
Ask HN: Do you think technology progress will flatten out 100 years from now - samrohn
Other than few areas like interplanetary travel, will there be enough frontiers for humans to explore once we hit the limits of physics
Edit: I really mean 100 years from now - that&#x27;s a long period of time - to get a perspective - think about the progress we made just in the last 10 years in technology - and fact that we are doing this at an exponential rate
======
LadyChillalot
No. I think what we consider technology now will be very different in 100
years. Where previously, the discovery of fire or the invention of wheels were
technology and no one at the time could conceive of the idea of the Internet
let alone ML. I believe in 100 years, there will be so much progress in
technology that the idea that technology is limited by physics will be absurd.
We're living in an incredible time of free education to the masses via MOOCs
and even YouTube tutorials. We have expanded knowledge sharing and learning at
a rate that has never been seen in history.

That being said, all this is if we manage to advance our technology fast
enough so we can survive climate change and wars at massively destructive
scale.

~~~
jacquesm
> the idea that technology is limited by physics will be absurd

What I find absurd is that one could think that physical limits on technology
are absurd. Physical limits are _exactly_ the limits on technology, no more no
less. The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not
yet know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and
is not possible technology wise. It is simply up to us to try to maximize our
potential _within those limits_.

~~~
LadyChillalot
> The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not yet
> know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and is
> not possible technology wise.

I don't think so. We have no idea what those limits really are. What you're
saying now would be like someone from the 1850s, before the invention of
electricity, claims that there's no way that we can communicate
instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet, actually scratch
that, make that people from the next town over, because PHYSICS! I mean, it
just isn't possible because we're limited by the physical distance, right?

I think it's silly to think that we can even predict what the new physical
limits will look like in 100 years. At least I hope that is the case. Still
pissed off that we don't have flying cars yet though.

------
wumms
"In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will
appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present
century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to
see the wonders which are at the threshold." Charles Holland Duell, 1902

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell)

~~~
davidivadavid
I'm also optimistic about technological progress, but if you look at this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineerin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineering#Greatest_Engineering_Achievements_of_the_20th_Century)

The 21st century might look a bit lackluster so far.

------
baron_harkonnen
People tend to think that around 200 years ago humans suddenly became much
more enlightened and we just randomly started to see rapid technological
progress, which will forever be the solution to any and all problems humans
face.

But technology is not the product of sheer human brilliance, but rather
something that was purchased with highly available cheap energy. Imagine your
timeline of our exponential progress and you'll find it maps pretty well to
this timeline of terawatts-hours of fossil fuels [1].

But in the next 100 years we face two related problems that stem directly from
this abundance of cheap energy. One problem is the one caused by climate
change and the other is the inevitable depletion of natural resource
(including those very fossil fuels). The common HN response is that we'll
magically fix both of these with "technology!" but once you realize that our
technological brilliance is fueled by hydrocarbons you realize that solving
the problem of hydrocarbons is pretty much trickier than all the other
problems we've solved.

And the truth is, despite what people will tell you, we don't have any
solutions to the real problems we're facing. We don't have any known viable
pathway to large scale energy storage required for a fully renewable grid, we
don't have any idea how to produce the liquid fuels at scale essential to a
global economy (you need high energy density fuels to efficiently transport
goods), we don't know how to engineer global scale carbon capture and storage.

And I know people will likely link to a bunch of research projects that "look
promising!" But to go from promising research to global scale production
takes... tons of energy.

Technological progress is just a proxy for high energy density fuel
consumption. Given unlimited high energy density fuels and a planet with
infinite resources, yes we would also produce exponentially more marvelous
things. But the next challenge is how to deal with the consequence of burning
far too many high energy density fuels on a limited planet and running into
the limitations of energy.

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-
fuels](https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels)

------
vlthr
I don't think it's clear that the options are either that we continue to
progress exponentially or stagnate. Both of those seem like possibilities in
the medium-term, but I wouldn't rule out the possibilities of decline (in the
worst case) or cyclical re-development of the same ideas.

Technological discovery doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There needs to be a
societal production of potential new inventors and scientists. Where their
interests lie is to some extent influenced by the culture they grow up in, and
which research interests will receive funding (or societal status) is also
dependent on culture, etc. Worse, if a problem has been widely solved using a
_bad_ solution, there is no real desire for a good one.

Take electrical engineering and circuit design as an example. I would make the
case that despite the immense and obvious success of computers, our society is
in some significant way worse off than it was 50 years ago if you were to
measure our collective ability to solve _new_ problems using electrical
engineering. Fewer and fewer electrical engineers are being educated, while
the competency threshold of the field is rising. As that threshold rises, our
education system shifts from teaching people to invent things to teaching them
about practical skills like how to work all the menus in [some modeling tool],
and how to generate report templates for MS Word.

Software is so new that we've barely exceeded a single human lifespan (hardly
enough time for information to get lost is it?), but how many times have you
seen companies with a code base that was written by some greybeard in the
80's, which is critical to the success of the company but nobody understands?
When the company realised that, did they try to address the root of the
problem, or did they decide to keep piling shit on top of what they already
had?

It may be that software itself is the problem. Software allows you to snapshot
your current problem solving capacity and continue delivering it long after
the problem solvers themselves are gone. Maybe if we're lucky, the current
generation of AI researchers will get us to something that approaches human
level intelligence before these problems become intractable.

------
yodsanklai
Unfortunately, I believe ecological collapse and resources depletion in the
next few decades will hinder technological progress.

