Bernard Stiegler argued that technics was a form of memory and was always progressing. Yet, philosophy isn’t the right thing to rely on when dealing with science. Science doesn’t have a mind and technology doesn’t have a mind in reality. I know about Moore’s Law but are there any other scientists who have found some proof in speculating that technological progression is infinite?

  • $\begingroup$ Moore's law is of a kind with the Malthusian catastrophe from 1798, the horse manure crisis of 1894 and the The Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome from 1972. Alas, such sorts of simplistic extrapolations are more indicative of lack of imagination than of technological limitations. As always with attempted clairvoyance, one is better off with vague analogies a la Stiegler, but this is not the right site to get into them. $\endgroup$
    – Conifold
    Sep 8, 2021 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ It is simply not true that "that technics was a form of memory and was always progressing". We have at least two cases in European history of "collapse of civilization", when regress happened for several hundreds of years. $\endgroup$ Sep 8, 2021 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ Condorcet might have been the first to have offered some "proof" ; he is also credited as having suggested the idea of "Technological Singularity"; see the wikipedia article and also ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2855 $\endgroup$
    – sand1
    Sep 8, 2021 at 21:07


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.