Neal Stephenson on getting big stuff done

[Video Link] Neal Stephenson talks about "our society's inability to execute on big stuff, to get big stuff done. In the first two thirds of the 20th century we went from not believing that heavier-than-air-flight was possible to walking on the moon."

Solve for X is a forum to encourage and amplify technology-based moonshot thinking and teamwork. G+.

For thousands of years the imagination of storytellers has been a guiding light for people trying to change the world. In the last decade or two science fiction has almost fallen behind the work of technologists and entrepreneurs. For the sake of a more interesting tomorrow, we need to get the proverbial horse back out in front of the cart with our imagination professionals building a vision of the future to inspire the builders of the new world.

Neal Stephenson is the author of the three-volume historical epic "The Baroque Cycle" (Quicksilver, The Confusion, and The System of the World) and the novels Cryptonomicon, The Diamond Age, Snow Crash, and Zodiac.

(Via Kevin Kelly's G+)

• [tristan eldritch]

  Well, nobody can fault Stephenson for not getting big stuff done, having an oeuvre that is visible from space.

• [deltaverde]

  And also the author of Anethem and Reamde.

  • [Joe Seatter]

    Obviously, only the novels from the first two-thirds of his career were any good.
    /kidding

  • [Kevin Pierce]

    Finished REAMDE last week…   Tip to aspiring terrorists: Stay out of Idaho

    • [tyger11]

      Tip to anyone: stay out of Idaho

      :)

• [Stay_Sane_Inside_Insanity]

  In the first two thirds of the 20th century we went from not believing that heavier-than-air-flight was possible to walking on the moon.

  Ahhh, I see Neal Stephenson is one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the US government faked the Apollo 11 moonlanding, to cover up the fact that we had already gone to the moon sometime before 1966.  Cuckoo!

  • [wrecksdart]

     Sarcasm?  I’m not getting it…did you WTFV or not?  That said, I’ll default to thinking I’ve missed something in the comment.  Cuckoo–right.  Of course.

• [Joshua Bardwell]

  IMO, it’s inappropriate to compare the technological advancement of the period from, say, 1860-1960 to anything else. The major defining characteristic of that period is unprecedented access to cheap energy in the form of petroleum and natural gas. This was an aberration. It’s not for lack of vision that we are not advancing as quickly now. It’s as if we were looking at a 25-year-old and saying, “You’re not growing nearly as fast as when you were 15. What’s up with that!”

  • [Mike Norman]

    Well, that could happen again. Why aren’t liquid salt Thorium reactors under active development? By all accounts, they’re an exercise in applied chemistry and plumbing, and we’ve already run a liquid salt reactor. Unprecedented access to cheap energy. How about space-based solar? The economics of that pencil out just fine with the economies of scale that the launch industry would have if we moved on it. Unprecedented access to cheap energy, again.

    Why do people still die of malaria? Polio is gone. There are tons of realizable challenges to which we simply no longer care to rise.

    It’s easy to just say, “Oh, Stephenson’s comparison is unfair because Y.” Where was the Y when we went to the Moon? Where was the Y when we eradicated polio? That’s the question Stephenson is asking.

    Everywhere we look, we see Ys, now. How does it feel to be a member of project Y?

    • [okalokee]

      No, there’s a huge difference between (a) using very basic technology plus largely unskilled laborers to tap vast quantities of high-energy-density conventional oil and (b) using significantly more advanced technologies and skilled technicians to tap a diffuse, low-quality energy source. (At least in the case of solar. I’m not familiar with liquid salt Thorium reactors, but I think it’s a given that if there was profit to be made there, people would be pursuing it aggressively.)

      Joshua is right. The quality http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6854, price http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp, and available flow of http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17914 energy for modern economies in the 1960s was vastly superior compared to sixty years prior; whereas the quality, price, and (most likely) available flow we have today compared to 1960 is actually *worse*.

