When is good enough good enough, the advancement of science and technology [closed]

Question

This is going to deliberately be a bit vague as there are a lot of particular situations to which this general question applies and this isn't really about any given technology but the human approach to technology in general.

Humans seem to push for better and better technological artifacts, the development of computing power in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century comes to mind, but there is a point where you can't improve on a particular piece of technology.

The basic example I always think of is the spoon, it's not the ideal universal utensil or there wouldn't be knives and forks but the basic design hasn't changed in living memory because a "spoon-shaped spoon" is the best spoon you can have.

So there are two questions:

1. If presented with an apparent hard limit on a particular piece of technology, say several centuries of R&D has turned up nothing new and very little of any use on the minor tweaks front, would humans be satisfied with the version of a particular technology they have or would they still spend time, money, and possibly lives trying to push the envelop?

and

2. Does it matter what the technology does? For example is a better medicine worth pushing on regardless while a better weapon isn't.

Answer 1

I'm going to say no. Humanity will never stop trying to improve pretty much anything.

Let's start with your example of the spoon, user54373's answer already covers the spork but that is not the only change or innovation in spoon technology.
This first website lists a number of creative spoon types which range from silly to quite useful. They are (almost) all recognisably spoons, but they serve a variety of uses. My favourites are the clip on spoons and the sliding measuring spoon, both which I could see being useful. The spoon that balances on the side of a pan is also good. A lot of it is gimmicky but there are still clearly people thinking about how to make a better spoon.
And this second link is about Google making a self balancing spoon for people with Parkinson's Disease. Apparently it compensates for the shaking caused by the disease to allow people to eat without spilling. So again, people are putting effort into improving something as simple as a spoon, and incorporating some quite fancy technology in there.

As for your second point, I think there probably is a difference. Improving the spoon probably isn't a high priority for many people, but things like medicines, computers and weapons are and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future. It doesn't mean we won't see innovations in spoons, just that innovations in other more pressing areas will come more frequently.

Answer 2

Upvoted, but I'm going to have to disagree with your basic premise, for a few reasons.

First, there is constant tweaking and tinkering with the basics. Even the humble spoon ... the all-powerful spork was invented in 1874. And the design we use today is quite different from those models.

Secondly, and this is the most important point ... our needs change. You might have the most awesome spoon or sword or paperclip imaginable, perfectly suited to its purpose. But our needs will change, and formerly perfect tools will no longer be sufficient.

Consider the mighty gladius. It evolved several times over the years, as Rome's foes changed, and as they got better ideas. But even after centuries of evolution, they eventually abandoned it. Why? Because they started having lots of mounted units. A gladius is a frightening weapon in the hands of a legionnaire in a shield-wall, but is kind of ... silly in a cavalry charge. ;D

Answer 3

/would they still spend time, money, and possibly lives trying to push the envelop?/

Yes, in a capitalist system. If I want you to buy my spoon instead of that sold by a competitor, I must somehow distinguish what I make and sell such that it has a competitive edge. If you shop on line you will find an astounding variety of spoons. The below is only one page of what Pottery Barn offers.

Just as the basic beetle body plan is retained for the myriad of beetles with details tweaked over evolutionary time, place and circumstance will favor minor tweaks on the basic spoon plan which improve fitness (saleability) for a given time and place. Fashion and styles are part of what it is to be human and will drift and change with place, time and generations. Especially if there is a profit motive that they do.

I will tell you from experience: the impatient and practical minded human may note (but hopefully not out loud) that there is no fundamental difference between any these spoons and any one will perform its function equally well. This is true. Then how to choose? Allow some person of your acquaintance (and possibly in your life) who has more appreciation for these differences to make the choice, and then be enthusiastically supportive of it.

Answer 4

I do not fully understand what you mean by "a piece of technology". Technology is the knowledge of how to make things; this knowledge changes all the time as people learn more about nature, discover new processes, are confronted with changing conditions, or simply forget old processes. The things in themselves are not "technology"; it is perfectly possible to have an object and to have little idea of how it was made.

Let's look at an example: the famous Portland vase, made somewhere in the Roman empire sometime during the 1st century of the common era, or maybe during the second half of the 1st century before the common era, we don't know for sure.

[Side B of the Portland Vase. Cameo-glass, probably made in Italy ca. 5-25 AD. Picture by Jastrow, available on Wikipedia under the CC-BY-2.5 license.]

It's a cameo glass vase, decorated with beautiful scenes; the picture shows Ariadne moping on Naxos after being dumped by Theseus. The thing is, we have the vase but we don't know how it was made. We have various hypotheses, of course; I'm partial to Rosemarie Lierke's hypothesis that is was made by hot forming, that is, by pressing a hot dark glass blank into a form coated on the inside with white glass powder; but other scholars and artisans have different ideas.

This applies in all domains. The Romans used fabrics, and hammers, and nails, and earrings, and ink and so on quite similar to those we use today; but the technology to make them has changed quite a lot during the last two millenia. The question gives the example of a spoon; the technology to make spoons has changed quite a lot during the last few centuries, and the materials have changed too, from wood to pewter to stainless steel to plastic to laminates. The Platonic form of a spoon transcends time; but the process of making actual physical spoons, the technology, has changed and will change.

