Posted 12 января 2022, 09:43
Published 12 января 2022, 09:43
Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:54
Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:54
Maria Shapovalova, writer
This is not about labor productivity in general, but about assessing specifically the contribution of technological progress to economic growth. Specially trained people are engaged in this, with my level of competence I can only trust their conclusions and graphs. And the conclusions are as follows: a decrease in the indicators of the contribution of technological progress - several times in comparison with the last decades of the 20th century. In all countries of the "gold and gilded" billions. And the trend is negative, indicating a permanent decline over the past decade.
What does it mean.
First, and most likely, no next technological transition, about which all sorts of Bolsheviks are buzzing, is not expected. That is, you can expect it along with numerous witnesses and prophets of the upcoming upgrade, but it will not be. Because the technological transition to a new way of life is not the discovery and implementation of something amazing there, and not the program of a leading and guiding party. It takes place on the basis of a fundamentally new and more efficient type of energy generation, which radically changes the content of production, consumption and communication. And no matter how much the stubborn "greensmen" of the economy are puffing and pushing, what is not, is not there.
No - in the sense that no alternative energy sources are able to provide exponentially growing energy consumption. And just such growth is needed for the revolution. And they can only generate additional power.
And it won't. And this already follows from the conclusions about the decline in the rate of technological progress. If the conclusions are correct, of course. And they seem to be correct.
Because every next iPhone, amazing 3D printer or Hadron Collider is the fruit of fundamental discoveries of the 20th century. And not even its end, but rather the middle. Since then, if humanity has moved forward, then along the same tracks. Tuning the locomotive along the way.
It is possible that the limit on our path is natural. Something else is objectively not ripe for the transition to a cheap fusion with the main production resources in the form of water and sand. But on the other hand, where do you see the growth capable of revolutionizing natural science and making a fundamental breakthrough?
Maybe in university departments opening vacancies on quotas for minorities, colorful and gifted with alternative abilities? Or among politically correct students who consider an unsatisfactory assessment of their knowledge an abuse?..
The Einsteins, Boras, Curies, Rutherfords, Kapitsa and Landau grew up in harsh conditions of toothy competition, leaving no chance for weaklings. They did not comprehend the basics of being in pink incubators for snotty, easily injured and impressionable, requiring them to provide them with a "comfort zone". By the way, not all of them and did not always eat their fill. And they didn't even dream about safety.