Why things might have taken so long • Hacker News Board

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#111

Post by jstanley » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:48 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #43

sametmax wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, any solution to a problem that involves abstinence There is a famous french comedian who said "when you think about it, the only thing needed for this not to be sold... is that nobody buys it". That pretty much sums up the solution to most problems of the human race. You know that killing thing ? What if we stopped doing it ? You know that unhealthy habit ? That immoral product ? Etc. Disciplining your…

The problem is that individual rational optimization can and does lead to collective deterioration. In the abstract: If a given adoption has an individual utility of +1, and a collective detriment of -0.01, then for each rational individual actor in non small populations the decision to adopt is a net improvement even though the resulting utility for all is far below 0. This is why the old excuse of 'vote with your w…

> If a given adoption has an individual utility of +1, and a collective detriment of -0.01,

OK but imagine if everyone in the world did the "bad thing". The world would gain 8 billion utility and lose 800 million, so it's still winning.

I think you mean something like an individual utility of +1 and a collective detriment of -1.01?

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#112

Post by dwater » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

rebuilder wrote: post #22

The poverty trap explanation here makes a lot of sense to me, although maybe it needs a bit of expansion. In a subsistence farming environment it seems true that people did not have much time or resources to devote to making inventions. However, from what I've read of hunter-gatherer tribes still around today, the people living in them actually seem to have quite a bit of free time, yet obviously technological innova…

Perhaps hunter gatherers are generally content with their existence and see no need to invent, whereas farmers and agricultural societies are frequently unsatisfied and unhappy (because they spend more time working and less in recreation) and are therefore more motivated to try to change their circumstances.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#113

Post by FiatLuxDave » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

I'd like to add my perspective as a struggling inventor. I can't speak to conditions 50k years ago, but a number of the challenges listed are still pretty relevant, and I've had to justify "why are things taking so long" to my friends and family enough times to pay close attention to this.

The big factors I see are: 'poverty trap', 'crude hacks', and 'full-time craftsman'. These interact. For example, most people need a day job. Even in R&D shops, day jobs are largely concerned with marginal improvements. I spent 12 years working as an R&D physicist, but I had to do my inventions on my own time because they weren't relevant to the incremental improvement products I was paid to develop. It's very hard to spend time working on a home run when your competition is hitting a thousand singles, and that is especially true with regards to possible uses of your time for paying the bills.

The craftsman thing is a big deal. I suck as a craftsman, mainly because I'm usually doing something for the first time. Need to weld it? Guess I'm learning how to weld. Need to polish it? Time to learn again. MATLAB is too slow? Hello C++. Oh, hey, now electronics are surface mount? Time to learn how to solder all over again. So, unless you are inventing something in a field you have specialized in as a craftsperson, everything you build kinda sucks. Then you have to figure out - is the problem with the idea or the implementation? Is there a different implementation which would be easier to build? What techniques do I have to learn to do that?

The workaround for this is to work with specialized craftspeople. Unfortunately, this adds different challenges. Now you have to pay them ('poverty trap') or convince them it's worthwhile (I didn't see 'social proof' on the list, but lets put it under value). Now you have to manage a project, which is a different skill set than inventing something in the first place. Sometimes, it's better going back to being your own craftsman.

In modern times, then you get to go to commercialization, which is the barrier which kills most inventions because the inventor rarely has the skills to do this right, and the people with the skills aren't usually incentivized properly to do it for them.

So, in short, I see the biggest problems for inventors not in the mental realm, but in the social. Inventors generally need help, and it is not until after the invention is a success that people see the value.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#114

Post by MrFantastic » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

cf wrote: post #61

quadrangle wrote: post #17

About not having invented anything: it's harder to invent something novel today simply because so much has already been invented and knowledge of it is available. Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent (we should be able to fly, to stay under water longer, to copy books faster, to notate music… ). It still took a lot of work to actually realize the invention (which only could be done by people weal…

Inventions are motivated by problems, and we still have lots of them. We sorely need cheap sustainable energy, cheap drugs, artificial organs, more efficient transportation, denser batteries, and that's just stuff off the top of my head. Some of that stuff will entail using existing technology, buy much of it will require new inventions. Many ideas that seem easy to invent only seem so in retrospect. The article repe…

Bicycles are 97% efficient. Society could be organized around the bicycle.

Many of the health issues would be corrected if our environment required people to exercise to get around.

