Exponential Technological Progress

[AWPrime]

From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55386

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Technology advances exponentially, so it will be a few centuries at most before the rate of change approaches infinity and we hit whatever physical limits the universe will impose on us.

That only applies when population and available energy is exponentially as well.

And currect trends are showing that this might not be the case.

 

[AWPrime]

This thread is about if Technology will always progress Exponentially.


My position is NO. It would require endless exponential growth of resources.

 

[drkitten]

My position is NO. It would require endless exponential growth of resources.

Not necessarily, if resources are fungible. For example, "energy" is a largely fungible resource -- when we started to run low on whale oil, we switched to kerosene, then to gasoline, and may in the future switch to hydrogen, or unobtanium, et cetera. Since many resources are the result of technology, as long as the resource-creating technologies can keep pace with the resource-consuming ones, it's not really an issue.

Of course, your question admits of a silly naive answer of "of course not, NOTHING can persist forever." But any particular hard limitation you would like to suggest can probably be overcome by other technologies.

 

[phildonnia]

You seem to be confusing "technology" with "technological artifacts." It is true, the number of giant plasma screens cannot increase exponentially. But "technology" is nothing more than knowledge, which doesn't follow the same laws as matter.

I found this one day, which is pretty fascinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point
Frank Tipler apparently discovered that, with certain assumptions, it is possible to model infinite "computational power" in a finite universe.

 

[AWPrime]

Not necessarily, if resources are fungible. For example, "energy" is a largely fungible resource -- when we started to run low on whale oil, we switched to kerosene, then to gasoline, and may in the future switch to hydrogen, or unobtanium, et cetera. Since many resources are the result of technology, as long as the resource-creating technologies can keep pace with the resource-consuming ones, it's not really an issue.

The replacements might not give the same rate of energyproduction.

 

[pgwenthold]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Technology advances exponentially, so it will be a few centuries at most before the rate of change approaches infinity and we hit whatever physical limits the universe will impose on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Infinity does not exist. The rate of change will never approach infinity. No matter how high it goes, the rate of change will always infinitely slower than infinity.

 

[AWPrime]

But "technology" is nothing more than knowledge, which doesn't follow the same laws as matter.

I was taking about knowledge. And it is bound by physical limits:

- Research requires resources.
- Education requires resources.
- As knowledge increases also the number of specialists will need to increase as well.


Another thing that is assumed is that civilization will remain stable enough to support all the knowledge.

 

[drkitten]

The replacements might not give the same rate of energyproduction.

Doesn't matter if we have technological methods for compensating for the differences.

There's more energy density per liter in gasoline then there is in alcohol -- so one simply burns more liters of alcohol.

 

[drkitten]

- Research requires resources.
- Education requires resources.

Of course, technology makes it possible to do both with fewer resources (or alternatively makes resources more widely available). I can, for example, do research anywhere I have an internet connection; I need no longer locate myself near a world-class library.

I can use modern production techniques to purchase and acquire equipment much more cheaply than I could have even ten years ago.

As I said, as long as the resource production technology stays ahead of the resource consumption technology, it's not a problem.

 

[AWPrime]

Doesn't matter if we have technological methods for compensating for the differences.

IF

There's more energy density per liter in gasoline then there is in alcohol -- so one simply burns more liters of alcohol.

And what if you can't produce enough alcohol? (physical limits)

 

[drkitten]

And what if you can't produce enough alcohol? (physical limits)

The same thing that happened when we couldn't produce enough whale oil.

We produce something else instead.

"As long as the resource-creating technologies can keep pace with the resource-consuming ones, it's not really an issue."

 

[AWPrime]

The same thing that happened when we couldn't produce enough whale oil.

We produce something else instead.

"As long as the resource-creating technologies can keep pace with the resource-consuming ones, it's not really an issue."

There are physical limits into producing energy, it has to come from somewhere. And not all forms of energyproduction may be easy/efficient to use.

 

[Rolfe]

Is it possible, practically speaking, to distinguish the first part of an exponential increase from the first part of a sigmoid curve? Or even a bell curve, if one were being a pessimist?

I ask because there has also been talk about exponential growth in population, but when you look at populations you can study under controlled conditions (bacterial cultures) you find that although the growth curve starts off like that, as it progresses it becomes clear that in an open system, where nutrients can come in from outside, it's a sigmoid curve, while in an open system with finite resources it's a bell curve, as the colony runs out of nutrients.

