What strikes me about the 1867-1914 period is how much the technological revolution of that time coincided with a huge flourishing of the arts and humanities and a dramatic improvement to the built environment that was driven by art and design, not only by technology. The music, visual art, architecture, and literature of that period all contain so much that remains outstanding and canonical today, that was impossible to do before and has rarely been done since. And that period also saw the rise of the streetcar suburb, one of the most pleasant forms of residential community ever devised, and arguably much pleasanter than any such innovation that came after it.
If we believe that the causation was not all one way-- that there were common cultural roots of the humanistic and technological advances of that period-- that should strengthen the view that stagnation is a choice.
Indeed! I’ve been thinking about streetcar suburbs ever since our conversation on Friday. And I’m fascinated by the drive for self-improvement evident in the British institution building of the Victorian era. The Victoria & Albert museum in London remains my favorite, both in content and in architecture.
Excellent article. I am a huge fan of Vaclav Smil and have read many of his books, but I think you and Jon Askonas do a very good job of pointing out the shortcomings in his book, “Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure.” This book seems weaker than most of his other books.
As for the debate between Smil and Thiel, I think Smil is right that the period between 1870 and 1914 were probably a unique period in technological innovation that may never be repeated, but I am also confident that we can implement reforms to our institutions and policies that will accelerate our current rate of innovation.
For those who are interested in Smil’s books, I have published a number of book summaries at my online library of book summaries:
Yes, Smil is hands-down the best writer on Energy and energy technology (though some of his books get a bit tedious). At the very least, you should read the summaries listed above. My guess is that you will also find a number of other good books on technology and innovation at my online library of book summaries.
why is the stagnation not mainly high land prices raising the barrier to entry for 1. avoiding destitution and 2. starting a business/innovating/taking risk?
It used to take many, many millennia to go from one kind of stone tools to better kinds of ... stone tools :) We've sure gotten spoiled when it comes to the pace of change! 2% growth per year still means transformative change in a couple generations. Smil seems to be on solid ground in being skeptical of hugely greater rates of change in our physical plant. We still seem to be buzzing along at fantastic pace compared to 99% of human history. I'll take it! Smil's crankiness is just weird from that perspective.
Couple of quibbles with the excellent Askonas essay. I don't think it's right to equate the steel and other materials going into solar and wind arrays with continued fossil fuel extraction. Once you make that solar panel it will continue producing electricity for decades without more steel. You've got to keep pumping next year's oil though. Also, I'm pretty sure people are making progress on low- and no- carbon technologies for making steel, concrete, etc.
The technological frontier is now moving very slowly – at least in economic terms. The logic behind it is the work of Robert Gordon from Northwestern University in Illinois who has pointed out the diminishing marginal returns to research across the board which means that it is harder and harder to make progress in productivity.
My favourite data points are that when the Nobel prizes were introduced, there were estimated to be 1000 physicists in the world. Nowadays there are estimated to be 1 million physicists and the Nobel Prize is limited to a maximum of 3 people in any year. Kip Thorne, head of CERN was a 2017 Nobelist along with 2 colleagues on a paper with over 1000 authors. In both examples there has been an increase of 3 orders of magnitude.
And the average age at which a Nobel science prize makes their discovery has risen by 8 years since the implementation of the Nobels.
Peter Thiel, claims that the world has entered a period of technological stagnation due to avoidable social and institutional factors??
Peter is an American whose 'world,' the Five Eyes, is technologically stagnant. Look at the numbers: America now has just one of the world's top ten research institutes to China's seven. Expanding the list makes little difference: China is overwhelmingly dominant.
Go to China and you'll see that technological innovation hasn't died. It's just moved house.
Why? The US once spent 2% of its GDP on R&D, today it spends just 0.8% of its $25 trillion GDP, or $200 billion. China spends 2.6% of its $35 trillion GDP on R&D: almost $1 trillion.
I think innovation can be encouraged. But I think that even very smart people have the wrong ideas about it. In my opinion, innovation is based on a foundation of knowledge and on the ability to see the areas where knowledge is incomplete.
As an example of smart people with the wrong idea. we can look at the title of Bill Gates 2021 book: "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." The subtitle is "The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need."
We NEED breakthroughs? We can HOPE for breakthroughs, and work TOWARD breakthroughs. But we can't guarantee them or order up a couple of good ones.
I think we shouild move forward without assuming that we NEED certain breakthroughs. And certainly, without assuming that the breakthroughs are going to show up, because we want them.
What strikes me about the 1867-1914 period is how much the technological revolution of that time coincided with a huge flourishing of the arts and humanities and a dramatic improvement to the built environment that was driven by art and design, not only by technology. The music, visual art, architecture, and literature of that period all contain so much that remains outstanding and canonical today, that was impossible to do before and has rarely been done since. And that period also saw the rise of the streetcar suburb, one of the most pleasant forms of residential community ever devised, and arguably much pleasanter than any such innovation that came after it.
If we believe that the causation was not all one way-- that there were common cultural roots of the humanistic and technological advances of that period-- that should strengthen the view that stagnation is a choice.
