this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
66 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
45238 readers
854 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Medicines and medical care have improved significantly
Same could be said about everything we have though couldn't it?
Cars, aircraft, boats... All improved significantly...
But is any of it truly innovative?
If my son was born when I was born, he wouldn't be alive and my wife may not have survived the birth. If he was born 5-10 years ago, he'd have brain damage. Today, because we know what to look for and how to treat and prevent many pregnancy problems and early childhood problems he's alive, healthy and thriving. There are a million innovations that are super niche, so we don't know about them.
Yes, we've certainly progressed in nearly every field
But are they truly innovative or are they a natural evolution of something that already existed?
Yeah. I think it is.
I am also thankful that my children were born in this era as well
There has been significant progress in the treatment of cystic fibrosis
Still not the kind of innovation I am talking about
Yes. Taking an existing thing and improving upon it is the literal definition of innovation.
Not the definition I am referring to
Conceptually, improving upon something isn't entirely original
It can be hard to grasp. We can't imagine what life and the mindset of people were before a concept existed because we have always had it.
Yes, we can imagine the difficulty of travel before the invention of aircraft
But it's hard for us to understand the profound difference to life and everyone's worldview at the time
People fantasized about human flight for what seemed like forever to them, so long that it became a fantasy that many believed would never be realized
Then suddenly it was
What have we experienced collectively since the 80s that is like that?
I disagree. Improving an existing concept and changing it to make it more practical or easier to produce for example is innovation.
The examples you gave in the introduction are examples of that: The parts that make an automobile existed when it was invented and you could argue again that it wasn't a completely novel idea but an improvement of the steam engine and horse-drawn vehicles.
The airplane massively relied on improvements in engine and material design.
Your assessment that innovations used to be completely original in their design and are not any more is a fallacy.
I also disagree
Your reply in of itself is a fallacy
An airplane relying upon improvements engine and material design does not negate the very real revelation of human flight to the world
Nor does your oversimplified and ultimately incorrect explanation steam engines and evolution of horse drawn vehicles
Especially considering the first automobiles were steam powered
It completely misses the point
The horseless carriage itself was the innovation
I apologize for not explaining the question more thoroughly
I am talking about innovation in a fully realized concept
I always thought that flying cars would be the next major leap in innovation, but it's still in its fledgling stages
I understand your question wanting to know about New big shit. But if you say all inventions in medince in the past decades is "just" a little improvement of existing medicine but not Innovation, then your examples oft cars and airplanes are not invention either but just a little improvemenrt of mobility. Bikes and trains existed before wie had mobility it just got faster, and a few nore wheels and wings.
Ill think the Problem why medicine and science Innovation in General is not perceived as that dramatifc is because you need to be a scientist (or really read yourself Into it) to understand. The incredible steps forward wee make are so complex it cannot be explained to the General public anymore.
You See the big obvious stuff (Gravitation, electricity) wie know now. You cannot write a PhD thesis anymore discovering electricity or evolution.
Nowadays PhD thesis are about inventing nanoparticless in a way they only go to a very specific tissue type (cancerous) to destroy it there locally. Anymore Detail Into this requirees extensive research. But its still super innovative.
It doesn't seem like you're understanding what I'm saying much at all.
By your definition everything is innovative
Maybe that in of itself is the problem here, equating the words innovative and invention.
Try replacing innovative with groundbreaking or original perhaps
But saying that advent of aviation and automobiles is just bikes and trains with wings or more wheels kinda goes to prove a lack of arguing in good faith here
I do not mean that automobiles are not Innovation. I just wanted to underline that your view on medicine Innovation being just a further evolution of already existing medicine and is therefore not Innovation or original sounds in my (scientist) ears exactly as if one would claim cars are nothing new because we had bycicles with wheels already.
Of course cars and planes are big Innovations. But so is New medinice (and also other sciences). Completely New concepts. Its just very hard to grasp if you havent studied it.