      • [toyg]

        There you go, “if there was profit to be made”… 

        Many scientific advancements in the 20th century were not propelled by profit, but by public interest, i.e. by the State or other public institutions. Most research before WWII was carried out in a heavily militarized Europe, where titan-States were constantly fighting for some ideal or the other, and science was just another battleground. Industrialism was in its infancy, and was heavily linked to national politics.With the demise of Soviet utopia (which started its slow death more or less in 1968 Prague), European nation-states basically abandoned the field: the model was now the US, and the American Utopia is fundamentally built by the individual search for private profit (or so we were told). When profit is the only guidance, most endeavours are simply non-starters; e.g. there is no point in defeating malaria, because only poor countries suffer from it, so “there is no profit to be made”. What was then a good propaganda item (“we defeated malaria thanks to our Superior System of Beliefs! African nations are rushing to join our ranks!”) is now a pointless exercise.Couple that with the move towards being “industry-free”, thanks to improvements in transportation/communication that allowed to outsource production to poorer countries, and you end up where we are now.

    • [EvilTerran]

       I must read up on liquid salt Thorium reactors, they really sound like they belong next to orbital/lunar solar and “goddamn it someone work out fusion already” in my list of reasons why a near-future energy surplus is possible. Such technological possibilities are the only things keeping me from completely despairing at the future.

      • [scav]

        Here’s my reason why a near-future energy surplus is not possible: energy demand will always match supply, eating whatever surplus would otherwise exist.

        You could try hoping for a sustainable enlightened civilisation with reduced energy use if that would help you despair less ;)

    • [davidasposted]

      Great post, better than Stephenson’s lecture in fact.

    • [SoItBegins]

       Regarding malaria, plasmodium vivax is a nasty one because it’s a parasite (NOT a virus or bacterium), and one that regularly changes its cellular ‘coat’, which completely throws the immune system off.
      The only reason the southern US is malaria-free right now comes down to the liberal overapplication of DDT and other strong insecticides in the 1930s and 1940s (not something I’d advise trying to pull again, given what’s in that stuff), which killed off the Anopheles mosquito strain.

      As for curing malaria, science is working on it. It’s just kinda complex.

  • [Guest]

    How is it inappropriate? It’s inconveniently correct and speaks to the folly of man; it is an absolutely appropriate comparison, so long as your goal is to accurately describe reality and gain insight.

    What is inappropriate is accepting that we must be that inefficient to thrive.

    • [wrecksdart]

       Agreed–and to argue that it’s inappropriate is to miss the crux of Stephenson’s argument: Stop screwing with minor achievements and shoot for the stars. 

• [retepslluerb]

  Err. Heavy than air flight was quite well seen as possible. After all, birds did it all of the time. And by the mid 19th century, there was consistent and successful research of gliders.

  • [C.J. Hayes]

    They were possible in the sense that things in nature can indeed fly.  Obviously we could observe those things and try to emulate them.  What wasn’t deemed possible was the ability to use flight as a regular and effective method of transportation.  Theoretical flight had been around for ages, but practical heavier-than-air flight was pretty much fantasy.

  • [nachoproblem]

     I think the same thing whenever somebody says “They thought it was impossible to break the sound barrier!” No they didn’t. They broke it with rifle rounds all the time.

    • [Samuel Valentine]

      Sure, but there wasn’t a tiny tiny person riding in the bullet.

• [rprivetera]

   A lot of the stuff he mentions we built because people needed it – needed air travel, were in a “space race” and needed to go to the moon for our supremacy, needed nuclear power. We’re now in an age where its more about doing things “if we can afford it” because we don’t quite need it so much.
  The only way, I think, we’ll see that kind of massive scale building is if a) we need it for some reason or b) some kind of massive tech change happens. the internet is an example if a massive scale of building, made possible by an unseen form of tech. 3d Printing might be another.
  Why do we need a superbuilding? we have enough room for places to live, and we don’t spend money on sending shit to space that much anymore. A superbuilding will be just as attractive to live in as say a giant mall in the middle of the desert.
  Space elevators are the only thing I can think of that fit his concept, and between “science is scary” and NIMBY and “not with my tax dollars” we’ll never get it done unless a lot of other stuff is fixed first.

  • [EvilTerran]

     We’re gonna need more energy, and soon. That’s gonna be a big project, however we go at it. (fusion? solar panels on the moon? …)

• [eviladrian]

   I don’t know that you can just gloss over the existence of the Internet and say “the buildings still look the same!”
  I’m a nondescript office worker in Australia, how could I even be aware of this discussion, much less participate in it, without the Internet?  Hop on a spaceplane to LA, watch Neal in a lecture hall and fly back home?

