There is already ample information accessible on the Internet to occupy the rest of my life. I could not possibly read, much less understand, even a fraction of the information that is available on-line.
Research that previously took weeks or months to complete can now be accomplished in a matter of minutes. The speed and storage capacity of computers increases at a rate that makes state of the art technology obsolete almost as soon as it hits the market.
Is it possible, or even desirable, to establish a limitation or goal regarding computer capacities (speed, storage, etc.)? If we assume a certain human life-span (80 years? 100 years? 150 years?), is there some point where a hard drive could contain all of the information that could possibly (reasonably?) be absorbed? One hundred pages a day? Five hundred?
Some have posited that we are nowhere near our technological limits concerning information. A 2005 article posted on Responsible Nanotechnology observed:
[W]hat I find ridiculous is Huebner's theory, as quoted in a New Scientist article about his work: "Perhaps there is a limit to what technology can achieve."
A few years ago, I attended a talk by a physicist who spoke about the physical limits of computation. He derived some astronomically vast number of operations per cubic centimeter per second. Then someone in the audience announced that Moore's Law predicted that we'd achieve that in five hundred years. Perhaps that represents a real limit to what technology can achieve. But with the computer invented a mere half-century ago, we're only one-tenth of the way there. Molecular manufacturing relies on existing technological theories, and doesn't even begin to strain today's fundamental scientific theories. But even such a mundane technology will be able to build computers at least a billion times as efficient and powerful as today's. (Actually, even nanoscale technologies will probably be able to do that, eventually.) Molecular manufacturing will be able to build motors at least a million times as powerful, and materials a hundred times as strong, and integrate these powers into complete products at all scales. And it will enable automated general-purpose manufacturing, a technology that does not exist in the world today, and that
will do for manufacturing what computers have done for information processing. (What, you mean information processing isn't synonymous with computers? Think about it... there used to be other ways to process information, but now computers are used almost universally.) All I can say is that anyone who thinks technology is nearing its limits must not have thought through the possibilities. It's an attractive idea, if you're afraid of change -- as many people are. But it just doesn't fit the facts.
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/limits_of_techn.html
In 2003, Grady Booch, an IBM fellow, identified several factors that define the limits of technology:
the laws of physics
the laws of software
the challenge of algorithms
the difficulty of distribution
the problems of design
the problems of functionality
the importance of organization
the impact of economics
the influence of politics
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2082.html
Generally, I agree with the precept that one should always seek improvement. However, I also believe that occasionally we should reevaluate our position in life and consider the price we pay in our quest for "more." Just because technology allows us to sit at home and have the world at our fingertips does not mean this is a worthwhile venture. From time to time, it is important to step back and appreciate where we are, instead of furiously racing toward a finish line that may not exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment