[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 41 KB, 406x319, mhc_am_computer_small_236508_7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548790 No.1548790 [Reply] [Original]

The Myth of Technological Progress

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-myth-of-technological-progress/

>> No.1548831

>comes from a conservative website
>stopped reading

pic related. it describes conservatives who try 2 science

>> No.1548834
File: 86 KB, 407x405, i_can_count.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548834

>>1548831
forgot pic

>> No.1548845
File: 38 KB, 610x386, croppedgigabyte_610x386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548845

read it in oblique, this is either a troll article or the most uneducated piece of shit I have ever read. How can you be so fucking oblivious to the advances made by science in 50 years time? The simple fact that he probably typed out his article on a laptop that weighs less than 10 pounds that you can equip with hard drives big enough to hold all the text data of the Library of Congress and then some is testament to the incredible power of modern day machines. Heck, even 20 years ago this was almost unimaginable.

Picture fucking related, this is the result of only 20 years of blisteringly fast tech advancement.

>> No.1548854

>>1548845

>The simple fact that he probably typed out his article on a laptop that weighs less than 10 pounds
Laptops are just improved computers.
The author is claiming that we haven't really gotten anything new in the past 50 years.

>> No.1548860

>>1548845

oh, if the pic is unclear, the big thing is the first 1gb hard drive made 20 years ago, vs a 1 gb flash card (which now, for this size, are over 20gb)

>> No.1548877

>>1548854
nothing new? iPhone4 is now capable of sending bidirectional HD video over a wireless network. This is just like science-fiction's videophones, but small enough to fit in your pocket, and friggin wireless. Seriously, what the fuck does he want? Flying cars?

>> No.1548886

>>1548877

Flying cars are just a combination of two 1950s technologies, dimwit.

>> No.1548887

>>1548877

>iPhone4
We've had phones for over 50 years.

>Flying cars
We've had cars for over 50 years.

>> No.1548897

Nanotech?
Genetic engineering?

>> No.1548902

dolly the sheep would like to have a word with him

>> No.1548904
File: 73 KB, 755x1255, Trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548904

>>1548887
I don't think you have ANY idea of what phones were like 50 years ago.

>>1548886
I mention them because they're a fucking staple of science-fiction/vision of the future from around 50 years ago, you goddamn cum-guzzling cockbag

>> No.1548910

>>1548887
do you not understand that new technology isnt just poofed out of nowhere? it never has in human history, at least that i can think of. technology always builds on previous advancements.

>> No.1548913

>>1548897

>Some wise acre is likely to pipe up and sing the glories of “Nanotech,” a “subject” which was “invented” in K. Eric Drexler‘s Ph.D. thesis in 1989. In the 20 years since he penned his fanciful little story, we have yet to see a single example of the wondrous miniature perpetual motion machines Drexler has been promising us “real soon now.” I wonder what his timeline for delivery of this “technology” will be?

>biotech. Maybe.

read the article bro

>> No.1548917

>>1548913
perpetual motion is impossible, not sure what youre saying. also, see this >>1548910

>> No.1548927

>>1548910

>new technology isnt just poofed out of nowhere
Human flight sort of poofed out of nowhere, no?
What about personal computing? You could say that abacuses were computers, but that would be disingenuous.

>> No.1548930

>>1548790
particle accelerators.
wireless networking.
GPS navigation
soundwave lasers
ability to map genomes, do i need to go on?

>> No.1548935

>>1548877
Journalists tend to be frighteningly stupid people.

So yes, what he wants are flying cars.

And anti-gravity, infinite free energy, etc. etc.

>> No.1548938

>>1548935

Don't forget x-ray glasses.

>> No.1548942

>>1548927
No, there was much study into the nature of fluid mechanics before anything resembling a properly working flight machine was envisioned.

>> No.1548949
File: 166 KB, 787x783, 4479876618_eb61a2bc4a_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548949

>>1548942

>> No.1548954

>>1548927
>Human flight sort of poofed out of nowhere, no?
not at all, humans have been building "flying machines" for centuries... from boomerangs to those japanese sky lanterns, then hot air balloons, Zeppelins, Ornithopters, then the wright bros. and it continues...

>> No.1548965
File: 103 KB, 600x667, 1269805994619.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1548965

Appropriate picture.

