# Is technology stagnating? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805 "2014-06-27T19:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/21 "2014-06-27T21:21:58Z")
Four years ago Michael Lind published an article in _Time,_ [“The Boring Age.”](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971120-2,00.html) > [@](#): > > We like to believe we live in an era of unprecedented change: technological innovation is proceeding at a rate with no parallel in all of human history. The information revolution and globalization are radically disruptive. Just as Barack Obama would like to be a transformational President, so the rest of us like the idea that we live in a thrilling epoch of transformation. But the truth is that we are living in a period of stagnation. > > Surprisingly, this stasis is most evident in an area where we assume we are way ahead of our predecessors: technology. In fact, the gadgets of the information age have had nothing like the transformative effects on life and industry that indoor electric lighting, refrigerators, electric and natural gas ovens and indoor plumbing produced in the early to mid-20th century. Is the combination of a phone, video screen and keyboard really as revolutionary as the original telephone, the original television set or the original typewriter was? > > \ > > Let me offer some predictions of my own. I predict that in the year 2050, the nation-state will still be the dominant form of political organization, with a few new nation-states added to the U.N. The U.S. will still be the dominant global economic and military power, even if China has a somewhat larger GDP because of its larger population. Most energy will still be derived from fossil fuels, and nuclear power will account for an increasing share of global electricity production, while wind and solar power will still be negligible. Most people will get from place to place by means of cars, buses, taxis and planes, not fixed rail. Thanks to biotech advances, people will live longer and healthier lives, and consequently the largest single occupation in 2050 will be — drumroll, please — nursing! > > I know, that’s a boring vision of the future compared with a Chinese century in which everybody is a genetically modified immortal who rides monorails and eats algae grown in skyscrapers. But hey, in the future, phones will be really cool. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/22 "2014-06-27T21:23:20Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Why don’t we find some “super food” that makes horses never tire and go twice as fast? Because jockeys can get suspended for that. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/23 "2014-06-27T21:40:53Z")
**1. 2014 Intel processor to a 2006 Intel processor vs a 2006 Intel processor to a 2000 one.** The focus lately has been on mobile computing (smart phones, tablets). High speed and low power CPUs have been improving rather dramatically. **2.Airplanes - still traveling at roughly the speeds that were available 50 years ago, with some improvements in carrying capacity** The big limitation here is the speed of sound. Going supersonic generally brings along with it a whole bunch of technical challenges along with huge inefficiencies. **3. Personal automobiles cars and trucks ,with some (minor) tweaks and improvements in gas mileage and such over past 50 years.** The reliability of automobiles has increased dramatically in the past few decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, a car with 100,000 miles on it was pretty well shot. These days, getting 200,000 miles out of a car is common. Consumers haven’t demanded a huge increase in mileage performance, so the focus hasn’t been there. And what about hybrid cars and electric cars? Those aren’t just minor tweaks. **4.Getting in space is bit cheaper than 50 years ago , but still too costly for space mining or people living on the moon or mars.Rocketry not really that much better than 50 years ago.** True in a way, but I think that’s because getting into space is just plain difficult. You’ve got private companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic getting into the arena now though. Expecting to be able to hop down to the local rocket stop and fork over 20 bucks for a ride to the moon isn’t very realistic. If you look at more realistic goals, things are advancing quite well in this area. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/24 "2014-06-27T21:57:23Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > All of these things are large sums of money into R&D by the military and DOD.The goal is fast planes from point A to point B. Not transporting people cheaply. > > The R&D is not target for customer air flights but for the military. > > New fuel and material may bring the cost down enough where it is profitable. If that’s what you think, then how do you account for the Concorde, which I mentioned in the previous paragraph? The bottom line is that simple laws of physics say that air resistance increases proportionate the square of the airspeed. If you want to go faster, it costs more. Any material or fuel that would make the Concorde more cost effective would make the 787 even more cost effective. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/25 "2014-06-27T22:04:37Z")
Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/26 "2014-06-27T22:14:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? Aren’t such things almost by definition not visible on the horizon? I mean, there are thousands of inventions and revolutions being worked on that nobody knows about except the small group of researchers working on them, and the people approving their grants. Sure, someday we may be reading about the exploits of the intense rivalry between Tanaka and Perot, for who could first develop a commercially viable Aerodynamic Spoingit. Or the tales of the CIA project Sandwich which over the years grew into the ubiquitous application Club which is integral to modern society. But there will also be stories about similar research projects that seemed like the next big thing and just sputtered out or only found use in limited fields. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/27 "2014-06-27T22:22:26Z")
