It's Science Fiction's fault for the lack of progress

[Edit_XYZ]

Yminale

You put the equality sign between the major increases in life-span* from ~1890-1960 and the recent comparatively minuscule ones - and this is the basis on which you claim technological progress (in general, as in ALL AREAS taken into account) has not slowed down significantly? Really?

You claim GUT will be completed by 2050, you come here with quantum computing and teleportation** - and you actually think you're not fantasizing?
What year do you think it is? Hint - it's not 2050 (and you can't predict the future with any accuracy - nor can anyone else).
Well, at least you didn't mention hyperspace.

*BTW, efficient sanitation on large scale needs infrastructure aka technology - and you neglected to mention the many revolutionary medical advances made in those years. And the revolutionary advances made in all other fields (only a few of which I've mentioned).

**"they ARE REAL. They aren't ready for prime time but the basic principles are there"?
That would be 'they work for a few quantum particles (and we don't even know that, experimentally, for quantum computing)'. Whether it's even possible to scale them up is highly uncertain.

PS:
Apropos Moore's law - no exponential curve continues ad infinitum in the real world; it always stops, and sooner rather than later. As I said, you excel in wishful thinking.

 

[Hound of UIster]

This may or may not be true, but it does not change a simple fact:
The scientifical/technological innovation has slowed down significantly.

No it hasn't. You are using a subjective metric (your opinion) to measure that. When any objective metric (number of research articles and patents taken out) shows otherwise.

 

[Yminale]

As to the supposed pessimism of modern SF, which in these literary hands is somehow indistinguishable from fantasy, I think the issue is confused by a misnomer. Properly speaking, the dominant trend is not pessimism per se, but simply misanthropy: The insistence that humanity is contemptible and deserving only of damnation, or in the view of what passes for humanists in this crowd, meaningless death.

That view isn't modern. In fact Science Fiction has always been pessimistic. The first scientific novel "Frankenstein" is considered gothic horror. H.G. Wells, Robert Louise Stevenson, Jack London all wrote very dark pessimistic works of fiction. As for Jules Verne, you can't create a character like Captain Nemo or Robur the conquerer if you're an optimist.

I think Star Trek and Star Wars have so warped not just the public but the Geek cultures idea of SF should be. In the 80's when we had cyberpunk thanks to Blade Runner and William Gibson. It's pessimistic portrayal of a dark future dominated by soulless corporations didn't stop the development of the internet. Heck Google is nothing like the evil overlords people feared would dominate the future.

In any event, this is all a tempest in a teapot. SF is in much worse decline than technology.

Sorry my friend but SF is in another Golden Age thanks to the internet. Thanks to Lightspeed, Starship Sofa and Escape Pod, short form science fiction is being rediscovered by a whole new generation. This year's Hugo nominees have all been fantastic. Two great short stories from Asian-american writer and Mike Resnick (who should be banned because he keeps on winning ).

 

[Edit_XYZ]

This may or may not be true, but it does not change a simple fact:
The scientifical/technological innovation has slowed down significantly.

No it hasn't. You are using a subjective metric (your opinion) to measure that. When any objective metric (number of research articles and patents taken out) shows otherwise.

Actually, I'm using the number of revolutionary advances made in 1890-1960 vs the lack of such advances made afterwards (which is NOT a matter of opinion).
I've already shown by examples how today's small, incremental 'discoveries' fail miserably to rise to the level of the many revolutionary, paradigm-changing science and technologies developed previously.

You keep repeating 'number' of patents. You fail to consider their quality.

PS - Going from trying to excuse the declining level of discovery with the 'low hanging fruit' to denying it decreases at all? Not very self-consistent.

 

[Yminale]

You put the equality sign between the major increases in life-span* from ~1890-1960 and the recent comparatively minuscule ones - and this is the basis on which you claim technological progress (in general) has not slowed down significantly? Really?

