Human capability peaked before 1975 and has since declined

[Religious Dick]

Human capability peaked before 1975 and has since declined
I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75 ? at the time of the Apollo moon landings ? and has been declining ever since.

This may sound bizarre or just plain false, but the argument is simple. That landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achievement of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans. 40 years ago we could do it ? repeatedly ? but since then we have *not* been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer *wanted* to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something?? but I am suggesting that all this is BS, merely excuses for not doing something which we *cannot* do.

It is as if an eighty year old ex-professional-cyclist was to claim that the reason he had stopped competing in the Tour de France was that he had now had found better ways to spend his time and money. It may be true; but does not disguise the fact that an 80 year old could not compete in international cycling races even if he wanted to.

Human capability partly depends on technology. A big task requires a variety of appropriate and interlocking technologies ? the absence of any one vital technology would prevent attainment. I presume that technology has continued to improve since 1975 ? so technological decline is not likely to be the reason for failure of capability.

But, however well planned, human capability in complex tasks also depends on ?on-the-job? problem-solving ? the ability to combine expertise and creativity to deal with unforeseen situations.

On the job problem-solving means having the best people doing the most important jobs. For example, if it had not been Neil Armstrong at the controls of the first Apollo 11 lunar lander but had instead been somebody of lesser ability, decisiveness, courage and creativity ? the mission would either have failed or aborted. If both the astronauts and NASA ground staff had been anything less than superb, then the Apollo 13 mission would have led to loss of life.

But since the 1970s there has been a decline in the quality of people in the key jobs in NASA, and elsewhere ? because organizations no longer seek to find and use the best people as their ideal but instead try to be ?diverse? in various ways (age, sex, race, nationality etc). And also the people in the key jobs are no longer able to decide and command, due to the expansion of committees and the erosion of individual responsibility and autonomy.

By 1986, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, it was clear that humans had declined in capability ? since the disaster was fundamentally caused by managers and committees being in control of NASA rather than individual experts.

It was around the 1970s that the human spirit began to be overwhelmed by bureaucracy (although the trend had been growing for many decades).

Since the mid-1970s the rate of progress has declined in physics, biology and the medical sciences ? and some of these have arguably gone into reverse, so that the practice of science in some areas has overall gone backwards, valid knowledge has been lost and replaced with phony fashionable triviality and dishonest hype. Some of the biggest areas of science ? medical research, molecular biology, neuroscience, epidemiology, climate research ? are almost wholly trivial or bogus. This is not compensated by a few islands of progress, eg in computerization and the invention of the internet. Capability must cover all the bases, and depends not on a single advanced area but all-round advancement.

The fact is that human no longer do - *can* no longer do many things we used to be able to do: land on the moon, swiftly win wars against weak opposition and then control the defeated nation, secure national borders, discover ?breakthrough? medical treatments, prevent crime, design and build to a tight deadline, educate people so they are ready to work before the age of 22, block an undersea oil leak...

50 years ago we would have the smartest, best trained, most experienced and most creative people we could find (given human imperfections) in position to take responsibility, make decisions and act upon them in pursuit of a positive goal.

Now we have dull and docile committee members chosen partly with an eye to affirmative action and to generate positive media coverage, whose major priority is not to do the job but to avoid personal responsibility and prevent side-effects; pestered at every turn by an irresponsible and aggressive media and grandstanding politicians out to score popularity points; all of whom are hemmed-about by regulations such that ? whatever they do do, or do not do ? they will be in breach of some rule or another.

So we should be honest about the fact that human do not anymore fly to the moon because humans cannot anymore fly to the moon. Humans have failed to block the leaking oil pipe in the Gulf of Mexico because we nowadays cannot do it (although humans would surely have solved the problem 40 years ago, but in ways we can no longer imagine since then the experts were both smarter and more creative than we are now, and these experts would then have been in a position to do the needful).

There has been a significant decline in human capability. And there is no sign yet of reversal in this decline, although reversal and recovery is indeed possible.

But do no believe any excuses for failure to do something. Doing something is the only proof that something can indeed be done.

Only when regular and successful lunar flights resume can we legitimately claim to have achieved approximately equal capability to that which humans possesed 40 years ago.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/human-capability-peaked-about-1975-and.html

[Michael Tee]

<<That landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achievement of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.>>

Riiiight.  The release of energy from the atom was kid stuff.

<< . . . since then [1970] we have *not* been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. >>

Well yeah, that or there's just no real point to the exercise any more.  There's no oil up there.

