Does technological progress have natural limits?

[tinkerdan]

I think I'd go with the notion that there are endless possibilities that are limited mostly by present demand or desire and limits in knowledge and perception. As soon as we start moving beyond any of those the possibilities begin to open again.

Take for instance computers. The handhelds; we have are pushing some limits and I can't use them effectively. I think it would take something like a computer that has a lens you wear over your eyes to really go beyond what we have and that would require something different for the interface unless its strictly used for streaming uncontrolled data to the user.

Going backwards there are fuel alternatives for energy that have mostly been out of reach because they are prohibitively expensive to produce compared to what is already in place. It has taken something like the threat of global warming to get anyone to seriously consider investing in such an economical albatross.

We live in a time of consumer motivated advancement. We can go to the Moon and likely Mars today if there were a demand; however there is no consumer demand for either and without that there is nothing more than the mandated funds to drive us there. I think an analogy to that might be seen in the new world exploration back in the day of Columbus and other explorers.

We either move out of that paradigm or we have to discover something that will motivate consumers to demand that we get to the Moon and Mars: like yesterday, because they need something: now!.

 

[Justin Swanton]

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.

The two are linked. The natural walls can be either a sheer impossibility - like making enough antimatter to constitute a practical fuel - or great difficulty = great expense - like developing commercial space travel to carry holidaymakers to private space stations or colonies on Mars or Triton. After a while a point is reached where the technology requires just too many people working for too long to produce too small a result. Natural limit.

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.

You can't compare the present situation to the past. In the past the technological means existed to reach the Americas long before Colombus got there: cf the Vikings, in fact cf the North and South American Indians for that matter. The only reason Columbus did it and nobody else did is because Columbus make a huge error in calculating the circumference of the world which led him to believe Asia was much nearer than it actually was. The other savants of his time, who knew the real size of the world, correctly calculated that the crew of a ship would die of thirst long before they reached India.

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.

Space travel has never been more than a PR exercise by governments (and now billionaires) that spends hundreds of millions of dollars to get a handful of individuals into low Earth orbit for a few days, and billions to keep them there. There is just no reasonably cheap way of getting people into space, necessity or no necessity.

 

[Serendipity]

...

Space travel has never been more than a PR exercise by governments (and now billionaires) that spends hundreds of millions of dollars to get a handful of individuals into low Earth orbit for a few days, and billions to keep them there. There is just no reasonably cheap way of getting people into space, necessity or no necessity.

Space has its commercial uses around Earth - global positioning systems, geostationary communications satellites and monitoring conditions on Earth e.g. weather satellites. Currently scientific probes are being sent out find out how things work and what happened to the Solar System in the past, so as to better predict our future - a first step in mitigating any impending problems.

In the future I foresee factories around Earth to make new materials that require need near-zero gravity to be manufactured, and I suspect the medical materials will lead the way.

We have already had a scare in accessing rare earth elements (c. 2012) to continue manufacturing things like smart phones and computers. Whilst this has been resolved for now, it will again become a problem in the future. There are currently no obvious replacements for rare earth elements - which means we'll have to mine them from off-Earth places.

These are the definite predictables.

Possibilities also exist such as the need for helium three resources if we ever get nuclear fusion working that uses helium three as its basic fuel.

In the longer term, the issue that will push people to the Moon and Mars is the need for food stuffs. There is only a limited amount of food this Earth can produce - we've already had evidence of soil depletion from heavily farmed land. Yes, we can find alternative resources in the medium term, but there is a limit even taking into account scientific advancement. This is all predicated on the ability to provide sufficient atmosphere for plants to grow or the development of plants that can thrive in airless lower gravity environments. We already have anaerobic plants on Earth. This will not be easy, but it's possible. [If you really are interested in looking into how this kind of thing can start up, see my short story, Guard Cat.]

I think I'd better stop now before this turns into a major thesis...

 

[Dave]

I can't argue for without a time machine, as everything is speculation about what might happen, but arguing against has all the advantages of knowing everything that doesn't work at present.

There is just no reasonably cheap way of getting people into space, necessity or no necessity.

That is an opinion, based upon present technology. In 200 years, one of us can say I told you so.

In the future I foresee factories around Earth to make new materials that require need near-zero gravity to be manufactured, and I suspect the medical materials will lead the way... Possibilities also exist such as the need for helium three resources if we ever get nuclear fusion working that uses helium three as its basic fuel... the issue that will push people to the Moon and Mars is the need for food stuffs...

Outside of Earth's gravity well, it is much cheaper to send people into space, but the necessity just is not there yet.

You can't compare the present situation to the past. In the past the technological means existed to reach the Americas long before Colombus got there: cf the Vikings.

That is your opinion, but ask why did trade with the Americas end after the Vikings, when there was the technological means to get there? Simply, because there was no necessity. Which is the exact point that I entered into this argument, and I feel we are now going in circles.

I can't tell you where the necessity will come from, it is simply my own opinion that it will come in time, because in the past that has always been the case. As I keep saying, without a time machine, I can only speculate that we might discover something similar to monopoles, or melange 'spice', or 2(5)6 dilithium 2: )l diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide crystals! Maybe I am too idealistic, and have too wild an imagination, but that comes with reading science fiction. What I do know is that the outer planets and their satellites are far from being barren rocks and inert gas giants, and exploring them must surely find something of value.