> That is, to put it most softly, a load of bullshit.

I would have said the same thing a few years ago. I would have said it was preposterously stupid. Then I changed my mind when I saw the map must be fitting the map of some territory other than ours. Keep an open mind if you can.

Incidentally some version of the Stagnation Hypothesis is believed by Peter Thiel, Larry Page and Elon Musk. So I am in terrific company. Many of their projects are motivated by a belief in the Stagnation Hypothesis.

> The cutting edge of science and technology is every bit as innovative, hell perhaps more innovative than anything happening in the 70s.

That isn't even true in software development. I don't think that is even controversial on HN. And now that Moore's Law has almost completed its journey in hardware it appears that for the first time ever laptops are coming out that are slower than the previous iteration (I don't have one myself but I think that's the Macbook Air and due to battery size).

I'm not saying there's no innovation any longer in computer science generally. The opposite is so. However in the present and near future we're going to be retrenching a good bit (making FPGAs for routine junk, making algorithms more efficient since hardware is no longer quite picking up the slack, and lest we forget, you can't yet parallelize everything just because the capacity exists, that's a key unsolved problem).

> I love how every one of your statement is predicated by "excluding computers, the internet, etc". That's like saying "aside from that whole steam power thing the industrial revolution was no big deal"

I do appreciate the significance of computation or I would not be here.

I'm saying it is not enough by itself. Example; can Silicon Valley give us 12% GDP next year? I don't think so. But historically during the industrial revolution we did get splendid growth rates like that (and much higher) because of technological development.

> We have rockets that can land autonomously,

Elon Musk's project. A believer in the Stagnation Hypothesis who did it precisely because he believes in it. Same goes for his car, energy and transport projects. He is doing them because nobody else is doing them. Half a century since the moon landings anyone? Or did we not want those asteroids mined and moon hotels? Half a century is a long time before we return to the first stage of space economic development.

I have a chart in my office of the necessary stages to make space economy prosper, and we're just getting back to 1983 with Elon Musk's reusable rocket project.

Take a look at it. Google "Integrated Space Plan" by Rockwell International and Ronald M. Jones.

There was a plan. It was taken deadly seriously. And it did fail.

> stunningly high energy density batteries that have ushered a revolution in portable electronics

This does not impress me. Li-ion has already reached diminishing returns.

Battery technology overall is supremely unimpressive despite a century of people banging away at it.

The one thing that would be really impressive is a secure containment for a nuclear battery. That would enable a battery life of thousands of years. That my friend, is impressive.

Also impressive was Velkess's physical house battery using a flexible lasso-like flywheel. It was for houses and it would give you 15kwh at first prototype for 6.5k. The impressive part was the expected lifecycle would, if the prototype had been iterated, of a half century. Naturally they are bankrupt because nobody in Silicon Valley had the balls to back Bill Grey's genuinely innovative idea.

So far chemical batteries seem like a bust to me. It's all fancy press releases and no ultimate results applicable to any market.

That incidentally is the shared characteristic of the majority of so-called technology you hear about in the media.

Lots of press releases. No available tech. That's because it either does not work or it is too dangerous. There is astounding little effective technology reaching market.

> god damn electric planes at prototype stage

Believe it when I see it.

>carbon fiber solar panels pushing 35% efficiency,

I admit that is impressive. It's one of the exceptions to the "ex-compuation rule".

> network of satellites that can pinpoint you on the meter level an connection to said network so cheap it's a basic addon to consumer hardware,

Computation. And old too.

>technology to fab transistors at 14 fucking nanometers (a feat thought to be impossible in your golden age of innovation).

Computation. We agreed this was the bright oasis in the sand ocean of stagnation.

> You mention household energy bills, ignoring the efficiencies gained by vastly more efficient electronics, better available windows, insulation and = hot water heating

First ask yourself why we are investing in insulation when we didn't pre-70s.

It is because even with the recent bottoming out of the oil price, it is still much higher than the highest point (in real) it was during the OPEC crisis.

Insulation is a thing because high energy prices are a thing.

Great insulation (like the one I mentioned) would be a boon. But as Thiel says, any growth generated by the computer revolution has basically been cancelled out by the terrific rise in energy prices.

Secondly, it is true that electronics have improved in efficiency energy usage-wise. However the consumption rate has overall gone up as their capacities have expanded. Look at old power supplies and new ones, and this should be perfectly clear despite the gains you mention.

Electronics aren't important though. The majority electricity cost is heating, then mechanical, lastly electronic. They've developed more efficient water heaters and so on but it just doesn't compensate enough for the rise in energy prices.

Real game changers are things like rolling out Gen-5 nuclear fission stations or nuclear fusion. There has definitely been a stagnation in this form of energy production for political reasons. Tell me if you want to see some bleak charts illustrating the point and I'll find where I put them.

This is not just another technology. It is a keystone technology. The source of many other potential routes to economic prosperity. The direct route. It's the same with using genetics in biology to accomplish artificial breeding. Guess what, they're both defacto banned or literally banned (both are outright banned in my country) in many places.

You might want to pause and think about that. All is not roses.

> And you have the fucking gall to suggest innovation is slowing down.

Ex-Computation. I have the gall because it is a reasonable conclusion to reach. It's just not emphasized by the media, companies or governments because it is not sexy and would be considered unhelpful. Nevertheless, it is there. The Stagnation that is.

That's why wages haven't risen for decades. Enjoy your delightful LED lamp and the ability to change the hue of your lights.

> The best part about it all, is to the public these innovations come so fast and hard that it's all "no big deal".

I think you're going to change your mind on this. Try reading newsprint from the previous few decades. Same crap different decade. Somehow the innovations (ex-computation and a very small number of bright spots like solar/fracking) don't quite seem to reach the public. In most cases it is because they do not exist. They don't exist in university labs. They don't exist in company labs. Ignore the press releases and look for evidence of substance.

Here's an interesting titbit. Have you heard of Eroom's law? Despite the exponentially declining costs in genome sequencing and x-ray crystallography (their major tools) there exists exponentially declining effectiveness in coming up with new working drugs.

I repeat: exponentially declining effectiveness. And we can't even digitize medical records properly to date albeit that's political again.

I'd tell you more weird facts you'd hardly believe that are true but I think you've had enough for today.