We Solve for X: Neal Stephenson on getting big stuff done

We Solve for X is a forum to encourage and amplify technology-based moonshot thinking and teamwork. we.solveforx.com G+: goo.gl/T3qQo
For thousands of years the imagination of storytellers has been a guiding light for people trying to change the world. In the last decade or two science fiction has almost fallen behind the work of technologists and entrepreneurs. For the sake of a more interesting tomorrow, we need to get the proverbial horse back out in front of the cart with our imagination professionals building a vision of the future to inspire the builders of the new world.
Neal Stephenson is the author of the three-volume historical epic "The Baroque Cycle" (Quicksilver, The Confusion, and The System of the World) and the novels Cryptonomicon, The Diamond Age, Snow Crash, and Zodiac.
we.solveforx.com

[@xyleborus2]

"I saw the best minds of my generation writing spam filters." 4:25

[@learnedhand7647]

There was a time when I believed that the dystopias designed by Stephenson, or the amazing new worlds designed by Niven would be foreseeable or at least possible in the future. But now all I can foresee is Idiocracy...

[@bornforthisbitch2357]

X=X A=A MIRROR PERSONALITY REAL ONE REALITY DYSTOPIAS WORD STOP WITH D Y MEAN THINKING CREATING DISEASE AND NOTHING EXIST IN TIME ALWAYS CHANGES TO DEFINED TRUTH OF DIAMONDS

[@kejsarmakten]

I keep coming back to watch this speech. It is really inspiring. Thank you Stephenson.

[@Ronobuildstech]

I also do the same

[@ElijahDecker]

I'd like to see an orbital ring. It could be made out of conventional steel cable, with several stations using magnetic acceleration to keep the cable rotating above orbital speed. These stations would also act as the anchor point for space elevators that could also be constructed from conventional steel cables. If such a thing existed it would dramatically reduce the cost of getting material into orbit and beyond.

[@WildkatLefunk]

Read Seveneves.

[@MD0K]

A skyhook would be baller and uselful

[@Disthron]

Anyone know what the SST the speaker was referring too around 2:59? It was something to do with air travel?

[@ESportsEnthusiast]

Supersonic transport.

[@etbadaboum]

Schumpeter had a distinctive vision about entrepreneurs : there are true innovators, disruptive rare geniuses, me too entrepreneurs and cost killers, managers. We ended up with the last ones. Even universities turned out to be hedge funds with double digits investment returns. Moving from an industrial capitalism to a financiel capitalism will be hard to reverse.

[@isakoqv]

@Eidetiken Sure, it's improving all the time. I personally think the next step is to make science more transparent and open, and to improve the process of peer-review.

[@Sheepshowable]

This is exactly what Stephenson is best at: explaining the technological state of a society from the viewpoint of another society.

[@sjozar]

Good talk. People talking about building things is so refreshing in a time when everyone thinks they're cool for tearing other people's ideas down. Go Neal Go :)

[@gia257]

Only things I can come up with is eolic/solar energy and also taking advantage of the height for whatever industry processes it is useful.

[@alan.wootton]

I chose to believe. Neal Stephenson promised me nano tech in Diamond Age, as did K. Eric Drexler, but still I chose to believe. Snow Crash promised 'The 3d Metaverse' and I spent $7 million of other peoples money, in the 90's, chasing VRML. Yet, I believe I think this whole talk was about 'faith'. Faith is a hard thing and I liked the way he depicted "a kind of allergic reaction". I think the purpose of this essay is a call to arms for those who once believed in the future to reconsider.

[@kllrbny]

Furthering Investment Related to Science of the Future. A truly noble intent, well done.

[@albertomadrazo6136]

"I saw the best minds in my generation writing spam filters". The perfect Allen Ginsberg's reference.

[@futaris]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/inaTn5JrprWgiK8m24s

[@keithwinget526]

More people should hear this... I'll add my meager +1 to the pile! :)

[@prezoftheworld]

I think I just found my new favourite youtube channel.

