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

[Yminale]

Stop being so pessimistic

Io's excellent rebutal

why do we need more optimistic science fiction

My view:

It's shocking that an intelligent man like Neal Stephenson takes a ridiculous claim that innovations are somehow slowing down. When you look at the number of scientific papers published and patents awarded, such a claim is pure ignorance.

I think it's also childish how some people decry the lack of progress simply because it's not going in the direction they want (i'm looking at you "I want my flying car, robot butler, Mars colony" fanboys)

 

[Edit_XYZ]

It's not about the number of patents, it's about what they contain, what they bring new that's better than what already exists.

The only areas where progress was fast in the last decades are IT and biology (and the biology one appears to be slowing down).
Compare and contrast this with the progress from before. It IS an overall slowing down, attributable, in part, to a vastly reduced rate of fundamental discoveries (which gave birth to the 'low hanging fruit' explanation/excuse).

And, of course, the number of articles and patents that contain more than a little white noise or your annoyance don't change this fact.

Neal Stephenson knows what he's talking about.

 

[-Brett-]

“We have one rule: ... no hyperspace and no holocaust,” Stephenson says.

Maybe I'm being exactly the kind of pessimist he's complaining about, but seems to me that one of those is necessary for any story about space travel. Without some form of "hyperspace" we'll just sit tight on Earth until some apocalyptic event forces us off.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Great article. Thanks for pointing it out. I love him as a writer and have great respect for what he says. Anathem is quite an epic read.

 

[Kegg]

io9 really is pedantic. Consider:

H.P. Lovecraft also presents a rather dystopian world during the early twentieth century — one in which humanity is supposed to ultimately be destroyed by Nyarlathotep.

Ignoring that H.P. Lovecraft's eclectic bundle of horror stories don't really pin down one single overarching eldritch threat (Nyarlathotep is just one of dozens of horrific things mentioned in the Arkham Cycle), his stories are not dystopian by virtue of being set universally in either the present or the past.

“We have one rule: ... no hyperspace and no holocaust,” Stephenson says.

Maybe I'm being exactly the kind of pessimist he's complaining about, but seems to me that one of those is necessary for any story about space travel.

Uh... only if you're really talking about extrasolar travel.* We do not need faster-than-light speeds to reach the Moon or Mars, and we don't need breakthroughs of any kind. It's pretty much just a matter of incentive. Reminds me of that old German sci-fi film (Woman on the Moon) which, in trying to figure out a reason why anyone would send a rocket to the Moon in the first place, hits on the idea that the Moon might have gold on it.

And hell, if for whatever reason there was profit or other growth and/or prestige reasons for space travel, then it might happen, and outlining any kind of semi-plausible scenario for a future with space travel is kind of a science fictional thing to write about.

*Of course extrasolar travel does not need hyperspace or similar FTL 'outs', but it's the only level of space travel where hyperspace can be really useful for writers.

 

[Yminale]

It's not about the number of patents, it's about what they contain, what they bring new that's better than what already exists.

The only areas where progress was fast in the last decades are IT and biology (and the biology one appears to be slowing down).

Are you nuts? There has been significant advances IN ALL fields. Are they available to the public. No but that's not the point.

Compare and contrast this with the progress from before. It IS an overall slowing down, attributable, in part, to a vastly reduced rate of fundamental discoveries (which gave birth to the 'low hanging fruit' explanation/excuse).

Reduce rate? Once again you're nuts. Think about stem cells, dark energy, the Higgs-Boson, carbon nanotubes, quantum entanglement. Good Grief we discovered extra solar planet in the previous decade and we've finally sent a probe to Pluto. Your problem is that you are so use to progress that you've become cynical to it. We're you not impressed by the Ipad or hybrid vehicles or combat drones.

And, of course, the number of articles and patents that contain more than a little white noise or your annoyance don't change this fact.

Just because you don't appreciate progress doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Neal Stephenson knows what he's talking about.

Most of Stephenson's work are dystopian fantasies that HE NOW CRITIZES. I call that hypocrisy.

 

[Yminale]

“We have one rule: ... no hyperspace and no holocaust,” Stephenson says.

Maybe I'm being exactly the kind of pessimist he's complaining about, but seems to me that one of those is necessary for any story about space travel. Without some form of "hyperspace" we'll just sit tight on Earth until some apocalyptic event forces us off.

Not necessarily. You could have generation ships or suspended animation with high relativistic speeds.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

It's not about the number of patents, it's about what they contain, what they bring new that's better than what already exists.

The only areas where progress was fast in the last decades are IT and biology (and the biology one appears to be slowing down).

