Not sure if it’s been a topic of discussion yet, but… “the economy”. Peter Thiel has been saying that he thinks we’re in an era of “stagnation”, where scientific and technological progress have essentially ground to a stand-still. The word “technology” today is almost immediately assumed to mean “information technology” of some kind, where 50 years ago, people might’ve thought of flying cars or underwater cities. Does anyone agree/disagree/have thoughts on this hypothesis, or on the nature and state of the global economy in general, as it relates to the future of software and technology? Big topic, I know, but relevant to thinking about the future, I think.

Something I enjoy discussing. Links to a few past discussions, though none quite as 'macro' as your question: https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5T9GPWFL/p1539427307000100 (and the next 2 days) https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5T9GPWFL/p1552152219231300

Gee, I hear about other technologies all the time. Off the top of my head: various private space companies, all kinds of new battery tech is being tried, the Boring Company (not sure why there aren't more companies like it), Molten Salt Reactors that can safely and cost-effectively address global warming (and other clean/anti-global warming tech - e.g. see Swanson's law), China moving from cheap knockoffs to innovation (aside: might China's repressive regime affect us more in the future through such tech?), India launching satellites, anti-poverty/illness tech like the gene drive and anti-malaria vaccines, and how awesome is the foldscope (https://www.ted.com/talks/manu_prakash_a_50_cent_microscope_that_folds_like_origami), finally now available for purchase with much higher prices than hoped (edit: maybe not - prices for bulk purchase are unpublished.) In science I would say that the low hanging fruit has been picked - Relativity and DNA can only be discovered once, so now we're on to figuring out all the minutia, which is not so newsworthy but is still progress. There is, however, a shrinking ratio between science funding (and quantity of professorships) to the number of people who would like to be either college-level teachers or professional researchers [pet peeve: that universities conflate these roles].

Since Academia and giant non-profit research orgs such as the LHC which are what i call semi-academic, receives most of the big money for R&D, and because the top 20 universities probably absorb the lion's share of the funding, we are in a stagnant period, because innovative things that upset the entrenched research groups are not funded seriously. It is inevitable when you allow concentration of this kind to occur that it becomes corrupt and stale. Luckily, technology has advanced so greatly that it doesn't take much R&D budget to produce a breakthrough.

@Jonathan i disagree with "stagnation". i think big periods of growth can be spawned with small revolutions: - the launch of the iPhone and the growth of the gigantic App economy. - the launch of the apple watch/ fitbit => potential for a new, automated, medical-grade economy and theres' many many more bottoms up innovations that could really trigger massive growth: mesh networks, satellite broad-band internet, mobility. even changes in taxation! if some big country in the world suddenly changes from our tiered, complex tax codes to something more revenue-based (lets say 5-10% per transaction), then there is a big potential for positive changes exists.