[@ElijahDecker]

I'm currently writing a military science fiction novel set in a stateless transhumanist society being threatened by neighboring statist countries. Arcology skyscrapers, a system of orbital rings at different latitudes, Lunar and Martian colonies are all part of the world I've built. Most people in this world are practically immortal, so there's more of a tendency to plan for the long term and create these super projects. Ironically, the military technology hasn't advanced much farther than what we use today. For instance, the main protagonists crew a tank that could be built with today's technology.

[@qwertyqart]

This talk is 3 years old, as of today, 2015 December 11, top 3 candidates from the Republican party are: 1) Donald Trump, 2) Ben Carson and 3) Ted Cruz. each one as anti-intellectual, as person can get... and even though Mr Stephenson so eloquently stated the problem, sadly, there seems no way out of this stinking pile of horseshit. I would be more interested in ideas on how to get us out of it

[@artistryartistry7239]

+Green Brain Seaside Why not generate such ideas? Why is this someone else's task and not yours? Are you own undertakings more important than the much-needed solutions you allude to?

[@qwertyqart]

+bob jones maybe, I expect him doing better job then I can, because it is his daily living and asking his opinion not out of arrogance, but trust in his expertise.

[@Chetglass_]

Whats Hillarys IQ? How many pedophiles does she publicly associate with?

[@FlauFly]

@mastercilander Are there any statistical evidence that it is "low IQ immigrants" which were voting into Trump? I highly doubt it, but I gladly see some evidence in this topic.

[@mbolduc]

Did you ever pull your head out, or are you still this fucking stupid, ignorant and insane?

[@oker59]

well, I can't seem to find 'center for science and the imagination' after googling it . . . ;

[@SalsaTiger83]

@Eidetiken "centuries of organic farming" brought regular famines, mishaps (casting "only" one family into poverty) and disease with them. The modern organic farming uses different methods that help to keep an economy that can cure the occasional cancer among other things. The Monsanto story is quite old, and for example in the EU this is impossible on several different levels....

[@jaksprats]

I would use the tower as a travel-hub/transportation-system. Ride an elevator up to the top at 20km, then get a paraglider and commute home or to the next tower many many kilometers away (and repeat). And add in ziplines at various floors for very high traffic destinations.

[@BrockByrne]

Some thoughts on this talk: Many of the ways we've been innovating recently has been through an abstract rather than concrete layer of reality. The vast proliferation of information now available at our fingertips is amazing, but we're not amazed. It's taken for granted. "I saw the best minds of my generation writing spam filters." A truthful yet disparaging remark. Organizing the world's information is today's moon landing equivalent. Also, in regards to the 20km tall tower: trying to get your local government to agree on the building plans is likely more difficult than all of its required engineering tasks combined.

[@BrockByrne]

Another thought: how would you clean all the windows?

[@Gunth0r]

Brock Byrne you mean nano'dows?

[@ElijahDecker]

Sophrosynicle Congrats, you just increased the cost of this project by an order of magnitude.

[@Gunth0r]

Not really, you're saving a lot of money by almost never having to clean the windows... The material cost of a dust-free, water-repellant thin film on the windows isn't that high either, this isn't the seventies...

[@BrockByrne]

Turns out they're not looking to have people living that high - it's just going to be a platform for hurling things into space. hieroglyph.asu.edu/project/the-tall-tower/

[@voidedalter]

Watching this in 2020 - the beginning of the end.

[@cm770011]

4:23 it's TRUE!

[@sunfirmafire18]

Funny how many positive likes the video gets and yet comments are mainly made by the small number of folks that disagree with Stephenson. If you thought he's saying "we are going backward" (as one commenter posted), you didn't really think about what he said. Stephenson makes a good point that technology outside the PC/computer realm is suffering. That is very true. Innovations seem as tough they are for pop appeal lately.

[@MrMonkeybat]

Put a mass driver along it and a mag-beam to power solar sails at the top. But it is probably cheaper to build a Lofstrom Loop or even an orbital ring than a conventional tower that tall but I suppose active support structures are an untested idea with a capacity to rapidly destroy themselves if with any power fluctuation or shortage.

[@bighands69]

How are they modelling the slower rate of technological progress is it computationally or material science. Or are they using the lack of moon missions to try and trump all of the developments of science. In the 1960s breakthroughs in nano technology were rare and very few people were aware of these breakthroughs because the communication systems. In today's world there is a major breakthrough in nanotechnology every day. I read at least 5 papers on the subject per week.

