compared to what though ? are we assuming a linear rate of development ? in evolution organisms change gradually with occasional bursts, and the same seems to be true of human tech evolution. There are periods of stagnation with tiny increments or even regress in places, then there are rapid bursts of unpredictable change, often enabled by information from one area reaching another previously unrelated one.
Peter Thiel has made some other interesting observations:
- that our language about the ‘developed' vs ‘developing' world is excessively bullish about globalization while implicitly pessimistic about technology.
- that government has changed from thinking that progress can be achieved via planning, into thinking that it's more just there to watch random forces & statistics evolve the world. This change in mindset away from planning for innovation has made it impossible to achieve grandiose mission like the Apollo space missions. As a result if there is going to be a government role in getting innovation started, people have to philosophically believe again that it’s possible to plan.
- that environmentalism has induced a deep skepticism about anything involving the manipulation of nature or material objects in the real world. This skepticism explains why computer tech has been able to advance so much but not physical technology like transportation.
- that peer review and grant approval processes are too political, science has suffered because it is hard to find scientists who excel at both science and politics.
- that a shift from manufacturing to non-tradeable services has led to a political class (such as lawyers) that is weirdly immune to globalization and mostly oblivious to it.
in this podcast http://www.talkhouse.com/comedian-tim-heidecker-talks-with-a... Adam Curtis argues that we no longer subscribe to grand visions and as a result we're floundering as our internet-induced bubbles send us into every more fragmented echo-chambers
We're never going to achieve anything great again...it's the beginning of the heat-death of human progress! I think that the recent idolatry of the individual has weakened our ability to act en-mass. Previous generations were more cohesive.
WRT skepticism of modification of the natural world - it's so stupid. There is no "natural state" of things. Everything is modifying everything else. We probably even got the ideas to modify ourselves and our environment as early humans from other animals (ants & termites - cities, beavers - dams etc).
The thing to understand about nature is that it is made up of complex systems that have evolved into finely balanced equilibria. Our reductionist science only works well in linear systems where variables are cleanly separable, which complex systems by definition are not. Thus tinkering with nature under the assumption that it is a linear system is likely to have lots of unintended consequences. That is why science's track record in promoting health is so abysmal, and our agriculture is completely unsustainable.
The only way to really evolve a complex system is to make a lot of small gradual changes, constantly course correcting as you go.
I disagree with that. The majority of opinions in previous generations were discounted. A small percentage of people in power said: "We want this, therefore we will have it, and the rest will be damned".
We look more at the negative effects that our overreaching plans have on groups in the minority and on the environment itself. There is no such thing as a grand vision that doesn't have an unwanted effect on some group. It's much harder to unilaterally enforce a vision when everybody gets to voice their opinion.
Once you cut down all the trees you've got yourself a big ass problem, doesn't matter if a world without trees is more "natural" or not.
Case in point, all the CEOs and big-money managers who benefit from the mining and extracting businesses buy their (big) residences in pretty "natural" places, surrounded by water and lots of greenery. I'm pretty sure they and their kids don't live in the areas affected by their companies' non-natural dealings.
>- that government has changed from thinking that progress can be achieved via planning, into thinking that it's more just there to watch random forces & statistics evolve the world. This change in mindset away from planning for innovation has made it impossible to achieve grandiose mission like the Apollo space missions. As a result if there is going to be a government role in getting innovation started, people have to philosophically believe again that it’s possible to plan.
It's pretty bloody ironic to hear Peter Thiel say we need state planning.
