Live data from Hacker News

Why things might have taken so long

meteuphoric.wordpress.com

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#151
Well, at the dawn of human civilization our finest tools were hewn rock. Now we have computers and have stood on the moon.

It took a long time because we started with nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I like the article but I think it's missing the forest for the trees. The reason why things took so long relative to current rates of progress is just because knowledge compounds upon itself.

Early on in a system defined by compound growth you will have slow growth. Then eventually exponential growth. This is what we've experienced.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#152
post #29

If nothing else, this article's example of inventing rope caused me to seek to learn how to make it, which I now know how to do.

Making rope is a required activity in boy scouts :-)

So girl scouts are not expected to survive in the wild? Smells like a lawsuit to ed department. Kidding of course )

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#153

Well, at the dawn of human civilization our finest tools were hewn rock. Now we have computers and have stood on the moon. It took a long time because we started with nothing. Absolutely nothing. I like the article but I think it's missing the forest for the trees. The reason why things took so long relative to current rates of progress is just because knowledge compounds upon itself. Early on in a system defined by…

[deleted]

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#154
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. To illustrate your point: The invention of "rope" is the invention of a manmade object that can create a strong and flexible connection between two objects. Nylon rope is an innovation that progressed from grass rope. It should not be qualified as an "invention" in and of itself, as it is functionally the same as grass rope, it just does the job of rope better.

I'd go further. Nylon as a material was invented and then the current rope tech was improved by it. Innovation stemmed from the fact that we now have a stronger rope and can use it for stuff that was not possible before. (largely inspired by: http://www.asymco.com/2014/04/16/innoveracy-misunderstanding... )

If I recall correctly, the original impetus for nylon was replacing the natural isoprene rubber in tires, to remove the necessity of rubber plantations as a strategic military asset. This resulted in neoprene. Then DuPont decided to expand the project to explore uses for other novel polymers.

The inventor actually committed suicide, partly because he thought he was a one-hit wonder.

Neoprene was invented in 1930. Nylon 6-6 was invented in 1935. Carothers killed himself in 1937. Nylon was first used in toothbrush bristles in 1938, and rolled out to nylon stockings in 1939. Nylon production was then diverted into war materiel until 1945, which was when people started rioting over shortages of nylon stockings.

Who knows what might have happened to polymers technology if antidepressant medications had been commercially available and known to physicians in the two year window between 1935 and 1937? That seems like an odd dependency, but the inventor of a notable technology failed to invent other notable things because he had severe and suicidal depression. So it isn't just as simple as roads needing chariots and chariots needing roads, like the article mentions. Sometimes the prerequisites are strange and unpredictable--like the inventor had to visit a zoo featuring a particular animal species during their childhood, or they had to drive a car in a climate with cold winters.

The more things we have, and know about, and the more people move around and collaborate, the easier it is to satisfy those prerequisites.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#155

One of the links in the post was also a really great read, for those who skipped it. "Reality has a surprising amount of detail": http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-...

Also recommend this as a follow-on. I think it's an important point, and also well presented. The anecdotes make it memorable but it's concise where it matters.

After I read this last year it changed the way I interacted and observed things around me for a while. Poking/prodding more, and asking more "what/how" questions.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#156
A favorite from Jack Handy: "I think somebody should come up with a way to breed a very large shrimp. That way, you could ride him, then after you camped at night, you could eat him. How about it, science?"

While today saying "how about it, science?" has become our second nature, it wasn't the obvious way to think about the world 50K years ago.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#157
Someone smarter than me noted that most science fiction has badly missed the mark of what the present and near future will look like b/c the assumption was that power sources would trend towards zero cost ("too cheap to meter") and that this would enable all sorts of interesting world altering gizmos's like jetpacks, flying cars, physics defying spacecraft etc.

What actually happened is that communication density exploded upward (pony express, telegraph, radios, phones, industrial printing, computers, etc.) at the same time that communication cost plummeted (aka I'm paying a flat rate for internet access and video chatting with people all over the globe).

And I think this is still the case, that we generally still look down on communications as a kind of lesser technology compared to power gizmos. When if anything it should be the opposite, that the ability to communicate so much more effectively across all of humanity has smeared the ideas and inventions around much faster and more thoroughly than anyone really considers.

Why did things take so long? Because everything had to be individually re-invented, we had no shoulders of giants.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#158

James Dyson always strikes me as a solid modern representation of just how difficult it is to actually invent (or re-invent) something new, very useful and commercially successful. He went through hundreds of variations and major prototypes on the vacuum cleaner over 5+ years. Even after he got a product he could commercialize, it took another 10-15 years to make it really take off. He spent two decades just to get t…

> difficult [...] competitors

I once saw a video interview with leadership from Hoover, the vacuum bag company. They lamented not accepting a long-ago acquisition offer from Dyson... so they could use his patents to shut down the whole bagless vacuum idea.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, 1000 people working on a difficult problem, and only one person solves it. Good analogy. What problem are we trying to solve? Curing cancer? AI? Compiler research? Most humans are not working on the important stuff. If we could increase that by even a few percentage points, humanity would benefit.

> What problem are we trying to solve? Cheaper clean energy. Cures for diseases. Social stability. In some cases, we aren't talking about 1000 people. It could be 1000 cities or 1000 countries or 1000 bills of rights.

I’m personally not working on any of those problems.

I think you’re completely missing my point. 7 billion people on the planet. Most of are not working on research, ..., the important stuff.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#160

The list is missing what IMHO is the most important reason: it took a really, really long time to transform wild plants and animals into useful domesticated varieties. Bringing home some grains of that wild wheat that grows just a tiny bit larger. Befriending a wolf that is a little less distrustful of you. Picking that apple with the slightly smaller seeds. And so on. Without those, you really are better off remaini…

it took a really, really long time to transform wild plants and animals into useful domesticated varieties.

Really? The wild plants and animals were already useful. So from day one, the transitional forms to the domestic varieties were useful as well.

Without those, you really are better off remaining a hunter-gatherer.

There's not a sharp division between hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist. Sedentism preceded agriculture. As people accidentally dropped seeds around their dwellings (or discarded them with the trash), they gradually became gardeners and then farmers.

Post reply on HN