[blfr]

I think this is completely backwards. We are not risking enough and the progress has stalled as a result.

During the 1880-1950 we were causing massive disasters all around, literally nuking cities. But that period is also where we came up with virtually all of technology that makes the modern world: cars, planes, radio, computers, nuclear power, jet propulsion.

Since then (also ~70 years) we have maintained a little momentum here and there. Jet propulsion gave us space travel and satellites, we linked computer into networks, put them on the radio. Otherwise, it has been a time of stagnation.

This managerial approach to risk management is in no small part to blame in my opinion. We should be bolder. This may be worse for individual people affected but better for humanity in general as it gives us tools to address truly existential risks (like a stray asteroid).

We can't really make it up to the people affected in another managerial/coasian bargain. So in return, as healthy cultures did throughout the ages, we give our heroes glory.

[ivan_gammel]

I guess you missed the moment between 1950-2020s when our civilization transitioned from industrial to information society thanks to massive progress in IT. Super-optimistic approach to software design in that period of time has led us to the destructive mess of the social networks, cyberwarfare and buggy MCAS in Boeing 737 Max.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention globalization, where optimism resulted in the supply chain crisis of 2020-2021 and inability of the West to impose full oil and gas embargo on Russia.

[blfr]

I didn't miss the massive progress in IT. I mean, obviously I didn't, we're having this conversation on HN.

However, progress in IT, in bits, while fine and useful, is simply not as powerful as progress in more basic industries, in atoms. Having the means to (over)feed seven billion people (1940s tech spread around the world) is more important than having the means to (mis)inform seven billion people (1980s tech spread around the world).

[Gravityloss]

Look at a smart phone. Just the physical parts like the battery, the cpu, display and power electronics are completely different to technology in 1990.

How do you get information or deal with payments? It's the smartphone. Many people in developing countries benefit immensely from this change. Or refugees or travelers. And on software services side, we have similar improvements - the smartphone would be useless without the services it's used with. How many hours of queuing have we eliminated since now you can do those things online? In my country almost nothing requires physical presence anymore. And also, millions of people can spend their time on something more productive than sitting behind a counter, serving customers for trivial things.

Although, ironically, these hacker news discussions could have content wise been had in the usenet already in the eighties. No similar upvoting / downvoting crowd moderation though, which did kill it as a discussion platform once the masses got access.

What other technologies look completely different? People laughed at wind and solar power. They were completely unviable as power sources.

Cars used leaded gasoline. Diesels were rolling smoke stacks. Air quality in cities was terrible. Now we have electric buses.

On the other hand, there have been regressions. Nuclear power was being built at a fast pace in the late seventies and early eighties. It's way slower now.

[koshergweilo]

> On the other hand, there have been regressions. Nuclear power was being built at a fast pace in the late seventies and early eighties. It's way slower now.

Counterpoint but I think one of the reasons for this is that wind and solar are lower-capital alternatives to building nuclear powerplants. Not spending the capital to maintain existing powerplants does seem like a regression to me though, so we're on the same page there.

[ivan_gammel]

It is not just about informing people, but also automation of many things. It is certainly more powerful transformation than invention of steam engine. It has transformed industry and agriculture on a similar scale, enabling many things that were not possible before, but it also transformed our society, changing the ways we communicate, learn, entertain and find partners.

[blfr]

The difference between having a tractor and not having a tractor is much larger than between having a computer/gps-guided tractor and having an old school tractor. While it's certainly an improvement, it's a smaller improvement.

The difference between hailing a taxi via app and hailing a taxi by waving at it is much smaller than the difference between automobiles being available and not being available. Again, it's a great improvement but a smaller step than the original one.

Marriage rates are down so that abundance may be overrated.

EDIT: I don't know about steam engine but all these are certainly far behind an internal combustion engine.

[juve1996]

These differences aren't the results of taking less risk. They're the results of the technology being low-hanging fruit.

The low-hanging fruit is gone now. There could be some revolution that comes - but physics is at a standstill and has been for decades. Most of the gains are coming as evolutions, not revolutions, focusing on optimization.

[ivan_gammel]

It depends on where to look for examples.

E.g. in agriculture there's a huge difference between a water pump (or a water wheel, both - incremental updates from a bucket with water) and computer-controlled watering system, which can deliver significant increase in yield or even save your crop during drought.