Now you're just cherry picking. My point has always been that on AVERAGE progress is accelerating. Some field are slowing down but others are picking up speed. We just had the first successful launch of a PRIVATE HLV to the ISS. That's amazing if you consider the capital cost of building a rocket. Now that's it's possible for corporation to take part in the space race progress WILL accelerate and the overall progress will continue.

You claim GUT will be completed by 2050, you come here with quantum computing and teleportation** - and you actually think you're not fantasizing?

Quantum computing and teleportation are REAL they exist TODAY and are studied by scientists. They aren't practical yet

What year do you think it is? Hint - it's not 2050 (and you can't predict the future with any accuracy - nor can anyone else).

We have several theories that are good candidates for GUT but we simply lack the means to test them at this time. That's better than wishful thinking.

*BTW, efficient sanitation on large scale needs infrastructure aka technology - and you neglected to mention the many revolutionary medical advances made in those years. And the revolutionary advances made in all other fields (only a few of which I've mentioned).

If I did I blow your argument to pieces. You don't seem to appreciate how progress works. Each new discovery or improvement is a stepping stone to the next discovery or improvement. It's not like we forget what we learn or abandon the progress we've made.

That would be 'they work for a few quantum particles (and we don't even know that, experimentally, for quantum computing)'. Whether it's even possible to scale them up is highly uncertain.

Uncertainty is not a sign of a lack of progress.

Apropos Moore's law - no exponential curve continues ad infinitum in the real world; it always stops, and sooner rather than later. As I said, you excel in wishful thinking.

The size of human knowledge seems to be one area where the exponential curve continues ad infinitum. Plus people have declared Moore's law dead since the late 1990's. It's still pulling strong.

 

[Yminale]

Actually, I'm using the number of revolutionary advances made in 1890-1960 vs the lack of such advances made afterwards (which is NOT a matter of opinion).

And who decides a discovery is revolutionary. The point about patent is the law of averages. With the number of new patents the chance of discovering big increases.

The lack of "Wow" factor is not an argument.

I've already shown by examples how today's small, incremental 'discoveries' fail miserably to rise to the level of the many revolutionary, paradigm-changing science and technologies developed previously.

Many of the so called revolutionary discoveries were not productive until decades of improvements. The first cars were mild curiosities until the development of the Internal combustion engine and the use assembly lines.

PS - Going from trying to excuse the declining level of discovery with the 'low hanging fruit' to denying it decreases at all? Not very self-consistent.

Because there is no such thing as "low hanging fruit". It's an argument made on basis of historical bias. Discovering stuff now is as hard as if in the past. The point you are ignoring is the increases in productivity among scientist and engineers even if the level of challenges are the same. Of course sanitation made sense now but it barely made sense when it was first discussed.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yminale
"If I did I blow your argument to pieces."

You didn't; you mentioned a few advances in today's medicine, utterly failed to mention the many revolutionary advances made in medicine (and all other areas) in the past - and you claimed progress in ALL areas is the same as in the past.

A, yes - and you keep repeating that quantum computing and teleportation are real, but not ready for prime time.
Yminale, being uncertain that they scale up is being uncertain these technologies are actually POSSIBLE as anything more than quantum curiosities.

And GUT. You actually count GUT as a done discovery.
Moving the goal post is, apparently, a hobby for you.


About exponential curves applying in the real world ad infinitum - you actually don't see the sheer level of wishful thinking involved in this affirmation of yours, do you?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yminale
So - now you're reduced to arguing semantics regarding 'revolutionary'.
In science, it's the level of insight it offers into the physical universe (see quantum mechanics, relativity - nothing recent even comes close to such discoveries).
In technology, it concerns results and what power it gives humanity (you do know internal combustion/lines of assembly were existing for some time in 1960, yes? and electric current, etc).

 

[Yminale]

Yminale
"If I did I blow your argument to pieces."

You didn't; you mentioned a few advances in today's medicine, utterly failed top mention the many advances made in medicine in the past - and you claimed progress in ALL areas is the same as in the past.