Indeed! I’ve been thinking about streetcar suburbs ever since our conversation on Friday. And I’m fascinated by the drive for self-improvement evident in the British institution building of the Victorian era. The Victoria & Albert museum in London remains my favorite, both in content and in architecture.
I interviewed Askonas a few months ago: https://open.substack.com/pub/mupetblast/p/dry-hyphen-olympics-show-transcript-4fa?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1iiul
Excellent article. I am a huge fan of Vaclav Smil and have read many of his books, but I think you and Jon Askonas do a very good job of pointing out the shortcomings in his book, “Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure.” This book seems weaker than most of his other books.
As for the debate between Smil and Thiel, I think Smil is right that the period between 1870 and 1914 were probably a unique period in technological innovation that may never be repeated, but I am also confident that we can implement reforms to our institutions and policies that will accelerate our current rate of innovation.
For those who are interested in Smil’s books, I have published a number of book summaries at my online library of book summaries:
https://techratchet.com/2021/04/19/book-summary-energy-and-civilization-a-history-by-vaclav-smil/
https://techratchet.com/2020/01/01/book-review-creating-the-twentieth-century-by-vaclav-smil/
https://techratchet.com/2020/05/02/book-summary-transforming-the-twentieth-century-by-vaclav-smil/
https://techratchet.com/2020/05/05/book-summary-prime-movers-of-globalization-by-vaclav-smil/
https://techratchet.com/2020/05/06/book-summary-energy-transitions-by-vaclav-smil/
https://techratchet.com/2021/05/27/book-summary-natural-gas-fuel-for-the-21st-century-by-vaclav-smil/
Michael, thanks for those links. I feel like I owe Smil more attention that I have given him so far.
Yes, Smil is hands-down the best writer on Energy and energy technology (though some of his books get a bit tedious). At the very least, you should read the summaries listed above. My guess is that you will also find a number of other good books on technology and innovation at my online library of book summaries.
"I agree that the primary limitations on progress are social and policy factors."
Those factors are:
Government overregulation of business and industry.
That, for the most part, government regulators choose which scientific research will be done and which will not.
Get government control out of those endeavors and see what happens.
“Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.”
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience (1849)
why is the stagnation not mainly high land prices raising the barrier to entry for 1. avoiding destitution and 2. starting a business/innovating/taking risk?
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Schularicketal2014.pdf
It used to take many, many millennia to go from one kind of stone tools to better kinds of ... stone tools :) We've sure gotten spoiled when it comes to the pace of change! 2% growth per year still means transformative change in a couple generations. Smil seems to be on solid ground in being skeptical of hugely greater rates of change in our physical plant. We still seem to be buzzing along at fantastic pace compared to 99% of human history. I'll take it! Smil's crankiness is just weird from that perspective.
Couple of quibbles with the excellent Askonas essay. I don't think it's right to equate the steel and other materials going into solar and wind arrays with continued fossil fuel extraction. Once you make that solar panel it will continue producing electricity for decades without more steel. You've got to keep pumping next year's oil though. Also, I'm pretty sure people are making progress on low- and no- carbon technologies for making steel, concrete, etc.
A pessimistic view of the future.
The technological frontier is now moving very slowly – at least in economic terms. The logic behind it is the work of Robert Gordon from Northwestern University in Illinois who has pointed out the diminishing marginal returns to research across the board which means that it is harder and harder to make progress in productivity.
My favourite data points are that when the Nobel prizes were introduced, there were estimated to be 1000 physicists in the world. Nowadays there are estimated to be 1 million physicists and the Nobel Prize is limited to a maximum of 3 people in any year. Kip Thorne, head of CERN was a 2017 Nobelist along with 2 colleagues on a paper with over 1000 authors. In both examples there has been an increase of 3 orders of magnitude.
And the average age at which a Nobel science prize makes their discovery has risen by 8 years since the implementation of the Nobels.
Peter Thiel, claims that the world has entered a period of technological stagnation due to avoidable social and institutional factors??
Peter is an American whose 'world,' the Five Eyes, is technologically stagnant. Look at the numbers: America now has just one of the world's top ten research institutes to China's seven. Expanding the list makes little difference: China is overwhelmingly dominant.
Go to China and you'll see that technological innovation hasn't died. It's just moved house.
Why? The US once spent 2% of its GDP on R&D, today it spends just 0.8% of its $25 trillion GDP, or $200 billion. China spends 2.6% of its $35 trillion GDP on R&D: almost $1 trillion.
It's literally no contest.
I think innovation can be encouraged. But I think that even very smart people have the wrong ideas about it. In my opinion, innovation is based on a foundation of knowledge and on the ability to see the areas where knowledge is incomplete.
As an example of smart people with the wrong idea. we can look at the title of Bill Gates 2021 book: "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." The subtitle is "The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need."
We NEED breakthroughs? We can HOPE for breakthroughs, and work TOWARD breakthroughs. But we can't guarantee them or order up a couple of good ones.
I think we shouild move forward without assuming that we NEED certain breakthroughs. And certainly, without assuming that the breakthroughs are going to show up, because we want them.