Comments on: Neal Stephenson on getting big stuff done

By: wrecksdart

wrecksdart — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:53:00 +0000

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.

By: wrecksdart

wrecksdart — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:48:00 +0000

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.

By: Dfg Dsfgdfg

Dfg Dsfgdfg — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:32:00 +0000

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.

By: bengee

bengee — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:23:00 +0000

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.

By: Les Elkins

Les Elkins — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:55:00 +0000

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.

By: toyg

toyg — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:00 +0000

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.

By: Samuel Valentine

Samuel Valentine — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:26:00 +0000

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

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:25:00 +0000

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.

By: scav

scav — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:16:00 +0000

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 ;)

By: SoItBegins

SoItBegins — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:08:00 +0000

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.

By: rawbacon2

rawbacon2 — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:00:00 +0000

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.

By: johnjupiter

johnjupiter — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:44:00 +0000

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.

By: nachoproblem

nachoproblem — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:05:00 +0000

At least the internet is right.

By: nachoproblem

nachoproblem — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:56:00 +0000

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.

By: hyph3n

hyph3n — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:51:00 +0000

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.

By: Sniffles

Sniffles — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:41:00 +0000

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…

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:38:00 +0000

“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″

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:36:00 +0000

“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/

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:33:00 +0000

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.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:32:00 +0000

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

By: C.J. Hayes

C.J. Hayes — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:24:00 +0000

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.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:21:00 +0000

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.

By: eviladrian

eviladrian — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:16:00 +0000

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

By: davidasposted

davidasposted — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:13:00 +0000

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

By: EvilTerran

EvilTerran — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:50:00 +0000

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? …)

By: EvilTerran

EvilTerran — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:48:00 +0000

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.

By: eviladrian

eviladrian — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:47:00 +0000

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.

By: nemomen

nemomen — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:12:00 +0000

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.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:56:00 +0000

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.