On the development of technology.
19:16
If you've watched any of the 'Back To The Future' movies, you've probably had a laugh over how they predicted the development of technology in what is the present now. Or the past actually. That's right. The future of those movies, (21st October, 2015) has already passed us. So when our man McFly, played by Michael J. Fox, comes to 2015, he is presented with hoverboards, which we haven't created yet. Sorry Michael, we've let you down. So, after a few moments of disappointment towards the human race, you are then greeted with a clunky old arcade machine the size of a refrigerator, with coin slots and 2D side scrolling pixel animations, the whole shebang. And you think, hey, maybe we're not that bad, we play breathtaking 3D graphics on our 4K monitors that are thinner than a Back To The Future DVD. But, how was it that they're expectation and our reality is so different? Why did so many movies of the 70s and 80s go so wrong? Or has the technology of our time actually developed in whack ways? We don't have simple McDonald's service bots, but we have cars so efficient, they can go 20 kilometres in a coke bottles worth of liquid! What's more, that figure didn't impress you one bit. We don't have personal robot butlers, but we have pieces of glass that can complex decisions, billions of them a second, in response to your touch. If you were to predict the technology we would have in 2050, you'll probably say, flying cars, interplanetary Uber, hoverboards. Here's what I predict. Phones under a millimeter thin. Laptops with laser keyboards, that retract when needed. I'll continue this list, shortly before I disclose my laws of technological development. Also called Daksh's Laws of Technological Development. Partly because my name is Daksh, and partly because I don't have imagination of any conceivable kind.
The first law states that technological development prefers improvement rather than pure innovation. I'd rather make the iPhone thinner and more powerful than replace smartphones with something better. As silicone valley guru and angel investor Peter Thiel puts it, zero to one is harder than 1 to n.
It was easier to make a building go from 10 floors to a hundred and fifty, than it was to create the world's first building where you just had to go from ground to one The human brain by design is reluctant to innovate.
Or is it?
This is both contradicted and explained in the second law. The second law states that economically successful pieces of technology will grow exponentially, in contrast to even marginally less financially explosive ones, which may grow at the turtle's pace, if at all, that is. Steep curve. Why have the automobile industry, and the smartphone industry seen such vast advances, whereas rocket technology didn't change basically at all between the 70's to until last month, when the first rocket was landed vertically and reused. So, the human brain indeed is not reluctant to innovate, but is forced into technological stagnancy, by economics. A machine will cease to exist and/or cease to improve if not enough people empty their wallets on it. That's why it was essential for Musk to commercialize space travel, because he saw that as the only way to push this half century undeveloped industry into development. Even within space travel, we can send more stuff into space, but can't go any further or faster than, brace yourselves, 1975. My mother wasn't born born until another week after the Voyager mission launch.
The third law, states that technology develops only when it is needed to, or a body illusions another body, normally the public that it need to. Sometimes, form A of technology, which has gained favorability from financial standpoint, but requires advances in form B to survive, form B is likely to develop. But then why did computers develop? Well because Steven Paul Jobs convinced half a billion people that a closed end system which can do math, and show you numbers on a screen, similar to a $5 calculator, is something everyone needs to pay 5 thousand dollars for.
I am Daksh Gupta, and as always, never stop asking questions.
The first law states that technological development prefers improvement rather than pure innovation. I'd rather make the iPhone thinner and more powerful than replace smartphones with something better. As silicone valley guru and angel investor Peter Thiel puts it, zero to one is harder than 1 to n.
It was easier to make a building go from 10 floors to a hundred and fifty, than it was to create the world's first building where you just had to go from ground to one The human brain by design is reluctant to innovate.
Or is it?
This is both contradicted and explained in the second law. The second law states that economically successful pieces of technology will grow exponentially, in contrast to even marginally less financially explosive ones, which may grow at the turtle's pace, if at all, that is. Steep curve. Why have the automobile industry, and the smartphone industry seen such vast advances, whereas rocket technology didn't change basically at all between the 70's to until last month, when the first rocket was landed vertically and reused. So, the human brain indeed is not reluctant to innovate, but is forced into technological stagnancy, by economics. A machine will cease to exist and/or cease to improve if not enough people empty their wallets on it. That's why it was essential for Musk to commercialize space travel, because he saw that as the only way to push this half century undeveloped industry into development. Even within space travel, we can send more stuff into space, but can't go any further or faster than, brace yourselves, 1975. My mother wasn't born born until another week after the Voyager mission launch.
The third law, states that technology develops only when it is needed to, or a body illusions another body, normally the public that it need to. Sometimes, form A of technology, which has gained favorability from financial standpoint, but requires advances in form B to survive, form B is likely to develop. But then why did computers develop? Well because Steven Paul Jobs convinced half a billion people that a closed end system which can do math, and show you numbers on a screen, similar to a $5 calculator, is something everyone needs to pay 5 thousand dollars for.
I am Daksh Gupta, and as always, never stop asking questions.
0 comments