[@conmcdon]

Hey there! I'm seven years late, but I just found this video after finishing one of Stephenson's novels and poking around on KZbin. It seems like you come from a STEM background, and even though I don't have that sort of knowledge, I thought I'd play devil's advocate for Stephenson here. Again, please be patient with me as I'm not as well equipped. That being said, the impression I get from this talk is that Stephenson claims, while there are regular breakthroughs of the nature you describe, this culture is overwhelmingly losing its interest and its faith in groundbreaking scientific innovations. Sadly, there are more and more people who would not be impressed by super coolers, cloud AI, and nanotechnology (I am not one of those people, I think those subjects are fascinating). He posits that the reason for this is because the public has not seen large scale scientific innovation that transcends the boundaries of those interested in niche sciences and becomes necessarily interesting to the layman. After all, isn't that what partially marks the distinction between layman and expert, the understanding of the implications brought on by computational breakthroughs? If I were to try my very best to channel Stephenson, I think he might ask more philosophical questions about the implementation of science and the areas in which scientific areas were being made as they relate to our current society's priorities. Fusion energy may well be an area that directly relates to one of those priorities (i.e. renewable energy), and I think the question that Stephenson would pose is, in essence, what's taking so long to apply that research and those technologies? No one in their right mind would suggest anything like laziness; we KNOW that people who work professionally as scientists work their asses off. Is it a matter of politics? Are our regulations getting in the way of innovation? Or are the problems we're trying to solve simply so large scale that we can no longer solve those problems at the same pace as we did in the early 20th century. I suspect the latter explanation is the answer. If that's the case, then maybe the layperson understanding of the rate of scientific application needs to change. I've heard that we're growing exponentially in our understandings of science. Perhaps we're exponentially slowing down in our implementation because the application is becoming exponentially more difficult. Moreover, maybe we've been spoiled by pseudo-science progress. A new iPhone every year may seem like fast progress to many, and that may cause disillusionment with other areas where quote-unquote real science is being researched (I'm going to make the assumption that researching coolers for fusion energy is necessarily more important that upgrading the camera in a phone). One last note: if there's a breakthrough in nanotechnology every day, is that really a "breakthrough" in the traditional sense of the word? I don't mean to undermine that hard work that goes into making those successes possible (I'm confident I'll never be at the level of competence required for that line of work), but wouldn't the dramatic nature of a breakthrough necessitate some degree of novelty or rather scarcity of progress?

[@bighands69]

The reason for the decentralization of traditional industries is due to the fact poor countries previously china have figured out how to make the stuff as well so there is now more choices in the world. Also companies are looking to cut costs so as to boost share holder dividends and share price increases this ties back to our best graduates going into investment banking. Allot of my friends who studied science at uni are now in banking. Even med grads have ended up there.

[@pauly260]

Can’t stop coming back to this video. Highly challenging & thought provoking. I’m shocked that humanity couldn’t, at the very least, have an orbital mass driver by now. We don’t even have a physical proof of concept. We sent men to the moon and…that’s it? I feel how Neil feels about how we have failed, as a society, to dream big and keep charging forward. How would Goddard feel if he saw his invention used to toss a billionaire’s car into space? How does Tim Berners-Lee feel about the invention he helped create being used as a rumor mill that spews disinformation & anti-science rhetoric? How would Jules Verne feel if he learned that society yearns to live in an idealized version of twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years in the past? I’m happy that Neil has managed to vocalize what I have felt for years yet never had the ability to vocalize. We need more “argue with that” leaps, and that starts with great science fiction. I hope to see it happen in my lifetime, but I’m not optimistic. Thank you, Neil.

[@scarlet8078]

I see the best minds of my generation designing algorithms for computer trading of financial markets & writing extremely complex offering documents for collateralized debt obligations. It's really terrible. & I say this as someone who does it (lol). I'm sure there are others writing censorship AI for social media platforms. I wish we could do bigger things. But a big part of the reason we're not is that the act of living in our modern world has become so expensive that it requires near-constant work, & so complex that it requires a lot of the capacity of our brains. Newton & Einstein had more space to ponder. We've lost the space to ponder. Meditation, exercise, etc., can help. Yet, I feel like at some point companies need to give retreats or more vacation or utilize some sort of isolation in order to get more innovation out of their employees.