>> No.1548970

>>1548790
robotics
chess simulation computers
CELLphones
wireless computers
handheld gaming
tablet pc
solid state storage
disc storage
ability to examine effects of new chemicals in the body in seconds with recent super computer

>> No.1548979

>>1548790
"lasers that can work in the 100-attosecond time scale"
used to watch electrons move in real time

>> No.1548980

>>1548954
>What about personal computing?
from wikipedia-
The history of the modern computer begins with two separate technologies—automated calculation and programmability—but no single device can be identified as the earliest computer, partly because of the inconsistent application of that term. Examples of early mechanical calculating devices include the abacus, the slide rule and arguably the astrolabe and the Antikythera mechanism (which dates from about 150–100 BC). Hero of Alexandria (c. 10–70 AD) built a mechanical theater which performed a play lasting 10 minutes and was operated by a complex system of ropes and drums that might be considered to be a means of deciding which parts of the mechanism performed which actions and when.[4] This is the essence of programmability.

>> No.1548997

>>1548954
>>1548980
point of my two posts is that all technology builds on previous technology

"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”

>> No.1549015

>Nothing new in 50 years

>gene sequencing technologies
>cloning
>internet
>video games

>> No.1549017
File: 21 KB, 400x300, 1250056647105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549017

People here seem to believe that nothing new has been created in many decades.

If you believe that you are a faggot who has done nothing but use the hard earned knowledge of others as if it was always existed despite human advancement.

>> No.1549026

>>1549015

>vuvuzelas

>> No.1549034

Yeah, the internet sure doesn't count.

>> No.1549040

>>1549034

last 50 years: anything since 1960.
The internet was indev since 1962 if wikipedia is to be believed.
So... wat?

>> No.1549050

lul thread.

>> No.1549074

The Myth of Biological Process

Many of you will still be alive in 50 years. It’s interesting to think about what life will be like in 50 years biologically and otherwise. Predictions are risky, especially when they’re about the future, but I believe we can make some pretty good guesses. To predict a predictable future, you need to look at the past. What was biological life like 50 years ago? 50 years ago was 1959. The world of 1959 is pretty much the same world we live in today biologically speaking. This is a vaguely horrifying fact which is little appreciated. In 1959, we had discovered that DNA was helical, was the genetic material, and was composed of four bases that pair, which remains the most advanced biological language.

>> No.1549078

>>1549074

I kind of petered out at the end, there.
Anyone else like to try?

>> No.1549088

>>1548854
>Laptops are just improved computers.
...that I can take from my office onto a commuter train, where I can write email replies to colleagues in other companies on my way home, which is a completely different way to live and work than when I learned to program a computer on punch cards in 1978.

And remember in the 1980s, when IBM had a contest asking the public what they would use a "personal computer" for, and the best people could come up with was "holding recipes" you would use in the kitchen? Is that how we use "PC"s today?

And remember when the "internet" was invented -- before it was capitalized as the "Internet" as a proper noun because there's only one? And remember when it started to get commercialized, and people were afraid of that? And now you buy so much of your stuff over this Internet instead of a brick-and-mortar store, and you get your news from some .com web site.

I'm old enough to remember all these changes. And I'm typing this rant in bed on an iPhone, where I just watched weather radar tracking a band of thunderstorms over my house tonight. Fuck me if I got trolled, but I'm saying the way we live today is lot different than when I used to hand in a stack of punch cards with a rubberband around it.

>> No.1549095

>>1549040
wat indeed, I agree the internet has been around in the last 50 years. I was using it as an example of a "game changing" new technology. Though I would say the internet has only been around since the early/mid 90s, my point stands.

>> No.1549096

>>1549017
this is kinda like how teenagers and kids think that something they found out is new and that they are one of the few people that know it

>> No.1549119

>>1549088
Passionate.

>> No.1549122
File: 4 KB, 126x126, 1280706398814s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549122

>“Nanotech,” a “subject” which was “invented” in K. Eric Drexler‘s Ph.D. thesis in 1989. In the 20 years since he penned his fanciful little story, we have yet to see a single example of the wondrous miniature perpetual motion machines Drexler has been promising us “real soon now.” I wonder what his timeline for delivery of this “technology” will be?
>"nanotech" "subject""invented"real soon now"
>"""""""""""""

>> No.1549193

>>1548897
Genetic engineering has been around for centuries. we can do it faster now, but a good number of the species of crops you eat today were engineered centuries ago.
Nanotech does not exist. you cannot point to something that does not yet exist and say that it's a technological advancement.

