Does a civilization reach a point when technology can progress no further?
It does seem like a civilization would progress so far that there would be no need to go any further, but of course that goes against human nature (I obviously do not know of the mindsets of other intelligent beings).
I also see how there could always be room for progression. For example, you could keep getting closer to the speed of light (assuming that it cannot be reached).
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Well, what pops into my head was the way folks in the 19th century maintained that the human body wasn’t designed to go any faster than 60 mph. That was it–the “frontier” beyond which nobody could go.
Throughout history, virtually every time it was proclaimed that X was as far as [whatever] could go, someone/something came along and pushed it beyond X. The real limit seems to be in the imagination of the pessimists.
The question could be considered two ways: scientific/technological and economic/social.
The scientific/technological answer would be that as long as there’s still new things to learn about how the universe works, there’s room for new technologies based on that science.
The economic/social answer is that some societies (in fact, most societies before the European Renaissance) reached plateaus in their development where further advancement was either impossible or had little incentive. A case can be be made that no society changes it’s ways unless it has to. Hunter/gatherers presumably liked their way of life just fine, and agriculture was only developed because climate change led to starvation.
In a sort of feedback process, scientific advance is dependent on the level of technology already available. It’s been suggested that one thing that made the development of science possible beginning in the 16th century was the emergence of a sophisticated glassmaking industry that could create lenses, barometers and thermometers, chemical apparatus, etc.