Is technological regression a thing?

[Beltway]

Concorde was unbelievably noisy.  I was at the University of Reading while BA was operating it between Heathrow and JFK, and the noise from the departures was so bad, they practically had to stop lecturing while it flew overhead.

Concorde had a takeoff speed of 220 knots (253 mph, 408 km/h) and had turbojet engines that used afterburners on takeoff.

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

[kalvado]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

[abefroman329]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

I used to live in Arlington, VA, very close to a flight path to/from National Airport, so yes, I'm aware how much quieter, say, a 737-800 is than a 727.

[Beltway]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines.  Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.

Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise.  That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed.  I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.

[abefroman329]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines.  Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.

Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise.  That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed.  I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.

I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde.  Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.

[kalvado]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines.  Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.

Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise.  That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed.  I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.

I am more talking about how development went into different direction. Instead of going faster, new technology which replaces "old-still-good"  one focuses on noise; on fuel economy - converting that to range and/or ticket price; on operational reliability (not always with great success, though).
It is not too obvious by just looking at pictures - but changes are there..

[kkt]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines.  Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.

Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise.  That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed.  I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.

I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde.  Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.

I toured the cabin of the Concorde on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.  Small, no more legroom or shoulder room than coach on a domestic airline.  If I'd paid thousands for a seat, I'd be unhappy, even though it would be only a couple of hours instead of 8 or so.

[abefroman329]

Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h).  They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.

... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead

The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines.  Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.

Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise.  That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed.  I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.

I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde.  Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.

I toured the cabin of the Concorde on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.  Small, no more legroom or shoulder room than coach on a domestic airline.  If I'd paid thousands for a seat, I'd be unhappy, even though it would be only a couple of hours instead of 8 or so.

Yeah, I've walked around the one on the USS Intrepid, and it looked horrid.  BA tried to compensate by offering a bunch of amenities while on the ground, not sure what Air France did.

[wxfree]

This is some interesting timing.  This story was published at least 2 days ago, but I just now saw it.  There are hopes for non-stop trans-Pacific capable supersonic air travel, with development in early stages.  It would get from Sydney to Los Angeles in under 7 hours.  The craft would travel at 1,451 mph (Mach 2.2).

Even with fewer seats, the fares could be more attainable. Compared with Concorde's roughly $11,000-13,000 roundtrip tickets between New York and London, Boom fares will cost an estimated $5,000 round trip on the same route.

It would have just 55 seats, would travel at 60,000 feet, and would be designed to reduce boom.  They expect the design would be "at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's."

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom-supersonic-asia/index.html

[empirestate]

You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM.. 

Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)

[kalvado]

You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM.. 

Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)

And my answer is no, there are situations where development goes in a different direction compared to what was expected. It is not regression, it is a different
aspect of progress.

[Beltway]

This is some interesting timing.  This story was published at least 2 days ago, but I just now saw it.  There are hopes for non-stop trans-Pacific capable supersonic air travel, with development in early stages.  It would get from Sydney to Los Angeles in under 7 hours.  The craft would travel at 1,451 mph (Mach 2.2).
It would have just 55 seats, would travel at 60,000 feet, and would be designed to reduce boom.  They expect the design would be "at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's."

"The company has publicly announced plans to fly its XB-1 -- a two-seat demonstration aircraft -- in 2019 as proof of concept."

That is a far cry from the size of a 55 seat airliner.  They need to build a full size prototype before they can demonstrate the very questionable claims of trans-Pacific range and such reduced noise levels.

[qguy]

Of course technological regression is a thing. Doesn't anyone on these boards remember the Talosians from the original Star Trek pilot? 

[hotdogPi]

Cryptocurrencies are inferior to cash and standard credit/debit cards. They are much more volatile than standard currencies, are easier to get hacked, and if the hash function becomes no longer secure, the entire cryptocurrency collapses. There are also way too many competing cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin don't seem to be accepted anywhere.

One minor cryptocurrency also had a successful 51% attack against it. This would never happen with Bitcoin, but it could easily happen with the smaller ones.