Are you nuts? There has been significant advances IN ALL fields. Are they available to the public. No but that's not the point.

Compare and contrast this with the progress from before. It IS an overall slowing down, attributable, in part, to a vastly reduced rate of fundamental discoveries (which gave birth to the 'low hanging fruit' explanation/excuse).

Reduce rate? Once again you're nuts. Think about stem cells, dark energy, the Higgs-Boson, carbon nanotubes, quantum entanglement. Good Grief we discovered extra solar planet in the previous decade and we've finally sent a probe to Pluto. Your problem is that you are so use to progress that you've become cynical to it. We're you not impressed by the Ipad or hybrid vehicles or combat drones.

Stem cells - biology;
Higgs - pretty old theory; NOT confirmed;
Entanglement - known since Einstein and Bohr were arguing about 'spooky action at a distance';
Dark energy - really? Do you even know what 'dark energy' stands for? It means we do NOT know what causes the observed expansion of the universe;
Observed planets - the operative word is 'observed'; not much creativity involved in this. Where creativity appeared was in the relatively small improvements made in optics for the observing telescopes (in large part due to better electronics - see Kepler);
etc.

You actually think these are discoveries that are in the same category (quantitatively and qualitatively) with the multitude of fundamental discoveries and technological innovations from the first part of the XX century?

And, of course, the number of articles and patents that contain more than a little white noise or your annoyance don't change this fact.

Just because you don't appreciate progress doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Neal Stephenson knows what he's talking about.

Most of Stephenson's work are dystopian fantasies that HE NOW CRITIZES. I call that hypocrisy.

We are talking about slowing scientific and technological progress (as correctly appreciated by N Stephenson in his article), not about his stories. You're moving the goalposts.


Yminale, you obviously believe far too much in your fantasy world to accept the facts - you'd rather use ad personams and moving the goalposts rather than accept reality.
Of course, the facts won't change regardless of your ad personams and obstinate refusal to deal with them.

 

[Yminale]

Stem cells - biology;
Higgs - pretty old theory; NOT confirmed;

According to the folks at the LHC (which in itself is an amazing achievement) it's 99.99% confirmed

Entanglement - known since Einstein and Bohr were arguing about 'spooky action at a distance';

Well did they actually try to find a use for it. Exactly

Dark energy - really? Do you even know what 'dark energy' stands for? It means we do NOT know what causes the observed expansion of the universe;

Exactly because it wasn't suppose to exist 15 years ago. Finding something new is the very definition of progress.

Observed planets - the operative word is 'observed'; not much creativity involved in this. Where creativity appeared was in the relatively small improvements made in optics for the observing telescopes (in large part due to better electronics - see Kepler);

A small improvement leads to very big results. That's progress. Oh and the James Webb telescope. More progress.

You actually think these are discoveries that are in the same category (quantitatively and qualitatively) with the multitude of fundamental discoveries and technological innovations from the first part of the XX century?

First the 21st century is young. Second there are already new ideas that are fundamentally changing the world. Facebook is as revolutionary as TV. Crowd sourcing is fundamentally changing how we solve problems. Thanks to WiFi, cellular networks, improved components and Lithium Ion batteries we have true mobile computing. DNA Micro-arrays are going to change medicine. So what if IT and Biology are driving progress. No one said there was no progress in the 20th century when industrialization drove progress.

We are talking about slowing scientific and technological progress (as correctly appreciated by N Stephenson in his article), not about his stories. You're moving the goalposts.

No the tittle of the thread is "It's Science fiction's fault for the lack of progress". My point is that there is a great deal of progress and there's ample proof. You choose to ignore real evidence and make spurious claims. Honestly where's your proof that society is slowing down. All you have is your opinion which isn't worth much.

Yminale, you obviously believe far too much in your fantasy world to accept the facts

You mean the fact that the number of scientific paper and patents have steadily increased each year. That there are more scientist and engineers living NOW than the first half of the 20th century. That product development cycle has gone from 5 years to 2.5 years or that the productivity of the Average American worker has NEVER declined (even though his wage has become stagnant) or that Apple is worth more than Exxon. Who is living in the fantasy world.

Of course, the facts won't change regardless of your ad personams and obstinate refusal to deal with them.

Cry me a river. Grow up and admit that you are wrong.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Stem cells - biology;
Higgs - pretty old theory; NOT confirmed;

According to the folks at the LHC (which in itself is an amazing achievement) it's 99.99% confirmed

What part of OLD TEORY (as in, not recent) and not confirmed did you not understand?

