[e_modad]

I think one of the big reasons we haven't seen the kind of progress our predecessors had hoped for is because most people don't have the physical or mental energy. For big technological and social advancements, you need everyone (or at least most) engaged, enthusiastic and focused. Most of the world, including most citizens of the United States, are still moving up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So yeah, you get Angry Birds instead of a Hyperloop because most people are so stressed and tired that they're just hoping for a tasty bite to eat and 5 minutes of peace. The corollary is that if we want a Hyperloop (and we do) we should be actively engaged in trying to bring everyone up that hierarchy. When every day isn't an emotional or financial crisis for so many people, we'll have the kind of progress Peter is hoping for.

[ggchappell]

That's an interesting and, I think, worthwhile point.

But consider: during the huge technological advances of the early industrial revolution, much of the attention we pay today to the basic needs of society was not there. No social safety net meant that people starved. No (or few) vaccinations meant that medical treatment was more necessary. But the lack of anesthesia, antiseptics, antibiotics, etc. made medical treatment painful, dangerous, and often useless.

Certainly poor people today have it bad. But in some ways the poor of the western world (at least) enjoy a quality of life that people in past centuries could only dream of.

So, putting that together with your argument, I wonder: could a slowdown in innovation today be due to the fact that society is expending its energy meeting people's needs? In the past, in contrast, needs were ignored, and that energy was expended on innovation.

This idea would seem to be supported by the fact that so much of the innovation of recent decades has come out of the U.S., which arguably has one of the least effective social safety nets in the western world.

EDIT. Just in case anyone is wondering: for goodness sake I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about people's needs. But if the above idea is how the world really works, then there is no point in denying it.

[e_modad]

"EDIT. Just in case anyone is wondering: for goodness sake I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about people's needs. But if the above idea is how the world really works, then there is no point in denying it."

No no, I get your point. No need to worry.

I would add a counter-argument here though that there was definitely more time to think in the past. There was more peace of mind because people had a less hurried lifestyle. Also, things had always been bad and were getting much better relative to the past. For example, for new parents today, think of all the various concerns that are constantly hitting them from all sides. This wasn't the case 150 years ago and I think that allowed for people to devote a least some portion of their mental energy towards innovation. And if not innovation, at least towards being socially engaged in the discussion about innovation.

[ggchappell]

I imagine you're right. And quite likely part of the problem is that, paradoxically, the ability to solve problems leads to increased stress. If you can't do anything about your troubles, then you're free not to worry about them.

This is an issue that I don't see being addressed at all in the U.S. On the contrary, we see articles (rather often on HN) on how to squeeze more productivity out of those silly little bits of free time in our days.