Lack of technological progress

ScumLord · 02-07-2015 07:10PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly.

We have used extra production as if it was an increase in wealth, when in fact it meant an increase in work to pay for the extra product. Since the second world war, Governments have increased public debt to pay for increased social security. The private individual has increased private debt to pay for housing, and buying new (sometimes unnecessary replacement) products.

Debt isn't all bad though, nobody's forced anybody into debt, we all have the option to do without. Banks being able to loan people and businesses money has allowed for rapid development too. It allows the likes of poorer countries to borrow so they can invest in infrastructure that allows them to build industry and increase the wealth of the country.

When you give people the option to buy now and let the product pay for itself over it's lifetime, they'll take that over being left behind while they save up to buy the machine they need. Not so much applicable to an end consumer that just buys shiny things but to a business or country it allows them to be competitive without being cash rich.

It's not all bad and while banks have lapsed on their responsibility to ensure they can afford their loans numerous times, it's ultimately the person or institution getting the loan to decide whether they can realistically pay back the loan. Some people do gamble with loans but for the most part loans are an integral part of business today and the world wouldn't be operating at the rate it is without them. In reality loans can stop monopolies from happening because if there's an opportunity for someone to undercut the major players it's an easy opportunity to take advantage of because of loans.

I'm no fan of the current banking system, but it is the best system we've had to date when you put it in the context of the rapid development that's happened thanks to easy access to money.

If car manufacturers had produced better cars in the 60s and 70s - cars that could be repaired easily, with sustainable (rust-free) structure, these would not have been scrapped so quickly. Scrapping them led to a significant loss of wealth.

But that would be stagnation, development in cars would grind to a halt. We have an over romanticised view of products in the past, cars from the 60s and 70s were terrible in many, many ways. They broke down constantly, were extremely dangerous and very fuel inefficient.

Companies that used to employ thousands of employees now produce more with hundreds of employees. Many people spend their working day looking at a computer screen. This is what technical advance has led to - greater debt and boring work.

People get in debt because they buy stuff on credit. You're work day doesn't really cost you more today, your food is a smaller percentage of your wages and your car is more efficient. New costs have come in but on the basic parameter of the percentage of your wages that go towards buying and fueling a car could well be lower.

I'm sure if our grandfathers that toiled away in dangerous factories or on the land could see us in front of our computers they'd swap jobs instantly. They probably did work much longer hours for a smaller wage and had less stuff to spend their money on.

mg1982 · 02-07-2015 07:37PM

What is scary is that in a recent study it was found that in 15 years up to 50% of the jobs in the labour market in the United States can be done by computer and with companies striving to make bigger profits you can see where thats heading. Also with the advent of 3D printing could also destroy a lot of manufacturing jobs.

Sam Russell · 02-07-2015 07:46PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Debt isn't all bad though, nobody's forced anybody into debt, we all have the option to do without. Banks being able to loan people and businesses money has allowed for rapid development too. It allows the likes of poorer countries to borrow so they can invest in infrastructure that allows them to build industry and increase the wealth of the country.

Tell that to the Greeks - or even us. We as a nation were forced by the ECB to take on the massive debts of the banks. We were instructed how to cut our budgets and deny people medical care and living expenses to repay that debt to bondholders - who were originally other European banks.

Every country in Europe with very few exceptions (I think Luxembourg) are in continually rising National debt, year on year. Only rising GNP has kept the boats afloat. Luxembourg are very flexible when it comes to taxation of large companies.

I agree that poorer countries need to borrow, but mainly because multinational companies do not pay their taxes - and certainly not in third world countries.

nyarlothothep · 15-07-2015 04:39PM

I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility. Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.

Sam Russell · 15-07-2015 06:25PM

Google is perhaps the greatest technological advance in the last twenty years. How could there not be another one in the next twenty years?

We have medical advances to look forward to, software and hardware developments as well - any of which could be world changing.

Maybe even nuclear fusion.:)

ScumLord · 15-07-2015 07:21PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility.

I don't see how we could revert just because resources run low. We won't just forget what we know. The fact is while the resources we're dependant on now are becoming financially less viable we do have many more waiting in the wings to take their place. Electric cars are quickly becoming as good as petrol, in some cases they're already much better. It's just petrol is cheap and easy, I think we'll switch to electric before fuel runs out but even if the fuel did run out we have alternative transport it just needs a slightly more developed infrastructure to support it. Fossil fuels aren't the be all and end all of energy, they're just convenient.

Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.