I always thought that the trick with the Earth was to make sure that one never exceeded the energy input from the sun, and so achieved the sigmoid curve, rather than running out of resources and finishing up with the bell curve.

I'm not saying that a real exponential increase in something abstract like "technology" is impossible, but if you're actually observing the early part of a curve like that, could it not just as well be a sigmoid curve?

Rolfe.

 

[drkitten]

There are physical limits into producing energy, it has to come from somewhere. And not all forms of energyproduction may be easy/efficient to use.

These are technological issues and can be overcome technologically.

How many times need I repeat myself? "As long as the resource-creating technologies can keep pace with the resource-consuming ones, it's not really an issue."

You are assuming a continual increase in the demands placed upon resources by increased technology, but at the same time assuming that the technology used to create resources is not increasing. You don't get it both ways, sir.

There's a famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich regarding this. Ehrlich, a famous population theorist, predicted a resource crunch as human demand grew. Simon predicted, instead, that the availability of resources would grow as demand grew. You can read a fuller description on this Web page, but the capsule summary is that Ehrlich named five strategic metals (copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten) in 1980 that he expected would be seeing shortages through resource depletion.

In 1990, all five had actually fallen in price (in constant 1980 dollars). In fact, even taking inflation into account, the total cost of the metals was lower in 1990 dollars than in 1980 dollars. If you look at the track record of human history, we are getting better, not worse, at finding materials or making better use of substitutes, whether the substitutes are fuel, metals, food, energy, et cetera.

 

[drkitten]

I always thought that the trick with the Earth was to make sure that one never exceeded the energy input from the sun, and so achieved the sigmoid curve, rather than running out of resources and finishing up with the bell curve.

Only if you assume that we will always be dependent upon the sun for our energy supply. At this point in our technological progress, this may seem a reasonable assumption. If it ever gets to the point where we are likely to exceed the energy input from the sun, I expect a large investment in technology to figure out a way to extract energy from non-solar sources.

 

[Rolfe]

Only if you assume that we will always be dependent upon the sun for our energy supply. At this point in our technological progress, this may seem a reasonable assumption. If it ever gets to the point where we are likely to exceed the energy input from the sun, I expect a large investment in technology to figure out a way to extract energy from non-solar sources.

Well, I nearly said "or nuclear sources", but then I remembered that my school teacher included these as "from the sun" because the matter that the Earth consists of originally came from the sun in the first place.

If you look at it that way, then you have to postulate interstellar travel to move outside that, in which case you just substitute the energy of the universe. If you have a sufficiently large Winchester, your bacterial culture can go quite a way before the sigmoid or bell-curve end-ponts start to show.

Rolfe.

 

[drkitten]

Well, I nearly said "or nuclear sources", but then I remembered that my school teacher included these as "from the sun" because the matter that the Earth consists of originally came from the sun in the first place.

I believe current scientific thinking is that your school teacher was wrong (conservation of angular momentum or something -- 99% of the mass of the solar system is in the Sun, but 99% of the angular momentum is in the planets, and that Just Ain't Right.)

If you look at it that way, then you have to postulate interstellar travel to move outside that, in which case you just substitute the energy of the universe.

... unless we can find some extra-universal source of energy, such as being able to tap into quantum fluctuations on the other side of the Trousers of Time.

That's the problem with technological predictions, especially about the distant future. If history is any guide to go on (and I think it's the only guide we have), I feel confident stating that technology 100 years from now will include both things we currently consider to be impossible as well as things no one alive today has yet considered at all. For this reason, I feel very, very confident in rejecting any one particular projection of "this kind of thing cannot be done."

AWPrime quotes Clarke's Third Law in his signature.

I would like to quote his First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

 

[AWPrime]

These are technological issues and can be overcome technologically.

There are limits like you can at best only get 100% efficieancy, no more.

No amount of technology is going to change the laws of physics.

You are assuming a continual increase in the demands placed upon resources by increased technology, but at the same time assuming that the technology used to create resources is not increasing. You don't get it both ways, sir.

Buzzzzz, Wrong.

I am stating that increase of demand is growing faster then the resource tech.

 

[drkitten]

I am stating that increase of demand is growing faster then the resource tech.

And I'm not letting you.

Because it's false, has been false for most of human history, and will almost certainly continue to be false for a very long time to come.

 

[AWPrime]

Care to back it up?