It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What held us back, technologically, for so long??

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I think you're confusing lack of invention (of which any new gadget is a new invention) with lack of major paradigm shifting technology, of which even then I would say in the first world at the very least is wrong, with the major explosion of cheap electronics that started in the 80s.

Doing new things is always good, but doing things that had been difficult in the past to the point of common place is also a sign of progress and advancement. I mean you talk about how people always had communications networks of some sort, true, but there is a big difference between postal mail and me writing this post on the board.

How about sailing, in your view would seem to suggest that nothing new occurred from the first guy making a wooden row boat to today with triple hull bulk freighters, because they're the same conceptual thing a vessel moving people or cargo on the water.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Koffee
 


In the spirit of " a single word, to the wise, is suffient" I am of the opinion that the initial inventions were more impresive and revolutionary than the upgrades.

Isn't having a television or phone, as opposede to no TV or phone at all, a bigger change than a faster or easier television or phone?

Everything in your house was in a house of the 1920's except for the microwave, (WW2 technology), satellite tv (mostly ww2 technology) and a personal computer (also mostly WW2 technology).

In the 1920's a household had
a car
a radio
a refrigerator
electric appliances
air conditioning
electric lighting
a phone

Steel hulled thermodynamicly engined ships are essentially the same as 100 years ago.

The definition of invention could include all of the style differences new products display from year to year.

Every invention since WW2 (and there havn't been as many) has been made to put ideas into your head or allow everybody else to know what you are thinking. Kind of like all of the inventions since WW2 have been about connecting your brain to the collective. Sort of like one invention has happened since WW2.

The expansion of the telephone.


edit on 24-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You're dodging the point the capabilities of everything you listed have become thousand times more effective and useful, collectively each of those advancements have progressed society and civilization ahead. One example of where your argument falls flat where you.


Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Koffee
 


Isn't having a television or phone, as opposede to no TV or phone at all, a bigger change than a faster or easier television or phone?

edit on 24-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


Is that the degree to where having a phone or computer and its ability to get you information like a newspaper ease of use and as well as the new ability to use it to say post at Above Top Secret to talk to people from across the world, is about as a big as a change as having the first phone in which you were heavily limited or the first computer running in a corporate building somewhere because its the size of a room. Or in other words the devices are not only better at doing their original function they often have other myraid functions that make life easier in theory attached to them.

Plus I disagree with your contention that all inventions since WW are about putting your brain to the collective, where does the pacemaker, DNA or the myriad advances in in medical field and genetic engineering, particle smashers fit into that matrix?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Technology wasn't held back for so long. The problem in previous centuries was the lack of capitalism. When capitalism came into being, the greatest progress in human history unfolded. Primarily made possible by the federal reserve system/stock market. This allowed mega investment into HUGE ideas to become possible through selling shares to raise capital, capital that never would have been possible to raise under any other system.

For example, Apple and Google could have never existed as they are today without capitalism.
edit on 24-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Koffee
 


You are judging invention by a change in functionality, I am judging invention by whether the functionality exisits at all.

You are saying faster planes are just as big an invention as the plane itself.

The last new idea was Plate Techtonics in 1964. Everything else has been a fleshing out, or derivative of an idea or invention thought of before WW2



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
RELIGION

and she is continue to holding us back ...


I would not say it. Religion is just a way human express their wish of dominating other fellows. I did live in communism for my childhood, religion was out of the question (Eastern Europe) yet we were 20-230 years technologically behind the rest of Europe..



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Koffee
 


You are judging invention by a change in functionality, I am judging invention by whether the functionality exisits at all.

You are saying faster planes are just as big an invention as the plane itself.

The last new idea was Plate Techtonics in 1964. Everything else has been a fleshing out, or derivative of an idea or invention thought of before WW2


The only change the Wright's Brother first airplane did was give proof of concept, if there had been no change in functionality there be no air travel and it be treated as a dead end, improvement on the functionality to make it useful changed society. So yes giant changes in funcionality can matter more then the invention itself.

Nanotechnology is a newer idea that when it reaches maturity will probably have some big impacts on life as another newer idea.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Koffee
 


Changes in functinality do make a big difference in the way life is conducted. But 0 to the google-plex is still zero.

No flight to heavier than air flight is a much bigger change, a quantum jump. The improvements were rationalizations in comparison.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Greed, arrogance, stupidity, a huge sense of self-entitlement (all implicitly expressed thru religion btw) and we crap where we eat!
What more do you need?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Our hesitation to advance is and has always been fear based. We fear the spaghetti monster, we fear transition. That fear is generally religious based. This is not knocking religion precisely. What i am knocking is the fear of interpretation of doctrine. Some things are open to interpretation. When you are talking about a nearly 2,000 year old document...the ability to interpret it's intent has changed drastically. You cannot apply a 2,000 year old document to these times without application of interpretation....it is a must....it was done then and it needs to be done now. The current values and views must be incorporated or you are on a short ride back to the Dark Ages. We cannot allow this to happen.

People...everywhere...fear change. This is a sad but true human situation. We are afraid if we broaden our understanding something will be lost....I disagree but this is still a real issue.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damrod
Our hesitation to advance is and has always been fear based. We fear the spaghetti monster, we fear transition. That fear is generally religious based.


I watch a lot of science channel and it seems to be the norm is to show how the next apocalypse is going to happen using science and scientists. Maybe science is also a religion?
edit on 25-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Koffee
 


Changes in functinality do make a big difference in the way life is conducted. But 0 to the google-plex is still zero.

No flight to heavier than air flight is a much bigger change, a quantum jump. The improvements were rationalizations in comparison.


No flight to less then a minute of flight is ground breaking, but getting it to actually be a viable means of transportation is almost as a ground breaking. Just because you something is created doesn't mean that its effective enough to challenge society at the moment of creation, sometimes it does though.

Though I think at this point we pretty much made our arguments clear to each other without changing each other mind so I'll let you have the last word if you want.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
There are two things that holds back technology and science the most: religion, and fear of change.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Sure because some of the greatest scientists weren't spiritual right? Their undying devotion to find the mind and hand of God was never a motivating factor to some of the greatest scientists right?

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein

"Strange is our situation here upon this earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose." - Albert Einstein

"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - Albert Einstein

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."


Next time please keep the ignorance to yourself. If you don't have a clue what you speak of don't speak.
edit on 26-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by Damrod
Our hesitation to advance is and has always been fear based. We fear the spaghetti monster, we fear transition. That fear is generally religious based.


I watch a lot of science channel and it seems to be the norm is to show how the next apocalypse is going to happen using science and scientists. Maybe science is also a religion?
edit on 25-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


To quote from a great movie from the late 80's or early 90's ("Frankenstein Unbound"). When "Mary Shelly" asked Dr. Buchanan (from the future) what religion he believed in and he said he didn't have a religion, he believed in science and Mary said "Then you must live with madness....the madness of infinite possibility".

It is a great movie and a thought invoker. Kinda cheesy by today's standards but a fantastic story. I still recommend it to people all the time...it is a "thinking man's" horror movie.

I use the line "madness of infinite possibility" to describe myself all the time. For it's true...because I recognize the achievements of science and I also think there is a great and powerful mind behind the Universe and the "science" we discover. Is it the stuff we are told in Sunday school?...probably not even close....but I think it is out there...and one day I would like to get the opportunity to speak to it.




top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join