Space isn't unsustainable, there are more resources floating around space than we would know what to do with. Part of the problem for NASA is they don't have the budget to innovate like they did in the past, they're reusing a lot of old ideas to keep costs down. But we can now see that private companies are quickly taking up the slack and making space flight much more economical. Another part of the problem with moving into space is that our economy probably isn't going to work up there. With many minerals becoming almost infinitely abundant pretty much everything will become worthless.

I don't think there's any resource that we're lacking that would prevent us from continuing to explore space in the future. The new materials and technology we're coming up with today will make space travel much easier in the future. I do see us colonising the rest of our solar system, probably won't be going much further than that for a while but our solar system is doable.

If you look at modern society we're actually preparing for life in space. Recycling, energy efficiency, redundant systems will all be crucial to living in space. The population of earth will get to the stage where we might as well be living on a managed space ship and I think we will be forced into space.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2015 07:35PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility.

Not a chance.
Things like bicycles and toilets and water treatment plants and hygiene are all kinda handy as are sticky plasters. Reversion is unlikely.

Yes we need more recycling and a move away from asset stripping natural resources. But solar and wind energy are here to stay as is hydro. But stuff like better public transport, better insulation , longer lasting products and cutting back hard could give most of us a lifestyle only available to the rich from previous generations. Private cars weren't that common in the past. Even today most people in Ireland don't own cars.

Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.

OK two different things here.
Yeah the ISS is a complete money pit. Excluding govt contracts the amount of commercial money invested in science on the ISS is negligible.
Another money pit is the USA re-inventing spacecraft. SLS is re-inventing flight proven Shuttle components. ULA is busy replacing all their Soviet gear and not too proud to use ESA's orbital modules.

The other side is that as a species we have to expand beyond this planet or face extinction.

Regarding cost. India got to Mars for less than Disney lost on John Carter. It was less than Disney lost on Mars Needs Moms. For surveying the Earth or for telecoms satellite can be very very cost effective.

Colonialboy · 15-07-2015 07:37PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It all seems so lacklustre, instead of actual cool technologies we seem to be living in an era of gimmick tech. Has the low hanging fruit been harvested? Discuss.

Ive often thought along similar lines. 2 things come to mind.

1) Silicon Valley the home of techonology, California home to the best universitys, various aerospace industrys etc etc, ... currently baking and dying on its feet from thirst.
I guess they are working on an APP for this or maybe Google or Facebook have some plans on how to monetize water and send it over wifi... anyways my point is California dried out while technology fiddled...

2) In the early 60s, James Lovelock (founder of the GAIA and earth warrior) was working at NASA and discussing what directions to follow with Carl Sagan. Now Lovelock was a serious engineer in his own right, he had developed the first microwave as a pet project and NASA had a great future mapped out for him. Basically he felt there wasnt much of interest on any of the planetary objects that were close to Earth, he felt it was a waste of money to send expensive probes out. He felt we should be spending the money on earth and examining, understanding how it worked and caring for it. Sagan disagreed as did NASA, so they all parted ways. And we all know how things have worked out since
Lovelock took up the challenge of promoting care for the Earth, spent his life on teh fringes and looked on as a crank or weirdo and Sagan and NASA went onto great fame in hollywood and we have probes in space that can tell us how fast we are destroying our own planet.

On the other hand all credit to some of the advancements that have been listed earlier in the thread.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2015 10:04PM

Colonialboy wrote: »

Ive often thought along similar lines. 2 things come to mind.

1) Silicon Valley the home of techonology, California home to the best universitys, various aerospace industrys etc etc, ... currently baking and dying on its feet from thirst.
I guess they are working on an APP for this or maybe Google or Facebook have some plans on how to monetize water and send it over wifi... anyways my point is California dried out while technology fiddled...

Some stats say that agriculture uses 80% of the water. If they had the same restrictions as everyone else then that would have saved more than everyone else used to use. Other stats say otherwise. Also re agriculture IIRC pays less for water than other consumers in Calif.

You only have to look at what diverting water from two rivers with a combined flow of the Nile to grow cotton in a desert has done to the Aral sea to recognise that unsustainable is unsustainable.

Then again a lot of these problems aren't technical. It's political agri-business stuff. There's no point in spending a lot on tech to reduce water demand only to subsidise a commercial interest that couldn't afford the water otherwise.

In China they are diverting a lot of water northwards when moving the food would be easier. Globally the Saudai's and India are buying up land in Africa because importing the food is cheaper than irrigation back home.

Colonialboy · 16-07-2015 11:34AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Some stats say that agriculture uses 80% of the water. If they had the same restrictions as everyone else then that would have saved more than everyone else used to use. Other stats say otherwise. Also re agriculture IIRC pays less for water than other consumers in Calif.

