Electricity (generated and distributed DC, then AC), the automobile, and the airplane were the products of many, many attempts at innovation by mostly poorly-funded inventors.
Private foundations established by the uber-wealthy Rockefellers et al. were major inhibitors of that kind of adventurist innovation because they made it about money instead of innovation. Just look at how Rockefeller took over medicine and forced the world into an allopathic model, virtually outlawing naturopathic medicine and allied fields. Then they moved into social engineering, journalism, and—of course—public policy.
I think what we're seeing, and this is to Jon's point above, is that policy is driving culture, and ideology driving the scientific enterprise, to a depth and scope never, ever before seen since the Dark Ages. The only difference is that heretics aren't beheaded (yet); they're canceled.
I saw this trend increase over my 35 years in higher education, in some of the most "liberal" major public universities in the country. Toward the end it was sickening. The groupthink and dysfunction have affected every aspect of university life.
I'm glad that's all behind me. But it's always with me, heavy on my conscience.
At least we could easily have high immigration of people coming to study and work while being selective. And while we could clearly be a lot more productive with research, tossing a few tens of billions more toward fusion, geothermal would be a good investment
A secondary question: "National Science Guy" reeks of Bill Nye stench of popular science (Pop Sci), is the media partly to blame for the change in attitude towards badly allocated funding and wasted productivity?
More than a few economists, notably Tyler Cowen in “The Great Stagnation,” say that the extraordinary, virtually continuous productivity improvement in the US in the period roughly from 1850 to 1970 was a fluke in human history; much slower progress, such as we have now, is the norm. The earlier period was a period of practically unrestrained free enterprise, which we have not had for at least fifty years. The rest of the world is in the same boat. We need to get rid of all the regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. William
Jon, you make some very interesting points here. Would it be useful to plot innovation x payoff curves based on actual data to see whether your assertions are even remotely in the ball park? I think so, and I think we'd not be surprised to see that they are truly in the ball park.
I recall Ray Kurzweil of "Transcendent Man" film (2009) notoriety, well-known for innovations since his early childhood and futuristic projections that led to the development of a variety of inventions and widely-used products. His vision of innovation, particularly based on the rise of computing power x (inverse) processor size x increasing prevalence of processors, seems to contradict yours.
But a lot has changed since 2009 when that film was released. Even with W3, IoT and 5G, innovation has largely fallen short of what Kurzweil envisioned. We're still in the age of the transistor!
CERN's latest fire-up (using a record 13.8 TeV) yesterday turned out to be a so-what exercise unless one is into crunching a year's worth of particle physics data. And the takeaways from that endeavor aren't likely to change the world.
After a career of managing research and academic programs largely funded by Federal monies I've concluded that the modern State-University binary system is just as moribund as the old European (and Asian) State-Religion binary setup. It's incestuous; it stifles meaningful innovation; micro-incrementalist changes benefit only the funders or similar fiduciary or power stakeholders.
When policy drives culture it tends to perpetuate itself until there's no change in that regime without mega-shocks to the system to truly uncouple the two, if only for a short while. That seems to be the short window afforded by "flukes", and when human ingenuity truly shines.
100% agree with you, Jon. I don't expect great changes by tweaking the system. Incrementalism is not enough. The latest gadget that is perceived to make life easier or better doesn't move the earth. "Meta" and similar approaches won't do what humanity needs.
And I think your observation about people abandoning social institutions is absolutely spot on. I really grieve over how our society(ies) have been atomized by COVID, technology, and politics. People are alone and have been conditioned to want to be alone. There is no trust, no love, no social contracts even, that binds people together unless we decide to use personal agency to forge relationships and communities.
"Moving the earth" reminds me of Archimedes, who famously said of the fulcrum and lever, "give me a place to stand and I can move the earth". People like him and his breakthrough concepts are rare. The post-postmodern world in which we live is brittle: Solid places on which to stand and apply Archimedian pluck and ingenuity are few and far between.
But breakthroughs imply something to be punched through with force, as in something that resists innovation. Perhaps it's as simple as the second law of thermodynamics, but on a higher level: You can't create extra energy magically; matter or existing energy must be converted or redirected through some process that itself consumes matter or energy. Too, breakthrough innovations that are widely implemented are subject to the principle of diminishing returns. It's inevitable.
Universities have basically taken over the innovation process by insisting on receiving a percentage (if not the whole) of intellectual property and its monetary proceeds. That exerts a multiplier effect on the reality of diminishing returns.
T.S. Kuhn famously wrote in the 70s about paradigms and paradigm shifts. I think the world desperately needs a massive paradigm change. Perhaps that shift will come upon us whether most folks want it or not. I don't know what that would be, but I sense a massive change coming, a "mega-shock" if you will. It's not an altogether good feeling.
Electricity (generated and distributed DC, then AC), the automobile, and the airplane were the products of many, many attempts at innovation by mostly poorly-funded inventors.
