Increasing cost of Tech.

[Moral Hazard]

Just like in Civilization the further we go in technology the greater the cost. Of course also like Civilization our increased wealth helps us pay for these increased costs.

The question is what happens when the costs outweigh the benefits we will receive? Will society scale back on technological investments? Or will we like in medical continue to throw dollars away to prolong death. (Terry Schaivo, of course)

Any way I was reading a biography of Jefferson^1 and the author mentioned that at that time Americans, especially Jefferson viewed the west as unlimited, in the same way many of us view technology.

I was also struck by the general thinking of the time, instead of looking to the future, people looked to the past. Imaginary in the case of Jefferson, who followed the Whig historians in believing that in the begining of England, Anglo-Saxon farmers were a free and utopian society. Also that the American revolution was not a step forward, but a step to restore the proper order. The French revolution also started in the same manner, at least according Schama (Citizens).

So the question is without the vast changes technology is bringing would we also look to the past, and not be forward looking. Also as asked previously what happens when the costs outweigh the benefits we will receive? Will that ever happen?

^1 American Sphinx, good book, not recommended if you haven't read anything previously about Jefferson as it skips large portions of his life.

[Ted Striker]

I think in the corporate world that there will be a productivity increase that will eventually level off.

IT systems are going to become mature to the point where they are a normal part of standard operating procedure, much in the same way as accounting standards.

On the other hand, the medical field is still in its infancy with alot of new technology, most notably, the human genome project was completed a few years ago.

This is where I think we are going to see alot of crazy advances over the next 20 years, we are already seeing some crazy things with cloning. (For example, the guy who had his jaw removed because of cancer, and they replaced his jaw by GROWING it in his back).

[Moral Hazard]

My own thoughts. I think in many industries we are quite a bit off from hitting this barrier. Industries which are close Surgery, regular Pharma. Industries which have a ways to go Energy, Genetics.

I think eventually it's got to happen and yes society will change from dynamic to very static and tradition will be far more important.

[DanS]

I think that while this topic is interesting, we know so little about top-level technology management that any conclusions we come to tend to be worthless. At a minimum, breakthroughs seem pretty random. Incremental technology development is easier to track on an individual basis, but it's damned difficult working that into some bigger context.

Just like in Civilization the further we go in technology the greater the cost.

This is not uniformly true. It's more likely rather random, or at least having a tendency that we can't divine right now. Recently, for instance, fabrication and design technologies are making rockets cheaper to develop.

[Moral Hazard]

I think that while this topic is interesting, we know so little about top-level technology management that any conclusions we come to tend to be worthless.

That hasn't stopped the Poly OT before.

This is not uniformly true. It's more likely rather random, or at least having a tendency that we can't divine right now. Recently, for instance, fabrication and design technologies are making rockets cheaper to develop.

Generally true though.

Oh and B. Franklin is full of it; disadvantageous trade is why Virginia sided with Boston in kicking out the Brits. I also wonder if the oil in Arabia has helped it's citizens or maintained it's oligarchs. Of course B. Franklin said alot of things, and at inception the US was all about free trade. Because everyone else was all about tarriffs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
top-level technology management

Learn a new buzzword everyday to confuse both your friends and opponents

[trev]

The return from technology improvements have been increasing in recent decades, not decreasing, as increasing globalization has helped technology to spread throughout the whole world much quicker than in the past. new technologies that in the past would have taken a decade to get to the far reaches of the globe now may only take a year. Also there is a increasing focus on commercializing technologies rapidly, helping to bring quicker returns also. In the absence of any signs that this trend is changing, I would say that new technologies will continue to come quicker and faster and with a quicker payoff, which matches with civ2 in particular where technological growth in the later stages of the game normally gets down to nearly 1 turn per tech.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Learn a new buzzword everyday to confuse both your friends and opponents

Or in this case, create a new buzzword. The point is that technology development at the top-level (national, in a specific field) is so complex that management of the process at that level is worthless. The conclusions that we would come to in a thread like this are equally worthless, since it is at the top level.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Generally true though.

I defy you to support that assumption with data.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just like in Civilization the further we go in technology the greater the cost. Of course also like Civilization our increased wealth helps us pay for these increased costs.

The question is what happens when the costs outweigh the benefits we will receive? Will society scale back on technological investments? Or will we like in medical continue to throw dollars away to prolong death. (Terry Schaivo, of course)

Any way I was reading a biography of Jefferson^1 and the author mentioned that at that time Americans, especially Jefferson viewed the west as unlimited, in the same way many of us view technology.

I was also struck by the general thinking of the time, instead of looking to the future, people looked to the past. Imaginary in the case of Jefferson, who followed the Whig historians in believing that in the begining of England, Anglo-Saxon farmers were a free and utopian society. Also that the American revolution was not a step forward, but a step to restore the proper order. The French revolution also started in the same manner, at least according Schama (Citizens).

So the question is without the vast changes technology is bringing would we also look to the past, and not be forward looking. Also as asked previously what happens when the costs outweigh the benefits we will receive? Will that ever happen?

^1 American Sphinx, good book, not recommended if you haven't read anything previously about Jefferson as it skips large portions of his life.

people are always going to think that the bleeding edge is cool stuff, so no matter how much it costs we are going to do it.

[Moral Hazard]

I defy you to support that assumption with data.

I was thinking more generally and in a longer time frame. The single inventor can no longer further technology in the way that Edison or Eli Whitney could. The best they can hope to accomplish is a pot that can cook and drain pasta.

It's also true as Trev pointed out that the returns for invention have become greater with globalization.

[MRT144]

moral, they were just improving on past inventions...

[DanS]

The single inventor can no longer further technology in the way that Edison or Eli Whitney could. The best they can hope to accomplish is a pot that can cook and drain pasta.

Obviously, if you're researching cooking and draining pasta product improvement (a narrow subject matter), you will most likely have product improvements in this area. It was always like this. But I think you are giving us too much credit by assuming that we know more than we know. There's a lot of virgin territory for motivated and genius scientists and inventors.

Also, Edison's inventions were done with a fully-staffed laboratory. He wasn't a "single inventor" per se.