You only have to look at what diverting water from two rivers with a combined flow of the Nile to grow cotton in a desert has done to the Aral sea to recognise that unsustainable is unsustainable.

Then again a lot of these problems aren't technical. It's political agri-business stuff. There's no point in spending a lot on tech to reduce water demand only to subsidise a commercial interest that couldn't afford the water otherwise.

In China they are diverting a lot of water northwards when moving the food would be easier. Globally the Saudai's and India are buying up land in Africa because importing the food is cheaper than irrigation back home.

We seem to have gotten bogged down in a water debate.
Everything is connected.

good points, its a web of interconnected issues, as you say technical, geo political, social, economic. one might even use the term a 'complex web' , and we all know you need smart people to untangle a complex web.
But I think we have made alot of bad turns along the way.

And given that technology is supposedly full of the most intelligent people, who can absorb and analyse things on many levels (supposedly) shouldnt they have seen all the traps laid by politicians and the money men, I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.

ScumLord · 16-07-2015 01:04PM

Colonialboy wrote: »

And given that technology is supposedly full of the most intelligent people, who can absorb and analyse things on many levels (supposedly) shouldnt they have seen all the traps laid by politicians and the money men, I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.

Society does announce its needs (and wants) through the pursuit of money. Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product. Companies generally meet the demand of people.

I think the global economy over the last few decades has given us unparalleled technological advancements that normally only happened in wars. Technology itself has become almost like an evolving organism and people have become unwitting biological influences on the system. The constant battle between software engineers and system cracker/hackers is acting like the battle between diseases and organisms immune systems helping to improve the robustness of potential AI in the future.

We might only notice big features in our new technology, like faster processors or higher resolutions but that's only surface technology it probably only makes up a tiny percentage of the work that goes into a new device.

Colonialboy · 17-07-2015 08:11AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Society does announce its needs (and wants) through the pursuit of money. Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product. Companies generally meet the demand of people.

so what your saying is technology services the lowest common denominator ...
You seem to be mixing societys "needs and wants" into your point just to add some validation to it.
As I said I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.

"Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product"" ... ahem cough cough ..... ADVERTISING, MAD MEN, MARKETING, TVC, THE SHOPPING CHANNEL, 4AM PURCHASES OF MIRACLE HAIR RESTORER ....

mg1982 · 17-07-2015 01:02PM

Colonialboy wrote: »

so what your saying is technology services the lowest common denominator ...
You seem to be mixing societys "needs and wants" into your point just to add some validation to it.
As I said I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.

"Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product"" ... ahem cough cough ..... ADVERTISING, MAD MEN, MARKETING, TVC, THE SHOPPING CHANNEL, 4AM PURCHASES OF MIRACLE HAIR RESTORER ....

Its called retail therapy, people buying stuff they dont actually need. Which is where a lot of the tech advances go into these days.

Colonialboy · 17-07-2015 02:43PM

Let’s make Britain wild again and find ourselves in nature

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/16/britain-wild-nature-rewilding-ecosystems-heal-lives?CMP=fb_gu

Rewilding – the mass restoration of ecosystems – can heal not only the living world, but much that is missing in our own lives

.....
dont worry in a few years our house Robot that wipes our bum after we poop will develop his own AI own, will look with pity on our technology filled lives and will say 'Master... you should plant some trees and get back to nature ' ... and the technocrats will tell us all ..."now you see the benefits of technology we could never have figured that out for ourselves'

but having said that technology has done alot of good for modern life... you sees everythings connected

djpbarry · 22-07-2015 10:21AM

I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.

Sam Russell · 22-07-2015 01:43PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.

The Victorians believed in Eureka moments but following the discovery that if you employ people to invent thing, they invent things. It is called industrial research. Also large groups of researchers are more productive at invention than the same number in smaller groups tend to be.

The Eureka moments come when something unusual is noticed. For example, the guy that noticed that the marsbar melted in his pocket when he walked close to the microwave aerial and so invented the microwave oven. [It needed a lot of industrial research to turn the idea into a product].

Other progress comes from stretching existing applications to new areas. For a long time the laser was a solution looking for a problem to solve.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-07-2015 07:46PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.

Most "inventions" are developments that take place as new materials / technologies become available.

Konrad Zuse invented the computer. It's an example of something that would be invented/discovered anyway since all the basics were there.

