|
The 1870-1940 period was more transformative because a lot of manual labor was replaced with engines and electricity and we can't replicate that because there's not that much manual labor left to replace. In 1900 washing clothes involved stirring a tub full of clothes with a big stick until it was clean. Today you push a button. 99% of the labor in that process has been automated and making it another 99% easier would require a robot butler. There's not an infinite number of things we can apply technology to that will make your life easier. When transportation, cleaning, washing, eating, gardening and consuming media can be done with the push of a button where do you go from there? This has nothing to do with technological advancement, only the impact it has on your daily boring life and that impact is finite because we do not have infinite basic needs. The impact the internet has had in terms of communication also can't be overstated and there's still a long way to go.
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Also, as an addendum to that: remember when people used just not know things? Like, you'd stop and wonder for a moment about some trivial matter, and then just give up and never find out what the answer was? Remember when that was a thing people did? Yeah it's useful to make the distinction between scientific discovery vs technological application of it vs impact on daily life. There's a tendency to look at technology and how it affects us and use that as a measure of scientific advancement but that's arbitrary. Your basic needs can be fulfilled with less time invested but whether that curve will approach zero or not, has no bearing on scientific advancement. Right now the application of technology is happening in factories, warehouses, mines etc. so a lot of people don't experience it. The most important discoveries are probably in genetics, medical sciences and materials which probably won't result in a shiny new gadget you can put in your home.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:Is GDP a sufficient quantification to measure the change in people's quality of life ? Median income might be more meaningful. Ideally it would be median hours worked but that assumes people have a choice and are not forced to work part time. I think energy consumption was used as a metric for technological advancement for a time but that has remained stagnant on a per capita basis for a long time as appliances and cars got more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Youtube is a great example because the vast majority of Youtube stars, as you mentioned, can't make a living off of Youtube. They can't. They are producing no value (in their content) and they are not receiving money from their work. So their ability to fundamentally alter their life because of this technology is practically non-existent in the long run. So it isn't important! Which is true of the majority of musicians and other artists. That, obviously, doesn't mean that musical instruments or paint isn't important inventions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There is no contradiction. I just should have explained myself more. The mechanization of labor in the early 20th century had obvious measurable effects. The dissemination of information in the late 20th century had more abstract effects. Electrical stoves are clearly more convenient than wood burning stoves. I can measure how long it takes to split the wood, carry it to the stove etc. The whole process can be reduced to a flow chart. Conversely having a huge amount of information instantaneously available is more convenient than relying on the books I can afford or is available in the local library. It does not primarily afford you more time but rather greater opportunity. Prices can be compared and products reviewed allowing you to make informed choices. You can develop and maintain valuable networks on the fly and strike deals quickly. You can get a basic grasp of any subject from canoe construction to stock investment while sitting on the bus. Every job ad and company profile is available when you want it. You can solve problems with people from across the globe without ever meeting them. The effects are different and comparing them is not necessarily useful. If the measure of technological advancement is the amount of work saved then there's only marginal advances left until there is none at all. It is not, I think, fair to set it up in that way. I don't know how to compare it and I don't know that we can but the proliferation of the internet and personal computers have absolutely made life easier in a number of ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 11:40
|
|