[sch_peakoiler]

After rereading the thread about Joe Cells, I wrote a rather lengthy post into it, without a concrete reference to the Joe Cell.
Here it is
http://www.peakoil.com/post324581.html#324581

After writing the post I was thinking about progress as a whole, not only in energy tech, and came to a (rather obvious) conclusion that we as a society tend to use old tech rather than inveting new ones.

Examples are ample.

We still write on paper, since ... ancient times
We still write with ballpointpens and pencils since....?
We generate our electricity with an almost two hundred years old generator concept.
We still use bulbs for light, which are not more than small pieces of red hot iron (100 year old tech)
Our cars after 100 years history still have 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine.
Our spaceships fly for more than 50 years by throwing burning fuel out of the ships rear, hoping it would push them forward.
Even if we make fusion work, it will be used to boil water and rotate a steam-wheel. (yeah I know it is a turbine) Here is how 21st century meets prehistorics.

...

this list could be continued ad infinitum

I got an impression that as soon as a working solution has been found, all research work except for some little thingies has been totally stopped on the subject. That is why the research on alternatives to internal combustion engine, for example, has been going so "matteroffactly" - nobody needs the innovation in the name of the innovation. Everybody wants the innovation that brings money in, starting tomorrow, or, better, today evening. But then, such a structure leads to an innovation stop, which we can already see in our society. Only if we innovate in the name of the innovation, invent in the name of the invention(not waiting for the immediate profit), only so could we hope to move our society forward. Instead of that, we sit here, wait for PO, increase our numbers (or rather not we, but some other part of the populace) and do nothing.

I understand, that this is a pecularity of all capitalistic societies, the progress is being artificially stopped. But that is no excuse, to my mind.

What is your opinion, fellow peakoilers?

[Jack]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here - that being, if it can be dreamed, it can be done. So if we can imagine fusion reactors, the assumption is that we can create one.

What if that assumption is wrong? What if due to brain capacity, or fundamental nature of the universe, or whatever realities might exist, we are limited? What if we can dream of star-trek style transporters all we want, but are unable to make them?

You speak of the development of new technologies, but go deeper. Look at the creation of new science. How long has it been since we had a real, new insight on the order of quantum mechanics? Why do we still not have a unified theory (i.e., why can a handheld magnet exert more force on a paperclip than the entire Earth's gravity?) We've been dumping intellectual resources into string theory for 15 years now - why don't we have any useful results?

Take a look at real innovation. We had the transistor, circa 1950, and the laser not long thereafter. We stuck a toe into quantum computing, but haven't made much progress.

Most of what we've done is mere refinement. The modern computer isn't so very different from an old Apple II+, with it's 64 kilobytes of memory.

So - dead serious, here - I think we need to wonder if we have the capacity to tackle the next set of problems. Perhaps we do...perhaps. But I wonder.

[Jack]

By the way, here's an article on the subject of slowing innovation:

LINK

[sch_peakoiler]

Jack, you seem to have a very good insight on those things.

I am far from having an implied assumtion that new technologies which we dream of are also possible. I just saw, for example in the Joe Cell thread (but this is the same for any free energy thread) that people start debunking new concepts before they investigate them. This is also true for any technology which is very new and is unlike others.

It is an open question whether we reached the limit of our mental capability, or whether the progress is slowing foeever. I totally agree with you that there is more to YES on this question than to NO.

But the question whether we want those changes is answered with a firm NO - and I once again refer to the free energy threads. I am not advocating free energy, actually, I am the opposite. But those threads show that for every normal comment there are 10 comments like "fell from chair while laughing" "please call the doctor" "shut up, will you" and so on. Before a normal discussion has the chance to begin, it is killed off by peoples' fear of change. If I can not debunk a free energy source with facts or science, I just refrain from posing...

I think this is an interesting psychological fact, this reaction:)

And thanks for the very interesting link!

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
')But the question whether we want those changes is answered with a firm NO - and I once again refer to the free energy threads. I am not advocating free energy, actually, I am the opposite. But those threads show that for every normal comment there are 10 comments like "fell from chair while laughing" "please call the doctor" "shut up, will you" and so on. Before a normal discussion has the chance to begin, it is killed off by peoples' fear of change.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
')But the question whether we want those changes is answered with a firm NO - and I once again refer to the free energy threads. I am not advocating free energy, actually, I am the opposite. But those threads show that for every normal comment there are 10 comments like "fell from chair while laughing" "please call the doctor" "shut up, will you" and so on. Before a normal discussion has the chance to begin, it is killed off by peoples' fear of change. If I can not debunk a free energy source with facts or science, I just refrain from posing...

