XiXiDu comments on Brain Preservation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (108)
"Hundreds of years off" is a common estimation people give for technologies that seem really complicated and hard to make with our present knowledge. I've always found this fairly ridiculous; it's pretty much unprecedented in human history. When have we ever conceived of a specific technology, which we had any understanding of the workings behind, and taken hundreds of years to make it? The only cases I'm aware of that any sort of technology has been in-development for that long are if you count things like heavier-than-air flight, where we spent hundreds of years not applying the scientific method to understanding the problem and just threw up solutions willy nilly.
The first that came to my mind was the photovoltaic effect, discovered by Alexandre Edmond Becquerel in 1839. Even today it takes massive subsidies to make photovoltaics competitive. And we are not even close to the energy efficiency of photosynthesis.
I bet there are a lot of other examples.
Citation? Wikipedia gives Photosynthetic efficiency at under 11% and Solar cell efficiency up to 40% for research-grade photocells and one company claims 24% efficiency for their commercial cells.
Certainly we're not close to the energy/cost efficiency of photosynthesis.
There's a big difference though, between "This technology has not been realized" and "this technology is not cost competitive with other technologies for similar purposes."