Isn't that just how technology works? We've technically had the Internet since the 1960s, but it has grown and developed and changed enough that the Internet we had in the 1960s wasn't really what we'd call "the Internet" today (the world wide web). It takes a long time for anything to go from the first time someone hacked together a semi-functioning prototype to widespread adoption, especially when it's the 0 to 1 type of innovation Thiel is so fond of.

Who is to say there are no technologies that are now in their infancy that won't reach widespread adoption 40 years from now? Who is to say what's in its infancy today won't be just as impressive or groundbreaking as what was in its infancy 40 years ago?

There wasn't an "Internet" in the 1960s, or at least, not until the very end. The various components: TCP/IP networking, BGP, ethernet, ATM, protocols, Unix, etc., simply didn't exist.

There were some computers which could communicate over modems at 300 - 9600 baud or so, at distance.

The technologies which enabled the Internet were being developed in the 1960s. As of 1977, this was the entire ARPANET, about 53 nodes by my count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpanet_logical_map,_march...

The real guts started filling in during the 1980s, particularly BSD Unix (with a TCP/IP stack), Perl, and by the end of the decade, the first Web server and clients.

The difference between technological developments of the latter half of the 20th century and those from 1800 - 1950, is that the former involved new sources of energy, new means of producing and distributing it, and exceptional advances in materials. From 1950 onward most major advances have been in information processing and communications, though the Green Revolution likely also counts. Nothing to sneeze at, but limited all the same: information processing lets you change how you manage matter, but the overall impact is still restricted to the theoretical maximum efficiency of those physical processes.

Faith that technology will provide us with an unlimited future is ... wishful thinking.

I imagine this depends on one's perception of "shift", but as someone who's been using the commercial Internet since the late 80's, in my view the world wide web only went through one fundamental shift - that was from static web pages to dynamic ones (CGI, at the time).

Programming tools, languages and paradigms (client side v. server side, MVC v. layered, and so on) have evolved for sure, but the WWW? Nothing fundamentally new since the early 90's when CGI made its appearance. The web works today as it did then, albeit with fatter pipes and obese page payloads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface

You may like "Creating the 20th Century" by Vaclav Smil. In it, it argues that almost all big advances of the 20th century are actually based off of inventions and innovations that occurred in the 1860-1900 time period. It makes me wonder what all of our advances from 1960-2000 will create for 2040-2060?

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.

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.

"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.

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.