Re: Technology & Such

> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 13:17:17 PDT
> From: Mark F. Cook [email removed]
> Subject: (2592) Re: Stable Tech. vs. Stale Tech
>
> James Perkins ([email removed]) writes:
>
> > Mark F. Cook [email removed] writes:
> > > advance (which is exponential), the rate at which the human race advances
> > > technologically should 'go vertical' in less than 300 years.
> >
> > One possible problem with Vinge's supposition is that it fails to take
> > into account that people must apply the technology that has been
> > discovered, and this takes time.  The biggest limiting factor to the
> > growth of technology, as I see it, are the factors of societal
> > communication and understanding.  It takes time for engineers to
> > incorporate new ideas, it takes time to develop proficiency in their
> > use, it takes time to bring people up to speed, and large projects where
> > many new technological advancements are put together have a high risk of
> > failure.
>
> This is only true if the underlying technology needs to be widely
> communicated, which may not be the case.  Joe Citizen does not need
> to re-learn how to drive a car, just because fuel injection, power
> steering, and catalytic convertors get introduced.

The fuel injection and power steering are evolutionary changes to technology
not revolutionary.  I would tend to agree with James regarding revolutionary
changes (horse vs car) and Mark regarding evolutionary changes (Model T vs
the Ford Taurus).

Look at how long it takes for evolutionary military hardware to develop.
I don't have the exact dates with me but I believe the B2 bomber took something
like 15 years to develop.  In my discussions with the research lab that I am
seeking employment with, they mention that the ideas they develop today won't
be seen in the military for at least ten years.

The talk of fast or slow technological development is dependent on the area
of technology that is being discussed.  Mark sites the computer technology:

> A closer example
> would be the introduction of RISC architectures in UN*X workstation
> SPUs.  While these provide an order-of-magnitude (in some cases)
> performance improvement in the computer, only a small sub-set of the
> total user base (the system administrators) need any supplemental
> training to take advantage of the new technology.  To all the other
> users, the change is transparent; their programs just run faster.

But this is _very_ different from a revolutionary change in the methods of
computing and _what_ a computer may do.  Running a program faster is purely
evolutionary.

Mark and I discussed the advance of technolgy briefly last night and I would
say that if the direct neural link he proposed would be developed, then
James' hypothesis of the time required for society to assimilate the
change is correct.

> If the advances in technology occur in the information and communication
> industry, then the rate of increase may go even faster.
>
> >      ...  Look at the failure of the first n Mariner space probes, the
> > incredible cost of the Space Shuttle, the Sergeant York program, Hubble,
> > Galileo, the Soviet Mars moon probes, and the NeXT computer.
>
> With the possible exception of Galileo and the NeXT computer, these failures
> can be directly attributed to mismanagement and political infighting, not
> the inability to disseminate new technology.  (This is *not*, however, true
> for the Sgt. York.  It was a piece of sh*t from the start.  But I digress...)


Now _here_ is one of the _real_ problems...  The politics of advancement and
the management of the funds relating to the advancement will _always_ be
there.  As the technology advances, the cost will also increase.  My
opinion is that the cost of technology will increase faster than inflation.
Thus, there will be fewer and fewer "backyard" inventors making significant
contributions to technological advancement.  I think we have already seen this
in the past fifty years.

> > 	[[[ James' Maxim of Technology Advancement ]]]
> >
> > 	You can't push technology faster than it can be
> > 	communicated, understood, incorporated, and perfected.
>
> No argument here.  I just think that the new technology is being
> communicated, understood, incorporated, and perfected faster all
> the time.  I cannot believe that mankind has some inherent 'upper
> limit' for accepting these changes.  The limit is cultural, and
> since the culture is modified by the new technology, and vice-versa,
> I don't see any immediate obstacle to accelerated assimilation.

I believe that there is a limit given a certain population base.
One person's capacity is finite.  Mark provided the neural computer
implant as a way of increasing the capacity.  But I submit that this just
increases the capability of the person no the capacity to hold and
assimilate information.  An example would be Mark's specialty in computers
and mine in engineering.  I couldn't develop a "C" program that would be
useful (at least not now.)  I don't think Mark could solve some of the more
difficult nuclear engineering problems that I work with.  Now both of us
could do the others work given the time and training.  But the sacrifice
would be the previous job capability.

Basically, each of society's individuals is required to become more specialized
in order to support a higher technological base.

The other thought rattling around in the brain is the cost of the technology.
Many a TMLer may be more ready to accept a revolutionary concept in, say,
transportation...the personal flying vehicle, about the size of a car.  They
exist now.  You can go out and buy one.  They will fit in your garage.  They
are not the dorky-looking aircars of the 50s.

But they cost over $100,000!!  I don't know of a TMLer (though I only
personally know a few :-) who could afford one!

> > What about ceramic high-temperature turbine-powered drive-by-wire
> > automobiles? One innovation at a time, please! Serial, not parallel
> > improvement.  New ideas on a proven base.  It's they way human
> > engineering and technology transfer works.  The human mind has a limited
> > capacity to absorb and use new ideas.
>
> Not true!  all three concepts (ceramic engines, turbines, and drive-by-wire)
> were developed independently of one another.  None of those ideas had to
> wait for any of the others to be perfected before they could work.
> Synthesis is the fundemental nature of innovation.  Right now, the only
> thing preventing all three concepts from being incorporated in next year's
> Chevrolet is one person with a sufficiently large checkbook. :-)

I caution against the oversimplification.  The developments are neither
wholly serial nor wholly parallel.  Technological advancement is a very
synergistic process.  I believe that if the complete failure of one or
two technological advancements is postulated, a whole raft of other
seemingly independent advancements would also fail.

And as far as the checkbook...sorry Mark, I think that it takes a whole
slew of checkbooks (DOD not withstanding :-) to make a technology work.

> As for the human mind having a limited capacity to absorb and use new
> ideas, that may be, but we're nowhere near the limit.  Using a work-
> station running X-Windows, I can absorb an order of magnitude more info
> today than I could have on an ASCII terminal 5 years ago.

I don't believe your absorbtion capability has increased, I maintain your
efficiency has increased and thus you are able to weed out more garbage
and find more of what you need or want.

- - --
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - [email removed] | Time is nature's way to keep |
|             DELPHI - WULFGAR                | everything from happening    |
| Carl Fago   Portland, OR                    | all at once.    -anon.       |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+