(note: details may be inaccurate)

[kalvado]

Cryptocurrencies are inferior to cash and standard credit/debit cards. They are much more volatile than standard currencies, are easier to get hacked, and if the hash function becomes no longer secure, the entire cryptocurrency collapses. There are also way too many competing cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin don't seem to be accepted anywhere.

One minor cryptocurrency also had a successful 51% attack against it. This would never happen with Bitcoin, but it could easily happen with the smaller ones.

(note: details may be inaccurate)

Cryptocurrency is another attempt to replace the current finance system - which is, frankly speaking, runs on borrowed time (pun intended) and very government-heavy. It has a lot of flaws, but likely will make a 50 year mark; and I wouldn't be so sure about 60 year mark.

[empirestate]

You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM.. 

Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)

And my answer is no, there are situations where development goes in a different direction compared to what was expected. It is not regression, it is a different
aspect of progress.

Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?

[kalvado]

Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?

I can think of one company which used to do innovation seemingly for the sake of innovation, and they are successfully growing themselves into Fortune top 50 (starting from position in Fortune top 5).
For the rest of situations you describe,  it is either poor design (yes, there is often less time spent before product hits the market) or you are looking at minority who like some side feature. And yes, it is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone. It is about the ratio after all - who benefits from, say, driving a car with a variator - vs those who miss manual shiftstick. Or look up paper map vs GPS debate in this forum.
if anything is on decline, that is the technological and scientific awareness of general public. You can definitely have more awareness about how things work if repair and DIY options exist. Something that is not factored in many modern designs, and often plainly impossible at present technology level. How do you expect  kids to understand concept of cell phone communications without giving them a chance to play with AM receiver? And AM is no longer cool, barely any reason to tune to AM these days, no longer makes sense to put AM radio together...

[Beltway]

Of course technological regression is a thing. Doesn't anyone on these boards remember the Talosians from the original Star Trek pilot? 

Plenty of examples in novels --

Alas, Babylon
by Pat Frank 

"Alas, Babylon."  Those fateful words heralded the end.  When a nuclear holocaust ravages the United States, a thousand years of civilization are stripped away overnight, and tens of millions of people are killed instantly.  But for one small town in Florida, miraculously spared, the struggle is just beginning, as men and women of all backgrounds join together to confront the darkness.

https://www.amazon.com/Alas-Babylon-Pat-Frank/dp/0060741872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527960507&sr=8-1&keywords=alas+babylon+by+pat+frank

[1995hoo]

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time might be another example of what Beltway cites. The Age of Legends was an age of all sorts of technology (apparently including SSTs, to tie the thread together–in Jordan's legendarium they were called "sho-wings"), but the drilling of the Bore and then the Breaking of the World resulted in most of that being lost.

John Christopher's Tripods (or White Mountains) trilogy might be seen as technological regression given mankind's living in largely medieval conditions, but a more accurate description might be technological stasis given the way technology is rapidly rediscovered at the series' conclusion.

[jon daly]

It took me a couple of days to realize that there's an answer to this question. Yes: see the Roman Empire. (Are there threads on the Appian Way here?)

[vdeane]

The Apollo Project was mentioned earlier, which is an apt example.  Even in modern NASA projects to return to the Moon, it isn't as simple as building Apollo again; the technology to get to the Moon literally has to be re-invented.

Roman aqueducts in the early Middle Ages are another good example.  All it took was a couple generations and nobody knew how to build or maintain them any more.  Lots of Roman knowledge was either locked up in monasteries and/or re-learned from the Middle East.

[Beltway]

The Apollo Project was mentioned earlier, which is an apt example.  Even in modern NASA projects to return to the Moon, it isn't as simple as building Apollo again; the technology to get to the Moon literally has to be re-invented.

Manned space programs had to be undertaken to see what was involved in the first place, only by doing them could it be determined what would be the costs and complexity and feasibility.  Now that they have been done with several hundred missions including to the Moon and to the space shuttle and international space station, many people are questioning whether the benefits justify the costs of future programs.

Is there really anything on the Moon to warrant the costs of going there in the future?  Or Mars, which averages 500 times farther away than the Moon and has had more failed missions than successful missions?

