Technological stagnation

Jason Crawford · 23 Jan 2021

A change of mind in this piece

The case for a technological slowdown since about 1970 is not convincing.

Recalls holdingWhen I first heard the stagnation hypothesis, I was skeptical. The arguments weren’t convincing to me.

3 korrents from this piece · 1 of them a turn ↓

Jason Crawford did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
The case for a technological slowdown since about 1970 is not convincing.

Recalls holdingWhen I first heard the stagnation hypothesis, I was skeptical. The arguments weren’t convincing to me.

Their words nowBut as I studied the history of progress (and looked at the numbers), I slowly came around, and now I’m fairly convinced.
Our reading
Stagnation does not mean no progress; it means progress slower than the late 1800s to mid-1900s peak.

Their wordsStagnation just means slower progress. And not even slower than that pre-industrial era, but slower than, roughly, the late 1800s to mid-1900s, when growth rates are said to have peaked.
Our reading
Progress used to run in several industries at once and now runs in one, which is what the slowdown actually consists of.

Their wordsIt’s that we went from five simultaneous technology revolutions to one.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.