Patrick Collison has a fascinating page on his website where he lays out numerous amazing examples of projects in the past that were completed in record time, leaving a lasting impact on society
One of the most notable examples is the Empire State Building, which was built in just 410 days. Another is the Lockheed P-80, the first jet aircraft deployed in the Air Force, which took only 143 days from project initiation to first deployment. The Marinship project, which went from proposal to the first ship's completion in just six months, is yet another. The Apollo Program, which lasted nine years from initiation to moon landing, is a testament to the rapid progress made in space exploration during that time.
In contrast, he notes that there are far fewer examples of rapid project completion in the present day. In fact, the complete opposite, for instance, a BART extension that was delayed more than a year due to the installation of the wrong networking equipment is a prime example of how major projects are taking longer to complete in recent times. The 16-mile extension is expected to cost around $2.3 billion and take around seven years to complete. A single-toilet public restroom planned for San Francisco’s Noe Valley Town Square is expected to take two years to build and costs $1.7 million, the same as a single family home in the area. The estimated cost has garnered plenty of headlines for the restroom. In May 2022, officials of the MTA unveiled a brand new staircase and entryway at the Times Square subway station which cost them 30 million dollars.
The rapid completion of major projects has been a hallmark of technological progress throughout history. What could be the reason for such a massive drop in progress and productivity? There’s also a chart on his website that shows a serious economic misallocation of resources which shows the significant increase in spending on healthcare in the US, which has risen by nine times in real terms since 1960. The cost of K-12 education has also increased by two to three times per student per year since 1960. Additionally, the cost of college in the US has more than doubled in real terms since 1984, outpacing inflation and making higher education increasingly unaffordable for many individuals. The real costs of higher education have gone up by 400% since 1980, after inflation, with no clear indication that the quality has gone up at all. This raises the question of what the 1.6 trillion in student debt pays for and suggests that it is paying for $1.6 trillion worth of lies about how great the system is.
It feels like a common sentiment that the great inventions of the past cannot be repeated, and that we have already eaten all the low-hanging fruit. And yet, time and time again, scientific progress has allowed us to pluck the fatter, juicier crop from higher branches. The trouble is that while research inputs have been rising sharply, research productivity is dropping even faster. It now takes 18 times the number of researchers to achieve Moore’s law — that is, the doubling of computer chip power about every two years — than in the early 1970s. On current trends, aggregate research productivity is halved every 13 years. Put simply, we are getting less innovation bang for the R&D buck.
Tracking the progress of science and technology against the high expectations of the 1950s and 1960s, it is clear that progress has fallen short in many domains. Despite claims that we are accelerating in scientific and technical fields at a rapid pace, there is little precision in these assessments. This stagnation with the failure in energy appears to cancel out the progress made in other fields. The world we live in today is one where we have the technological advancements of a well-functioning computer, but little else. It is worth considering the definition of technology and how it has changed over time. For much of the last 40 years, technology has been narrowly defined as information technology, while in the 1950s and 1960s, technology meant a much wider range of things, including biotech, medical devices, nuclear power, new forms of energy, underwater cities, the green revolution in agriculture, space travel, supersonic aviation, and flying cars.
Even if we look at it through the lens of great ‘eras’ of human progress, the "first Industrial Revolution", took place from the 1700s to the mid-1800s and was characterized by mechanization and the steam engine. These advances revolutionized manufacturing, energy, and transportation, and began to transform agriculture as well. The "second Industrial Revolution", which took place from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s, saw a greater influence of science, particularly chemistry, electromagnetism, and microbiology. Applied chemistry gave us better materials, such as Bessemer steel and plastic, and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. It also gave us the ability to refine petroleum, leading to the oil boom and the internal combustion engine, which still dominates transportation today. Physics gave us the electrical industry and electronic communications, while biology gave us the germ theory, which dramatically reduced infectious disease mortality rates. In this period, every single one of the six major categories was completely transformed. The "third Industrial Revolution", which started in the mid-1900s, has mostly seen fundamental advances in a single area: electronic computing and communications. If dated from 1970, there has been limited progress in manufacturing, agriculture, energy, transportation, and medicine, compared to the previous two phases. Computers have completely transformed information processing and communications, but there have been no new types of materials, vehicles, fuels, engines, etc.
