[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.