215. The Theory of Accelerating Change

Futurists often suggest that technology grows exponentially more powerful over time, but there may be good reasons to doubt this notion, & *very* good reasons not to wait around for the future tech they promise is imminent.

Climate Change Links

-Links for the Curious-

"The lock washer serves as a spring while the bolt is being tightened. However, the washer is normally flat by the time the bolt is fully torqued. At this time it is equivalent to a solid flat washer, and its locking ability is nonexistent. In summary, a Iock washer of this type is useless for locking."

[notmyrealpseudonym]

How you aren't more popular constantly surprises me. So well presented and edited with well thought out and delivered content

[KohuGaly]

The technological progress has one singular main cause - people. More people = more ideas = more progress. The seeming "accelerating change" is a product of a feedback loop, where modern technology enables growth in population. I suspect potatoes had larger impact on technological progress of Europe than the printing press.

[bthomson]

I always look to this channel to expand my true crime/vanlife mind and it ALWAYS does! Thanks Thunk!

[TheGemsbok]

There is an interesting resonance between some of your remarks toward the end of the video (about technological advance not necessarily keeping pace with human environmental damage) and some work in a field far removed from engineering.

The literary critic and 'environmental humanist' Ken Hiltner has argued after considerable research---both literary/cultural research and anthropological research---that one of the most persistent, false, and ultimately damaging myths for environmentalism is the mistaken belief that humans once lived in perfect harmony with nature. Thus, people assume the natural state is one of environmental equilibrium in an imagined past, and they dedicate disproportionate effort toward getting 'back to nature' (despite the fact that we have actually always been a deforesting, species-clearing, apex-predatorial ecological disaster). His model is one where humanity must reform these basic assumptions in order to instead look 'forward to nature, ' by looking for ways that modern urban living can be reshaped into an environmentally superior form---a task that may be far more achievable and far less Herculean than the otherwise apparent aim of dismantling industrialization.

Anyway, a related concern (hence the resonance mentioned above) is the idea that wilderness and life in general can and will bounce back from any and all wrongdoing inflicted by humanity. But the rate of environmental 'healing' or adaptation is untethered from the rate of human consumption and pollution. There is (unfortunately) nothing fundamentally inconsistent about the notion that the latter could irrevocably outpace the former.

[LeeCarlson]

This is the phenomenon known as "technochauvanism, " and it is even more widespread among the rank and file than among the actual scientific community.

[landspide]

Reminds me about what Gould described with punctuated equilibrium. Eventually it will reach stasis, and then something will trigger technological growth again.

[ataraxia]

I think a lot of accelerating change ideas are also just fueled by hope. It would be really nice if we someday make more progress in medicine with in a year then we did in the last 200 years. It would be nice if there was abundance and no one had to die of old age and people had more free to do and have what’s best for them in life. Accelerating progress in tech is an idea that promises that possibility in a way that might be more compelling to some people than other ideas that make similar promises and I can’t blame anyone for wishing it were true.

[rosaconnolly]

You should do an episode on the marxist concept of base and superstructure

[Michelle_Wellbeck]

Periods of rapid technological progress in the US were correlated with intensive government funded r&d projects which created many staples of our modern world such as gps, the internet, and microprocessors.

Now rather than fund innovation, the government would rather dump money into the stock exchange through quantitative easing and the prevailing theory is that the market is what drives innovation.

Thanks to market-oriented innovation we have the new generation of modern amenities including online taxi-hailing, battery powered scooters, ubiquitous targeted advertisements, and wireless earphones. We'll also soon develop luxury space cruises.

Comparing the caliber of innovations between the two modalities is telling of the prospects of the notion of accelerating change today.

[G_Rad_Ski]

I like the magnification analogy of change since the Enlightenment. However the more we discover the more questions are posed. I think we are at an augmentation shift vs innovation right now.

[Xob_Driesestig]

Despite your dejected tone and the somewhat bleak ending, this was probably your funniest episode yet. Humor is subjective, but for me, every joke landed.

[somecuriosities]

Well said! Josh you just nail it with these vids - never fail to be slightly amazed by your grasp on such an ecclectic range of issues!

Literally had similar discussion with a physicist and a programmer (who were top of their year at college by the way), tried to point out that the rate of tech discovery doesn't and hasn't just continued to accelerate over time but can stagnate; tech doesn't just need to just be theoetically possible but also needs the right societal conditions, and economic synergy in order to come into existence and be widely adopted; that putting too many eggs in the 'tech will save us' basket is folly due to (and reflected) by the worlds current infrastructure and economic structure, and all I got was "Heresy! Nope. Nuh uh. Your not a ScIeNtIsT! Technological progress is accelerating, we just need more people with phds and to chuck money at the researchers, and star trek widgets will surely be the cavalry that saves the day."

Like growing a fertile crop in your yard, technological discovery and adoption needs to be cultivated under the right conditions imo.

* Now Go In Peace My Children - Here Endeth Todays Rant * 😅

[Ensivion]

That curve should be a logistics curve not a pure exponential curve. The industrial revolution was sparked from a combination of people changing and the discovering new technologies, so was the roman empire. They reached their peak of what their technology could handle until people changed again. Then the dark ages happens and not much gets done, atleast in Europe, until feudalism. There seems to be a general trend in our knowledge but we (westerners) did lose quite a bit from the fall of rome, this chilling video should remind you that this could happen again. This time we are more aware, the information age leading into the misinformation age people are changing. What is next?

[anieldayyanelday]

By far the most idealistic idea is the idea that humanity will physically explore other worlds soon - that we can jump ship if things get dire.

Sadly, we may be stuck on this planet for the foreseeable future, if not forever. Earth is our only home, and is far more habitable even at its worst than Mars is at its best.

[Baroncognito]

Could you recommend a video on split lock washers.

[joemarin]

I wonder what people at the end of the Roman Empire and the Late Bronze Age Collapse would have to say about this. If we look out towards a longer timespan of accelerating change we will see a number of societies that had exponential growth in innovation until... they didn't. To act like progress is a given would be naive.

[BingoBabyO]

Did you also check the water rising predictions from the last 10yrs? Be sure you look at all sides …

[GeraldMMonroe]

Accelerating technological change is a known fact. You don't have an argument there. The invention that allowed it was the printing press. Computers are a super form of printing press and have allowed faster progress. However, obviously many technologies are limited by some physical law. For example we don't have 100mph highway cars because of the fuel consumption and limits on human reflexes. Even though they obviously work and almost any car can reach that speed. You also are correct that while we can expect future changes in technology we don't know which ones will work or on what schedule. But what exactly can be done about climate change specifically that doesn't involve such a last minute innovation? As long as it is cheaper to burn coal or natural gas it gives whoever does it an economic advantage. Without renewables and storage cheaper in almost every case - a technology we don't have though it's been improved rapidly and if you draw the line forward you will cross over the cost of fossil fuels in the near future. Anyways, without that what solution do we have now? There isn't one.