[Omnitir]

There is a strong belief in the PO community that progress has slowed down. Perhaps it’s related to the lack of a clear techno-fix to PO resulting in a dismay in technology upon learning about PO, perhaps it’s related to a long standing belief that many people of the modern age grow up with that in the future technology will be like it is depicted in science fiction (and then disappointed when uber tech fails to materialise), perhaps it is simply a matter of not understanding the remarkable progress that science has made, or perhaps it is simply a predisposition to luddite styles of thinking, feeling that technology is inherently a negative influence on the world.

Whatever the reason for the belief that progress has slowed, the fact is it is a false belief. Progress is accelerating. We may not have flying cars, moon colonies or personal fusion devices, but none the less science and technology continues to advance in leaps and bounds. This decade alone has already seen significantly more advances then the entire decade preceding it.

As for society, the way we use technology has revolutionised the world over the past few decades alone;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We still write on paper, since ... ancient times

[sch_peakoiler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')
We write with keyboards and tablets and mice and trackballs…

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
But paper consumption goes up every year. Since introducing electronic documents and IT systems, the only result was that it is now more convenient to print out documents. This is not a revolution. Revolution would be if paper would be replaced. Internet is now revolution for me, it is a perfectly normal evolution of communication means.





$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We can also generate electricity with almost two year old generation concepts

[Hampster]

[/quote]

Well...you have some good points...but let's look at reality.

Free energy would represent - perhaps - the greatest scientific discovery in history. Bigger than quantum physics, bigger than relativity, bigger than calculus. It would represent a refutation of the second law of thermodynamics as presently understood.

[/quote]

I sincerely believe that it is possible in our world to come up with insights and technologies that would in effect refute "newtonian" thermodynamics.

It would represent a total paradigm shift, wich through our entire history has been feared, resented, and ultimately fought with all means by the powers that be, to upheld the current belief system and thus their powers and influence.

Well, nothing is new under the sun, and a "Free energy device" made available to the public at reasonable cost, would in an instant undermine and destroy the structure of the current powers - both governmental and corporate - and thus also destroy or atleast massively redesign society as we know it.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and powers ultimate interest and desire - is to preserve powers.

Physics have already shown us that solid matter can be regarded as an illusion - it's origin lies in the immaterial energy/quantum realm were the boundaries between matter and energy blurs, and our models and understanding fails in telling us what's REALLY going on...

As an addition, in an attempt to explain our NEWTONIAN, PHYSICAL universe, astronomers need to calculate and take into consideration matters and energies in the magnitude of 75 to 95 per cent MORE!!! than WHAT WE CAN READILY OBSERVE WITH ALL OUR CURRENT KNOWHOW AND EQUIPMENT, and those are simply labeled "dark"...

I believe that the missing link in science are the origin of matter - wich may also well be the origin of spirituality and creation itself .

It may well be that once we bridge the gap of mind and matter, energy and particles, that the laws of thermodynamics may seem as crude and incomplete to us then, as the once well established geosentric and otherwise technological primitive worldview of the medieval period seems to us now.

I think Tesla got it right, a century before his time, and that his and others discoveries and breakthroughs are suppressed, silenced, and feared by the ones who have the most to lose from it both in terms of monetary gain and physical power.

We're kept in the dark, and to a limited reality - as good subordinants should.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch-peakoiler', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')We write with keyboards and tablets and mice and trackballs…

[sch_peakoiler]

Omnitir,

you like to write lengthy posts with little meaning, do you? Lets contract it.

1. On the issue with the electricity generation, I asked if this new concept can turn heat into electricity and you eluded the answer:) mind you! Would you answer now?

2. On the issue with the bulbs. - I have never seen LED bulbs in normal use. This does not say they are not used normally at all, but it says that they are not at all in a wide usage. My question would rather be, why after 150 years, over 80% bulbs are still conventionals. This is what interests me, and not the fact of the existance of an LED bulb (which I am aware of). So just to make sure we understand each other, my stance is the following. I think that the fact we are still using over 80% of 150 year old bulbs for lighting shows some serious innovation stop (not enough progress_ in the society (whichever it is - cost, willingness, etc).