I've never said all progress was the same just that progress exists in all fields. Their rates are all different but if you average them all out they show the AVERAGE rate is increasing. You keep ignoring that basic point.

As for medicine, since the glorious 60's we've had MRI, CT, Ultrasound, Echocardiograms, PCR, Immunoflorences, Immuno modulators, anti-virals, Beta blocker, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitor, emergency contraceptives, EMR, web based databases, expert systems, remote telemetry. Should I go on.

A, yes - and you keep repeating that quantum computing and teleportation are real, but not ready for prime time.

Yes because you keep ignoring the obvious.

Yminale, being uncertain that they scale up is being uncertain these technologies are actually POSSIBLE as anything more than quantum curiosities.

It took decades to realize the airplanes or nuclear power could be scaled up and be used productively and you called those discoveries revolutionary.

And GUT. You actually count GUD as a done discovery.

No, I call it PROGRESS.

Moving the goal post is, appatently, a hobby for you.

You don't have a goal post to move.

About exponential curves applying in the real world ad infinitum - you actually don;t see just the sheer level of wishful thinking involved in this affirmation of yours, do you?

You haven't proven that it isn't possible. All you have is your incredulity.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yminale
Given that your post is just a rehash of previous posts - ignoring my counterarguments (for ~the third/fourth time), read my previous posts for counterarguments.

Not that it would change anything - real-world scientific history and data doesn't even make a dent in your wishful thinking.
I mean, you call technologies we don't know are even POSSIBLE a done deal (just add a few years, says the prophet), as opposed to dead ends (which they very well could be)! WOW!

Yminale, for the future, remember: 'You can call it a cow, but you can't milk it'. It may spare you a few disappointments when the technological singularity (or whatever advance) fails to materialize.

 

[Yminale]

So - now you're reduced to arguing semantics regarding 'revolutionary'.

Your entire argument is based on semantics

In science, it's the level of insight it offers into the physical universe (see quantum mechanics, relativity - nothing recent even comes close to such discoveries).

Nothing except DARK ENERGY but that misses the point that we are still making discoveries based on Quantum physics and General relativity. We're talking about progress but you keep focusing on the highlights you think are important.

In technology, it concerns results and what power it gives humanity (you do know internal combustion/lines of assembly were existing for some time in 1960, yes? and electric current, etc).

My point is still that it takes years of development before any "discovery" becomes productive. Steam powered cars existed in the 19th century but they didn't change society until the 20th.

 

[Yminale]

Given that your post is just a rehash of previous posts - ignoring my counterarguments (for ~the third/fourth time), read my previous posts for counterarguments.

You don't have any arguments outside of "this is what I think". I have facts backing me up. What have you brought to the table.

Not that it would change anything - real-world scientific history and data doesn't even make a dent in your wishful thinking.

You've shown nothing but complete ignorance to both history and data. Where's your proof that we are slowing down.

I mean, you call technologies we don't know are even POSSIBLE a done deal

All the technologies you mention were not done deals when they were first presented. That's no different than quantum computer or carbon nanotubes.

Yminale, for the future, remember: 'You can call it a cow, but you can't milk it'. It may spare you a few disappointments when the technological singularity (or whatever advance) fails to materialize.

You should remember that cynicism isn't an argument for anything.

 

[Maurice]

This whole premise is ludicrous in that it assumes that science fiction is somehow a significant factor in inspiring people to make scientific advances, which is an unproven and unsupportable conclusion.

 

[Neroon]

This whole premise is ludicrous in that it assumes that science fiction is somehow a significant factor in inspiring people to make scientific advances, which is an unproven and unsupportable conclusion.

This is a very good point, one that both of you Edit_XYZ and Yminale should strongly consider before you let your tempers flare any further. You have each come close to flaming the other, all over something rather specious at best. I'm closing the thread temporarily to give you each a chance to chill.