Innovation Getting Slower?

Daniel Dvorkin writes "A New Scientist article details the claims of Jonathan Huebner, a Naval Air Warfare Center physicist, that the rate of technological innovation is actually decreasing, not increasing exponentially as some people believe. Huebner says that there are now fewer 'important technological developments per billion people' than at any time since the 17th century! I'm far from convinced, but it's an interesting and thought-provoking article." From the article: "He says the rate of technological innovation reached a peak a century ago and has been declining ever since. And like the lookout on the Titanic who spotted the fateful iceberg, Huebner sees the end of innovation looming dead ahead."

Comments

Bush Logic

[Dial-Up]

That's a silly way of measuring innovation. By that logic, if we killed off half of the world, this would be the most innovative year ever. I like to call that Bush logic.

Re:Slashdot

[bryan8m]

Yeah, and most other Americans are too busy checking their email to invent something.

innovation

[HSBXAZTHHO]

innovation stopped with the first apple.

Re:$16 billion spent on Erectile Dysfunction resea

[An Onerous Coward]

I would suggest a solution: A much more equal distribution of wealth.

Why is a recreational problem like erectile dysfunction receiving about as much attention as AIDS, and way more attention than malaria? Because in Africa, where these two problems are wreaking havoc and killing millions every year, the potential customers for these drugs are too poor to pay for them. If they had the money to buy them, our drug companies would make these two diseases their single biggest priority.

As it is, if Grandpa Bud in the U.S.A. is willing to shell out a few hundred dollars a year to please the missus, his money is worth as much to the drug companies as an African farmer who would give everything he has to buy a cure for AIDS.

I'm not saying that it would be right or useful to simply take from the rich and give to the poor until everyone was equal. What I am saying is that, within a purely capitalist society, economic resources aren't going to be directed towards the problems of those who cannot afford to pay for a solution.