BTW, expressing faith that an old conjecture is correct (without experimental evidence to the standard of the field) does NOT count as scientifical progress.
And give the link to an LHC emplyee ACTUALLY SAYING the collision data confirms the higgs 99.99%, Yminale.

Entanglement - known since Einstein and Bohr were arguing about 'spooky action at a distance';

Well did they actually try to find a use for it. Exactly

There are little uses for entaglement today.

Exactly because [dark energy] wasn't suppose to exist 15 years ago. Finding something new is the very definition of progress.

UNDERSTANDING something new is the definition of progress.
'Dark energy' is not in the least understood; merely the result of cataloguing observations.

As already said, these observations are due to "relatively small improvements made in optics for the observing telescopes (in large part due to better electronics - see Kepler)".
This is the progress made; all those observations (dark energy, planetes) required little creativity, they're just cataloguing and comparing stars.

First the 21st century is young. Second there are already new ideas that are fundamentally changing the world. Facebook is as revolutionary as TV. Crowd sourcing is fundamentally changing how we solve problems. Thanks to WiFi, cellular networks, improved components and Lithium Ion batteries we have true mobile computing. DNA Micro-arrays are going to change medicine. So what if IT and Biology are driving progress. No one said there was no progress in the 20th century when industrialization drove progress.

Firstly - As I already said every thing you mentioned here is either IT or biology (and biology is slowing down as well). Again, as I already said, progress in many other areas has been quite slow, comparatively to just a few decades ago.

Secondly - DNA Microarrays? So desperate to hang onto your illusion you actually bring up future tech, eh, Yminale? You should include hyperspace, if you're at it.
etc

Yminale, you obviously believe far too much in your fantasy world to accept the facts

You mean the fact that the number of scientific paper and patents have steadily increased each year. That there are more scientist and engineers living NOW than the first half of the 20th century. That product development cycle has gone from 5 years to 2.5 years or that the productivity of the Average American worker has NEVER declined (even though his wage has become stagnant) or that Apple is worth more than Exxon. Who is living in the fantasy world.

'Publish or perish' - that's the dogma in the scientific comunity. And if you publish white noise - well, it will have to do.

The number of patents? Try quality, as well; try what they actually bring new, instead of playing LEGO with existing technologies or just bringing what, essentially, are aestetic improvements. Try number of fundamental discoveries.

It's irrelevant how many scientists/engineers exist; what is relevant is their scientifical/technological outout- and it declined.

Productivity of the average american worker never declined? And? What, you think you need new technologies for productivity not to decline?
Indeed, productivity should increase given the progress made (it IS slowing down, but it still exists).

And you actually bring financial market assessments as a wanna-be convincing argument when the same market used to evaluate 3 kids with 1 PC in a room higher than companies with tens of employees; or a house 10 times its real value?

We are talking about slowing scientific and technological progress (as correctly appreciated by N Stephenson in his article), not about his stories. You're moving the goalposts.

No the tittle of the thread is "It's Science fiction's fault for the lack of progress".

And your post - to which I responded - was exclusively bitching over Neal Stephenson's affirmation - supported by the quantity AND quality of innovation in recent decades - that progress slowed down.
And you are again moving the goal post, Yminale.

My point is that there is a great deal of progress and there's ample proof. You choose to ignore real evidence and make spurious claims. Honestly where's your proof that society is slowing down. All you have is your opinion which isn't worth much.

Yminale, you obviously believe far too much in your fantasy world to accept the facts - you'd rather use ad personams and moving the goalposts rather than accept reality.
Of course, the facts won't change regardless of your ad personams and obstinate refusal to deal with them.

Cry me a river. Grow up and admit that you are wrong.

Yminale, as I already said: "the facts won't change regardless of your ad personams and obstinate refusal to deal with them".

You can claim scientifical/technological progress is not slowing down all day. As the saying goes 'You can call it a cow, but you can't milk it'.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Just look at the number of discoveries and patents increasing each year and you know Stephenson is full of shit.

 

[sidious618]

That is a laughably bad article from Stephenson. I can't possibly see anybody taking that seriously.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Let's consider the advances from 1960 to the present:

Primarily, it's the development of the information age, fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24 months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control pill and other reproductive technologies have had an equally profound impact, on the culture if not the economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating speed.
Beyond that, men walk on the moon, with little to come of it, and there are bio- and nanotechnologies that so far had little affect on life.
Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.

Now consider the advances made from 1890s until the 1960s.

The introduction of electric light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer, most vaccines and all antibiotics.
All of those things mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a single statistic: child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.


Or do you prefer to look at the fundamental discoveries made until the 1960 (relativity, quantum mechanics) and after 1960?


