Today’s technology is up-to-the-minute.
Asimov’s article doesn’t address the point at all. The article is about knowledge about the universe and physics. The point is related to knowledge about how to use those physical attributes of the universe to accomplish goals.
In addition, physicists and materials scientists are regularly finding new and unexpected attributes of materials and energy, not everything is known.
Fine. Hold your breath waiting for your magic.
I’m kind of confused as to the OP’s question. How would we rate it? In relation to what?
I mean, in terms of our own history, we’ve seen a revolution over the past 250 years that absolutely dwarfs the 50,000 years of human existence that predated it. In effect we went from horse and wind powered stuff, with very little understanding of the basic scientific underpinnings of the universe, to understanding a great deal of how things work, both at a large scale and a subatomic scale. And we’ve figured out how to apply a lot of that knowledge in ways that better our lives, and are starting to concentrate on the environmental impact now. That requires a level of scientific understanding that we haven’t had until relatively recently.
And we’ve gone from card catalogs and stacks of physical books in libraries and other repositories of knowledge to the Internet, and digitized, indexed information sources. I can go with my phone, and look up pretty much anything in greater detail in a matter of minutes, what would have taken me a lot longer to find, and probably have a lot less targeted information about in say… 1995, when I was in college. That’s a HUGE advancement. I suspect we’re in the start of seeing what internet-enabled research might look like- it’s possible that the scientific research pace might quicken just a little bit more from where it already is.
I think you missed the point of the essay. In Isosleepy’s example, the logistics expert is correct. You can’t make the cart go faster with more horses. What was done is shifting to a new technology, which does not invalidate but rather extends the old one.
Tell an early automobile pioneer in 1895 that you someday will get from New York to San Francisco in six hours. He’ll give you that his car could go much faster someday, but would give you good reasons why it could never do 500 mph for extended periods. He’d be right. But he wasn’t thinking of flying.
Why not provide an argument instead of just claiming everyone else is wrong without any backup or logic.
Other than the fact that silicon is about at it’s limit, why not explain why you think that it is physically impossible to exceed something like 1x10^15 bits per second per kilogram? (again, that is a pretty generous measure of where we are today).
Why will all other methods of computation fail to exceed that limit? What do you know that scientists and mathematicians don’t know yet?
Unfortunately this neither responds for you nor to me. You might be represented less by Isaac Asimov and more by Henry L. Ellsworth, if only he hadn’t been joking when he said: “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.”
99.9% of human knowledge is stored in a form easily accessible by any computer via the internet. Machine Learning computer applications are becoming more sophisticated and capable every day. Throw those two things together and… whammo! A whole new dimension (and quantity) of research performed entirely by computer and then interbred with human research.
I’m at a loss to even guess what technology will be like in a hundred years.
It will get smaller. But we’re already at a point where smart phone size is determined by the useable screen. A 2x2 smartphone is useless. You have to see what’s displayed.
We already have voice command on gadgets.
Self driving cars are in development.
Robotics and AI seems like the last big improvement.
I don’t have the imagination to predict tech in a 100 years.
It could be that modern technology may be as good as it gets.
The world may run out of the metals used in electronics. People a hundred years from now might be S.O.L.
There’s also the use of limited carbon based fuels.
There’s no guarantee the Jetsons will be on Earth in a hundred years. There may be shortages that completely change how tech devices are casually used and tossed away.
Dude, have you read your own posts? You have trouble with technology that is current pretty often. 
Yup, I’ve never felt the need to keep up with the latest tech.
It’s never been a priority for me.
For those interested in physics and materials research, here’s a small sampling of things scientists have discovered recently. i see a pretty steady flow of these types of stories and it seems like it’s not uncommon for scientists to get unexpected results, discovering new attributes of materials and particle interactions:
Does the fact that we can’t even make wood, make steel without coal and rely on fossil fuels for the bulk of our energy needs mean we are technologically backwards compared with theoretical civilizations that can do these things?
"In 2015, Google and NASA reported that their new 1097-qubit D-Wave quantum computer had solved an optimization problem in a few seconds. That’s 100 million times faster than a regular computer chip. "
Now quantum computers are still in their early development and aren’t practical for everyday tasks like smart phones and looking at porn. But these seems to me to be another clear case of “impossible” being made possible by changing to a new technology or architecture.
Doesn’t seem particularly useful as you can’t get any information out of a black hole…ergo “black”.
Metal generally doesn’t get “used up”. It can be recycled. But to your point, demand for such metals may increase to the point where personalized devices become prohibitively expensive.
100 years from now, maybe technology has shifted in a way such that we aren’t carrying around bulky devices like we do today. Maybe the functionality of our smart phone is moved “to the cloud”. Like people have some sort of chip embedded in them or some transmitter resonates with their brain or whatever to holographically project driving directions or porn or call their grandma (not all at the same time hopefully).
The point being, I don’t think people are just going to throw up their hands and stop making tech because lithium becomes too expensive.