[Odin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'P')assing 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.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'U')nlimited free power would be a true nightmare.

[sch_peakoiler]

Omnitir answered to the peakoilers not believing in progress. As I started the discussion this answer is to the most part to me I think (excuse my megalomania:)

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... gress.html

I can not comment there, so I will comment here on this. I can not say I disagree with him, If I want to be honest - in the first part of his post he agrees with my opinion on scientifical progress slowing. The second part has very good points about a new kind of progress - social progress. I do not have anything against this point. So I think we can consider the discussion about the progress finished on this point. The ending of his post is this "Peak oil; we will adapt". Although I agree to this line, I do not think I and he imagine the same things under the heading "adapt" but this is another discussion then.

[Aimrehtopyh]

My historical model indicates that after the chaos and die-off (my assumptions) we'll have a golden age/rennaissance. Just like after the black death in europe, all that wealth laying around and the severe fracturing of many social structures gave people the material and intellectual freedom to explore strange new ideas.

Then there's this crazy guy:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0 ... rintable=1

His ideas are diametrically opposed to peak oil pessimism and don't mention social equality or ecology very much at all.

[Omnitir]

I guess this thread got the issue of advancing/slowing progress on my mind, but it was the discussion that began in the comments section of the previous POD post that caused me to post about progress.

Firstly, I don’t agree that scientific progress is slowing. I do however agree that progress appears to be more about improvement rather then all new innovation. However this issue was discussed more openly in the POD comments, and we came to a more logical conclusion: the divide between improvement and innovation is an illusion. One could consider every single technological development to be an improvement on previous developments. The latest technology is simply an evolution from when humans first started using stone tools. From time to time a breakthrough in the improvement process occurs, such as a theory that fire might be harnessed, or that light might be a kind of universal speed limit, but ultimately everything is an evolution on previous developments.

And so, the past 50 years of refining and improving the technologies that were largely conceived in the first half of the 20th C, is not at all proof that technology is slowing.

Secondly, the point I was focusing on in the POD post isn’t so much purely about social progress, but rather that social and technological progress are intimately bound together. Scientific and technological advancement means nothing is the results aren’t adapted by society.

A current example is the remarkable breakthroughs that biology has recently enjoyed, only to be hampered in some countries by Luddite thinking which prevents useful applications of these breakthroughs. For example, Bush stopping stem cell research. A great scientific breakthrough, but the social progress is not there which prevents the breakthrough benefiting anyone.

And finally, what is the ultimate purpose of progress? The ability to use the latest technology for its own sake? No, it’s to enable and empower people. The accelerating progress may not have led us to some new free energy technology, but it has made us more adaptable and capable. I believe that modern civilisation is tougher and more adaptable then people give it credit for, and it is so because of continued scientific/social progress.

And everyone should read that Kurzeilai article Aimrehtopyh linked to; the man’s a genius

[grabby]

Real free, sharing science has stopped. It has been replaced by a quest for copyright and secrecy which is stifling new inventions.

The best oil searching companies are secret, the best metals are secret the best chip manufacturers and computer manufacturers are secret. if everything was open source we would fly.

Selfishness is what stopped mans progress.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'R')eal free, sharing science has stopped. It has been replaced by a quest for copyright and secrecy which is stifling new inventions.

[EnergyUnlimited]

It is quite funny to observe, how peoples are barking from time to time on 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

However it appears that this law together with gravity law, Heisenberg principle, light speed limit etc are very likely to be some kind of "End of Proggress Guardians".
They are hated by many people, but apparently nothing can be done to get rid of them.

This means:

1. 2nd Law of Therodynamics = No free energy.
2. Gravity law = Keep down to Earth.
3. Heisenberg principle = Limits on precision, ultimate limit on computing and Moore's Law (should other limiting factors fail).
4. Speed of light = Generally overlooking various excesses.

Mother Nature is a bitch, isn't she?