Comments on: The future of the future

The first 10 years of this century will yield a 20th century's worth of tech innovation, goes the theory--but CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos isn't so sure.

[iloveya2]

The increase of information isn't always as apparent now (yet?).

*Note: In retrospect, this is a rather long post, my apologies.

In my (humble) opinion, the article is not entirely fair to the development of technology. Instead, I think that it is merely more diffucult to see the changes. This is primarily because there is a much greater buffer between the consumer and the technology that they're using (your Dad used to fix the car without the garage--can you?). Your example of the "minor" upgrade from tape to CD's is an example. The technology required to make such a change was refined into a usable form primarily after tapes were a hit. That CD's were in the hands of the public within a few short years is evidence of the truth (of the quick spread of information). The medium, though used in the same way (by user), is almost completely different. I think that there are many such instances of these kind of "upgrades" as technology provides a better way to do something that we already currently do.
With this in mind, I posit that while information may be growing at such an exponentail rate, that information is not, and probably will never be, known by the vast number of users. What I mean is that while all of us make use of the unfolding technology in a cell phone (or PPC) almost none of us really know what makes it really work. It's the same way with all kinds of gadgetry these days. As a final argument of this, consider the internet. How many of the pages that are actually on in it are freely available to the public? I've read several places that anywhere between 1-10% (a liberal estimate--it's probably less than 10%). 90% of the internet is not readily available to everyday search engines (being hid in massive internet databases and such). In the same way, while the growing technology around us IS subtally affecting everything, the changes are largely beyond our notice (or understanding). This makes it very difficult to declare that things aren't really changing as quickly as thought.
In conclusion, while I do not know exaclty how I feel about the growth of technology, I can't help but agree with the futurists that there IS something big on the horizon. With the information revolution there is bound to be a physical revolution that follows. Consider the Renaissance. It was when ideas began to increase the technological innovation also increased. The sum total of the "information age" is that it is what might be understood as another Renaissance. With the advent of computing, mankind has to a large degree overcome several of the greatest hinderances to progress: 1) the failure of human memory, 2) the inability to examine and compare vast amounts of information is a short time and 3) our inability to quickly reproduce and quickly distribute said information to those who can best use it. Because of this, I believe we have only begun to see the tip of the iceburg of humandkind's potential. The Information Age is merely the catalyst to much more dramatic changes in the future.
(Note: sorry about the length of this post)

[atariboy]

tip of the iceberg

Just think of the possibility of wireless ultra-broadband available anywhere to anyone that could allow any desired data at any time. That should have an influence on society. (Hopefully within our lifetimes).

[donovan--2008]

Information does not grow exponentially. Data grows.

There's something of a distinction between the two; there is a natural limit on the growth of 'information' as it requires some filtering process to convert from sensation to meaning. Data, on the other hand, has always accreted at a ridiculous rate - just imagine the billions of items you see in a second, smell, taste, hear - your senses produce data input. We may build superior optics that produce data as well - but the ability to understand and use that data is the real power. And this comprehension/application has nothing to do with gross quantities of data 'created.'

Jaded and Probably Wrong

In some ways I can identify with this article. It seems like there is only hype in technology and not many payoffs. The question has been stated before "Where is my flying car." Well it's not here and unless people like 100's of flying metal objects overhead at any given time it probably wont come. However I think this article is quite jaded. Lets speak in terms of what exists today February 2005. The easiest example is computers The IBM Blue Gene is said to be capable of running at 360 Tera-flops three years ago the fastest computer ran at 36 Tera-flops. This trend will continue for a few years at least. Scientist and engineers can and will put this to good use making manual laborer less and less the product of humans. This is a conservative view in my opinion other fields are also making great strides. We didn't even have a map of the human genome until five years ago. Not to mention molecular nanotechnology, which I admit may become a spruce goose. However short of a global catastrophe setting us back, in the next 7-10 years I believe society changing advances will take place. In my opinion this change is almost unstoppable due to ubiquitous information. Then the results will be up to the lawmakers, philosophers, and theologians.

[Ubber geek]

easiest example

http://www.analogstereo.com/citroen_saxo_owners_manual.htm

History is written by the winners

Who cares what Kannellos has to say about whether the 'innovations' of the decade of 2000 measure up to penicillin? Another colleague of the 'bald guy' with his head up his ass.

Consider:

Bringing democracy to Iraq might be a hundred times harder than inventing penicillin for all we know.

We might be making groundbreaking progress on fusion, that would dwarf every other accomplishment in human history.

For all you know, your next door neighbor has been transformed from an unaccomplished boor preying on little girls into an enlightened individual donating blood every month and a model citizen. How will we know until much later?

Want to criticize something? Criticize the 90's, or the 80's or the 70's or the 60's before them.

Tell me that the internet wasn't a step forward in human civilization beyond comprehension of the 80's. Look at the 80's and tell me that the medical devices that enabled us to provide quality medical care to millions that would have suffered otherwise, doesn't matter. Tell me that the PC, the innovation of the 70's is nothing much better than the airplane. Or that going to the moon in the 60's didn't change the world forever for the better.

Further, touting airplanes and penicillin at a time when people were killing each other regularily in World Wars doesn't impress me much.

What Kannelos lacks is any perspective beyond his 'little bubble' of a full-time job as a journalist. Go out, journalist, and find out, don't just sit in your office and pontificate like the bald guy.

Progress, as they say about 'beauty', lies in the eye's of the beholders.

P.S. Ten years ago, I thought there was a 50% chance that one of my wife's or my's parents would die in the decade. In the decade, here's what happenned. My mother had cancer and survived. My father lost a leg, and survived. My father-in-law had triple bipass and barely missed a step. Every one of them had cataracts removed. And best of all, it now looks like the chances that one of the four will die in the next 10 years is lower than it seemed 10 years ago.

So f... you.

Yes and No

I agree and disagree with parts of this article. Yes, I do agree that progress has consiterably slowed. The age of invention has died out. I also agree with your notion that most of the technology advanced reflect upon upgrades rather than something totally different. The CD (improving upon digital storage media), the television... well actually I think of plasma and LCD were a step backwards... but there is the prospect of OLED, flat-tube CRT, and C-N tube TVs this year.

What I disagree with is that certain inventions are being made, but in a new world of nanos and shrinking technology it is only logical to think that these inventions will take longer to hit the market. Optical Memory, the new storage media that breaks the boundries of magnetic storage as well as what many tech enthusists have been waiting for many years now, is stated to be market ready sometime late this year.
Nano technology is, from what I have heard, finally making leaps and bounds with future applications ranginging from miracle medical cures to extreamely high-speed CPUs. Were finally moving from the digial to the optical age.

[donovan--2008]

Kanello's Law: well-put

There's another side as well: the Greeks discovered a steam powered toy, but never realized that it had any use in manufacturing. Gothic cathedral constructers discovered 'nanotechnology' in the form of additives to glass that could make is shine red: for them, it was just a coloring device. We've got a wealth of toys that we have invented, but the substantial use may take decades - centuries even - to discover. And meanwhile, futurists like stock market speculators trumpet each discovery, as if capital and investment produced innovation, rather than human ingenuity - a variable that is not so readily captured.

Well put.