The end of innovation?

[ygolo]

It's been almost 3 years since I first saw this, but I was thinking about it again.

Note that the above graphs are per capita. What do you believe to be the case of this data?

I have my own theories. But I'll hold off on expressing them for a while.

Entering a dark age of innovation - opinion - 02 July 2005 - New Scientist

So who is right? The high-tech gurus who predict exponentially increasing change up to and through a blinding event horizon? Huebner, who foresees a looming collision with technology's limits? Or Modis, who expects a long, slow decline?

 

[Owl]

I like the analogy likening technological development to a tree, but I don't think we've discovered all the major branches. Our physics aren't yet perfect, (e.g. there is still much work to be done at the quantum level), and there are many recalcitrant anomolies.

My theory is that there aren't enough people interested enough is physics qua physics--the goal of most contemporary science is economic, not intellectual--in order to ask the right questions and design the research programs that would lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of physics.

 

[Octarine]

What do you believe to be the case of this data?

I have an interesting suggestion: intellectual property laws are too restrictive.

Besides the biases in the selection of 'major innovations and scientific breakthroughs', the real bottleneck is the complexity of natural phenomena compared to our computational capacity. The low hanging fruit has already been picked, so to speak. Beyond that, the limitations will be the levels of natural resources, and the distance of separation between habitable regions of the universe.

 

[Geoff]

It's been almost 3 years since I first saw this, but I was thinking about it again.

Note that the above graphs are per capita. What do you believe to be the case of this data?

I have my own theories. But I'll hold off on expressing them for a while.

Entering a dark age of innovation - opinion - 02 July 2005 - New Scientist

Whenever you see scientists or analysts saying that everything has been discovered, you can tell that a major breakthrough is about to happen. I wonder what it will be next time.

 

[Carebear]

Whenever you see scientists or analysts saying that everything has been discovered, you can tell that a major breakthrough is about to happen. I wonder what it will be next time.

Nano and DNA seem to be in their infancy yet... I think they'll develop in surprising directions once they learn to walk.

 

[Zergling]

The low hanging fruit has already been picked, so to speak. Beyond that, the limitations will be the levels of natural resources, and the distance of separation between habitable regions of the universe.

This does seem to be a big part of it, a lot of the medium and big unsolved questions today in science in general seem to relate to things like weather/climate, how life works, chaotic systems in general, and other things that cannot be expressed as just a few mathematical equations, and a lot of these need computers to model effectively.

Population growth may also be a part of it, although a higher number of people may be getting into science and technology related areas, a lot of population growth is occurring in areas without good educational systems or other resources to get good innovation and technology per person. (Of course, this may have been true in previous periods of time as well, so this may not have anything ot do with it at all.)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The first graph show says the highest peak was before the 1900s.
I find that extremely dubious.

 

[Wolf]

I have a theory that would be very unpopular and roughly follows these graphs. I won't mention it because it would be unpopular.

 

[Splittet]

This is a very interesting topic, and I must say I do indeed feel innovation is slowing down. First of all I want to say that since the Enlightenment people have become a lot more open-minded, an open-mindedness that has lead to many of these breakthroughs. But just like an open-minded attitude towards music will lead you to discover many different styles of music, the number of very different styles is limited, and at some point it becomes difficult to discover something very different and new. I think open-mindedness intellectually and in innovation is not very different. I think humans since the Enlightenment already have discovered many very elementary principles, and that we have discovered many of the most obvious uses of these. Some sciences are more complex than others though, and I think definitely the potential for innovation is much greater in complex sciences. I think for example a lot has yet to be discovered in psychology, as humans are very complicated systems. Music is not a science, but a relatively simple art form, and I have a hard time imagining much innovation in music at this point, honestly. Electronic music might have been the last big thing, and it made a lot of new things possible, but where to go from it? The open-minded attitude I talked about has lead to all kinds of music being mixed and experimented with, and I just don't know how many more styles there is left to mix. Film is a more complex art form though, relying on more elements, and I do think there is more room for innovation there. Still of course the complete effect of computer technology is to be felt, so I think we will see some innovation there, and there are some other highly interesting technologies. The universe is very complex, so even if innovation might be slowing down, it's far for stopping up in the sciences. I think maybe the arts might be worse off...

 

[ygolo]

Perhaps there is actually a limit to how much technology there is as Heubner says, and perhaps innovation per capita is declining due to that as people have mentioned.

But I think scientists freely admit there are a lot of open problems, even in an old science like physics.

To me things like the germ theory of disease, the automobile, electrification, and the radio, out-weigh any of the more modern inventions, in terms of what it means to people.