  The world may not have changed in the ways we would have wanted it to back in 1975, but it has changed.

  • [Guest]

    ARPAnet was launched in 1969 at four sites including two University of California campuses, the Stanford Research Institute and the University of Utah.

    The internet dates back to the time frame he’s talking about.

    • [nemomen]

      ARPAnet came into being in late ’69, but the relevance of the Internet is in its scale and availability to regular users which is how it’s come to have such a significant impact on the world.  That didn’t come about until the 90s.

    • [eviladrian]

       He specifically mentions web development and coding as unworthy fields of endeavour next to the noble pursuit of ever-faster ways to waste natural resources.
      I think it’s arguable that mobile phones have done more social good than flying cars would have.

      • [Guest]

        I think man’s greatest invention is the pocket. It frees up your hands so you can carry fire, the internet, and tissues (mans other 3 greatest inventions) all at the same time. By extension, the pita pocket (a pocket for and of food) is sublime.

      • [Guest]

        I  also think there is an argument to be made that running out of oil will be mans finest hour.

• [lavardera]

  all the problems he cites come back to giant focus on short term profit -greed.

• [ambientmind]

  Rather disappointing. Why is he discussing incredibly tall buildings which are fairly irrelevant compared to the points he makes only very briefly at the end. Energy independence, and, I think, he waved his hand at a functional, or maybe even equitable economy. I’m primarily fond of Stephenson’s earlier work – less so the word-heavy, possibly crypt-text, later tomes – which includes the very technoptimistic Diamond Age, but what about getting our global population under control? Or feeding and housing poor people so that no one will be driven by want and envy to knock down those tall buildings?

  • [Guest]

    uh, because hubris is the cause of everything bad? And tall buildings with peoples name written in stone on them are monuments to vanity, not progress.

• [foobar]

  If you brought someone from 1912 to the world of 1962 they would be astounded and would have a great deal of difficulty understanding the mechanisms of that day’s great works, but they would understand what they did and be able to intuit their effects. If you brought someone from 1960 to 2012 you would have great difficulty explaining what our big projects are, let alone their sociological effects.

  Yes, the former went from the first aircraft to space launches, but the latter went from telephones that were cost prohibitive to use beyond the local city to a globally interconnected network that thumbs its nose at national governments and from discovering the structure of DNA to sequencing the human genome and directly engineering our crops.

  • [PJDK]

    This.

    He does do some astonishing glossing over of the achievements.  Would people from 1968 really be so glib about the way we have something that is kind of like Captain Kirk’s communicator and Dick Tracey’s watch (except way better than either).  In fact couldn’t he have said the same thing with an exclamation mark and be impressed?  
    How about you get them to ask you the most complicated question they can think of and you answer it in seconds.He also ignores ubiquity as significant.  In 1903 people read in the papers about men flying in , in 1968 they read about them flying to the moon (and for the vast majority of people still only read about flying in jets).  In 2012 we all have access to the internet in some form, the vast majority have it piped into our homes and a huge minority carry it in our pockets (rich world here obviously).  That and air travel is much more accessible.

    • [Guest]

      “the vast majority have it piped into our homes”

      O RLY? 66% is not a vast majority. It is, however, almost enough to end a filibuster.

      http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0809/

    • [Guest]

      “How about you get them to ask you the most complicated question they can think of and you answer it in seconds”

      What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?

      All the internet has to say on the matter is “42″

      • [nachoproblem]

         At least the internet is right.

  • [Guest]

    If you brought someone from 1960 to 2012 you would have great difficulty explaining why the top marginal tax rate has gone from >80% to <30% in a time of war.

    • [eviladrian]

       Although that would explain why NASA can’t afford more moon rockets.

• [Sniffles]

  I kind of like the idea of the very tall building, but I’m not sure there’s a population density which could justify that much space (either living or office space) that would make it financially viable. What kind of neighborhood/community/region would approve that kind of development anyway? What kind of elevator system would be necessary to move cargo/payloads to the top of a building to load onto a space shuttle for launch?

  I was a little disappointed that he seems to be touting nationalism as a good thing. Money spent on wars is a big impediment to getting stuff done. But it’s great for national pride– even if we don’t “win.”

