Why Is Peter Thiel Pessimistic About Technological Innovation? (2014)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/books/review/the-power...

The music is briefly disturbed by a low rumble from the front yard, and our time-traveler glances through the window: A metal conveyance is coming up the street at an incredible speed – with not a horse in sight. It's enclosed with doors and windows, like a house on wheels, and it turns into the yard, and the doors open all at once, and two grown-ups and four children all get out - just like that, as if it's the most natural thing in the world! He notices there is snow on the ground, and yet the house is toasty warm, even though no fire is lit and there appears to be no stove. A bell jingles from a small black instrument on the hall table. Good heavens! Is this a "telephone"? He'd heard about such things, and that the important people in the big cities had them. But to think one would be here in his very own home! He picks up the speaking tube. A voice at the other end says there is a call from across the country - and immediately there she is, a lady from California talking as if she were standing next to him, without having to shout, or even raise her voice! And she says she'll see him tomorrow!

Oh, very funny. They've got horseless carriages in the sky now, have they? What marvels! In a mere 60 years!

But then he espies his Victorian time machine sitting invitingly in the corner of the parlor. Suppose he were to climb on and ride even further into the future. After all, if this is what an ordinary American home looks like in 1950, imagine the wonders he will see if he pushes on another six decades!

So on he gets, and sets the dial for our own time.

And when he dismounts he wonders if he's made a mistake. Because, aside from a few design adjustments, everything looks pretty much as it did in 1950: The layout of the kitchen, the washer, the telephone... Oh, wait. It's got buttons instead of a dial. And the station wagon in the front yard has dropped the woody look and seems boxier than it did. And the folks getting out seem ...larger, and dressed like overgrown children. And the refrigerator has a magnet on it holding up an endless list from a municipal agency detailing what trash you have to put in which colored boxes on what collection days.

But other than that, and a few cosmetic changes, he might as well have stayed in 1950.

Let's pause and acknowledge the one exception to the above scenario: The computer. Instead of having to watch Milton Berle on that commode-like thing in the corner, as one would in 1950, you can now watch Uncle Miltie on YouTube clips from your iPhone. But be honest, aside from that, what's new? Your horseless carriage operates on the same principles it did a century ago. It's added a CD player and a few cup holders, but you can't go any faster than you could 50 years back. As for that great metal bird in the sky, commercial flight hasn't advanced since the introduction of the 707 in the 1950s. Air travel went from Wilbur and Orville to bi-planes to flying boats to jetliners in its first half-century, and then for the next half-century it just sat there, like a commuter twin-prop parked at Gate 27B at LaGuardia waiting for the mysteriously absent gate agent to turn up and unlock the jetway.

...

'I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability. 'Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something... But I am suggesting that all this is BS... I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75 – at the time of the Apollo moon landings – and has been declining ever since.'

Can that be true? Charlton is a controversialist gadfly in British academe, but, comparing 1950 to the early 21st century, our time traveler from 1890 might well agree with him. And, if you think about it, isn't it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet... It half-lingers in collective consciousness as a memory of faded grandeur, the way a 19th century date farmer in Nasiriyah might be dimly aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here someplace."

--From Mark Steyn's "After America"

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm

Doesn't sound like it's entirely due to toxic local politics and regulations.

I wouldn't say these sort of conservatives are pessimistic about progress so much they are opposed to progress.

If you model technological invention as combinations of more fundamental technologies, then as your stock of technologies grows, the number of new combinations should grow exponentially.

The exponential growth predicted by this model is consistent with the increasing rates of growth from the 1700s through the 1900s.

That said, I agree it seems that technological innovation (or at least its impact) is slowing. The difference in life between 1870 and 1920 seems to me to be much bigger than the difference in life between 1970 and 2020. In our fifty years, we made tremendous progress in information technology. In their fifty years, they made tremendous progress with electricity, engines, plumbing, chemicals, & radio.

Peter Thiel's emphasis is that this stagnation is coming from overregulation. My own emphasis is that we figured out what seem to be the main laws of physics by the 1930s, developed the Standard Model in the 60s and 70s, and every fundamental physics discovery since then has been an evolutionary tweak, not a disruptive re-architecting. (I'm overgeneralizing, of course, but I think the idea stands.)

Asimov has an excellent essay on the topic of scientific progress: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Of course it's always possible we discover something new and groundbreaking in the laws of physics, but given that we're having to spend billions of dollars on accelerators and telescopes, it seems less and less likely that we'll find things as cheap and as useful as electricity or semiconductors.

Looking at life now compared to life in 1967, there are many differences, especially related to computer technology, but there are also many similarities. We still have ships, trains, cars, and planes. We still have roads. We still have schools. We still have houses. We still have plumbing for water and waste. We still have electricity. We still have jobs and commutes. We still have governments and corporations and money. For the most part, the structure of modern life has been pretty stable. Of course we cannot know the future, but it feels safe to me to expect similar stability over the next half century.

Same thing is already happening with technology. Progress in the last 10 years has been comparatively minimal, and it's definitely not speeding up. But at least we have IoT lightbulbs.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/arthur-clarke-predict...