Accelerating Aviation?
In Aubrey de Grey's new book Ending Aging, he bases his belief that we will live for 1000s of years not on science but on an empirically false and biased view of the history of technology. He believes that initial breakthroughs in science and technology lead to inevitable improvements afterwards. The sole example he uses is aviation where he points out that the Wright Brothers' first powered flight in 1903 was followed in 1927 by Lindbergh's transatlantic flight, then in 1949 by the first commercial aircraft and then by the Concorde 20 years later in 1969. So, there has been a "serenely smooth" acceleration of aviation technology with a revolutionary milestone occurring every 20 years or so.
Setting aside the fact that supersonic passenger aviation could be viewed as a technological flop, de Grey's example (and his entire argument about technological acceleration) requires that there was another revolutionary milestone achieved in aviation around the year 1990.
Well, what was it?
Setting aside the fact that supersonic passenger aviation could be viewed as a technological flop, de Grey's example (and his entire argument about technological acceleration) requires that there was another revolutionary milestone achieved in aviation around the year 1990.
Well, what was it?
Concorde can hardly be a commercial success. If it were, it would have been hundreds of Concordes zooming around like Boeing 747.
You would think the Saudi princes and their numerous wivies would ride the Concorde from Arab to Milan for weekend shopping. Did it happen?
Reply to this
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but the V-22 Osprey and the DC-X were both first demonstrated on or about 1990. There may be others.
Reply to this
Aren't we dealing with accessory variables here. Market forces. Is the demand for commercial supersonic flight great enough for companies to invest in major research endeavors to supply it to the public. Then there might be governmental regulations and safety protocols initiated after the concord disaster that resulted in greater difficulty getting this type of transport back to the market.
However military applications of supersonic flight are in very high demand and certainly have gotten better. We have the U2, SR71, now the fusion of supersonic with stealth f 117 then the f22. I think market forces heavily influence the presence and ascension of these technologies as tools. If deGrey got one thing right it is that aviation technology is getting better, even if it back peddled in 1 market because of ancillary influences.
My only question is: is there a market for youth in the public?
Reply to this
My question in response to yours is:
You're kidding, right? Between Viagra, Botox, cosmetic surgery, and a mind-numbing profusion of "anti-aging" supplements, drinks, diets, etc. that promise much and,alas, deliver much less(at least to date) it is quite clear that there is "a market for youth(even if simulated) in the the public". If/as/when anything halfway effective is developed along these lines(in the near term, probably a drug(s) that mimics caloric restriction without requiring its self-denial, it will almost certainly be as big a moneymaker as the whole anti-aging market now, in very short order.
Reply to this
Thanks for making my point. Now if only the blog owner would reply.
Reply to this
You haven't actually read the book, right? You probably just saw that example in his TED speech.
You could easily say that the space shuttle which can go into orbit and speed around the Earth at Mach 24 is the next step, but this is not about steps, this is about performance per unit of cost, just like with CPU (Moore's Law), RAM, Hard Drives, brain scanners, DNA sequencers, etc.
Reply to this
This is a spurious point. Should we also be waiting for a new advance in flint arrow-tip technology? If we don't see one in 2008, does that mean something about Aubrey de Grey? I mean, really, talk about missing the forest while looking for a fallen tree. de Grey's point was a general one that new technologies are quickly refined post-invention. Does anyone with half a brain refute this? REALLY? At some point, of course, a technology reaches a summit of refinement. Typically it is then replaced by new technology if there is demand or, as in say the case of the toothbrush, remains in use essentially unchanged for long periods of time. Do biotech and gerontology seem like a toothbrush? I don't think so. Moreover, pointing to any ONE technology (such as the Concorde) as proof of anything is clearly foolish. De Grey refers to aviation as one example of an obvious broader tendency. Supersonic flight presents all sorts of problems to modern society. But it is not stopping Virgin from commercializing low-space flight. Arguably 'flying' satellites to Mars and interstellar space is a continuation of the ancient flight quest. This blogger has proved nothing but their own inability to comprehend, let alone rebut, a scientific argument.
Reply to this