Does technological progress have natural limits?

[Danny McG]

My contribution to this debate..
A couple of points have been raised about transportation and energy production going 'greener' to reduce air pollution - why not, in this era of gene tinkering, create a strain of humanity with super resistant lungs who can eat anything?
Then carry on regardless polluting, who cares then? Development of greener issues would become an unimportant little branch of technology that very few would bother about

 

[Harpo]

My contribution to this debate..
A couple of points have been raised about transportation and energy production going 'greener' to reduce air pollution - why not, in this era of gene tinkering, create a strain of humanity with super resistant lungs who can eat anything?
Then carry on regardless polluting, who cares then? Development of greener issues would become an unimportant little branch of technology that very few would bother about

There are more than a few thousand other species to consider on this planet, this place is not our toy.

 

[Dave]

I have thought of a better example of why I think that the question posed in the manner that it is, is an irrelevance. The Longitude Problem - vast amounts of money, time, effort and scientific endeavour were put into making very accurately timekeeping pendulum clocks so that ships at sea, for months on end, in rough, stormy weather, could know the exact time, and therefore their exact position. Those clocks are technologically as good as one can ever make them, but there are limits to that accuracy, and they can never be any more precise. Those clocks are all now in museums. Their technology eventually became irrelevant with atomic clocks and GPS navigation. So, I'm saying, yes, there are limits to technology, but they don't matter within the much bigger picture of technological "progress."

 

[Danny McG]

There are more than a few thousand other species to consider on this planet, this place is not our toy.

 

[LordOfWizards]

A much safer alternative to "flying cars" exists and is in production and testing as we speak. It isn't even brand new technology, it's rather seldom used as it carries a significant initial investment, and high maintenance costs. Tesla's own Hyperloop pod sets record with 220 mph test run

These maglev (magnetic levitation) trains have been running in Japan since the 1980's.There's one in Birmingham, England that ran from 1984 -1995 cited here. The article states that it was closed due to high maintenance costs, and so all new technologies go through an incubation stage when being perfected. The first Electric vehicles first appeared in the mid-19th century. Our societies are to a great extent what limits the expansion and research into new and better technologies. Simply because money is a factor, and existing mega-corporations tend to fight new technology that competes with their current technology. Think about it: If someone says "That technology would make petrol cars obsolete", the Auto manufacturer executive is going to get nervous and fight the development of such things.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Sorry Justin. If you read the article, that's exactly what he did.
From the first paragraph:

"... a boy who had just become the youngest person on Earth to build a working nuclear fusion reactor."

OK, I get it. Reading quickly around the subject (real life keeps getting in the way) the boy made a device using technology developed in the 60's to create a very small fusion process, but not one that has any practical use. By 'fusion reactor' I was thinking - you know - a reactor that could maintain a stable fusion reaction and generate more energy that it required.

 

[Mirannan]

OK, I get it. Reading quickly around the subject (real life keeps getting in the way) the boy made a device using technology developed in the 60's to create a very small fusion process, but not one that has any practical use. By 'fusion reactor' I was thinking - you know - a reactor that could maintain a stable fusion reaction and generate more energy that it required.

That particular design of fusor does have a practical use, although admittedly it isn't power generation. The neutron source it represents is useful for such things as neutron activation analysis and production of medical isotopes; the advantage over a nuclear reactor is portability and its ability to be switched off.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I have thought of a better example of why I think that the question posed in the manner that it is, is an irrelevance. The Longitude Problem - vast amounts of money, time, effort and scientific endeavour were put into making very accurately timekeeping pendulum clocks so that ships at sea, for months on end, in rough, stormy weather, could know the exact time, and therefore their exact position. Those clocks are technologically as good as one can ever make them, but there are limits to that accuracy, and they can never be any more precise. Those clocks are all now in museums. Their technology eventually became irrelevant with atomic clocks and GPS navigation. So, I'm saying, yes, there are limits to technology, but they don't matter within the much bigger picture of technological "progress."