3. Issue with computers. So your opinion is that the progress from 100 Mhz P I to a 1000 Mhz is less than the progress from 1000 to 4000 Mhz? (Speaking about computatonal power). Did I get you right?

4. Things you listed in the end of your post are not fundamental, nor are they insightful. This is probably a big difference in our views. I do not consider such things to be fundamental...

Take wireless LAN (as I am very familiar with how it works:). This technology is a big bunch of small technological solutions, combined together to create a working system. Each of the small solutions is simple. It is like a brick wall, you just have to have time to make the bricks and then to lay them. The complexity of this system is quantitative, not qualitative.

To put it in a simple way : If you give me a pen and a bunch of paper and some time, and lock me up in a basement, I would be able to reinvent WirelessLAN (as in 802.11). Or GSM, Or GPS. It just takes time and painstakingness, and some basic knowledge. It does not take any extraordinary abilities.

But ask me to reinvent RT, or QM, or sting theory, or lasers... and I will quit, for sure. no way I can do that.

The latter is fundamental for me, the former is not.

[Omnitir]

Sch_peakoiler,

Firstly, my apologies for writing detailed posts with big words

You ask me to list recent inventions, citing the laser as an example, and when I do so you simply claim they are not fundamental. What do you mean by this? Is the development of nanotechnology, a fundamentally different way of building things, somehow not fundamental? As I pointed out, this could actually be the most important fundamental development in the history of science. Even inventions that do not involve the creation of a new field of science like nanotech does can be considered “fundamental” developments. Microwaving food is a fundamentally new way of cooking, beaming data into space and across the planet is a fundamentally new way of communicating.

Please state the purpose of asking me to list technologies if you refuse to accept them as proof of accelerating progress. I’ve given you countless examples of how technology and science is progressing, and I elaborated on these when you asked, yet you refuse to address these examples, instead claiming I write a lot with little meaning. I’ve given plenty of examples that science and tech is accelerating. You are yet to debunk these examples, or offer proof that progress is slowing.

And regarding computers, no, you obviously did not get me right. The jump from 100 MHz to 1GHz saw an increase almost entirely in the number of clock cycles. The jump from 1GHz to 4GHz did not merely see an increase in clock cycles, but far more importantly an increase in what is being done with each cycle. The speed increase is almost meaningless when you consider the amount of extra architecture. The jump from 1GHz to 4GHz is significantly more progress then any similar time frame before it, simply because clock speed is not the only variable to consider.

If you don’t believe me look up Moore’s law. It hasn’t fallen down yet. And finally, this brings me back to an earlier point you ignored. If progress is slowing, wouldn’t Moore’s law have fallen over by now?

[sch_peakoiler]

Omnitir,

Maybe it would be a nice idea first to agree on one meaning of the word fundamentality. I saw that you give this word another meaning. Let me try to explain.

Microwaving food is a fundamentally new way of cooking. But the technology underneath is only an evolution of an old concept of electromagnetic waves. This is not a fundamental change in technology, or a fundamental technology advance. I was speaking more about technology concepts and less about the impact of some technics on our lives.

You see, the washing mashine brought even more revolution in our lives than a microwave (at least comparable). But I do not consider it to be a fundamental scientifical or technological progress. You speak of a technological progress of so to say "usable things". I was going deeper into the philosophy of technological progress. A fundamental change in technology is for me a change which either changes the basis of the following work, or creates a new basis.

That is why I was always speaking about a fundamental technological change, not just about a fundamental change.

Let me tell you which advances are fundamental in this reading of the word.

flat earth - spherical earth move;
geocentrical - geliocentrical - universal (universe models);
discoveries of all types of interaction (electrical, magnetical, gravity, nuclear, i forgot one?
Newton and Keppler laws
Thermodynamics
RT and QM
Wave theory
Semiconductors
(from Maths and Information Science)
P, NP problem classes,
Fourier Transformations
Differential and integral calculus.

So you see, we are talking about different things here. I think it is good to first agree on the subject and used terms. I hope you see now how from this point of view things you listed are not fundamental. What of course does not make them less important - they are important. But all the technologies you mentioned are done on the same old basis in the same old system.

[sch_peakoiler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')Well...you have some good points...but let's look at reality.