Since then we had many inventions/innovations, but the big ones that stand out in my mind are: nuclear power, the transistor, and the internet.

Of those, nuclear power's novel effects on society has been largely negative. The non-novel effects are to provide electricity, which is good.

Electronic gadgets (TVs, computers, iPods, cell-phones) becoming cheap and plentiful (made possible by the transistor), have had a pervasive effect, but mainly on our leisure time. They make our schedules more flexible and/or give us more things to do during our leisure.

The computer (one of those electronic gadgets) didn't really have much of an impact till the invention of the internet protocols. IMO, the novel effect the internet had on society was to proliferate the "open" nature of it's design into popular thought. People could already talk to each other over the phone, and broadcast on the radio or print. But these forms of media were controlled by the few. The internet was open to the many (thought still the affluent many) and was extensible. So we get things like the World-Wide-Web, and on top of that social networking, and other things.

Biotech is very powerful, but it's novel effects have yet to pervade society, and people are afraid of letting it happen. We do get better drugs and such, but I would not really point to it as life-transforming for the many.

Nano-tech is in its infancy, we'll see what effects it will have.

So my theory is that people have more than a little comfortable. There is just not as much need/demand these days for technology (at least on the surface). Necessity is after all the mother of invention.

The great needs of today, have to do with resource conservation. Getting a fairly clean, renewable (and/or abundant) energy source is our biggest technological hurdle.

Perhaps damage control or reversal is another one.

But these things are really only affect society by the absence of affect. That is, we know our lifestyle is not sustainable, but we may yet find ways to make it so.

 

[Carebear]

Great post, Splittet. It has to be said though, that the decreasing number of innovations and patents doesn't have to mean there is less innovation going on, but rather that the simple inventions have "all" been made, so the complexity of current innovation has to go up. This means that larger number of people have to work for a longer time on each innovation, but it wouldn't be fair to say this means there is less innovation than before. Though the back scratcher, the shoehorn and the can opener are indeed great innovations, they can't really be compared with the latest Japanese robots, QuadCore prosessors or the cure for previously lethal diseases.

 

[Carebear]

Since then we had many inventions/innovations, but the big ones that stand out in my mind are: nuclear power, the transistor, and the internet.

Of those, nuclear power's novel effects on society has been largely negative. The non-novel effects are to provide electricity, which is good.

You're forgetting the understanding of isotopes and it's use in diagnostic medicine as a by product of the research into nuclear power. That one has really had a positive, novel effect on society.

 

[ygolo]

You're forgetting the understanding of isotopes and it's use in diagnostic medicine as a by product of the research into nuclear power. That one has really had a positive, novel effect on society.

True that is another one, but its not really a novel effect, just an improvement on what we was already being done. I suppose the distinction is arbitrary, but compared to germ theory, how many diseases would radioisotopes affect.

As for patents, things like the George Foreman grill has a patent. Also, the countless number of Ron Co. inventions. You know, of "set it and forget it" fame. So too do things like logos (to protect brands). These are the back scratchers and shoehorns of today.

I don't think anyone can dispute that the technology of today surpasses those that came earlier. But I think the claim is that the delta in technology (which is what innovation is about) is slowing down.

True, we are making more complicated devices than ever before, but we are basing those devices on innovations past, and productivity gains that should have come from innovations past.

Imagine not having an automobile to go to work, having to do night-work by candle light or oil lamp. Imagine not even knowing(or having strong doubts) that germs exist when finding cures.

Still, I did leave off another major set of needs/wants that could be aided by mass-custom-manufacturing (leisure time). Imagine being able to simply design anything, and not have to worry about the ability to manufacture it. The way I idealize it, is to have a general purpose "synthesizer" in everybody's home (or internet cafe). You can do an internet search for something you want to do in an automated way, find a machine/device that does that, and order that one be made for you. At this point, the design gets downloaded and synthesized.

 

[aeon]

These stats are per capita. Consider the explosive nature of population in the last 200 years, and then since 1960. It isn't that innovation is ending - it is a function of population growth.


cheers,
Ian

 

[ygolo]

These stats are per capita. Consider the explosive nature of population in the last 200 years, and then since 1960. It isn't that innovation is ending - it is a function of population growth.


cheers,
Ian

The title was a bit of a dramatization. I don't think we are going to end innovation per say.

But why are the per capita numbers going down? While the population has been increasing, why has the innovation rate also not gone up?

Theories offered include (but not limited to):
1) Innovation itself has become harder.
2) We are about ready to experience another boom.
3) Some nondescript unpopular theory that matches well with the dates.
4) There isn't as much need/desire for it.