<<Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer *wanted* to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something?? but I am suggesting that all this is BS, merely excuses for not doing something which we *cannot* do.>>

Yes, and the evidence for that is . . . ?

<<It is as if an eighty year old ex-professional-cyclist was to claim that the reason he had stopped competing in the Tour de France was that he had now had found better ways to spend his time and money. It may be true; but does not disguise the fact that an 80 year old could not compete in international cycling races even if he wanted to.>>

Or if a 20-year-old man with a minor ear infection were to say that he no longer had fun sticking his head in stopped-up toilets and trying to flush them at the same time.  It may be true that he no longer enjoys sticking his head in toilets but that does not disguise the fact that a man with an ear infection runs a serious risk of worse infection  from immersing his ears in plugged toilets.

<<On the job problem-solving means having the best people doing the most important jobs. For example, if it had not been Neil Armstrong at the controls of the first Apollo 11 lunar lander but had instead been somebody of lesser ability, decisiveness, courage and creativity ? the mission would either have failed or aborted. If both the astronauts and NASA ground staff had been anything less than superb, then the Apollo 13 mission would have led to loss of life...>>

First, you need to define "superb."  And then you need to provide the evidence that the task of piloting the lander within the parameters set down for it by engineers required "superb" astronauts and NASA ground control.  Sounds like a lot of hooey to me.

<<But since the 1970s there has been a decline in the quality of people in the key jobs in NASA, and elsewhere ? because organizations no longer seek to find and use the best people as their ideal but instead try to be ?diverse? in various ways (age, sex, race, nationality etc). >>

Any evidence of this, specifically with regard to NASA?

<<And also the people in the key jobs are no longer able to decide and command, due to the expansion of committees and the erosion of individual responsibility and autonomy.>>

The concept of two heads being better than one, particularly where new scientific concepts are evolving means nothing, I suppose.

<<By 1986, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, it was clear that humans had declined in capability ? since the disaster was fundamentally caused by managers and committees being in control of NASA rather than individual experts.>>

Any specific evidence of any specific decisions made by committees or managers that could have been avoided by leaving all decisions in the hands of one supreme infallible leader?

<<It was around the 1970s that the human spirit began to be overwhelmed by bureaucracy (although the trend had been growing for many decades).>>

I think you better put whatever committee wrote the first half of that sentence together with whatever committee wrote the second half of it, and tell them to get their act together.  Or maybe just appoint ONE guy to write the whole sentence.

<<Since the mid-1970s the rate of progress has declined in physics, biology and the medical sciences . . . >>

Any way this can be or has been measured?  Just askin.

<< . . . and some of these have arguably gone into reverse>>

The evidence, please.

<< so that the practice of science in some areas has overall gone backwards, valid knowledge has been lost and replaced with phony fashionable triviality and dishonest hype. Some of the biggest areas of science ? medical research, molecular biology, neuroscience, epidemiology, climate research ? are almost wholly trivial or bogus. >>

Tell ya what's "wholly trivial or bogus," and that is this article.  What fucking bullshit.  Not even a single example to back any of it up.

<<The fact is that human no longer do - *can* no longer do many things we used to be able to do: land on the moon, swiftly win wars against weak opposition and then control the defeated nation, secure national borders, discover ?breakthrough? medical treatments, prevent crime, design and build to a tight deadline, educate people so they are ready to work before the age of 22, block an undersea oil leak...>>

You could still land on the moon, crush Panama City in 24 hours, and you could never secure national borders, produce breakthrough medical treatments on demand (when you in fact found fixes for the easier diseases, the  tougher ones remained unresolved,) prevent crime (good Lord!  Crime's been around forever!)or block an undersea oil leak because in the good old days you couldn't even start an undersea well that deep.  The paragraph is almost pure nonsense.  Work is more specialized today, many people DO leave school educated for work, but that obviously depends on what the work is.

I got tired of dealing with this article because it's pure garbage and I just don't have the time.  Sounds like a rant against affirmative action, by an engineer who lost his job on NASA because people realized the total futility of the endeavour.

[Universe Prince]

People used to write opinion articles that made sense. Now, we have blog entries like this. Maybe the author of the blog peaked in 1975.

[kimba1]

the modern astronauts do have more advance tech, but the lunar astronaut have significantly higher bragging rights.

[Kramer]

this seems about right. I think we peaked with Reagan too.
I imagine these days Carter wakes up and hi-fives the wife and says thank god for Obama.