~~~
lelima
I think the ecological collapse will be avoided, I take as example South
Africa and the water crisis [1]. They predict the day 0 (out of water). As the
day get closer, everyone started to ratiocinate the water, everybody realized
that the problem was just ahead of them that the entire community helped and
"the day 0" was moved several times.

It seems to me, but I might be wrong that we are procrastinating with global
warming till the issue is really close, then the hair of everyone will stand
and the entire population will help.

[1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/04/back-from-
the-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/04/back-from-the-brink-
how-cape-town-cracked-its-water-crisis)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
The trouble is if we reach a tipping point where warming causes big releases
of methane then there is nothing we can do. We will be carried along for the
ride at that point.

------
somezero
Absolutely.

Either Horizontally if we all die or Vertically, given enough time if you
zoom-out enough.

------
d--b
There is no limit to complexity.

There are still many many mysteries to solve about life, intelligence, and
more generally about complex chemical processes.

Energy efficiency has a limit that we are very far from reaching (how to
harvest all of the sun energy productively? without ruining life?)

Human systems: how to reduce waste, make transit faster, make people happier,
avoid violence, etc.

I can't think of it all, but no we will not run out of things to
discover/invent.

~~~
GrumpyNl
We are humans, as soon as we understand how something works, we think we can
modify to make it better. So we will always be busy.

------
holografix
Not at all. I believe (although have nothing but “feelings“ to back up my
opinion) that the age of grand discoveries made by a single individual which
uncovers some fundamental law of nature is over.

Transformative technologies of the kind that can impact all of humankind will
most likely be done by a team of very high IQ individuals backed by a mega-
corp or a state, most likely coming out of China or the US.

In the next 100 years ML algorithms and the underlying hardware will improve
to a point where it’ll maintain context across a longer timeframe than humans
are able to and will not only process large data volumes at random to stumble
on something that works but it’ll use previously available knowledge across 50
years+ in order not to waste time in useless research directions.

Much like every other major technology I don’t believe these algorithms will
exist in isolation and the tech will surface a multiple geographical places on
earth.

These ML algorithms will work hand in hand with humanity to create the next
transformative technologies and uncover the next set of fundamental laws of
nature.