Actually the sea watch was made by one man - John Harrison, in response to a challenge by the Admiralty that offered a £20 000 prize to anyone who could make a clock accurate to enable the calculation of longitude. The Admiralty gave John Harrison a total of £1000 - something like £60 000 in contemporary money - to develop his clocks, culminating in the H4 which did the job.

 

[Vladd67]

If you watch Longitude with Michael Gambon, during the scenes at sea during the first sea trial of Harrison's clock, one of those sailors looking busy pulling ropes etc is in fact your own Vladd. In one exchange I am actually at both ends of the ship at the same time, thanks to the miracle of editing. I can also just about be seen steering the ship with a production assistant lying on the floor out of shot moving the ships wheel so I had something to fight against. The fact we were moored on the Thames near the City airport is neither here nor there.

 

[Justin Swanton]

If you watch Longitude with Michael Gambon, during the scenes at sea during the first sea trial of Harrison's clock, one of those sailors looking busy pulling ropes etc is in fact your own Vladd. In one exchange I am actually at both ends of the ship at the same time, thanks to the miracle of editing. I can also just about be seen steering the ship with a production assistant lying on the floor out of shot moving the ships wheel so I had something to fight against. The fact we were moored on the Thames near the City airport is neither here nor there.

I saw the movie. Loved it. I'll do a rewatch and look out for you.

 

[Justin Swanton]

A second example is the real soon now (TM) introduction of flying cars - which will probably look like a giant drone. The problem here is imposed by human nature, not the technology. Cars on the ground kill thousands of people per year in the UK, but at least those killed are either in the car or on the road - local to the event, at any rate. Now let's imagine that flying cars become common and are driven in much the same state of repair as cars are now and also by people in the same state of health, sobriety and alertness as current cars. The problem here is that a flying car having an accident 2000 feet up would have rather more drastic effects than a car crash has now.

The Terrafugia costs $279 000, a price tag that probably won't go down much. Flying cars are unlikely to become generally affordable.

The same applies, with even more force, to space vehicles. Care to have a drunk driver in charge of an orbital shuttle? You might as well give him a nuke to play with.

There is no way a space vehicle could become cheap enough to be a private means of transport such that a commercial astronaut would be able to get drunk whilst driving it.

 

[LordOfWizards]

OK, I get it. Reading quickly around the subject (real life keeps getting in the way) the boy made a device using technology developed in the 60's to create a very small fusion process, but not one that has any practical use. By 'fusion reactor' I was thinking - you know - a reactor that could maintain a stable fusion reaction and generate more energy that it required.

Well, if that's what you want, you'll have to wait a little bit longer. It's not finished yet: ITER - the way to new energy

 

[Dave]

This might be the place where I suggest that Hollywood films are not the best source of historical facts?

Also, to say that one man invented the marine chronometer is like saying that Karl Friedrich Benz invented the motorcar, or that James Watt invented the steam engine.

 

[Justin Swanton]

This might be the place where I suggest that Hollywood films are not the best source of historical facts?

Also, to say that one man invented the marine chronometer is like saying that Karl Friedrich Benz invented the motorcar, or that James Watt invented the steam engine.

if you have another quick squizz at my post you will notice the link in John Harrison's name doesn't go to a movie site.

There were several individuals working on making an accurate clock during Harrison's time, true, but they were individuals and they weren't massively funded.

 

[Vladd67]

This might be the place where I suggest that Hollywood films are not the best source of historical facts?

Also, to say that one man invented the marine chronometer is like saying that Karl Friedrich Benz invented the motorcar, or that James Watt invented the steam engine.

Nobody is saying one man invented the marine chronometer, what was said is one man won the competition to make a clock accurate enough at sea to use in navigation.

 

[Dave]

And the relevance of all that to the quote of what I said is?

I am obviously aware of the competition and that he won, but his clock is still not as accurate as an atomic clock, and despite further refinements that continued to be made, it would never be so. It had indeed reached physical "technological limits." (Not to mention problems with cloud cover.) However, technology in the much wider sense, prevailed and we no longer rely on clocks and the stars to pinpoint our position at sea.

 

[Justin Swanton]

And the relevance of all that to the quote of what I said is?

