Consider cameras that can shoot 10000 frames a second at ultra high definition resolutions; in the 1970s we had shitty auto developing film as the height of consumer tech.

Battery tech has gotten so advanced you're literally carrying around a firestorm's worth of energy in your pocket and only notice in the rare case that things go spectacularly wrong; compare that to the heavy inefficient NiCds of your parent's age.

Semiconductors are 14nm. That's not for scientists, that's not for researchers, that's for any joe that has 300 bucks. 70 years ago the idea that a pace described by Moore's law could even exist was seen with skepticism (remember it's a marketing "law" not a physical one).

We have rockets that can land themselves, cars that weigh half as much as they did 70 years ago and are twice as safe, a logistic network such that exotic foods are available year round world wide.

It just kills me to watch people post on the Internet using more than likely their mobile super computers, saying tech clearly has slown down because "they've got a feeling".

1. The important point to emphasize here is deceleration does not mean that progress isn't happening. It simply means that the groundbreaking progress we witnessed in the first half of the 20th century is not being replicated as quickly anymore.

2. Technological progress is based on the outcomes they bring with them. Easy or hard to achieve -- doesn't matter in terms of this measurement. Insane advancements in physics is not technological progress unless it enables us to vastly improve our existing capabilities to do things as humans.

Thiel argues this by pointing to a tech were all excited about: self-driving cars.

Thiel argues the original invention of the car was still a bigger innovation.

electricity -> cars -> airplanes -> rockets -> space travel

radio -> tv

laundry machines -> dishwashers

antibiotics -> vaccines

^^^All first 3/4 of 20th century. Self-driving cars would be merely a close match to any one of them. For the next 50 years to match what we saw in the start of the 20th century, we are going to need at least 4 or 5 other technological revolutions in the world of atoms for the comparison to be even similar.

>Technological progress, as long as you don't count all of this massive technological progress (which when left out conveniently makes my point), has been slowed down.

Edit: I should be less combative and provide some actual content. Take a look at semiconductors from the 60s vs now. They are clearly related to 'the digital realm' but are purely physical technology. The fast computers we have now (which enable our digital realm) are at the tip of a screaming bullet train of physical technological progress.

The fact that a relatively low income individual has access to a large number of goods and services which were once considered exclusive to the wealthy is a clear indication that technological progress has continued at a steady pace.

While 'slowed down' or 'sped up' are difficult to quantify, the fact that 3 billion human beings have gained access to smartphone technology over the last decade seems to support the idea that technological progress has in fact sped up.

Increasing air transportation speed is a very narrow application of technology and hardly constitutes a meaningful gauge of technical innovation.

>The fact that a relatively low income individual has access to a large number of goods and services which were once considered exclusive to the wealthy is a clear indication that technological progress has continued at a steady pace.

No, it's just a clear indication of market efficiencies and/or better engineering.

It doesn't say anything about what the grandparent asked for: the rate and magnitude of new scientific/technologic discoveries.

One era (early 20th) is the industrial revolution; one era (approx. 1960-now) is the information revolution. It is true that the industrial revolution has slowed down and mostly focused on incremental improvements, but it seems strange to discount the information revolution gains completely. There's been a lot of information revolution gains.

That said, I would argue that medicine too has made some pretty significant advances in the 2nd half of the 20th century... mostly in surgery techniques (transplants are 2nd half 20th century), scanning techniques (NMR and CT both were 2nd half 20th century), and pharmaceuticals. Significant vaccines (polio, measles, mumps) were 2nd half of the 20th century developments. Genetic science has made huge gains as of late. Etc.

But half of the "world of atoms" things the grandparent listed were also market efficiencies or better engineering. Trading average speed for vast improvements in energy efficiency in aircraft in order to make flight accessible to the masses certainly involved vastly more progress of a technical and scientific nature in the late twentieth century than the cited early twentieth century example of wider replication of well-understood principles of plumbing to give the masses indoor toilets.

"Market efficiencies and/or better engineering" are often enabled by technological breakthroughs.

Consider the efficiencies generated by Amazon's highly automated warehouses; their level of automation wouldn't have been feasible in, say, the 60's. Substantial technological progress on multiple fronts has been required.

Actually it isn't. As Peter Thiel would say, globalization is the copying of existing technology, it is not the manufacture of new ones.

One reason we have stagnated can be revealed in the bias of our new language. Where we once used the terms "1st World" and "3rd World" we now use "Developed" and "Developing" -- language that is excessively bullish about globalization while implicitly pessimistic about technology.

But that's because most of the money and talent has focused on the digital realm. Progress is going where there is the best ROI.

Which is kind of the point. ROI is not a strong predictor of societal improvement.

It may be, but there isn't a real good metric for societal improvement. And it seems like progress would always have ebbs and flows as different technologies have new opportunities that are squeezed -- and then other technologies look plumper, so they are squeezed, and so on.

And that's fine. I don't think anyone is complaining today about timepieces not keeping even more accurate time. Clocks today (in whatever device they are embedded in), while not 100% accurate are pretty good. The ROI in improving them further just isn't there -- in part because the good they'd serve humanity isn't there.

I think there are several quality metrics for gauging societal improvement: - healthcare access and outcome statistics - poverty & homelessness statistics - education levels - access to clean water in sufficient quantity - access to healthful foods in sufficient quantity - levels of environmental contaminants - delta in income of top and bottom economic tiers

And so on. Toss in a few bullet points intended to flag totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist tendencies, worker exploitation, and the like and I think that while likely not a comprehensive blueprint that's more than enough to get started. Especially considering how poorly so many industrialized, first world, "democratic" countries in the world do on so many of these basics.

That said I agree there's no ROI on improving household items like clocks. The problem is there's also no obvious ROI on resolving homelessness.

What needs to happen is for VC and other sources of investment to stop chasing easy wins and realize huge money can be made by moving more out into the world of atoms.

How do you know moving into the world of atoms will lead to huge economic wins? Its easy for you to say someone should chase less risky investments when its not your money being invested.

Would you know a few VCs who have lost several million or more on an investment. Do it sometime and then express your optimism for the future.