Free energy would represent - perhaps - the greatest scientific discovery in history. Bigger than quantum physics, bigger than relativity, bigger than calculus. It would represent a refutation of the second law of thermodynamics as presently understood.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '.')..
Whatever the reason for the belief that progress has slowed, the fact is it is a false belief. Progress is accelerating. We may not have flying cars, moon colonies or personal fusion devices, but none the less science and technology continues to advance in leaps and bounds.
...

[Kylon]

I think one of the main reasons why innovation has slowed down, is that you have to compete with big business, and even if you have a patent, that doesn't matter, big business will still screw you.

They can use your technology, and it's up to you to both A) find out, and B) do litigious action against them. Finding out is virtually impossible(unless your a big business or they are extremely open about it), and doing the litigious action against them is more likely to crush you, and deplete your income levels than you could possibly hope to make money back.

My opinion is also that(this is a critque of educational policies) are educational system is WAY to generalized. In short, it favors those people who aren't really brilliant at anything, but are mediocre at everything. In essence we are training people for mediocrity, which is perhaps the dumbest thing we could possibly due.

This, I believe, is in part because of feminism, because it wanted to make things "fair", which meant making education better attuned to girls learning styles, and rewarding girls strengths, while screwing boys over, under-emphasizing/teaching/developing what they are good at(problem solving, engineering, science and math), so in turn we didn't develop as many brilliant individuals.

Ontop of that, our society has become more superficial(another girly quality), which means it's not practical, and trully in tune with the physical reality, but in reality more in tune with the social reality of things.

Ontop of this, there is a saying in business, "You can always tell who the pioneers are, they're the ones with all the arrows in their backs", which simply means, one person pioneers a new method of doing things, trys many different things, and many of them fail, but one or two succeed which bring great prosperity and a competitive advantage, and then everyone else copies that person/business, and steals what they develop.

Ontop of this the rise of big business has really hurt innovation. Big business likes things to stay the way things are, and wants consumption, not efficiency. It needs/wants control, rather than cheap energy/replicators ect... Essentially big business needs control to make money, and they will screw innovators in order to do it. Disruptive technologies come from disruptive people, and disruptive people are rarely liked(they are wierdos!).

Ontop of that, you have CEOs who don't have a genuine appreciation for technology nowadays, because CEOs(not the ones who start their own companies, the typical bastard CEO) get into power by BSing everyone, they understand the political/social reality of things, and so they exploit that reality, BS everyone, and become powerful and have great prowess. Ultimately BSing doesn't mean your really competant to run a company, or recognize what's good from what's bad, it simply means your competant at BSing people. So ultimately we have a bunch of BSers who don't have a real genuine appreciation for technology.

There is some truth to easier technologies already being developed. But the fact of the matter is, I can see tons of potential technologies left and right, they are just glaring at me, I'm great at problem solving(of course I'm not a generalist), and I'm a little crazy, and I'm extremely eccentric, and I'm extremely disruptive(frequently get in trouble, not for anything wrong, but simply because I cause discomfort to people, because of my wierd ideas, and of course, my perspective on Peak Oil).

I personally of course am happy innovation is slowing down, because that equals less competition for me!

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', 'I')t is an open question whether we reached the limit of our mental capability, or whether the progress is slowing foeever.

[sch_peakoiler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', 'I')t is an open question whether we reached the limit of our mental capability, or whether the progress is slowing foeever.

[evilgenius]

Passing lightly over the statement made by Newton that he stood on the shoulders of giants, ie, his innovations were a result of prior innovations maybe a recombining of prior innovations, I see the point. I think it might be wise to look at this from a socio-political perspective as well as technological. How many times have I heard some conservative cracker (someone who enjoys exploiting innovations but couldn't innovation themselves) prattle on about their taxes being spent on some research project that obviously has no merit? We let those crackers slow us down. Widescale basic research is the beginning. People tie together what comes of it and hypothesize new things.

The conservative mindset narrows to exploitation. That helps us to expand innovation to everyone. They have their place. That place just shouldn't be the one of usurper or dictator. The conservative mind is simply not multi-dimensional enough for that.

[Odin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', '
')This, I believe, is in part because of feminism, because it wanted to make things "fair", which meant making education better attuned to girls learning styles, and rewarding girls strengths, while screwing boys over, under-emphasizing/teaching/developing what they are good at(problem solving, engineering, science and math), so in turn we didn't develop as many brilliant individuals.

Ontop of that, our society has become more superficial(another girly quality), which means it's not practical, and trully in tune with the physical reality, but in reality more in tune with the social reality of things.