Is Technology Accelerating? NOPE!
One of the articles of faith of the Religion of Transhumanism is that technology is accelerating. It is a truth that they hold to be self-evident. However, the Transhumanists never bother to actually measure technological growth, which one can, in fact, do. They just make hand-waving arguments or they cherry-pick unrelated data points out of thin air so that they will fit an exponential plot like Kurzweil.
The best way to measure technological growth is multi-factor productivity (MFP) which measures the output per unit input for our entire economy. As technology improves, the amount of output you get per dollar and per labor-hour should increase.
Well…
The Northwestern Univ. economist Robert Gordon has looked into these issues for some time now and he concludes that technological growth has stagnated since the 70's. Gordon recognizes (along with most historians of technology) that the key technical advances of the past 200 years all came in four clusters from 1870-1910. These clusters were the development of electricity (motors, light and household appliances); the internal combustion engine (which created motor and air transport, transforming the economic geography of the world); the chemical revolution (creating industries such as petro-chemicals, man-made fibers and pharmaceuticals); and, finally, the radio wave revolution (giving birth to telephony, radio and television). These technologies percolated into the American society over the first two-thirds of the 20th century causing productivity growth to rise dramatically (see below).
However, during the 70's, productivity growth collapsed dropping to pre-1900 levels. This shows that technology has slowed down dramatically since the early 70's. There may have been a blip of MFP increase in the last few years thanks to computers but this productivity growth was mainly confined to the semi-conductor industry and was not felt in the wider economy.
This scientifically proves that technology is NOT accelerating.
The best way to measure technological growth is multi-factor productivity (MFP) which measures the output per unit input for our entire economy. As technology improves, the amount of output you get per dollar and per labor-hour should increase.
Well…
The Northwestern Univ. economist Robert Gordon has looked into these issues for some time now and he concludes that technological growth has stagnated since the 70's. Gordon recognizes (along with most historians of technology) that the key technical advances of the past 200 years all came in four clusters from 1870-1910. These clusters were the development of electricity (motors, light and household appliances); the internal combustion engine (which created motor and air transport, transforming the economic geography of the world); the chemical revolution (creating industries such as petro-chemicals, man-made fibers and pharmaceuticals); and, finally, the radio wave revolution (giving birth to telephony, radio and television). These technologies percolated into the American society over the first two-thirds of the 20th century causing productivity growth to rise dramatically (see below).
However, during the 70's, productivity growth collapsed dropping to pre-1900 levels. This shows that technology has slowed down dramatically since the early 70's. There may have been a blip of MFP increase in the last few years thanks to computers but this productivity growth was mainly confined to the semi-conductor industry and was not felt in the wider economy.
This scientifically proves that technology is NOT accelerating.
We both assume understanding the mind is feasible. Therefore transhumanism is still more likely than not. If this doesn't refute your whole position what will?!
Reply to this
I'm assuming you are trying to be funny when saying something was scientifically proven.Science never proves anything,just points approximately in the right direction most of the time.
That said,your example shows that a lot more growth occurred in the early half of the 1900's than in the latter half. OK. But that doesn't show that technology isn't generally increasing at an exponential rate.I mean, I can think of advancements that came in my lifetime (digital cameras, home computers, world wide web). Humans in prehistory didn't have that luxury. Just imagine a grandson talking to his grandfather in those days,
"So you remember when Earl invented the wheel grandpa?"
"Yep, it was quite a site. He just kept beating this piece of wood until it was round so we could move a statue up the hill."
"Wow, grandpa. So how come no one does anything cool like that anymore?"
etc. On the other hand, your grandparents lived through quite a few changes. I'm sure they talked to their grandparents and there were a few changes in their lives, too, but nothing so fast. Old people can't even keep up with the latest technology these days. That was never a problem before.
So, no, you haven't really proven anything, scientifically or otherwise.What you could do would be to have more interesting back-and-forth with Transhumanists and yourself so that you and they can work through your/their ideas more.That could be cool and I'd be willing to take part in something like that.Unless,of course,it is not a true discourse but a Monty Python-esque argument (No it's not!) or worse the equivalent Republican vs. Democrat debates. Ugh.
Keep some hope,
J
Reply to this
You haven't proven a damn thing. You're the one cherry-picking specific measurements to make your point: GDP doesn't measure everything, it only measures how many dollars of goods and services we produce, and fewer people working fewer hours places downward pressure on this anyways, but quality of life improves. GDP also fails to take into account the DE-flationary trend in terms of percentage of median annual per-capita income [and remember that per-capita income takes into account the entire population, and not just the workforce] that goods of *equal quality* cost, with Kurzweil's computing power graph the most dramatic and objectively measurable of these, but it also applies to everything from the cost of a t-shirt or refridgerator to the cost of keeping the temperature of your home a degree above or below what it is outside.
Bottom Line: You're a clown.
Reply to this