[@isakoqv]

@Eidetiken When I say science I'm talking about scientifically conducted research which is peer-reviewed and combine to form the best of human knowledge. Farming is certainly a type of science, but it's not research. And patents don't control what can be researched either, only what can be sold.

[@peppeddu]

@mklappstuhl I don't see how, unless you care to be more specific. Design IS important, age of it is not. He's mixing the two together. I'd sleep on the Hoover Dam anytime; I wouldn't go anywhere near the Millennium Bridge in London, even though it was built 60 years later.

[@Psycop]

I can't but wonder if this guy is not Jacques Servin (Yes Men)... or maybe the resemblance is just quite good...

[@ownageDan]

Also, don't forget to plant a field of roses around it, they will look nice I think.

[@Foggen]

As the writer of Diamond Age, I'd think he'd have a greater appreciation of the developments in nanotech...

[@isakoqv]

@SalsaTiger83 What are you talking about? Of course big pharma has had great impact on our research through investments and development of different technologies, that's not what I was talking about. I was explaining to Eidetiken that what is considered scientific knowledge is reached through the scientific method, including peer-review, and is not something corporate interests could corrupt.

[@danieldanilenko4205]

An example of big-stuff optimistic sci-fi could be Homeworld video game

[@cm770011]

Is it bizarre that we got more done when people were claiming it's physically impossible? Or was that the actual driver?

[@CrackWilding]

@danandersonmobile He addressed that. He believes what we think of a massive innovation isn't. That's his point in comparing 1900/1960 vs 1960/present. Watch it again.

[@bighands69]

There is reason why South Korea went from being a back water region were people worked in fields to being a major exporter. We in the west are now starting to realize the reason why japan, Germany, China, Taiwan and South Korea are so successful. The whole German economy is like silicon valley. and this also applies to South Korea.

[@00arbiter00]

Speaking of our financial system, I think it's safe to say that besides spam filters, a lot of our society's creative and intellectual energies have been going towards creating ever more abstract and obtuse financial instruments. Subprime mortgage derivatives are only one recent tragic example. The question is why are our smart people going into finance and not engineering? It's not because scifi writers were telling glorious stories of future financial feats. It's the money.

[@MrAdvancedAtheist]

Look up Peter Thiel's debate with George Gilder on KZbin. Thiel argues that most kinds of engineering the past 40 years have become effectively ILLEGAL, except in computing. Just try to build a new oil refinery or a new nuclear power plant; or try to recreate Bell Labs in its heyday, for some examples. Hence we have a proximate cause of the Great Stagnation.

[@isakoqv]

@Eidetiken That's a common misconception but actually not true. Big pharma and "agriculture" (I assume you're talking about Monsanto) have a lot of power in other areas but they have very little influence over what is considered science.

[@gia257]

@jaksprats lol too hard to do that at that height I think but still idea is an idea

[@bighands69]

The actual science that is developed for particle accelerators and nano technology will make space journeys more efficient and safer. We are now at the point of science were small organisations will be able to send robotic systems to the moon. Computer technologies have advanced beyond anything that existed in the 60s and the rate of growth that occurs in this field is greater today than it was in the 1960s. Computing power is growing exponentially.

[@isakoqv]

@yardsale09 Really? I realize he's got a bit of a monotonous voice, but I think he's captivating.

[@goodboy7171]

Needs more Shaftoe.

[@etbadaboum]

Why not developing algorithms for robotoc production or image analysis in the first place? I think that without the turbo-capitalism we experienced in the last decade (fast pace globalization essentially) industrial countries would have developed robots to boost productivity at home through good old competition instead of a massive job cutting frenzy. Now Foxconn in China wants to buy one millions robots and laying twice this number of employees. Technology is finally catching up but lagging.

[@defenderred1212]

Think of the 20km tall building as a metaphor. It's meant to represent the idea of a national challenge to not just build something but make it functional. What he brings up is so true though, In 1969 we (humanity, even though it was the US) went to the moon and then came back. Not only were we successful, we did it several more times, and started to add more to the scientific mission by evolving the space capsule. Space shuttle, personal computers, laptops, cell phones, internet. What's next?

