Jed, I still disagree for several reasons:
- 200 years ago a medical doctor only had to read a few books to assimilate all the knowledge there was at the time; that is impossible today. Science has generated such a wealth of knowledge in ALL areas that specializations in each field of science are now too numerous to list. Those kinds of advancements are not as 'visible' so the perception is that we're not advancing any faster than hundreds of years ago. The advancement that has occurred has been in how quickly we expanded our KNOWLEDGE in all fields and about more and more detail in those fields. not so much in how that knowledge is applied to everyday life and the average person. - The process of evolution, whether occurring in nature or religions or societies, is NOT a gradual, smooth process. There are long periods of stability interrupted by short periods of major changes. And I think your example of chemistry/chemical engineering proves my point. the field of chemistry went thru a revolution with the discovery of the elements and atoms, and then it was a gradual refinement and extension of those basic tenets for hundreds of years. That knowledge has resulted in chemical engineering occurring in only the last 50 years), and material science and nanotech in the last 20 years. - LENR is about to escalate that rate of change by an order of magnitude. LENR will be the next revolution that will cause major changes in all aspects of physics/chemistry and society, whether we like it or not. - One of the determinants as to how advancement progresses is how centralized the new thing is. can the average person implement it themselves, or is the new thing inherently suited to a more 'centralized' implementation. If the latter (centralized), then its adoption will be much slower since there is a dampening effect from the entrenched power structure being resistant to change; however, if it is able to be implemented by even a small portion of the average population, and it provides significant advantages (economic, environment, political, etc) to the centralized alternative, so there is the incentive to the average person to bother with it, then it will be adopted much faster and change will come about much sooner. - Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! The question is: Does LENR have significant advantages, and is it easily implemented by a modestly technical person??? I think the answer to the first part is a no-brainer, but the answer to the second part is uncertain, but the possibility is definitely there. How much of a dampening affect the entrenched power centers will have in the adoption of LENR will be determined mainly by how easily it is implemented by a modestly techy person. If I can do it, then I would build units for my extended family, and show my neighbors how to build theirs. So long as I'm not selling it (i.e., engaging in commerce), I'm not violating patents. I am free to buy the equipment and build my own intel-clone processor if I want, and use it for my PC, and I am not violating any patent rights. But the cost of the equipment is too large, and the regulatory burdens I would need to go thru to not be violating any laws are so extreme, that it would be foolish to do so when I can buy a processor for $200. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: I couldn't disagree more. seriously, hundreds or thousands of years? Once the scientific community (both academic and corporate) realizes that a whole new field of science is being born, they will dive in to understand it and engineer it in ways we can't even imagine . . . Probably they will, but people do not think or learn any faster today than they did in the past. The pace of progress is no faster than it ever was. It is still governed mainly by funerals. The serious study of chemistry began around 1650. It did not reach fruition with chemical engineering until the late 19th century. Transmutation with cold fusion is still at the stage chemistry was when Robert Boyle published a book saying there are more than four elements, "The Skeptical Chemist" (1661): http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm People nowadays have the notion that technology, society and the world in general are changing at a faster pace than ever before. People who believe this have not read enough history. They do not realize how quickly things changed in earlier eras such as: England after colonization in America began; England during the industrial revolution; The U.S. from 1850 to 1870; Japan during the Meiji era. People such as my parents or Julian Schwinger, who lived from around 1914 to around 2000, saw much more fundamental change than people born in the mid-20th century have seen. That is why they were more open minded and willing to believe in claims such as cold fusion. The present era is one of technical and scientific stagnation, not progress. Even popular culture such as fashion and music have stagnated. See: "You Say You Want a Devolution" (great title!): http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201 - Jed