~~~
xenocratus
Just as much backed only by feelings:

I think progress will be brought by teams, but not necessarily made up of
"very high IQ individuals". I think incremental progress and community-driven
improvements to technology will gradually take us to a new level of
integration with the world and with each other.

At the same time I think we can't imagine too well how this will look like,
much like how the sci-fi predictions about the world today were only
tangentially correct.

------
ChrisGranger
Imagine the quality of simulated worlds a hundred years from now. Even if we
_do_ hit the limits of physics in physical reality I think _virtual_ reality
could be limited only by our imaginations.

~~~
jacquesm
By that standard science fiction should qualify as science. It doesn't.
Simulated worlds physical reality is about as relevant as what your average
70's sci-fi writer could cook up. As long as those ideas are feasible (say:
communications satellites) we may end up with some progress but only where it
connects to the real world.

------
mmphosis
Why limit technology to physics, or the _limits of physics_? There are so many
other areas, and perhaps undiscovered areas, of study. If history is any
indication, technology can be lost.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse)
Difficult to predict the future, but I am optimistic.

------
atupis
There is strong case that innovation peaked 50s and has been slowing down
since [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601199/tech-slowdown-
thre...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601199/tech-slowdown-threatens-
the-american-dream/) .

------
njepa
I wouldn't really see it like that. The limits of physics are with us every
day. That is why cars are impractical at speed and why there is latency to
other continents. For all the development in technology, it is mostly the same
since the 80s. "Just" more of it.

------
davidivadavid
There's always a frontier: the frontier between what we have and what we want.
Until humans run out of desires, or satisfy them fully, there will be
technological progress. The pace of that progress, however, is very hard to
measure or predict.

------
em-bee
there are a few holy grails that we have yet to achieve:

unlimited energy, and a pollution free environment. the latter means not only
renewable energy but the elimination of most forms of plastic and other
pollutants. given how much plastic we use now, that is a major undertaking.

i also believe that with more and more automation, humanity will be able to
free up resources to put into education, and there is no end to imagine what a
society full of highly educated people can possibly achieve.

------
olau
Not at all. Read a biology book, or a book on fundamental physics. We really
don't understand much about the world yet.

------
dzdt
Eventually, though if things go well more than 100 years. You mention physics,
which is one important limitation, but there are others.

The global human population is limited and will likely peak and begin to
decline within 100 years. [1] Many technologies are limited by the size of the
supply chain required to produce them and the scale of factory required to
make the technology cost-effective.

For an economy the size of a village, you are never going to have a self-
sustaining technology level much higher than a blacksmith shop. Why? Because
higher technology requires higher level inputs -- precision parts, refined
materials, components that are produced in high tech factories.

The economy is like a pyramid, with the highest technology outputs being the
few top layers at the top. Each higher tech layer depends on larger layers
below -- the different components and feedstocks and tools required in
production of that technology. The overall size of the economy limits the
sustainable height of the pyramid.

Currently the economic/technology pyramid size is growing, driven by growth of
human population and globalization of the economy. There are also efficieny
effects where higher technology decreases the labor required for the lower
layers of the pyramid.

When human population peaks and the economy is fully globalized, continued
growth of the economic/technology pyramid will be limited to efficiency gains.

My feeling is population will have peaked but globalization will still be
ongoing 100 years from now.

It is harder to forecast the limit of efficiency gains -- when robots are
smart enough to generally do any work that humans can, what will be the
efficiency limits on such robots? I don't expect that to be all played out in
100 years.

The big wildcard is if we extinct ourselves or otherwise cause a huge setback.
Biotech is close to the level where engineering an extinction virus is a
possible by a lone individual with access to the right lab. Can we survive the
technological ability of genocide viruses becoming widespread?

[1]
[https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/lutz_et_al_2018_d...](https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/lutz_et_al_2018_demographic_and_human_capital.pdf)

------
jfitzpa22
If Thanos is real, then we're all f __*ed anyway.