[@Uninanimate]

February 2012: * Neal Stephenson proposes building a tower to the heavens * Jeb announces they're increasing the height limit in MineCraft Coincidence?

[@i-am-your-conscience]

About getting big stuff done - find a good director for a movie adaption of "Snow Crash" (+ "Cryptonomicon" eventually) in your lifetime! PLEASE! :)

[@SalsaTiger83]

I have one thing that you should not try to do with the tower: Host a lot of important infrastructure, company headquartes and government offices in it. Why? Well, remember what happened in 9/11. There might not be a terrorist attack against this tower, but obviously there might be problems you can't expect or predict. So that is a big argument against big buildings: Too grave consequences if it goes boom.

[@bighands69]

Those people in the 1960s who thought that we would have moon bases by year 2000 and flying cars did not view the engineering challenges that would be need to do this and there views were emotionally driven. We could push all our science and technologies towards going to mars in 2023 just as JFK had proposed but that would not be the same as a long term mars space travel infrastructure. We need the material science and AI to enable long term Mars projects.

[@archimag]

Great idea, although i do not agree that the last third of the 20th century is without any significant advancement. There was a lot of progress in things you cannot see or touch directly, like management and product development, a subject starting as optimization in engineering and mathematics about the same time the sci-scrapers stopped growing. I know those fields are deeply under-appreciated, but without them we could not develop rockets in private enterprise like it is done today.

[@Epsilon015]

Someone tell me when SSTs were widely used and up in the air transporting humans all day long?

[@Epsilon015]

The United States literally doubled the amount of different people we put into space in 2002-2012 vs. 1965-1975. In 2011 the year before this speech Nasa put 16 different people in space. The year after the first flight to the moon it took a full three years from 70-72 to put up 16 people. So where does he get his figures from? I'm not even sure what to make of this speech. America has always been anti-intellectual but yet the driving force for the global economy and tech world for decades, especially post ww2. The public didn't really even fully support going to the Moon back then. Its actually supported more now after the fact than it was then.

[@Epsilon015]

I mean I'll give it to him that he misspoke when he said us 1968 people can send someone to the moon and back. We know that didn't happen til 1969.

[@H4hT53]

@jjsaul Free the Daemon.

[@bighands69]

The information age is not banking. The information age is about communication systems and intelligent systems approach. I am half way through my second PHD due to the information age. If we were to draw a comparison with aviation to that of information communications science we at present are still only in the 1930s. We have not even created the jet engine yet. Real stuff as you put it is starting to merge with concept of information science. Even medical science is becoming info based.

[@bighands69]

Internet start ups are part of the over all picture of science and technologies. Neal Stephenson joked about spam filters but he probably does not understand that the machine learning algorithm used in spam filters can also be applied to other advanced robotics systems and pattern recognition systems. If you real want to go back to real science then we need to address why all out best mathematicians and physics majors end up in banking.

[@etbadaboum]

OK so we finally agree! Let's move people back to work with real science (I do) and education instead of Internet start-ups that really doesn't bring real stuff and disruption. Elon Musk is a pretty cool guy if we judge him this way. Forget Paypal, welcome SpaceX. (by decentralization I meant the move of industries outside of richer countries for the sake of the fabless ideology)

[@pauly260]

etbadaboum I admire your mode of thinking. Your speaking of paradigm shift, something that has been cycling faster in mankind since the enlightenment. We have turned our backs on true technological progress for short-term returns in the financial sector, something that we should have used as a ways to a means instead of a focal point for society. As a species, we need to concentrate on the next step of our evolution instead of the cost of the new iPhone. We need to make celebrities out of engineers, doctors & scientists, instead of movie stars & sports figures. We need educators that focus on fields that will exist soon instead of readying the masses for disappearing industries. I like how you think. Thank you for writing what I couldn’t always express.

[@vvillena]

@juvenilevoodoo A tower that can't be hit by planes is a nice thing. But a tower that *can* be hit by planes is wonderful.

[@quicktooth1]

Please give me your answers as soon as possible. Better yet- give EVERYONE the answers so our world can get better! It may not be too late!