People are just really lazy.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#115

Post by iamgopal » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #113

I'd like to add my perspective as a struggling inventor. I can't speak to conditions 50k years ago, but a number of the challenges listed are still pretty relevant, and I've had to justify "why are things taking so long" to my friends and family enough times to pay close attention to this. The big factors I see are: 'poverty trap', 'crude hacks', and 'full-time craftsman'. These interact. For example, most people nee…

Wright brothers spent about a decade to build a machine that can fly. Their cycle shop paid for it.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#116

Post by iamgopal » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #53

simonbarker87 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the case, the famous (if apocryphal) quote of "everything that can be invented has been invented" made in 1900 by the head of the US patent office was clearly wrong and made either in jest or due to an enormous lack of imagination. The point is that there is always more to invent and the possibilities keep increasing. There are plenty of inventions yet to make, from complex AI enabled devices down to the…

Agreed. La Bruyère in 1690 wrote a very famous phrase "Tout est dit, et l'on vient trop tard depuis plus de sept mille ans qu'il y a des hommes et qui pensent." ( Everything has been said, and we're too late after 7000 years of human existence and thought. ) I can't find the quote right now but Aristotle complained once that the level of comfort attained in his era and city was so high nobody would ever conceivably w…

Bravo for attitude but we should not forget energy conservation rules.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#117

Post by Amygaz » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #74

quadrangle wrote: post #17

About not having invented anything: it's harder to invent something novel today simply because so much has already been invented and knowledge of it is available. Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent (we should be able to fly, to stay under water longer, to copy books faster, to notate music… ). It still took a lot of work to actually realize the invention (which only could be done by people weal…

A breakthrough in battery tech that results in small but very long lasting batteries will result in the invention of a bunch of obvious things that are currently impossible or impractical given current tech.

I am not sure if those would strictly qualify as inventions or innovations/improvements. We already have a list of designs to build and power once we have significantly better batteries, or significantly better ways of harnessing other energy source (e.g. nanorobots powered by body heat). I do think that those "significantly better" batteries, will need to be completely new ways of thinking about the battery, which would be the disruptive part. But once we have one, the rest is "let's put that to good use, and into every house" kind of thing.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#118

Post by bambax » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #92

bambax wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of the existence of bicycles. They are not as useful -- or fun -- as the ability to fly would be. I don't understand your point at all. When something sounds far-fetched / difficult / expensive it means it's actually more interesting rather than less.

My point is that this thread started with the assertion that all easy inventions are already gone and it takes a lot of effort to invent something novel. You countered with flying via genetic engineering, which to me doesn't sound like something reasonably simple that hasn't been invented yet.

Oh, ok. I was concurring with the comment that said "There are plenty of inventions yet to make" and not really voicing an opinion about their difficulty.

However, after rereading it, I disagree with the top comment that said that "Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent".

It's never easy to think of something to invent. Finding the problem, even just thinking there might be a problem where noone sees any, is a big part of any invention.

Also, in the past, inventions required a much larger leap of thinking than today. When we speak today about growing wings on creatures born without it, we kind of accept the idea, because we know it's already possible to grow eyes on flies' legs for example.

But inventing the steam engine, or disproving "spontaneous generation" and inventing vaccines, sound to me much more impressive because those people went where no one had dared go before them.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#119

Post by dwaltrip » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

Joe-Z wrote: post #54

Swizec wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have absolutely no contract with the universe or nature that guarantees us that there's "always more to invent", even less so that "the possibilities keep increasing". Think of human knowledge as a circle. The edge of that circle is the edge of human knowledge. Inventing a thing makes a little bump in the circle that pushes the edge outwards. The bigger the circle, the bigger the circumference, the more possibil…

That's just a metaphor, and exactly of the type which GP argued against. To illustrate GP's point metaphorically: Think of human knowledge as discovered areas on a map. The dark areas are what is still unknown to us. Inventing a thing makes a little spot on the map visible. The more you have discovered, the less you still have to discover. (And to extend it a bit: Of course you can make the already discovered areas m…

If the illuminated areas are a very small portion of the entire map, then the circle metaphor actually may be more appropriate. But I see your point.

Hmm... Perhaps better still would be an immense valley of very uneven steepness and roughness, that we are climbing out of.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#120

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

wickawic wrote: post #93

baud147258 wrote: post #88

> Often A isn’t useful without B, and B isn’t useful without A. For instance, A is chariots and B is roads. Even without chariots, road are useful: pack animals and people on foot will move much more easily if there is a solid path that doesn't turn to mud when it's raining, that's clear of obstacles and relatively smooth.

It was a contrived example but charitably there are lots of inventions that are only useful in light of other inventions.

Yes, I was just criticizing the example chosen, not the explanation itself (and judging from the votes, I was unclear).