Answer 5

We will never stop tweaking things.

Individual scientists often get fascinated by some problem and are then happy to spend a few decades figuring out exactly how it works if they can secure funding, and seem to be willing to spend significant portions of their time securing the funding to pursue their chosen problem.

It should be remembered that there have been people working tirelessly on perpetual motion machines for centuries. Every farmer and engineer has some hobby thing half built in a garage with 'improvements' of their own invention. Every family has someone who takes things apart.

Enough might be enough for almost everyone, but allowed even a modicum of freedom there will be someone who thinks a toaster ought to be more like a mouse trap and will come up with something new.

“The good Lord lets us grow old for a reason: To gain the wisdom to find fault with everything He’s made!” – Abraham Simpson

Anything you can criticize someone could make differently, and if you have money they will.

Answer 6

As an example of a "hard limit", I'll cite Astrology as having experienced its hard limit long ago. And yet there are people revising and inventing new takes on the "basic technology" all the time. Need I say more?

Answer 7

The answer to this cannot be considered without also considering what else people could be doing besides advancing technology. In economics terms, this is the "opportunity cost" for developing the new technology. If I'm busy tinkering with a new toy, it means I'm not spending that time with my family, or cleaning the house.

If we apply Rational Actor Theory to the problem, we assume that everyone is working towards some sort of goal. If developing a technology moves us towards that goal more than not developing it, then we'll spend our time developing. This also means that technologies compete. The buggy whip, and processes for making them, are virtually unchanged since the days of Ford's Model-T car, which rendered the horse and buggy obsolete.

To this end, we may see different technologies eclipse each other, but we see technology progress. This can continue until one day, developing technology is not the best way to further our goals. There is no proof that the march of technology is endless. In fact, it makes some sense that it will reach plateaus where it is simply not the best way to solve life's problems. Remember that technological development never solves any of life's real problems. What it does is give us tools to solve those problems better. At some point, the benefits of technology simply cease to outweigh the benefits of getting our hands dirty and actually solving the problems with the technology we have.

Or we could have the attitude of always building the tools to solve the problems later. This has the aire of martengale betting, always getting into position to make your win. The results are equally disastrous. In business, there's entire schools of thought as to how to properly stop investing in tools and instead focus on making profit. A civilization that never stops the relentless assault on the future eventually makes a mistake and falls.

Of course, we could be irrational too. If you dismiss Rational Actor Theory, we can consider the possibility that individuals will always dream of reaching the stars, even if all the cold, hard, rational statistics say they can't. Someone's always going to try tinkering with something.

Answer 8

1. The majority might be satisfied by a particular version of a particular technology, but not everyone will be. Some people will be driven by perversity or ambition or challenge to either improve any technology generally, or specifically for some niche requirement.

Taking the example of the spoon: why should it not be deeper, or shallower. If spoons are usually taken into the mouth from one side, why should they be symmetrical? Why not have left-handed and right-handed spoons? What about spoons for moustaches, or for eating soup in sandstorms, or zero-gravity?

The problems tackled may not be sensible, the solutions may not be effective, but someone will tackle them and, perhaps with some clever marketing, may end up convincing people that the idea has merit - or not. It doesn't really matter, because someone will try - even if they end up re-inventing someone else's long discarded 'new idea'.

2. It doesn't matter at all. In the example, though, you ask a slightly different question: are some technologies more important than others? The answer is 'yes', but it depends very much upon circumstance whether what you need is better medicine, or a better weapon, or a better spoon which can detect contaminated food (for example).

Answer 9

Innovation follows some form of environmental pressure. Spoons haven't changed much because the pressure went away or was dealt with. The difficulties around scooping and eating liquids were solved and no further pressures existed to be improved upon. New pressures then stress further innovation. Following the spoon bit, as the human race advanced/advances into the space age, a new issue arises: liquids in space. Humans looked at spoons, which long had solved the problems of eating liquids, and realized they weren't going to perform under the new criteria. New environmental pressures were there that demanded attention and innovation. I imagine an astronaut's grandma was upset that she couldn't send her tupperware of soup into zero-g with her favorite grandchild. "How about I load it into a toothpaste tube or a caprisun pouch?" Thanks Grandma!

Just like that the spoon gets blacklisted from spaceflight.

Related more to thoroughly researched areas, innovation comes in whatever way can reduce the pressure. For example, people looking at solar power might see a tech limit due to the actual amount of energy reaching them. Our solar power limit is estimated somewhere above 120 Watts/sq. meter. In your question's context, that is the hard limit, even after centuries of research. "Good Enough" would be found by the pressures forcing the change and what changes could be made to reduce the pressure. Lets say there is a 90% efficient solar panel. Is the earth in desperate need of 100% solar energy extraction? Would (for the sake of this example) years and trillions of dollars in research be needed? or would it be easier/cheaper to build solar collectors in space? Is it Dyson Sphere time? What about other energy sources? What about more efficient appliances? What about killing off a huge chuck of the population to reduce demand? Scary, but it all depends.

