I’m generally of the opinion that by most reasonable standards technological change is not accelerating. There have been periods that involved very rapid technological progress. For example, between 1890 and 1905 you have the invention of the radio, car, and the spread of the automobile. Aside from direct technology, that period also saw the discovery of special relativity and the discovery of radioactivity. Compared to that time period, almost any period in time looks like a slow crawl. We haven’t had anything at all as game-changing as radio or airplanes for some time. Even if one argues that the world wide web counts (which is itself questionable since it is only an addition to the pre-existing internet), that was in the early 1990s. We’ve gone some time with steady improvement of existing technology, but very little that is impressively new.
Where you say radio and radioactivity, I expect the rate of discoveries like that to slow as we discover a larger amount of the finite “things to discover”.
But as for making use of discoveries, the middle of the 1900s saw LASERs (1960), transistors (1950s), optical fibre (1952), credit cards, barcodes, solar cells, hovercrft, superglue, tippex, hard disks, satellites. All things which are arguably game changing, and giving 1890-1905 a run for it’s money.
Also, the early 1900s are somewhat distorted with things like Jet Engines, where turbines were proposed and patented in the 1790s, but unable to be built. As soon as the ability to build more precisely and strongly was developed, a lot of queued inventions popped up.
So it seems there will be a burst of invention after similar enabling technologies become widely available—when we can reliably build “enough” kinds of nanotechnology components, there should be a corresponding burst of already waiting low hanging nanofruit harvested.
Sure, I’m willing to agree that the 1950s and 1960s saw a lot also. But the question is whether there’s any substantial such activity now. Your point about queued inventions is very well taken.
The nanotech point might also be valid. Taken together that doesn’t mean that the pace of technological change is accelerating but that we should expect it to start accelerating soon.
Limiting ourselves to game-changing technologies might not be a good way to measure this sort of thing. I suspect they’re only distinguishable from hype in retrospect, at least when we’re talking about popular technology rather than theory.
We haven’t had anything at all as game-changing as radio or airplanes for some time. Even if one argues that the world wide web counts (which is itself questionable since it is only an addition to the pre-existing internet), that was in the early 1990s.
I’d say the social impact of the World Wide Web (even if the technology was there before) and of cell phones are on par with those of the radio and airplanes.
I’m generally of the opinion that by most reasonable standards technological change is not accelerating. There have been periods that involved very rapid technological progress. For example, between 1890 and 1905 you have the invention of the radio, car, and the spread of the automobile. Aside from direct technology, that period also saw the discovery of special relativity and the discovery of radioactivity. Compared to that time period, almost any period in time looks like a slow crawl. We haven’t had anything at all as game-changing as radio or airplanes for some time. Even if one argues that the world wide web counts (which is itself questionable since it is only an addition to the pre-existing internet), that was in the early 1990s. We’ve gone some time with steady improvement of existing technology, but very little that is impressively new.
Where you say radio and radioactivity, I expect the rate of discoveries like that to slow as we discover a larger amount of the finite “things to discover”.
But as for making use of discoveries, the middle of the 1900s saw LASERs (1960), transistors (1950s), optical fibre (1952), credit cards, barcodes, solar cells, hovercrft, superglue, tippex, hard disks, satellites. All things which are arguably game changing, and giving 1890-1905 a run for it’s money.
Also, the early 1900s are somewhat distorted with things like Jet Engines, where turbines were proposed and patented in the 1790s, but unable to be built. As soon as the ability to build more precisely and strongly was developed, a lot of queued inventions popped up.
So it seems there will be a burst of invention after similar enabling technologies become widely available—when we can reliably build “enough” kinds of nanotechnology components, there should be a corresponding burst of already waiting low hanging nanofruit harvested.
Sure, I’m willing to agree that the 1950s and 1960s saw a lot also. But the question is whether there’s any substantial such activity now. Your point about queued inventions is very well taken.
The nanotech point might also be valid. Taken together that doesn’t mean that the pace of technological change is accelerating but that we should expect it to start accelerating soon.
Limiting ourselves to game-changing technologies might not be a good way to measure this sort of thing. I suspect they’re only distinguishable from hype in retrospect, at least when we’re talking about popular technology rather than theory.
I’d say the social impact of the World Wide Web (even if the technology was there before) and of cell phones are on par with those of the radio and airplanes.