The New Industrial Revolution: Are we actually ready for this?

nimbleharbor10 said:Sweden essentially operates on a universal basic income model. If someone finds themselves without a job, the state provides housing, food, healthcare, and enough cash to maintain a decent standard of living. Without those safety nets in place, you'd be seeing blood in the streets.

I already laid it out for you: automation is only implemented if it results in actual cost savings.
To put it simply, if today's economy pays out a billion dollars in wages, and then half those jobs are automated, that automated 50% isn't going to command more than that initial billion—it'll actually cost less, say 750 million. Furthermore, there's a high probability that a significant chunk of those savings will leak out of the country to some other advanced economy that sells the robots.

If the workforce was pulling in a billion before, and now they're only pulling in 750 million after automation kicks in, please explain to me how they are supposed to pay for those imaginary services that are meant to replace the automated roles?

I am telling you plainly: automation presents massive social challenges.

Amanda Diaz said:😁

Do you realize you're basically tripping over your own feet with that response? You're suggesting we should have trained workers *before* the technology even existed...

Jack Johnson6 said:If science actually moved as fast as people claim, access to food, transport, housing, heating, healthcare, and education would be significantly broader than it used to be. In developed nations, that isn't the case. The average American, German, or Japanese citizen had access to most of those things at a similar or even better level thirty years ago. They just didn't have smartphones, Facebook, or free adult content back then.

China simply joined the industrial age; it's entirely possible some countries will eventually move away from it.

wiredmarlin43 said:David Baker2, that all sounds great on paper—but let's be real, most folks around here don't have the startup cash to pull something like that off.

northernsailor8 said:Why? I am specifically talking about training staff after the technology is rolled out. It just seems like people in America still think "lifelong learning and upskilling" is some concept from a sci-fi movie. I guess the ability to learn doesn't just vanish once someone turns 25, believe it or not.

I wonder where you actually live. Globally, access to everything you mentioned is constantly increasing. Nowadays, you have gas pipelines reaching even smaller towns, subsidies for home energy production (like solar panels or biofuels), car loans available within a week, and a massive selection of vehicles ranging from EVs to hybrids. We have high-speed rail, jets departing every five minutes, the highest percentage of highly educated people in history, and college—or community college—is essentially free. We see high survival rates for various cancers, organ transplants, and prosthetic manufacturing. We have tools like the MRI that perform diagnostic work more precisely than ten doctors could. It has been decades since any major epidemic, and even AIDS has been largely contained.

Standard of living and quality of life according to the University of Alabama metrics are at an all-time high; statistically speaking, things have never been better, whether looking at individual nations or the world as a whole.

If you happen to be a nostalgic old man terrified of the modern era, well, that’s your problem. 😁

northernsailor8 said:Why? I am specifically talking about training staff after the technology is rolled out. It just seems like people in America still think "lifelong learning and upskilling" is some concept from a sci-fi movie. I guess the ability to learn doesn't just vanish once someone turns 25, believe it or not.

I wonder where you actually live. Globally, access to everything you mentioned is constantly increasing. Nowadays, you have gas pipelines reaching even smaller towns, subsidies for home energy production (like solar panels or biofuels), car loans available within a week, and a massive selection of vehicles ranging from EVs to hybrids. We have high-speed rail, jets departing every five minutes, the highest percentage of highly educated people in history, and college—or community college—is essentially free. We see high survival rates for various cancers, organ transplants, and prosthetic manufacturing. We have tools like the MRI that perform diagnostic work more precisely than ten doctors could. It has been decades since any major epidemic, and even AIDS has been largely contained.

Standard of living and quality of life according to the University of Alabama metrics are at an all-time high; statistically speaking, things have never been better, whether looking at individual nations or the world as a whole.

If you happen to be a nostalgic old man terrified of the modern era, well, that’s your problem. 😁

Amanda Diaz said:Go ahead, throw in a mention of the local gamblers or the guys living off their savings, and you’ve checked every single box for the modern American "wannabe yuppie" cliché...

Try reading the thread and the replies one more time. Maybe then you'll actually get it.

Jack Johnson6 said:You're arguing with ghosts.

Sure, the developed world's standard of living is becoming more accessible. But technology isn't making massive leaps; we're just scaling existing tech, and 90% of that expansion is just China catching up.

The developed world already had everything listed above, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then. Medical progress is enough to manage lifestyle diseases for now, but how you live still matters more than any medical gadget.

Epidemics? Look at the obesity and infertility epidemics. They aren't even limited to humans, so it’s not just about diet. The toxins produced by industrial civilization are turning us into sterile little balls of salt.

No, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. Some people mistake technological progress for being able to watch x times more clips on YouTube than five years ago. Real progress would be if food were ten times cheaper than it was 30 years ago. If building a house with water, sewage, and electricity were ten times cheaper. If transport were significantly faster and cheaper. If healthcare were vastly more affordable and accessible. And all of that without destroying the Planet like current tech does.

Industrial civilization gave us temporary comfort, and the price might be the destruction of the Planet.

