Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NuncErgoFacite t1_j1ph655 wrote

Technology, historically speaking, is the result of necessity driving innovation, not innovation driving need. Capitalism creates an artificial or auto-necessity by using economic pressure on discovery/research and development. But if humanity were facing a global food shortage, real-necessity would kick in and we would find a way - or not and starve until the population shrinks far enough to be sustainable by whatever means survive. History has both versions of that exact example.

As for pure scientific discovery - I believe history and James Burke will back me up when I say that if humanity can see a thing/process that we need being done anywhere, even in the most inefficient and cost exorbitant fashion, then we have/will refine the process until it becomes common place.

48

alexunderwater1 t1_j1pj1vh wrote

Case in point, there’s been some incredible advances in healthcare related gene editing & vaccine development via pressures from Covid.

23

njc121 t1_j1qmvwi wrote

Of course this is all in the context of humans needing to do their own innovation. We may not need to do that in a few years given the exponential rate of AI's progress.

4

SuperDuperSkateCrew t1_j1quvjm wrote

AI is simply just another tool for us to use, we’d still need to make the discoveries and have the want to find out new innovations and AI will drastically accelerate the rate at which we can do it.

Example, AI isn’t going to find out what compounds are best for a next generation of car tire without humans first having a want or a need for them. It will always be reactive to human needs in my opinion.

2

njc121 t1_j1qwvb1 wrote

Kinda, but not really. We can feed the right prompts to AI, but it pulls up creative results on its own from there. At best, it's a collaborative effort, but most of the time we won't need to engage any further in the process.

6

SuperDuperSkateCrew t1_j1qyj1k wrote

Well like you said It pulls up the creative results after we’ve feed it the data we want it to pull from, which is reactive to our needs.. the data will get more complex due to us being able to feed it the results of other AI (which will likely be automated for most cases) but I don’t think an AI will organically find answers to obscure or specific questions without human input.

1

njc121 t1_j1qz3l4 wrote

I'm not sold on equating the expression of a desire with the process of coming up with a solution.

1

redditsucksbigly t1_j1r1oss wrote

I want to like your comment but it doesn't make sense.

>Capitalism creates an artificial or auto-necessity by using economic pressure on discovery/research and development.

Capitalism is a system for allocating capital and deciding what resources are dedicated to solving what problems. In communism the government decides. In capitalism return, or expected benefit, decides. Capitalism doesn't create the needs. Humans create the needs. Capitalism is a mechanism for deciding what needs have resources dedicated to them. With capitalism we've seen more needs resourced and more innovation over a longer period of time than any other system.

>But if humanity were facing a global food shortage, real-necessity would kick in and we would find a way - or not

So if we were facing a global food short we would innovate ... or not innovate. Groundbreaking

0

NuncErgoFacite t1_j1tmj6o wrote

I want to like your comment, but I really can't imagine using the word Capitolism without pendanticly rambling about communism.

Capitalism uses/allows supply and demand to create economic pressure upon innovation.

Electric cars were not affordable to manufacture until 15 years ago, despite having had the technical capability since the 1920's (though the energy storage debate would likely push that back to the 70's). It is only in our current economic situation that we find the financial incentive to form companies that build mass production facilities capable of supplying that product to the masses. Twenty years ago, that would not be possible on a purely financial basis. Now, loads of RnD are being pushed into energy storage and kinetic energy recapture. This impulse, in turn, is creating a whole new class of electronics based on batteries - from houses to cell phones.

But sure. None of that makes sense.

−1

redditsucksbigly t1_j1ut7l6 wrote

Yeah sorry you clearly didn't understand the concept correctly so tried to explain it. In the words u/NuncErgoFacite, once real necessity kicks in, now you'll either understand it ... or you won't. Best of luck!

2

NuncErgoFacite t1_j1wawi1 wrote

I understand that you are determined to be "right" at the expense of someone else. I also understand that you are mis-applying Capitalism as economic theory to a tangential discussion of economic pressure on a industry. I just wonder who it was that hurt you so and hope that you up your fluoxetine dosage soon. Happy Holidays.

−1

nmarshall23 t1_j1wtzy7 wrote

Capitalism cuts in-house pure research, and shifts that to the government.

It doesn't care that it also lobbied the government to cut taxes and thus defunded basic research.

All Capitalism cares about is the bosses fat bank account.

If you want more basic research you need a government that can fund it over several decades.

1

NuncErgoFacite t1_j1yfwa5 wrote

That is not Capitalism. That is what your country is doing with Capitalism. There are formats that serve all kinds.

0