When discussing the speed of scientific and technological progress, we often lack precision. Are we indeed accelerating in these fields, and if so, how fast? The response is usually a vague one, with a consensus that everything is moving at an incredibly fast pace.
The idea of technological stagnation is further amplified when one looks at the technologies that were promised, but never arrived or have yet to come to fruition. The stunted development of various technologies highlights the limitations of technological progress in recent times:
- One of the most significant examples is the stunted development of nuclear power. Despite the widespread expectation of a nuclear future in the 1950s, today, nuclear power supplies less than 20% of the US electricity and only about 8% of its total energy. The lack of progress in this field has resulted in the absence of nuclear homes, cars, and batteries.
- Transportation technology has also failed to live up to its promise. The Apollo 11 landing on the moon in 1969 and the first supersonic test flight of Concorde were major milestones, but they have not been followed by a thriving space transportation industry or widely available supersonic passenger travel. The last Apollo mission was flown in 1972, just three years later, while Concorde was only ever available as a luxury for the elite and was shut down in 2003, after less than thirty years in service. Meanwhile, passenger travel speeds have remained unchanged over the last 50 years, and flying cars are still a thing of science fiction. While self-driving cars may be on the horizon, they have yet to arrive.
- In the field of medicine, the top causes of death remain cancer and heart disease. Despite a few excellent early results in genetic engineering, medicine has yet to be transformed by this technology.
- Similarly, in the field of manufacturing, carbon nanotubes and other nanomaterials remain mostly a research project. Atomically precise manufacturing is still science fiction, and we still do not have a material to build a space elevator or space pier.
The reasons can be seen in many statistics:
- Income Inequality: The widening gap between the rich and poor can lead to a misallocation of resources as the wealthy have more access to resources for innovation and the less fortunate are left behind. According to the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI), the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has been steadily increasing in many countries over the past few decades.
- Low Investment in R&D: A lack of investment in research and development can also contribute to technological stagnation. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (https://www.wipo.int/science/en/), many developing countries have a low percentage of GDP spent on R&D.
- Unbalanced Regional Development: A misallocation of resources can occur when certain regions receive more investment and resources than others. According to the World Development Indicators (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.cd), there is often a large disparity in GDP per capita between developed and developing countries.
- Unequal Access to Education: A lack of access to education and training can limit the potential for technological advancements. According to the United Nations Development Programme (https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UIS&f=inID%3a107), many countries still have low literacy rates and low enrollment in secondary education.
- Over-investment in Certain Sectors: Over-investment in certain sectors can lead to a misallocation of resources as resources are not being distributed evenly across different industries. According to the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.IND.EMPL.ZS), there is often a high concentration of employment in a few sectors in many countries.
The fact that we do not have abundant, clean and sustainable energy everywhere is a tragedy. There has been so much suffering in the world caused by the conflicts to secure oil and gas, all while harming the environment, when there has been a viable alternative for decades that is criminally underinvested in. Here are some statistics:
- Declining Nuclear Energy Capacity: One way to measure underinvestment in nuclear energy is to look at the declining capacity of nuclear power plants. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (https://data.iaea.org/), many countries have seen a decrease in the number of operating nuclear power plants in recent years.
- Low Investment in Nuclear R&D: A lack of investment in research and development for nuclear energy is another indicator of underinvestment. According to the World Nuclear Association (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-economics/nuclear-power-economics.aspx), the amount of investment in nuclear R&D has been declining in many countries.
- Slow Adoption of Nuclear Energy: Another way to measure underinvestment in nuclear energy is to look at the slow adoption of nuclear energy as a source of power. According to the World Energy Outlook (https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook), the share of nuclear energy in the total energy mix has been declining in many countries.
- High Cost of Nuclear Energy: The high cost of nuclear energy compared to other sources of energy is another indicator of underinvestment. According to the International Energy Agency (https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook), the cost of nuclear energy is often higher than other sources of energy, making it less attractive for investment.
- Public Perception: Public perception of nuclear energy can also impact investment in the sector. According to the World Nuclear Association (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/public-perception-of-nuclear-power), many people have negative perceptions of nuclear energy, which can limit investment in the sector.