Claiming that technological progress does not slow down, but accelerates is wishful thinking combined with superficiality in reading through the history of science and technology.

 

[stj]

Well, my guess is that the relentless use of intellectual property laws for monopoly profits and the general crisis of overproduction afflicting the world economy have vastly more to do with the (real) current decline in technological progress than scientists' lack of inspiration from SF. (Of course, most people are going to disagree.)

Also, I rather thought the inspiration went the other way round, at least until the moronic decree that it's all fantasy started damaging writers' intelligence. So I don't think Stephenson's project will help. Given Stephenson's philosophical predilections (he despises Aristotle, loves Husserl) it's doubtful his contribution will be helpful in any sense.

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.

The basic ideas that dominate commercial fiction will be those acceptable to the powers that be. The powers that be want everything to stay the same, except that they get more. Since the powers that me get theirs by hook and by crook, but most people get hooked and crooked, this desire of the part of the powers that be prescribes an ever more dystopian future for the overwhelming majority. The powers that be want to believe that nothing will really change, that God or Evolution has decreed their superiority and that eternal unchanging human nature will support their power, forever. This demands that misanthropy and pessimism are the default. What the powers that be can accept is daydreams about being special, in some form, and escaping, as long as the daydream has few or even no connection to reality. Even then, the daydream is more acceptable if the vicarious escapee from reality earns his way by being a loyal servant to the powers that be. Which basically requires being a badss, what would have been a villain in other days.

In any event, this is all a tempest in a teapot. SF is in much worse decline than technology. Ideological stooges relentlessly harp on the irrelevance of reality, even physical reality (much less social,) to fiction. Their mantra: It's all daydreams, it's all a matter of taste, it's all slumming and doesn't matter.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.

The introduction of electric light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer, most vaccines and all antibiotics.
All of those things mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a single statistic: child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.

Curing cancer, alzheimer, hiv , etc is much more difficult than vaccination, antibiotics and taking infant mortality down a notch. Look at cancer, it isn't one disease, it's multiple illnesses grouped under one category and it's much more difficult to implement a cure than flu or tb or smallpox or polio. Like somebody said much of the earlier stuff had easy solutions, which was why we could deal with them. The stuff now is difficult to deal with and require a multidisciplinary approach and billions of dollars in funding.

 

[Yminale]

What part of OLD TEORY (as in, not recent) and not confirmed did you not understand?

What part of confirmation do you not understand. The Standard model will soon be complete and that's progress.

And give the link to an LHC emplyee ACTUALLY SAYING the collision data confirms the higgs 99.99%, Yminale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

"13 December 2011 – experimental results were announced from the ATLAS and CMS experiments, indicating that if the Higgs boson exists, its mass is limited to the range 116–130 GeV (ATLAS) or 115–127 GeV (CMS), with other masses excluded at 95% CL. Observed excesses of events at around 124 GeV (CMS) and 125–126 GeV (ATLAS) are consistent with the presence of a Higgs boson signal, but also consistent with fluctuations in the background. The global statistical significances of the excesses are 1.9 sigma (CMS) and 2.6 sigma (ATLAS) after correction for the look elsewhere effect.[1][7] As of 13 December 2011, a combined result is not yet available."

There are little uses for entaglement today.

Oh except for Quantum computing and even teleportation. No there is no use for entanglement.

UNDERSTANDING something new is the definition of progress. 'Dark energy' is not in the least understood; merely the result of cataloguing observations.

Discovering something new is progress. Cosmologist have modeled the effect of dark energy through the interaction of galaxies. There are several candidates like vacuum energy. That more than we don't know anything.

This is the progress made; all those observations (dark energy, planetes) required little creativity, they're just cataloguing and comparing stars.

Progress doesn't require creativity. Many scientific discoveries were found by accident and equal number have been discovered through mind numbing analysis (*cough* Global Climate Change *cough*)

Firstly - As I already said every thing you mentioned here is either IT or biology (and biology is slowing down as well). Again, as I already said, progress in many other areas has been quite slow, comparatively to just a few decades ago.

But you've defeated your own argument. If you average out the progress in all fields then you are still moving forward.

Secondly - DNA Microarrays? So desperate to hang onto your illusion you actually bring up future tech, eh, Yminale? You should include hyperspace, if you're at it.
etc

You can use DNA microarrays now if you want.

https://www.23andme.com/

'Publish or perish' - that's the dogma in the scientific comunity. And if you publish white noise - well, it will have to do.

First you are ignoring the editorial control and the peer review process. No you just can't publish crap most of the time. Second 'Publish or perish' existed in the 19th and 20th century as well. The only way your argument works is if you can prove that a greater percentage of scientific works is crap.