[@bighands69]

The rate of advancement in science has not slowed down. There are now breakthroughs in science that occur on a daily basis that would have taken years in the 1960s. We can transfer and process information at speeds that have never occurred in the history of man. CERN could never have happen in the 1960s as the rate of progress within information science at that time were very slow. Just because there is no moon mission does not mean that technological progress has slowed down.

[@archimag]

wouldn't be cheaper to launch double amount of rockets? Someone in aeronautics told me first lecture in class, the professor asked : "Why don't we use a giant spring instead of rockets to launch satellites today? Because rockets are cheaper" P.S. sorry for mistakes in English, it is not my language P.P.S. hate to be the evil guy here, I feel like I am Lodoghir from "Anathem"

[@SallyMorem]

I predict we will get lots of big stuff done with lots of small stuff. Eric Drexler, call your office.

[@leccine]

Profit driven societies never going to achieve even the "possible with current technologies" aim, simply because the profit maximum is not at the same spot. a really simple example to understand what I am talking about is the forever lasting knife. if you produce such a knife, you can sell it in US 300M times and that is it. If you produce a knife which last for 2 years than you can sell it 150M times/year. So to maximize you profit you will never produce a knife which last forever.

[@JimSaul]

The final question is the great question of our time - what has happened to our financial and management systems that all our society's resources are diverted away from solving problems? I think we may as well view the financial takeover of the economy as a viral infection. It doesn't have to be lethal, but it does require aggressive therapies, and I think Stephenson is making a good first step here. It's like we're brain damaged and having to relearn how to function.

[@archimag]

Just think about it, today there are PRIVATE companies capable of producing and launching rockets, all by themselves, who could have thought of that back in 60s, without an army of engineers and government funding. Now to the idea spoken, of high altitude launch platform, I am sure if the idea was profitable it would be built by now. Just to think over thousands of tones of metal to maintain for one single launch, only to achieve double the mass to launch over to space,

[@bighands69]

Like all things peoples attitudes can be unrealistic at times that is why people in the 60s thought that we would have robots in the year 2000 and that we would have cities in space/moon. People did not think from a engineering/science perspective in the 60s. If we want the Future that Neil Stephenson wants there is going to need to be allot of boring science that is not easy to digest for people. That decentralized world will happen but will take many years to develop.

[@SalsaTiger83]

@isakoqv you are oversimplifying things... I agree that patents have grown out of hand, but "big pharma" really is what brought us to the level of health care that is possible today. It couldn't have been done any other way, and there are different approaches to go further beyond the limits of this "big pharma" problem you think about.

[@bighands69]

Stephenson perspective is very narrow and he ignores the growth computational power. All those modelled super coolers at CERN will get used on the next generation of fusion energy research. All the advancements made at Google in big data will enable the next generation of cloud Ai. IBM Watson now has learned over 80% of human medical knowledge and this has happen in a 2 year window and this level of growth was not present in the 60s.

[@liams7409]

indeed. i feel like gibson was more on point with the rogue ai in neuromancer.

[@bighands69]

But there is going to be a back lash against this for various reason. Allot kids coming through today can see the likes of face book and google as being something they them self's can achieve. Were as very few of them think that they could set up a bank to rival Goldman Sachs (might be a bad thing). I agree with you allot of top graduates are poached by banks. Germany is a country that put more emphasis on technology and manufacturing and other countries will copy this.

[@bighands69]

By sounds of it and I am assuming your are versed in mathematics or statistical analysis. Spam filter algorithmic structures that have developed over the years are part of the human collective development of information sciences. The same information sciences that have developed are modelling climate change, data communications, CERN, Mechanics and many other fields of science. What you seem to lack is that the bigger picture of science is more than just mars missions.

[@ownageDan]

Of course there's only 1 use for such a tower: First of all, it has to be built out of black stone. Only then we can start constructing beams that will hold together the fabric of reality and prevent the end of all worlds :)

[@CarlosCMTF]

@wizzygynoid Science doesn't have all the answers but, with all certainty, it is the only rational method of pursuing them.

[@dumky]

I don't agree with Neil's premise that we're innovating less. Plane travel is far more mainstream than in1960. The moonlanding was probably a waste. Smaller less visible things are no less important. For example, organ transplants or packaging that keeps chips crispy.

