Alternative theory: most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. In the information-technology side of things we see an enormous amount of innovation, often because it is possible to create new products with a garageband skeleton crew. In the physical realm, thing are simply much harder, much more specialized.
Also, there is a negative feedback loop: since the world is much more specialized there are fewer people working in technical fields, and hence fewer people having the basis in technical know-how that might lead to chance-inventions [which I learned from you was a typical story during the early Industrial Revolution in Great Britain].
Jason does have a post where he briefly tackles the low-hanging fruit hypothesis [here]. It isn’t 100% compelling, but the idea is that there are “multiple orchards” and we go through one after another. The conceit doesn’t include the possibility of “barren earth orchards” though.
Low-hanging fruit alone doesn’t explain stagnation, because our ability to pick the fruit has also been improving. To explain stagnation, you have to explain why the former is happening faster than the latter, and why this only started happening in the last ~50 years.
Let me outline a very simple model of technological progress.
Innovations get exponentiably harder. As the lower-hanging fruits get picked, one needs to combine and master more and more previously understood scientific knowledge to get higher. Moreover, fruits higher up in knowledge tree may be intrinsically harder to pick.
As an example, see the ever increasing material complexity and size of particle colliders. I.e. LHC to earlier backyard garage colliders.
Our ability to pick fruit does still increase but that ability may not necessarily increase comparably fast.
Between ~1850-1950 the effective amount of brain power increased substantially. More important than just population growth is probably increased literacy, urbanization, formal education, improved nutrition, improved communication methods to facilliate knowledge etc etc. It might have increased the total effective amount of brain power applied by ~ two orders of magnitude.
By comparison in the period ~1950-2020 the total amount of brain power may have only increased ~a couple times.
One has to be cognizant of the fact that innovations are made by a tiny percentage of highly excentric and talented individuals. This may not always line up with the mean of the population.
We see substantially more collaboration in Science, and a much larger number of scientists, and a greatly increased amount of specialization. The sum of human scientific expertise does not fit comfortably in the skull of an unedited Homo Sapiens, and this capacity difference is increasing over time.
You don’t need to be a technical field to make inventions. A chef isn’t traditional seeing as a technical person but they invent new dishes. A HR person can invent new policies or ways to distinguish expertise when hiring.
The reason why it’s more expensive to build a bridge today then 50 years ago, is not just due to lack of technical innovations but also due to lack of inventions about how to effectively coordinate humans.
Alternative theory: most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. In the information-technology side of things we see an enormous amount of innovation, often because it is possible to create new products with a garageband skeleton crew. In the physical realm, thing are simply much harder, much more specialized.
Also, there is a negative feedback loop: since the world is much more specialized there are fewer people working in technical fields, and hence fewer people having the basis in technical know-how that might lead to chance-inventions [which I learned from you was a typical story during the early Industrial Revolution in Great Britain].
How would you respond to this take?
Jason does have a post where he briefly tackles the low-hanging fruit hypothesis [here]. It isn’t 100% compelling, but the idea is that there are “multiple orchards” and we go through one after another. The conceit doesn’t include the possibility of “barren earth orchards” though.
Low-hanging fruit alone doesn’t explain stagnation, because our ability to pick the fruit has also been improving. To explain stagnation, you have to explain why the former is happening faster than the latter, and why this only started happening in the last ~50 years.
See also my post here and this interview.
Let me outline a very simple model of technological progress.
Innovations get exponentiably harder. As the lower-hanging fruits get picked, one needs to combine and master more and more previously understood scientific knowledge to get higher. Moreover, fruits higher up in knowledge tree may be intrinsically harder to pick.
As an example, see the ever increasing material complexity and size of particle colliders. I.e. LHC to earlier backyard garage colliders.
Our ability to pick fruit does still increase but that ability may not necessarily increase comparably fast.
Between ~1850-1950 the effective amount of brain power increased substantially. More important than just population growth is probably increased literacy, urbanization, formal education, improved nutrition, improved communication methods to facilliate knowledge etc etc. It might have increased the total effective amount of brain power applied by ~ two orders of magnitude.
By comparison in the period ~1950-2020 the total amount of brain power may have only increased ~a couple times.
One has to be cognizant of the fact that innovations are made by a tiny percentage of highly excentric and talented individuals. This may not always line up with the mean of the population.
We see substantially more collaboration in Science, and a much larger number of scientists, and a greatly increased amount of specialization. The sum of human scientific expertise does not fit comfortably in the skull of an unedited Homo Sapiens, and this capacity difference is increasing over time.
You don’t need to be a technical field to make inventions. A chef isn’t traditional seeing as a technical person but they invent new dishes. A HR person can invent new policies or ways to distinguish expertise when hiring.
The reason why it’s more expensive to build a bridge today then 50 years ago, is not just due to lack of technical innovations but also due to lack of inventions about how to effectively coordinate humans.