 

[Carebear]

The title was a bit of a dramatization. I don't think we are going to end innovation per say.

But why are the per capita numbers going down? While the population has been increasing, why has the innovation rate also not gone up?

Theories offered include (but not limited to):
1) Innovation itself has become harder.
2) We are about ready to experience another boom.
3) Some nondescript unpopular theory that matches well with the dates.
4) There isn't as much need/desire for it.
5) The population boom has occurred in poor, uneducated parts of the world, and have therefore not contributed with significant innovation, but with an immense number of people, making the ratio go down.

Fixed!

Nr. 5 does not explain the fall in US patents, but it does explain the other graph. In fact it seems the total number of technical breakthroughs has gone considerably up since the peak in that graph (around mid 19th century). 20 x the 1.2-1.4 billion people living at that time is less than half of the 8 x 6+ billion current population.

 

[Carebear]

True that is another one, but its not really a novel effect, just an improvement on what we was already being done. I suppose the distinction is arbitrary, but compared to germ theory, how many diseases would radioisotopes affect.

Arbitrary distinction indeed, as it was very novel if you zoom in from the bird's eye perspective, but I see what you mean. They are used in 2% or something of western diagnostic medicine, and compared to germ theory the breakthrough is rather small (but then again you're comparing it to the titan of medical breathroughs).

As for patents, things like the George Foreman grill has a patent. Also, the countless number of Ron Co. inventions. You know, of "set it and forget it" fame. So too do things like logos (to protect brands). These are the back scratchers and shoehorns of today.

Ah, yes I see what you mean.

I don't think anyone can dispute that the technology of today surpasses those that came earlier. But I think the claim is that the delta in technology (which is what innovation is about) is slowing down.

Sounds likely, but if the proposed explanations have any merit, it's not very alarming.

Still, I did leave off another major set of needs/wants that could be aided by mass-custom-manufacturing (leisure time). Imagine being able to simply design anything, and not have to worry about the ability to manufacture it. The way I idealize it, is to have a general purpose "synthesizer" in everybody's home (or internet cafe). You can do an internet search for something you want to do in an automated way, find a machine/device that does that, and order that one be made for you. At this point, the design gets downloaded and synthesized.

I fear it wouldn't really change much though. It'd just mean that instead of the actual products being expensive the "recipes" would be, and they'd come so heavily restricted and copyright protected it'd be much the same as buying the product in the first place. Ah, hm, but idealized... yes, in an idealized world that's how it'd work. (Except you forgot to mention that the synthesizer would also be playable, so while it worked on synthesizing a new product you could pass time by playing "tubular bells", "axel f", "popcorn" and other synthesizer hits from the 70's and 80's. )

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Something does not seem right with these charts. It may be that the patent office has issued fewer patents, but there may well be confounding factors at play. I don't really know patent law, but it's possible that many technical break throughs rely on existing patented technology and therefore cannot themselves be patented.

The internet has increased access to information and speed up the R&D life cycles exponentially. I would be suspicous of exactly how they are measuring the number of new innovations.

 

[ygolo]

I fear it wouldn't really change much though. It'd just mean that instead of the actual products being expensive the "recipes" would be, and they'd come so heavily restricted and copyright protected it'd be much the same as buying the product in the first place. Ah, hm, but idealized... yes, in an idealized world that's how it'd work. (Except you forgot to mention that the synthesizer would also be playable, so while it worked on synthesizing a new product you could pass time by playing "tubular bells", "axel f", "popcorn" and other synthesizer hits from the 70's and 80's. )

Its hard to imagine that popular things wouldn't get hacked or cracked and widely distributed, however (and following the .mp3 trend, of eventually being cheap enough that far fewer people steal than buy). Seems like there would be more of a move to service economy, globally (like in the U.S. presently). The models may lean towards selling things at a low price and charging a lot for support (and/or requiring a high priced license for support).

Something does not seem right with these charts. It may be that the patent office has issued fewer patents, but there may well be confounding factors at play. I don't really know patent law, but it's possible that many technical break throughs rely on existing patented technology and therefore cannot themselves be patented.

The internet has increased access to information and speed up the R&D life cycles exponentially. I would be suspicous of exactly how they are measuring the number of new innovations.

Again, the statement is about the rate pf improvement in the technologies (which is what innovation is) not on the quality/power of the technologies themselves.

Also, it is a per capita number.

I believe the second graph is just based on number of patents.

 

[htb]

Arise, thread; arise!

Imagine undulation, Ygolo, along an incline. Think in wider, more dynamic terms.