>> No.1549216

>>1549088
But I don't think you're old enough to remember a difference between a time when supersonic flight was just a myth and a time when people did it every day.

>> No.1549220

>>1549193

>you cannot point to something that does not yet exist

You're absolutely right.
You can't point to something that doesn't exist.

but
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/nanotechnology/

apparently that is all nonexistent?

>> No.1549226

>>1549193

Selective breeding != genetic engineering

Selective breeding acts upon phenotypes.
Genetic engineering messes with the genotype.
Selective breeding must act on variation which already exists within the organism.
Genetic engineering can import genes from other species, sometimes vastly unrelated.

>> No.1549231

Gas warfare was used in the first world war...

Hopefully conservatives realise the first world war took place before 1959

>> No.1549233

>>1549220
he isn't talking about shit like carbon nanotubes. he's talking about self-replicating machines the size of molecules, which is what was originally meant when 'nanotechnology' was first brought up.

jesus fuck, the guy is saying that there have been no new real technologies, and all you retards can do is point to advancements and optimizations and claim that he is wrong.

>> No.1549245
File: 15 KB, 644x123, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549245

wtf...

>> No.1549254

>>1549233

What do you define "real technologies" to be? Because that really colors the answer to this question.

>> No.1549256

>>1549245
wait, other countries have political parties too!?

ASTOUNDING!

>> No.1549258

This guy is fucking retarded

Going from living room size computers to a ~7lb laptop is ridiculous.

Cellphones like they are now are insane

Internet is amazing

He's just a pissy bitch

>> No.1549335

Perhaps OPs author is in fact an IRL troll?

>> No.1549363

Conservatives. What the fuck did you expect?

>> No.1549373
File: 434 KB, 2570x1024, 1253904973205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549373

This guy is cherry-picking all of his examples... and painting them a color that will support his views. It's not logical, just clever, like an Andy Rooney bit.

Who cares.

>> No.1549447
File: 15 KB, 300x251, 300px-Wheat_yields_in_developing_countries_1951-2004.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549447

Agriculture improved a little bit too.

>> No.1549455

>Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems
>finance

Oh, boy!

>> No.1549626

From the article:
"Most of the “advances” we have had since then (1959) are refinements and democratization of technologies. "
Leaving aside that he is wrong, refinements and democratization of technology is what matters.

>> No.1549666

>>1549455
Didn't read the article, but quantitative finance is actually pretty fucking difficult. Most quants on wall street have Ph.D.'s in either pure math or physics. Shit's pretty real.

>> No.1549673

>>1549040
I like to view it as ever decreasing data transmission costs since the telegraph.

>> No.1549694
File: 95 KB, 630x592, donotwant-multiple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549694

one of the most retarded things I've ever read

>> No.1549750

>>1549666

Shit's full of shit. Economics as a field might as well be voodoo for all the good it does. See the current state of the economy for the utter failure of economics as a field and economists as human beings.

>> No.1550231

>>1548854

computers are just improved abacus.

>implying anything has been invented in the last 3600 years

>> No.1550236

this article is stupid.


really? you are typing on a fucking laptop right now, that is progress, we have fucking pacemakers, progress.


go spread your bullshit elsewhere

>> No.1550244
File: 32 KB, 402x398, capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1550244

>What was technological life like 50 years ago? 50 years ago was 1959. The world of 1959 is pretty much the same world we live in today technologically speaking.

i stopped reading after that

>> No.1550315

lol at people complaining about the article with out even reading it.

or the people using 20 different words for 'computer' in lists thinking they just said 20 different things.

Hes right in that the things we do have not changed in the last 50 years anywhere near as much as they had 100 year ago to 50 years ago.

A lot of the stuff we do is better/faster/smaller/more convenient, but nothing actually new (that is actually being used in a way that effects our lives) is really around.

>> No.1550699
File: 184 KB, 787x783, 4515685798_8db389a68a_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1550699

>> No.1550817

>>1550315
Even if it was true, that doesn't advance the point that "The world of 1959 is pretty much the same world we live in today technologically speaking."

The author forgets (or ignores) all the new things necessary to improve the stuff we had.

>> No.1550899

Too bad no matter how much technology changes there will always be idiots like this guy.