Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What We Get Wrong About Technology

timharford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#41

Post by afarrell »

donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

> yet it probably wouldn't occur to us to bring it up because fruit at the supermarket is just... obvious.

The author, Tim Harford, has been running a podcast for the BBC called 50 Things that Made the Modern Economy. If you feel inclined, you should suggest this to him as the last development to cover: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4Y4Gn8gbQvp4X87wGLV...

You should also listen to all the episodes of the podcast:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b1g3c/episodes/downloads

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#42

Post by sametmax »

lordnacho wrote: post #35

I wonder if the great leap he mentions (1870-1970) is mostly from the discovery of electromagnetism. It would seem to be magical. Here's this thing that allows you to move huge amounts of power over vast distances, but deposit it in whatever tiny portions you like, in whatever room you want, and it's so easy you run the wires along your existing walls. The same force allows you to send both signal and power through t…

> But one thing I was wondering was how much it depends on basic science. Now that we've discovered EM, have we exhausted the basic knowledge about the world? Is every tech going forward just refinements on particular aspects of nature, or is it unlimited how we combine things?

People centuries ago probably asked themself the same question. Let's just assume we are missing massive chunks of informations.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#43

Post by icebraining »

vinchuco wrote: post #33
mrexroad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, there was a Reddit thread where they asked elderly (or elderly relatives of redditers) what the greatest technological advancement was during their lifetime, and indoor plumbing was more of a leap than the Saturn V taking humans to the moon and back.

A big effect in a small area vs a small effect in a large area [?]. The same volume of water in two cylinders of short and long width. We have prizes for big problems in mathematics and science, but rarely focus on enablers. The tribe rewards the hunter when he comes back with deer, not so much the one that perfects the hunting spears (tools).

Sure we do, they're called patents.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#44

Post by hnlmorg »

mrexroad wrote: post #32
donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

IIRC, there was a Reddit thread where they asked elderly (or elderly relatives of redditers) what the greatest technological advancement was during their lifetime, and indoor plumbing was more of a leap than the Saturn V taking humans to the moon and back.

I guess people notice more the changes that directly impact them. As significant as the space programme is, it's often just a newspaper headline. Where as hot running water, central heating and convenient shopping affects people daily.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#45

Post by icebraining »

adjkant wrote: post #23
autarch wrote: post #5

Obligatory plug for everyone to read The Shockwave Rider by John Brunner. It was published in 1975 and nails the technology of the 90s so accurately that it's quite freaky to read.

In the same category a bit, Neuromancer. Note the publish date, 1984. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/888628.Neuromancer

What did Neuromancer predict?

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#46

Post by mozumder »

donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

This is why people like Elon Musk are completely mischaracterized as innovators and leaders of the tech scene.

Today's tech-bros go for the most obvious nerd-bait, like electric cars, rockets, and solar panels. This is stuff that, if you asked any tech-bro today, or 20 years ago, what would impress them, they would answer with that obvious stuff.

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL world-changing innovations are things like pinch-to-zoom and momentum scroll - stuff that you actually initially had to argue with the tech-bros about - "why do we need that?" - but becomes obvious only after-the-fact.

Innovation is what your grandmother recognizes as innovative, not what the technologists recognize as innovative.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#47

Post by dalbasal »

donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

I think we over-emphasize elements that seem more “technological,” overestimate their importance. The printing press example is great. We credit the press because it’s mechanical and complex, but not the paper (or ink or literacy or religion).

For peaches in winter, most people think of botany, refrigeration, airplanes… science. Fewer people would think of joint stock companies or shipping containers as important enablers.

For productivity, it seems impossible that a computer on every desk with modern digital communication, software of every kind and all our gadgets didn’t move the productivity needle. It’s all so technological. In practice, non-technologies like kanban or just-in-time did move the productivity needle. It’s counterintuitive.

There are a lot of examples of counterintuitive bland results. Genetic engineering has not improved crop yields nearly as much as green revolution technology, not even close. Nuclear energy changed very little besides war.

That’s not to say these aren’t impactful technologies. Computers have changed our lives and our work. Modern Agg-tech has changed farming. It just didn’t change total output all that much.

I suppose that in the theme of this article, big technologies work in complexes, and that makes them hard to bang into a narrative and hard to predict.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#48

Post by tonyedgecombe »

hnlmorg wrote: post #44
mrexroad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, there was a Reddit thread where they asked elderly (or elderly relatives of redditers) what the greatest technological advancement was during their lifetime, and indoor plumbing was more of a leap than the Saturn V taking humans to the moon and back.

I guess people notice more the changes that directly impact them. As significant as the space programme is, it's often just a newspaper headline. Where as hot running water, central heating and convenient shopping affects people daily.

Yes, life would be pretty miserable without clean running water and sewerage.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#49

Post by k__ »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #39
donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

"What would probably really impress the hell out of them would be a supermarket, though." At the end of Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin's film Tout va bien there is a very long take, a panning shot that sweeps back and forth across a Carrefour hypermarket from just outside the cashiers, showing you the whole breadth of departments: fresh veg, canned goods, clothes, etc. I was amazed by this – the whole hypermar…

Sure these super/hypermarkets are a thing for long time now.

I know them since I can think.

What has changed in the consumer market is delivery.

I mean I can buy a huge amount of stuff from all over the world via Amazon and get many thinks delivered at the next day for just 60€ a year prime costs. This is as insane as the hypermarkets were back in the 70s I think.

And it gets better every year.

With self driving trucks we will get even more stuff around the world for less money.

I think this is especially interesting, because it not only gives us much nice things, but also it makes the world smaller. We start to identify more with people around the world, because we can reach them more easily.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#50

Post by wott »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #48
hnlmorg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess people notice more the changes that directly impact them. As significant as the space programme is, it's often just a newspaper headline. Where as hot running water, central heating and convenient shopping affects people daily.

Yes, life would be pretty miserable without clean running water and sewerage.

...in cities, towns and villages (any dense area). But in sparsely populated areas with dispersed housing, this is not such a big deal.
Post reply on HN