In this case, the pressure includes energy need, time, effort, expense, morals, ethics, etc. and the responses are not limited to more work on the current research they are trying. Humans like to do things at the cheapest 'cost' to them - We're lazy. We will try to find a different solution to reduce the pressure. I'm not saying solar collectors in space would be easy, but it would be just one way to reduce the energy need pressure, and it would definitely be prioritized as soon as the research was deemed fruitless and 'expensive'. Also, lets not kill off people.

The same holds for your second point. The innovation is driven by pressures. Is the planet under a threat of advanced alien war? You can bet we'll prioritize weapons tech over cold sore treatments. Has globalization and communication reduced nuclear tensions? We'll probably kick start tons of medical funding. while retiring weapons projects. Do astronauts love eating soups and cereals with spoons? We'll need some artificial gravity on board ASAP!

The scary side I see to this innovation process is a world where maybe we have tried nearly everything. In that case I imagine the solutions would be a little nightmarish. Maybe nothing has yet solved a global energy/food crisis and the darker answers I mentioned might be the only 'good' or affordable solutions. Yikes.

Answer 10

Let us give a different twist to the answer; I'm unsure if this is what you really want to know, but...

Spoon is not really a good example because technology to make it is rather basic and varied in the centuries, while the shape remained quite constant.

However, if you look to other technologies you see a path often followed:

• infancy with a rather crude prototype.
• youth adds enhancements that usually make the thing perform better, but are more complex.
• maturity when all parts are essential to good working.
• perfection when enhancement is not anymore possible without a substantial change in design.

One of such "perfect" product is said to be the Springfield Model 52 rifle.

Similar "perfection" can be found in (not so) modern fractional distillation towers.

It is interesting to note (but this is probably irrelevant here) the original meaning of "perfect" was to indicate an action that is completely in the past, so it is completed and cannot be changed anymore. A "perfect" thing is, by translation, a thing that cannot be changed anymore without making it something different.

Answer 11

Is consumer culture an aspect of this question? Many choose "good enough" as a way to keep stuff out of landfills. Many cannot afford the latest technology even when it comes to medicine.

I would hope that as technology improves in general there will be ways to get those improvements to specific individuals. Yes the average spoon serves many until you need a smaller than average size or a super long handle. There are spoons with gyroscopes that control for tremor so that Parkinson's patients can eat without spilling.

Philosophically, I think many people will be left with needs both minor and major as technology advances. A minor tweak can mean a big difference for those outside the bell curve.

Answer 12

1. People will always continue the push the envelope.

We have evolved over millenia within an ever changing environment. This has conditioned our instincts to a mode of constant reactive response to the changing environment, or we tend to die out. This behavior expresses itself in a superb way when talking about finding another bigger, smaller, faster, prettier, more efficient, more productive, more (insert appropriate adjective here) way to do or create technology and it's products.

As described in other answers, the environment may even change so much so that the technology becomes obsolete. Even in these cases, though, no idea is truly safe from revival and renewed tinkering: sometimes in the process of improving on a technology, we can find ourselves suddenly using a tool completely over-advanced for the job at hand, and going back to square one is necessary. It doesn't make much sense to use the Hubble telescope to identify that unusual bird that showed up in your backyard--might want to just grab a pair of binoculars. This will inevitably begin the process all over again though, with new and different viewpoints being applied to the "old" technology.

2. No, it doesn't matter what the technology is for.

It's just going to be more likely to be evident in certain areas based on the level of technological advancement present. Individuals in a society where basic needs are not being met will focus the creative response to their changing environments on the things that will help them meet their basic needs (the building supplies, food, and defense). Those in a society where they are striving to meet higher levels of human needs will focus on more and more varying technological advances (eventually the pinwheels and touchscreens like mentioned). This evolved drive to create and innovate in some cases will even overpower an individual's basic needs.... hence the concept of starving artists.

Answer 13

2. Yes, it matters what the technology does. Anything that helps us survive and thrive (physically, economically) we are more motivated to improve upon.

We may try to improve upon pinwheels, for example, but probably only if we are in the business of selling pinwheels. It isn't the technology that we want to improve, it is sales.

There are more reasons to improve building materials, weapons, or medicines than pinwheels, because the former items are directly relevant to survival.

Answer 14

this is an important question with no real answer that anyone alive today can give, the problem is that there is just so much stuff that technology could help us with that we don't even consider because it COULDN'T occur to us, the thing is all the answer people are giving you are great and should be taken into account but my guess is that your doing a worldbuilding project so just go as far as YOU can see technology advancing in the future, in this scenario, everyone's wrong.

Answer 15

Use standards are usually the big thing that keep things from having updates or large reformations. The spoon is recognizable standard people know what it is and how to use it, no one will think you're weird if you put it out etc. A spork in the Whitehouse would be out of place by societal standards.

Also seen in cars with their controls, better things exist from the pedals/wheel and we know it, but don't change it because everyone will complain.

See audio jack port leaving phones for the current epidemic: "why would you take away my headphone jack" because it's huge and can be done with a better form factor.

Essentially a painful transition stops innovation.