[throwaway0a5e]

I can order a widget from literally the other side of the world or plan a party while taking a dump. Access to communications technology makes me a lot "richer" in a practical sense. Heads of state in the 1990s with tons of administrative labor at their disposal didn't have access to the same level of information and communication that normal people do today. The amount of man hours spent on "paper pushing and record keeping" type labor for a given end result has shrunk drastically making a level of "paper pushing and record keeping" that was formerly only the purview of states and large organizations available to the every-man.

Thanks to technological progress administrative paper pushing and clerical activity has become cheap enough for lots of people to have access to it the same way fresh produce became cheaply available over the 20th century.

[varjag]

The standard of living of heads of state in 1990s was pretty solid from modern perspective. Even if they couldn't get an earwax picker off AliExpress while taking a dump.

[BurningFrog]

The 737 Max tragedy wss mainly caused by regulatory constrains on design.

[mypastself]

I’m interested in a source for this.

Based on online news reports and a couple of documentaries on the topic I’ve watched (Frontline, Netflix), the regulatory constraints mainly entailed having new airplane designs go through more extensive scrutiny, which would mean greater expenditures for the company.

In order to avoid this (and therefore stay competitive with Airbus), Boeing reported the MCAS program as merely a minor upgrade of the existing system, and subsequently failed to train pilots in its use properly.

If this is what you’re referring to, I feel like “mainly caused by regulatory contraints on design” is a reductive and slightly misleading take. Or is there some other information to support your claim?

[BurningFrog]

I agree with your facts. We differ on judgement and/or labelling.

Regulations made the sounds engineering solution very costly, in both time and money, so Boeing was forced to do a complex error prone hacky solution to stay within the regulatory constraints.

Don't really know what "reductive" means here, but it's probably not good :)

[mypastself]

What I meant by reductive is, I feel like laying the blame solely at the feet of regulators oversimplifies the issue. Someone might argue that better enforcement or additional regulation (one that would prevent Boeing from circumventing the law) could have prevented the disaster.

If I recall correctly, the Netflix documentary tends to blame capitalism, the free market, and other assorted boogeymen for creating the perverse incentives the company was forced to respond to.

I suspect that neither of the two views at the opposite side of the spectrum captures the full picture.

[BurningFrog]

I didn't watch the documentary, but I read a fair amount of the coverage at the time.

I don't mind rephrasing "forced" to "incentivized", or believing that Boeing independently did shady and/or criminal things. It usually takes more than one factor to cause a rare disaster.

[jhugo]

"Risk" is incredibly broad.

The linked article seems quite focused on disaster risk, which in terms of its increase is mostly climate-related.

The perceived reduction in progress over decades may have more to do with societal changes in individual risk perception. For example, we were more comfortable with people dying in the name of progress in 1880-1950.

[jcadam]

Communist regimes well past that period were quite willing to sacrifice large numbers of people in the name of "progress." But those losses are large enough to be regarded as statistics rather than tragedies...

[Zababa]

I don't think it's about risk, I think it's about low-hanging fruits. It's also why some people could bring revolution to mathematics, physics, philosophy in just one life before, and these days it's not possible.

[lapcat]

> During the 1880-1950 we were causing massive disasters all around, literally nuking cities. But that period is also where we came up with virtually all of technology that makes the modern world: cars, planes, radio, computers, nuclear power, jet propulsion.

What is your concrete suggestion for taking more risks? Surely not nuking more cities? Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to Ukraine? Would that create more "progress"?

> Otherwise, it has been a time of stagnation.

How so? To take one example: we had a killer virus come out of nowhere, but we were able to develop effective vaccines for the virus almost immediately. The "slow" part was just the safety testing, not the vaccine development. Would this have been possible during the 1880-1950 era? Science and technology continues rapidly; I'm quite puzzled by the stagnation comment.

In 2022, we all have computers in our pockets that are vastly more powerful than anything from 1950, and we can use these pocket computers to instantly communicate with anyone on the planet.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I'm not endorsing it, and I would rather that we didn't, but

> Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to Ukraine? Would that create more "progress"?

War driving technology forward is a pretty popular idea; it's plausible that if modern society survived WWIII it would create more progress... for the survivors.

[lapcat]

> War driving technology forward is a pretty popular idea

I would say less morbidly that government investment often drives technology forward. Sadly, wartime seems to be the only time when many people are willing to invest in government.

> it's plausible that if modern society survived WWIII it would create more progress... for the survivors.

That's the problem with war driving technology forward. The military technology has been driven forward to the level where modern society surviving WWIII is questionable.

[japhib]

Did you even read the article?