OP : just be glad we’re not up to sex bots yet in the tech tree. At that point, human achievements in the artistic, scientific, economic and exploration fields will grind to a sreeching halt as every last dollar and man.hour is funnelled into better, cheaper, more efficient, more sophisticated sex bots. Forever. Because Freud was on to something. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? [/QUOTE] We’re _this_ close to artificial wombs. Does that count ? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/28 "2014-06-27T22:29:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? How would we know? We can _imagine_ possible breakthroughs, some of which require science that does not yet ( or may not ever) exist; but how does that put it in the horizon? Even with science we know pretty well, someone once said it seems we have been 20 years from Fusion Power for the last 30. And a rapid-fire cluster of game changing technological advances is the exception, not the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/29 "2014-06-27T22:38:17Z")
Technology tends to follow an S curve, and I think with aviation there is evidence of that. It was flat until about 1900, then grew rapidly for 60-70 years, then became flat again. The advances in aviation from 1900-1970 (going from no flight to flying to the moon and having earth bound jets) was quite an advance, since the 70s I don’t know if advances have been that good. The golden age of aviation was between WW1 and WW2. If anyone figures out how to create flying machines that run on zero point energy that’d be cool. But who knows if that is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/30 "2014-06-27T22:57:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [I Want My Jet Pack!](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetPack) Then you probably [don’t like your calves](http://xkcd.com/1382/). 😃 As for technology, it’s actually moving quite fast. It’s just that consumers haven’t seen a lot of it because they haven’t had the spending money they used to have. People keep their computers long, their cell phones longer, cars longer, and all that other stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/31 "2014-06-27T23:21:56Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > It depends. For mobile devices, power consumption is definitely a kicker. But for desktops, the problem is way more in heat dissipation than power consumption. Unless you’re running a huge computing cluster or a server farm, most processers are in danger of overheating if you speed them more than they are of exceeding your outlet’s electric throughput. Heat and power consumption are equivalent for this kind of discussion. You need a big heatsink no matter where you are running the processor. Static Idd, a good measure of power consumption, tracks nicely with the internal temperatures you can measure with embedded thermal diodes, which tracks nicely with maximum frequency for a particular part. If you split a lot into a fast corner and a slow corner, the fast corner is going to draw more current. I moderated a panel on high speed and low power design because when I was asked to be on it I said that though I know about high speed, where I work now makes stuff not even close to low power. I know some of the tricks, but we mostly throw in another power supply. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/32 "2014-06-27T23:34:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Four years ago Michael Lind published an article in _Time,_ [“The Boring Age.”](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971120-2,00.html) I think that massive photo sharing and use of social media has been more transformative than TV. My daughter who lives in Germany is far more connected to her high school and college friends than I ever was even though I lived relatively closer. The revolution may not be televised, but it certainly has been tweeted. TV cameras out to a few places live was a big change - but not during a storm the Weather Channel shows pictures from the heart of the storm, stuff no number of correspondents could ever get. I wonder if Lind forgets what it was like before. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/33 "2014-06-28T01:45:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? [Mach 5 airliner with 12K mile range.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/34 "2014-06-28T03:06:30Z")