The number of patents? Try quality, as well; try what they actually bring new, instead of playing LEGO with existing technologies or just bringing what, essentially, are aestetic improvements. Try number of fundamental discoveries.

Improvement are progress. They may not wow you like earth shaking paradigm changes like Quantum physics. Once again your argument boils down to proving that a greater percentage of patents are crap.

It's irrelevant how many scientists/engineers exist; what is relevant is their scientifical/technological outout- and it declined.

Where's your proof that productivity has declined. Your ignorance and dissatisfaction are not proof.

Productivity of the average american worker never declined? And? What, you think you need new technologies for productivity not to decline?

Why yes according to well informed economists.

And your post - to which I responded - was exclusively bitching over Neal Stephenson's affirmation - supported by the quantity AND quality of innovation in recent decades - that progress slowed down.
And you are again moving the goal post, Yminale.

First you haven't proven ANYTHING. Second I haven't moved the goal post. The shear breadth of change makes summarizing it difficult. My suggestion is for YOU to pick a field, ANY field and start reading about what's going on peer reviewed publication (or even Scientific American if you are lazy).

Yminale, as I already said: "the facts won't change regardless of your ad personams and obstinate refusal to deal with them".

Deliver some facts instead of your personal bias and then you have a leg to stand width.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.

The introduction of electric light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer, most vaccines and all antibiotics.
All of those things mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a single statistic: child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.

Curing cancer, alzheimer, hiv , etc is much more difficult than vaccination, antibiotics and taking infant mortality down a notch. Look at cancer, it isn't one disease, it's multiple illnesses grouped under one category and it's much more difficult to implement a cure than flu or tb or smallpox or polio. Like somebody said much of the earlier stuff had easy solutions, which was why we could deal with them. The stuff now is difficult to deal with and require a multidisciplinary approach and billions of dollars in funding.

You've just posted the 'low hanging fruit' explanation/excuse (already mentioned by me in this thread) given for the failure to maintain the rate of progress for science and technology:
There are no more discoveries available (despite the fact that there are a LOT of inconsistencies/incompleteness in our understanding of the cosmos) or the available ones are far harder than the past ones.

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

And, of course, minor discoveries/patents being PRed as the best thing since hot bread also cannot change this fact - beyond giving the illusion of the contrary.

PS:
80% decrease in child mortality is only 'down a notch' for you?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yminale

Your post consists exclusively of repeating yourself, straw-men and irrelevancies.
And, of course, ad personams.

It's hard letting go, yes?

PS - Quantum computing and teleportation? By your next post you really will mention hyperspace as an advance.

 

[Yminale]

Let's consider the advances from 1960 to the present:

Primarily, it's the development of the information age, fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24 months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control pill and other reproductive technologies have had an equally profound impact, on the culture if not the economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating speed.

Moore's law is acceleration. It an exponential growth curve. As for reproductive technology, I suggest a visit to Planned Parenthood. There are more options than just the pill.

Beyond that, men walk on the moon, with little to come of it, and there are bio- and nanotechnologies that so far had little affect on life.

I work in health care and I can tell you that change is a fact of life. PCR is revolutionizing the diagnosis of viral illness. Before that we had to use less accurate immunoglobin assays. Cytometry has improved to the point that I can get a complete blood count in less than 2 hours (it use take hours if not days).

Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.

News flash, mortality and morbidity from cancers and strokes are decreasing steadily. That can be seen in the increase in life spans in first world nations. Japan has an average lifespan of 80 years!! Some of the Scandinavian countries are approaching that.

child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.

Child mortality decreased because Physicians started washing their hands. In fact most of the increase in human life span is due to improvements in sanitation.

Or do you prefer to look at the fundamental discoveries made until the 1960 (relativity, quantum mechanics) and after 1960?

Which will pale before the completion of the Grand Unified Theory which I am confident we will have by 2050

Claiming that technological progress does not slow down, but accelerates is wishful thinking combined with superficiality in reading through the history of science and technology.

Honestly you are beginning to sound like a petulant child talking to adults. Your knowledge is somewhat broad but not very deep.

 

[Yminale]

Yminale

Your post consists exclusively of repeating yourself, straw-men and irrelevancies.
And, of course, ad personams.

I'm still waiting your evidence As a person who complains about ad hominem attack you sure use a lot of them

It's hard letting go, yes?

Your obstinacy to your delusion certainly show that.

PS - Quantum computing and teleportation? By your next post you really will mention hyperspace as an advance.

Accept for the fact that they ARE REAL. They aren't ready for prime time but the basic principles are there.