthroughs happen every day. Ones that change the face of humanity daily. Just because your grandfather, or yourself, whatever your do for a living, have not had your life altered drastically.

I have worked with a person that does not have a television, wouldn’t have the internet if it killed her, and doesn’t have the slightest clue about much of technology. She is likely living 30-50 years in the past, technologically. Her life, as much as she would hate to admit it, bless her luddite soul, has been changed and drastically because of technology. Her very job belies that.

Personally I think before one makes such claims “that mankind has made no major advances in the last 40 years.” shows a marked ignorance, and definately should be backed up by some serious citation if you want it to be taken seriously. Or should be put in IMHO instead of GQ.