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

quietowl152 said:There’s actually a company here in the States already working on this. Right now, they're printing magazine bodies and trying to nail the receiver for an AR-15. The receiver is the part that takes all the stress, so once they reinforce that, the rest is basically child's play. Currently, their big challenge is seeing if they can fire a few hundred rounds through a printed receiver before it cracks under pressure. But soon enough, whole firearms will be coming off printers. It’s just a matter of time. Once that happens, gun control laws everywhere in the world will become nothing more than a memory.

Amanda Diaz said:Are we even preparing for the future? And honestly, what can a country with an economy the size of America's mid-sized states actually do about it? Invent a 3D printer? No chance—it’s already done. Throw a few billion dollars at improving existing tech? Forget it, because some global superpower will just dump tens of billions into the exact same thing tomorrow.

So, how exactly is this "preparation" supposed to work? I'd love to know, just so I can actually get ready...

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

Jack Johnson6 said:You’re being exhausting.🤣

Did you miss the word 'dramatically'?

The point is that technology is seeing Exponential growth—we've essentially advanced as much in the last decade as we did in the previous thousand years combined. If that's true, why can't we maintain the standard of living people in developed countries enjoyed 20 or 30 years ago using only a fraction of our working hours?

Don't give me the smartphone and internet argument again. Their impact on the quality of our nutrition, housing, transportation, and health—mental included—has been either negligible or outright negative.

Sure, if you say so. 🙄

Technology has progressed; whether it's by 20, 30, or 40 percent is secondary. What matters is whether it makes human life easier and better—that's the only metric that counts. It's not about how much faster a processor gets, especially since that growth isn't truly vertical, remains tethered to fossil fuels, and poses a direct threat to our environment.

The Planet will survive, but whether we do is a different question altogether. And that's the one that actually matters to us.

Don't start with the mobile phones and the internet again. Their impact on our diet, housing, transportation, and health—including mental health—is either negligible or negative.

Technology has advanced, but whether it's by 20, 30, or 40% isn't what matters. What matters is how much it eases and improves human life—that's the only metric that counts. It isn't about how much processor speed has increased; that doesn't grow leaps and bounds, and it's still dependent on fossil fuels, making this continued progress a direct threat to the human environment.

Harold Martin10 said:This whole conversation about the social programs in Sweden—honestly, if we were looking at how things work here in the States, it would actually make sense to:
Actually, Sweden’s unemployment rate is sitting at 30%, not 7%—can you believe that?
Imagine if we didn't have those highly advanced, fully automated nations—think places like Japan, Australia, or South Korea—where the social safety net isn't the main focus, yet you don't see unemployment or civil unrest and revolutions breaking out. Wouldn't that be something?

If that example I shared is tripping you up... here is how the gears actually turn. Let’s say, before automation, workers were bringing in $1 billion. After things get automated, they’re bringing in $750 million—but keep in mind, the product quality is higher and the total volume of production has jumped too. From that surplus, say $150 million gets funneled straight into R&D—which, in turn, means companies start hiring a whole new wave of highly skilled specialists. Then, maybe $100 million goes toward executive bonuses or luxury spending—and wouldn't that increased demand for luxury goods just open up even more jobs elsewhere? On top of all that, the actual cost of the product starts to drop. It’s a cycle, really.

People who find themselves laid off usually have a bit of a safety net provided by the state—it’s actually quite similar to how things work here in the States. You get unemployment benefits for a set period, and if you don't land a new role quickly, you eventually transition onto social assistance, which isn't exactly a fortune, but it keeps you afloat while you figure out your next move. Most people end up using that time to retrain or pick up new skills. It seems like moving between different types of service jobs is relatively seamless, especially when you consider how much the economic landscape has shifted over the last century. I mean, only about 30% of the workforce is tied up in agriculture or manufacturing these days, yet unemployment stays remarkably low despite all those massive structural changes, doesn't it?

hollowhawk412 made a pretty great point—he was saying that over in Germany, they’d probably have one guy dedicated just to unscrewing a lightbulb and another specific person just to screw it back in. And even then? They’d still be sitting there with incredibly low unemployment rates. It makes you wonder—if we were to go ahead and dismantle every bit of technology we actually have, would we even end up with unemployment again? It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

northernsailor8 said:Because capital has only been compounding rapidly since the seventies, and economics doesn't really follow exponential patterns. We are dealing with social sciences and society here; I suppose you can't just apply an analogy from any STEM field. There is very limited causality, even if the correlation seems high.

Don't start with the mobile phones and the internet again. Their impact on our diet, housing, transportation, and health—including mental health—is either negligible or negative.

That isn't true at all. Aside from adult content and entertainment, nutrition and health are among the most searched topics on the internet, which is overflowing with information and allows instant communication with experts. People also research cars, read user reviews, and buy real estate through search engines using specific categories and so on.

Access to information and communication is key to improving quality of life.

Technology has advanced, but whether it's by 20, 30, or 40% isn't what matters. What matters is how much it eases and improves human life—that's the only metric that counts. It isn't about how much processor speed has increased; that doesn't grow leaps and bounds, and it's still dependent on fossil fuels, making this continued progress a direct threat to the human environment.

