[staticman2]

This is a epistemological problem, you think Neumann's expertise on 1950s technology gives him insight into the technology of, let's say the 2040s. You muddle the issue by calling him an expert on "technology" rather than an expert on "technology as of when he died in the 1950s".

If we don't grant that expertise on 1950s technology gives insight into 2040s technology, then there's little reason to consider his writing as something other than a cool story.

[soulofmischief]

> You muddle the issue by calling him an expert on "technology" rather than an expert on "technology as of when he died in the 1950s".

That's not my intention. It's more that, he simply looked at the historical progress of technology, recognized an acceleration curve, and pondered about the end game.

My argument is that it warrants consideration and not shallow dismissal. Plenty of opponents have criticized the concept, and some decent arguments revolve around rising complexity slowing down technological advancement. That is possible. But we can't just dismiss this concept as some fleeting story made up "like a 12 year old who just watched Terminator".