It's like the printing press depended on cheap paper which was only available when people were rich enough that clothes rags became available. Also spectacles were new so it was worth learning to read because you could be still be able to later in life. It's not so much that the printing press was invented but that the conditions and economics were in place.

nyarlothothep · 07-08-2015 05:57PM

I'm disappointed that we don't have antimatter engines or a dedicated Mars program with a clear vision. Nasa's Orion is a neat idea in terms of its flexibility (adding modules and tech over time) but there's no way they're getting to Mars with chemical rockets. There was talk of antimatter engines 9 years ago but I see nothing! Not only that why aren't they thinking about how to generate artificial gravity. The reality of the Mars mission at this current stage demonstrates how technologically unadvanced we are.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-08-2015 09:44PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I'm disappointed that we don't have antimatter engines or a dedicated Mars program with a clear vision. Nasa's Orion is a neat idea in terms of its flexibility (adding modules and tech over time) but there's no way they're getting to Mars with chemical rockets. There was talk of antimatter engines 9 years ago but I see nothing! Not only that why aren't they thinking about how to generate artificial gravity. The reality of the Mars mission at this current stage demonstrates how technologically unadvanced we are.

Antimatter at best is just an energy store. We can make antimatter in CERN so a total of about 60 nanograms has been made. About 240 Watt hours so the equivalent of 5c worth of electricity. Of course none of that has been stored.

If you leave out SpaceX then you've got a lot of re-inventing the wheel in the US space industry these days. The Orion service module is being built in Italy because it's a re-badged ATV that ESA used to send to the ISS. Orion is both heavier and smaller inside than Soyuz or Shenzhou. Orion will use the same heat shield technology as Apollo. India had a crew capsule re-entry test last year and they aren't throwing anything like the same sort of money at it. SLS is another gigantic money pit re-inventing flight proven technology.

If the political climate was different you could dust down the plans for Energia , you could even invest a few shekels into re-usable flyaway boosters for it.

nyarlothothep · 07-08-2015 10:14PM

Well that just confirms how meh Orion is. I kind of want to believe in it but as you say, it's smaller, based off an old design and could be built cheaper. The shuttle program was more inspiring as it felt like they were really building a proper spacecraft. I think though the glacial pace of space technological progress is attributable to the fact that it's just too hard to figure out how to create a sustainable environment in space whilst travering vast (on our scale) distances. It's like an arena of technology that's millenia outside our current knowledge and we've mostly got a pseudo version of real space exploration. It may be that we are forever destined to be earth bound, the technological challenges may be too great and if we can't figure out ftl, if indeed it's at all possible then it renders space exploration rather moot.

Roger_007 · 07-08-2015 10:18PM

I've been reading through this thread and there are several references to AI. The most important thing to appreciate about AI is the A part. Artificial means that it just looks like intelligence, but it is not.
No machine has yet been devised that can think abstractly. Every AI device has to be precisely instructed as to what it does. There is no fundamental difference between the AI devices of today and the Jacquard looms which were invented in the early 19th century.
Sometimes what looks like dramatic technological progress is no more than refinement of existing technology. There is no real step change involved. Motor cars today look very different to the cars of 100 years ago but the power source, the internal combustion engine, has not really changed at all since its invention.

nyarlothothep · 07-08-2015 11:30PM

But I've read that AI research is increasingly encompassing neuroscience as well. Unlike the internal combustion engine, there is a drive to understand what sentience is and to replicate it through non-biological means, therefore artificial. I think when AI comes into being it must be accompanied by an AI rights movement. What happened to hitchbot was typical of the lowest human behaviour and I can see us enslaving machines which will be morally wrong as we have no right to hold an equivalent if not superior sentient race in subjegation. We will be obliged to treat the first real AI as a lifeform with the same rights as humans as it will sentient just like us if not moreso assuming it's able to evolve at a faster rate.

Sam Russell · 07-08-2015 11:41PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

I've been reading through this thread and there are several references to AI. The most important thing to appreciate about AI is the A part. Artificial means that it just looks like intelligence, but it is not.
No machine has yet been devised that can think abstractly. Every AI device has to be precisely instructed as to what it does. There is no fundamental difference between the AI devices of today and the Jacquard looms which were invented in the early 19th century.
Sometimes what looks like dramatic technological progress is no more than refinement of existing technology. There is no real step change involved. Motor cars today look very different to the cars of 100 years ago but the power source, the internal combustion engine, has not really changed at all since its invention.

Have you looked at a Tesla car? No internal combustion engine there!

Have you looked at Google and how it can search and find in next to no time answers to the most bizarre request. Remarkable. No jacquard loom technology there!

Sometimes when you look out of the window, you realise how far you have travelled.

Roger_007 · 08-08-2015 12:15AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have you looked at a Tesla car? No internal combustion engine there!

