I know that it's supposed to be taken for granted that change is accelerating, but I'm not so sure. Except for smartphones, what's really changed in the last ten years? twenty years?
The internet? it really only took off late 90s early 00s.
Also I like how you discount a major change as if one pivot isn't good enough. Remember changes used to only happen every 100 years or so a while back and going back even further it was longer.
The 19th and 20th centuries has seen a lot of improvements. It's clear that thing continue to improve in a lot of domains, but it is not clear that it accelerates. IMO 1995-2005 has major impacts compared to 2005-2013.
In my opinion nothing can beat the beginning of 20th century. Cars, airplanes, phones, television, radio - all that originated (or have been widely adapted) one hundred years ago. Internet and smartphones are inventions from the last 20 years, before that I can't think about any inventions that drastically changed our every day life.
Don't forget quantum mechanics, relativity and the discovery of the expanding universe, also all around that time. The last one wasn't really an innovation to be fair.
Well, no. The article does not mention the Internet. It talks about the web.
The article is very well-meant and sincere. It is also vapid, vague, and shows no actual direction for a possible future. And it blames "technology" for the current disparity of wealth. Welcome to HN. This kind of crap is posted too often imho.
I'll agree that the article is of very poor quality.
FTA:
"Maybe we need to grant more university degrees. Maybe we need more PhDs. Maybe we need more government workers. Maybe we need more subsidies. Because, you know, 40-hour jobs is what we had so it must be what we will have. But nobody, it seems, can conceive a world where most of us work far less for money than we do now. "
What on earth is he talking about? It's hard to say whether he thinks more people at university is right or wrong - but 'conceiving of a world where most of us work far less for money' - a very naive understanding of what work and money is.
The key to working less is more productivity. But a funny thing happens when productivity increases. Instead of people accepting the same standard of living and working fewer hours, most people will opt for working the same amount of hours and increase their standard of living.
Many blurry-thinkers see this as some type of evil that must be stopped, when in reality it is the concious choice that many people make. It's not right or wrong, it just is.
Impressive how fast HN is going down lately. It´s not a novel nor an article from New York Times. It´s the feeling of a guy who sees the crap imagination we got today. And we are so badly narrow minded that we cant even point solutions to the problem he brought on the post. What´s your solution mate ? And i don't see craps like this regularly here. What i see every day here are people trying to look nice, but actually with any real imagination.
It's true that the wellspring of cultural creativity seems to have run dry. I spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about this at the moment. The only innovations we see are around the asymptotic optimisation of consumerism. I wonder if these things are related...
It is very far from the truth that the "wellspring of cultural creativity has run dry". I don't want to seem harsh, but that is an incredibly insular and ignorant world view. Look outside yourself. You sound like a buggy whip manufacturer in the 1800's!
The web lets me instantly view a video from a mis-remembered TV show from fifteen years ago. I can instantly fly to anywhere in the world and peer at it from space. I can communicate across thousands of miles and search a massive repository of information. Humans have been imagining such god like powers for thousands of years. We don't lack imagination but self knowledge. Will that power corrupt us or make us better?
I think "power corrupts" applies more to relative power, not absolute "power". If you were the only person in the world with those abilities, you could use that to exert control over other people and that kind of power might corrupt.
16 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 50.9 ms ] threadAlso I like how you discount a major change as if one pivot isn't good enough. Remember changes used to only happen every 100 years or so a while back and going back even further it was longer.
The article is very well-meant and sincere. It is also vapid, vague, and shows no actual direction for a possible future. And it blames "technology" for the current disparity of wealth. Welcome to HN. This kind of crap is posted too often imho.
FTA: "Maybe we need to grant more university degrees. Maybe we need more PhDs. Maybe we need more government workers. Maybe we need more subsidies. Because, you know, 40-hour jobs is what we had so it must be what we will have. But nobody, it seems, can conceive a world where most of us work far less for money than we do now. "
What on earth is he talking about? It's hard to say whether he thinks more people at university is right or wrong - but 'conceiving of a world where most of us work far less for money' - a very naive understanding of what work and money is.
The key to working less is more productivity. But a funny thing happens when productivity increases. Instead of people accepting the same standard of living and working fewer hours, most people will opt for working the same amount of hours and increase their standard of living.
Many blurry-thinkers see this as some type of evil that must be stopped, when in reality it is the concious choice that many people make. It's not right or wrong, it just is.
The internet
Drones
Private space flight
3d printing
Sequencing The Human Genome
Python
Exoplanets
Solar power
Tablet computing
Google
GPS
Digital cameras
For more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_in_science_and_technolog...