I love old sci-fi
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's the future we could have had; if line didn't have to go up.
-
I mean, we do have a cannons and guns age.
I agree that it’s been iteration, but the pace of iterations seems to be slowing down. Since the Internet was invented there hasn’t been a game-changing technology created.
Lots of things that claim to be it - Bitcoin, metaverse, now AI - but nothing like what we saw in the 19th and 20th centuries.
And I think that’s because huge population growth and a relatively unknown world led to huge advances very quickly. Now to make similar advances you can’t be a polymath like Newton or Tesla. You need huge investments.
Case in point: Physics. A lot of the fundamental physics from the 19th and 20th centuries can be re-created with simple materials and a little expertise. People can replicate the double slit experiment with a $2 laser pointer and a piece of foil.
But to make new advances in physics you need particle accelerators and supercomputers, and many highly educated people working together.
I’m not sure if we are talking past each other this point or what, but take the Internet since you mentioned it;
Let’s compare to transistors for instance. You could have (and did have) the internet without transistors and you could have transistors without the internet. Nobody would argue that either are not massively impactful inventions but neither would exist without electricity. Electricity is the paradigm shifting breakthrough. In the same way neither cannons nor guns were the breakthrough themselves.
…but the pace of iterations seems to be slowing down.
I thought that was the whole conversation we were having. My main point was not only that innovation is slowing down but that we should expect it to slow based on the trajectory of previous paradigm shifting breakthroughs.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I read a ton of Andre Norton in my youth
-
I’m not sure if we are talking past each other this point or what, but take the Internet since you mentioned it;
Let’s compare to transistors for instance. You could have (and did have) the internet without transistors and you could have transistors without the internet. Nobody would argue that either are not massively impactful inventions but neither would exist without electricity. Electricity is the paradigm shifting breakthrough. In the same way neither cannons nor guns were the breakthrough themselves.
…but the pace of iterations seems to be slowing down.
I thought that was the whole conversation we were having. My main point was not only that innovation is slowing down but that we should expect it to slow based on the trajectory of previous paradigm shifting breakthroughs.
I think we are, but by your logic the real breakthrough was fire, because without that we wouldn’t have electricity.
-
But their computers are still the size of a room and everyone smokes
Their computers have AGI already. Our computers consume more energy than entire countries to make studio Ghibli fakes and autocomplete on steroids.
-
I think we are, but by your logic the real breakthrough was fire, because without that we wouldn’t have electricity.
I wouldn’t go quite that far but yeah, in my view there have only been a handful of main paradigm shifting changes;
Language, fire, tools, husbandry, agriculture, metallurgy, electricity.The primary separation between humans and pretty much everything else on earth is the passing of knowledge from generation to generation so if I had to pick the innovation I would probably pick language.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Now recontextualize this using modern sci-fi that looks toward multiple centuries from now. Star Trek's egalitarian socialist utopia would never come to pass and the most likely future is that of Frank Herbert's Dune, where nearly 8,000 years from now we have a galactic feudal society where the ultra wealthy fight for control over limited resources while using religion to manipulate the poor into being their cannon fodder.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Humanity is exploring the deep corners of the universe to discover more resources to exploit.
-
Now recontextualize this using modern sci-fi that looks toward multiple centuries from now. Star Trek's egalitarian socialist utopia would never come to pass and the most likely future is that of Frank Herbert's Dune, where nearly 8,000 years from now we have a galactic feudal society where the ultra wealthy fight for control over limited resources while using religion to manipulate the poor into being their cannon fodder.
There were significant lows before the highs of the 23rd and 24th centuries of Star Trek. Incidentally the dark parts happen right around where we are now.
-
You jest! Asimov’s computers are the size of planets.
The ones that aren't people, at least.
-
But their computers are still the size of a room and everyone smokes
When you saw how they managed to put a person on the moon with room sized computers and about 145K lines of code, yeah I can see how they think it’d be possible.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Old sci-fi be like
We've discovered a technology that explores the fundamental truths of human nature, gaze into the black mirror and reflect upon your modern folly.
...Also all the scientists are straight white men and we invented new ways for our women to cook dinner.
Edit: To be clear, old sci-fi is genuinely great. Merely pointing out the funny juxtaposition of nerdy white guys not fathoming any social change in their generally progressive and thought provoking works.
-
… all building on what came before.
That was my point though. Metallurgy gave way to cannons and guns but we don’t have a “cannons and guns” age. Everything is iterative but occasionally we have something come along that changes everything and starts the iterations anew. But that has never continued after, just been followed by more iteration.
Also, it took over 1000 years to get from the first steam experiments to a useful engine.
I don't think that's a fair comparison to modern day.
People were experimenting with steam engines for 1,000 years sure, but this wasn't 1,000 years of dedicated research.
It was more like someone discovered the principle, then someone re-discovered the same principle 200 years later in a different, and repeat. Every time interest was lost. It wasn't until much later that people started to build off of each other and actually pursue technology.
-
The industrial and technological revolutions were a cause of radical change in human civilization. It was inspiring to think we would continue to grow instead of monetizing every last vestige of this world and our psyches?!
Pretty much, I struggle to see any real human achievement in my lifetime. Sure we invented phones and computers are faster than ever before. We haven't really done anything worthwhile. No real improvements in the human condition.
We have fun content, but our planet is going to cook
-
I don't think that's a fair comparison to modern day.
People were experimenting with steam engines for 1,000 years sure, but this wasn't 1,000 years of dedicated research.
It was more like someone discovered the principle, then someone re-discovered the same principle 200 years later in a different, and repeat. Every time interest was lost. It wasn't until much later that people started to build off of each other and actually pursue technology.
My point was that it didn’t give way immediately to electricity as the person I was replying to said. Even if you go from the first commercial steam engine it was still ~250 years before magnetos were regularly being hooked up to steam engines for small electrical applications.
-
This post did not contain any content.
And the heroes were scientists
-
Three Mile Island was a near melt down years before Chernobyl.
And it's a shame that we became scared of one of the greatest technologies we ever created.
Nuclear accidents have killed using the most extreme number 45,000 people. Directly meltdowns have killed less than 100. The middle ground estimates average out around 5,000, but let's give the most extreme number possible for the sake of the argument. These numbers are including projected cancer rates.
Cars annually kill 1.19 million people in comparison.
Even if you were to add nuclear weapon usage to the numbers you'd still barely be close to these numbers. Plus every time there's been an nuclear accident new technologies and safe guards are deployed. 40,000 of that estimated/projected death toll is from Chernobyl.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Naomi Klein wrote about how older sci fi was so optimistic and how she thinks the current trend of depressing dystopian sci fi is bad for society, which was an interesting take I thought.
-
One of my favourites.
What's this from?
-
And it's a shame that we became scared of one of the greatest technologies we ever created.
Nuclear accidents have killed using the most extreme number 45,000 people. Directly meltdowns have killed less than 100. The middle ground estimates average out around 5,000, but let's give the most extreme number possible for the sake of the argument. These numbers are including projected cancer rates.
Cars annually kill 1.19 million people in comparison.
Even if you were to add nuclear weapon usage to the numbers you'd still barely be close to these numbers. Plus every time there's been an nuclear accident new technologies and safe guards are deployed. 40,000 of that estimated/projected death toll is from Chernobyl.
Nuclear energy was subsidized to make atom bombs seem less threatening.
If we'd spent as much on renewables and improving the power grid we'd have been off the fossil fuel addiction years ago.