There are a lot of nascent technologies that haven’t left the laboratory yet, but which are potentially revolutionary if they can be made practical: At least in the laboratory, they can do some miraculous things with materials technology. The trick is going from microgram samples to bulk mass production. In the medical field, we are now seeing the very first prototype cloned organs. Or organs may be regenerated in situ by modifying a person’s own stem cells. In twenty years there may be no such thing any more as an “organ waiting list”, and with access to advanced care the majority of people may live to be over 100. With regards to aircraft, the main barrier to progress was achieving supersonic airflow through an engine, the physics of which is only now yielding to extremely powerful computer modeling. Hypersonic air-breathing missiles may be a reality soon, and manned aircraft eventually. In space, the biggest advance is the move away from the government-sponsored “space program” model, and towards private ventures that can feel out what the market will bear, experiment with innovative designs, and build out from there. We’re currently at the Wright Brothers stage. Quantum computing (and more broadly, quantum information processing) is moving from science fiction to reality. In conventional computing, mobile robots are finally reaching the level where they can operate in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/35 "2014-06-28T03:32:16Z")
You might not think of it but many common objects have been greatly improved over the last few years. Take the lowly bowling ball for instance. It used to be nothing more than a big ball of rubber with holes in it. But now the insides are geo-stabiized to create better spin and hence, more strikes. Also one can select special surfaces to match lane conditions. Or the tennis racket. While a racket might look the same as the older ones, the newer ones are made of different materials and tuned in ways to give different backspins, power, control and such. Or a bicycle. Pick up an expensive bicycle made of carbon-whatnot and its light as a feather. The brakes, gears, and aerodynamics are also much improved. And you mentioned cars. The advanced synthetic motor oils you use now last much longer than the old motor oils. And golf clubs! Almost every year their are improvements. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/36 "2014-06-28T03:43:51Z")
WRT firearms technology, although guns work off the same basic principles as always, there has been change in materials and manufacture. Pre-WWII, guns were made from forged steel and wooden stocks. During WWII, stamped and welded manufacturing techniques as well as laminated and synthetic stocks were introduced. Since then, casting, MIM, aluminum alloys, and polymers have become increasingly important. Skilled handfitting-type labor much less so. Also, propellants and projectiles have continuously been improved. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/37 "2014-06-28T03:49:36Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > If that’s what you think, then how do you account for the Concorde, which I mentioned in the previous paragraph? > > The bottom line is that simple laws of physics say that air resistance increases proportionate the square of the airspeed. If you want to go faster, it costs more. Any material or fuel that would make the Concorde more cost effective would make the 787 even more cost effective. The government did give a lot of money for R&D for the Concorde and was state of the art of the time.But when the Concorde started it was too costly for it to be profitable and all the money stoped. The government does not want to spend billions of dollars on a new Concorde 2 that is three or more times cheaper **because we don’t know how much cheaper it can get**. With the military and DOD the government spends billions of billions of billions of billions of dollars with the idea that some projects do well and other projects will fail. The government today just does not want to spend billions of dollars on R&D for a new supersonic airline that is much much \*\*much cheaper \*\*than the Concorde that may or may be a failed project. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/38 "2014-06-28T07:15:39Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The government today just does not want to spend billions of dollars on R&D for a new supersonic airline that is much much \*\*much cheaper \*\*than the Concorde that may or may be a failed project. I’m sure the proponents of a new SST say it will be cheaper. That’s easy before you start. Whether it will be is another matter. I suspect the Concorde was cheaper than the Concorde at the beginning. The market seems to be for plush first class and business seats with wifi - not less luxurious but faster air travel. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/39 "2014-06-28T08:35:56Z")
Consumer products are the Gee Whiz stuff being foisted upon us everyday. The important things are the result of constant refinement. If there’s a commercial pilot spying this thread they’ll give you a laundry list of the little things over the past 25 years which make air travel a whole lot safer. Automobiles are another biggy. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/40 "2014-06-28T14:15:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Still, where is the new airplane or telegraph or steam engine or printing press? That is, where are the really new world-changing, epochal technologies that are not merely improvements on existing ones? Are any such visible on the horizon? 25 years ago, the internet was a place where my nerdy college roommate would spend literally hours to download one photograph of Elle MacPherson from some server in Sweden. ONE! Today, I can be sitting on a bus with my phone and download a movie. The Internet and SmartPhones have completely changed society, and we are watching the infancy of this technology. I’ll also second dracoi in his assessment. Information is massless and ephemeral, it’s relatively easy to improve your ability to move it around by orders of magnitude. Moving an easily damaged object like a human around the Earth, that’s not nearly as easy to improve. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805.md?page=3)