From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 08:47:26 MDT
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>This article has got me to wondering about the singularity. The late 90s
>seem to have included a run-away technological boom, which blew out because
>supporting factors weren't there. In this case, these guys say that demand
>simply wasn't there to soak up the excess bandwidth created by exponential
>growth in telecommunications infrastructure capabilities.
>
>Why didn't demand increase to match supply? I'm sure most of us could think
>of ten ways, off the top of our heads, to use massively excess bandwidth if
>asked. Some of them would probably make a lot of money. So where did this
>problem, the kind of problem that might stall a singularity, originate?
>
>Emlyn
>
>...
>
The problem is that you are thinking that the pace of technological
growth has slowed. I don't see anything to justify this. It's true
that the speculators are no longer causing the stock market to rise to
unrealiztic values. (Now it's unreasonably depressed, instead.) But
the number of articles I read about new and inovative theories and
devices continues to increase. I think it may not be visible from month
to month. (This should soon peak, as people get tired of reading the
reports. That probably won't change the underlying actual truth.) This
last week I read that someone had gotten mice to turn 80% of their hair
a flourescent green via a jellyfish gene. What's new is that the mice
were born normal, and had their genes changed via an adenovirus after
they were born. Speculation ensues about delivery of spot coding, so
that, to pick a silly example, someone could be given polkadot hair with
zebra stripes, but as a genetic change (i.e., normal hair development)
rather than via chemical dyes.
The thing that may mislead you is that technical development tends to
spiral. Changes in one area eventually slow, but those changes have
opened opportunities in another area (e.g., nano-tech and molecular
biology depend on the recent surge in electronic microtech).
People frequently guess incorrectly about where the changes are going to
lead. And economic factors play a big part. I still use dial-up rather
than broadband, because broadband it too expensive for what worth it
brings me. And this is an intentional choice (with and unintentional
effect) on the part of the phone company (ilecs). When I do decide to
connect via broadband, it's likely to be wireless, not because I like
that technology, but because the phone company has prevented the people
who offer the services that I want to use from competing on "their
turf", i.e. land line based communication. This says nothing about the
rate of technological change, but it says a lot about the ways in which
those changes can be twisted to produce contra-intuitive results.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST