The Curies discovered radiation before 1900 and H.G. Wells was already writing fiction about atomic bombs before 1915, so by your standard no major tech milestone actually happened during the 1940s
It’s so silly, all the obvious massive advances don’t count because the primary science breakthroughs were from 30yrs ago, but then todays primary science breakthroughs don’t count cuz they don’t have 30yrs to commercialize
More, we could say that no technology has advanced since our ancestors first learned to use sticks to crack open animal bones so they could suck out the marrow.
If you brought up mRNA vaccines to someone like you in 1995, you’d have no idea what they were talking about.
Likewise, you have no idea about all of the discoveries made in the last 5 years.
The fallacy is that you’re only aware of the discoveries that have benefited from 30 years of development
You're just outlining how long it can take for basic research breakthroughs to see exploitation via technological progress. What if I suggested that there are newer basic research breakthroughs that are still in that pipeline?
By your argument, space travel was invented by Jules Verne, computers were invented in the 1800s by Charles Babbage, and time travel has already been invented by HG Wells. In other words, there hasn’t been a technological advance in a century.
What? That's not my argument at all. I'm not stating that since writers literally "thought" up of a concept that appealed and sold to a mass audience, that they are the forefathers. I'm simply saying that the technology you mentioned has been around and has been built on over the years.
The science underlying those technologies was invented decades ago: so was physics and chemistry. But technological innovation isn’t about basic science: it’s about combining scientific knowledge from different fields into products of utility. Consider the iPhone.
The iPhone, which was based on earlier cell phones, was Jobs's masterpiece. Jobs was a master at combining existing parts and technologies. The technology was already available; he simply put it all together. He took a cell phone, merged it with an iPad, and added a touchscreen.
Let's not go down the path where people start thinking that science is not important. Writers and poets are not scientists because they wrote books and science fiction adventures. 🥴
The argument is “technological innovation has not advanced in three decades”. Please introduce me to the person on earth who thinks that the iPhone is not a “technological innovation”.
Nobody is disregarding science. But let’s not confuse scientific breakthroughs with technological breakthroughs.
As I stated...The iPhone, which was based on earlier cell phones, was Jobs's masterpiece. Jobs was a master at combining existing parts and technologies. The technology was already available; he simply put it all together. He took a cell phone, merged it with an iPad, and added a touchscreen.
You’re simply confusing original research into specific scientific areas, with the technological innovation that combines various sciences into applied technologies. Technological innovation is a continuum of incremental advances with occasional startling breakthroughs like the iPhone.
Comments
2. Undertaken in 1990, completed in 2003.
3. Research dates back to the 1980s.
And we don’t know what’s in labs today.
So this entire discussion is based on assumptions that can’t be known until years from now.
By this logic medicine hasn't progressed since the germ theory.
Likewise, you have no idea about all of the discoveries made in the last 5 years.
The fallacy is that you’re only aware of the discoveries that have benefited from 30 years of development
Nobody is disregarding science. But let’s not confuse scientific breakthroughs with technological breakthroughs.