The unmanned space programs have been very successful and productive, for weather, communication, military and research.  New manned programs would cost orders of magnutide more.

[empirestate]

Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?

I can think of one company which used to do innovation seemingly for the sake of innovation, and they are successfully growing themselves into Fortune top 50 (starting from position in Fortune top 5).
For the rest of situations you describe,  it is either poor design (yes, there is often less time spent before product hits the market) or you are looking at minority who like some side feature. And yes, it is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone. It is about the ratio after all - who benefits from, say, driving a car with a variator - vs those who miss manual shiftstick. Or look up paper map vs GPS debate in this forum.
if anything is on decline, that is the technological and scientific awareness of general public. You can definitely have more awareness about how things work if repair and DIY options exist. Something that is not factored in many modern designs, and often plainly impossible at present technology level. How do you expect  kids to understand concept of cell phone communications without giving them a chance to play with AM receiver? And AM is no longer cool, barely any reason to tune to AM these days, no longer makes sense to put AM radio together...

Looks like our two conversations have now fully diverged. I'm just gonna go ahead and put you down as a "yes."

It took me a couple of days to realize that there's an answer to this question. Yes: see the Roman Empire. (Are there threads on the Appian Way here?)

By this point, I'm fully persuaded that the answer is indeed yes. Since the question has prompted a variety of examples of the phenomenon, and a range of explanations for why the phenomenon occurs, then it is incontrovertible that the phenomenon must, in the first place, exist. And besides the discussion here, I've also found at least a few outside sources that explore this exact topic; so, I can corroborate that the phenomenon is observed and analyzed by those who are in the habit of doing so. It is, indeed, a thing!

[jon daly]

Maybe the right term is devolution. One system that's devolved due to increasing connectivity is the electrical system. James Burke's old TV show CONNECTIONS started with the great Northeast Blackout from the Sixties. I imagine a similar failure in one locale would spread more catastrophically today. I think we now know more about how the grid is vulnerable to solar activity  but I'm not sure if we've built the levees and dams that prevent a local problem from spreading further and wider along the grid.

[formulanone]

I mean, I think technology begat terrible customer service, but...

Technology takes away flexibility. I can't tell a kiosk at McDonalds I want, say, well-done bacon or an untoasted bun. An airline kiosk can't put me on an earlier flight I'm not actually entitled to take. A hotel app will let me pick my own room, but can't recommend one based on a specific set of criteria I can give to a front desk clerk.

As someone who uses these apps...Probably a combination of things:

1) the apps are programmed to be "lightweight" but not all-encompassing

2) some of these upgrades / changes / personal selections aren't available to all users (which from my basic understanding of IF-THEN statements, shouldn't be all the difficult to program in once you've logged in which validates your status)

3) Decisions that have to be weighed by a real person that hard logic cannot at for a lack of compassion or understanding which is more important. (Is it effective for a computer to "do the dirty work" which might wind up getting a customer bounced back to customer service and possibly more annoyed?)

Of course, the App is usually the simpler way to use a website, but sometimes in a way that is bereft of some of the finest settings. Ironically, many mobile websites now maddeningly refer you Their App, when the App didn't have what you wanted to set in the first place. So then you have to use a personal computer to do the same thing you couldn't accomplish two other ways.

In some ways, the App is also technological regression, but 95% of who might use it is usually much more convenient.

And I'm not sure social media is good for society overall, either.

Probably more due to unintended circumstances. But just as people became addicted to reading too many books, watched too much TV, and became addicted to the Internet, it was pretty much expected that some folks were going to be addicted to social media websites.

Obviously, it's a much easier way to share photos and videos between friends, and certainly in a time before most everyone had a smartphone. I suppose sharing by text drops information into the ether, whereas something like Facebook gives one a little bit more feeling of permanence. When the ability to share everything and prattle off opinions about every little thing took off, the metrics about sharing/discussing becomes "news" in its own right, it becomes a tad short of ridiculous.

At the end of the day, the Internet is a tool that's good for information sharing and research, and mankind will use a tool in a way to reap the greatest self-satisfaction, if they so desire.