Thoughts on futurists?
Lets stray away from common /sci/ shit-posting dogma.
If this is a stab at their /seemly implausible/ claims, it seems as if the more generally respected futurists teach at prestigious universities, and hold great knowledge in theoretical fields of science.
As a segue, which of their ideas might actually come into fruition /sci/?
Does anyone actually believe the blue trend-line is bound to happen? Based on the pink 2013 vertical mark, the plateau of the green trend-line is seeming to happen in ~1000 years. That timeline more accurately depicts the idea of exponential technological advancements.
Lol, What units do you use to measure the quantity of technology? How do you quantize an abstract concept?
fucking meme theories.
are you baka?
your assumption that the origin equals 0 is not only unfounded, but highly irrational.
I am more inclined to say that it is somewhere around the start of the 20th century.
We have made more advancement in the last 30 years than in the previous 30 thousand years.
Technological innovation dead, and about all we will get in the future is the same stuff but with faster speeds and higher resolutions. That fact alone renders futurist bullshit as just that: bullshit.
Accuracy, Optimization, and possibly some figurative new field unseen yet. Ever since the discovery of electrons, people have industrialized, developed telecommunications, and even manage to lithograph silicon wafers with dopants for the modern computers we all use. What would be cool is a piezo-electric nuclear battery for laser/rail-gun rifles. Modular wing, high-specific impulse aircraft. Higher density agriculture (with community participation) and robotic industry.
Anything cool really.
Pretty much this. Although I should add we're probably going to see a bunch of new fads
which don't do anything generally useful. Things like those light-projected keyboards that you can use anywhere, but are extremely awkward and uncomfortable, and may not work in daylight.
The origin is the 1900's?
I don't think that there was that level of stagnant progress from 1900 - 1950.
However, if the origin was 0, the stagnant advancement of technology could be attributed to the middle ages, despite the creator of this graph not really putting any thought into it.
Technological innovation is dead.
This has to be the most irrational, nonsensical, illogical statement to come across /sci/.
How can a thought like this even cross someones mind?
An extreme level of pessimism has to exist for a sane person to actually believe this.
What could a comment such as this even be backed by?
What current or prior indication has led anyone to believe that innovations of new technologies are dead?
Ir-regarding the commonly used 'past results not being indicative of future trends', there are a multitude of new happenings that completely and utterly disprove such a claim.
My god /sci/
>sure mindless extrapolation never proved itself wrong
>there are a multitude of new happenings that completely and utterly disprove such a claim
Alright, let's hear them. The last significant innovation we got was the smartphone. After that all we got were autistic fads.
If you try really hard to not see new advancements, then everything becomes an /autistic fad/.
When the internet was first introduced to the public, most people thought it was a fad, and now we can't imagine our lives without it.
These 'fads' are innovational, and people will continue to use them until a better form of that technology is created.