Actual Progress

Over the last decade or so Peter Thiel has made a point of claiming that other than computer automation, technological progress has been at a standstill.  And he’s essentially correct.  From about 1900 to 1960 we went from horse power to nuclear power.

From 1960 to 2020 we went from nuclear power to wind power.  This is not technological progress.  It’s surrender.

And this is mostly a psychological problem we’re facing.  We haven’t hit any quantum barrier that forbids us from improving almost every aspect of our technology.  Even the make-believe problems we create have solutions that are neglected by the dim-witted “technologists” that preside over our decline.  A good example is the farce called recycling.  Currently we are all forced to dutifully separate “recyclables” in a separate pail from the rest of our trash as if this was a magical process that allowed these paper and plastic waste products to somehow become usable materials.

But in reality, the majority of this material is landfilled along with the non-recyclable garbage that we collect in the other pail.  And the reason is simple.  Crude oil is a cheaper and better raw material for making plastic than plastic scrap.  Maybe in the far future when petroleum runs out, our landfills will become plastic mines that we’ll tap for a feed stream in our manufacturing process.

Of course, another thing it’s good for is as fuel.  Paper and plastic are mostly hydrogen and carbon and as such they make incredibly good combustion fuels.  Buring these materials in a garbage incinerator associated with a turbine generator would be the most efficient use of these waste materials.  But, you know, Gaia.

But let’s assume that at some point in the next twenty years, first world people are going to get tired of being forced into third world squalor.  At that point I’m guessing that the first direction selected for energy production will be nuclear fission steam turbine generation plants.  Sure, maybe they’ll have to pay lip service to global warming pieties.  Maybe they’ll even build solar powered carbon sequestration projects to please Gaia.  But at some point, people will demand to have the amenities they’ve become accustomed to; reliable electrical distribution and convenient transportation.  In the long run what the source of that power will be is yet to be determined.  My theory is that geothermal energy will supplement and maybe replace nuclear in the long run.

One thing I’m not sure of is what will be the fuel for transportation.  Many people have said that hydrogen is too hazardous.  Maybe they’re right.  It does tend to go boom when trapped in an enclosure.  Well, it’s cheaper and easier to make than octane but with unlimited electrical energy from something like widespread nuclear or geothermal I don’t see a problem with an octane synthesizing plant.  Carbon dioxide and water are available in endless supply so all that’s needed is cheap power.  And there’s a lot to be said for a really well-built internal combustion engine car.

But this is all just getting back to where we were in 1960.  What will real technological progress look like?  Ironically, I think that there will be an emphasis on Gaia!

I think quality of life innovation will be the future.  Research into the detrimental effects of all the chemicals that we add to our foods and come in contact with our bodies will begin shaping the products our industries produce.

And likewise with containers.  Maybe bottles will start being made of glass and metal again.  Some of the older materials were safer and newer alloys and other materials can be tested and whatever the healthiest choices can be substituted for things that may be harming us.

So better living through chemistry may become something more than just an empty slogan.

With all the talk of AI I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the progress, we can expect from the ongoing computer automation revolution.  Eventually all automobiles will be subject to traffic control in densely crowded traffic.  Despite our strongest resistance, this will happen in many jurisdictions.  The nanny-state is just too strong in places like California and New York.  For many people this will be welcomed.  It will relieve them of the responsibility of driving.

Artificial intelligence will eventually make large scale industrial economic planning much more efficient.  Supply chain coordination for a whole network of companies producing a multitude of products will be optimized and trends and changes tracked and compensated for.  How this will effect capitalism remains to be seen.

Maybe the greatest use of AI will be in bioresearch and medicine.  The enormous complexity of living systems and the almost infinite number of chemicals that need to be tested for toxic and other detrimental effects cries out for the brute force that artificial intelligence can bring to bear on bioresearch and development.  I can see a future where the oncologist is a computer that scans the DNA of a cancer cell and chooses a custom antibody coded precisely to attach to and kill only the cancer cells and nothing else.

And the final area of progress is a sentimental one for me and one I’ll never see.  Mankind should send an unmanned probe to Proxima Centauri.  I guess HAL 9000 will be in charge of this mission.  It will require an enormous tank of water that will be used as rocket mass.  A fission reactor will be used to boil the water as a jet to provide acceleration.  Maybe it can get up to .3c and so the round trip will be something less than a century.  It can take readings and photos and see if there are any little green men there and come back and let us know.  Now that’s progress.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chemist
Chemist
2 years ago

“the first direction selected for energy production will be nuclear fission steam turbine generation plants. Sure, maybe they’ll have to pay lip service to global warming pieties. Maybe they’ll even build solar powered carbon sequestration projects to please Gaia.” See, this is what angers me. Nuclear power plants produce no CO2. Say it again: Nuclear power plants produce no CO2! None. Zero. Nadda. So if you really believe that CO2 is killing us (I don’t.) then build the hell out of nuclear power plants. You get clean, reliable energy that works when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow and… Read more »

Jess
Jess
2 years ago

Your post reminds me of a conversation I had with an operator of a cement kiln years ago. Knowing of the enormous amounts of worn tires, and how they are a great source of energy, he proposed using them to decrease the cost of natural gas in the process of turning clinker (raw cement) into cement. Of course, his idea was rejected, and from what I see, the tires pile up and are a nuisance problem. His idea was good, the gas emissions could have been scrubbed, and the tires would have served a dual purpose. Somewhere in the future,… Read more »