We are still dependent on water, food, and heating, but that doesn't mean we haven't progressed technologically since prehistory. I guess you don't really understand what technology is. 🤣

By the way, processor speeds double every two years—meaning they grow exponentially. Moore's law.

northernsailor8 said:Because capital has only been compounding rapidly since the seventies, and economics doesn't really follow exponential patterns. We are dealing with social sciences and society here; I suppose you can't just apply an analogy from any STEM field. There is very limited causality, even if the correlation seems high.

Don't start with the mobile phones and the internet again. Their impact on our diet, housing, transportation, and health—including mental health—is either negligible or negative.

That isn't true at all. Aside from adult content and entertainment, nutrition and health are among the most searched topics on the internet, which is overflowing with information and allows instant communication with experts. People also research cars, read user reviews, and buy real estate through search engines using specific categories and so on.

Access to information and communication is key to improving quality of life.

Technology has advanced, but whether it's by 20, 30, or 40% isn't what matters. What matters is how much it eases and improves human life—that's the only metric that counts. It isn't about how much processor speed has increased; that doesn't grow leaps and bounds, and it's still dependent on fossil fuels, making this continued progress a direct threat to the human environment.

We are still dependent on water, food, and heating, but that doesn't mean we haven't progressed technologically since prehistory. I guess you don't really understand what technology is. 🤣

By the way, processor speeds double every two years—meaning they grow exponentially. Moore's law.

Jack Johnson6 said:Or maybe technological progress just isn't fast enough to make resource scarcity irrelevant.

The exploitation of fossil fuels completely revolutionized how we access food, water, heat, housing, transport, and medicine. That was a real revolution.

Faster processors didn't do that, and 3D printers certainly won't. This entire digital world relies on a functioning industrial civilization—which isn't a given, and while it operates, it's destroying the environment and putting the survival of our species at risk.

The exploitation of fossil fuels completely transformed how accessible food, water, heating, housing, transport, and healthcare became. It was truly a revolution.

Processor speeds haven't solved this, and 3D printers certainly won't. This entire digital world depends on a functioning industrial civilization, which is far from a guaranteed constant. As long as it operates, it fundamentally ravages the environment, potentially endangering the survival of the human race.

Jack Johnson6 said:You're arguing with ghosts.

Sure, the developed world's standard of living is becoming more accessible. But technology isn't making massive leaps; we're just scaling existing tech, and 90% of that expansion is just China catching up.

The developed world already had everything listed above, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then. Medical progress is enough to manage lifestyle diseases for now, but how you live still matters more than any medical gadget.

Epidemics? Look at the obesity and infertility epidemics. They aren't even limited to humans, so it’s not just about diet. The toxins produced by industrial civilization are turning us into sterile little balls of salt.

No, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. Some people mistake technological progress for being able to watch x times more clips on YouTube than five years ago. Real progress would be if food were ten times cheaper than it was 30 years ago. If building a house with water, sewage, and electricity were ten times cheaper. If transport were significantly faster and cheaper. If healthcare were vastly more affordable and accessible. And all of that without destroying the Planet like current tech does.

Industrial civilization gave us temporary comfort, and the price might be the destruction of the Planet.

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

Amanda Diaz said:I'm trolling you because your condescending replies don't deserve anything else. You clearly have no idea who you're even debating, yet you throw around these vague clichés thinking they actually land. Maybe they work on people who don't know better, but they certainly don't work on me.

And by the way, if processor speeds double every single year, that isn't "Exponential growth"...😉

And by the way, if processor speeds double every year, that isn't exponential growth...😉

David Baker2 said:Honestly, the citizens aren't even the issue here; that’s exactly where we’ve missed the mark.
We would be willing to roll up our sleeves and work our tails off if they actually just let us earn a living.
What you need is organization, solid infrastructure, and laws that are crystal clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.

I was fully prepared to sink my own capital into a venture about five or six years ago; I was ready to take out a loan, and I intended to lease two acres of overgrown brush from the government—which, mind you, was officially listed as pasture land (yeah, right!)—so I could clear it out and establish an apple orchard.

I was prepared to work like a dog to bring my vision to life, pulling sixteen-hour days on the field every single night after finishing my shift at the office.

Do you want to know what finally broke me? The government.
After three agonizing years of waiting, fighting through red tape, and trying to get the US federal authorities to lease those measly two acres to me—and I mean a tiny 200x200 meter plot, so don't go thinking it was some massive estate—I simply lost my mind and walked away. Because when you try to handle something as basic as leasing abandoned government land, you can't even resolve it in three years because the bureaucracy is just that suffocating.

And that's not even touching on the actual labor of transforming a wasteland into a productive orchard.

But you know what the most heartbreaking part of this whole ordeal is? It's that the business idea I had back then remains perfectly viable and profitable today—the orchard would have been just one-third of the operation, with the rest focused on processing raw materials from our own harvest—and my original business plan is still completely sound, offering significant long-term profit potential.

However, I no longer have the stomach for wrestling with the state, nor do I have any desire to let them skin me alive while they provide absolutely nothing but endless demands.

So, all this talk about high-tech advancements is utterly useless when we are stuck living in the US.