I am obviously aware of the competition and that he won, but his clock is still not as accurate as an atomic clock, and despite further refinements that continued to be made, it would never be so. It had indeed reached physical "technological limits." (Not to mention problems with cloud cover.) However, technology in the much wider sense, prevailed and we no longer rely on clocks and the stars to pinpoint our position at sea.

Fine. So mechanical clocks reached a natural limit of accuracy, which limit was surpassed by digital clocks. If I understand you, your point is that any given line of technological development must reach a limit, but further lines will always open up that can do the same job and do it much better. Is that about right?

The problem with this, to go back to my original point, is that lines of technological progress only opened up when an increase in the theoretical understanding of matter and the laws governing it made it possible. It's only when we understood electricity that digital clocks became possible, and the limits of a technological line built on electricity were reached some time ago. We understand better and better the more fundamental aspects of material reality but - and here lies the rub - we cannot make practical use of the knowledge, not for decades now.

 

[Mirannan]

Another line of development that reached its limit was propeller-driven aircraft. For various reasons (the tips of propeller blades going supersonic was one of them) it is impossible for a propeller-driven aircraft to go supersonic in level flight. The best that an air-breathing aircraft has done, AFAIK, is around Mach 3.2 so obviously, we got around that. (AFAIK because I don't know about US government black programmes, and if I did I wouldn't be blabbing about them on the Internet. )

One more: Chemical rockets impose a limit of maybe 15 km/s on spacecraft, and even for that incredibly expensive and wasteful methods have to be used. Therefore, travelling to Mars is always going to take months with chemical propulsion. With ion drives or nuclear rockets we will probably do better.

Against what you said, Justin, it is my contention that we already know the fundamental physics required for better spacecraft propulsion. However, nobody wants to spend enough money on it to get the job done. There might have been a base on one of Saturn's moons by now, if Project Orion had not been killed off.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Against what you said, Justin, it is my contention that we already know the fundamental physics required for better spacecraft propulsion. However, nobody wants to spend enough money on it to get the job done. There might have been a base on one of Saturn's moons by now, if Project Orion had not been killed off.

Bingo! Possible but too expensive, hence a white elephant.

Here are my criteria for true technological progress:

1. It must be reasonably cheap to implement and maintain (it doesn't matter how much it cost to research and develop).
2. It must confer a real and new benefit (i.e. not a marginal improvement on already existing technology).
3. It must benefit a significant proportion of humanity (i.e. it must be affordable at least by the middle class).​

That effectively rules out space travel. Space travel has consisted of a limited number of hugely expensive showcase missions funded on the promise that one day condition 3 would be implemented. The promise hasn't been kept and the penny has dropped that it can't be kept. Project Orion is cheaper than chemical rockets but not dramatically so. It doesn't fulfil condition 3.

In my novel Immortelle I made the Mars mission a joint venture between NASA and the ESA, during which the mission commander realises it is a one-off venture, done as a PR exercise to convince Westerners they aren't yet outdone by an economically dominant East (the novel takes place in the mid-21st century). I can conceive there being enough motivation to pay for one Mars mission, but not two, really not.

 

[Dave]

So, if I am correct, this is mainly an economic argument against technological progress, not the one where there appears to be "natural walls that eventually bring all lines of technological development to a cloying halt." I see these as quite different arguments. I don't dispute the former, I still dispute the latter.

However, even the economics could change over time to make space exploration profitable. Without a time machine we can't see the future, and this is all speculation. I am merely more optimistic, based upon what happened in the past. If trade in silks, spices and china with the Far East hadn't been profitable (or if it had been more profitable) then Columbus wouldn't have been sent to find a more profitable westerly route, and accidentally found America. If that continent hadn't had Gold, then that is probably as far as further exploration there would have got at that time, and tobacco and cotton plantations would not have occurred so soon to make it any more profitable to do so later.

The outer planets and their satellites are proving to be very unusual. I would expect something valuable to be eventually found there that would make exploration worthwhile. There are some biological limitations to space travel though. These may be overcome with technology, but by nothing we have available at the moment. Since there is no necessity, and no money to do so, no one is working hard to make it happen. Not yet.