Private foundations established by the uber-wealthy Rockefellers et al. were major inhibitors of that kind of adventurist innovation because they made it about money instead of innovation. Just look at how Rockefeller took over medicine and forced the world into an allopathic model, virtually outlawing naturopathic medicine and allied fields. Then they moved into social engineering, journalism, and—of course—public policy.
I think what we're seeing, and this is to Jon's point above, is that policy is driving culture, and ideology driving the scientific enterprise, to a depth and scope never, ever before seen since the Dark Ages. The only difference is that heretics aren't beheaded (yet); they're canceled.
I saw this trend increase over my 35 years in higher education, in some of the most "liberal" major public universities in the country. Toward the end it was sickening. The groupthink and dysfunction have affected every aspect of university life.
I'm glad that's all behind me. But it's always with me, heavy on my conscience.
At least we could easily have high immigration of people coming to study and work while being selective. And while we could clearly be a lot more productive with research, tossing a few tens of billions more toward fusion, geothermal would be a good investment
Would like to hear a little more about the "abuse" committed by the National Science Foundation.
A secondary question: "National Science Guy" reeks of Bill Nye stench of popular science (Pop Sci), is the media partly to blame for the change in attitude towards badly allocated funding and wasted productivity?
Using a capital 'E' for "Earth" indicates that it is a proper noun, the third planet from our sun, rather than the substance that earthworms crawl in.
More than a few economists, notably Tyler Cowen in “The Great Stagnation,” say that the extraordinary, virtually continuous productivity improvement in the US in the period roughly from 1850 to 1970 was a fluke in human history; much slower progress, such as we have now, is the norm. The earlier period was a period of practically unrestrained free enterprise, which we have not had for at least fifty years. The rest of the world is in the same boat. We need to get rid of all the regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. William
Jon, you make some very interesting points here. Would it be useful to plot innovation x payoff curves based on actual data to see whether your assertions are even remotely in the ball park? I think so, and I think we'd not be surprised to see that they are truly in the ball park.
I recall Ray Kurzweil of "Transcendent Man" film (2009) notoriety, well-known for innovations since his early childhood and futuristic projections that led to the development of a variety of inventions and widely-used products. His vision of innovation, particularly based on the rise of computing power x (inverse) processor size x increasing prevalence of processors, seems to contradict yours.
But a lot has changed since 2009 when that film was released. Even with W3, IoT and 5G, innovation has largely fallen short of what Kurzweil envisioned. We're still in the age of the transistor!
CERN's latest fire-up (using a record 13.8 TeV) yesterday turned out to be a so-what exercise unless one is into crunching a year's worth of particle physics data. And the takeaways from that endeavor aren't likely to change the world.
After a career of managing research and academic programs largely funded by Federal monies I've concluded that the modern State-University binary system is just as moribund as the old European (and Asian) State-Religion binary setup. It's incestuous; it stifles meaningful innovation; micro-incrementalist changes benefit only the funders or similar fiduciary or power stakeholders.
When policy drives culture it tends to perpetuate itself until there's no change in that regime without mega-shocks to the system to truly uncouple the two, if only for a short while. That seems to be the short window afforded by "flukes", and when human ingenuity truly shines.
100% agree with you, Jon. I don't expect great changes by tweaking the system. Incrementalism is not enough. The latest gadget that is perceived to make life easier or better doesn't move the earth. "Meta" and similar approaches won't do what humanity needs.
And I think your observation about people abandoning social institutions is absolutely spot on. I really grieve over how our society(ies) have been atomized by COVID, technology, and politics. People are alone and have been conditioned to want to be alone. There is no trust, no love, no social contracts even, that binds people together unless we decide to use personal agency to forge relationships and communities.
"Moving the earth" reminds me of Archimedes, who famously said of the fulcrum and lever, "give me a place to stand and I can move the earth". People like him and his breakthrough concepts are rare. The post-postmodern world in which we live is brittle: Solid places on which to stand and apply Archimedian pluck and ingenuity are few and far between.
But breakthroughs imply something to be punched through with force, as in something that resists innovation. Perhaps it's as simple as the second law of thermodynamics, but on a higher level: You can't create extra energy magically; matter or existing energy must be converted or redirected through some process that itself consumes matter or energy. Too, breakthrough innovations that are widely implemented are subject to the principle of diminishing returns. It's inevitable.
Universities have basically taken over the innovation process by insisting on receiving a percentage (if not the whole) of intellectual property and its monetary proceeds. That exerts a multiplier effect on the reality of diminishing returns.
T.S. Kuhn famously wrote in the 70s about paradigms and paradigm shifts. I think the world desperately needs a massive paradigm change. Perhaps that shift will come upon us whether most folks want it or not. I don't know what that would be, but I sense a massive change coming, a "mega-shock" if you will. It's not an altogether good feeling.