Semi_Hemi_Demigod comments on I love old sci-fi

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Steam power gave way almost immediately to electricity, which gave way to nuclear technologies, which gave way to information technology, all building on what came before.

And then there’s all the various transportation technologies that happened at the same time. Going from the first flight to the Moon in under 70 years it’s no wonder, to me at least, that people thought we’d be on Mars by now.

Especially with Walt Disney putting a Nazi rocket scientist on TV a bunch of times.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

… all building on what came before.

That was my point though. Metallurgy gave way to cannons and guns but we don’t have a “cannons and guns” age. Everything is iterative but occasionally we have something come along that changes everything and starts the iterations anew. But that has never continued after, just been followed by more iteration.

Also, it took over 1000 years to get from the first steam experiments to a useful engine.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean, we do have a cannons and guns age.

I agree that it’s been iteration, but the pace of iterations seems to be slowing down. Since the Internet was invented there hasn’t been a game-changing technology created.

Lots of things that claim to be it - Bitcoin, metaverse, now AI - but nothing like what we saw in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And I think that’s because huge population growth and a relatively unknown world led to huge advances very quickly. Now to make similar advances you can’t be a polymath like Newton or Tesla. You need huge investments.

Case in point: Physics. A lot of the fundamental physics from the 19th and 20th centuries can be re-created with simple materials and a little expertise. People can replicate the double slit experiment with a $2 laser pointer and a piece of foil.

But to make new advances in physics you need particle accelerators and supercomputers, and many highly educated people working together.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m not sure if we are talking past each other this point or what, but take the Internet since you mentioned it;

Let’s compare to transistors for instance. You could have (and did have) the internet without transistors and you could have transistors without the internet. Nobody would argue that either are not massively impactful inventions but neither would exist without electricity. Electricity is the paradigm shifting breakthrough. In the same way neither cannons nor guns were the breakthrough themselves.

…but the pace of iterations seems to be slowing down.

I thought that was the whole conversation we were having. My main point was not only that innovation is slowing down but that we should expect it to slow based on the trajectory of previous paradigm shifting breakthroughs.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I think we are, but by your logic the real breakthrough was fire, because without that we wouldn’t have electricity.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I wouldn’t go quite that far but yeah, in my view there have only been a handful of main paradigm shifting changes; Language, fire, tools, husbandry, agriculture, metallurgy, electricity.

The primary separation between humans and pretty much everything else on earth is the passing of knowledge from generation to generation so if I had to pick the innovation I would probably pick language.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I don't think that's a fair comparison to modern day.

People were experimenting with steam engines for 1,000 years sure, but this wasn't 1,000 years of dedicated research.

It was more like someone discovered the principle, then someone re-discovered the same principle 200 years later in a different, and repeat. Every time interest was lost. It wasn't until much later that people started to build off of each other and actually pursue technology.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

My point was that it didn’t give way immediately to electricity as the person I was replying to said. Even if you go from the first commercial steam engine it was still ~250 years before magnetos were regularly being hooked up to steam engines for small electrical applications.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent