🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <954@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes:
>In article <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes:
>> We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost...
>
>Well, I guess I'm still not making myself clear. Along with the scientific
>developments, society has put an elaborate system in place of recording,
>publishing, and training others in scientific methods and discoveries.  This
>system is what I mean by the "technology matrix," and the fact that it
>wasn't fully in place in medieval and ancient times simply serves to amplify
>the point. If we are in fact losing contemporary technological knowledge,
>I'd be very surprised.

Okay, I'll try to surprise you with an example: vacuum tubes.  Twenty
years ago, most graduating electrical engineers learned about tubes in
their curriculum the way today's EE's learn about CMOS and TTL
technologies.  But just try to find a [recently graduated] EE today who
can even tell you what the pins on a 6V6GT are, how to bias it, or even
what it might *do*.  I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of
the EE's around here (and we have a couple thousand) could do it.  In
another twenty years, vacuum tubes will be nearly forgotten, except in
those applications where they're still needed (and there aren't many)
and by those people working on those applications.

>... but the capacity to recreate that technological item from the
>"technology matrix," provides a robust mechanism to ensure the continued
>progress of technology.

Mostly, yes.  But I don't find that mechanism quite as robust as you do
(I think); especially in the case of catastrophic events.  However, I
do agree that in most cases, it's hard for things to get lost.

Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk