[LS]

I'm not a scientist. I did work on the National Aerospace Plane project for 7 years, and saw real technology---if not science---at work. There is a VERY thin line, I found, between the "eureka" people you disparage and the true breakthroughs.

You only have to look at Einstein's biography to see that while he had in fact grounded himself in all the theory of the day, he nevertheless made three "eureka" breakthroughs in a matter of a few years.

I base everything on historical trends, and the trends are that dramtic breakthroughs of all types have accelerated---only 100 years ago we didn't even have airplanes, computers, lasers, or microwaves. Just based on that, history tells me that barring a cataclysm, the next 100 years will bring proportionately great breakthroughs, including even cheaper, more abundant energy and some advanced travel---anti-gran? I don't know, but definitely far beyond what most people contemplate now.

[NukeMan]

Here is an interesting link: http://www.ideationtriz.com/

I believe the company was founded on old Soviet-era work which showed there was more structure to scientific/engineering innovation than was commonly believed. Of course, this might have been Marxist b*llsh*t (i.e. 'carefully planned and predictable revolutions'), but there is a journal associated with it as well.

[madvlad]

You are an engineer I take it?

I am taking engineering courses at UM-CP to
supplement my science background.

The differences btw/ the science type and the engineer
are a lot bigger than you may think. The scientist
in a purist sense makes a discovery regarding physical
or biological nature and the engineer, also in a
purist sense, finds an application for it! I
realize that the line is very blurred btw/ the two
and cut and dry distinctions are often times
meaningless. Furthermore, I believe that science
and engineering curricula target problem solving
skills at diff levels. Science targets from a
microscopic level weheras engineering tends to look
at the big picture or at least a higher level.

When Watson & Crick did DNA in the 50s and Nurenberg
discovered the codon code in the 60s, they really had
no idea where it would all lead. Anymore than Hayfleck
knows where his biological clock is going to lead in terms
of aging research. They can speculate but they can't
really know. Hayfleck says that the human lifespan
is finite. He has even offered numbers to the tune of
less than 100yrs in terms of population avg. But, we
don't know that just yet as manipulation of the
telomeres hint at myriad possibilities.

And then there is nanotechnology!

Mad Vlad