[@erikschiegg68]

Diamond Age is one of the most visionary books I read apart from the Bible. Sometines I think, I see the quick updates while flickering through the paper. THE BOOK is today feasable and could theach all kids in all languages ideology free. Get the top gaming devellopers in the boat. Max 1 billion cost.

[@sunfirmafire18]

* though. :P

[@bighands69]

I do agree with Neal Stephenson on allot of his points but not all of them. His overall concept that science is going backwards is something I would disagree with.

[@clearmenser]

@TheRanblingjohnny And in a hundred years we'll find that they've hyper evolved into creatures that take advantage of tiny black holes where their hearts used to be. They're roll over us and darkness shall reign for two thousand years until a new hero rises from the ashes.

[@MrAdvancedAtheist]

Progress in computing over the past 40 years hasn't depended on the gold standard.

[@Alexfantastico26]

A 20 KM VERTICAL FARM. With a relatively small amount of the Earth's surface area you would have a MASSIVE area to grow crops. I am consistently disgusted by the huge amount of farm scarred surface of the Earth where beautiful forests once were. You could even build this under the ground where you could use geothermal energy to power the hydroponic lamps.

[@silnorth]

So the last significant progress made by humans was the internet. What a chilling idea. Hopefully the internet is just taking its time getting ready. Or maybe we are too culturally arrogant notice all cool things that have gone down since 1968. Heck the Ottoman's didn't even really notice the renaissance until 1923. We better build a cool tower before some upstart culture gets ahead of us and we don't even notice for around 400 years. :)

[@theMAXILOPEZpsycho]

The reasons behind the lack of progress: big government and going off the gold standard

[@bighands69]

But it will have to be reversed because other nation (China) are determined develop technology and science as part of there economic growth. The reversing process will be slow and painful but it will happen we are now in the middle of that process. The Silicon valley peak of the 70s and 80s will happened in america because of the reaction to the general economy. There are kids now in secondary school that are build innovated technologies that I could only dream about in school.

[@vvillena]

@lackman15 The 20 km tower is a lot cheaper than the Iraq War. Also, somebody presents you a wonderful idea and all you can think of are the terrorists? Don't talk about pride, yours went away a long time ago.

[@BlackGypoMagic]

Came in looking for a breaking bad joke.... left sad.

[@Frodnonag]

Which begs the question: Why is there so much money to be made in the financial sector? watch?v=PlxKtDOkEj4

[@isakoqv]

@wizzygynoid You're clearly confusing what some call the "scientific establishment" with the scientific method. Science is the only thing that can accurately answer any questions. I fear your anti-science sentiments a lot more than I fear GMOs or nuclear fission.

[@tycho_m]

Wow, this is depressing as fuck.

[@AsgardAlfheim]

Walter White

[@martinklepsch]

@peppeddu Entirely pointless comment. Comparing apples to pears.

[@SoGladUCame]

This bastard killed hank.

[@ThatGingerCuntFromTerminator2]

He looks like bootleg from facialabuse.

[@bighands69]

Neal Stephenson has a flawed concept of science and technology. We had made many great advances in science to name just a few Cern particle accelerator, human genome, Stem cell, nano technology and many more. If we want to go into space we are going to need to develop all of the above fields.

[@FasterThanLight]

Love the focus of his talk, but there's too many problems with the idea of such a 20KM tall building. First off, it would likely cost not billions, not tens of billions, but hundreds of billions of dollars to build. Second, how could that cost be justified? Would take much too long to recoup from savings on space launching alone. And what about terrorists? Talk about an ultimate target. Bringing down the pride of the world and something that costs hundreds of billions? That would be target #1.

[@hoyeruzaharia407]

Interesting how Stevenson doesn't make the connection between 2 world wars and technical innovations. Computers appeared exactly because of WWII, Neal. Wars ALWAYS spur innovations. Sad but true.

[@mrmendicantbias]

He wrote a book called "Cryptonomicon" whose entire plot revolves around the circumstances of the computer's invention during the war.

[@cm770011]

Rupert Tonkin-Galvin PWNED

[@yardsale09]

Good points but he's such a boring speaker