  Greatest advance of the past century? The empowerment of women. Someone from 100 or even 50 years ago would find that to be pretty mind-bending…

• [hyph3n]

  With all due respect, I don’t think the Internet or mobile phones are the type of “big stuff” Mr. Stephenson was talking about. The Internet was a technological evolution. I doubt anyone working on the original ARPAnet had any clue that it would go much beyond a military communication tool. The moon landing engaged scientists and engineers for more than a decade. We decided to do it and then did it.

• [johnjupiter]

  wow. really? nobody can even see it? amazing. not surprising anymore… but there is a maze and it is inging.

  all those achievements were driven by the most powerful new economic force on the planet. first, to get to that point (railroads) then to capture the flag (oil) then to solidify the lead (space). Been there, done that (or not, it doesn’t really matter now does it… cuz we’re measuring the three dimensional lunar gravitational map now, aren’t we. how do you like dem fauxApples?

  There is a flaw, or a sticking point. Competition, a hinderance to our ‘progress’. The other progressions served their purposii. We sputnik’d The Union of Soviets and now we are and have been undoing China’s fingers from the oil that Hitler ran out of (synthetic) oil trying to get. We cannot unleash the salt fission drive research or whatever until those slimy communist fingers let go with their slave driven ‘state’ economy.

  the progress is there but there’s 5000 years of competitive humanity coming to a head. why are all those fancy crop circles in the UK? Why is the UK not on the Euro? Really, with all the Internet reach, nothing… Just, “Where’s my new lightbulb!?”

  I got yer lightbulb right here. made in china.

• [rawbacon2]

  Side note: What would you google to find out more about ultra tall towers/ 20k skyscrapers? I’m sure it’s neigh on impossible to build them, but someone must have made a site about the pros/cons, no? I just spend ten minutes, trying to come up with search phrases, but all I could find were info on 1-2 k towers. Not much help with “keith hjelmstad” either.
  I did find one http://autogeny.org/tower/ , but it deals with the “going into space” aspect.
  Also: Neal Stephenson is a god among men. I’ve been dreaming of my own ” a young lady’s illustrated primer” for as long as I can remember.

• [Thorzdad]

  At least in the US, I don’t think it’s coincidental that our seeming inability to “get big stuff done” arose around the same time that we started adopting the seemingly pathological obsession that both government and corporations have to constantly, and deeply, slash their costs and expenditures. Strictly focusing on the bottom line will almost always mean “big stuff” never gets done.

• [Les Elkins]

  Interesting companion piece to the info on the massive machine presses a week or so ago…. While I grant that early 20th century progress reflected the harnessing of oil & other fossil fuels in a big way, that doesn’t really explain why we’ve lost the ability to do big stuff. Consider the current Mars probe on the way- it’s costs grew nearly ten-fold during development. That seems to be the norm nowadays in a way that wasn’t so a century ago.

• [bengee]

  I have more respect for Neal Stephenson than any public or private figure, so I wish he would speak more often. 

  There is a bitter note in the speech about the greatest minds of our generation writing spam filters:  perhaps the transformation of our society has thrown us into a crisis of meaninglessness: everything is kind of okay and no one really cares.  Actual science exists only in a monastery, and the public (and most of the monks) sees it as  a disgusting and unethical travesty.

  Warren Buffet, after work, goes home and plays solitaire on his personal computer.

• [Dfg Dsfgdfg]

  I would disagree. Hierogliphs don’t matter that much, the collective story/dream does. A society would achieve anything that it collectively dreams of achieving, or, put another way -  what the story of “where we’re going and what the bright future holds” says.  Going to the moon isn’t and wasn’t a part of the American dream; the American dream from the 50′s onwards consists of a house, lawn, car, family – it’s a static and conservative dream. By contrast, the previous American dream ( right till the middle off the 19th century) consisted of wagon trains and free land. So, I would actually attribute the moon landings to the (secondary) waves of immigration in the first part of the 20th century sustaining the wagon dream.
  This means that if you want anything big done, you are better off creating a meta-state of all the people in the world who’d like to have space travel. And the goal/dream of the meta-state would be to allow space travel/space living for every single member of the meta-state. From a pragmatic point of view, living in space is like living on a submarine, and living on Mars is like living in Afghanistan, which implies asteroid mining and manufacture of big enough spaceships to go someplace more interesting than Mars.