Have you looked at Google and how it can search and find in next to no time answers to the most bizarre request. Remarkable. No jacquard loom technology there!

Sometimes when you look out of the window, you realise how far you have travelled.

Tesla is a car powered by electric motors. Electric cars pre dated the ICE car and were in use in the 1880s.
Google is facilitated by computers, which were first designed conceptually by Charles Babbage in the 1820s as mechanical, rather than electronic, devices. But the principles are still the same.

Sometimes, when you look 'under the bonnet', you realise how short a distance you have come.!

Sam Russell · 08-08-2015 09:27AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

Tesla is a car powered by electric motors. Electric cars pre dated the ICE car and were in use in the 1880s.
Google is facilitated by computers, which were first designed conceptually by Charles Babbage in the 1820s as mechanical, rather than electronic, devices. But the principles are still the same.

Sometimes, when you look 'under the bonnet', you realise how short a distance you have come.!

The magic of the Tesla is not the electric motor but the battery. It uses mobile phone batteries by the thousand, and it is this that allows it to be recharged quickly. Rockets were first used by the Chinese eons ago so space travel is not new by that measure - but it is.

Technical advance comes from using old technologies in new combinations.

As for Babbage, he was just extending the abacus.:) And his never worked.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-08-2015 01:22PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The magic of the Tesla is not the electric motor but the battery. It uses mobile phone batteries by the thousand, and it is this that allows it to be recharged quickly.

Yes it's the batteries. Electric cars held the landspeed record at one stage.

If we had cheap batteries renewable energy would wipe out nuclear and coal.

If we had cheap and light batteries then the internal combustion engine would become obsolete.

If they were cheap and light enough then even jet engines would be under threat for subsonic flight, the power per Kg is comparable. An electric motor bypasses the Carnot cycle and so would need only need half the energy to do the same job. It's really a case of whether we could build something like a methanol fuel cell cheap and light and efficient enough to off set the greater energy density of jet fuel.

Rockets were first used by the Chinese eons ago so space travel is not new by that measure - but it is.

The step changes were high energy liquid oxidisers, better materials and design, and better maths.

For example the German V2 had internal tanks, since then tanks have been an integral part of the structure to save weight. The fuel was also 20% water to keep the temperature down. And the rocket motor didn't swivel , just used inefficient vanes.

Technical advance comes from using old technologies in new combinations.

As for Babbage, he was just extending the abacus.:) And his never worked.

The space shuttle external tanks was lightened by about a third by new materials and technology over time.

A lot of technological advance comes from new uses for old tech, refreshing old tech with new materials, and more people being able to afford tech. The telephone answering machine wasn't popular until the 1960's because of a combination of affordability and need. Before then the devices were too expensive for mass market and besides one's valet could be relied upon to take messages.

Babbage wasn't the only one building mechanical computers. Indeed I'd argue that the modern computer was' discovered' rather than invented. Konrad Zuse developed pretty much everything on his own, Turing complete computer and high level language. He didn't use valves. In fact the main trick to the modern electronic computer was the realisation that a binary computer could be made with valves running at power levels below those suitable for traditional analog uses.

Google Percy Ludgate
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/research/pubs/articles/papers/390.pdf

nyarlothothep · 28-08-2015 12:43AM

I was talking to a physicist friend who said that we're entering a new period of technological stagnation after the industrial and communication revolutions. I dare say he may have a point, what maketh you all of it?

djpbarry · 28-08-2015 10:19AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I was talking to a physicist friend who said that we're entering a new period of technological stagnation after the industrial and communication revolutions. I dare say he may have a point, what maketh you all of it?

Your friend is not paying much attention to the world of biology. For example:

http://www.nature.com/news/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-1.18236

nyarlothothep · 28-08-2015 11:55AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Your friend is not paying much attention to the world of biology. For example:

http://www.nature.com/news/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-1.18236

That's pretty cool and might go somewhere intersting in the future. We were talking about tech in the context of the utterly pitiful amount of progress in space tech. I should inquire further, I think we're going through an information revolution, similar to the invention of the printing press which may set the stage for another revolution that parallels the industrial one.

djpbarry · 28-08-2015 01:06PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That's pretty cool and might go somewhere intersting in the future.

That's just one example. There are a whole range of technological innovations that have emerged in the field of biology, even in just the last 10 years, that is rapidly changing our understanding of how cells and organisms function.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

...I think we're going through an information revolution, similar to the invention of the printing press which may set the stage for another revolution that parallels the industrial one.

Yeah, fair point. Collaboration is now possible on scales unimaginable in the past.

Lack of technological progress

Comments