Will Progress Stagnate 3

[haggis]

Discoveries, Inventions, Improvement and Progress have been on an acceleration curve over the span of a hundred years or so which is quite staggering.

Part of the Rice Stadium Moon Speech by JFK in 1962 brought this home to me then and although man has made further progress in many areas in the 43 years since, will the curve keep going at the same rate, level out, or will we stagnate. What will some of us see in our lifetimes that as of now we can't imagine.

Oh yes, the speech.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them.
Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

Let's here from all those active imaginations.

Haggis

 

[JAE]

Given peace, given freedom, given economic stability, I would think we would not stagnate in the future but continue to learn more and invent more than before.

However, with more tyranny and more terror in the world, things could go downhill to a point where the progress of building knowledge on the shoulders of giants would slow or stop.

Having said that, a lot of fantastic things were discovered during world wars, etc. But most of the brilliant minds and great inventions seem to have occurred under free societies.

 

[GregLocock]

Hmm, how about "engineering happens in wars, science happens in peacetime"?

Have you read Guns Germs and Steel?


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[TheTick]

However, with more tyranny and more terror in the world, things could go downhill to a point where the progress of building knowledge on the shoulders of giants would slow or stop.

Yep. Just like what happened in World War 2.

The only real impedement to progress is religion.

 

[GregLocock]

....and stupidity

Was my first thought, but what about China? For centuries their civilisation essentially stagnated, technologically, more or less on amandate from the existing power structure.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[plasgears]

The terrorists will do their dirty deeds until they have done their worst, then watch out. The flood gates will open, and the terrorists will say "We should not have started this!" The Inquisition of 1500 will seem tame in comparison. (The Inquisition involved not only the jews of Spain but also the moslems.)

Technical progress will continue even though there are challenges mounting around us.

 

[friartuck]

Super computers, a cure for all illnesses, time travel,the complete unravelling of the DNA helix, everlasting life........

Some of these you might consider progress, some a curse.

I recall a film a long time ago where men were excavating an ancient ruin and came across items that hadn't yet been invented.

Perhaps we are just in a continuous cycle and long ago we have already achieved these goals........ but war or some disaster destroyed it all......

Sorry for being so cheerful.

Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[JAE]

TheTick - I guess I'd suggest that there are counter views to your take on religion. Much of "western" scientific gains came about by Christians who held a world view that this universe made sense (i.e. was rational) because there was a diety who created it. Think about Newton, etc. and you have to admit that not ALL religion "gets in the way" of scientific progress.

Now I would admit that there are those in all religions, and those who hold no religion, that do at times get in the way of scientific progress. But to suggest that religion is the crux of whether there's progress or not - I guess I just don't see it in history.

Please don't take this as some assertion as to the truth or falsehood of any religion specifically...just the point that you made that religion was the strawman against all gains by humans.

 

[GregLocock]

Well JAE, what other causes of the systematic suppression of scientific advancement are there? I can think of two - some oligarchies (eg Stalin's effect on russian genetics, Chinese abandonment of sailing ships and general stagnation from 600-1500) and religions. Can you think of any others?


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[TheTick]

Do not confuse Newton's or Einstein's or Galileo's spirituality with religion. Religion is a power structure, not terribly unlike the other secular power structures mentioned by GregLocock.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. I am only trying to objectively discuss the historic role of religious organizations as a hinderance to "progress".

Progress? What progress? Ordinary people are still capable of extraordinary evil. We just have cooler toys now.

Let peace prevail.

 

[JAE]

I'm not confusing spirituality with religion.

What I said was that many of the great gains in our world knowledge came as a result of a worldview that knew that there was a diety and that the universe made sense.

Einstein et al may not have prayed everyday or lit candles or rubbed the belly of their favorite animal every morning at 9:12 am, but they all shared the view that a rational god created a rational world.

The Renaissance was indeed an explosive awakening in many ways - and science was one of them. It wasn't until the 1800's that the German philosopher's slingblade separation of faith from reason occurred and left many today with no other reason to assume that the universe SHOULD make any sense...that we are all just a bunch of molecules reacting to their environment.

I agree with you that religious organizations can and do set cultural expectations, limitations, etc. on progress....but I don't agree that someones faith in a diety (and their resulting worldview) in and of itself is the root cause of that hinderence to progress.

 

[TheTick]

....but I don't agree that someones faith in a diety (and their resulting worldview) in and of itself is the root cause of that hinderence to progress.

I never meant to say that. What I am trying to say (not effectively, apparently) is that religious power structures, like reactionary governments, are historically documented as impediments to progress.

I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[IRstuff]

Any organization prefers the status quo to changes that might disrupt the power structure.

If that's agreed upon, then religious orgs are no different than any other org and there's no special reason to single them out.

TTFN

 

[TheTick]

Yes! Exactly what I meant! Thanks, IRstuff. Star for you.

Having gone to a Jesuit university, I am especially aware of the role of religion in impeding progress.

On the other hand, religious organizations can be important in the role of forcing us to provide answers to very important ethical questions. Always important to ask: "We can, but should we?"

As much as I love being part of a knowledge-expanding profession, I would trade it all for some true advances in peace and brotherhood. Let peace prevail.

 

[JAE]

....so it looks like we tend to agree here and have solved the problems of the world....well, sort of. Thanks IRstuff for the clarity and thanks TheTick for the great follow-up comments.

 

[MRM]

"As much as I love being part of a knowledge-expanding profession, I would trade it all for some true advances in peace and brotherhood."

I think it's possible to do both. Don't you?

 

[TheTick]

I think it's possible to do both. Don't you?

If history is any indication...sadly, no.

 

[UcfSE]

This thread makes me wonder if someone was asking this about 100 years ago when the US patent office closed because everything had already been invented. We may not see a clear path for where we're going or why but I do believe we have plenty of road left to travel.

Engineering for instance has way to many "guess and check" procedures and assumptions to make up for what we don't know for me to believe we can't some day do better. That would be the "if it ain't broke fix it anyway" attitude we need to make improvements rather than be complacent.

I'm reminded of a movie quote, "Good or evil, there never is one without the other." True advances for peace come from within us. So do true advances for evil. Either can be in the name of religion, government or just plain human strength or weakness.

 

[TheTick]

Good and evil, good and evil
They turn 'em loose and they turn into people

 

[flamby]

I do not think manless fighting machines of sci-fi are very improbable despite our religion and stupidity and bloody terrorists. Then one "illegal operation and may shutdown" kind of a bug may end us all. The future holds great promises and our best scientists are working on some great projects, I suppose.


Ciao.